Two Year Sentence For 3D Print a Gun.

[Shroomster]

@hawaiims

Look at the post I quoted for the love of god.  I quoted a post that said all guns should be banned and how bad of an idea it is to have individuals to own guns. Don't try to be a smartass if you cannot read

[TheProfosist]

-snip-

But ask any Japanese person if they would want to have guns legalized for any use and I can guarantee you almost all of them would be against it. When you have no guns, there is no reason to have a gun.

That's sort of the problem in the US, people feel they need to have guns because others have guns so it becomes a game of cat and mouse. But when you have next to 0 there is no reason for that.

Correct.

[pdv789]

Actually talking to a lot of Japanese residents they don't even consider this a topic worth discussing. Why you ask? Because it isn't a issue in their minds. They don't think having guns will deter violence any more than it will create it. Their language alone is passive aggressive in itself, They don't say You did this. Instead they said someone has done this. They are very passive about things, Americans are not. 2 COMPLETELY different culters. It's like comparing the moon to the sun, 2 almost polar lifestyles, don't even try.

[trentonjeffro]

And the results are showing: 

 

In Japan, annual firearm homicides total 

2008: 11

2002: 47

2001: 56

1997: 34

1996: 36

1995: 42

 

In the United States, annual firearm homicides total 

2012: 8,896

2011: 11,101

2010: 11,078

2009: 11,493

2008: 12,179

2007: 12,632

2006: 12,791

2005: 12,352

2004: 11,624

2003: 11,920

2002: 11,829

2001: 11,348

2000: 10,801

1999: 10,828

1998: 9,257

That does not mean because Japan has stricter gun laws, they have fewer homicides. That just shows that there are fewer criminals that want to commit those crimes. Guns are tools, it depends on the purpose the person operating it gives it. I use a rifle for shooting deer during deer season, starts November 15th where I live. I don't use a rifle to go on top of a building and shoot 12 people before I am caught. I carry a concealed pistol on me when I go into the city for protection.Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Criminals will get a weapon any way they want. Laws preventing or not. So please do not blame every person that owns a gun and is a law abiding citizen for all the homicides in America. It is not law abiding citizens. It is criminals.

[MrLomax]

didn´t know we had NRA folks in this community.

 

Only guns id like to be used are videogame ones.

 

Its so difficult for me to understand the civil use of firearms. Maybe b/c im from Europe

[trentonjeffro]

didn´t know we had NRA folks in this community.

 

Only guns id like to be used are videogame ones.

 

Its so difficult for me to understand the civil use of firearms. Maybe b/c im from Europe

Guns are fun to shoot. You can hunt for food with them, hunting is super fun and it takes a lot of skill and patience. I love guns and the gun community, I don't understand why people would want to try and pass laws to only hurt the people who don't break the law.

[pdv789]

THIS topic is about a guy printing a gun in JAPAN. They do have laws against owning one let alone printing one. Let's stay on topic. While it may a topic worthy discussion about the us laws this guy did break a MAJOR law in japan. They do have laws the we do not and that is important. He was printing off guns in japan and *I* think he got off easy considering he was promoting such an illegal ring in that country and only got 2 years in prison. That just goes to prove how little of an issue they consider this with their own issues.

[rookiecrd1]

Here's another somewhat related story.  School fires tech for 3D printing a piece of a paintball gun.  A bit ridiculous!

 

http://3dprint.com/19582/tech-fired-over-3dpaintballgun/

[MrSuperb]

Guns are fun to shoot. You can hunt for food with them, hunting is super fun and it takes a lot of skill and patience. I love guns and the gun community, I don't understand why people would want to try and pass laws to only hurt the people who don't break the law.

 

guns for hunting are normally quite different from guns for killing people.

A restricted and controlled access to guns, won't stop you from going hunting with your beloved rifle.

 

hunting:

 

killing people 

[Guest]

Millions of law abiding gun owners would disagree.

sorry mate but i would rather 8,000 people less die a year than a few macho people can indulge in a hobby of gun possession

[Trik'Stari]

sorry mate but i would rather 8,000 people less die a year than a few macho people can indulge in a hobby of gun possession

Your statement reeks entirely of complete and total ignorance of the culture about which you speak. Also say that to the people who get raped and or murdered each year because they have no means with which to defend themselves.

 

If you saying a law completely irradicate the crime it's trying to prevent. Then no that will never happen. However there are plenty of laws that have substantially reduced the number of crimes its trying to prevent.

Without law there really wouldn't be order. Think of laws are rules that general society lives by. The punishment is a deterrent to those who think about breaking such rules. I'm not saying all laws are good and correct but surprisingly people need order.

Again, laws do not prevent crime, the people with guns that enforce the consequences do. A piece of paper can't do anything, a person with a gun can, for good or evil. Laws do not prevent crime, they validate the punishment for those who do break the law, and there have been ample studies suggesting that harsher consequences for breaking the law do not deter crime.

[trentonjeffro]

guns for hunting are normally quite different from guns for killing people.

A restricted and controlled access to guns, won't stop you from going hunting with your beloved rifle.

 

hunting:

 

killing people 

I own 2 Glocks. I do not kill people with them. So are you saying everyone who owns a Glock is a gang banging thug murderer? I do not like that. Glocks are the best pistols in my eyes. I like 1911's aswell, but glocks are durable, and relatively cheap. I do not kill people with either of my glocks. Please do not talk about stuff you don't know about. I am just not going to talk about how little you know in the situation. And what about turkey hunting. I gotta use a 12 gauge. Does that also make me a murderer? But guns are not instruments of murder. They are tools. I can kill you with a knife. Wanna ban knives?  I suggest you try shooting a Glock, it is great, get a nice glock 17 in 9mm. Please don't call everyone that has a glock a murderer.One more thing, I sometimes hunt with an AR-15(for you non gun people, it is a semi-auto version of an M16/M4 rifle), not an "Assault  Rifle" like the liberal anti-gunners call it, it is a Modern Sporting Rifle. Do you consider a 30 round magazine a "High Capacity" Magazine? It isn't. It is the stock magazine that comes with the rifle. A high-cap mag would be something like a 60 round drum mag.Thanks. 

[Toddwjp]

That's a horrendous ideal. Value and threat are subjective, your subjective values should not sway my subjective values in a real world situation. The onus for protection of the aggressor is on the aggressor, and is pre-empted entirely by the AGGRESSOR NOT AGGRESSING. If you are violating my person or property I did not force you to do that, and I cannot operate under the auspices of "my stuff or life is only worth this much in the face of aggression" it does not matter if the purse being stolen has only a wallet with ID and cards or insulin, that woman has the right to use her gun to end the assault. If you aggress you have NO defense against whatever force the victim feels necessary to defuse, reclaim, or protect. You aggress against me I HAVE to operate under the assumption there is no respect for my person or property, your aggression has demonstrated your lack of respect for that, I cannot know where your aggression is going to end.

 

The moral obligation is on the aggressive party and as the immoral actor it does not change if its a 200 pound gang banger attacking a little old lady or a 140 pound crack head attacking an MMA fighter. If my protection is a gun my "reasonable force" is anything including using the gun to end the assault. IF I am able to end the assault without killing you, and end your aggression, after I have reclaimed my property and status quo has been reestablished I have no right to initiate any more force. But in the act of aggression I have every right to defend myself with whatever means are at my disposal. The only question after the fact is whether it was defense of aggression or not. The entire moral question lies with the aggressor.

 

i love how you try to make your argument sound good by building up alot of language around a very short argument.

[tavirosu]

This thread: 50% of american "law abiding" gun owners who can't imagin living in a country where you can't legally own a fire arm and even non-leathal guns require a permit and registration. Get into your small head, the world doesn't relove arround US or US legislature, even more on gun legislation. US is the exception when it comes to it, the rest of civilized society understood that reducing the no. of guns and gun owners is the only viable safety measure!

The other 50% are people that understand the law is the law and if you go against it you will suffer!

[MrSuperb]

I own 2 Glocks. I do not kill people with them. So are you saying everyone who owns a Glock is a gang banging thug murderer? I do not like that. ..... blablabla

No, I never said that.

I said there are guns designed with hunting in mind and guns designed to kill(or at least severly hurt) people.

You want to tell me, that Glock developed the Glock 17 as hunting pistol ...

Yes, I can use a kitchen knife as a weapon. But it isn't its orignally purpose.

Yes, I can use a shoe lace as a weapon. But it isn't its orignally purpose.

Yes, I can use a hammer as a weapon. But it isn't its orignally purpose.

Yes, I can use a car as a weapon. But it isn't its orignally purpose.

A Glock IS a weapon. It was designed by Glock to kill or hurt people.

[Lepp]

Ermm....your idea of much slower, and mine are obviously quite far apart. Those two numbers are vastly different.

 

Sarcasm never seems to comes across right. To be fair though, it actually cut the difference in half. Still way too high.

[HalGameGuru]

The result of our referendum was 84% for the no, voters consisted of 79% of the Italian population; and just for your information Naples as way more citizens than Rome, heck the south Italy in general is more populated than the north and center Italy. The referendum was almost 30 years ago and no one complains about the decision, so we must have done something right.

 

That makes sense, its one of the reasons there is a strong secessionist movement in Venice, the north is being bled dry by the votes from the south. Like America pre Civil-War but the sides are reversed.

[HalGameGuru]

Yes, and if you did your research you would know that there is such a thing as hunting licenses in Japan. It of course limits the type of gun you are allowed to own and you have to have background checks, a mandatory gun safety class and need to renew it quite often.

 

Guns aren't completely banned in Japan, they're just not allowed for any use other than hunting and for the very few professionals who do pistol shooting etc.. as a sport. 

 

But ask any Japanese person if they would want to have guns legalized for any use and I can guarantee you almost all of them would be against it. When you have no guns, there is no reason to have a gun.

 

That's sort of the problem in the US, people feel they need to have guns because others have guns so it becomes a game of cat and mouse. But when you have next to 0 there is no reason for that. 

 

When you've been groomed for a couple centuries to be a cowed populace, there's gonna be an effect. "Only the samurai class should have access to weapons." A caste system breeds slaves to the caste system.

 

Just because there were slaves that didn't want to leave their masters doesn't mean slavery was A-OK, or that you leave slavery in place.

[HalGameGuru]

guns for hunting are normally quite different from guns for killing people.

A restricted and controlled access to guns, won't stop you from going hunting with your beloved rifle.

 

hunting:

 

killing people 

 

There is NO SUCH THING as a gun for killing people. EVERY GUN is a tool, a mechanism that holds a round, safely and accurately discharges that round and propels it down range. There is no moral argument in the existence and mechanics of a gun. As far as violence goes, for gun owners, the best gun is the one you never have to use, and the vast majority of guns will never be fired in anger, and many won't even ever be fired at paper. The shooting sports are statistically the safest sports there are, the risk of death is lower than riding your bike in your neighborhood.

 

A gun is no more malevolent a tool than a knife, an axe, or a lathe. Any of which can take a life, and the vast majority of which DON'T.

 

And if you want to be really pedantic about things over the last couple of decades the Machete has been a far greater taker of life than the gun. Is there use in genocide worth banning them from our stores?

[HalGameGuru]

i love how you try to make your argument sound good by building up alot of language around a very short argument.

 

And you have a bad habit of not producing any arguments.

[Tonylu1595]

That does not mean because Japan has stricter gun laws, they have fewer homicides. That just shows that there are fewer criminals that want to commit those crimes. Guns are tools, it depends on the purpose the person operating it gives it. I use a rifle for shooting deer during deer season, starts November 15th where I live. I don't use a rifle to go on top of a building and shoot 12 people before I am caught. I carry a concealed pistol on me when I go into the city for protection.Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Criminals will get a weapon any way they want. Laws preventing or not. So please do not blame every person that owns a gun and is a law abiding citizen for all the homicides in America. It is not law abiding citizens. It is criminals.

Isn't that what everyone says.

[trentonjeffro]

This thread: 50% of american "law abiding" gun owners who can't imagin living in a country where you can't legally own a fire arm and even non-leathal guns require a permit and registration. Get into your small head, the world doesn't relove arround US or US legislature, even more on gun legislation. US is the exception when it comes to it, the rest of civilized society understood that reducing the no. of guns and gun owners is the only viable safety measure!

The other 50% are people that understand the law is the law and if you go against it you will suffer!

What are you talking about permits and registration. There is only registration in stupid states like NY, CA, IL, and a few others.

[trentonjeffro]

There is NO SUCH THING as a gun for killing people. EVERY GUN is a tool, a mechanism that holds a round, safely and accurately discharges that round and propels it down range. There is no moral argument in the existence and mechanics of a gun. As far as violence goes, for gun owners, the best gun is the one you never have to use, and the vast majority of guns will never be fired in anger, and many won't even ever be fired at paper. The shooting sports are statistically the safest sports there are, the risk of death is lower than riding your bike in your neighborhood.

 

A gun is no more malevolent a tool than a knife, an axe, or a lathe. Any of which can take a life, and the vast majority of which DON'T.

 

And if you want to be really pedantic about things over the last couple of decades the Machete has been a far greater taker of life than the gun. Is there use in genocide worth banning them from our stores?

Thank you, I think you got the point across better than I did.

[MrSuperb]

There is NO SUCH THING as a gun for killing people. EVERY GUN is a tool, ...

are you even serious

You want to tell me, that a M16 or a Glock 17 was NOT designed to hurt or kill other people by using it?

It doesn't matter if you use it or not.

[Real_PhillBert]

You want to tell me, that a M16 or a Glock 17 was NOT designed to hurt or kill other people by using it?

I would say that. Neither the M16 nor the Glock 17 were designed to hurt or kill people, they were however both designed to accurately, reliably and safely launch a standardized projectile from a standardized cartridge.

 

In the same way that a framing nailer is not designed to hold your house together.