First Arrest In Japan For 3D-Printed Guns 274
PuceBaboon (469044) writes "Earlier today (Thursday), police in Kawasaki, Japan, arrested a man for violation of the firearms control law. He was apparently in possession of five, 3D-printed handguns, two of which were reportedly capable of firing normal rounds (although no actual bullets were found). The suspect was arrested after releasing video of the guns online. Japan has very strict gun control laws and, whether or not the suspect actually appeared in the alleged video, he may just have signed himself up for some serious porridge."
Re:Hey Tim (Score:5, Insightful)
If guns are illegal in Chicago why do businesses use bulletproof glass?
Cue "freedom" NRA nuts in 3.. 2.. 1... (Score:2, Insightful)
Because guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Hey Tim (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hurray for Japan (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Hey Tim (Score:4, Insightful)
Where you outlaws get those guns?
What a silly question. Cocaine is outlawed too: how come there are so many junkies?
Re:Cue "freedom" NRA nuts in 3.. 2.. 1... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hurray for Japan (Score:5, Insightful)
just about the same time had all cultural celebration of violence stomped out by foreign influence
You're rather unfamiliar with Japanese culture, aren't you...
Re:Cue "freedom" NRA nuts in 3.. 2.. 1... (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean to tell me, in a country where guns are illegal, the number of deaths resulting from guns is lower? I'm shocked!
all kidding aside, lets have some real numbers:
The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world... by a HUGE margin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]
We have twice as many guns per person as almost every other country on earth.
If Guns = murder, then we should also have the highest murder rate right?
We don't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
We actually have a fairly low murder rate compared to most of the world depending on how you judge it. In comparison to our closest neighbor Canada we're a tad higher... but hey, they're Canadians, the only disputes they get in are over the shape on their bacon.
If you're going to have an argument, clouding it with made-up data just makes people not listen to you. The problem with the gun control crowd is their goal is an unconstitutional outright ban and they make no attempt to hide that. Every gun control law isn't passed to limit gun deaths, they're passed in an attempt to ban guns. If the NRA could trust the gun control advocates, I think they'd be a little more co-operative. Increased background checks and required safety classes I think everyone could agree on. But when the anti-gun-nuts then use those background checks to delay and prevent people who are legally allowed to carry a weapon, those people get pissed and just flat out oppose any regulation. The gun regulation problems in this country are just as much the fault of those trying to pass the laws as they are the ones that oppose them.
Re:Hurray for Japan (Score:5, Insightful)
Comma, Comma, Comma (Score:5, Insightful)
He was apparently in possession of five, 3D-printed handguns, two of which were reportedly capable of firing normal rounds (although no actual bullets were found)
The commas...I just don't understand...
Re:Hey Tim (Score:5, Insightful)
Because achieving that lower rate has an associated cost.
If we got rid of all guns in America, it's reasonable to assume the violent crime rate overall would go down to some degree. How much is debatable because some of the violent crimes committed with guns now would still be committed just with a different instrument. But it would go down, that seems fair.
But, what of the people who now do not have a gun to defend themselves? Quite a few defensive gun uses occur daily in America... exactly how many is difficult to know because they're frequently not reported (because simply pulling out a gun will sometimes end a violent confrontation and people tend not to report those cases). I wouldn't go so far as to say the number of people saved by there not being a gun involved is equal to the number saved by there BEING a gun involved, but clearly SOME number cancel out. Here's the big question: is a life saved because we got rid of guns somehow more valuable than one saved because we didn't? Do you want to tell the family of a gun who was killed because he wasn't allowed to have a gun anymore that it's okay because someone else was saved due to guns being removed from society? I'd bet not.
So, that's a cost. Whether the benefits outweigh that cost is what's debatable. A lot of people take the Spock approach: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. It's a great-sounding platitude, but when it gets down to actual people it doesn't stand up so well. See my above scenario.
A potentially MUCH bigger cost is the deterrent effect guns have against a corrupt government. We can argue all day and night about without an armed American population could overthrow a corrupt government with the might of the military on its side, but what CAN'T be debated is that if you remove guns from society you've given up just about the ONLY thing that gives us ANY chance whatsoever. I mean, if you believe the military would crush us WITH guns than you can't logically think it wouldn't be MUCH worse it we didn't have them!
So, that's a (potential) cost too... but that one is very important because the potential cost is MASSIVE. Is there really ANY benefit worth that cost? I for one argue no. It's exceedingly tragic any time someone dies... whether a gun is involved or not hardly matters... a suicide is a suicide, gun or not. A homicide is a homicide, gun or not. The only one that's a little different is accidental shootings because it's not like someone is going to accidentally kill you as easily with a baseball bat. But, statistically-speaking, accidental shootings in America isn't, to put it coldly, all that significant a number. It's certainly a much smaller number than car accidents, or even pool drownings year by year. Even if every last one of them is unarguably tragic, logically, the cost of saving those lives by getting rid of guns is too high, and that's even before we talk about the POTENTIAL costs.
Re:Hurray for Japan (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hurray for Japan (Score:4, Insightful)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaha.... oh wait, you're serious. Jesus christ.
So let's take a look at the things that you're saying that aren't true, first. Switzerland - Every adult MALE is issued an assault rifle, WHEN THEY GO INTO THE MILITIA, at the age of 18 - when they are trained to use them. If they want to keep them, however, they remove the autofire, so it's no longer a "true assault rifle", whatever you meant by that. If they want to actually CARRY the guns, they have to go through an extensive permitting process, where basically everyone who doesn't have a need to carry (people in the security field) get rejected
So, then, you agree with OP's premise that the issue isn't availability of firearms, but rather is a cultural one.
Good to have that cleared up. Not sure why the smart-ass tone.