Two Year Sentence For 3D Print a Gun.

[RuKiddin06]

It all comes down to honor and respect, if everybody had honor and respect for other people then there would be no need for laws of any description.  The fact we need laws that force us to treat others as we would if we respected them is very telling of human nature.  Basically we are intrinsically greedy and this is why we can't have nice things.   You can;t blame the criminals, you can't blame the law makers, you can't blame the lobbyists. it all comes back to human nature.  Banning guns is just an extension of all other laws that seek to enforce behaviour that would otherwise come from respect.

This.

This is exactly why gun laws are working in some countries and not in others. The cultures are different, the peoples ideals are different, and their level of respect is different. 

[HalGameGuru]

1. Japan is a very unique society and culture. It took thousands of years and non-stop racial homogeneity and that history includes a caste system, subjugation, feudalism and an empire no one wants to copy to turn a modern nation into another Japan.

 

2. The Bill of Rights does not GIVE anyone any rights, its a list of those rights the government MUST NOT infringe upon. The right to defense and to be armed are innate human rights. There is no moral imperative to government functionaries having weapons but the common man NOT. I will post links for the philosophy involved.

 

3. America is currently suffering under a shroud of socialism, things like the drug war and government intervention in peoples' day to day lives is increasing the levels of violence. And making it harder for people to work their way out of it. Japan WILL go there ,guns or no, as their economy continues to suffer under their system of putting off the wages of bad accounting thru fiat currency and borrowing. You will see a very different Japan if those issue are not worked out.

 

 

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp?dispid=310&pid=62389

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disarming the common man has never been about safety, but control. It has never made anyone safer, it relies on violence and coercion to be made real, and does nothing to remove arms from the world. It merely distills their ownership and use to a politically connected over-class. You say only the government should legally have guns? Why not government control of what you may or may not buy, or eat, or drive, or color you may wear. There is NEVER a morally consistent and positive argument to limiting the rights of your fellow man.

[RuKiddin06]

is it really worth the risk. having guns legal is the most dumb thing ever. ask anyone in england and 99% of people are happy there arent guns about.

Except that there are stills guns about, albeit not in the hands of citizens, just in the hands of law enforcement and criminals.

[Trik'Stari]

In a country where gun control laws seem to be working, restricting them to law enforcement is ok. I do see japans reasoning for this: with their culture, it works. However, in some countries (*cough* USA *cough*) it won't. In the US constitution it grants us the right to own weapons, fire arms included. The idea is that if anyone who wants to be armed can be, then cumulatively we are safer, as there can only be so many "bad guys" (thieves, murderers, gang members, drug dealers / cartel members) and the "good guys" (law abiding, society contributing, normal, citizens) out number the bad. Why place restrictions that hurt the law abiding citizens, when the thieves and other criminals are going to have guns regardless of laws.

 

I'm not saying every one should own a gun, and I think that if you are going to own a gun, you need to know how to safely, and EFFECTIVELY:  use, handle, store and maintain a gun. 

 

Its the same idea with coding. If you did not know, there are people USA, that think that code should not be taught in schools, as "it gives kids the tools necessary to become hackers." (I kid you not, someone I talked to said that, and she was not alone in her opinion, other also chimed in saying similar things.)

 

Having knowledge, or tools that someone else does not have, give you a position of power over them. These peoples reaction to the hackers (equivalent to "cyber thieves") was to try and limit the available ways to learn to code and hack, just as your reaction to guns is to limit the available ways to buy, get or make a gun. Any one who wants to learn programming can learn programming. Any one who wants to have a gun, can get a gun. whether they make it, or buy it legally or illegally, they can do it. 

 

Edit: fixed errors

 

 

 

on a side note, I wonder how many of the undue gun deaths world wide (as in, NOT when a civilian / police officer who shoots the thief) are committed with illegally owned guns.

A very very VERY cogent and thorough argument. The existence of a dangerous tool is not something to be feared but respected and educated about.

[RuKiddin06]

Everyone's law-abiding until the trigger is pulled.

Not true, the act of owning a gun, where the law forbids it, is illegal. That is like saying stealing isn't illegal unless it causes damage, or speeding isn't illegal unless you crash.

[Shalashaska]

I'd be far more interested in where he got the ammunition than him making a misshapen piece of plastic to put a pin in a round of it.

[HalGameGuru]

Not true, the act of owning a gun, where the law forbids it, is illegal. That is like saying stealing isn't illegal unless it causes damage, or speeding isn't illegal unless you crash.

 

Illegal does not equal immoral, and illegal does not equal criminal. A crime requires a victim, speeding is an infraction. You have only victimized the ego of the state. And even without any victim or damages you are still required to pay restitution for the perceived slight to the state in the form of a fee.

 

Even if something is not illegal if it victimizes someone it is still immoral.

 

Any law that applies to the ruled and not the ruler is not law, but privilege and tyranny. To say it is immoral for the common man to own a gun, but moral for the common man wearing a jumper or a badge to own a gun is the height of statist hypocrisy.

[Trik'Stari]

Illegal does not equal immoral, and illegal does not equal criminal. A crime requires a victim, speeding is an infraction. You have only victimized the ego of the state. And even without any victim or damages you are still required to pay restitution for the perceived slight to the state in the form of a fee.

 

Even if something is not illegal if it victimizes someone it is still immoral.

 

Any law that applies to the ruled and not the ruler is not law, but privilege and tyranny. To say it is immoral for the common man to own a gun, but moral for the common man wearing a jumper or a badge to own a gun is the height of statist hypocrisy.

You sir, get a gold star for that. +11

[RuKiddin06]

Illegal does not equal immoral, and illegal does not equal criminal. A crime requires a victim, speeding is an infraction. You have only victimized the ego of the state. And even without any victim or damages you are still required to pay restitution for the perceived slight to the state in the form of a fee.

 

Even if something is not illegal if it victimizes someone it is still immoral.

 

Any law that applies to the ruled and not the ruler is not law, but privilege and tyranny. To say it is immoral for the common man to own a gun, but moral for the common man wearing a jumper or a badge to own a gun is the height of statist hypocrisy.

Exactly.

[Toddwjp]

Illegal does not equal immoral, and illegal does not equal criminal. A crime requires a victim, speeding is an infraction. You have only victimized the ego of the state. And even without any victim or damages you are still required to pay restitution for the perceived slight to the state in the form of a fee.

 

Even if something is not illegal if it victimizes someone it is still immoral.

 

Any law that applies to the ruled and not the ruler is not law, but privilege and tyranny. To say it is immoral for the common man to own a gun, but moral for the common man wearing a jumper or a badge to own a gun is the height of statist hypocrisy.

 

this argument doesn't work as it assumes that the consequence must happen for something to be immoral or moral, is it moral to deliberately increase the risk of injury to another human by speeding?

[Scheer]

This is a good read, and makes a lot of sense IMO: http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Japan-Gun-Control-and-People-Control.htm

 

Going off topic here, but also worth taking a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Compare gun ownership with the gun murder rate, in general the states with higher gun ownership have less gun murders... I'm aware this isn't a very good comparison as across the board it is still WAY higher than it should be. The first linked article really makes sense here, basically the states with few large cities are the safest while the south and states with large cities are more dangerous. I think everyone can agree here that there is a massive difference in the way people are controlled in big cities verses small towns, and it seems to show that just creates more desire to want to go kill someone lol.

 

Edit: For the OP, even if it's 3D printed, a functional gun is still a gun, so the sentence makes sense coming from Japan (even in the US, it would probably be illegal if you didn't register it).

 

You do not need to register a homemade gun in the US. There are restrictions on the kind of gun you can make though: select fire, smooth barrels, barrels under 16" in length, and a few others will win you free room and board in prison for a good portion of your life.

 

My reply was simply pointing out that with time, everything gets easier and more automated.
At some point everything needs to be regulated. CNC and 3d printers will not be exceptions... With new technology comes new possibilities.. With possibilites comes responsibility..
The way to ensure that, is through regulations, what you can and can't do.. But it won't ever stop someone who wants to make his own gun or whatever other item through these technologies.

 

So you agree the internet should be regulated as well? I'm sure you don't, but I say this to give you perspective on how a gun owner sees the arguments, anytime you threaten to take away or control something that someone uses they will be upset.

[HalGameGuru]

this argument doesn't work as it assumes that the consequence must happen for something to be immoral or moral, is it moral to deliberately increase the risk of injury to another human by speeding?

 

Is it moral to punish someone who has done no one any harm?

 

There are MORAL ways to promote behavior you find beneficial over dangerous. The strong arm of the state and its armed henchmen is not that moral avenue.

 

There is no moral imperative to involuntary or coerced interaction. 

 

The only moral certitude is voluntary and consensual interaction. Speeding is in no way immoral, if they cause damage, whether or not they were "speeding" it is on that person to provide for restitution and damages. If you have a problem with risky behavior incentivise the behavior you like. Putting someone in jail for life because they smoked a leaf you don't like is immoral. Threatening someone with violence or coercive force when they have aggressed against no one is immoral.

[acturisme]

this argument doesn't work as it assumes that the consequence must happen for something to be immoral or moral, is it moral to deliberately increase the risk of injury to another human by speeding?

How do you know that speeding has increased the actual danger to anyone?  Oh that's right.  The state TOLD YOU SO!  That's statism.

[HalGameGuru]

This is a good read, and makes a lot of sense IMO: http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Japan-Gun-Control-and-People-Control.htm

 

Going off topic here, but also worth taking a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Compare gun ownership with the gun murder rate, in general the states with higher gun ownership have less gun murders... I'm aware this isn't a very good comparison as across the board it is still WAY higher than it should be. The first linked article really makes sense here, basically the states with few large cities are the safest while the south and states with large cities are more dangerous. I think everyone can agree here that there is a massive difference in the way people are controlled in big cities verses small towns, and it seems to show that just creates more desire to want to go kill someone lol.

 

 

You do not need to register a homemade gun in the US. There are restrictions on the kind of gun you can make though: select fire, smooth barrels, barrels under 16" in length, and a few others will win you free room and board in prison for a good portion of your life.

 

 

So you agree the internet should be regulated as well? I'm sure you don't, but I say this to give you perspective on how a gun owner sees the arguments, anytime you threaten to take away or control something that someone uses they will be upset.

 

A lot of those restrictions don't play out on self made firearms as those regulations derive their assumption of control from the interstate commerce clause. Something you make for yourself with no intention to sell is not covered by that clause. But, there are many other regulations and laws that may still have impact.

[AlwaysFSX]

Normal guns can still be regulated and traced, a 3D printed gun cannot. They also can guarantee that you will not lose an arm when you are legally hunting wildlife.

As much as guns are bad it isn't necessarily ideal to prohibit them completely, as long as they can be regulated.

 

If you have gun for hunting it is fine as far as I am concerned, but if you have the ability to 3D print armaments, that cannot be regulated, it can be a serious problem.

Let's just look at the safety of a 3D printed gun...

 

"Just stick your thumb over the cylinder..."

[Toddwjp]

Is it moral to punish someone who has done no one any harm?

 

There are MORAL ways to promote behavior you find beneficial over dangerous. The strong arm of the state and its armed henchmen is not that moral avenue.

 

There is no moral imperative to involuntary or coerced interaction. 

 

The only moral certitude is voluntary and consensual interaction. Speeding is in no way immoral, if they cause damage, whether or not they were "speeding" it is on that person to provide for restitution and damages. If you have a problem with risky behavior incentivise the behavior you like. Putting someone in jail for life because they smoked a leaf you don't like is immoral. Threatening someone with violence or coercive force when they have aggressed against no one is immoral.

 

you missed the point, deliberately increasing risk can be something that is immoral

 

lets go to the extreme,

 

a man take a live grenade and pull the pin, he hold the grenade in his hand to prevent it going off, he goes to a basket ball game and plays one handed while holding the grenade. he has no intention of letting go and lettin git explode, is this something we should punish or do we go by your ideology and let him off with nothing more then a, we really didn't like that.

 

 

How do you know that speeding has increased the actual danger to anyone?  Oh that's right.  The state TOLD YOU SO!  That's statism.

 

there are many studys that demonstrate speeding increase risk. you can also test it with simple logic, the faster you travel in your car the more distance you travel per second, this gives you less of a reaction time to avoid hitting something x distance away.

[KamiKatze]

Idea: don't just register guns with numbers but also 3D printers! -> problem solved.

[IdortMasterRace]

Personally, I would like guns to go away from civil possession. With the laughs it brings on a firing range or hunting trip, many deaths follow - be it by murder or accident. You can't deny a gun is dangoures

 

No shit, of course a gun can be dangerous. So when a criminal kicks down your door and holds a gun to your face, or threatens to kill your children/siblings/parents, are you going to fend him off with a stick?

 

Just look at the rest of the civilized world... You rarely see homicides of through the use of firearms...

 

Nice cherry picked argument. Of course there are less firearm homicides, because firearms are banned. Knife crime, however, is worse in the UK than gun crime in the US. Does that mean we should out right ban knives? Should we ban pocket knives, and kitchen knives, and butter knives? Cars also kill a lot of people, should we ban cars too?

 

For me this whole discussion is exactly like the discussion about wether or not weed is damaging to your health. Everyone who enjoys it will fight for their right to keep it, will deny facts and deny acknowledgement of scientific studies. All while the rest of the world still screaming that they are a bunch of ignorant assholes or whatever people like calling eachother.

 

Here we go. Feel free to post some of these "facts" and "scientific studies".

[Trik'Stari]

this argument doesn't work as it assumes that the consequence must happen for something to be immoral or moral, is it moral to deliberately increase the risk of injury to another human by speeding?

Is it not equally immoral to punish a human being for something that may or may not have happened yet? Since when did this become minority report?

 

Idea: don't just register guns with numbers but also 3D printers! -> problem solved.

 

Impossible when you reach the point that a 3d printer can print another printer (A Von Neumann machine) which sort of already exists.

[Toddwjp]

No shit, of course a gun can be dangerous. So when a criminal kicks down your door and holds a gun to your face, or threatens to kill your children/siblings/parents, are you going to fend him off with a stick?

 

 

Nice cherry picked argument. Of course there are less firearm homicides, because firearms are banned. Knife crime, however, is worse in the UK than gun crime in the US. Does that mean we should out right ban knives? Should we ban pocket knives, and kitchen knives, and butter knives? Cars also kill a lot of people, should we ban cars too?

 

 

Here we go. Feel free to post some of these "facts" and "scientific studies".

 

 

 is worse in the UK than gun crime in the US. Does that mean we should out right ban knives? Should we ban pocket knives, and kitchen knives, and butter knives? Cars also kill a lot of people, should we ban cars too?

 

THIS  argument is completely wrong,  and i wish you pro gun morons would stop using the worst possible arguments there are and instead use the few reasonable sensible ones there are.

 

 

 

Is it not equally immoral to punish a human being for something that may or may not have happened yet? Since when did this become minority report?

 

 

were not punishing them for the act that could happen we are punishing them for increasing the risk deliberately. its the same reason we punish a drunk driver. they deliberately increased the risk

[Trik'Stari]

 is worse in the UK than gun crime in the US. Does that mean we should out right ban knives? Should we ban pocket knives, and kitchen knives, and butter knives? Cars also kill a lot of people, should we ban cars too?

 

THIS  argument is completely wrong,  and i wish you pro gun morons would stop using the worst possible arguments there are and instead use the few reasonable sensible ones there are.

it really isn't if you think about it for a few seconds. Also this

http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323

 

Much easier to knife someone when you know they won't pull out a gun and shoot you before you get the chance. A reasonable, if flawed argument (if you have a gun, they can have a gun, thus negating the circumstance possibly)

[HalGameGuru]

you missed the point, deliberately increasing risk can be something that is immoral

 

lets go to the extreme,

 

a man take a live grenade and pull the pin, he hold the grenade in his hand to prevent it going off, he goes to a basket ball game and plays one handed while holding the grenade. he has no intention of letting go and lettin git explode, is this something we should punish or do we go by your ideology and let him off with nothing more then a, we really didn't like that.

 

Who would let this man into anywhere carrying a grenade? it would be more accurate to say if EVERYONE has a grenade is one guy walking around with the pin out an issue worthy of violence? concern and attempt at remediation? Sure. Anything can be, you have an issue with something make attempts at convincing the other person to operate how you would want them to. Otherwise until someone has aggressed you have no moral standing on initiating aggression yourself.

 

Unwanted behavior is the realm of voluntary interaction and incentive, not violence. You don't like speeding, convince people not to, convince insurance to discount rates for people who don't, create your own private thoroughfare that requires a preexisting agreement not to speed at risk of losing access to the road. 

 

So we are going to make the argument that punishment over something that has not victimized anyone is a moral stance to take so long as it is something you don't like? Risk/benefit is subjective. You may find speeding a great risk, someone else may find feeding kids animal products a great risk. Should either of these people be allowed to punish others over this preference?

 

If its OK to utilize force and violence over speeding, is it also OK to hit a 4 year old with a belt if they say the F word? In interpersonal interaction the moral onus is on the one who would aggress. Unless and until someone has aggressed they are not a moral target of force.

[HalGameGuru]

UK numbers should really be thrown out out of hand at this point. Its come out that the UK Police service has been lying and fudging numbers for years. I would personally discount any statistics from the UK until the fallout from any investigations that are to be held settles and valid and verified numbers are released.

[Trik'Stari]

UK numbers should really be thrown out out of hand at this point. Its come out that the UK Police service has been lying and fudging numbers for years. I would personally discount any statistics from the UK until the fallout from any investigations that are to be held settles and valid and verified numbers are released.

You have a source? I don't doubt you (the police in any country have EVERY reason to lie and fudge statistics in their favor), but a source is always hard to argue with.

[HalGameGuru]

A drunk driver is no better an argument. should a drunk driver be driving? no. Is it moral to throw them in prison or ruin their life if they have not harmed anyone in the attempt? no. Do they need help and should there be options and avenues to disincentivise this behavior? Absolutely.

 

It is not moral to impose your opinion at the point of a gun. Any and all law attempting to dictate personal behavior outside of aggression and victimization is a personal preference being imposed on the threat of violence. Until someone has aggressed they have not committed a crime. It is the height of presumption to saddle someone with criminal responsibility who has not violated anyone's person or property.