Slashdot Mirror
First Arrest In Japan For 3D-Printed Guns
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."
it's in 3D
If guns are illegal in Chicago why do businesses use bulletproof glass?
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.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Because when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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...
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".)
46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
Because guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Because you can buy one five miles away and there's no border control?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
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.
But if outlaws are ostracized, only ostriches will have guns.
Or perhaps it is because they have an entirely different culture? One where violence had a severe cost just two generations ago, just about the same time had all cultural celebration of violence stomped out by foreign influence, and at the same time their national defense was overseen by an entirely different country so there was no nationalistic need to push any type of propoganda for desiring a career relating to violence on its young men. Assuming you could snap your fingers and make all the guns go away in America, you still haven't solved the underlying problems of undertreatment of the mentally ill, mistreatment of the poor, and the prevailing attitude that I'm not responsible for my own actions.
Where you outlaws get those guns?
What a silly question. Cocaine is outlawed too: how come there are so many junkies?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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.
Because there's no border security, customs, or bloody great big oceans between Chicago and areas where guns aren't outlawed?
it's in 3D
So I need glasses to fire the gun now ?
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?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
"...mass shootings are carried out by law abiding citizens"
You want to rethink that statement a little?
Guns are illegal in Mexico and they have boarder control yet the bad guys get guns, cocaine is illegal in the US yet addicts still get cocaine, even prisons with very high security can't stop contraband from coming in. Unless you think the answer is tighter control of law abiding citizens then prisons have over prisoners there is no way to stop criminals from committing crimes.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
And of course, that means undergoing a background check.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
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...
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).
Mexico has a tight restriction on guns yet their murder rate is 23.7, Switzerland where every adult over 18 is issued a true assault rifle has a murder rate of 0.7. It is not the gun laws that cause problems it is the culture. Lets stop punishing the people that do the right thing based on delusions and the desire to control the population.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
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...
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.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
He's simply stating that up until the point the crime was underway, the shooter was not acting illegally, so all the NRA hysterics about protecting "innocent gun owners" means absolutely nothing. Plus every single one of the guns used in these crimes was, at one point, legally sold to a responsible, legal gun owner. Obviously gun owners can't be trusted, as their guns fall into the hands of criminals. You can't have it both ways.
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...
However, we have no clue how much those problems are going to effect the percentage of those firearm murders being converted to murders with another weapon beyond difference in lethality stats. We also know that solving the major problems that contribute to all violence have other clear social benefits that are probably even more significant than the drop in murder rate. 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.
My browser lost my original lengthy response. Short answer is my exposure to Japanese culture is through martial arts. What I'm drawing from is first hand accounts that after WWII there was pressure in the Japanese martial arts to expel martial traditions and training that weren't sport, exercise, or religious in nature. It is possible that I've over generalized those accounts. If you have information to expand my knowledge then I'd welcome it.
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...
Hell, for $30 you can buy all the stuff needed to send a round downrange at friggin' Home Depot, no machine shop needed.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.]
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...
Tight restrictions doesn't mean that no-one has guns.
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, which had a ten year sunset rule.
Switzerland does have a lot of guns .... at home, as part of their military system. There is no culture of people carrying around guns with them in civilian life just in case they get randomly attacked for no reason. I live in Switzerland. I've not spent a huge amount of time in the USA, just visits over the years, yet I've seen there a bar with a "no guns" sign outside. This is something I have yet to encounter here.
But even if it is due to culture, you aren't going to turn the USA into Switzerland, so stop blaming culture (which implies that's how to fix it). Instead look to the UK, which has a culture far closer to America's. The UK experienced steadily growing gun crime rates for decades (graph on page 4), with very small occasional falls being quickly reversed by growth again. The big jumps in 1998 and 2002 are due to changes in counting methods - so you can mentally smooth the graph if you like. A few years after the UK passed much stricter gun control laws firearms offences started to fall dramatically and have continued falling every year.
I've noticed that UK statistics are frequently abused by gun rights advocates in the USA. Ways I've seen them be distorted include: chopping off the earlier years and then trying to claim that passing gun control laws made gun crime go up (it was going up anyway and the big jump was due to counting method changes), and claims that the UK has more violent crime than the USA (the category of "violent crime" excludes homicide, because the stats are collected through surveys and dead people don't reply to surveys, homicide rates are over 4x higher in America).
Something else to consider about the UK experience is that the stats cover up a lot of interesting detail, like the fact that whilst there are still firearms offences they are almost invariably committed with used guns and that provides a lot of evidence that can be used to bring the cases to resolution. "Clean guns" that have never been used before are exceptionally rare. In the USA they're the norm because it's so easy to buy new guns, so why leave a trail of evidence? Ammo is also hard to obtain. Some gangs have tried to make their own, but their home made ammo is far less deadly than professionally manufactured ammo.
I do not expect the USA to actually ever shift itself on the issue of gun control, even though it stands practically alone amongst developed countries. Instead American's who don't want to fear getting shot should simply leave.
My point with the drug use was to highlight that stopping the flow of illegal products to a market where they are desired is impossible. Lets take Mexico for instance they have very restrictive gun laws and yet they have a much higher homicide rates 5x the US rate, the drug cartels are armed to the teeth, it's not the laws it's the culture. Switzerland has a 6x lower murder rate then the US and every adult is issued an assault rifle when they turn 18. Russia which has fairly strict gun ownership requirements has 6 million guns legally registered and estimates there are 12 million illegal weapons, they have nearly double the homicide rate as the US. In areas where lawlessness is tolerated and celebrated you will have higher murder rates. Eliminating guns from this world or completely from any country is naive and will not change the problem. If a stranger's life is not valued in a society, the taking of a life is inconsequential to the criminal.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
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.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
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...
You seem to be missing my point, it's simply that you can not just look at gun laws and legal gun ownership and say tougher gun laws make people safer. As to why I used homicide rates instead of gun death rates which include suicide which invalidates many of you claims. Take your example of Israel they have tougher gun laws then Canada but nearly 2x the gun homicide rate but almost half the gun death rate. Also many countries do not track gun death rates so places like Russia with 2/3 of nonmilitary guns being illegal and having higher over twice the homicide rate as the US while having much stricter gun laws sure paints a compelling picture.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
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, 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 type that could be covered by a liability policy are so vanishingly rare that the actual insurance rates would be minimal. Or do you want to require people to carry an imaginary type of insurance policy which covers all possible liability from carrying a gun, including intentional acts?
States get away with compulsory auto insurance only because "driving a car" is not an enumerated constitutional right, If gov't tried to require mandatory "Speech insurance" for posting on Slashdot and all other public speech, would you favor that as well?
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
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 risk to themselves.
Most of the gun injuries in the US today can be attributed to either accidents or heat-of-the-moment exchanges. In most of those situations guns simply wouldn't be available if firearms were forbidden.
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.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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 life is saved then we should spare no expense" is populism of worst kind (and ironically often used by gun control advocates).
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.
It can't be debated? I present you exhibit A: Ukraine. Completely non-violent protests were enough to overthrow government.
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!
Actually no. If uprising is doomed to fail, then the quicker it gets put down, the less people die. Surely you are not going to argue that prolonged (and lost) civil war is better than quickly crushed revolt?
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.
I don't agree, but since this point is argued to death in *every* thread related to gun control, I am going to leave it.
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
And if guns are decriminalized, then de criminals will get de guns.