Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Japan Crime Government Build Your Rights Online

First Arrest In Japan For 3D-Printed Guns 274

Posted by timothy
from the illegal-objects-around-the-world dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Arrest In Japan For 3D-Printed Guns

Comments Filter:
  • by nimbius (983462) on Thursday May 08, 2014 @08:54AM (#46948199) Homepage
    This porridge, while thick and creamy, may also in fact come with maple syrup and fresh berries or should he plead guilty, a knob of butter and a dash of salt as would be the law in japan as it applies to sentencing and conviction within the bounds of the criminal porridge system. The whole grain oats, enriched generously with folate and iron, would serve to deter even the most wanton of breakfast criminal.
    • by Sockatume (732728)

      Someone better track down the True Scotsman, he'll figure this out.

      (Yes, I know what it means.)

    • The whole grain oats, enriched generously with folate and iron, would serve to deter even the most wanton of breakfast criminal.

      Oat porridge? Maple syrup? Berries 'n butter? I doubt it. Plain okayu [wikipedia.org] (with salt for good behavior) is what's on the typical prison menu in Japan.

      Perhaps you were thinking of the Canadian system, eh?

    • The whole grain oats, enriched generously with folate and iron, would serve to deter even the most wanton of breakfast criminal.

      It's been well established that cereal offenders aren't deterred by palatal punishment. Oats don't make them quake.

  • Because guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Major Blud (789630)
      Yet Japan, the country mentioned in the article, has a much higher suicide rate than the United States despite their strict gun control policies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org] And no, I'm not in the NRA.
      • Easy access to guns is a factor in suicide rates (largely because suicide attempts made with guns typically work, while there are a lot of ineffective attempts by non-firearm users). In terms of attempt rate, though, I don't think that there's much correlation of any sort(unless you buy the theory that some of the stupider acts of violence, with extraordinarily high risks and minimal rewards, are basically suicide for violent people, the 'suicide by cop' and such).
        • That's an interesting point. I'd like to see the comparison of rates of "attempted suicides" between the two, but that sort of data is going to be impossible to find.

          "Easy access to guns is a factor in suicide rates"

          Not sure I understand what you're going for here, since the Japansese suicide rate is clearly higher than that in the US although they have fewer firearms.

          • Sorry, I didn't make that clear: given a constant attempt rate, the firearm supply will strongly affect the resulting suicide rate. Guns are very good at what they are designed to do, while many of the DIY methods that people try are just plain ineffective, slow enough to permit medical response, or otherwise defective.

            A sufficiently large difference in attempt rate can (and in this case does) swamp the effects of greater success rates; but people with easy access to explicitly lethal instruments succeed
          • by dwillden (521345)
            And don't forget that when Australia banned and confiscated most guns, suicide by firearm did vanish overnight. But the overall suicide rates did not change from the long term trends. (actually they spiked the two years after the ban but if you remove those two years as outliers, the rate remained on the same gradual downward trend it had been on for years.) If easy access to guns was really a factor then the overall suicide rate would have dropped significantly as well, but it didn't. "Suicidal intent
        • by Calinous (985536)

          Unsuccessful suicides are very expensive on the medical system...

      • by tlhIngan (30335)

        Yet Japan, the country mentioned in the article, has a much higher suicide rate than the United States despite their strict gun control policies

        And there are many reasons for that, culturally.

        First, educational systems in Asia tend to be brutal. Basically, at the end of high school, you take an exam. That exam determines your future. If you score well, you can go to university (overseas! scholarships! fully paid!) and study what you want and get a job doing what you want.

        Score lower, well, you may be able t

    • Because guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]

      The groupings that emerge when ordered by homicides per 100,000 is interesting. The most dangerous seem to be quasi-dictatorial republics in the Americas. Unsurprisingly this includes the USA.

    • by jittles (1613415)

      Because guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]

      Interesting to note that India has one of the largest populations and the lowest rates of gun violence in the world. It's not like India is violence free, though. We hear all the time about brutal gang rapes of women. And those are only the ones that get reported internationally because they are committed against foreign tourists. So this would suggest that a low rate of gun violence does not imply a safer society, and that there is a cultural influence to violence as a whole.

    • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Thursday May 08, 2014 @10:14AM (#46948805)

      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.

    • by harrkev (623093)

      Because guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

      Interesting how you think that the link you shared somehow means something. In Russia, guns in civilian hands are VERY scarce, yet the murder rate as a whole is rather higher than it is in the US.

      Well, I suppose it makes sense if every gun death is a tragedy, but if somebody is stabbed or beaten to death, it is no big deal.

      Clue for you: a person stabbed to death is just as dead as somebody shot to death. But I suppose that does not fit in with y

    • by ShakaUVM (157947)

      >Because guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

      People with no bullets don't kill people.

      This is as ridiculous as that guy in DC who got arrested for having a fucking *spent shell* in his house.

  • by omnichad (1198475) on Thursday May 08, 2014 @10:26AM (#46948905) Homepage

    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...

    • by bitt3n (941736)

      Comma, Comma, Comma

      Comma Chameleeeeon

    • by potpie (706881)
      The first is a comma separating cumulative modifiers. E.g. a big, strong, intelligent mammal Five is not a modifier but a determiner, so I would not use a comma there myself. This author just seems to have extended the rule.

      The second is just setting off a non-restrictive clause. E.g. the baker, whose cakes I've always enjoyed, came to see me
      • by omnichad (1198475)

        How is extending a rule not the same as breaking it? And because the first one is wrong, it turns the phrase into a parenthetical that defines five.

        • Why should the first one be wrong?
          He simply used _correctly_ 2 commas where more eloquent writers had perhaps used dashes: He was apparently in possession of five -- 3D-printed handguns -- two of which were ...
          The only thing that makes his wording a bit inconvenient is that the topic itself is about "3D printed guns", so repeating it using dashes sounds a bit silly.

  • require the people carrying a gun to also carry liability insurance and carry proof of that insurance with them anytime they are carrying their gun? I hope so, but probably not.

    I think that if we are required to carry liability insurance and proof thereof for something as mundane as driving a car we should require the same for carrying something that is designed specifically to kill other people.

    I think the "free market" could solve the gun problem in the US in a hurry. Insurers would simply make it so ex

    • by Nonesuch (90847)

      require the people carrying a gun to also carry liability insurance and carry proof of that insurance with them anytime they are carrying their gun? I hope so, but probably not.

      I think that if we are required to carry liability insurance and proof thereof for something as mundane as driving a car we should require the same for carrying something that is designed specifically to kill other people.

      Several states do not have compulsory auto insurance, why should states mandate any insurance?

      There are multiple facets to the inanity of the "CCW should require liability insurance". One of the biggest is that insurance doesn't cover an intentional act [insurancec...foryou.com], it covers accidents and similar unforeseen occurrences. No insurance company would underwrite a policy covering "any and all" possible adverse incidents involving carrying a handgun, only unforeseen occurrences.

      I think the "free market" could solve the gun problem in the US in a hurry. Insurers would simply make it so expensive to carry a gun that people would have to give up on the idea.

      You think wrong. Firearms incidents of the

      • Several states do not have compulsory auto insurance, why should states mandate any insurance?

        So that a victim of an accident gets his damage payed. Obviously ...

  • Te samurai might be gone but the Japanese elites have never tolerated armed peasants.

Your code should be more efficient!

Working...