Two Year Sentence For 3D Print a Gun.

[randomchaos]

Those statistics are like comparing the salaries of a person who has a job with one who doesn't. Of course the Japan would have fewer firearm homicides, they have very strict gun laws. 

[NARAKU_KAT]

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

 

I tottaly support Japan, look at that ridiculous amounts of kills in the US, my own country is becoming a huge warzone because of weapons, also how stupid is to 3D print a gun i a country where it is forbidden to buy one!!!!!

[Tonylu1595]

Those statistics are like comparing the salaries of a person who has a job with one who doesn't. Of course the Japan would have fewer firearm homicides, they have very strict gun laws. 

Isn't that the whole point of the post? To show how strict japan is?

[Mildphil]

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.

Man are you really that ignorant? How about you go into detail as to why it is the dumbest thing ever? To me it seems like some punkass kid that doesn't know the first thing about guns or social matters is suddenly an expert. 

[Silent_Xaxal]

And how is this a bad thing? They found more guns at his flat... Today it would be a lot conventional to 3D print a gun and kill someone with it than taking a real gun... If I was at the head of the goverment I would completely prohibit any type of fire arms... Japan is doing the right thing.... 15 murders in Japan 2012? Now look at USA, what does it say about the people and the goverment who are allowing all the weapons for civil use?

 

What works in Japan will never work in the US. 

 

Americans don't have the culturally ingrained discipline that the Japanese have had for centuries. And lawless elements in the US don't abide by any form of honorable code. So to outlaw valid self-defense tools isn't reasonable. It's selfish and non-contextual. 

[IdortMasterRace]

Isn't that the whole point of the post? To show how strict japan is?

 

Just because there are fewer GUN deaths, doesn't mean the overall death count suddenly goes down.

[Silent_Xaxal]

That's a very subjective argument. Guns are by no means stealthy, they leave a hell of a lot of evidence, and if you look a the statistics in america, most criminals with a gun, when confronted by a civilian with a gun, will turn tail and run.

 

Not to mention, that over 90% of all massacre's have been committed in "gun free zones"

 

And let's not forget that Columbine happened during a nationwide "Assaut Weapons" ban as well. 

 

Again, what works in one country will never work in another. That's just the way the world works.

[Tonylu1595]

Just because there are fewer GUN deaths, doesn't mean the overall death count suddenly goes down.

Well I meant the original post. To show how serious japan is about any type of guns.

[HalGameGuru]

 

 

 

 

no you can practice self defence, just your only allowed reasonable force.

 

 

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.

[Silent_Xaxal]

Just because there are fewer GUN deaths, doesn't mean the overall death count suddenly goes down.

 

True. This doesn't take into account stabbings, suicides, or other incidents. 

 

And a gun doesn't make a criminal. It is just a tool whose use depends on the user. Violent and criminally-inclined people likely won't stop just because they don't have access to a gun (See all the mass stabbing incidents in China). There really is no good reason to restrict law-abiding, good citizens from using firearms as a means of self-defense, as banning guns only hurts these individuals by making them easier targets for criminals.

[HalGameGuru]

What works in Japan will never work in the US. 

 

Americans don't have the culturally ingrained discipline that the Japanese have had for centuries. And lawless elements in the US don't abide by any form of honorable code. So to outlaw valid self-defense tools isn't reasonable. It's selfish and non-contextual. 

 

That is a really hypocritical statement about "outlaws" with honor. If there is victimization there is no honor. And no blind eye should be turned to the underbelly of Japan because of any idea that their "honor" trumps any aggression they act out.

 

I must note there is a difference between an outlaw that does illegal things and an outlaw that preys on people. A smuggler is not victimizing anyone, a "protection" peddler is.

[pdv789]

Getting tired of people saying to ban guns altogether. Japan as a country, where I live right now btw, is a much less hostile place because of the way they are raised. From a very young age they are taught manners and how to outlet their anger and frustration in a hobby. In america it doesn't matter if you ban guns, then the only people with them would the the person breaking into your house and then you are defenseless unless you want to rush someone with a gun wielding a knife .... You can't blame the spoon for making you fat people, come on.

[mach]

That's a very subjective argument. Guns are by no means stealthy, they leave a hell of a lot of evidence, and if you look a the statistics in america, most criminals with a gun, when confronted by a civilian with a gun, will turn tail and run.

 

Not to mention, that over 90% of all massacre's have been committed in "gun free zones"

Because there are "gun-legal zones" where criminals and lunatics can buy guns from

I'm from a gun-free country which gun law is as strict as Japan

When the police here successfully raided a large triad "weapon stash"

They found mostly knifes, machetes, or one or two little pistols very rarely

It really is this safe. 

Yes, there are homicidal maniacs in every countries, but I doubt a lunatic can perform a "massacre" with two knifes before someone stopped him

[HalGameGuru]

Because there are "gun-legal zones" where criminals and lunatics can buy guns from

I'm from a gun-free country which gun law is as strict as Japan

When the police here successfully raided a large triad "weapon stash"

They found mostly knifes, machetes, or one or two little pistols very rarely

It really is this safe. 

Yes, there are homicidal maniacs in every countries, but I doubt a lunatic can perform a "massacre" with two knifes before someone stopped him

 

 

China every couple of months disproves your assertion.

[mach]

Because there are "gun-legal zones" where criminals and lunatics can buy guns from

I'm from a gun-free country which gun law is as strict as Japan

When the police here successfully raided a large triad "weapon stash"

They found mostly knifes, machetes, or one or two little pistols very rarely

It really is this safe. 

But when I see the same happens in gun-legal countries, OMFG the mafia/gangsters have grenades, RPGs, 50 cals, heavy machine guns etc. 

Yes, there are homicidal maniacs in every countries, but I doubt a lunatic can perform a "massacre" with two knifes before someone stopped him

[WolfDeville]

He broke the law by making a weapon that requires a license to own. Wish he got more time than 2 years.

[HalGameGuru]

He broke the law by making a lethal weapon. Wish he got more time than 2 years.

 

lots of things are lethal weapons. If lethality is the litmus test of legality 99% of all the tools mankind has ever invented are no longer legal.

 

EDIT: Now you have turned it into a capital crime that he did something unlicensed. I don't think Japan even has licenses, so far as I know Japan has a full on ban on private gun ownership, and has had for its entire modern existence.

[WolfDeville]

Getting tired of people saying to ban guns altogether. Japan as a country, where I live right now btw, is a much less hostile place because of the way they are raised. From a very young age they are taught manners and how to outlet their anger and frustration in a hobby. In america it doesn't matter if you ban guns, then the only people with them would the the person breaking into your house and then you are defenseless unless you want to rush someone with a gun wielding a knife .... You can't blame the spoon for making you fat people, come on.

 But still, guns are easily accessible in USA, it is so stupid I swear... My uncle just came back from there and he said you can literally go into a supermarket and pickup a gun and some ammo.....

[WolfDeville]

HalGameGuru, on 21 Oct 2014 - 2:12 PM, said:

lots of things are lethal weapons. If lethality is the litmus test of legality 99% of all the tools mankind has ever invented are no longer legal.

 Yeah I made a mistake. gonna fix post now. I haven't been sleeping much don't hate :'(

[mach]

China every couple of months disproves your assertion.

China is such a corrupted, chaotic hell hole where any shits can happen

A large proportion of Chinese people are not properly educated. 

The moral standard and self restraint there is very low

The huge population ensures you will see these news frequently

[HalGameGuru]

 But still, guns are easily accessible in USA, it is so stupid I swear... My uncle just came back from there and he said you can literally go into a supermarket and pickup a gun and some ammo.....

 

Your calling it stupid does not make it so. And whatever opinion you may have on it does not change the inherent moral dilemma of any attempt to force a gun ban relies on the allowance of guns for a select few to violate the rights of law abiding citizens to remove their guns from them. The videos I shared earlier go over this. Any idea of gun control or gun ban is in fact no such thing, it is the argument for an unarmed populace with a well armed political apparatus. There is no morally valid argument for the common man to be disarmed, forcibly, while the politically connected retain every privilege for guns.

[WolfDeville]

China is such a corrupted, chaotic hell hole where any shits can happen

A large proportion of Chinese people are not properly educated. 

The moral standard and self restraint there is very low

The huge population ensures you will see these news frequently

 China is a cesspool and I hope it gets n-

 

I hate the Chinese culture very very much.

[WolfDeville]

HalGameGuru, on 21 Oct 2014 - 2:18 PM, said:HalGameGuru, on 21 Oct 2014 - 2:18 PM, said:HalGameGuru, on 21 Oct 2014 - 2:18 PM, said:

Your calling it stupid does not make it so. And whatever opinion you may have on it does not change the inherent moral dilemma of any attempt to force a gun ban relies on the allowance of guns for a select few to violate the rights of law abiding citizens to remove their guns from them. The videos I shared earlier go over this. Any idea of gun control or gun ban is in fact no such thing, it is the argument for an unarmed populace with a well armed political apparatus. There is no morally valid argument for the common man to be disarmed, forcibly, while the politically connected retain every privilege for guns.

 Mentally unstable people (Large portion of the US population ) should not be able to have such an easy access to guns... You can say "well then kitchen ware should be banned too" but no, you can't tell me a knife is as effective as a fucking gun, why you ask? because with a gun you can kill people a good distance away and it's much easier and effective than running around with a knife and sticking it in peoples guts.

[HalGameGuru]

 Mentally unstable people (Large portion of the US population ) should not be able to have such an easy access to guns... You can say "well then kitchen ware should be banned too" but no, you can't tell me a knife is as effective as a fucking gun, why you ask? because with a gun you can kill people a good distance away and it's much easier and effective than running around with a knife and sticking it in peoples guts.

 

Large portion of US population? By what metric? Compared to who?

 

Yes a gun can do many things, and the really crazy thing is for the VAST MAJORITY of people their owning a gun is ZERO danger to you.

 

So why do you insist on initiating force, selectively enforcing, and oppressing decent people, over the subject of guns? Even your idea of a ban allows the government and its cohorts to possess, and the very people you fear giving guns are the people who gravitate to those fields, who have the idea to force such laws upon the people they should be championing, and far more people have been murdered by their governments in recent history than any other cause.

 

So the moral argument is NOT that the common man should be disarmed, but any group that would assume to govern should be disarmed.

[patrickjp93]

That's a very subjective argument. Guns are by no means stealthy, they leave a hell of a lot of evidence, and if you look a the statistics in america, most criminals with a gun, when confronted by a civilian with a gun, will turn tail and run.

 

Not to mention, that over 90% of all massacre's have been committed in "gun free zones"

Those stats are generated by NRA-backed shills. Evidence? Hardly. scratches on a bullet? Not hard to hide the gun. Just scratch up the inside of the barrel or give a light bleach/acid treatment. Gun powder residue? Burn your clothes and wash your hands with an abrasive cloth until pink. Silencers are easy to make. What freaking evidence?

 

Again BS statistic. What defines massacre? Who decides to defund police departments? (hint: NRA-backed GOP politicians). You are one twisted fruit loop.