Japanese Man Arrested On 3D Printed Firearms Possession Charges

zelda2fanboy

New member
Oct 6, 2009
2,173
0
0
Yes, this is also very much illegal in America. A quick google search shows that you can generally get up to 10 years in prison for it. I have to think that once these printers become cheap and everywhere (and print metal) it will probably be the end of gun control everywhere in the world. As crazy a libertarian as I might be sometimes, it's a fairly scary notion to think untraceable guns will be accessible for almost everyone everywhere near instantly. I wonder if this will be the catalyst for more monitoring of the internet. Even then, it wouldn't be difficult to trade physical thumb drives with the plans on them, no matter how totalitarian governments got trying to fight it. Frightening. I'm glad I'm not having children.
 

UNHchabo

New member
Dec 24, 2008
535
0
0
RelativityMan said:
UNHchabo said:
When criminals can't get guns through their normal methods (theft, bribery, or smuggling), they're still be able to do so by making them.
I've never quite understood that line of reasoning.

If someone is a CNC operator and has access to their equipment, they tend to be either employed or well-off. What is their incentive to illegally manufacture firearms? Especially when the risks include a few decades in federal prison at best, or a short-lived conversation with the authorities (doubly short if involving the ATF).

Common crooks on the other hand tend not to have these jobs skills. They just get professionally built guns off the black market (or in the US, use the private sales legal loophole).

The only modern market for improvised guns are in developing nations. At which point you have to seriously start worrying about the quality.
First off, private sales aren't a "loophole". Even if private sales are legal in your area, you still go to prison if you sold a firearm to someone you knew, or reasonably should have known, was either a criminal, or going to use the firearm for criminal purposes. Most private sales are between two people who know each other, and who both already legally own guns, so a background check on those sales only wastes time and money. Criminals, on the other hand, know they're breaking the law by making that sale, but do it anyway. It's disingenuous to say you could stop them from selling to each other by putting another legal requirement in the middle.

On-point though: it's currently unlikely that a CNC operator would risk their livelihood to produce firearms for criminals, but if they were banned? I'd imagine the temptation would be higher, as would the reward for doing so. Drug cartels find professional chemists to work for them, after all...

There's more than just CNC though; like I said, a much more basic metal shop is all you'd need to produce most of the stamped-steel submachineguns, which make up a decent portion of the homemade firearms that police find in South America.
 

Major_Tom

Anticitizen
Jun 29, 2008
799
0
0
What did he intend to do with them? Throw them at people? Good luck finding rounds in Japan.
 

beastro

New member
Jan 6, 2012
564
0
0
shadowxvii said:
Wait...NHK? This is clearly a conspiracy !

Still, pretty scary thing, now that anyone with a computer and a 3D printer can get an actual working gun....
Scary how?
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
shadowxvii said:
Wait...NHK? This is clearly a conspiracy !

Still, pretty scary thing, now that anyone with a computer and a 3D printer can get an actual working gun....
Working is a bit of stretch. Sure, they might fire, but they are no where near as effective as a metal firearm. At least, as far as I've heard, 3d printed firearms single shot, and highly inaccurate, not to mention having decreased muzzle velocity.
kajinking said:
In the US this guy would be a hero with massive media coverage.
Actually no, such weapons are also illegal in the US under an old law banning firearms capable of evading metal detectors.
Rabid_meese said:
Oh boy. Just imagine when every house has a 3D printer, and the design of these guns isn't so poor that you'll probably end up blowing off your hand. I imagine finding bullets to shoot out of 3D printed guns would be rather difficult.
they're engineered to use the same bullets as other firearms.
I imagine this guy will probably be praised as a hero in America. GUNS ARE TEH FREEDOM YEAH.
see above
In all seriousness, he has the right to think firearm access is a basic human right, and taking them away is a violation of his basic human rights. Unless he's planning an overthrow of the government, he has to work within the system to get things changed. There is a small window in which people will recognize protesting, and usually possession isn't seen as political dissonance.
what ghandi and King Jr did wasn't originally seen as protest either, but petty criminality. Sometimes that's what it takes. I don't think Japan has many legal routes for citizens to directly influence government, but I'm not an expert.
If he wants to make a difference, he should try to get things changed within the countries laws. Printing a few guns isn't going to change laws - and, to be honest, they probably won't offer him much self defense. Unless the potential harasser takes pity on them for the gun misfiring and blowing off the guys hand. Seriously - no matter how many times they test these, they're still made from cheap plastic resin. Bullets are controlled explosions that get really hot. Recipe. for. disaster.
Again, as I said, some times the best way to change something is to violate the law. I don't think that was his intent, but it is unwise to say that meaningful political change only happens within the system. In almost all cases, working within the system is not enough.
rasputin0009 said:
The story may sound crazy to Americans who can legally make a gun out of anything.
see above, this is not legal in US either.
But to most people of countries with better
stricter. There is a great deal of evidence calling "better" into question.
gun laws, it's reasonable. Just the fact that the guns have a pretty high chance of exploding in your own face is good enough of a reason to make it illegal to print them.
hazard99 said:
Where would he get the bullets to use the guns?
3d printed guns are designed to use normal ammunition. If you're asking how ammunition is regulated in Japan, I don't know.
UNHchabo said:
shadowxvii said:
Wait...NHK? This is clearly a conspiracy !

Still, pretty scary thing, now that anyone with a computer and a 3D printer can get an actual working gun....
rasputin0009 said:
The story may sound crazy to Americans who can legally make a gun out of anything. But to most people of countries with better gun laws, it's reasonable. Just the fact that the guns have a pretty high chance of exploding in your own face is good enough of a reason to make it illegal to print them.
You can already make a much more lethal firearm with $5 worth of materials at the hardware store -- a section of pipe, an endcap, and a nail can be made into a shotgun. Then if you have a simple metalshop, let alone a CNC setup, you can build most submachineguns from scratch pretty easily -- every military in WWII made a submachinegun designed to be made from stamped steel, cause they're cheap and easy to make (compared with the Thompson, for instance, which is milled).

When criminals can't get guns through their normal methods (theft, bribery, or smuggling), they're still be able to do so by making them.
Actually no, a firearm barrel is much more advanced than a piece of pipe. It's better grade steel, for one, and hammer-stamped barrels of the type you are suggesting require careful heat treating after they are forged.
Kalezian said:
rasputin0009 said:
The story may sound crazy to Americans who can legally make a gun out of anything. But to most people of countries with better gun laws, it's reasonable. Just the fact that the guns have a pretty high chance of exploding in your own face is good enough of a reason to make it illegal to print them.

Zip guns, aka, guns that are made out of anything, are highly illegal in the US. On par with making explosives.
actually no. It is perfectly legal for citizens to modify and manufacture firearms within the US, so long as you don't intend them for sale(which requires a dealer's licence) and so long as the weapon itself is not illegal for some reason, such as being fully automatic or too short. You might be required to use a manufactured barrel, but I am not sure, and those are easily available anyway.
RelativityMan said:
UNHchabo said:
When criminals can't get guns through their normal methods (theft, bribery, or smuggling), they're still be able to do so by making them.
I've never quite understood that line of reasoning.

If someone is a CNC operator and has access to their equipment, they tend to be either employed or well-off. What is their incentive to illegally manufacture firearms? Especially when the risks include a few decades in federal prison at best, or a short-lived conversation with the authorities (doubly short if involving the ATF).

Common crooks on the other hand tend not to have these jobs skills. They just get professionally built guns off the black market (or in the US, use the private sales legal loophole).
The private sales or "gun-show loophole" is a god damned myth. According to the ATF 0.7% of firearms used by criminals in the US were purchased in this way. The majority are purchased from illegal sellers or crooked dealers, with almost as many coming from straw purchases, and the next most common being stolen weapons. Then you have pawn shops and similar and way down, literally at the bottom of the list, is private sale "loop-hole"
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
spartan231490 said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
owning gun a human right...

sure, every man has the right to kill another man
I think you mean "every man has the right to self-defense"
which still involves killing/hurting someone else

even the most gun loving fanatic there is must admit owning a gun is not a human right, the mere idea is simply ridiculous
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
NuclearKangaroo said:
spartan231490 said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
owning gun a human right...

sure, every man has the right to kill another man
I think you mean "every man has the right to self-defense"
which still involves killing/hurting someone else

even the most gun loving fanatic there is must admit owning a gun is not a human right, the mere idea is simply ridiculous
Hurting someone to stop them from committing a crime is acceptable or our police forces wouldn't be armed.

Effective self-defense is a human right. In this age, that means gun ownership. The idea is not ludicrous at all.
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
spartan231490 said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
spartan231490 said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
owning gun a human right...

sure, every man has the right to kill another man
I think you mean "every man has the right to self-defense"
which still involves killing/hurting someone else

even the most gun loving fanatic there is must admit owning a gun is not a human right, the mere idea is simply ridiculous
Hurting someone to stop them from committing a crime is acceptable or our police forces wouldn't be armed.

Effective self-defense is a human right. In this age, that means gun ownership. The idea is not ludicrous at all.
hurting another human being is not a right, one could argue the opposite is the duty of each citizen

im not going to dive into yet another gun ownership discussion going nowhere


lets just end this by saying gun ownership is not considered a human right, neither self-defense for that matter, atleast as far as i understand

the right to live however, is one of the most important human rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_life

i believe is not up to the common citizen to act as judge or executioner


you might be in favor of gun ownership, but its not a human right, period
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
NuclearKangaroo said:
spartan231490 said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
spartan231490 said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
owning gun a human right...

sure, every man has the right to kill another man
I think you mean "every man has the right to self-defense"
which still involves killing/hurting someone else

even the most gun loving fanatic there is must admit owning a gun is not a human right, the mere idea is simply ridiculous
Hurting someone to stop them from committing a crime is acceptable or our police forces wouldn't be armed.

Effective self-defense is a human right. In this age, that means gun ownership. The idea is not ludicrous at all.
hurting another human being is not a right, one could argue the opposite is the duty of each citizen
being able to protect yourself is, even if doing so requires hurting your aggressor. Every advanced nation recognizes this fact.
im not going to dive into yet another gun ownership discussion going nowhere


lets just end this by saying gun ownership is not considered a human right, neither self-defense for that matter, at least as far as i understand
then you should look again. Every advanced nation recognizes the right of citizens to defend themselves with force when required.
the right to live however, is one of the most important human rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_life

i believe is not up to the common citizen to act as judge or executioner


you might be in favor of gun ownership, but its not a human right, period
You have not shown that, but if you want to assume it and consider your job done, you can do so.
 

Saetha

New member
Jan 19, 2014
824
0
0
NuclearKangaroo said:
spartan231490 said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
spartan231490 said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
owning gun a human right...

sure, every man has the right to kill another man
I think you mean "every man has the right to self-defense"
which still involves killing/hurting someone else

even the most gun loving fanatic there is must admit owning a gun is not a human right, the mere idea is simply ridiculous
Hurting someone to stop them from committing a crime is acceptable or our police forces wouldn't be armed.

Effective self-defense is a human right. In this age, that means gun ownership. The idea is not ludicrous at all.
hurting another human being is not a right, one could argue the opposite is the duty of each citizen

im not going to dive into yet another gun ownership discussion going nowhere


lets just end this by saying gun ownership is not considered a human right, neither self-defense for that matter, atleast as far as i understand

the right to live however, is one of the most important human rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_life

i believe is not up to the common citizen to act as judge or executioner


you might be in favor of gun ownership, but its not a human right, period
Uh, I can't say I really care to get into a discussion on gun ownership either, but wouldn't the right to self-defense be considered an extension of the right to life? Someone is trying to infringe on your right to live - you're simply protecting that right by preventing them.
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
Saetha said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
spartan231490 said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
spartan231490 said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
owning gun a human right...

sure, every man has the right to kill another man
I think you mean "every man has the right to self-defense"
which still involves killing/hurting someone else

even the most gun loving fanatic there is must admit owning a gun is not a human right, the mere idea is simply ridiculous
Hurting someone to stop them from committing a crime is acceptable or our police forces wouldn't be armed.

Effective self-defense is a human right. In this age, that means gun ownership. The idea is not ludicrous at all.
hurting another human being is not a right, one could argue the opposite is the duty of each citizen

im not going to dive into yet another gun ownership discussion going nowhere


lets just end this by saying gun ownership is not considered a human right, neither self-defense for that matter, atleast as far as i understand

the right to live however, is one of the most important human rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_life

i believe is not up to the common citizen to act as judge or executioner


you might be in favor of gun ownership, but its not a human right, period
Uh, I can't say I really care to get into a discussion on gun ownership either, but wouldn't the right to self-defense be considered an extension of the right to life? Someone is trying to infringe on your right to live - you're simply protecting that right by preventing them.
i think rights are to be protected by governments and organizations, not individuals
 

Rabid_meese

New member
Jan 7, 2014
47
0
0
spartan231490 said:
I'm aware 3D printed guns shoot the same ammo as real guns. In a country where you can't really get access to fire arms, I doubt they have reliable access to ammunition either. It doesn't make sense to sell bullets in a department store if the only thing you can put bullets in is illegal.

The Liberator is also not illegal - you can make one legal simply by inserting a metal plate inside it. This is what Wikipedia says, so grain of salt, but I imagine the gentleman who made this would have had his ass in cuffs if these violated that law.

You can contend that what MLK and Ghandi did was illegal, and you'd be correct, but there are several differences. First off, they preached peace. Guns aren't peaceful. Even for home and self defense, the point of using a firearm is to blow a hole in the would-be harmer to incapacitate or kill them. Preaching peace, love, tolerance, and equality of the law for all citizens is on a different level then "I want a gun".

Not to mention, possession of an illegal substance isn't usually covered by protest. I can't inhale marijuana as a protest of the illegal nature of marijuana. And if I do, I end up in jail. Regardless if I knew it was illegal or not. If he believes guns are great, and a civil right, the very worst thing he could do is obtain a gun to make that point.
 

kael013

New member
Jun 12, 2010
422
0
0
NuclearKangaroo said:
i think rights are to be protected by governments and organizations, not individuals
Your thinking is flawed. The government and organizations(by that I assume you mean the police?) cannot be everywhere and effectively protect everyone. Individuals, however, are everywhere people are. Therefore, individuals can effectively protect everyone, everywhere.

Does that mean shooting/killing the aggressor is the best option? Of course not; a broken leg can incapacitate an opponent just as well as a fatal chest wound. So can tasers. But guns are easier to use (they [i/]are[/i] designed so a 5 year-old can figure 'em out after all), so they're the go-to weapon.
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
kael013 said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
i think rights are to be protected by governments and organizations, not individuals
Your thinking is flawed. The government and organizations(by that I assume you mean the police?) cannot be everywhere and effectively protect everyone. Individuals, however, are everywhere people are. Therefore, individuals can effectively protect everyone, everywhere.

Does that mean shooting/killing the aggressor is the best option? Of course not; a broken leg can incapacitate an opponent just as well as a fatal chest wound. So can tasers. But guns are easier to use (they [i/]are[/i] designed so a 5 year-old can figure 'em out after all), so they're the go-to weapon.
i am so not starting this discussion again, i dont care about your stance on guns and shit, but owning guns is not a human right, end of story

if you actually make that a human right i guess we can talk then
 

solemnwar

New member
Sep 19, 2010
649
0
0
Uriel-238 said:
It shouldn't be the responsibility of an individual citizen to be knowledgeable of what is legal or not so much as what is wrongdoing or not.
... yes it is. Ignorance of the law is not a defence. You still broke the law. It is your duty, as a citizen (or a traveler, tourists can definitely be arrested for breaking the law) of a country, to know its laws.
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
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.
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
NuclearKangaroo said:
I am curious after reading your conversation chain about basic human rights, how do you decide which rights are indeed rights and of those rights are basic human rights?
 

Locke_Cole

New member
Apr 7, 2010
42
0
0
Sarge034 said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
I am curious after reading your conversation chain about basic human rights, how do you decide which rights are indeed rights and of those rights are basic human rights?
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.