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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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 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.)