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.
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 ...
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
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
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.
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.'"
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?