if its not universally/almost universally recognized as a human right, id say its not a right all humans are entitled toSarge034 said:
Japanese Man Arrested On 3D Printed Firearms Possession Charges
- Thread starter Karloff
- Start date
Well, if you're feeling suicidal, it looks like it's going to get a lot easier to off yourself in the years to come. Though, I do wonder how many times we're going to end up hearing about people who get arrested for making guns before they can go through with killing themselves.
As long as you don't give it illegal features(anything that counts as a Destructive Device, in some states, or full auto without having an FFL licence), short barreled shotguns also count here I think, it's perfectly legal to make your own gun in the US, as long as you don't intend to sell it. In states that allow destructive device weapons, or in case of fully automatic weapon, you must register it with the BATFE(and pay taxes on it IIRC).Kalezian said:
Destructive Device firearms:
And if you have a federal firearms licence(FFL type 1, dealer licence) you can even legally craft your own automatic weapons(otherwise prohibited). You can even find videos on youtube of people with this kind of licence machining their own AK recievers, and I remember one awesome DIY post on a forum where the only part the guy bought was a $30 barrel blank(and a likewise cheapo scope to put on it), everything else he made himself. Fully automatic, and completely legal.
I never said it was a human right(nor do I believe it). I was just using you as a jumping off point for explaining why I think that belief is so endemic.NuclearKangaroo said:
Also, if you don't want to get into the discussion again, why respond? You gave your opinion and refuse to even discuss it with those who respond to you by saying "I'm absolutely right and refuse to talk about it". So don't. Close the tab, leave, and just delete any messages about being quoted here. ([i/]Just think about that, please don't respond as I too have no interest in continuing this conversation[/i])
Uriel-238 said:
Oh, I agree that people are expected to know the laws. They shouldn't be so burdened. Considering how complex and byzantine US national code is (plus local state ordinances) we require lawyers to specialize in fields of law, and police are commonly known to dispense charges and even engage in violent arrests on the basis of misunderstandings of the law. Unless you expect everyone in the United States to walk around with augmented reality goggles that are smart enough to remind them of prohibitions in the context of where they are and whatever they are doing, they will remain as they do now, committing an average of six felonies a day...and being attacked by Law Enforcement for day-to-day behavior that is actually legal.solemnwar said:
And that is before we get into those parts of our code that are vaguely worded and / or subject to the interpretation of the observer, or are way out of date and inappropriate to contemporary society, or are willfully misinterpreted by government agents in order that US agencies can legally engage in socially reprehensible behavior, which they then try to do behind closed doors.
No, you're right that it is accepted in the US that ignorance of the law is not a defense (I think by precedent and common practice). But ignorance of the law is so common, not only to citizens but also law enforcement agents, elected representatives and support bureaucrats who are supposed to advise citizens regarding the law (e.g. tax hotline operators) that cannot be reasonably expected of a given individual that they necessarily know the laws they're breaking or that such laws exist. Ignorance should be an acceptable defense...or we should have a much, much simpler code of laws.
238U[footnote]As of this posting I have not received a US National Security Letter or any classified gag order from an agent of the United States.
This post does not contain an encrypted secret message
Friday, May 09, 2014 9:34:03 AM
velcro nail copyright dusk crab service switch manure[/footnote]
i live in a country with the second highest crime rate in the world, if living the last couple of years with fear hasnt convinced me everyone owning a gun is the solution to crime, you certainly wontkael013 said:
oh i am refusing to talk about gun ownership, but that isnt even the point i brought up in the first place, i simply found preposterous that gun ownership should be considered a human right, and it isnt, and since that point is address im not really going further into the topic
im not entitled to the truth and i have never stated im right or wrong (except regarding guns being a human right because, hell they fucking arent), because the world usually doesnt work that way, i have an opinion, this opinion might hold true in some instances, *ahem* australia *ahem* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Measuring_the_effects_of_firearms_laws_in_Australia], and it might hold wrong in others
i provided a reason of my im steping out of the debate precisely to avoid the accusations of "I'm absolutely right and refuse to talk about it", i just dont want to talk about it
Owning firearms is a right here in the United States, albeit a strongly regulated right. It isn't in Japan and much of the industrialized world.Sarge034 said:
There's a long stretch of government-to-citizen relationships between warranting illegal protest (a subset which includes civil disobedience) and being actively driven into slavery conditions. As Ukraine recently demonstrated, one of the first things that representatives are tempted to do to quell unrest is to pass laws that prohibit legal-yet-inconvenient forms of protest. Usually it just makes things worse.
President Kennedy once said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." (White House speech, 1962) And our representatives (in whatever nation) sorely like to try to regulate dissent when they find it too unpleasant, so it becomes a fairly fast track from legal pressure for change to illegal, and given that those in power really don't like to give up that power for any reason, from peaceful to violent.
It's always been easy to off yourself when you're determined to do so. There are right-to-death communities online that present surefire ways to do it. Suicide prevention is far less about making it inconvenient, and far more about providing living alternatives to the desperate.Roxor said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
In practice, law enforcement usually cleans up after the fact, and seeks to bring to justice those who violate the rights of others, but that is certainly not the intent of society when they institutionalize law-enforcement in the first place. The intent is to create a (near-perfect as possible) monopoly on the use of force, so that only the state and state representatives (usually law-enforcement) are allowed coerce by force a given individual to act against their will, and then only by order of a court of law.furai47 said:
Because human beings are really rather sociable, this is easy for most of us, and small tribes don't usually require a justice system at all. But at around a hundred people you start getting conflicts of interest and may see the occasional violation of property. Violations of life and liberty are pretty rare, but the notion that you will be detected, persued, captured and jailed is supposed to be a disincentive to engage in such transgressions.
238U
Thank you for that reference.shadowxvii said:
Probably worth the cost of building an untraceable gun that can get through security and essentially looks like a toy. Would you think twice at seeing an almost-cartoony pink gun aimed at you? Sure, it looks odd, but you wouldn't think it would kill.RatherDull said:
That means that it's illegal. If you have to modify it to make it legal, it is illegal.Rabid_meese said:
So police don't protect the peace, then? Ending conflict is peaceful, and so is self-defense.
They preached piece because it was the best way to get more support, not as an end itself. Further, owning a firearm is not an act of violence. This man never shot or harmed anyone with those weapons, so this argument doesn't really hold water.
You do know that both Ghandi and King ended up in jail, as did numerous protesters. Further, they often did so by crimes that are quite similar. Sitting down where you're not supposed to isn't that different from owning something you're not supposed to. I am really starting to get the impression that you haven't studied history that much.
Actually, in many cases, violating a law is one of the only ways to challenge it, especially if it's been established. Hell, look at the US supreme court.
Actually, it's because of effectiveness, not ease of operation. Firearms are far more effective than other means of stopping an aggressor. They have better range, can be used more rapidly and more times. At self-defense ranges they aren't inhibited by wind or thick clothing. I could go on. Also, a broken leg will not disable someone as well as a fatal chest wound, or even a non-fatal, shock inducing chest wound. People can and have walked on broken legs, and that's not even mentioning that it leaves their hands free to operate weapons of various types.kael013 said:
You still haven't provided any evidence that owning a gun isn't a human right. We have provided much evidence that it is, or at least that it is an extension of the human right to self defense.NuclearKangaroo said:
So what King Jr, and Ghandi did was wrong? Susan B Anthony? No one was "actively trying to enslave" them.Sarge034 said:
a) security of person. Gun ownership is an extension of security of person. It is THE most effective tool for self defense.Locke_Cole said:
b) You are really trying to suggest that a governmental body can decide what a basic human right is? Because if so, then slavery wasn't a violation of human rights, nor were the actions of Hitler or Stalin, after all, both were acting within the law of their nations.
um . . . what? Police forces aren't intended to monopolize force, they are intended to protect the rights of the populace by reducing crime, typically by finding and punishing law-breakers.Uriel-238 said:
I know guns are the most effective weapon we have; if they weren't it would have been replaced. I'll also admit to over-exaggerating, a broken leg isn't as good at incapacitating as a chest wound, but it provides you with time to either disengage or gain the upper hand. Yeah, people have walked on broken legs, but running is another matter entirely. And of course it leaves their hands free, but this all assumes the pain and shock doesn't overwhelm them long enough for you to get away - or around a corner at least. All I was saying was that reducing an aggressor into a moaning pile of agony is the goal in self-defense as opposed to killing and there are ways to achieve that goal that don't have a high chance of accidentally killing the bastard (as aiming is all the difference between a fatal and non-fatal wound and that's the most failure-prone part of gun operation).spartan231490 said:
have you ever broken a bone? It really doesn't hurt that bad. I've broken several and I'm pretty confident I would be "overwhelmed" for less than a second, if at all.kael013 said:
Three points. 1) the goal of self-defense isn't to reduce "an aggressor into a moaning pile of agony" any more than it is to kill them. The goal of self-defense is to avoid being injured. Firearms are, by far, the most effective means of doing this. 2) firearms don't have a high chance of accidentally killing the target. Believe it or not, thanks to modern medical science, gunshot wounds aren't that lethal. Less than 30% of gunshot victims die. 3) the difference between fatal and non-fatal gunshots has little to do with aim, actually. Even leg or arm wounds don't actually have greatly reduced chance of death. This is one of the reasons law enforcement officers aren't trained to "shoot to wound." Bullets fragment, and cause bones to fragment, even in a leg or arm shot these fragments can rupture an artery. Most people who do die of gunshot wounds don't experience irreparable damage to any organs, they just bleed to death. There are obviously exceptions, but in general.
These weapons are already illegal just about everywhere, even in the US. Typically the laws were previous laws aimed at traditionally manufactures firearms that don't show up on metal detectors, but still. Also, don't get the wrong impression, these weapons barely qualify for the term firearm. They are typically one shot per reload, very inaccurate, less powerful, and very likely to melt, break, or even explode, just in the first few shots. Printer-plastic just isn't strong enough to withstand the heat and pressure. Until and unless 3d printers can use metals and ceramics, they're more expensive and less effective than traditional weapons, even in the most expensive black markets.Witty Name Here said:
anyone with a metal saw and time to spare can get an actual working gun. there are homemade guns and there were for decades. this just made it easier. the biggest problem with this that i see is that plastic guns can be smuggled through metal detectors.so security needs to change.shadowxvii said:
Um, not sure what your talking about. the only Nuclear disaster in a plant we know of is chernobyl, and its not in Japan. you are probably talking about recent tsunami that hit a japan nuclear plant. in which case, the nuclear plant wasnt built in known danger zone, it was the largest tsunami they had there in hundreds of years. it was not destroyed in said tsunami. nor did it lead to ANY deaths. ALL deaths durign that disaster was due to tsunami and not due to nuclear plant. the plant didnt kill anyone. nor did it destroy the city - the water did.gridsleep said:
Being so "civilized" you should have checked your facts before spewing them.
yes, it should. not knowing a law does not make you loose responsibility.Uriel-238 said:
this would imply every gun ownership is used for self-defence only. we know this to be factually wrong.spartan231490 said:
killing the agressor is best option for multiple reasons. one reason is that human bodies dont work like in movies. i saw a person with two clean chest wounds with a pistol run around for 10 minutes before he even noticed the wound because during a robbery his adrenaline was so high he completely ignored any pain. when medics arrived 15 minutes later he still walked around and talked to them and evnetually sat down because he felt dizzy due to loss of blood. so if you shoot somone in a leg he may just keep on coming. heck, evne if you shoot somone in the hear the person may keep on coming for up to 3 minutes till the brains starve. guns are not instant death like in movies and shooting a leg does not make one drop down on his knees like in games.kael013 said:
another reason kill is better than wound is due to our laws. if you shot somone in self defence and proved it was self defence, case closed. if you shot somone in a leg as self defence hes going to sue your ass out for far more than he would have robbed.
no, they dont. not directly anyway. at least in US, as per court case precedent, the purpose of police is to react to crimes, not to prevent them. this was figured out by supreme court after some people sued the police for not coming after calling them about a house invader. turns out there is nothing in police reglamentation that demands them to protect citizens, only to react to crimes already done.spartan231490 said:
actually you have provided no evidence whatsoever about it being a human right. whereas Locke_cole provided evidence that it isnt [www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/7.849410.20978514]
well for starters, i havent heard of any well known organization that recognizes gun ownership as a human right (not counting organizations like the NRA and such), not even the united nation recognizes such thingspartan231490 said:
your only argument is self-defense=gun ownership, ignoring the fact that pretty much any weapon could be defended with such weak argument
explosives, automatic weapons, anthrax canisters, etc
on top of that responding to loke Cole, you misunderstood security of a person with self-defense, and you keep misunderstanding self-defense with gun ownership
2nd amendment? The US government recognizes it, or do you not consider that an organization?NuclearKangaroo said:
actually no, firearms are the most effective means of self defense, which is why they are equivalent. This doesn't apply to all weapons, that's why firearms are best.
See my above comments.hawkeye52 said:If I have the right to bare arms and self defence. Can I do it with a flame thrower or nukeNuclearKangaroo said:.
Btw this isn't a dig or anything I actually agree with what you are saying.
that is protecting the peace. Getting criminals off the streets is protecting the peace.Strazdas said:
a) yes I did. I pointed out that firearms are the most effective means of self-defense, and effective self-defense is almost universally recognized as a human right. I could also point out the second amendment, which recognizes the right to bear arms as a "god given" or natural right.
No, this wouldn't imply that at all. I am arguing that gun ownership is a human right as an extension of the right to self-defense. Just because you don't choose to exorcise a right, doesn't mean you don't have it. In other words, I am arguing that people have the right to own guns so that they can defend themselves. The fact that they may use them for another purpose is irrelevant.Strazdas said: