Japanese Man Arrested On 3D Printed Firearms Possession Charges

[TheNewGuy]

Where would he get the bullets to use the guns?

I'm guessing he would print them out as well. I mean, he already printed out the guns, so how hard could it be?

 

[hawkeye52]

Jesus christ this needs a snip

I wasn't being serious mate. I understand the difference between using Geneva Convention banned weapons and WMD's and using a pistol.

I personally am against 2nd amendment on a core level since I believe nothing goods comes of owning an object with no other purpose then to wound or kill others. Knives etc can be used in cooking and are an essential tool in daily life. The fact that they can harm others is secondary to that purpose.

In this vein of argument I would be against people walking round with swords, pikes, bows and arrows, crossbows but not necessarily a bullet proof vest (since bullet proof vests can't be used to kill people, generally).

The argument that criminals will get their hands on anything that you are not legally allowed to carry doesn't wash with me either since the UK and Japan are two countries that have successfully disarmed the population and as such have next to no gun crime when shown in comparison to the rest of their violent crime. It's to the point that standard policeman is not armed with any kind of firearm unless they are in particularly sensitive areas to terrorist attacks such as airports.

Really though. This comes down to personal belief. If you believe that guns should be allowed no matter what I put you aren't going to be dissuaded by it and the same can be said the opposite way round. All we would end up with is us pointing to different examples of where it would or would not have worked. It's like arguing which religion is correct.

 

[Weaver]

Japan has incredibly strict gun control, this isn't very surprising to me.
I very much imagine the guy doing this actually knew it was illegal.

 

[spartan231490]

Jesus christ this needs a snip

I wasn't being serious mate. I understand the difference between using Geneva Convention banned weapons and WMD's and using a pistol.

I personally am against 2nd amendment on a core level since I believe nothing goods comes of owning an object with no other purpose then to wound or kill others. Knives etc can be used in cooking and are an essential tool in daily life. The fact that they can harm others is secondary to that purpose.

In this vein of argument I would be against people walking round with swords, pikes, bows and arrows, crossbows but not necessarily a bullet proof vest (since bullet proof vests can't be used to kill people, generally).

The argument that criminals will get their hands on anything that you are not legally allowed to carry doesn't wash with me either since the UK and Japan are two countries that have successfully disarmed the population and as such have next to no gun crime when shown in comparison to the rest of their violent crime. It's to the point that standard policeman is not armed with any kind of firearm unless they are in particularly sensitive areas to terrorist attacks such as airports.

Really though. This comes down to personal belief. If you believe that guns should be allowed no matter what I put you aren't going to be dissuaded by it and the same can be said the opposite way round. All we would end up with is us pointing to different examples of where it would or would not have worked. It's like arguing which religion is correct.

Not "no matter what." I believe that any freedom should be allowed that is not of demonstrable detriment to society. The evidence on guns is overwhelming that gun control doesn't reduce crime, violent crime, or murder. It does reduce gun deaths, but not deaths, and playing creative accountant with people's lives isn't a good enough reason to infringe on a freedom, not in my book.

 

[spartan231490]

Where would he get the bullets to use the guns?

I'm guessing he would print them out as well. I mean, he already printed out the guns, so how hard could it be?

Very. Gunpowder and primers aren't made of substances that can be 3d printed. Nor is brass, for that matter.

 

[hawkeye52]

snip

Yeah, murders happen in any society. But the fact is that if you get into a fight with someone with a gun neither party can back down or run away as easily because a bullet out runs a guy. Knives and other less lethal armaments leave a lot more room for maneuver and are less likely to kill.

I don't know about you but if I was approached by a person with an intent to kill me I would rather they be wielding a knife rather then a gun since I can still run away from the former.

Guns are just the next step up in the arms race between people and with each step the encounter gets deadlier and deadlier.

 

[spartan231490]

snip

Yeah, murders happen in any society. But the fact is that if you get into a fight with someone with a gun neither party can back down or run away as easily because a bullet out runs a guy. Knives and other less lethal armaments leave a lot more room for maneuver and are less likely to kill.

I don't know about you but if I was approached by a person with an intent to kill me I would rather they be wielding a knife rather then a gun since I can still run away from the former.

Guns are just the next step up in the arms race between people and with each step the encounter gets deadlier and deadlier.

Use of firearms in self-defense dramatically reduce the likelihood of injury to either party. In over 90% of cases where a gun is pulled in self-defense, the criminal withdraws without a shot being fired.

 

[Strazdas]

that is protecting the peace. Getting criminals off the streets is protecting the peace.

part of protecting peace is getting criminals off the streets, yes. this is a good sideeffect of what police does. Its not their goal as you have stated.

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 you did not. you have given no proof of having a weapon being a human right. having a right to self-defence is not the same as having a right to weapons. the second amendment may recognize a right to arm bears (pun intended) and completely discredits itself when it thinks god gives rights to people. the constitution is heavily outdated after this many hundreds of years. Americans are very clingy to it though, because they dont have thousands of years of history being new inhabitants so they try to create massive culture out of small one.
weapons would be a right if they could be used only for defending oneself. since they are more than that, it does not fall under self-defence rights.

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.

yes, you are arguing that, but you are yet to provide any proof, which is why its ironic your asking your opponents to provide proof for you. there is no human right to gun ownership. constitution is not a list of human rights btw, so it doesnt count. its a list of rights and responsibilities of citizens of US.
Your arguing for their right by stating that guns are extension of self defence. the fact that they can be used for another purpose already makes your claim false. at best, you could claim that weapons can be used for self defence.

Yeah, murders happen in any society. But the fact is that if you get into a fight with someone with a gun neither party can back down or run away as easily because a bullet out runs a guy. Knives and other less lethal armaments leave a lot more room for maneuver and are less likely to kill.

i dont disagree with the general notion, but if were talking the small caliber handguns (70%+ of gun wounds in US according to 2008 metric) then knives are far more deadly. this is because the area of damage with knives are much larger and thus has more chance of hitting an artery or other important organ. only around 20% of gun shot wounds in US result in deaths. the other do not damage critical parts of human body and/or the medical services manage to save you. Sadly, i dont know statistics about knife wound mortality.

 

[spartan231490]

that is protecting the peace. Getting criminals off the streets is protecting the peace.

part of protecting peace is getting criminals off the streets, yes. this is a good sideeffect of what police does. Its not their goal as you have stated.

actually, as I have stated, it is their goal. That's why they investigate crimes. They're not proactive, but they do still protect the peace.

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 you did not. you have given no proof of having a weapon being a human right. having a right to self-defence is not the same as having a right to weapons.

yes it is. As I have pointed out, firearms are one of the only methods of self-defense that decrease the likelihood of you being hurt compared to compliance. They are also basically the only way to defend yourself against multiple attackers, or against attackers significantly stronger than you, or against armed attackers.

the second amendment may recognize a right to arm bears (pun intended) and completely discredits itself when it thinks god gives rights to people.

How, exactly, does it do that? Oh right, it doesn't discredit itself.

the constitution is heavily outdated after this many hundreds of years.

Actually no, it's really not. It has been made largely irrelevant by a government that ignores it, but if that were not the case, it would still be quite relevant. Free speech, security of property, safety from double jeopardy, all still very relevant, as evidenced by how much they come to play in modern politics. Further, the enumerated powers would be phenomenal, since basically every single thing the federal government has unconstitutionally expanded into is one long train-wreck. No(every) child left behind. "affordable"(sarcastic air quotes) care act. Don't even get me started on how miserably the alphabet soup agencies have failed.

Americans are very clingy to it though, because they dont have thousands of years of history being new inhabitants so they try to create massive culture out of small one.

or because we believe in the ideals our nation was founded on. Division of power, small federal government, freedom, justice, and responsibility. Just because the politicians have sold these to big business doesn't mean the people don't still believe. In fact, that's why we "cling to it," because we know it's a better way than what's happening now.

weapons would be a right if they could be used only for defending oneself. since they are more than that, it does not fall under self-defence rights.

since you can't effectively defend yourself without them, they damn well do fall under self-defense rights. You can do a lot more other than exercise free speech on the internet, but if a government tried to limit or prevent citizens from accessing the world wide web you damn well would call it a human rights violation.

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.

yes, you are arguing that, but you are yet to provide any proof, which is why its ironic your asking your opponents to provide proof for you.

I never said provide proof, I said they hadn't even made any argument. They just said "I believe this because it's right" and expect me to believe it. I have provided data, data that I am perfectly willing to source if someone asks, but no one has. You seem to be, so I'll source it at the bottom. Though, frankly, I'm not entirely sure what all data I've used in this 3 day "conversation" so I might miss a piece or two.

there is no human right to gun ownership. constitution is not a list of human rights btw, so it doesnt count. its a list of rights and responsibilities of citizens of US.
Your arguing for their right by stating that guns are extension of self defence. the fact that they can be used for another purpose already makes your claim false. at best, you could claim that weapons can be used for self defence.

It bears stating again, that you would not make this claim for the internet and free speech, and that since firearms are basically the only reliable tool for self-defense, they are essential for effective self-defense, and therefore are an extension of that right.

Yeah, murders happen in any society. But the fact is that if you get into a fight with someone with a gun neither party can back down or run away as easily because a bullet out runs a guy. Knives and other less lethal armaments leave a lot more room for maneuver and are less likely to kill.

i dont disagree with the general notion, but if were talking the small caliber handguns (70%+ of gun wounds in US according to 2008 metric) then knives are far more deadly. this is because the area of damage with knives are much larger and thus has more chance of hitting an artery or other important organ. only around 20% of gun shot wounds in US result in deaths. the other do not damage critical parts of human body and/or the medical services manage to save you. Sadly, i dont know statistics about knife wound mortality.

Actually, there is very little reliable data on stab wounds. It is widely believed that knife wounds to the torso are more deadly than GSW to the torso, because of more rapid bleeding, but there is little reliable data on it. What data there is seems to indicate a lower mortality rate. Mortality rate for penetrating GSW to the torso is pretty close to 20%, for knife wounds, the data is conflicting. I found results as low as 3% and as high as 27%. It's important to note that many of these sources were for knife wounds in general, not penetrating stab wounds to the torso.

Anyway, I believe I was asked for sources:
over 90% of cases where a gun was pulled in self-defense the attacker retreated. It appears I was slightly mistaken here, over 70% of the time, just drawing it was enough. Over 90% includes times when the defender fired the weapon, but did not hit the criminal, such as a warning shot: http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html Forgive the hosting cite, it's just a convenient place to get the full text. This study was published in an academic journal and the main author was originally opposed to civilian ownership of firearms.

Firearms are one of the only means of self-defense that reduce the likelihood of the defender being injured. Sadly, I can't seem to get the full text for this study, my links are dead. It is the NCVS, or national crime victimization survey, conducted by the US government. While I can't get a link to the full text, it is sourced in this paper: http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html If you search for injury, it is the first paragraph to use the word. Injury rates are 25% if you didn't resist, 17% if you defended yourself with a gun, and 33% if you resisted with some other weapon.

I don't recall using any other data, but if I did feel free to ask for the source.

 

[Sarge034]

First off, sorry for the delayed replies, shit happens. Second, my definition of basic human rights will be listed at the bottom of the reply.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

That is pretty much a base line right there and as far as I can tell, towards Spartan231490, there is no mention of gun ownership being a basic human right.

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person" does not translate to "Everyone has the right to own a gun" no matter how much you'd like it to.

So your basis of a human right is what an official agency tells you it is? You do realize that at one point slavery and subjugation was approved by official agencies and discrimination was approved by those same agencies long after slavery was not, right? How bout you form your own opinions and get back to me. I know what I feel basic human rights are, but you'll have to read the bottom text to find out. Wouldn't want to spoil it for any of these other folks I'm responding to.

if its not universally/almost universally recognized as a human right, id say its not a right all humans are entitled to

Then there are no human rights? The majority of Africa, Central America, South America, the Middle East, Asia, and Russia don't agree to the UN's definition of basic human rights. I'm no expert, but that looks pretty close to half the world there.

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.

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.

I am a gun owning American, I know it is a right here and I didn't say differently. My point was that I can't call it a basic human right due to my views of what human rights are (although I do believe it to be a normal right) but that you should try to change the law within the bounds of the law up until the law no longer allows you to. At that point I feel you have the right, having exhausted all legal avenues, to begin trying to change the laws in what would be considered an illegal manner. It sounds like this guy just decided that having guns was his basic right so fuck the police.

I was rather indifferent about the whole thing until I saw this...

According to the Jiji news agency, in addition to the printed weapons the suspect also possessed ten toy guns.

And then I was all like, "Won't someone please think of the children!?!?!?!?" Seriously, what the fuck difference does that make?

Anyway, all sarcasm aside, I'm not sure what the gun laws are in Japan but I figure they are similar or more strict than the EU. While I agree that owning firearms is a right, I must also concede that unless your government is actively trying to enslave you change must be brought about in a legal manner.

So what King Jr, and Ghandi did was wrong? Susan B Anthony? No one was "actively trying to enslave" them.

No one was actively trying to enslave them? Really? That's your play? -.-

Martin Luther King Jr. was fighting against the legal subjugation and discrimination of "his" people. Yes, I would call that a government trying to enslave them.

Gandhi was fighting, literally and then later figuratively, the British occupation of India. He was trying to remove a foreign government that was subjugating his countrymen and gain India's independence. Yes, I would call that a government trying to enslave them.

Susan B. Anthony was fighting for woman's rights during a time when women were legally being subjugated and had no rights. Women were second class citizens that couldn't vote, own property, or hold public offices. They were the property of their father (or brother if their father was dead/gone) up until they became the property of their husbands. Yes, I would call that a government trying to enslave them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So now, the moment you have all been waiting for...

I define a basic human right as something no human can take away from you. As of this point I have only found one thing that qualifies, your death. I can take away your right to life, freedom, food, water, ect, but I can't take away your right to die. Just food for thought.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

if its not universally/almost universally recognized as a human right, id say its not a right all humans are entitled to

Then there are no human rights? The majority of Africa, Central America, South America, the Middle East, Asia, and Russia don't agree to the UN's definition of basic human rights. I'm no expert, but that looks pretty close to half the world there.

id like to see the source of that

and regardless, the UN is still the biggest and most influential organization when it comes to human rights, now if you could show me a bigger organization that recognized weapon ownership as a human right

but well its been 2 weeks and i have no interest on discussing this any further

 

[Sarge034]

id like to see the source of that

Do you really need me to show you sources depicting the views African warlords, Columbian cartels, Islamic fundamentalist, China, and Russia hold on human rights? If so then you are not qualified to be talking about this issue, at all.

and regardless, the UN is still the biggest and most influential organization when it comes to human rights, now if you could show me a bigger organization that recognized weapon ownership as a human right

So you didn't read all of my post then. I never said gun ownership was a human right, in fact I said the only true human right was your right to die. Regardless of if the UN is "the biggest and most influential organization when it comes to human rights" you said the rights had to be "universally/almost universally recognized as a human right". So either you amend that statement to "universally/almost universally recognized -by the west- as a human right" or come to terms that half the world don't give a shit to varying degrees about your basic human rights.

but well its been 2 weeks and i have no interest on discussing this any further

So you're just going to say what your gonna say and walk out of the room? That is the sign of someone not wanting to have to defend their weak position, wanting to start shit without consequences, or knowing they're wrong. Wonder what you're doing...

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

I never said gun ownership was a human right

then we have nothing to discuss, we both agree

So you're just going to say what your gonna say and walk out of the room? That is the sign of someone not wanting to have to defend their weak position, wanting to start shit without consequences, or knowing they're wrong. Wonder what you're doing...

just because someone doesnt want to discuss anymore doesnt mean his argument is false, thats a fallacy

ive already discussed this plenty 2 weeks ago, i have no intention of discussing the topic further, specially when we both agree