3D-Printed Gun Earns Man Two Years In Japanese Prison

jfruh writes: Japan has some of the strictest anti-gun laws in the world, and the authorities there aim to make sure new technologies don't open any loopholes. 28-year-old engineer Yoshitomo Imura has been sentenced to two years in jail after making guns with a 3D printer in his home in Kawasaki.

Comments

That's the way the gyoza goes

[smittyoneeach]

That's the way the gyoza goes,
When liberty itself is feared,
And self-defense, the fascist crows,
Is buried in laws as a face in a beard.
Burma Shave

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Weren't the guns laws in Japan first imposed by the US military occupying the country?

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Weren't the guns laws in Japan first imposed by the US military occupying the country?

No, they were imposed prior to either World War, when Japan was in its Isolation period. But most of the current laws do stem from the occupation, it's just important to note that from a cultural point of view they have never been a gun-loving society.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[saider]

If I recall, this goes all the way back to their first European contact, where guns were outlawed in order to preserve the advantage the feudal lords and their swordsmen had over the people.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Having just spent two weeks in Japan earlier this month, I noticed that airsoft guns are freely available in department stores. Here in my home country of Australia, such items are prohibited.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[TheDarkMaster]

This. And it was like in Europe, where the crossbow was considered unacceptable for letting an ordinary person kill the armoured nobles.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[CohibaVancouver]

When liberty itself is feared

Yep, you're right - It's really important for gun nuts to have the liberty to gun down children at school.

Man, nothing makes me angrier than gun-fanatics championing "liberty." You want "liberty?" Go DO SOMETHING to preserve your democracy, to make America better. Buying another Glock has nothing to do with liberty. .

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[Anonymous Coward]

When liberty itself is feared

Yep, you're right - It's really important for gun nuts to have the liberty to gun down children at school.

Man, nothing makes me angrier than gun-fanatics championing "liberty." You want "liberty?" Go DO SOMETHING to preserve your democracy, to make America better. Buying another Glock has nothing to do with liberty. .

When the police are more militarized than the military, when the government listens in on your phone calls and literally reads your emails, arming yourself has EVERYTHING to do with liberty.

But you? Bow down to your masters.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[MadMartigan2001]

Man, nothing makes me angrier than a spineless serf who thinks anyone who owns a gun is going to "gun down children".

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[amiga3D]

They probably don't worry about guns that are incapable of killing anyone. Technically they are toys and not weapons. To me they look a little too real and I'd worry about a trigger happy cop killing my kid.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[amiga3D]

Nothing makes me sadder than idiots who think that people who own guns all want to kill kids at school. If everyone who owned a gun was kill crazy there would be 100 million dead people by the end of the year not 10 thousand or so. If you think getting rid of guns would make all the 10,000 people who will be killed by a gun this year live then you're an idiot too. If I want someone dead I'm fully capable of doing it without a gun. In fact, if I wanted to get away with it I'd never use a gun for murder. Quiet and bloodless is the way to go for getting away with killing someone.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[mspohr]

I don't think that many (most, all) gun owners want to kill kids at school.
However, guns end up killing lots of people... by accident or intention. They are inherently dangerous. They are, after all designed to kill and they are very effective.
So, the question becomes... Why do you own a gun?

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[smithmc]

I don't think they have "trigger-happy cops" in Japan, probably because real guns are basically illegal.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[smithmc]

Adam Lanza, the Trenchcoat Mafia, etc. obviously didn't care about getting away with it, now, did they?

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[amiga3D]

I own a pump 12 gauge shot gun for home defense. I've actually had someone break in my house years back. My wife heard noise and woke me up and whispered to me that there was someone in the house. I reached under my bed and pulled my shotgun out. I got out of bed and crept to the bedroom door and could hear someone opening the cabinet in my living room. I jacked a shell into the chamber and shouted "Get the fuck out of here or I'll blow you're fucking head off." The dude tripped over the coffee table (broke one of the legs on it) and scrambled out of the house. The sound of a shell going into the chamber on a pump shotgun is very distinctive. People ask me all the time why I didn't kill him and I wonder if they mean that. I can't see killing anyone if I don't have to. Of course if he hadn't left it probably would have come down to that. When seconds count the cops are minutes away. I have a 30-30 lever action rifle I use for hunting deer and an AR-15 that I target shoot with and basically just keep it because it's cool looking. They are dangerous tools, deadly even and should be respected and treated as such. It bothers me that people aren't held accountable for misuse like they should be.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[jythie]

Guns are a force multiplier, most gun deaths in the US are not carefully planned 'I want to kill this person' events but instead result from escalations of conflicts. Situations that would only result in injury can jump to something deadly very easily when a gun is available, which is why a huge number of deaths are due to 'heat of the moment' domestic disputes. Sure if the person is determined they will find a way, but in most cases the person is not 'determined', they just happen to have a tool that is easy.

If we were going to look at the hypothetical idea of simply making the guns in the US vanish (since simply outlawing them would take decades or centuries to actually get the guns out of circulation), the big social question would be weighing the value of the lives of the people killed or wounded against the person freedom of law abiding gun owners. Regardless of where one falls on that scale, while removing guns would not save all 10,000 people in your example, the probability is high the number would drop significantly.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, half of gun deaths in the US are suicides!

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[Whorhay]

I don't think the laws were actually limited to guns. I can't find an easy cite at the moment but I seem to remember that peasants were forbidden from possessing any purpose built weapons. And that many martial arts weapons were improvised from farming tools or other items that weren't necessarily weapons.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[NotInHere]

And legalizing weapons in america goes back to defend yourself from evil people like redcoats, slaves, or federal gvt.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Airsoft can definitely kill someone with some modifications. Especially CO2 airsoft, rig that to fire metal pellets and you'll have some dead people. It's not necessarily lethal, but it can be.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[angel'o'sphere]

advantage the feudal lords and their swordsmen had over the people.

Not over the people! Over the government, the shogunat!

The feudal lords easy could have ganged up together with firearms and overthrow the shogunat, hence amoungst other laws fire arms where restricted in construction and owning ... but quite quickly all feudal lords had some.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[angel'o'sphere]

I can't find an easy cite at the moment but I seem to remember that peasants were forbidden from possessing any purpose built weapons.
Depends on the time period. Naginata e.g. where originally farmers weapons and partly weapons of citizens in towns (in the later case used to crash down houses in case of fire, not only for fighting)

And that many martial arts weapons were improvised from farming tools or other items that weren't necessarily weapons.
Depends on the region. That is mainly true in Okinawa.

The main "ban" is that it is forbidden for a _non samurai_ to wear _two swords_ Especially the short one indicates its nobility.

It was most of the time allowed that merchants etc.while traveling could bear weapons, but depending on period again: not ready to draw in their belt.

Later normal peasants where not even allowed to leave their town, birth region. So the question about weapons was a bit mitigated.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[BasilBrush]

If you're that easily angered, you probably shouldn't be allowed to have a gun.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[Gonoff]

Buying another Glock has nothing to do with liberty. .

When the police are more militarized than the military, when the government listens in on your phone calls and literally reads your emails, arming yourself has EVERYTHING to do with liberty.

But you? Bow down to your masters.

Buying a handgun, will not defend you from an over militarised police. It won't even defend you from normal police. There are lots more of them around. You may shoot one but they will get you.The same could be said about any weapons system less than the maximum force your chosen foe can point back at you.

All carrying that nice Glock or AR15 will do for you is identify you as a potential hostile,
It will not remove your tax liabilities - It may mean that the IRS carries bigger guns when they talk to you. If they don't have big enough guns, they will ask the police for help. If they can't, there are plenty of uniforms, tanks, planes Aircraft Carriers and so on. You are a civilian. You will loose.
It will not protect you from the RedCoats either. They will just pass you back to the USA to get a free pass to Gitmo.
The Russians aren't worried by your right to arm bears either(1). Their military is not as gentle towards civilians as yours. Ask any Chechnyan.
If you are lucky, your toys will drive a debt collector away. That might give you a few days of respite but they will be back with help...

(1) Arming bears is a whole lot less dangerous than bearing arms.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[Gonoff]

Nothing makes me sadder than idiots who think that people who own guns all want to kill kids at school

That is what is called a Straw Man argument. Nobody said that.

What has been said and merits repeating is that the result of lots of guns is lots of dead innocents. The less guns around, the less people get shot.
The USA has many more armed civilians than, say, Japan or the UK. It has a lot more gun accidents per 1,000 head of population too. It is no freer than them. It just has a better sounding constitution that the moneyed ignore.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[amiga3D]

And the number of violent rapes, robberies and other violent crime would skyrocket. Also just because you pass a law to outlaw guns you wont be getting a huge number of them back. Besides the millions of libertarians who automatically would be criminalized there are the hard core criminals who laugh at laws anyway. Why would a sociopath give up his weapon? He acknowledges no law but primal ones anyway. The people who do give up their weapons will be the ones that don't commit crimes and are basically good people.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[amiga3D]

Let's see, what was he saying there.....

"Yep, you're right - It's really important for gun nuts to have the liberty to gun down children at school."

That's really not what anyone said either. If he can use the "straw man" argument then it's fair for me too.

Personal weaponry for self defense and other legal uses is the right of every American. Just because some idiots choose to abuse that right isn't cause to take that right away. Arguing that it'll save thousands of lives is impossible to prove. We never know for sure how many people choose not to kick down a door or drag a woman away from her car because they fear the possibility of armed response. One thing about guns, they are the great equalizer. They make a 5 foot tall 100 pound woman the equivalent of a 6 foot tall 200 pound man. Murder wont go away no matter what you do. It happened for thousands of years before the invention of firearms.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[SillyHamster]

Buying a handgun, will not defend you from an over militarised police. It won't even defend you from normal police. There are lots more of them around. You may shoot one but they will get you.The same could be said about any weapons system less than the maximum force your chosen foe can point back at you.

Haven't paid attention to the last few people who went on cop-shooting sprees, have you? When a few lone gunmen can throw an area's police force into chaos, that doesn't bode well for your "easily overwhelmed" scenario. (What happens when it's 2 gunmen? 3? Pissed off militia?)

When you talk about how easily the US military will win, consider its record against guerillas. Weapons systems like an aircraft carriers really aren't an effective weapon against a dispersed opponent. Intimidating, for sure, but how often do you think you can use it to bomb US civilians without affecting military morale or the tax money used to keep the weapons system running?

Re: That's the way the gyoza goes

[Anonymous Coward]

People like you climbed obediently into the cattle cars for the trip to the camps in 1938-44

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[Stuarticus]

Yeah, you probably just own a gun because you're such a badass and need something to scare the local kids away from your porch.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[Stuarticus]

What makes you think he wouldn't have just run if he heard you shouting?

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[Stuarticus]

What a lot of nonsense, if anything weapons empower the sociopaths.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[amiga3D]

And a gun is only one type of weapon. A lot of worse weapons are childishly simple to make.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they're sensible people too the Japanese. They don't like guns but they don't like silly either. (Except in porn) Those guns being banned in Australia isn't a big surprise if you follow the news.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[shutdown -p now]

Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. The nice thing about having a shotgun is that if he wouldn't, OP could still defend himself.

Re:That's the way the gyoza goes

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that many (most, all) kitchen knife owners want to kill kids at school.
However, kitchen knives end up killing lots of people... by accident or intention. They are inherently dangerous. They are, after all designed to kill and they are very effective.
So, the question becomes... Why do you own a gun?
Straw man

And yet Takata gets away with it

[Anonymous Coward]

Airbags KILL!

good

[Cardinal Biggles]

It's quite obvious that guns should not be freely available to just anybody. Distrust of the government is fine but the view that having everyone have guns as a defence against the government is just an absurd rationalisation of testosterone-driven desire to own firepower.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

testosterone-driven desire to own firepower.

You're right! Annie Oakley was a man pretending to be a dyke.

Re:good

[stephendavion]

absolutely .... there should be a strict law about this 3D printed guns .... man imagine if ISIS gets this technology ... it can do more disasters than now ...

Re:good

[rioki]

Yes absolutely, in a country where you can own a battle ready katana, because tradition.

Then again, any place you lean traditional Japanese martial arts will concentrate on the mind and the body. You can not win an unarmed fight in blind rage...

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

Naw. ISIS gets all the weaponry they need from US funded sources.

Re:good

[epyT-R]

yeah, those men, you know? they're such pigs.. we oughta just ban them instead, then the world would be one huge hugbox....oh wait..

Re:good

[stephendavion]

I know where that reference leads to ,.....

Re:good

[itzly]

If there's already a law that forbids owning a gun, then there's no need for an additional law specifically targetting 3D printed guns.

Re:good

[cold fjord]

It's quite obvious that guns should not be freely available to just anybody.

They aren't in the US.

Distrust of the government is fine but the view that having everyone have guns as a defence against the government is just an absurd rationalisation of testosterone-driven desire to own firepower.

Shall we ascribe your rant to estrogen-driven fear of guns? Or are you simply bereft of an understanding of the relevant philosophy, history, and current events?

Re:good

[radja]

you can own it... but can you carry it openly on the street? My guess would be no. I do know a little about dutch law... and owning a fully functional and battle ready sword is allowed. You don't need a permit or licence for it. But you can't just wear it openly on the street.

Re:good

[gnasher719]

absolutely .... there should be a strict law about this 3D printed guns .... man imagine if ISIS gets this technology ... it can do more disasters than now ...

You're being daft here. The man wasn't jailed for having a 3D printed gun, he was jailed for having a gun.

Re:good

[mark_reh]

Disaster? With a single shot plastic toy that is liable to blow up on you when you pull the trigger? Do you watch the news? Have you seen the ridiculous measures being taken at crazy expense to ineffectively deal with a few cases of ebola in the US? If ISIS or Al Queda or any other nutty group wants to do damage, printing poorly functioning plastic guns is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to send a bunch of suicidal jihaddists to west Africa to get exposed to ebola. They will have about 2-3 weeks to travel to other places, such as airports, sports events, etc., where large crowds of people gather. Can you imagine the financial impact? No 3D printers, no bullets needed. Just a few airline tickets and maybe some phony passports.

Cody Wilson is nothing but a master manipulator of the media. His 3D printed gun is crap. You can make a better gun with a piece of wood, a drill, and a rock. The media is stupid to give the guy all the attention they do for making a piece of plastic junk. You have nothing to fear from 3D printed plastic guns, even in the hands of ISIS.

Re:good

[stephendavion]

The way to do it is to send a bunch of suicidal jihaddists to west Africa to get exposed to ebola. They will have about 2-3 weeks to travel to other places, such as airports, sports events, etc., where large crowds of people gather. Can you imagine the financial impact? No 3D printers, no bullets needed. Just a few airline tickets and maybe some phony passports.

hope they are not reading your comment ... otherwise a new idea for them ... :-(

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

Or more specifically, having a gun without a licence.

Re: good

[Anonymous Coward]

This idea isn't new. I've seen it in many comment threads on dozens of websites.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

I one up your Dutch law with Texas law.

In Texas it is legal to open carry a long gun (rifle, shotgun, etc.) but NOT a sword.

You can actually walk into the store wearing an assault rifle... Texas kicks ass.

The only thing you accomplish by attempting to 'ban' guns is to take them away from the good people who own them. Gun owners are statistically the least likely demographic to commit crimes.

Re:good

[mwvdlee]

I think he was merely stating the obvious idea that with the weapons used by current day military, the whole defence-against-government argument for gun ownership is no longer valid. Whatever car roof-mounted machinegun you might have is laughably underpowered for the task of overpowering government.

The argument was a good one when both government and civilians had access to the same class of weaponry. Unless you want the public to be able to own strike drones, bombers and nuclear rockets, the argument should be shelved; anybody using it these days is just making a fool of himself.

Re:good

[itzly]

Since ebola requires touching bodily fluids, a better way would be to collect fluids from ebola sufferers, and spray it on people with a perfume spray bottle.

Re:good

[drinkypoo]

It's quite obvious that guns should not be freely available to just anybody.

That's true. In Japan, these laws might make sense. But here in the USA, a cop is roughly equally likely to be convicted of a crime as a citizen, except rape. They're four times more likely to be convicted of rape at some point, in spite of the blue wall, the blue code of silence etc. They're also about four times more likely to shoot an innocent bystander in a given armed attempt to defuse a situation than a private citizen. In Japan, the cops may be more responsible than the citizenry, but here in the USA, the citizenry is more responsible than the cops. Thus, I agree with your statement completely. We should clearly not give guns to the cops.

Re:good

[drinkypoo]

I think he was merely stating the obvious idea that with the weapons used by current day military, the whole defence-against-government argument for gun ownership is no longer valid. Whatever car roof-mounted machinegun you might have is laughably underpowered for the task of overpowering government.

That's funny, that's what they said in Viet Nam.

Unless you want the public to be able to own strike drones, bombers and nuclear rockets,

What I want is for the military to not have those things. It's no more ridiculous to let private citizens have those things than this proven-criminal government, which has demonstrated again and again that it will misuse them by murdering citizens without due process, contributing to genocide (remember Panama? That wasn't very long ago) and generally acting in the worst possible ways. Remember who the only country to ever nuke anyone is?

Re:good

[mark_reh]

Um, you're aware that suicidal jihaddists regularly blow themselves up, right? They spray themselves on everyone around them.

Fear of ebola is nearly as expensive as fighting actual ebola. Look what happened to airline stocks when it was announced that one of the nurses with ebola flew with a fever.

Re:good

[mark_reh]

I'm just a casual observer of the news. The leaders of those groups are working 24/7 to come up with ideas to create fear, trouble, and expense. Do you believe they didn't think of this before I did?

Re:good

[itzly]

Blowing yourself up requires explosives, and even then you can only do it once. It is much more effective to walk around a few airports, malls and movie theatres spraying a large number of people who are then unaware of the fact they may have caught ebola, and help spread it even further.

Re: good

[Anonymous Coward]

"Gun owners are statistically the least likely demographic to commit crimes."

[Citation?]

Re:good

[cHALiTO]

How on earth did this get modded -1 Troll? it's the most insightful comment I've read on this article so far.

Re:good

[laird]

Gun owners are the most likely demographic to shoot people. If you have a gun in your house, the people in your house are 5x more likely to be shot than if you don't. The relationship is pretty obvious - people occasionally get very angry or depressed. If they have a gun, that can turn into shooting someone, including yourself. If you don't have a gun, it turns into a fist fight, knifing, etc., all of which are much less likely to result in a death.

People who don't own guns don't shoot people, because they don't have guns.

Re:good

[TapeCutter]

I read the same idea elsewhere earlier today, Ebola is not wildly contagious like the flu, using it as a biological weapon is about as practical as plastic guns.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot if you think that the North Vietnamese citizenry defeated the US war machine without serious superpower backing of their own.

That's funny, that's what they said in Viet Nam.

Re:good

[drinkypoo]

You are an idiot if you think that the North Vietnamese citizenry defeated the US war machine without serious superpower backing of their own.

Who says that American insurgents couldn't get some backing? The proliferation of weapons across the country is meant to make taking the citizenry expensive, not impossible. But people want to claim otherwise to support the assertion that taking away the guns makes sense if the purpose of the second amendment is a hedge against tyranny.

I don't think the founders ever foresaw the development of world-destroying weapons. But then, I doubt they would have seen wisdom in their construction.

Re:good

[PopeRatzo]

Shall we ascribe your rant to estrogen-driven fear of guns?

I'm guessing you're part of #gamergate.

"You don't like guns? You're a big fag. I like guns because I'm fighting for journalistic ethics."

Re:good

[mwvdlee]

How would a state form a well regulated militia?

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

Ellipses are not replacements for punctuation.

Re:good

[cold fjord]

Britain, France, and the US are all nuclear power states that have armies equipped with the most modern weapons systems. Why are they still fighting the Taliban after 13 years? How is it that ISIS defies them?

Is it possible that there are factors that you aren't considering? It would seem so. Not even the apartheid state of South Africa which was a nuclear state for a period of time was ultimately willing to use nuclear weapons on its own people.

The dismissive statements that the two of you have made take no recognition of the facts of the matter. Do you think that the Swiss government could impose a tyranny on the Swiss? Hardly. Nearly the whole of the army is composed of reservists that keep arms at home. Israel? Once again, unlikely. The US? Unlikely, at least in a coup. Half of the total combat power of the US military is in the reserve forces composed largely of state militias. Much of the support is also in the reserves. To that you add the factor of the unformed militia which is legally defined as:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

  (b) The classes of the militia are—
  (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

  (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So you see, those weapons are in the hands of the unformed militia which is responsible to defend the US Constitution again all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is a very useful addition to the state militias.

The case in many European countries is not as favorable. About 100 years ago in Britain free men and women owned large numbers of firearms, and bobbies pursuing criminals could appeal to the public for aid or arms. Those days are long gone, as is the mentality. The right of even self defense against attack has become endangered in Britain.

It appears to me that you aren't successfully identifying what is foolish, and there is plenty of that going on in Britain.

Re:good

[cold fjord]

How indeed?

Army National Guard
Air National Guard

Army National Guard Vision 2010

A Full Spectrum Land Force
The Army National Guard is fully committed to implementing the joint operational concepts of dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics and full-dimensional protection. With 34 percent of the Army's strength, more than half of the combat power, nearly 70 percent of field artillery, and more than a third of its combat support and combat service support capabilities, the Army National Guard is a full partner in rapid strategic mobility, tailor-to-task organizational flexibility, and, ultimately, a key component in a seamless joint force that can be committed cross-dimensionally along the entire spectrum of contingencies.

Army National Guard Combat Power

A visual representation of the Army National Guard's brigades. This represents the National Guard's Infantry and Heavy brigades but also includes Engineer, Field Artillery and Aviation brigades as well. .

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

This is idiotic. It's like "car owners are 5x more likely to drive."

You act like getting shot is worse than getting stabbed, or strangled.

The question is who is more likely to commit violent crime. A statistic came out maybe a year ago, studying legal gun owners. The conclusion: You are more likely to be illegally killed by police officers not in the performance of their duties than legal gun owners.

Re:good

[mwvdlee]

Factors like trying to limit civilian casualties?
The era of true, full-blown, kill-or-be-killed wars is behind us.
Modern wars are waged using politics with military force just one of many pawns.

If the US (or other nuclear countries) wanted to, they could wipe ISIS territory completely off the map, collatoral damage be damned.

Re:good

[Cyberax]

If insurgents get sufficient backing by a foreign power or by a faction in the military then the whole question of legally owned small arms is moot.

Re:good

[JaredOfEuropa]

Give it time. Materials and printers are improving as is the design of printed guns. In a few years I expect to see a practical, single use printed revolver (6 shots), firing .22 rounds. Practical meaning that the gun will be fairly reliable if handled carefully, that the gun is safe to use, that it can be printed on the kind of hardware accessible to hobbyists, and can be assembled and finished by pretty much anyone. The last part is the most significant: it's possible to make better zip guns from pipe, wood and common parts, but they still require some skills to assemble. 3d printing will give anyone easy access to a gun.

Of course to actually use it you'll still need to get your hands on some ammo, which is the tricky part in countries with strict gun control.

Re:good

[buck-yar]

What you say did happen, and it wasn't considered treason. Presser vs Ill., an important 2nd amendment case.

From wiki...

        The indictment charged in substance that Presser, on September 24, 1879, in the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois, "did unlawfully belong to, and did parade and drill in the city of Chicago with an unauthorized body of men with arms, who had associated themselves together as a military company and organization, without having a license from the Governor, and not being a part of, or belonging to, 'the regular organized volunteer militia' of the State of Illinois, or the troops of the United States." A motion to quash the indictment was overruled. Presser then pleaded not guilty, and both parties having waived a jury the case was tried by the court, which found Presser guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of $10.

Basically, Presser,

        In December 1879, marched at the head of said company, about four hundred in number, in the streets of the city of Chicago, he riding on horseback and in command; that the company was armed with rifles and Presser with a cavalry sword; that the company had no license from the governor of Illinois to drill or parade as a part of the militia of the State, and was not a part of the regular organized militia of the State, nor a part of troops of the United States, and had no organization under the militia law of the United States.

Re:good

[cold fjord]

Have you considered submitting your material to Women & Guns?

Re:good

[Talderas]

TSA security checkpoints have only made it easier for terrorists to kill air travelers.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

It is "meant" to do no such thing.

It is "meant" to make the shareholders of Smith and Wesson, Colt, Bushmaster, et al more wealthy. Nothing more, nothing less.

The proliferation of weapons across the country is meant to make taking the citizenry expensive, not impossible. >

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

Implying the National Guard is the well regulated militia of the 2nd Amendment is trying to change 200 years of written history by saying that the right to bear arms is so that citizens can hunt for food (false) and be a member of a “militia” called the National Guard (also false). These arguments are simply intended to support restrictions on private gun ownership and the ultimate leftist goal of total confiscation of private firearms. History proves that this is the first step leftists and tyrants take to repeal the rule of law and institute totalitarianism. But the National Guard is not a militia and here’s why.

American colonial militia consisted of volunteer units with their own chosen leaders that formed in times of need and disbanded when the threat subsided. The earliest colonial militia mustered in Salem, Massachusetts on December 13, 1636 and continued to muster and disband throughout the colonial period. During the Revolutionary War, local militias under their own leadership continuously harassed British troops and disrupted their supply chain to weaken them prior to battles with Colonial regular military forces.

Following the war for independence, the founders feared that the new federal government might become as tyrannical as that which had just been defeated on the battlefield. The 2nd Amendment – from all accounts written by those who framed and signed the Constitution – was specifically intended to provide a means for the People to defend themselves against a rogue federal government. Leftists argue that the National Guard is a militia, therefore the 2nd Amendment only allows National Guard units to bear arms. This is obviously a false interpretation for this simple reason: all rights described in the “Bill of Rights” apply specifically and solely to the People, not to the government or any component of it. If the framers wanted to specify that government-controlled entities could be armed, they would have included language to that effect elsewhere in the Constitution. That the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is in the Bill Of Rights is confirmation that it is an individual right of each citizen, just as much as all the other rights described in the first 10 amendments.

Founded in 1916, National Guard units are organized under the control of each individual state with the governor as command-in-chief and an adjutant general as military commander. Guard units have two missions: to support their local communities during emergencies and natural disasters and to supplement federal forces in war-fighting. Given the complexity of modern weapons and tactics, the preponderance of Guard training is focused on the federal mission. Accordingly, state military forces rely on the federal government for funding and equipment to maintain military readiness. This reliance, coupled with the fact that the President has the authority to place Guard units under federal control at any time, makes the Guard a seamless extension of the federal military. This lack of independence disqualifies the Guard from being a militia.

A militia is an independent force under its own leadership that is formed by Constitutional state and local governments and the People. The right to form a militia and defend themselves from a tyrannical and un-Constitutional federal government remains with the states and the People as expressed in the 2nd Amendment, not with the federal military asset that is the National Guard. The argument that the National Guard is a militia is completely unsupported and false. Only the states and the People can form and control an independent militia and their right to do so is expressly protected in the Constitution. The only purpose for denying the People this right would be the intent to deny the People all their rights.

Re:good

[mark_reh]

You are apparently not familiar with 3D printing. The effort required to get a good print for most of these machines is far greater than the effort to make a gun by other means.

Re:good

[mark_reh]

Until you start wondering if someone on a plane you're sitting in might have ebola. The disease isn't the problem, the fear is the problem. Fear spreads faster than the flu.

Re:good

[radja]

To most europeans that sounds utterly stupid. 1 thing is for sure: having less guns leads to less deaths. That's a good thing. Happy I don't live in Texas.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the same idea elsewhere earlier today, Ebola is not wildly contagious like the flu, using it as a biological weapon is about as practical as plastic guns.

And your closed-minded thinking is why using hijacked airliners as suicide bombs were a surprise on 9/11.

Imagine a bunch of Ebola-infectious jihadis looking to infect deserving-to-die kaffirs show up in crowded locales and start distributing bodily fluids all over areas likely to result in the spread of Ebola.

The problem isn't if it would be effective - it's that the number of crazy fundamentalist Muslims willing to die like that and who are also competent enough to pull it off is very small. That's the same reason there were only four airliners hijacked on 9/11 - out of a billion Muslims there were only four crazy enough and competent enough to pilot the planes - all the other hijackers didn't know what the mission was other than "hijack plane".

And yes, I said "Muslims". That's REALITY. Deal with it.

Re:good

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Though this is somewhat a troll (the testosterone part particularly)... YOu do fail to miss a point.

At least in the states, we have the history of the Colonial Independence. We didn't have an army at the time, mostly a bunch of guys with guns that did eventually beat the British (with a bit of help from the French and some Polish help), or at least made subjugating us a bigger pain in the ass than letting us go.

Im sure there are other examples if you search for War for Independence. I need to get other stuff done so I can't research this properly.

This is not a theoretical model, it happened. You can argue that it's unlikely to be done again, but you can't say it's never been done.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Which is why since 2001 there have been so damn many US airliners blown up by terrorists.

I'm definitely no pro-TSA guy, but to say the TSA makes it EASIER to terrorists is complete horse-shit.

Re:good

[beefoot]

We need additional law to prevent people from printing 3d gun because gun companies will lost revenue. Not safety reason. I can also tell you that it is almost cheaper, easier, faster, and more efficient for ISIS to acquire weapons than acquiring these stupid 3D printers.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's already a law that forbids owning a gun, then there's no need for an additional law specifically targetting 3D printed guns.

In many jurisdictions, a license to manufacture firearms is different from a license to possess firearms, which is different from a license to sell firearms to the public.

The 3D-printer just makes it easier to manufacture a firearm, but any machine shop could make a firearm.

Re: good

[Totenglocke]

I'm at work so I can't go digging for sources right now, but I know research has been done showing that legal gun owners (so the overwhelming majority of people with guns in the US) commit crimes at a much lower (I think half?) rate than police officers in the US. Why? Because legal gun owners in the US know that pretty much any screw up and you lose your guns - for life.

Re:good

[cold fjord]

The National Guard clearly is a militia as both the history and law show. Nothing I quoted claims that it is the only militia. Nothing about the existence of the National Guard as a militia implies that the 2nd Amendment is about hunting. Even your own post recognizes that the National Guard is under the control of the states unless called into Federal service. (Do you think they would obey in the event of a coup?) The National Guard is focused on military missions just as the colonial militias were. There are many defects to your post that invalidate it. Its like you put facts, history, and nonsense in a blender and hit frappe.

Re:good

[drinkypoo]

If insurgents get sufficient backing by a foreign power or by a faction in the military then the whole question of legally owned small arms is moot.

You have to start somewhere.

Re:good

[itzly]

If real guns are better and cheaper than 3D printed guns, then gun companies need not worry about lost revenues either.

Re:good

[itzly]

Obviously getting stabbed or strangled is just as bad as getting shot, but before somebody can stab or strangle you, they need to get up close first, and you can only get close to one person at the time. And if that person happens to be bigger and stronger, there's no guarantee that it will even work. With a gun, against an unarmed opponent, it's a lot easier and quicker, even if the opponent is bigger and stronger.

Re:good

[Totenglocke]

I think he was merely stating the obvious idea that with the weapons used by current day military, the whole defence-against-government argument for gun ownership is no longer valid. Whatever car roof-mounted machinegun you might have is laughably underpowered for the task of overpowering government.

I guess you haven't paid much attention to the news for the last 13 years. A much smaller force with often inferior weapons to what the typical American has access to has been holding the mighty US military at bay for over a decade. Then Chris Dorner (one man!) was able to essentially shut down a large part of California and took out several police officers. If just one man could wreak that much havoc, imagine what 100 or 1,000 with the same ordinary weapons could do? Hubris like yours is what caused both the Soviet Union and the US to fail in Afghanistan.

Re:good

[beefoot]

These gun / weapon companies are forward thinking. Real guns could be cheaper and better than 3D printed guns today, it may be a different story a few years from now.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

"Gun owners are the most likely demographic to shoot people. If you have a gun in your house, the people in your house are 5x more likely to be shot than if you don't. The relationship is pretty obvious - people occasionally get very angry or depressed. If they have a gun, that can turn into shooting someone, including yourself. If you don't have a gun, it turns into a fist fight, knifing, etc., all of which are much less likely to result in a death.

People who don't own guns don't shoot people, because they don't have guns."

Right. They just stab, bludgeon, strangle, poison, run over, defenestrate people.
No big deal.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

Give it up, fjord. You just got smoked by an AC.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

Radja, having less guns means less GUN DEATHS. Thats all. All other forms of intentional homicide are unaffected. Depending on socio-economic and other factors of course.

Re:good

[cold fjord]

If you think that I would say that smoking had something to do with it. Maybe you should cut down?

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

The proliferation of weapons across the country is meant to make taking the citizenry expensive, not impossible.

It is "meant" to do no such thing. It is "meant" to make the shareholders of Smith and Wesson, Colt, Bushmaster, et al more wealthy. Nothing more, nothing less.

Right. The framers foresaw the rise of a variety of large firearms corporations, and sought to ensure their profitability through a constitutional amendment. Sure, that stands up to scrutiny.

You exemplify the kind of idiocy that gives ACs a bad reputation.

- T

Re:good

[tsotha]

It's difficult to imagine you couldn't get backing from Putin, or the Iranians, or the Saudis. And if you have money the French will sell to anyone.

Re:good

[angel'o'sphere]

Actually I'm not sure under what circumstances you may "carry" a katana.

In germany you may _own_ such weapons, too.

But to transport them they need to be in a 'closed' some people say even 'locked' container. (The wording of the law is a bit unclear, I have it not in a locked container. But it is complex enough "wrapped" etc. that a police officer claiming I would carry it wrong needed 2 minutes to get it out of the scabbard - ofc I was not dumb enough to show him I can do that in 10 seconds :D )

Re:good

[Talderas]

And you, like all the other fools, think that the terrorists fail if they fail to blow up airplanes. If you would note I used the term air travellers which is a term that is not limited to passengers on the plane but also inclusive of all individuals in the terminal that have recently debarked from flights or are waiting to board flights. Additionally this also includes all the air travellers who are packed into the lines at the TSA security check points. There has been a very minor decrease in risk exposure for air travellers on planes and in the terminal however there has been a massive increase in the risk exposure of air travellers in the TSA lines compared against the metal detector lines that used to be utilized. You can also verify this by looking at the average time spent to get into the terminals being greater than from before the TSA and that's with the policy changes that only permitted air travellers to enter the terminal while family was forced to wait outside. This has caused a significant risk exposure that more than offsets the decrease in risk exposure elsewhere. A terrorist doesn't even need a boarding pass to be a threat to the air travellers in the TSA line. All he needs to do is have an explosive strapped to him and wait until he's in a sufficient pack of air travellers to detonate. Air travellers are only most densely packed while on the plane itself. The damage and loss of life in these lines will be greater than anything that could be done in the terminal.

How do you counteract that? Pray tell.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

Fewer penises lead to fewer rapes.

Re:good

[mjwx]

I think he was merely stating the obvious idea that with the weapons used by current day military, the whole defence-against-government argument for gun ownership is no longer valid. Whatever car roof-mounted machinegun you might have is laughably underpowered for the task of overpowering government.

That's funny, that's what they said in Viet Nam.

The Russians and Chinese sent them high tech weaponry to fight with. Even ISIS has little trouble getting the latest RPG and high tech missile launcher the Ukrainian "separatists" got a hold of to shoot down MH17 with.

A better example of how effective armed citizens are against the government would be Waco, but that doesn't support your point. The only reason that Waco lasted so long was because government rules prevented them from using overwhelming force. Or Chechnya, the Russian Govt. doesn't pull their punches... but Chechnya doesn't support your assertion either.

Re:good

[Lord Kano]

Even if it comes to pass that metal 3D printers become cheap enough for people to start whipping up high quality guns at home, people will still be willing to pay for new and innovative products.

I suspect that you do not have much personal contact with the American gun culture. I am deeply immersed in it. I see guys selling their Third generation Glocks to buy Fourth generation versions of the same model.

Despite the fact that the 1911 is old and proven technology that nearly any manufacture can copy, people are will willing to pay more money for a Kimber because they make a really high end product.

If you're going to argue that eventually 3D printing will be able to produce pieces that are identical to those that can be made by high end manufacturers, how can any law be enforced against them? Once they're out of the printer, there's no way to tell where it came from.

LK

Re:good

[Lord Kano]

Or even more specifically, having an item that was too easy to turn into a gun without a license.

LK

Re:good

[Lord Kano]

I read the same idea elsewhere earlier today, Ebola is not wildly contagious like the flu, using it as a biological weapon is about as practical as plastic guns.

They don't need to spread the disease, they only need to spread the fear. In other words...terror.

LK

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

I milled an AR-15 receiver in my dining room. Making a high quality, functional firearm isn't that difficult.

LK

Re:good

[Lord Kano]

Obviously getting stabbed or strangled is just as bad as getting shot, but before somebody can stab or strangle you, they need to get up close first, and you can only get close to one person at the time.

Most of the people out there shooting people aren't exactly what you'd call marksmen. They're still getting pretty close most of the time.

And if that person happens to be bigger and stronger, there's no guarantee that it will even work. With a gun, against an unarmed opponent, it's a lot easier and quicker, even if the opponent is bigger and stronger.

That's precisely why guns are important. A 90 pound woman is not going to be able to fight off a 250 pound man with her bare hands. She'll be able to do it with a pistol.

LK

Re:good

[drinkypoo]

A better example of how effective armed citizens are against the government would be Waco, but that doesn't support your point.

The particular citizens of Waco we're discussing decided not to resist when the FBI rolled in with tanks and flamethrowers. Then the FBI parked a tank on the escape hatch and set the building on fire with a flamethrower. This was mounted on another tank, clearly visible in the only decent footage of the incident, shot at long range because the FBI wouldn't permit the press anywhere near. They knew where the hatch was because they had advance information, and they had the complete plans of the facility. This led to the suffocation death of the people we're talking about. If this is an example of anything, it's an example of a time when armed defense was warranted, and an example of what will happen to you if you concentrate yourself.

Re:good

[rioki]

And that is why I have a weapon bag that contains two sticks, a bokken (wooden sword) and a hanbo (90cm stick). The feature that makes it comply with German law, is that it is tied with a knot and it takes "a while" to open it. I can carry a broom handle openly, but because my special two pieces of wood are "martial arts" weapons, they need to be transported in a closed bag or container. (The reason I don't own a katana, is because I will only do so I am proficient enough to not mutilate myself or others by accident.)

Re:good

[rioki]

For starters you remove all the accentual gun deaths. The total number of homicides also drops, because killing someone without a gun is significantly harder. The best option that fits in mode of operation of a gun is a knife. But to use a knife you need to get close and personal, that is psychologically and physically more difficult. The reason why martial arts have knife defense is, because it works (to a certain degree), but there is no gun defense (except at gunpoint) because it is useless. The other options such as poisoning would probably not have been done with a gun to start. GP's assertion hold true if you just start to think about it for less than 5 min. Nobody claims that reducing gun ownership will eliminate all homicides, but claiming that the total number will not go down nonsense.

Re: good

[shutdown -p now]

It's an incorrect statement. The correct one is "legal gun owners are statistically the least likely demographic to commit crimes". That's because, by definition, a legal gun owner is the one who was never convicted of a felony, and the majority of criminals (esp. when it comes to violent crime) have past criminal records.

Re:good

[laird]

Don't forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... .

Re:good

[angel'o'sphere]

That is incorrect.
Wooden weapons are not weapons.

You can carry them any way you want. The closed container applies only to real weapons, swords.

Re:good

[laird]

Not "no big deal" but much less likely to end up dead.

Note also that this includes the effect of having a gun in the house protecting the people in the house from someone coming in and shooting them. That may happen, but in total the people in a house are in much more danger of being shot if you have a gun than if you don't. Apparently people get angry and shoot each other much more often than they use the gun to save everyone from an invader.

Re:good

[laird]

That's already included in the total. The number of people shot in a house, including shootings by people who don't live there, goes up by 5x if you own a gun. So while some people may be protected by the gun in the house, in total they are 5x more likely to be shot, so obviously the number of "saves" is much, much smaller than the number of people shot by people who live in the house with you.

This is consistent with the data. The leading case of shooting deaths is suicides (2/3rds of shooting deaths), and having a gun promotes suicide deaths. The remaining 1/3rd are people shooting each other, and after that most shootings are by friends and family. Random criminals breaking in is a small percentage of shootings, so reducing that while promoting suicides and shootings by family members is bad math, leading to lots of deaths.

You can Detect 3D Printed Gun

[stephendavion]

Actually there is a technology which helps us in detecting the 3D Printed Guns .. " With the help of crowdfunding, a UK-based technology firm is producing the world’s first detector capable of identifying plastic 3D printed weapons. The technological breakthrough is seen as an answer to the growing threat posed by plastic firearms, which can be printed cheaply at home and slip through normal metal detectors with potentially disastrous consequences. "

Re:You can Detect 3D Printed Gun

[FatLittleMonkey]

an answer to the growing threat posed by plastic firearms

It stops people being hysterical and stupid about non-issues?

Re:You can Detect 3D Printed Gun

[swb]

I'd like to know about the plastic barrels, chambers, firing pins and other sundry parts designed to handle existing ammunition. Is there a printable plastic that is strong and light enough to print a firearm that can be fired more than once without using ANY metal?

I can see some kind of plastic blunderbuss made heavy enough to handle a low-power shotgun shell a handful of times before melting or cracking but I'm not sure you could make a plastic firing pin that would trigger the primer. But now you're basically talking about a zip gun made with ABS pipe (whether you "print" it or not).

IMHO, this is all hype, no different than when Glock introduced their first gun. It was all "OMG, think of the children, these don't show up on metal detectors!!111" when the reality was that the barrel, firing pin and much of the lockwork was metal, more than enough to show up on a metal detector.

Re:You can Detect 3D Printed Gun

[Anonymous Coward]

H&K had polymer guns out before Glock.

Re:You can Detect 3D Printed Gun

[Spy Handler]

I'd like to know about the plastic barrels, chambers, firing pins and other sundry parts designed to handle existing ammunition. Is there a printable plastic that is strong and light enough to print a firearm that can be fired more than once without using ANY metal?

No. But a single-use firearm can still be useful. Watch the movie "In the Line of Fire" (1993) with Clint Eastwood. Assassin makes a dual barrel polymer handgun and he gets off 2 shots at the President. He would've succeeded had Clint Eastwood not jumped in front of the target and blocked the bullets.

For ammo and springs he still had to use regular metal parts, so he hid them in a keychain and walked through the metal detector without them.

Re:You can Detect 3D Printed Gun

[Anonymous Coward]

No. But a single-use firearm can still be useful. Watch the movie "In the Line of Fire" (1993) with Clint Eastwood. Assassin makes a dual barrel polymer handgun and he gets off 2 shots at the President. He would've succeeded had Clint Eastwood not jumped in front of the target and blocked the bullets.

For ammo and springs he still had to use regular metal parts, so he hid them in a keychain and walked through the metal detector without them.

Useful in a movie.

Re:You can Detect 3D Printed Gun

[swb]

So let me get this straight, their new detection technology is designed to protect us from determined and highly sophisticated people who want to kill the President of the United States?

Good, it should be that way!

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, we need a government-mandated monopoly on violence.

How else could the Yakuza do their business? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y... I mean, they're considered a semi-legitimate business in Japan, and are armed to the teeth. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/ne...

Of course, they also lie about their crime rates to hide corruption to bolster promotions within their police force (source: Freakonomics, the movie).

Gun control works people! You have a whole country who is paralyzed with fear of the organized crime syndicates that own them!

Just as it should be :-D

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[Anonymous Coward]

> (source: Freakonomics, the movie).

LOL

well, not totally out of line for a site that regularly thinks that mythbusters is science, etc..

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. We should *never* trust material from a movie when the writers and stars are all economics professors.

Let's go to HuffPo and see what they have to say!

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[mp.zwiers]

After all, we need a government-mandated monopoly on violence.

Some people draw the line at guns, where do you draw it? Automatic guns, rocket launchers, tanks, atomic weapons? Or should the government not have a monopoly on any of those either?

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[globaljustin]

are you saying that Japan does not pad it's crime rates? Or are you criticizing the source in the particular movie, or using movies as sources no matter what, or...?

just criticizing a source with no context is trolling...

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[PopeRatzo]

After all, we need a government-mandated monopoly on violence.

Here in the US, we have democratized violence. Anyone, no matter their station in society, has the God-given right to be violent.

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you are "joking" but why is it bad that each human has a right to defend and protect oneself from injustice? Especially in some parts of the USA where police are not able to respond in a reasonable amount of time, it is important that each human has the right and ability to defend oneself. I know it is hard for New Yorkers and Californians and Europeans to understand that the whole nation is not one big city with police everywhere, but it isn't.

When methheads try to rob your county house in the middle of the night, you will wish you had a gun. The fact that so many in the county have guns *prevents* methheads from even trying, most of the time.

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[denzacar]

Anyone, no matter their station in society, has the God-given right to be violent.

Wouldn't that eventually make everyone less violet and more black and blue?

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[baka_toroi]

>le psychology is pseudoscience face

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[Anonymous Coward]

This argument is terrible, no offense.

1) The ban on automatic weapons is farcical and shouldn't be in place. It's that simple. If you wanted to kill a bunch of people, you'd build a bomb. Seriously. Terrorists have all kinds of automatic weapons, but they go blow themselves up in cafes for a reason.
2) Building a bomb isn't exactly a challenge. The reason we don't have that kind of terrorism in the US is luck, plain and simple.
3) Killing people is already illegal. You don't need to tack some kind of weapons charge on top of it. The kinds of people who would commit acts of terror lack a moral compass, or their moral compass is severely corrupted. Whatever it is, some little weapons charge isn't going to stop them. This is especially true when they intend to kill themselves after.
4) You're most likely to be murdered by someone who you know. They could find other ways to kill you. If they needed a bolt-action rifle, they'd succeed. If they had to stab you, they'd succeed.
5) The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

On to the Second Amendment. The "but it's a well-regulated militia" argument doesn't hold up. This has been decided by the Supreme Court, and, besides, you really have to twist the English language to come up with that interpretation. I'd rather the folks who want to do away with guns simply come out and admit that they don't support the Second Amendment, rather than try to weasel like this. Frankly, you're making people stupid by forcing farcical interpretations of English sentences. If teachers are teaching this, then they're ruining our children's understanding of English. Just say what you mean.

On to nuclear weapons. There is a means in place to amend the Constitution. So, "what's the limit of the Second Amendment" is the dumbest thing that you could possibly say. There is *no* limit to the Second Amendment. Pass a Constitutional Amendment that puts a limit on it if you want. How difficult do you really think it would be to pass a law that bans the possession of nuclear and biological weapons? When people argue for "limits" on the Bill of Rights, you're arguing to lose a lot of freedoms and rights that I personally think are very important. You're also arguing for the United State government to ignore its own laws in favor of of popular and personal points of view. That is very dangerous, and it's put us into the state that we're in now, where everyone's phone calls and emails are being archived by the NSA. We've got a government that sees no limit to its powers anymore, and it's the fault of people like you. Seriously. If you want a limit on the possession of weapons, pass a law that limits the possession of weapons. Make the government follow its own laws. You only think that it's okay for the government to ignore its own laws because you imagine the government doing whatever *you* want them to do with the extraordinary power that this gives them. When it's something that you don't like, you're up in arms about it. Actually, it's a little worse than that, because you only care that the person doing this stuff to our country is playing for your team. That's why all of the protests about Guantanamo Bay, the Iraq War, and warantless wiretapping ended the second Obama became president.

You people literally have no idea of the problems that you are causing for the world, and you really don't care.

I'd like to end with this thought. This whole conversation is about politics. This is Slashdot. I came here because I'm enthusiastic about science and technology. Content like this is diluting this site. This should be a place where I come for a few minutes during my workday to feel recharged and enthusiastic about what I do for a living, and to know that there are other people who share my values. Content like this is making it so that Slashdot doesn't fill that role. Where is a nerd to go? It seems like there is no site that exists in that space anymore.

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to reddit.

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[baka_toroi]

Sorry, based on the previous AC comment (you?) I thought it was shitposting time.

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nonsense. The influence of the Yakuza has been steadily decreasing, and Japan is one of the safest countries on earth. I was there just last week, and it is remarkable to walk the streets of a major metropolitan area without any concerns for safety.

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[Idarubicin]

After all, we need a government-mandated monopoly on violence.

Here in the US, we have democratized violence. Anyone, no matter their station in society, has the God-given right to be violent.

Not quite true. You have to be white, and preferably wealthy or a member of a police force, and preferably directing that violence toward a person of color. Being from a red state helps, too.

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people draw the line at guns, where do you draw it?

I draw it at the Constitution, TYVM.

Automatic guns, rocket launchers, tanks, atomic weapons? Or should the government not have a monopoly on any of those either?

Until such time as the Constitution is amended, yes, the government should hold no such monopoly.

Why can't people like yourself understand that regardless of the method employed to circumvent the Constitution regarding the Second Amendment, it can and will be used to violate your First Amendment rights? It is just not something that I can fathom, how someone can argue in one breath that "the Constitution protects all speech, there are no exceptions", while using the next breath to say "oh, but there are exceptions to what firearms are protected". The level of cognitive dissonance required has got to rival that of even the most fanboyish of Apple fanboys.

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[PopeRatzo]

I stand corrected. Since I am a white man, I have to be occasionally reminded that my constitutional right to be violent is not shared with non-white citizens.

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[PopeRatzo]

I know you are "joking" but why is it bad that each human has a right to defend and protect oneself from injustice?

I know, right? Currently, I am defending and protecting myself from ethics in game journalism.

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[PopeRatzo]

When methheads try to rob your county house in the middle of the night, you will wish you had a gun.

When methheads try to rob my county house in the middle of the night, I will also wish I had never moved to Texas.

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[Mr. Slippery]

The government has no right to a monopoly on any weapon.

However, my neighbor storing atomic weapons in his garage is a reasonable threat to my safety and so should be heavily regulated. If he can meet the same safety standards as the government (maybe some billionaire collector could do this), the state has no legitimate authority to have nukes of its own while denying him one. Or, ya know, maybe nukes are an inherent threat to people and no one, state or otherwise, U.S. or Iran, can have them. But "we can have them, you can't" is not a logically defensible argument.

My neighbor storing machine guns or a typical shooter's supply of ammo in his garage (again, subject to safe storage requirements, no storing a loaded machine gun pointed at my house) is no more a threat to my safety than him having the usual home hardware and chemicals in there. (

Even a tank is not threat -- and indeed, for just $1175 you can spend a day driving one around.)

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[angel'o'sphere]

If you would read the links you post, you would know that Yakuza usually have no guns.

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which of course explains why in murders involving 2 races there is an order of magnitude difference in the likelihood the murderer is black and the victim is white. Source: FBI statistics

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[Stuarticus]

They'd have to be padding an awful lot if they were actually worse than American ones.

Re:Good, it should be that way!

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything except the atomic weapons area already legal for US citizens. The only reason that atomics are illegal are because A) radiation kinda sucks, and B) most places don't let you store explosives of that caliber anywhere you like.

That said, you can buy a rocket launcher after paying for a $200 tax stamp from the BATFE and letting them do a background check on you. You'll also have to do the same thing for every rocket you buy too. I'm not sure if the same is true, or if they even make, rubber rockets. You can get a 38MM grenade launcher without all that mess though. You just can't buy any explosive rounds for it, flairs and such only. The second you buy an actual grenade (after paying the $200 to Uncle Sam of course) your "Signaling Device" becomes a "Destructive Device" and you are now a felon for owning it without going through the government first.

In Japan

[Giant Robot]

In addition to very strict gun laws (pretty much the only guys with hunting licenses got them > 50 years ago), there are other laws which are a lot more strict compared to other countries.

For example, if a gaijin resident is caught with light marijuana -> Jail time or deportation. Drinking and driving, even one beer, will cause one to lose his job in a country that prides itself of life long employment.

Re:In Japan

[stephendavion]

Drinking and driving, even one beer

Drinking and Driving is bad my dear friend .... whether it is one beer or several ... some times one beer also causes damage ... so SAY NO TO drink and drive

Re:In Japan

[epyT-R]

One beer? You're an idiot. Who'd want to live in a society where job loss and de facto permanent unemployment occurs at the slightest infraction?

Re:In Japan

[ruir]

I drink on occasion, and do not any other legal or illegal drugs ever. However, one has to be honest, and say that the discussion between legal or illegal drugs, and legal or illegal quantities/amounts is pretty much flawed. Of course you should not ever drive under the influence of any drug. Shit happens, and driving a 1 ton machine around is a huge responsibility. Best have a designated driver who does not drive, or use public transport for your nights out.

Re:In Japan

[gsslay]

You already live in a world that's far worse;

One beer, a large strong one, the "slightest infraction", and you kill someone on the road because you weren't so sharp.

Life's tough sometimes, and you have to live with the consequences of your "slightest infractions".

Re:In Japan

[Kagetsuki]

Actually depending on the area you can still get hunting licenses - the thing is there is a limit and family and friends of existing hunters usually get preference. One of my employees happens to be the son of a hunter in Nagano and he's got a license. When he goes home during winter holiday he'll often bring us back some boar or deer meat. Having grown up for part of my life in Colorado the deer meat is especially appreciated, and boar meat goes great in a winter nabe.

That said, even with a license they have extreme limits on what kinds of guns and how much ammo they can have. Ammo needs to have serial numbers and can only be purchased at very specfic places - and the prices are outrageous. The yearly license fees on the guns are apprently pretty expensive too.

Re:In Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone loses their job, are they pretty much unemployable? Would the best thing to do be to turn to a life of crime in order to survive?

Re:In Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Best have a designated driver who does not drive, or use public transport for your nights out.

It's better to have a designated driver who drives.

Re:In Japan

[ultranova]

One beer? You're an idiot. Who'd want to live in a society where job loss and de facto permanent unemployment occurs at the slightest infraction?

Driving drunk is not a slight infraction, and many (most?) companies screen their employees for off-hour drug use nowadays - heck, I've heard that having Facebook pics of yourself drinking beer can get you disqualified from a job. We already have all the worst sides of authoritarianism, so why not get what few good things there are, too?

Re:In Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Drinking and driving, even one beer, will cause one to lose his job in a country that prides itself of life long employment.

Uh, no. I lived there from 97-99 and I promise you that is not true at all. In fact, a manager at the english school/business that I worked for got a DWI and was embarrassed, had "points" put on her license.... and NOTHING ELSE. She kept working. Please don't make up stories about "one beer fired for life!" YES they have roadblocks and check for DWI but the limits aren't as strict as you make them out to be. My wife was driving once after a few drinks when we went through a roadblock (turned the corner, there it was, no way around it). Blew into this baton thingy..... "thanks, you folks have a nice night".... (She wasn't fired)

To the case in point; gun laws have helped keep gun deaths to a minimum but that may also be part of an unspoken agreement between government and Yakuza. As long as street crime is taken care of blind eyes will be turned to gambling and prostitution rings. The only gun deaths are Yakuza shooting Yakuza. While this is a bit of a generalization, it's not much of one.

HOWEVER, it is the Japanese ideal of society that makes their country so safe in terms of physical crime. They are raised with such strong views of courtesy and manners that it is hard to overstate. The idea that you would cause trouble for those around you is horrifying for many (not all) Japanese. And yes... round eyes have much stricter penalties, that is very, very true. If you are trying to become a citizen you can't have so much as one parking ticket in 10 years of residency if you wish to even think about applying for citizenship... or you have to be an athlete, entertainment star, or sumo champ....

Re:In Japan

[andydread]

In other words on the the rich or well connected can partake in this activity. way to go.

Re:In Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to planet Earth. Was your journey a pleasant one?

Re:In Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

A pointless crime that can only cause death and destruction is a small infraction?

Forgetting to pay for your chocolate bar is a small infraction. Saying something stupid when angry is a small infraction.

Going to sit behind a the wheel of a high speed very hard vehicle after drinking alcohol is the very definition of idiotic behaviour.

Re:In Japan

[dunkelfalke]

Drunk drivers already are positioning themselves outside of the society. I'd personally prefer to have automatic prison time for that offence.

Re:In Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in the free world. Maybe where you live.

Re:In Japan

[laird]

If drunk driving is punished by job loss, it's de facto not a minor infraction. Perhaps they just disagree with you about priorities, and take deaths from car accidents more seriously than you do? That doesn't make things they care about, that you don't, "slight".

Re:In Japan

[laird]

What makes you think that hunting licences can only acquired by "the rich or well connected"?

Re:In Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

'no legal drugs' - I take it that you go to a dentist and take it like man and have your appendix removed while strapped down to the operating table with a piece of wood tied between your teeth. I salute you my dear sir.

Re:In Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgetting to pay for your chocolate bar is a small infraction

No, it is not. It is theft, a serious offence.

Re:In Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

The high expense? High expense due to license fess and high expense due to cost of ammunition = "rich", Rich normally also = "well connected"

Re: In Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Me! And I'm very happy to be here instead of being in the states.

Re:In Japan

[ultranova]

Not in the free world. Maybe where you live.

I didn't know extraterrestials are posting on Slashdot. Where is this free world you're talking about?

Re:In Japan

[PrimaryConsult]

Since Japan is one of the most public transit connected / bike friendly countries in the world, the number of people who would need to use a personal motorized vehicle to get home from a bar is rather low.

Re:In Japan

[JaredOfEuropa]

A guy has a few beers and hits a pedestrian, and the police call it the results of DUI, yet sober people hit pedestrians all the time. Low levels of alcohol do not increase your chances much of causing an accident; they do more to decrease your chances of avoiding one, i.e. reacting adequately to an unusual situation. Not that I'm advocating drinking and driving here, but saying that even 1 drink is bad is silly. Our bureau for traffic safety stated (against popular political opinion, surprisingly) that lowering the current limit of 0.05 BAC (2 drinks or so) would do very little to directly reduce the accident rates. A lower legal limit may help in an indirect way, by emphasizing the negative effects of alcohol on driving abilities, and the idea that it's easier to say no to the first drink than it is to the third. (Which is why the legal limit for young drivers was in fact lowered to 0.02).

Oddly, Magic Mushrooms are legal in Japan...but for "appreciation purposes" only. So you can buy them but you're only supposed to look at them, I suppose.

Re:In Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. I lived there from 97-99 and I promise you that is not true at all.

Can't find password so posting as anon-coward. I have lived in Japan 1992 to present. Back in 97-99 attitudes were as you describe them. Now however they are exactly as grandparent describes them - if you are a company employee for any sort of company that values its reputation, you are very likely to lose your job if caught driving after a single beer.

Re:In Japan

[rabidMacBigot()]

Well, he said:

...the thing is there is a limit and family and friends of existing hunters usually get preference.

which seems to restrict it to the well-connected (people with connections are often said to be well-connected), and

Ammo... can only be purchased at very specfic places - and the prices are outrageous. The yearly license fees on the guns are apprently pretty expensive too.

which seems to limit it to the rich (people who can afford to spend lots of money on expensive things are often rich). Of course, I am a simple man with simple answers.

Re:In Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Even in the American society, they preach "Don't drink and drive", not "Don't drive drunk."

Re:In Japan

[MobyDisk]

FYI: nabe = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... = "...Most nabemono are stews and soups served during the colder seasons..."

Re:In Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe they finally got around to outlawing shrooms a few years ago. I'm sure a google search would settle this definitively, but OMG SQUIRREL KTHXBAI!

Re:In Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

I would. Hopefully fewer automotive murderers on the streets that way.

Re:In Japan

[cayenne8]

Hey, you gotta get your car home *somehow*...

If anyone thinks that it is a small number of people that drink and drive, take a look at most any parking lot outside any bar in the US>

Do you actually think all those cars are driven by the designated driver? That all those people have only 1 or less drinks?

Those empty lots mean most everyone is driving at some level of impairment. It happens and most people don't get in trouble for it, nor are they serious danger to anyone else on the road.

People naturally drive and meet at bars, they have drinks, they have to get home and they do.

You rarely see a bar parking lot very full after closing time do you?

Re:In Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop using the appalling racist word "gaijin". Think about what it literally means: "Outside person". As in "get out of our country and go home, bignose foreigner".

Well, actually, how about no. I have the legal right to live here, I pay the same taxes as the Japanese do (and yet get nothing for it, see the recent Supreme Court decision) and I'll be damned if I'm going to let anyone call me "outside person".

Note for those who don't live here: "gaijin" comes across pretty much like "nigger" might come across where you are. Announcers/hosts of TV shows are banned from saying it on TV, for example.

Re:In Japan

[tlhIngan]

For example, if a gaijin resident is caught with light marijuana -> Jail time or deportation.

That's relatively minor compared to other countries in Asia, where importation of drugs is smuggling, and smugglers get the death penalty. No if, ands or buts. They find drugs on you, you're dead within the week. If you're lucky, the newspaper articles will read "Drug smuggler arrested and sentenced to death".

Oh yeah, and some of those countries neighbour unofficial drug producing countries as well.

Others are well, if you use a gun in commission of a crime, even if it wasn't fired, increases the penalties to 5 years in jail, if someone was killed, death penalty.

Oh yeah, it wasn't some Podunk backwoods country either - it was a modern metropolis.

Re:In Japan

[Kagetsuki]

No. The people getting these licenses are certainly not rich. The licenses are granted to indviduals who will actually use them when needed. Certain animals such as boars need to have populations controlled etc. The only reason family members and friends of existing license holders get preference is because they've been around and understand how the guns work AND will have an accessable mentor and hunting partner from the get-go.

Re:In Japan

[Kagetsuki]

The connected people are more likely to have experience and be more used to being around guns. They also have known hunting partners/mentors.

The prices are about 4x or so what they are in the US. This is mainly due to registrations / tagging / adding serial numbers etc. The thing is the animals they take they also get very very good prices on - so active hunters who are even moderately good will tend to retire from their day jobs (which is a dream of many hunters in the US).

Re:In Japan

[Kagetsuki]

I would have said "hot pot" or something but I think the image most people would have gotten different imagery in their head.

Gifu style Boar nabe [shishi nabe]: http://deli-aurora.net/wp-cont...

Re:In Japan

[Idarubicin]

One beer? You're an idiot. Who'd want to live in a society where job loss and de facto permanent unemployment occurs at the slightest infraction?

When it's an infraction that is easy to avoid? Yeah, sign me up. (And what's this "permanent unemployment" nonsense?)

No one accidentally has a beer, and no one accidentally gets behind the wheel of a car. If there were a way to ensure that selfish assholes only put their own lives at risk, that would be one thing--but this situation isn't that. Incidentally, I feel the same way about the people who think they're still good drivers when they're on their cell phones. (To be clear, that's everyone who is driving while using a portable electronic device. No, you aren't special.)

Re:In Japan

[andydread]

Oh i see so you have to have "contacts" such knowing the right people or you're shit out of luck. Gotcha

Re:In Japan

[Kagetsuki]

NO. If you are a family member or close to someone WHO ACTUALLY HAS A FUCKING GUN and knows how to handle it they can teach you how to handle it. They can also accompany you when you go hunting because going hunting alone is a good way to get yourself killed or stranded or in some other bad situation. And they only get preference - it's like a referral. Just because you don't know someone doesn't mean you won't get a license.

Stop selectivly reading my comments to try and fit them into your alternate-reality dystopia where society is unfair and only the 1% get guns which they can use to hunt the 99% for sport. Also that should totally be a book.

Re:In Japan

[angel'o'sphere]

Japan is an asian country.
Of course only the "well connected" have privileges, like in any other asian country.
However that has not much to do with wealth but how well you actually _connect_

Just consider, two people are waiting to enter your office. You have one license left.

In Germany the first one entering gets it.
In Italy the one with the higher bribe gets it.
In Japan the one who is a relative, or a otherwise connected, gets it. The stranger has no chance.

Get used to the fact that different countries are run by "different" types of "gasoline".

Re:In Japan

[angel'o'sphere]

He is an american, what do you expect :D

He lives in a country where the rich have everything and the poor believe they are equal.

Re:In Japan

[angel'o'sphere]

Drinking and driving, even one beer, will cause one to lose his job in a country that prides itself of life long employment.

Complete nonsense. Perhaps you lose your driving license for ever ... right so imho.

Re:In Japan

[angel'o'sphere]

The beer is not the problem the driving is.

On the channel islands, especially Alderney at every pub door is a big sign: drink and drive (!= 0 promille alcohol) yields you 6 month in prison and a 15,000 pound penalty. Or was it 25,000? Don't remember.

That is an island with less than 10k inhabitants.

So the penalty for driving with alcohol (not even being _drunk_) is higher than the cost of a cheap car!

People think twice about going by car to the pub (where is no parking lot anyway)

Re:In Japan

[angel'o'sphere]

That is only because of the stupid american habit to build pups somewhere in the wilderness so that everyone around in 50km .... oops, 35miles ... has to get there in a car.

Why don't you visit a civilized country that has no "western tradition", western as in country, cowboy attitude and realize that pubs can be right there where you actually live?

Like around the corner or a 4 minutes walk ...

Re:In Japan

[angel'o'sphere]

and many (most?) companies screen their employees for off-hour drug use nowadays
In the US or north korea.
In the rest of the world that is simply illegal.
Sure you certainly find some other ruling in saudi arabia ... so my "rest of the world" is exaggerating a bit.

Re:In Japan

[angel'o'sphere]

Your opinion completely contradicts observed facts.

Countries like France went from 0.8 promille via 0.5 promille to 0.3 promille and finally are at 0.0 promille.

Germany is still at 0.5 I believe and you automatically have a "partial guilt" if involved in an accident and you are above 0.3 promille.

Every single bit of alcohol influences your reaction and perception. Believing otherwise only shows how far away your "perception" from reality is when you have drunken a single drink.

Re:In Japan

[HeckRuler]

Yeah yeah, terrible crime. oh noes "outside person". That's almost as bad as "foreigner". As in "someone from outside the country".

I get what you're saying. People have probably used it against you in anger and tried to imbue it with as much hostility as they could. And now you don't like the term. You take offense to it. But guess what? It's only an insult if you let it be. Want to know how to disarm such cultural hostility? Own it. And oh so slowly something as offensive as "geek" was can become something like how "geek" is now.

In short, ease up cracker.

Re:In Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention that he should think of the children.

Re:In Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

What precisely is the difference between "causing an accident" and "failing to avoid an accident"?

All accidents are caused by people failing to react adequately to an unusual situation. (Sometimes there is no possible reaction that would have been "adequate", but the point stands.) If something reduces your chances of "reacting adequately", then it's increasing your chances of causing an accident. That's math.

Re:In Japan

[zippthorne]

The claim that they're granted with a similar algorithm to titles of nobility and are only useful to the rich or well connected due to the associated costs?

Re:In Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in japan from 2001 to now.

Below is the incident that shocked whole country and resulted in very very strict laws since 2006.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2006/08/27/national/three-kids-killed-when-suv-plunges-into-sea/

Giant Robot is perfectly correct in his comment.

Sant

Re: gun laws

[Anonymous Coward]

When they eliminate computers as well, there won't be any computer crimes.

Kawasaki engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh well, if his guns work as well as my Kawasaki it'll all end in broken parts, thrown rods and tears anyway :p

Not in the slightest bit surprised

[Zocalo]

Seriously, what did he expect? I'm sure there will be some debate from those who live in place where guns are legal and public gun ownership is common place, but in the jurisdiction in question (Japan) they are not. If he'd manufactured some other proscribed substance/object - hard drugs, say - he'd would likely expect to be punished if caught, so I can't imagine why his expectations here would be any different. Is there a statement somewhere justifying why he thought this would be acceptable, because I'm somewhat curious as to how anyone could rationalise this out in this manner other than the claimed "I didn't know"? (Which in any event seems like a very weak legal argument, given the nature of the anti-gun sentiment and any form of an "ignorance of the law is no defence" statute that Japan might have on the books).

Re:Not in the slightest bit surprised

[misexistentialist]

No reason to obey unjust laws. So you go to jail, it's at a cost to the state and you are liberated from paying taxes.

Re:Not in the slightest bit surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

So you go to jail, it's at a cost to the state and you are liberated from paying taxes.

You do pay taxes when you're in jail, you know.

Re:Not in the slightest bit surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a fairly just law to me.

Re: gun laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked there was at least one computer which was not supposed to kill people.

Blade Runner Sentenced to 5 years in District 9

[Anonymous Coward]

He was later quoted as saying, "Back with my homies again."

Japan += Gun; //NULL

[danknight48]

Japan loves its "traditions". He would of got away with a 3D printed samurai sword.

Re:Japan += Gun; //NULL

[drinkypoo]

Japan loves its "traditions". He would of got away with a 3D printed samurai sword.

Swords are also controlled. Japan is a tiny little overstuffed nation full of people who take everything to its logical conclusion. It's like one big institutionalized, industrialized version of Survivor. Toe the line, or you're off the island.

Re:Japan += Gun; //NULL

[Anonymous Coward]

Survivor is an institutionalized version of Survivor. It's a reality television show.

Re:Japan += Gun; //NULL

[Anonymous Coward]

"would have". Seriously, what the hell does "would of" even mean?

Re:Japan += Gun; //NULL

[Anonymous Coward]

Would HAVE, not would 'of'... American idiot.

Re:gun laws

[andydread]

Are you advocating like the Atlantic that we go the way of Japan and basically ban gun ownership in the US? you know like repeal the 2nd Amendment? in order to curb shooting deaths? If not then that link is moot.

Re:gun laws

[quenda]

Japans draconian gun laws are not the reason for its low violent crime rate. They have a very low murder rate generally, and don't need such heavy penalties.

The US however does have a serious violent crime problem.
But not all the US: places such as New England, Iowa, the Dakotas, Minnesota, Wyoming, Utah all have homicide rates not so much worse than Europe and Australia.
( Restricting handguns could well reduce the gap.)
What do all these states have in common? Similar racial mix. There is only one state with both a large racial minority and a low murder rate: Hawaii.
Importantly, the white-only homicide rate in the US overall is still much higher than the total homicide rate in the above states, so the cause is not simple.
People in those states have a lower murder rate regardless of race.

You cannot possibly understand the US murder rate without looking at race and guns. The left do not want to talk about race, and the right don't want to talk about guns, so we're screwed.

Re: gun laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that: you must impose a rigid class system in which you can't even address a person without pondering their social and professional status, gender and seniority and without understanding where you are compared to them. A system where even your "free" time is heavily regulated and that has no place for non-conformism. Accept that and not only you will be free from that particular danger, but you will be free to be exactly what they want you to be.

Easily done:

[Jesrad]

Japan never had a gun problem in the first place. Maybe the USA should indeed imitate them to solve its own gun violence issues ? It would be simple, too: just go back several centuries in time, and get heavily prejudiced against guns from the very beginning by emphasising the moral and cultural values attached to swords for a couple centuries, then go lose a world war and dismantle most of your armament producing capability under scrutiny by an occupying force.

Also, it'll help if you become an island.

Re:Easily done:

[Anonymous Coward]

Who commits 90% of the gun crime in the U.S.? Certainly not law abiding citizens. MILLIONS of crimes are prevented every year by law abiding citizens either brandishing (99% of the time) or using (1% of the time) their legally held guns.

Secondly: look up what the word 'democide' means. You're an idiot who wants to get us all killed by our government.

Still, only 200 million people were killed by their own governments in the last century, so it's no big deal.

Re:Easily done:

[jeremyp]

Who commits 90% of the gun crime in the U.S.? Certainly not law abiding citizens.

Clearly not by definition.

MILLIONS of crimes are prevented every year by law abiding citizens either brandishing (99% of the time) or using (1% of the time) their legally held guns.

Citation needed, I think.

Even assuming this is true, how many averted robberies are worth the loss of a human life? One? a hundred? a thousand? How many averted crimes are worth the 100 children that are accidentally killed by guns each year?

Secondly: look up what the word 'democide' means. You're an idiot who wants to get us all killed by our government.

Still, only 200 million people were killed by their own governments in the last century, so it's no big deal.

Perhaps you should look up the word "democracy". You'll find that the way bad governments are removed in a democracy is by voting them out of office. The USA is allegedly one of those, so that' the way to remove a government, not by making war on it.

Re: Easily done:

[rfengr]

Bad governments removed by voting them out of office? Now THAT'S funny!

Re:Easily done:

[Improv]

Would it bother you if your argument, however much it seems to make sense from a "story" point of view, flies in the face of actual data on levels of gun violence versus levels of gun ownership/legality?

Re:Easily done:

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy? You mean that thing which has gotten Mao into office in China in the first place (the majority of the population liked him and the majority were peasants, including the support of a few cities, you can cry all you want about the result but that's the definition of democracy), and the thing that killed millions of Chinese every time it happened.
Democracy doesn't stop civil war, and Democracy doesn't stop crap governments from existing and being voted in, in the first place. When you need to vote a government out, at that point it is already too late and the damage is already done.
Look at your democracy and how it worked in Ukraine.
Democracy is just another failed little hug-word that sounds nice in theory but fails when faced with humanity and its individualism, especially when it turns out that the majority of people who vote are simply stupid and vote based on emotional appeal and how well the politicians word themselves rather than using the brain a little and investigating what they are voting for objectively.

Re:Easily done:

[i kan reed]

They is one major academic publication, by one Dr. DB Kates that they can cite their "millions" thing from but any sort of serious analysis of the methodology of the thing raises huge problems.

#1 It's a phone based poll, where they used percentage of respondents as an analogue of the population. This, in-and-of-itself is pretty reasonable.
#2 The crucial metric of "percentage of respondents who say they used a gun to defend themselves in the past 5 years" is well under the 3%ish of people who freely lie on phone polls, even on subjects where they have no incentive to lie. For closer to 50% response rates, this tends to balance out, as the lies get evenly distributed. For very small margins it becomes a huge problem. This is exacerbated by heavily politicized gun owner respondents have a known motivation to lie.
#3 Through no fault of the criminologist who ran the study, people like, the GP condense that above mentioned 5 year statistic into 1 year. There are statistically meaningful ways to do this, but piling all 5 years as happening in the last year is dumb.
#4 The results were glaringly inconsistent with the overall rate of crimes occurring. Crimes deterred by guns being a greater number than actual police reports when less than half the US population are gun owners is grounds to be suspicious. In conjunction with #2 it's grounds to say that the study provided no meaningful insight.

Re:Easily done:

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever marked this insightful is a obviously on drugs.

Even assuming this is true, how many averted robberies are worth the loss of a human life? One? a hundred? a thousand?

Who cares? It's blatantly obvious that you are a sheep.

How many averted crimes are worth the 100 children that are accidentally killed by guns each year [theguardian.com]?

0-infinity. Natural selection at work should NEVER be interfered with.

Perhaps you should look up the word "democracy". You'll find that the way bad governments are removed in a democracy is by voting them out of office.

Yeah, we have a nice corrupt government... you make sure to tell them you and all your friends didn't actually vote for them in that rigged election right before they kill you and your family. Let me know how that goes for you.

Re:Easily done:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot who wants to get us all killed by our government.

Jesrad's "solution" to the gun situation in the USA is to go back in time. I am fairly certain they were not being serious.

Re:Easily done:

[TubeSteak]

then go lose a world war and dismantle most of your armament producing capability under scrutiny by an occupying force.

The USA (under Bush Jr. and Obama) has been encouraging Japan to become increasingly militaristic over the years.
They're trying to create a stronger military partner to help counterbalance China's burgeoning military spending.

And the current Japanese PM, Shinzo Abe, is essentially the Japanese equivalent of a Holocaust denier,
in that he's repeatedly gone on the record to deny or downplay Japanese war crimes.

His brand of nationalism is also pissing off South Korea, which certainly doesn't promote regional stability.

Re:Easily done:

[harrkev]

Well, since you asked:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary, depending on the study's population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz show between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.[1]:64â"65[2][3] Low end estimates cited by Hemenway show approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.[4][5] Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States

I also love the "FOR THE CHILDREN" argument. To stop child porn, we need to outlaw all encryption. To protect our children from obesity, we have to outlaw fatty foods. Sheesh! Grow up!

Also, lots of children are killed by cars each year. Do you propose banning cars? How about a woman who scares off an intruder with her gun. Is her life and the lives of her children worthless? Put your agenda away and put on your thinking cap.

Re:Easily done:

[Azaril]

100 children die every year in the US from guns (your source) and there are 310 million guns in the US.

700 children die every year in the US from swimming pools (source: CDC) and there are less than 10 million pools in the US.

Clearly therefore, a swimming pool is 217 times or 21600% more dangerous than a gun! A swimming pool also has no real crime prevention use!

Demonstrably, we must ban swimming pools long before we even talk about banning guns. I hope you will write to your congressman immediately, and demand the immediate banning swimming pools. It's easy for them to do, swimming pools don't even have constitutional protection!

Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children?!?!!

Re:Easily done:

[thule]

Citation needed, I think.

PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE

Snarky article about the findings: http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/

Re:Easily done:

[thule]

Even assuming this is true, how many averted robberies are worth the loss of a human life? One? a hundred? a thousand? How many averted crimes are worth the 100 children that are accidentally killed by guns each year?

Clearly cars should be banned. What about swimming pools? I sure there are a ton of things that have value even if somehow people loose their life because those things exist

In the case of firearms, the police have no legal obligation to protect you. This has been upheld in court. This goes back to common law (aka "God given" right) for the right to protect yourself. Not a civil right, that can be taken away. We have a natural right to protect ourselves. That includes the use of firearms.

Re:Easily done:

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org...
This isn't new, nor fabricated. But anti-gun people keep pretending that it is, in lockstep.

Re:Easily done:

[smithmc]

Who commits 90% of the gun crime in the U.S.? Certainly not law abiding citizens.

Well, no, I would suppose not. Kinda obvious.

Re:Easily done:

[smithmc]

...especially when it turns out that the majority of people who vote are simply stupid and vote based on emotional appeal and how well the politicians word themselves rather than using the brain a little and investigating what they are voting for objectively.

But not you, of course. You're smarter than all those little sheeple.

Re:Easily done:

[angel'o'sphere]

MILLIONS of crimes are prevented every year by law abiding citizens either brandishing (99% of the time) or using (1% of the time) their legally held guns.

That is the biggest nonsense I have ever seen.

A citizen does not prevent a crime, he perhaps changes the outcome of the crime.

The tried crime "murder" is prevented so it is the crime "attempted murder" ... same for any other crime where a citizen interferes.

They all are still crimes, they simply failed to be successful in the original attempt.

Re:Easily done:

[angel'o'sphere]

We europeans are thinking about your children.
You seem not.
So you have 800 dead children per year and two majour sources of causes.
If you remove one you can drop that to 700 deaths.
But you don't really want to do that.

Wow ...

Re:Easily done:

[Anonymous Coward]

How many averted crimes are worth the 100 children that are accidentally killed by guns each year?

That's a good question. Off the cuff, I'd say that an accidental death isn't significantly better or worse than an intentional death, and that a dead child isn't significantly better or worse than a dead adult. So I can put an upper limit on the answer, based on the number of averted crimes that would have involved a murder: for example, if 1% of crimes involve a murder, then averting 10,000 crimes would be enough to be worth the 100 children accidentally killed by guns each year. Ancillary benefits to preventing crime (lower stress in the general population, more trust, etc.) would decrease that number.

Can you answer your own question? What exchange rate would you place between averted crimes and accidental child deaths?

Re:Easily done:

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be selfish, but

MILLIONS of crimes are prevented every year by law abiding citizens either brandishing (99% of the time) or using (1% of the time) their legally held guns.

Citation needed, I think.

Even assuming this is true, how many averted robberies are worth the loss of a human life? One? a hundred? a thousand?

At the risk of being selfish, just the prevented rape of MY daughter.

Re: Easily done:

[sycodon]

How about a a whole fucking book of citations?

Re:Easily done:

[catmistake]

Japan never had a gun problem in the first place.

That's a great point. Here's another one: list all the countries, besides the US, with a gun problem.

Re:Easily done:

[catmistake]

Who commits 90% of the gun crime in the U.S.? Certainly not law abiding citizens.

Actually, gun owners commit 100% of the gun crime everywhere.

MILLIONS of crimes are prevented every year by law abiding citizens either brandishing (99% of the time) or using (1% of the time) their legally held guns.

Millions? Ok, cite 50 from 2014. You can't? Stop making shit up. That is total bullshit. Regular gun owners almost NEVER stop crime. They are mostly afraid to, which is why they feel more secure with a gun. They do often make boo boos with their weapons. And you know what? Unarmed people stop crime all the time, far far more often than gun owners. Crime fighting gun owners, take a break! We (the unarmed) got this.

Re: Easily done:

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler was voted into office by popular vote. One of his first acts was gun confiscation.

Re: Easily done:

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said.

The irony

[Anonymous Coward]

is that the "3D printed" gun is probably just a harmless blob of misshapen plastic that would explode in his hand, but the guy probably has a chef's knife in his kitchen that could be used to stab people to death.

Re:The irony

[laird]

Technology has a way of improving over time. They're trying to address the issue now, so that in a few years when printers and printable gun designs are that much more effective, the law is already in place.

All caused by one idiot in the US making a lot of noise about 3d printing guns.

Re:The irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, we all know we now have supersonic passenger transport, Mach 10 fighter jets, and flying cars. Yup, technology sure can improve over time!

I think you meant "a" technology "may" improve over time.

People have been able to build guns out of hardware store items since WWII.

Say, what exactly does the 3D printed gun fire? 3D printed bullets? Japan bans guns but has ammo at every corner store?

This is just more 3D printing hype and nonsense, and some poor autistic schmuck with poor impulse control is paying the price for this mindless 3D hype.

not sure what the big deal is about 3d printed gun

[Anonymous Coward]

zip guns ahve been around for ages, and can be made without machine tools.

casting aluminum wouldn't be hard either. cans + sand/clay + charcoal , followed by some patience.

you deserve neither

[globaljustin]

We already have all the worst sides of authoritarianism, so why not get what few good things there are, too?

you're an idiot

just because some asshats are screening new hire's facebook page doesn't mean we should surrender all privacy rights

really, everything about your post is upside-down...

Re:you deserve neither

[ultranova]

you're an idiot

I acknowledge your feelings of inadequacy. But it would be more effective to improve yourself than attack random strangers online, especially since your ad hominems are less than impressive, too. Might I suggest learning basic reading comprehension as a start?

just because some asshats are screening new hire's facebook page doesn't mean we should surrender all privacy rights

I didn't propose we do.

really, everything about your post is upside-down...

Try adjusting your system configuration.

Re:you deserve neither

[globaljustin]

so what were you suggesting then? when you said this:

We already have all the worst sides of authoritarianism, so why not get what few good things there are, too?

Re:you deserve neither

[globaljustin]

also: I reject your acknowledgement of my feelings

John Lott

[PopeRatzo]

This is why violent crime is so out of control in Japan.

Maybe it's time...

[gwolf]

To stick the head out of a XVIII-century mindset and acknowledge the 2nd Amendment is a useless historic relic that nowadays only injures society?

Re:Maybe it's time...

[andydread]

Well then advocate for a repleal of 2nd ammendment. Creating unconstitutional laws won't solve the problem because they are unconstitutional and will only get shot down by the supreme court. Last time I checked the constitution is that law of the land be it the right to privacy or the right to bear arms. Oh by the way criminals couldn't care less about what the laws of the land are because...well...they are criminals. If the law says you can't own a gun in USA you think the criminals will say "oh well I guess i can't own a gun then because the law says so"? The only people that would own guns are the criminals. I'm not sure I like that setup. I'm from a country where they ban all guns and guess what they have a higher gun crime rate per capita than the US and the people are left defenceless.

Re:Maybe it's time...

[gwolf]

I cannot repeal laws in a country where I am not a citizen. But sadly, the USA blindness on this topic has impacted our lives.

I am Mexican. Believe whatever you want, but during my lifetime, I have not seen a single firearm besides those in control of the security force (and a very old rifle used for hunting, ~25 years ago, in quite a rural setting).

However, our territory is very vast and varied. And you have surely heard we do have violence problem. And you most likely heard about stupid "research" USA programs, such as "Fast and Furious", where guns were *knowingly to the USA authorities* smuggled out of the USA and into Mexico, to help "trace the paths"of the druglords.

Our druglords buy uncontrolled firearms (both "regular" and high-power) in the USA, and use them here. So, yes, I do have basis for complaining on the status quo.

Re:Maybe it's time...

[andydread]

Well i'm from Jamaica. And like you growing up in JA i have not seen a single firearm except those in use by the security forces. I'm sure you have heard of the gun crime problem there in Jamaica and no there is not "Fast and Furious" program involving Jamaica, and no, Jamaica does not share a border with the USA however the country is flooded with illegal guns that only the criminals have because the citizens do not have the right to protect themselves because guns are outright banned. Sorry to have to break it to you. banning guns from the citizens of the USA will not solve the problem with guns in Mexico. Mexico had a crime problem long before "Fast and Furious" was ever concieved and it will have a crime problem long after.

Re:Maybe it's time...

[gwolf]

Banning firearms will not finish the problem, but will very likely decrease it.

I know that single-account experiences are not statistically important, but anyway, it's not the only time I have heard such an account — And all I know is what I (or my close ones) have lived.

My family in Argentina were robbed at home, at gunpoint. The robbers asked them to hand over (in this order) firearms, jewels and money.

If firearms are harder to come by, they will not be likely to be found in a regular person's home. Of course, the black market will still have them — But the black market will have higher prices for them. Fewer wrongdoers will be able to get their hands on weapons.

If you add to this programs such as one implemented in my city, where the local government asks you to (voluntarly) hand over any guns you have paying for them in more useful goods (such as a computer, or even cash), the amount of guns in the street decreases. That means, the amount of armed people decreases. And the price for individual guns (let alone "specialty" guns, which should just be banned outside of army use) goes up. Everybody wins.

Re:Maybe it's time...

[andydread]

But the criminals "the people that commit the crimes with the guns" will still have guns so everybody loses except them. They will be the last to give up their guns. In the town next to where I live a murder/rapist with a gun broke into a home with a mother with her kids in her home. She called the police then She took the kids up to the attic of her home. He came up to the attic and she was able to defend herself and her kids, she shot him. It goes both ways. Banning guns won't change the culture of crime. The problem with crime is the culture not the guns.

Re:Maybe it's time...

[TubeSteak]

Banning firearms will not finish the problem, but will very likely decrease it.

In a Mailbox: A Shared Gun, Just for the Asking

If you search for "community gun" you can find some more articles, from different cities, all saying the same thing.

Re:Maybe it's time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Banning firearms will not finish the problem, but will very likely decrease it.

Ya, prohibition always works. Look how it solved the issue with drunkeness in the 20's and the USA's issues with drugs currently.

Re:Maybe it's time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why is it in places where guns are banned or severely restricted, like London, that the violent crime and murder rate is obscenely high?

How are they killing each other without bullets?

Re:Maybe it's time...

[whodunit]

Our druglords buy uncontrolled firearms (both "regular" and high-power) in the USA, and use them here. So, yes, I do have basis for complaining on the status quo.

Multiple American media outlets made this claim loudly and regularly until the "Fast and Furious" scandal you mentioned broke, which revealed that guns were only crossing the border because the BATFE wanted them to - they specifically forbade gun dealers who were reporting the obvious straw purchasers from refusing them sales so they could carry out their "tracking" scheme. Furthermore, the drugs that fuel the violence and corruption in Mexico come up from South America, and South American manufactured weapons - to say nothing of foreign-manufactured AK-47s and similar weapons - often come with them. Between Central/South America and the United States, which one do you think has a more porous border (by land and sea,) less effective law enforcement and more corrupt local governments?

Re:Maybe it's time...

[angel'o'sphere]

... get shot down ...
I see your point!

The only people that would own guns are the criminals
That is a fallacy ... from where would they get them? In what percentage would they have them? I mean 1 per 1000 criminals? Or 1 per 100? Right now it seems a 1 : 1 relation. If one wants to commit a crime he has a gun, everything else is plain stupid because of self preservation.

Re:Maybe it's time...

[Alomex]

Then why is it in places where guns are banned or severely restricted, like London, that the violent crime and murder rate is obscenely high?

Because they don't? London's murder rate is lower than that of any US state including generally considered safe states like New Hampshire. If you now compare with metropolitan areas London blows most cities right out of the water with its lower murder rate.

Re:Maybe it's time...

[andydread]

in Jamaica where I’m from the country is flooded with guns...flooded. And this is an island surrounded by water on all sides.. Guns are outright banned unless you are a politician or law enforcement. Personal gun ownership is virtually non-existent yet the country has a higher per capita gun murder rate that even the US. One of the highest in the western hemisphere. I know what I'm talking about its not a fallacy at all, in practice its a reality. They smuggle them in from the middle east and Africa where guns are ridiculously cheap. It's a culture problem. When popular media and memes glorify gun murders and guns you have a culture problem. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the entire world yet their gun crimes are extremely low. Again this is reality. So the idea that less legal gun ownership = less criminals with with guns is a pipe dream in the western hemisphere or anywhere where you have a culture of crime.

Re:Maybe it's time...

[Gonoff]

Then why is it in places where guns are banned or severely restricted, like London, that the violent crime and murder rate is obscenely high?

In comparison to the USA, it is not.

Re:Maybe it's time...

[catmistake]

Banning firearms will not finish the problem, but will very likely decrease it.

It's a start, but I think an unncessary over-reaction... the US simply needs better gun-control laws, like other 1st world nations with better gun-control laws. Also, the NRA needs to be held accoutable for the unfortunate things their members sometimes do... that will shut them up with a quickness.

Re:Maybe it's time...

[Anonymous Coward]

have a link to this?

Re:gun laws

[nucrash]

You can comment about race all you want, but that isn't the only factor. In other words, I am calling you a racist idiot.

Correlation doesn't equal causation. There are other factors at work here as well. These racial minority states also share extreme cases of income inequality. When you have a population that is poor, they are going to do what they can to feed their families and take from the haves. If you want more of an example, look at the crime in Brazil. The same problems exist. If we look at the rise of violence in the Arab Spring, we will notice a similar problem. A large populace that is no longer able to support their families, and then violence.

The down side is that income inequality falls along racial lines in many areas of the U.S.

Not strict at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Two years is very lenient for running an illegal firearms factory. I'm glad he got time in prison but it should have been more. Who says he wasn't going to sell them?

Re:gun laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Untrue. Many of the states with the lowest crime rate are extremely poor (Mississippi, Alabama, etc). You can complain about income inequality, and you have a point, but income inequality is partially due to racism which due to race. Plus calling someone a racist idiot is trolling so you should be moderated as such.

Yeahhhhh

[NetNed]

The reason Japan has low to no gun crime isn't the law, it's the values instilled in all there. They are more about the "group" then the individual, which is most have saw in the way they run their businesses and the way employees feel about the businesses they work for. Add to the the sense of tradition and honor that goes from the extremely rich down to the poorest of people. Not that this system is better for the individual as I would bet their suicide rates are massively larger then the US, but to say it's because of stiff penalties on gun is fooling yourself.

Re:Yeahhhhh

[catmistake]

The reason Japan has low to no gun crime isn't the law, it's the values instilled in all there. ...

I would not disagree that Japanese values are admirable. Bbbut.... so its their values??!!!... and not the fact that there's hardly any guns there? Oh, so that explains that there's hardly any gun crime there? Ok. Well, what about Great Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia? Is their low-gun crime, to make an understatement, due to their values? Are Americans just gun-homicidal assholes?

I think you're probably someone like likes guns so much (and it is your right, and guns are neato!!) that you are pretty much willing to believe and preach anything as long as no one says "guns are bad."

Guns are bad. They're not necessary. (Hunting is unncessary, too! But it is fun to kill things.) If you own a gun for protection, the fact IS that it is far more likely that you will injure, maim or kill yourself or someone you love than you will ever get a chance to defend yourself from crime... let alone successfully. Even Secret Service agents, who know their weapon far better than any "Regular," or 2nd Amendment citizen, accidentally shoot each other.

But they're so neat... guns... that rational men are willing to believe anything in order to justify having one. Well... please be careful. I know they're neat as Hell, but they are not toys.

Re:Yeahhhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan has practically zero gun violence. When one person in 125 million is shot it's national news for a week. I live here, I know.

The reason that people don't get shot is that THERE ARE NO GUNS. While it's true that Japanese are culturally less prone to violence then Americans, it is not some mystical-oriental-zen-master-honor-code that prevents gun crime, it is a complete lack of guns and draconian penalties for infractions of the law. There are plenty of assholes, idiots, and losers, and plenty of people get pissed off and double-crossed. If they could buy guns, they would. And then the people who had to deal with them would buy guns for protection. And then it would look like a (milder) version of the US.

Re:gun laws

[Anonymous Coward]

See? This is egalitarianism carried to it's extreme. Looking at any racial factor is automatically racist.

Fine, because I'm not 100% egalitarian (except that people ought to be treated the same in the eyes of the law), I'm a racist too. I believe in evolution, and I think that the evolution that made different races gave them more than different facial features and color. Gasp!

Somehow it's not racist to recognize black people (Eastern Africans iirc) as faster runners or better at certain sports so much that they, even as a minority, in this country crowd out certain professional leagues, but we have to believe that evolution stopped just below the neckline.

Black violence greatly outnumbers white violence. Black on white violence is much greater than the other way around (even with the FBI adding hispanics to that perpetrator number for some reason but splitting hispanics for the victims category). White on black rape is practically nil.

What your parent post is on about is that people feel uncomfortable living in mixed communities. They withdraw from community life and become apathetic, even to their own race. This in turn raises overall crime rate. This has been studied and even results reported in the news.

BTW, it turns out income correlates with IQ but different races have different IQ bellcurves. IQ is not socio-economic, because Native Indians have either equal or close to white IQ iirc, but tend to be much poorer (on the reservations).

You mean...

[denzacar]

Bruce Willis lied to us?!

I think that idea is foolish and unethical

[Anonymous Coward]

First it would that take away the right to self defense, which is a God given right. Without a gun, one cannot defent oneself against a stronger opponent. But it would also give free reign to those who still have the right to keep arms (say, the government) to Lord it over the populace and turn us all into serfs. I'm sure they would like your plan and reasoning.

Re:gun laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Violence causally correlates with guns for stone-chipping Bantu savages . Everywhere, but their native savanna blood-bling is king for the Bantu. EOF.

The ebola plan you propose would not work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Having worked at the CDC, unless ebola has been SIGNIFICANTLY changed, it is not a good virus for weaponization. It depends upon bodily fluids being transferred. It is a virus with a thin coat around it, that breaks down with UV rays. For that reason (and others) it transmits best when people catch it in areas with lots of foliage to block UV rays (jungle) where people are not quarantined and treatment is often by close friends and families in a not-so-sanitary environment. This has come up on the news but never seems to be emphasized, perhaps because it would lower interest in what seems to be the hottest news story of Late.

On the other hand, smallpox might be an excellent virus for weaponization. It is quite communicable by air. Hopefully, the few organizations that still have a few samples (CDC and a few others) are going to be 'more than careful' with whatever they have . . . . or get rid of it if they are not.

Re:The ebola plan you propose would not work.

[mark_reh]

You don't understand. While ebola might be a poor weapon compared to something like smallpox in terms of its ability to kill large numbers of people, it is readily available (just a plane ride or two away) and produces HUGE amounts of fear. Fear is the goal of terrorism, and fear is what is expensive. All those people blowing themselves up don't usually manage to kill more than a few others in their immediate vicinity but that's OK because killing a lot of people isn't necessary to instill fear. People never know when someone is going to try to do it near them, so they stay away from markets, cafes, etc. that are easy targets. Airlines can't sell tickets when people are afraid they'll catch ebola on a flight. If people aren't traveling, all the associated businesses suffer. Everything shuts down.

Remember 911? What did the response cost? Trillions of dollars wasted on pointless wars, lost business, creation and operation of the TSA, universal government surveillance of US citizens, etc. And what did it cost the terrorists? A few hundred thousand to have a few guys trained to fly jets.

The day a news story breaks about government agents arresting a terror suspect at a border and finding that they recently traveled to west Africa is the day everything stops working for months.

Sant

[santyago1985]

soon it will be possible to print human organs

Re: gun laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked there was at least one gun which was not supposed to kill people.

But why exactly are we letting "well, it could be used for X..." dictate the legality of something?

Re:gun laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the gun crime phenomenon is far more specific than certain races.

The overwhelming majority of gun-related homicides and crimes among blacks and Latinos are committed by poor and working-class gang members with inadequate education and low prospects, similar to the vast majority of violent crimes among whites are committed by poor and working class gang members with inadequate education and low prospects--biker gangs, meth dealers, white supremacist gangs etc.

Like the overwhelming majority of whites and asians, the overwhelming majority of blacks and Latinos--armed or unarmed--do not commit violent crimes because they are neither poor, nor gang members, nor undereducated with low prospects.

Please remember next time that both relevancy and specificity matters in these kind of social science discussions.

Re:gun laws

[nucrash]

In the cases of Violent Crimes, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia rank 30th, 18th, and 19th, respectively according to census.gov.
http://www.census.gov/statab/r...
These aren't exactly low figures.

Let's look at some other poorer states.

South Carolina is 1st.
Tennessee is 2nd.
Nevada is 3rd.
Florida is 4th.

Looking at the following report on income disparity between states, I am seeing some similar names at the top of that list:
http://www.epi.org/publication...
Florida
Nevada

Interestingly enough, Mississippi actually proves my point in that it's one of the states with the least amount of income inequality and actually further down on that list.

Thank you for that Mr. Anonymous Coward.

Oh, and to further ad to the flames of failure.
Mississippi has the highest percentage of African Americans by state, and ranks 30th in the amount of violent crime there. Even further reinforcing that race is actually not an issue:
http://kff.org/other/state-ind...

I restate my previous suggestion that quenda is a racist idiot.

 

His mistake was posting he had made them...

[Karmashock]

... on the internet.

Imagine if he hadn't... you'd never know. The police didn't catch him or do some investigation. He said he had them on the internet. Did he even have bullets? In any case, what this makes clear is that if you print a gun... don't post that you've done it on the internet. They're watching.

And all of you that think you can control this thing... you can't. Your entire legal enforcement concept is obsolete. The most you'll be able to do is bust morons. Anyone with any sense won't broadcast that they've done it. They'll just have it.

And the crazies will of course use the guns for mass shootings or whatever. You can't stop this by going after the guns. You never could. You want to stop this? Go after crazy people. They are the lowest common denominator in mass shootings.

There is always a crazy person behind the trigger. But how many people that own guns go on mass shootings? Very very very few. As a result, if you want to stop mass shootings what does it make more sense to regulate? Something that often does not predict violent behavior? Or something that pretty much leads to one kind of inappropriate behavior or another.

Do I want to make their lives harder with government oversight? No. Ideally we should sort the violent from the non-violent. The violent crazies... sorry but we need to keep tabs on them.

Re:His mistake was posting he had made them...

[angel'o'sphere]

Everyone who is caught with a gun gets plenty of years jail time. (That includes using it in self defense)
Everyone who commits a crime with a gun gets likely a life long sentence.

As far as I can tell, ownership of guns is quite nicely controlled.

Sure: people _can have one_ but they would be brain dead if they did.

Otherwise all Yakuza had guns: surprise! They have none!

Re:His mistake was posting he had made them...

[Karmashock]

So you're saying organized crime and smuggle tons of heroine into a country but not a handgun?

If they don't do it, it is because they choose not to do it. Not because your police stop it. Were that otherwise smuggling wouldn't be so prevalent. And of course it is. Can I get cocaine in Japan? Then I can get M16 if the price is right.

That however was the old status quo. That was the pre 3d printed world.

What we're coming into is a situation where anyone with the machine can have the thing. Right now, cheap machines can only pop out plastic crap. The higher end machines can print fully functional metal guns indistinguishable from production grade weapons.

Moore's law works on more then CPUs. The technology is improving geometrically. That is what you're arguing against here.

You want to say I'm wrong? Okay. You're denying the Sun. You're saying the tides are not real. You are saying gravity is a figment of my imagination.

And what I can say to that? I say... "okay"... and then go about my life knowing that reality isn't going to permit you to contradict it when push comes to shove.

Re:His mistake was posting he had made them...

[shutdown -p now]

If they don't do it, it is because they choose not to do it.

It's because they don't need it. In a disarmed society, you don't need to have a gun to extort money by force.

Re:His mistake was posting he had made them...

[angel'o'sphere]

The point is a smuggled gun is so expensive that only very few would be able to afford it.
As soon as a gun is used the hunt is open anyway.
Furthermore: ifvI wanted a gun, regardless if in germany or japan, how would I find the guy who sells it?
I allready need to be a criminal to even get into touch with a gun smuggler or cocaine smuggler.
You simply seem not to grasp that bullshit like rubbery with a gun in your face happens neither in Japan nor in Germany: because 'criminals' so low on the ladder of being criminals have no way in hell to get a gun.

Re:His mistake was posting he had made them...

[Karmashock]

People were talking about organized crime in japan. So... do you think organized crime in japan has any trouble getting all the guns they "WANT"... the answer is obviously. They smuggle more then that all the time.

Regardless... on the issue printed weapons... we can already pump out plastic weapons from printers that print plastic.

What happens when the public has printers that can print metal?

The metal printers can already print production grade weapons. One of the printing companies printed a 1911 pistol.

Now you can control that to some extent by controlling the sale of ammunition. But it really depends on what you're printing.

I would print a shotgun. Mostly because the ammo is really easy to make yourself.

Here is the thing. You can't stop a psychopath by controlling weapons. You can change the way that organized crime deals with people. But a mass killer is going to find a way. Keep in mind you can make a powerful bomb with fertilizer. Keep in mind you can make poison gas with cleaning supplies.

At a certain point, there is substitute for simply trusting people. And that means that if you really want to control this issue you need to know who is crazy and who is not.

Re:His mistake was posting he had made them...

[angel'o'sphere]

The organized crime on Japan has no guns.
I don't care if they could have, fact is they have not.

Ofc a psychopath or anyone putting enough energy into it can cause havock or get a gun 'somehow' ... but it is much less likely that this happens in a country like most of eorope or japan than in e.g. the USA.

Re:His mistake was posting he had made them...

[Karmashock]

Refusing to consider hypotheticals renders any conceptual discussion beyond your ability to analyze. You cannot talk about WHY things are the way they are if you cannot consider hypotheticals.

This is why politicians hate hypothetical questions because the actually address the consequences of their policies. They only want to talk about what is and what was. Never mind they're changing legislation all the time that will effect what will be. But if you talk about that before what will be "is" they refuse to talk about it until it "is".

The conflict is that you can't rationally project into the future. under that logic. And so you sacrifice any ability to tell me WHY things are they way they are or what things will be like in the future because YOU refuse to consider hypotheticals.

Its a dumb defense. Consider hypotheticals or you can't participate rationally in any discussion of this nature.

Re:gun laws

[nucrash]

My post was appropriate because I later backed up claims with evidence that race was not a factor in violent crime.

Mississippi of all places supports my claim in that the racial diversity in that state is the highest, by overall, violent crime is ranked 30th.

The previous poster didn't have any evidence to back up his or her claim. His or her claim was uneducated and therefore based out of ignorance. Ergo, I have every right to call him or her a racist idiot.

If you wish to further dispute this, give me some evidence to chew on and I will back down. If you want to continue defending false claims tied to race, awesome.

Japan isn't the United States

[ArcadeMan]

I wouldn't be surprised to see the exact same thing happen in Canada or France.

Re:Japan isn't the United States

[shutdown -p now]

A similar thing did happen in UK, actually, and before this whole 3D gun printing craze at that. There was a guy, you see, who figured out that you can actually make a reasonably efficient firearm (a smoothbore submachinegun chambered in 9x19mm - good enough for distances up to 50m or so) out of shelf components - steel tubes and such - if you just pick the ones with the right diameter. So he set on a quest to do just that, wrote a book detailing how to build one, and published it in 1998.

This being UK, after he published it, they charged him with construction of an illegal firearm. He's still in prison. The book is still on Amazon.

Re:gun laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure as hell am. The gun culture in this country has gotten out of control.

I am nearing the point of being able to cash in on a long stretch of running a profitable business. The more I think about, the more I want to take the millions of dollars I have earned and move to a country with a higher degree of sanity. Fortunately I am still young enough to get dual citizen in Australia.

Yall bunch of crazy bitches can keep your precious guns. I'll take my money and prosper elsewhere in peace and safety.

Why do you own a gun?

[Art Popp]

To defend the civil liberties of my fellow humans at any personal cost.

Why don't you own a gun?

Re:Why do you own a gun?

[mspohr]

I think it's stupid to believe that you can defend anyone's civil liberties with a gun.

Re:Why do you own a gun?

[BasilBrush]

Then you're an idiot. You don't get your own way with the US government just because you wield a gun. It never ends well for the idiot libertarians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

Re:Why do you own a gun?

[Art Popp]

And that's the problem, your belief system. You asked the right question: Why own one? So you may not be married to that system. But then you discount the best reason and the most frequently occuring application.

If you were asking your question honestly, then you probably have no attraction to violence, and are enormously likely to be a good person. Therefore, you can probably say with certainty that you'd never shoot school children with your gun. But you'd probably be willing to shoot someone trying to shoot school children with a gun.

It's you I want to arm. Seriously. It's people like you, with no attraction to violence that should lug around: a paramedic kit, a fire extinguisher, and a firearm for just those emergencies where seconds make the difference. In any other case, you would leave the problem to the ambulance crew, the fire crew or the police, but countless lives are saved every year by people who had the skills and tools to step into one of these varieties of tragedy and stop innocent people from being hurt. You can too.

If people being paid for their skills are assumed to be the only ones that have them, there would be no Linux.

Re:Why do you own a gun?

[mspohr]

Unfortunately the track record of citizens stopping crime with guns is poor. The gun is much more likely to end up harming someone innocent.
I don't even think police should have guns. They end up shooting innocent people or killing criminals for property crimes and I don't think capital punishment is appropriate for property crimes.

Re:Why do you own a gun?

[Art Popp]

>I don't think capital punishment is appropriate for property crimes.

See now, you're exactly the kind of person who should be armed. I agree.

>Unfortunately the track record of citizens stopping crime with guns is poor.

It's actually quite excellent, but the path to that determination is extremely complicated. I do not fault someone who starts with your beliefs for coming to opposite conclusion based on the available evidence.

The problem isn't you, and I don't think it's a flaw with my grasp of stats. either. It is very hard for anyone to measure the number of problems prevented by any factor unless they turn that factor on and off and measure the results in both states, in the same place. Fire is a good example. Fire extinguishers prevent almost zero fires every year. Since they are only generally applied to existing fires, the fires are not prevented. A judgement call is made by the humans that the fire extinguisher made a postitive difference in the situation, and in nearly all the cases where a personal fire extinguisher put out the flame, the fire goes unreported. This plays HELL with any fire statistics gathering. Now imagine if fire extinguishers could occasionally be abused to start fires. Given our poor inputs on how many fires that extinguishers "keep from getting worse" how could we measure that scientifically against how many they start to see if they are a net benefit?

Given the above I would state: It is hard to solve the macro scale math that would determine the appropriate level of firearms distribution for maximum positive effect.

You can solve this problem on the micro scale though. You can take a couple local policemen to lunch (btw: steaks work better than donuts) ask them about the local crime, and then go to a defensive-weapons trainer and ask him about the tools that are effective against those classes of crime. It might be there aren't any and guns are just useless where you live (e.g. Maui); might be that you're a fool to step outside unarmed (Seven Mile Rd., 3:00 a.m. Detroit).

I've helped a non-statistically valid sample of people in the triple digits with this problem. The overwhelmingly popular solution: Pepper spray. Not any; the good shit, found here:
http://www.kimberamerica.com/p...

Dominating reason: Nice people hesitate to shoot bad people. It's just not something they learn to do easily. (Weird, eh?) But considerably less hesitation comes with a non-permanent solution. And less hesitation means substantially more effectiveness.

Be safe.

Re:Why do you own a gun?

[amiga3D]

Police don't shoot people for property crimes. Well....not usually. They shoot people when they go to arrest them for property crimes and they use a weapon to resist. I don't want to kill anyone over property but you have to figure that if someone breaks into a home where people are present that he is prepared to harm those people or he'd never break in with someone home. Most thieves will avoid homeowners but the ones who don't are dangerous.

Re:Why do you own a gun?

[amiga3D]

You are of course correct. You don't know how many police they'll use to overwhelm you but you can bet it'll be a whole bunch and generally there are at least a few in that bunch who are itching to kill someone. Best way to fight the Feds is to hire a lawyer. Litigate.

Re: Why do you own a gun?

[Anonymous Coward]

They seem to be shooting people for fun these days.

Re:Why do you own a gun?

[Anonymous Coward]

Never?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

Re: Why do you own a gun?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is what the media would have you believe. The cop in MO was acting in self defense.

Re:gun laws

[alvinrod]

I think you missed the part where the OP pointed out that it doesn't come down completely to race:

Importantly, the white-only homicide rate in the US overall is still much higher than the total homicide rate in the above states, so the cause is not simple.

Also there's no indication that race causes more gun violence, merely that it's correlated with it, which is why the cause is not that simple. Add in some simple controls for socioeconomic status and it becomes obvious that makes more a difference than race, but because those two have a strong correlation in the U.S. people often hastily jump to conclusions.

You've jumped to conclusions as well and have been quick to label someone else a racist because you didn't take the time to read. Maybe you just didn't read fully, or perhaps you've decided that any mention of race at all makes someone racist, or perhaps worse yet you're the type of person who casually applies the term to anyone you disagree with.

Homogenous societies in general tend to have less violence regardless of the race of the people involved. I think that's the point that was being made.

Re:They should do the same in the US

[fustakrakich]

Well, to me, the simple solution is to just get people to stop shooting each other. Get them all to look into the mirror every morning and say, *I feel good, and I will not shoot anybody today*.

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, see, you buy overpriced Tokyo Marui airsoft guns or you gtfo.

Can't wait to see what happens when people start driving the japanese airsoft business into the ground with 3D printers, forget real guns.

Re:gun laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns have nothing to do with the murder rate, buddy.

Literally more people die in the US on average from gravity each year than from gun murders. Look it up. People die from falling.

Re:gun laws

[smithmc]

We don't have to look at Japan. Let's look at Canada. The gun ownership rate in Canada is about 1/3 that of the United States (~30 per 100K people vs. ~90), and its homicide rate is... hm, a little less than 1/3 that of the US (1.44/100K vs. 4.7). How 'bout that.

proof banning guns doesn't harm criminals

[Cito]

Every member of the yakuza have pistols, and the various gangs. But banning guns keeps civilians from defending themselves.

When you ban guns it never stops criminals from getting them. It makes it easier for criminals to get and easier for them to use to take whatever. Its also why the yakuza are more powerful than their own government

Re:proof banning guns doesn't harm criminals

[harryjohnston]

In reality, in nations like New Zealand (and Japan, I believe) criminals rarely use guns. A well-connected crook can get a gun if he wants one, but the risks generally outweigh the benefits. (For a start, using a gun to commit a crime guarantees much more police attention than you would otherwise get. And if you do get caught, you can expect a much harsher sentence.)

Re:proof banning guns doesn't harm criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is your proof? You state you have proof, then expound your opinions.

Here is a thought exercise, check the stats on gun violence there, and gun violence in the US or whatever you are from.

ffs

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohhhh internet and like every gun debate you have people with no idea what they're talking about, offering absurd solutions to non-existent problems and utterly ignoring reality.

"Guns in the street/on the street" is a cop term meaning illegal guns, the same way you would use those terms to describe illegal drugs. A draconian, fascist program where you hand over your guns, involuntarily or not, in exchange for something else (besides your freedom and life) or not, does nothing. All it does is take legal guns out of the hands of legal gun owners.

Why in the FUCK would criminals willingly hand in their guns, especially if they see legally armed citizens turning their own guns over? Seriously?

PS AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. It was never a democracy, and it will never be a democracy. There is no such thing, as a democracy, anywhere in the world. It is physically impossible to maintain one. The USA is a representative republic. Democracy is not even a word in that governing system. We elect local officials at the local and state level, and federal officials at the state level. Those officials then attempt to vote the way their constituents want, almost always leaving somebody in the cold by design, and when it comes time to elect a national executor, their votes most certainly have nothing to do with democracy. The majority of states in the United States use the "winner takes all" system in the electroal college to allot their presidential votes to a candidate. Meaning we don't elect the president, they do. Your vote literally does not matter because even if a significant portion - even if multiple entire counties in your state vote for a candidate - the candidate who gets more votes in the state wins all the votes of that state.

So no, not a democracy. Never has there been a democracy since ancient Greece and even then it was a small-scale experiment.

Re:gun laws

[andydread]

co-relation != causation. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world yet they have lower gun crimes per capita than Canada so your point is total unsubstantiated bullshit. Like I said it's a culture problem not an amount of guns or gun ownership problem.

Re:gun laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you advocating like the Atlantic that we go the way of Japan and basically ban gun ownership in the US? you know like repeal the 2nd Amendment? in order to curb shooting deaths? If not then that link is moot.

It's not the second amendment that makes law enforcement difficult in the US; it's the fourth amendment. In Japan if law enforcement officials search you because they think you have a gun, finding a gun is sufficient to indicate that it was a valid search.

If you take away the fourth amendment in the US, we could have many fewer gun deaths, even with a second amendment. And a police state of course, but hey, what's a little freedom in exchange for more security?

Re:gun laws

[quenda]

Homogenous societies in general tend to have less violence regardless of the race of the people involved. I think that's the point that was being made.

Thats certainly a factor. Japan obviously is very homogenous, as are many of the nations with low violent crime.

  However there are notable exceptions: Singapore has large disadvantaged minorities, is highly urbanised, yet still has an exceptionally low murder rate. It doesn't hurt that guns are almost non-existent there.

Same applies to Bahrain and Kuwait (racially diverse, very low murder rates). So much for middle-eastern stereotypes.
New Guinea is racially homogenous with a very high murder rate - but culturally diverse with 800-odd languages.

(BTW, I look at murder rate partly because the figures are much more reliable in comparing countries. Methodologies, reporting rates etc vary more for other crimes.)

Re:gun laws

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about with regard to not being "heavy penalties?" Ever looked up their method of handling death sentences? Makes even Saudi Arabia look nice.

Re:gun laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Errm, actually gun murders track incredibly well with gun ownership. You'll notice New England is fine, Wyoming, the gun-lovingist state in the union, not so much.

http://feature.rollingstone.com/feature/gun-control/map#deadPer100K

Why do I own a gun?

[OutOnARock]

I won't get this 100% correct, but Ice T, once said something to the effect:

"I don't own a gun for hunting. I don't own a gun for target practice. I own a gun for two reasons:
1) to defend myself from a crazed individual intent upon depriving me of my civil liberties
2) to defend myself from a crazed government intent upon depriving me of my civil liberties

exactly why I own 3.....

Re:gun laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, wait. 30th is a low figure? But then you state that Mississippi has the highest % of AA, but ranks 30th. I think you are confusing race with "being black". My point is that income inequality is partially due to racism, and income inequality is part of what causes crime.

Quote (by you):

"But not all the US: places such as New England, Iowa, the Dakotas, Minnesota, Wyoming, Utah all have homicide rates not so much worse than Europe and Australia."

Yeah. I wonder why.

Re:gun laws

[Lord Kano]

You cannot possibly understand the US murder rate without looking at race and guns.

How do you explain the fact that Japanese-Americans have a lower homicide rate than Japanese in Japan?

LK

Re:gun laws

[quenda]

How do you explain the fact that Japanese-Americans have a lower homicide rate than Japanese in Japan?

LK

- as a wild guess, discriminatory immigration (no criminal record allowed, higher education an advantage)
- one is the overwhelmingly dominant culture while the other a tiny minority, so any comparison is pointless.
- both are very low, and US data not accurate enough to know if that is true anyway. Your data is based on rough estimates with a large error range.
- you are attempting a distraction that has nothing to do with my post. I do not even offer an explanation for the data I observed, except to agree that homogenous societies tend to have less crime, more cohesion. - which may be only a small part of the answer.