Slashdot Mirror
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.
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. "
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
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.
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 ...
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...
When they eliminate computers as well, there won't be any computer crimes.
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.
Oh well, if his guns work as well as my Kawasaki it'll all end in broken parts, thrown rods and tears anyway :p
I know where that reference leads to ,.....
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.
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).
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
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.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
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?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
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.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
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.
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.
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.
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 ... :-(
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.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
This. And it was like in Europe, where the crossbow was considered unacceptable for letting an ordinary person kill the armoured nobles.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
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 did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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...
Thank you Dave Raggett
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.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
This is why violent crime is so out of control in Japan.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How would a state form a well regulated militia?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
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.
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. .
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
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.
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.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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.
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.
Have you considered submitting your material to Women & Guns?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
TSA security checkpoints have only made it easier for terrorists to kill air travelers.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Bruce Willis lied to us?!
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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.
soon it will be possible to print human organs
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Man, nothing makes me angrier than a spineless serf who thinks anyone who owns a gun is going to "gun down children".
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.
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.
Place something witty here
... 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.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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.
Place something witty here
I wouldn't be surprised to see the exact same thing happen in Canada or France.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
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.
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.
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.
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.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
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.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
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?
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If real guns are better and cheaper than 3D printed guns, then gun companies need not worry about lost revenues either.
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.
I don't think they have "trigger-happy cops" in Japan, probably because real guns are basically illegal.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Adam Lanza, the Trenchcoat Mafia, etc. obviously didn't care about getting away with it, now, did they?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
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.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
To defend the civil liberties of my fellow humans at any personal cost.
Why don't you own a gun?
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.
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.
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.
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*.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
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.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
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.
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
And legalizing weapons in america goes back to defend yourself from evil people like redcoats, slaves, or federal gvt.
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.
If you think that I would say that smoking had something to do with it. Maybe you should cut down?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
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.
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 )
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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?
I see your point!
The only people that would own guns are the criminals ... 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.
That is a fallacy
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
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.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
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.....
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.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
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
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - 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
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Or even more specifically, having an item that was too easy to turn into a gun without a license.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - 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
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - 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
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
The Admin and the Engineer
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.)
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.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
What makes you think he wouldn't have just run if he heard you shouting?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
What a lot of nonsense, if anything weapons empower the sociopaths.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
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.
And a gun is only one type of weapon. A lot of worse weapons are childishly simple to make.
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.
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.
Don't forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... .
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
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.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!