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."
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone better track down the True Scotsman, he'll figure this out.
(Yes, I know what it means.)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Unsuccessful suicides are very expensive on the medical system...
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
>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.
Re: (Score:3)
If the "toy guns" are perfectly able to shoot one effective bullet (even while disintegrating themselves after that), then I'm not considering them toy guns. By the way, I think a 3D plastic gun was able to shoot 8 bullets before being too damaged to function (a 3D plastic rifle fired 14 rounds)
And where would you draw the line between toy guns and "real" guns? 3D printed in plastic = toy. 3D printed in plastic with one metal part? With two metal parts? With multiple metal parts? Handm
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: (Score:2)
Comma, Comma, Comma
Comma Chameleeeeon
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, I didn't have the guts to finish it in my subject line. But yes, that was my intent.
Re: (Score:2)
The second is just setting off a non-restrictive clause. E.g. the baker, whose cakes I've always enjoyed, came to see me
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't make sense with dashes either..
Do the states that allowed people to carry guns (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Japanese tradition (Score:2)
Te samurai might be gone but the Japanese elites have never tolerated armed peasants.
Re:Hey Tim (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
it's in 3D
So I need glasses to fire the gun now ?
Re:Hey Tim (Score:5, Insightful)
If guns are illegal in Chicago why do businesses use bulletproof glass?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.
Re:Hey Tim (Score:5, Funny)
But if outlaws are ostracized, only ostriches will have guns.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And the lawmen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That old hackney phrase. Where you outlaws get those guns? Oh from good guys in states where it is legal to sell them in bulk.
I disagree with your insinuation that the US Government are the good guys in this case. (Think "Fast & Furious".)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
How many legal sources of cocaine are there in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
How many legal sources of cocaine are there in the US?
Big ol' Whoosh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, parent is asking a silly question, that ignores grandparent's point - cocaine is completely illegal in the US, and there are no legal sources of it, yet a lot of people still manage to get their hands on the substance, thus negating the assumption that gun crime rates in states that ban firearms is a direct result of being adjacent to states that do not.
Re: (Score:3)
Besides if it gets too hard to buy or import them, you could always build them.
A nice 1911 copy could probably be made in a fairly small shop these days with a PC and some decent metal working machines. I am not a gun smith but if they could make these in 1911 it doesn't seem like much of a tech barrier to just clone them now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Besides if it gets too hard to buy or import them, you could always build them.
A nice 1911 copy could probably be made in a fairly small shop these days with a PC and some decent metal working machines. I am not a gun smith but if they could make these in 1911 it doesn't seem like much of a tech barrier to just clone them now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]
Hell, for $30 you can buy all the stuff needed to send a round downrange at friggin' Home Depot, no machine shop needed.
Re: (Score:2)
That "cocaine hydrochloric solution" is not the same as "cocaine?"
Re: (Score:2)
The hardest part is the rifling.
Re: (Score:2)
Legalize it, tax it, and regulate it. Better questions would be: How many illegal distilleries are there in the US? How many illegal firearms manufacturers are there in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
Since it is illegal to sell firearms across state lines (you can only legally buy them in your State of residence), people selling them in bulk in another State are NOT "good guys"....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That old hackney phrase.
Where you outlaws get those guns?
Oh from good guys in states where it is legal to sell them in bulk.
I didn't expect you to read the submission, but at least read the title. They just make the guns themselves, dumbass. They have hardware stores the world over with ball peen hammers, pipe, and fittings. Zip guns are even better than most 3D printed guns, and will remain so until additive and subtractive metal machining becomes available in a single device. [extremetech.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Cause Japanese are way more civilized than the rest of us!
Ever been to Tokyo? Greater Tokyo had almost 35 million people packed
on the edge of a stamp and... there is essentially no violent crime. Everything
looks clean, new, and well-kept. Also great and safe public transportation!
Japanese are so polite and nice...
Re:Hey Tim (Score:5, Informative)
There is plenty of violent crime in Japan. The difference between their violent crime and violent crime in the United States is that Japan's guns laws are very highly restrictive. I can still remember reading an interview a gaming website did with a mid-level yakuza, who they had play Yakuza 4. He remarked that none of the actual yakuza use guns, because the cops there will arrest on sight if they see someone carrying one. Instead, they tend to snatch people off the streets and use the $5 wrench approach.
I also wouldn't be surprised if the violent crime rate in Japan, especially by organized crime, is under-reported. One of the main slang terms for the yakuza translates to "the office", a remark on how big of an institution organized crime is in the country, to the point where it's almost like a business.
While I'm sure the yakuza don't account for 100% of violent crime there, I'd be willing to bet they account for quite a bit.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
>
I also wouldn't be surprised if the violent crime rate in Japan, especially by organized crime, is under-reported. One of the main slang terms for the yakuza translates to "the office", a remark on how big of an institution organized crime is in the country, to the point where it's almost like a business.
Ah yes, country X doing better than USA as measured by statistic Y ? Of course the statistic must be false!
USA! USA! USA!
Re: (Score:2)
How is a lower violent crime rate not a good thing? I agree that there can be too heavy-handed measures for achieving these goals - but how could a lower violent crime rate *not* be a good thing?
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: (Score:3)
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.
If number of violent crimes (or just number of deaths caused by violent crimes) goes down (as you assume in first sentence), then DEFINITELY more people are saved than killed due to lack of gun.
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.
This is not a platitude, but the only reasonable way of judging if given measure saves lives or not - assume that every life is equal and see if number of deaths is gets lower. Otherwise you could sink ANY idea as long as you prove that it caused even one death (no matter if it saved 100 000 or not). "If even one lif
Re:Hey Tim (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Guns are illegal in Mexico and they have boarder control
I really don't see what the room rental market has to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
If what you say is true, then criminals in every single country would be armed to the teeth with all the guns they want. As they are not, you're must be missing something quite important. You also must remember that when a criminal's potential victim has no gun, the criminal doesn't need a gun, and so won't want the increased cost and risk of actually having one. Cocaine and other drugs are public health issues, based on human psychology and physiology (substance abuse, etc.), so comparing the two simply
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Switzerland has a 6x lower murder rate then the US and every adult is issued an assault rifle when they turn 18.
That is not quite correct.
They get issued a gun when they get drafted, and they keep it while in "reserves". Also they have to keep the gun securely in a locked locker.
Re: (Score:3)
Every adult in Switzerland has an assault rifle, but (almost) none of them have any bullets to go with it.
You see, the assault riffle is issued when you finish the military training, and you're supposed to maintain it until the day when the country gets invaded and the government distributes the rounds through the populace.
As to your other point, you may not be able to stop the flow of illegal products, but you sure as hell can make it inconvenient enough that only people who really want it can get it, at a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. There is no way to stop criminals from committing crimes.
The point of gun control is to reduce the number of (violent) crimes committed.
That being said, there is ample evidence that the most effective method to combat crime is to dump money into social programs: education, child-care, drug rehab, welfare, etc. Unfortunately, it seems that this solution is also an anathema for most Americans....which may somewhat explain the rates of viole
Re: (Score:2)
What a load of crap. To say that government programs are the answer is insulting to millions of parents that have raised decent, productive members of society without any government assistance.
If you want to drastically reduce crime you need a least one parent and preferably 2 that are fully involved in their children's upbringing.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. There is no way to stop criminals from committing crimes.
The point of gun control is to reduce the number of (violent) crimes committed.
A point that is, at least in America, an abject failure, judging from the violent crime rates in places like Chicago and Detroit. Obviously the issue is more one of culture than access to certain tools.
Re: (Score:2)
* There are pretty rough areas, yes, just like any major city in the US. And yes, the number of murders is higher than zero, which is bad but to be expected. And yes, the total number of people murdered by guns seems shockingly high until you adjust for population, at which point it looks
Re: (Score:2)
The nicer bits were never as rough as 'Chicago's image suggested, and they've been improving. The rougher areas, though, earned the nickname 'Chiraq' honestly and messily.
Re: (Score:3)
Because there's no border security, customs, or bloody great big oceans between Chicago and areas where guns aren't outlawed?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Realistic movie idea:
Dystopian society in not-so-distant future where the oppressive government has passed such strict gun control and anti-gay laws that the noble resistance has resorted to bright, neon-colored 3D-printed weapons to fight the tyrannical regime, simultaneously demonstrating their right to bear arms and to choose their sexual orientation.
Oh wait... did I just offend everyone at once?
Re:Hurray for Japan (Score:5, 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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Curious as to which styles were supressed, as many of them seem to be thriving, at least here in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Officially, you're entirely correct, not just as it pertains to martial arts but regarding everything cultural; the official position and attitude of government, academia and media in Japan is that their "national mores" are flawless.
Unofficially, however, Japanese culture continues to celebrate many differente types of violence in blatant fashion... and this hypocritical state of affairs is perpetuated and encouraged by the status quo's refusal to acknowledge its existence...
Re:Hurray for Japan (Score:5, Informative)
By your own premise, once you "snap your fingers and make all the guns go away in America," then the people suffering from "problems of undertreatment of the mentally ill, mistreatment of the poor, and the prevailing attitude that I'm not responsible for my own actions" will not be able to shoot anyone. Thus the murder rate would go down (since you imply it is because of these problems, and not the availability of guns, that people shoot people).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
While we are bickering over whether you can trust me with a firearm or not, the social factors that lead to violence are only getting worse.
Uh, citation? Every report I've heard says that violence, crime, and most related things have been declining for years in the US and continue to do so...
Re: (Score:2)
While we are bickering over whether you can trust me with a firearm or not, the social factors that lead to violence are only getting worse.
Uh, citation? Every report I've heard says that violence, crime, and most related things have been declining for years in the US and continue to do so...
Well, here's a citation [wikipedia.org] that shows indeed, the US crime rate has been dropping at a fairly steady pace since 1994.
I think the problem is that a lot of people equate an increase in the amount of violent crime reported by the MSM (a consequence of the 24-hour "news" cycle) with an increase in the actual crime rate.
Re: (Score:2)
the prevailing attitude that I'm not responsible for my own actions.
You probably meant "the prevailing attitude that I'm not responsible for my own actions but all other people are, and they are, in fact, in perfect control of their lives".
Re: (Score:3)
Murder rates won't change anyone's mind. Those who are for gun control will think they are proof of their side while those who are against it will take them as precisely the reason to own a gun to protect oneself in a violent country.
Re: (Score:3)
You want to rethink that statement a little?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if you wanted to at least attempt to compare like to like you should compare Japan's murder rates to the murder rates for Japanese Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's because their police treat the people in their community like patrons, and build courteous relationships with them?
Maybe it's because Japanese culture is ingrained with a respect for authority?
Maybe it's the tentacle porn?
Re:Hurray for Japan (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hurray for Japan (Score:4, Informative)
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. Oh, also, you know that "murder rate" might be correlated with "gun death rate", they're not the same. Right? You know that? I'm assuming you just used the murder rate because it makes your point much better than the actual GUN DEATH RATE - you know, the number that shows how many people are KILLED WITH GUNS. There, Mexico has about triple the rate of Switzerland. I know it's not as impressive as 30x the rate, but it is - you know - relevant.
Now, let's look at your interesting and - I'm sure - random and totally neutral choice of Mexico as a counterexample. I mean, you chose a failed state in the middle of a civil war with narcoterrorists - something that (one might think) would drive the gun death rate up. And, in fact, it does - Mexico's gun death rate is about 20x what it was in 2001. So it seems what you've proved - and I'm not saying that this isn't a relevant and important point - is that laws are not magic and we don't live in Hogwarts. Mexico passing restrictive gun laws does not magically make guns vanish. I look forward to reading your thesis on this brilliant insight.
I'm going to pick out some TOTALLY RANDOM AND NEUTRAL countries of my own. Israel and Japan. Both countries with INCREDIBLY restrictive gun laws, so based on what we've learned from you, they'll obviously have ridiculously high gun death rates. Hmm... looking at Wikipedia, Israel is about half of the Swiss Gun Utopia, and Japan has about 2% of the gun deaths of Switzerland. Jesus, who would have thought MY unbiased, random and neutral countries would make the exact opposite point of YOUR unbiased, random and neutral countries? Except, you know, relevant. And without the circumstances that make Mexico a terrible example. And handsomer.
So I get that Slashdot has always had a weird subculture of gun nuts - but you can be pro-gun without being a moron. Let go of the ridiculous dogma and look at the ACTUAL FACTS that support your point. I think there's a special place in hell for people who make an argument so badly [you], it actually turns someone who supports the cause that they're espousing against them [that's me.]
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Except you can't legally buy ammunition for it and store at home. And yes, the culture is different - no-one here is walking/driving around with their rifle for "self protection". I would think there are some restrictions on who gets these rifles - i.e. background checks. And finally, the amount of households with guns are roughly half of in the USA.
A lot of info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
Tight restrictions doesn't mean that no-one has guns.
Re: (Score:3)
Mexico has tight restrictions on guns yet are flooded with guns from the USA. This effect is so severe that researchers have actually studied the effect on Mexican homicide rates from the lapsing of the US Federal Assault Weapons Ban [washingtonpost.com], which had a ten year sunset rule.
Switzerland does
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The law in the US is roughly that if it functions like a gun, it must look like a gun (it's probably the same elsewhere). Gun laws contain definitions like:
That's why guns all look the same. In the 19th century, people built guns in lots of shapes in order to conceal them.
Re: (Score:2)
In most civilized countries, letting a machine build a device out of plastic is not illegal, regardless of what the device is.