NationStates Jolt Archive

The anti-firearms activists love to cite Japan. Here's a reply - if criminals can't buy firearms easily, the can make their own.

Arrested convenience store robber accused of manufacturing own gun

ISESAKI, Gunma -- A man under arrest for robbing several convenience stores has been hit with a new arrest warrant for illegally manufacturing a gun, police said.

Hiroki Kato, 56, the owner of a steelworks in Isesaki, admitted to the allegations during questioning. "I wanted to produce a gun on my own," he was quoted as telling investigators.

Kato manufactured the .38-caliber pistol at his steelworks sometime around June 2005, without permission from the government, Gunma Prefectural Police investigators said.

In September last year, Kato was arrested for robbing a convenience store in Ota, Gunma Prefecture and subsequently hit with new arrest warrants for his involvement in several other convenience store robberies.

Police confiscated another gun from an acquaintance of Kato, who admitted to having received the weapon from Kato in return for waiving his debts. (Mainichi)

http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20070421p2a00m0na014000c.html

Note that this is easier and easier as technology developes....

Because everyone has major metalworking implements in their garage.

They've been doing it in the Philipines for decades. Some are simple revolvers and semi auto pistols made with hand tools. Some are copies of submachine guns and military-style rifles or high quality pistols made in machine shops.

http://www.mail-archive.com/firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu/msg00779.html

I'll take that option any day. I worry a lot more about people being able to walk out of Wal-Mart with a shotgun and ammunition than I do about someone setting up an armory in his or her basement.

http://www.amazon.com/Do-Yourself-Submachine-Gun-Durable/dp/0873648404

Meh... old news. 'Zip' guns have been around since at least the 50's, maybe longer. I even made one in my youth that fired a single .22 cal.

Doesn't mean they're effective, accurate or durable. And you still have to get ammo.

It's far easier to make most of the parts and then buy the barrel and key parts of the action. Then you don't have to worry about it blowing up in your hand. I know someone who made several mac 10 knock-offs this way.

Of course they were later confiscated as illegal weapons and the only reason he didn't do time was because the cops didn't have a warrant when they found them...

so ONE GUY who has access to a damned STEEL FACTORY manages to make a gun, and somehow this negates the entire idea that limiting access to firearms drastically decreases crimes committed with guns?

seriously, are you really proposing that people are going to suddenly start manufacturing guns? It's one guy!

Did you read my post? It's a cottage industry in the Philipines, and some of the guns are made using just scrap metal and hand tools.

so ONE GUY who has access to a damned STEEL FACTORY manages to make a gun, and somehow this negates the entire idea that limiting access to firearms drastically decreases crimes committed with guns?

seriously, are you really proposing that people are going to suddenly start manufacturing guns? It's one guy!

The anti-firearms activists love to cite Japan. Here's a reply - if criminals can't buy firearms easily, the can make their own.



http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20070421p2a00m0na014000c.html

Note that this is easier and easier as technology developes....

It was never that hard. Zipguns have been around since the 50s. *nod*

Because everyone has major metalworking implements in their garage.

Who needs it? Home Depot has everything you need to manufacture fully automatic machine guns. *nod*

The black market for guns in the US is fairly robust at the moment despite the relative ease of getting them legally. Outlaw guns and the black market will really take off.

Criminals will always be able to get guns. I find it very amusing that some people think that drug dealers and thieves will suddenly find a respect for the law and abide gun control legislation.

Manufacturing a gun is fairly easy and I guarantee you that if you actually do manage (against all odds) to outlaw guns and stop the smuggling of them into the country then small manufacturing facilities will spring up here and there.

There was a congressional hearing on border control as pertains to smuggling nuclear weapons into the country. The guy being questioned said they had complete confidence that no nuclear devices could be smuggled in, to which some congressman wryly commented "the could just wrap it in a bundle of marijuana".

You will never be able to get rid of guns in criminal hands. All you can do is disarm the law abiding populace.

I feel sorry for police in countries where they are not allowed guns themselves. New Zealand is one place I have personal experience of being able to get a couple of handguns despite them being banned.

I feel sorry for police in countries where they are not allowed guns themselves.
Why?

New Zealand is one place I have personal experience of being able to get a couple of handguns despite them being banned.
So you're one of them that shouldn't be allowed to have guns, seeing as how you're a criminal and all?

Why?

<snip>

Just off the top of my head I could think of a couple of reasons. What if they're up against someone who is armed with an illegal gun? What if they're confronted with a large number of violent people? In those cases the unarmed cop can end up dead and the criminal(s) can just leave the scene of the killing and escape capture.

Note that this is easier and easier as technology developes....
In the United States of America, technology develops because of market pressure. If you would either stunt or redirect this growth, you must provide your own force on the market, whether by voluntary popular demand or by legislation.

Just goes to show that there _is_ no more dangerous place than a gun-free zone.

Just off the top of my head I could think of a couple of reasons. What if they're up against someone who is armed with an illegal gun? What if they're confronted with a large number of violent people? In those cases the unarmed cop can end up dead and the criminal(s) can just leave the scene of the killing and escape capture.
In the line of duty:
How many police officers were shot and killed in Norway, Denmark or Sweden the last 10 years? How many have been shot and killed in the UK (http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=54302003)? How many have been killed in countries where guns are banned?

How many have been shot and killed in Switzerland?

How many have been shot and killed in the US (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6762180/)?

And sten guns (http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/imgs/sten.jpg) are easy to make too...

Because everyone has major metalworking implements in their garage.

so ONE GUY who has access to a damned STEEL FACTORY manages to make a gun, and somehow this negates the entire idea that limiting access to firearms drastically decreases crimes committed with guns?

seriously, are you really proposing that people are going to suddenly start manufacturing guns? It's one guy!

as others have said, Zip Guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_gun) are easy to manufacture.

Just goes to show that there _is_ no more dangerous place than a gun-free zone.

You're right, I'd feel safer in Baghdad than I would in the UK. :rolleyes:

In the United States of America, technology develops because of market pressure. If you would either stunt or redirect this growth, you must provide your own force on the market, whether by voluntary popular demand or by legislation.

Legislation probably isn't going to stunt the market pressure in a nation with a strong gun culture and the Right to Bear Arms written into their Constitution, and any redirecting will likely be moving the pressure into the black market. Just sayin'

The black market for guns in the US is fairly robust at the moment despite the relative ease of getting them legally. Outlaw guns and the black market will really take off.

Criminals will always be able to get guns. I find it very amusing that some people think that drug dealers and thieves will suddenly find a respect for the law and abide gun control legislation.

Manufacturing a gun is fairly easy and I guarantee you that if you actually do manage (against all odds) to outlaw guns and stop the smuggling of them into the country then small manufacturing facilities will spring up here and there.

There was a congressional hearing on border control as pertains to smuggling nuclear weapons into the country. The guy being questioned said they had complete confidence that no nuclear devices could be smuggled in, to which some congressman wryly commented "the could just wrap it in a bundle of marijuana".

You will never be able to get rid of guns in criminal hands. All you can do is disarm the law abiding populace.

I feel sorry for police in countries where they are not allowed guns themselves. New Zealand is one place I have personal experience of being able to get a couple of handguns despite them being banned.

I find it amusing you think that all gun control is is saying "you can't have guns" and hope people abide by it. The feasibility of gun control in the US is doubtful, but the entire gun control debate does not necessarily revolve around the US, the UK for example it is much easier to enforce gun control and it works pretty well. Horses for courses.

Just goes to show that there _is_ no more dangerous place than a gun-free zone.

which is why gun free japan has more deaths by guns per person than the united states.

No, wait, that's crap, and japan overall is a much safer place to live.

The anti-firearms activists love to cite Japan. Here's a reply - if criminals can't buy firearms easily, the can make their own.



http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20070421p2a00m0na014000c.html

Note that this is easier and easier as technology developes....

Far too complicated, I can make a zipgun out of a magazine, a rubber band,a thumb tack or paper clip, two books of matches, and a hard object for the projectile.

No, I dont need a pre-made bullet.

Killing isnt difficult without guns, murder requires the will to do so and nothing more. Anyone who thinks differently is just fooling themsleves.

And if you can buy Cocaine or Heroine you can buy a gun, both those illegal products are imported from very specific regions of the world...so they cross borders, and guns will doubtlessly cross with them. Guns laws, like every other law only stop people from doing things if those people already respect the law.

That being said, I think that certainly there are places where gun restrictions must work just fine...the world and its cultures are not all the same.

The US or the UK have Murder and Violence Cultures, and that is what needs to change.

Far too complicated, I can make a zipgun out of a magazine, a rubber band,a thumb tack or paper clip, two books of matches, and a hard object for the projectile.

No, I dont need a pre-made bullet.

Killing isnt difficult without guns, murder requires the will to do so and nothing more. Anyone who thinks differently is just fooling themsleves.

So you can make a gun that is extremely inaccurate, one-shot, and likely to harm you rather than anyone else.

Lets be honest, not a very effective weapon. Killing can be achieved without guns, but a gun is by far the easiest way to do it.

You're right, I'd feel safer in Baghdad than I would in the UK. :rolleyes:

Isn't Baghdad a "gun free zone"? I thought everyone was asked nicely to turn in their arms...

the fact of the matter is, the idea that gun ownership and legal guns somehow makes us safer is fully an indefensible position.

The logic has been that if we ban weapons, criminals will still get their hands on them, but innocent, law abiding people will not have any method to defend themselves.

That's the argument right? Ban guns, criminals still get guns, we honest folk don't, right?

Except, that's just not what happens. Yes, it's true, in nations where there are gun bans, only criminals will have guns. That being said, in nations where there are gun bans, the ration of armed criminals to unarmed civilians has been CONSISTANTLY smaller than the ratio of armed criminals to unarmed civilians in the US.

Compare the statitics of japan, switzerland, britain, and compare the united states.

Per capita, in gun free nations:

1) less criminals have guns

2) less crimes are comitted with guns

3) less people are killed by criminals with guns

The gun lobby has put forth this image that if guns are banned then all that's going to happen is that criminals are going ot get their hands an an arsenal of illegal guns and go running around willy nilly through the street blowing away innocent people who, because the government took away their means of protection, will be massacred in their beds by these gun toting criminals.

Except it doesn't happen. It just doesn't fucking happen.

Britain has one handgun related death per million. United States has 30. The amount of incidents, related to population, where armed criminals meets unarmed civilian is significantly higher in the US than it is in gun free nations.

The idea that legal guns allows the law abiding civilians to fight back against criminals who would have guns anyway is a myth. It doesn't happen. You are more likely to be shot to death by a criminal in the United States than you are in Britain, Japan, or Switzerland.

And no amount of bullshit spin will change that fact.

In the line of duty:
How many police officers were shot and killed in Norway, Denmark or Sweden the last 10 years? How many have been shot and killed in the UK (http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=54302003)? How many have been killed in countries where guns are banned?

How many have been shot and killed in Switzerland?

How many have been shot and killed in the US (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6762180/)?

Hush you!
Trying to show how guns aren't needed too keep people safe. AND backing it up with links.
People on the forums these days:rolleyes:

the fact of the matter is, the idea that gun ownership and legal guns somehow makes us safer is fully an indefensible position.

The logic has been that if we ban weapons, criminals will still get their hands on them, but innocent, law abiding people will not have any method to defend themselves.

That's the argument right? Ban guns, criminals still get guns, we honest folk don't, right?

Except, that's just not what happens. Yes, it's true, in nations where there are gun bans, only criminals will have guns. That being said, in nations where there are gun bans, the ration of armed criminals to unarmed civilians has been CONSISTANTLY smaller than the ratio of armed criminals to unarmed civilians in the US.

Compare the statitics of japan, switzerland, britain, and compare the united states.

Per capita, in gun free nations:

1) less criminals have guns

2) less crimes are comitted with guns

3) less people are killed by criminals with guns

The gun lobby has put forth this image that if guns are banned then all that's going to happen is that criminals are going ot get their hands an an arsenal of illegal guns and go running around willy nilly through the street blowing away innocent people who, because the government took away their means of protection, will be massacred in their beds by these gun toting criminals.

Except it doesn't happen. It just doesn't fucking happen.

Britain has one handgun related death per million. United States has 30. The amount of incidents, related to population, where armed criminals meets unarmed civilian is significantly higher in the US than it is in gun free nations.

The idea that legal guns allows the law abiding civilians to fight back against criminals who would have guns anyway is a myth. It doesn't happen. You are more likely to be shot to death by a criminal in the United States than you are in Britain, Japan, or Switzerland.

And no amount of bullshit spin will change that fact.

It doesn't happen in Europe and Japan, but in the US, I can guarantee that even if you managed to ban all guns and confiscate all legally owned guns the rate of violent crime wouldn't go down, and the criminals would start importing or manufacturing guns. For some reason Americans are a more agresssive people.

Also it doesn't matter if banning guns would make us safer from crime. Most of us are OK with trading a few lives for our continued freedom to own guns. It's the same trade off we make when we allow private ownership of automobiles. We know some folks will be killed, but we judge that the right to own and use a car is worth a few deaths.

Isn't Baghdad a "gun free zone"? I thought everyone was asked nicely to turn in their arms...

To the best of my knowledge owning a gun isn't a crime in Iraq, I could be wrong though.

which is why gun free japan has more deaths by guns per person than the united states.

No, wait, that's crap, and japan overall is a much safer place to live.

I wonder... Japan my have fewer gun deaths per person, but I wonder how those figure stacks up when comparing gun deaths per gun.

I'll bet you that more guns are used for criminal activity in Japan than guns in the United states.

Hush you!
Trying to how guns aren't need too keep people safe. AND backing it up with links.
People on the forums these days:rolleyes:

:eek: But... but...

Aaaw... I'm sorry :(

It doesn't happen in Europe and Japan, but in the US, I can guarantee that even if you managed to ban all guns and confiscate all legally owned guns the rate of violent crime wouldn't go down, and the criminals would start importing or manufacturing guns. For some reason Americans are a more agresssive people.

Also it doesn't matter if banning guns would make us safer from crime. Most of us are OK with trading a few lives for our continued freedom to own guns. It's the same trade off we make when we allow private ownership of automobiles. We know some folks will be killed, but we judge that the right to own and use a car is worth a few deaths.

I am for the moment going to ignore the 2nd amendment, because it's kinda the trump card in these sorts of arguments. As much as I can argue I disagree with gun ownership, and disagree with the reasons FOR gun ownership, as long as the 2nd amendment is there, it sorta kills my argument. No matter how presuasively I may argue...it's worthless because it can't be done as long as the constitutiona llows. So I don't support getting rid of guns in a literal sense, because that would be unconstitution.

Whether the 2nd amendment should be struck is a whole other argument.

Now we get into the matter of function. Cars are needed for our society to function. We are a spread out, spread thing, commuter nation.

Now if the proported role of guns, IE to keep us safe, is shown to be invalid because statistics suggest that legal gun ownership actually makes the civilian population LESS safe then the question becomes more...questionable.

We are willing to "put up" with deaths from cars because, damn it, we need cars. But if legalizing firearms actually makes us LESS safe, the justification for having them goes entirely away other than for the simple reason of "I want".

Now, I fully respect your right to do whatever the hell you want with your life, your property, and anybody who consents. But should your wants be able to create a society that is less safe for everyone else? Should those who want guns be able to put everyone at more risk for no other reason than they want guns?

Now that being said, I agree it's impractical for america (notwitstanding the 2nd amendment). Simply getting rid of all guns now will not make things safer, overall. We're too far gone for that without slow, steady reforms. I agree that such a swift solution is not viable for america right now.

What I object to is people who somehow twist and turn and bend around trying to show that in some way, ANY WAY, that people in gun free nations are somehow less safe than in america, and that gun ownership should be justified for no other reason than "it keeps us safe".

And they can't. Just can't.

:eek: But... but...

Aaaw... I'm sorry :(

Its ok.:)

Next time if you want to make a point, start with the following:
Where I live...
My friend who...
If someone tries to take my gun...
When the revolution comes...

I wonder... Japan my have fewer gun deaths per person, but I wonder how those figure stacks up when comparing gun deaths per gun.

I'll bet you that more guns are used for criminal activity in Japan than guns in the United states.

well...yeah it's a pretty safe bet that the ratio of guns in japan used for illegal activity versus legal activity is higher than in the US, since it's criminal to own guns.

Most folks aren't going to go through the effort to aquire an illegal gun to simply have it...

That being said I'm not sure your point. Yes, the ratio of criminal gun owners to non criminal gun owners in japan (ignoring the fact that 100% of gun owners are criminals in japan since gun ownership is illegal, I'm refering to crimes committed WITH the guns) is higher than in the US, ok.

Still doesn't change the fact that you're more likely to be an unarmed victim of violent crime with a gun in the United States than in japan. And isn't that the most important statistic? where are you more likely to be a victim of crime with a gun?

Its ok.:)

Next time if you want to make a point, start with the following:
Where I live...
My friend who...
If someone tries to take my gun...
When the revolution comes...

"Where I live, my friend who owns an AK-47 said, 'If someone tries to take my gun, what will I do when the revolution comes?'"

:D

I've notice alot of US citizens use the argument of the 2nd amendment. "right to bear arms".

Why does that make it argue to make certain weapons illegal? Your still allowed to be armed, just not certain types. To go to an extreme, I assume its illegal to own an operational rocket launcher or anthrax. So there are laws dictating the weapons that are legal.

So why not do it further? Heres a few examples:


ENGLAND and WALES
* Gun owners must be licensed. Applicants need two referees, and police are allowed to consult would-be gun owners' doctors.
* Guns must be registered.
* In the wake of the 1996 Dunblane massacre the government passed a law severely restricting handguns. Anyone in possession of a high caliber handgun faces a maximum 10 years' imprisonment or a $7,285 fine, or both

FRANCE
* Firearms must be registered, except for sporting rifles.
* A Sports Federation license is required to request an ownership permit. Applicants must have no record of criminal activity or mental illness. Applications approved by the Federation must also be vetted by local police and municipal officials. Permits must be renewed every three years.
* Machine guns and automatic firearms are prohibited without special authorization and are reserved almost exclusively for military and police forces.

GERMANY
* Gun owners must be licensed and firearms registered.
* Germany passed strict firearms regulation in 1972, and a new bill tightening the law even further may soon be passed by the upper house of parliament.
* Those applying for a license must be over 18 years old and, generally, a German resident for more than three years.
* Appplicants must prove their need to possess a gun, technical proficiency, knowledge of firearms and physical fitness.
* Fully automatic weapons are banned.

ITALY
* Gun owners must be licensed and firearms registered.
* Gun owners must be over 18, undergo psychological and physical tests and have a clean police record.
* Licenses must be renewed each year.
* No one may own more than three guns.

NETHERLANDS
* Gun owners must be licensed. Applicants must be over 18 years old and a gun club member for at least a year. Applications are approved by police, and licenses must be renewed annually. Firearms must be registered.
* Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are banned.

SPAIN
* Gun owners must be licensed and undergo strict medical and psychological tests. No one is permitted to own more than six hunting rifles and one handgun.
* Firearms must be registered and inspected annually.
* Machine guns and submachine guns are banned, as are imitation pistols.

SWITZERLAND
* Gun owners must be licensed and firearms registered.
* Tighter regulation was introduced in 1999 — gun owners now require a permit. Applicants must prove they need a gun and pass an exam on their theoretical and practical knowledge of gun use.
* Members of the Swiss military are required to keep their weapons at home.
* Hunting and sporting rifles can be purchased without a permit and transported freely within the country, though permits are required to transport other guns.

EUROPEAN UNION
* The Schengen Agreement, which came into force in 1985, proposed harmonizing the acquisition, possession and sale of firearms across the signatory countries. These provisions have been overtaken by a European Union directive that sets out minimum standards for gun registration, including a "European firearm card" that any gun-owner must have on hand when transporting a weapon from one E.U. member state to another.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2002/0513/guns/laws.html

"Where I live, my friend who owns an AK-47 said, 'If someone tries to take my gun, what will I do when the revolution comes?'"

:D

:p
thats the spirit!

Just goes to show that there _is_ no more dangerous place than a gun-free zone.

How? I mean, you can make a legitimate argument about that, but I fail to see how this particular case proves it. Or is this more of that logic that has Harry Reid being a traitor? :rolleyes:

The anti-firearms activists love to cite Japan. Here's a reply - if criminals can't buy firearms easily, the can make their own.

http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20070421p2a00m0na014000c.html

Note that this is easier and easier as technology developes....

Nothing new. The Sten gun is a practically 'homemade' submachine gun, and that technology's been around somewhere in the ballpark of 70 years.

I am for the moment going to ignore the 2nd amendment, because it's kinda the trump card in these sorts of arguments. As much as I can argue I disagree with gun ownership, and disagree with the reasons FOR gun ownership, as long as the 2nd amendment is there, it sorta kills my argument. No matter how presuasively I may argue...it's worthless because it can't be done as long as the constitutiona llows. So I don't support getting rid of guns in a literal sense, because that would be unconstitution.

Whether the 2nd amendment should be struck is a whole other argument.

Now we get into the matter of function. Cars are needed for our society to function. We are a spread out, spread thing, commuter nation.

Now if the proported role of guns, IE to keep us safe, is shown to be invalid because statistics suggest that legal gun ownership actually makes the civilian population LESS safe then the question becomes more...questionable.

We are willing to "put up" with deaths from cars because, damn it, we need cars. But if legalizing firearms actually makes us LESS safe, the justification for having them goes entirely away other than for the simple reason of "I want".

Now, I fully respect your right to do whatever the hell you want with your life, your property, and anybody who consents. But should your wants be able to create a society that is less safe for everyone else? Should those who want guns be able to put everyone at more risk for no other reason than they want guns?

Now that being said, I agree it's impractical for america (notwitstanding the 2nd amendment). Simply getting rid of all guns now will not make things safer, overall. We're too far gone for that without slow, steady reforms. I agree that such a swift solution is not viable for america right now.

What I object to is people who somehow twist and turn and bend around trying to show that in some way, ANY WAY, that people in gun free nations are somehow less safe than in america, and that gun ownership should be justified for no other reason than "it keeps us safe".

And they can't. Just can't.

You say we need cars. Many of us really don't. Unless you live in a rural area a solid public transportation system would be more efficient, safer, and better for the environment. So, many if not most people don't NEED cars. There is a better alternative.

Most people don't NEED guns. Most folks don't hunt their food or live in a place where they're likely to encounter dangerous animals. But need isn't the issue. Just like we accept that people want and should have the freedom to drive their own cars we also accept the fact that people want and should have the freedom to own guns for hunting, shooting targets, self defense, and other purposes. We trade off some lives from traffic accidents, some quality of life from pollution, and some cost to the nation from supporting an infrastructure geared toward private automobile ownership, and we trade off some lives and some crime for private gun ownership. We do so because we believe that the intangible benefits of cars and guns to so many millions of us outweigh the harm done to several thousand every year.

well...yeah it's a pretty safe bet that the ratio of guns in japan used for illegal activity versus legal activity is higher than in the US, since it's criminal to own guns.

Most folks aren't going to go through the effort to aquire an illegal gun to simply have it...

That being said I'm not sure your point. Yes, the ratio of criminal gun owners to non criminal gun owners in japan (ignoring the fact that 100% of gun owners are criminals in japan since gun ownership is illegal, I'm refering to crimes committed WITH the guns) is higher than in the US, ok.

Still doesn't change the fact that you're more likely to be an unarmed victim of violent crime with a gun in the United States than in japan. And isn't that the most important statistic? where are you more likely to be a victim of crime with a gun?

I'll be honest with you, I really don't think too much on gun crime. All I see is crime. I don't see much difference in someone getting robbed by gunpoint or knifepoint. I don't see much difference in someone shot to death and stabbed to death. Banning guns is like banning Toyota Corollas becasue they kill more pedestrians than any other car(I don't know if that's true, I just picked a very common car).

Banning guns to combat gun-related violence is scapegoating because the problem is violence. The United States has a violence problem. Japan, a gun-free nation doesn't. Swizerland, a gun-rich nation doesn't. Because guns aren't the problem and banning them isn't the solution.

Guns serve a very important purpose in free nations and I pity nations that allow their governments to legislate them away because it eliminates a very valuable contingency against tyranny of government. History has shown time and again that the people we have the most to fear from are those in charge.

I support the Second AMendment wholeheartedly because it is a shield against exactly that danger. Scapegoating guns in an attempt to solve a deeper problem is only going to make the country LESS safe from a real threat; the government.

and we trade off some lives and some crime for private gun ownership. We do so because we believe that the intangible benefits of cars and guns to so many millions of us outweigh the harm done to several thousand every year.

But I think this then is where the gap between us exists. I don't deal with intangibles too much. Or, that is to say, I don't see what intangible benefit of a gun is worth the extra deaths and risks, because, to me, a handgun is pure, 100% intangible with no tangible benefits what so ever.

A car has a shit ton of tangible benefits, regardless of where you live, and some intangible ones as well. If the only tangible purpose of a handgun (safety) does not do this, does not make us more safe, it is ONLY intangible benefits.

and, for me, I have not seen a single intangible benefit of a gun that's worth it.

Society exists because we collectively choose to give up some rights for other benefits. Social contract and all that. Society with unlimited rights is society with no government what so ever. It is anarchy. We have to expect that at some point SOME of our rights have to be limited. Should your desire for a gun, for nothing else than the fact that you want a gun, be allowed to create a more unsafe enviornment?

I dunno. It's a big question. Should you get to make me less safe because you want a gun?

Banning guns to combat gun-related violence is scapegoating because the problem is violence. The United States has a violence problem. Japan, a gun-free nation doesn't. Swizerland, a gun-rich nation doesn't. Because guns aren't the problem and banning them isn't the solution..

Oh I agree that our problem is violence. You must however admit that a gun is quite an excellent tool for enabling acts of quite extreme, and fully unreparable violence.

Perhaps the best there is that a person can get his hands on.

Yes, the true problem is violence, and death is the biggest problem from violence. But there is no tool greater than a gun for inflicting violent death.

This is where the arguments split. Gun control advocates say that guns are the problem. Nations without guns are safer. Get rid of guns, become safer.

Gun rights advocates say that safety has nothing to do with GUNS. Safety has to do with culture. Nations that are culturally less violent are safer because they are less violent, not because they have no guns. Having no guns is simply a product of being less violent. Get rid of guns, the violence remains, and all you've done is gotten rid of the best way to protect ourselves from violence.

The truth, however, lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, we are more violent, but I firmly believe we are more violent BECAUSE of our gun culture. The historical presence, idolization and damned near worship of guns in this country has helped in the development of our violent culture.

You can not do something about guns until you do something about our violent culture, but on the same hand, you can't do something about our violent culture, until we start doing something about the guns.

But I think this then is where the gap between us exists. I don't deal with intangibles too much. Or, that is to say, I don't see what intangible benefit of a gun is worth the extra deaths and risks, because, to me, a handgun is pure, 100% intangible with no tangible benefits what so ever.

A car has a shit ton of tangible benefits, regardless of where you live, and some intangible ones as well. If the only tangible purpose of a handgun (safety) does not do this, does not make us more safe, it is ONLY intangible benefits.

and, for me, I have not seen a single intangible benefit of a gun that's worth it.

Society exists because we collectively choose to give up some rights for other benefits. Social contract and all that. Society with unlimited rights is society with no government what so ever. It is anarchy. We have to expect that at some point SOME of our rights have to be limited. Should your desire for a gun, for nothing else than the fact that you want a gun, be allowed to create a more unsafe enviornment?

I dunno. It's a big question. Should you get to make me less safe because you want a gun?

I'll answer your question first. Yeah, I get to make you less safe. Why? Because I'm only making you a little less safe. I'm not a convicted felon, I'm not mentally ill. People like me are permitted to do things and own things that could be considered too dangerous for a felon or a lunatic. Now if I decided I wanted to own a bunch of dynamite and store it in my basement, that's considered too unsafe, and any right I have to do that is taken away as part of the social contract. The vast majority of gun owners simply never commit violent crimes. It's a negligible risk, and not worth interfering with their liberty.

As for choosing to give up rights for benefits, yeah, we do that. We do that by electing representatives who draw up laws codifying where one's rights end. It's a fairly democratic process. So far the majority of voters don't want their representatives to write laws that violate their right to own guns. Most people believe that the benefits outweigh the risk.

The truth, however, lies somewhere in the middle.

It usually does. :)

I'll answer your question first. Yeah, I get to make you less safe. Why? Because I'm only making you a little less safe. I'm not a convicted felon, I'm not mentally ill. People like me are permitted to do things and own things that could be considered too dangerous for a felon or a lunatic. Now if I decided I wanted to own a bunch of dynamite and store it in my basement, that's considered too unsafe, and any right I have to do that is taken away as part of the social contract. The vast majority of gun owners simply never commit violent crimes. It's a negligible risk, and not worth interfering with their liberty.

Oh but I am not afraid of the risk YOU pose. YOU make me only a tiny little bit less safe, this is true.

HOWEVER for you to own a gun, gun ownership must be legal, which makes it more available for OTHER people. YOU might not be a risk to me, but the only way for you to get that gun is to make guns more available to everyone, in general.

And you don't make me less safe, but what is necessary for you to have that gun is the same mechanism that made it a whole HELL of a lot easier for some kid to massacre 32 people down in virginia.

So no, you owning a gun doesn't make me less safe. The mechanisms that ALLOW you to own a gun do.

As for choosing to give up rights for benefits, yeah, we do that. We do that by electing representatives who draw up laws codifying where one's rights end. It's a fairly democratic process. So far the majority of voters don't want their representatives to write laws that violate their right to own guns. Most people believe that the benefits outweigh the risk.

Hah, fair enough, I'll give you that.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

More guns = less crime. I'm so proud of my home state!

The truth, however, lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, we are more violent, but I firmly believe we are more violent BECAUSE of our gun culture. The historical presence, idolization and damned near worship of guns in this country has helped in the development of our violent culture.

You can not do something about guns until you do something about our violent culture, but on the same hand, you can't do something about our violent culture, until we start doing something about the guns.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think you say it well :)

I'll take that option any day. I worry a lot more about people being able to walk out of Wal-Mart with a shotgun and ammunition than I do about someone setting up an armory in his or her basement.

And I worry a lot more about people who get flagged twice as a danger to themselves or others being tossed back into the pool.

If one thing that the VT thingy showed is that there are potentially many more people out there who are dangers to themselves at the very least that aren't getting the help they need.

That's the real scandal.

I'll take that option any day. I worry a lot more about people being able to walk out of Wal-Mart with a shotgun and ammunition than I do about someone setting up an armory in his or her basement.


I don't know how many states are like this, but in CT, a person cannot buy a firearm and ammunition at the same time (even if the ammunition isn't the caliber of the firearm being purchased).

so ONE GUY who has access to a damned STEEL FACTORY manages to make a gun, and somehow this negates the entire idea that limiting access to firearms drastically decreases crimes committed with guns?

seriously, are you really proposing that people are going to suddenly start manufacturing guns? It's one guy!


It's quite the hobby here in the US. People make everything from break action derringers, to falling block rifles, to bolt action rifles, to revolvers, to semi-auto pistols and rifles, etc.... Some of them are real simple in design and manufacture, while others are made with CAD/CAM and CNC machines. They even sell 0% to 80% frames and recievers (I have a 0% AR-15 forging sitting on my desk right now).

Oddly enough, I was recently thinking about ways to make a single shot, single use gun using wood as my primary construction material. Yes it can be done.

I am for the moment going to ignore the 2nd amendment, because it's kinda the trump card in these sorts of arguments. As much as I can argue I disagree with gun ownership, and disagree with the reasons FOR gun ownership, as long as the 2nd amendment is there, it sorta kills my argument. No matter how presuasively I may argue...it's worthless because it can't be done as long as the constitutiona llows. So I don't support getting rid of guns in a literal sense, because that would be unconstitution.

Whether the 2nd amendment should be struck is a whole other argument.

Now we get into the matter of function. Cars are needed for our society to function. We are a spread out, spread thing, commuter nation.

Now if the proported role of guns, IE to keep us safe, is shown to be invalid because statistics suggest that legal gun ownership actually makes the civilian population LESS safe then the question becomes more...questionable.

We are willing to "put up" with deaths from cars because, damn it, we need cars. But if legalizing firearms actually makes us LESS safe, the justification for having them goes entirely away other than for the simple reason of "I want".

Now, I fully respect your right to do whatever the hell you want with your life, your property, and anybody who consents. But should your wants be able to create a society that is less safe for everyone else? Should those who want guns be able to put everyone at more risk for no other reason than they want guns?

Now that being said, I agree it's impractical for america (notwitstanding the 2nd amendment). Simply getting rid of all guns now will not make things safer, overall. We're too far gone for that without slow, steady reforms. I agree that such a swift solution is not viable for america right now.

What I object to is people who somehow twist and turn and bend around trying to show that in some way, ANY WAY, that people in gun free nations are somehow less safe than in america, and that gun ownership should be justified for no other reason than "it keeps us safe".

And they can't. Just can't.


Just so you're aware, there are many firearms owners that do not own firearms to keep themselves safe, they own firearms for other purposes (for a couple of examples, my brother in law has firearms because he hunts, while I have a firearm because I like to target shoot).

That's awesome!

Did prohibition of alcohol stop drinking or make it worse? So far everything I've read says that the industry got a whole lot bigger when it was outlawed and the once nobel experiment fell from the pedistal it was perched on aflame. If prohibition never happened then gangsters like good ol' Al would not have gotten nearly as powerful as they did. They'd still have been there but not as much.

And that's not the only case of something getting banned then getting worse. Seems every time something is banned it turns into a slick, highly efficient blackmarket literally overnight. To me it all boils down to one question: do we accept the relatively minor bad with the disproportionately high good or do we try to fight human nature? Prohibitionists possess all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. I can't trust a man who'd deprive me of my freedom, my choice. We're not all criminals, we shouldn't be treated like them. A man is suposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

But I think this then is where the gap between us exists. I don't deal with intangibles too much. Or, that is to say, I don't see what intangible benefit of a knife is worth the extra deaths and risks, because, to me, a knife is pure, 100% intangible with no tangible benefits what so ever.

A car has a shit ton of tangible benefits, regardless of where you live, and some intangible ones as well. If the only tangible purpose of a knife (safety) does not do this, does not make us more safe, it is ONLY intangible benefits.

and, for me, I have not seen a single intangible benefit of a knife that's worth it.

Society exists because we collectively choose to give up some rights for other benefits. Social contract and all that. Society with unlimited rights is society with no government what so ever. It is anarchy. We have to expect that at some point SOME of our rights have to be limited. Should your desire for a knife, for nothing else than the fact that you want a knife, be allowed to create a more unsafe enviornment?

I dunno. It's a big question. Should you get to make me less safe because you want a knife?

If handguns are banned and people start stabbing each other, knives are next. Then rocks. Then cement. Then hands. Then stubs. It goes on and on.

With 2nd Amendment aside, there is MANY reasons to have guns other then protecting. There is sporting events of range shooting, hunting.
Also the fact that guns protect IS real and true. A criminal is not more willing to step into a house that has a owner of a gun. Many times criminals stake out their targets before going in. Those that dont are in the minority.
And quite frankly i personally dont think we as citizens have a right to take awy items that dont harm others when used properly. Its called education on the use of such a tool.

With 2nd Amendment aside, there is MANY reasons to have guns other then protecting. There is sporting events of range shooting, hunting.
Also the fact that guns protect IS real and true. A criminal is not more willing to step into a house that has a owner of a gun. Many times criminals stake out their targets before going in. Those that dont are in the minority.
And quite frankly i personally dont think we as citizens have a right to take awy items that dont harm others when used properly. Its called education on the use of such a tool.

If you shoot someone properly they don't get hurt?

If handguns are banned and people start stabbing each other, knives are next. Then rocks. Then cement. Then hands. Then stubs. It goes on and on.

It's a lot easier to fight an attacker that has a knife.... bringing it into close combat evens the playing field.

If you shoot someone properly they don't get hurt?

If you shoot someone and they die without feeling a thing does it count as hurting them?

EDIT: According to wikitionary, to hurt someone they have to feel pain.

I can throw a knife pretty well.
And I'm okay at a bow and arrow, need to work on that.
I can also throw axes.

If you shoot someone properly they don't get hurt?


I believe what Earabia meant was, when a firearm is used properly (in the activities he listed), other people don't get hurt.

Oddly enough, I was recently thinking about ways to make a single shot, single use gun using wood as my primary construction material. Yes it can be done.

My friend did that, the recoil shattered the wooden stock, ripping his hand to shreds - he lost 2 fingers.

If handguns are banned and people start stabbing each other, knives are next. Then rocks. Then cement. Then hands. Then stubs. It goes on and on.

Yup. Just like it has happened in all the countries that have banned or restricted personal gun ownership. My God, you have no idea how difficult it is to get your hands on cement in Japan. Or hands for that matter :eek: :rolleyes:

Did prohibition of alcohol stop drinking or make it worse? So far everything I've read says that the industry got a whole lot bigger when it was outlawed and the once nobel experiment fell from the pedistal it was perched on aflame. If prohibition never happened then gangsters like good ol' Al would not have gotten nearly as powerful as they did. They'd still have been there but not as much.

And that's not the only case of something getting banned then getting worse. Seems every time something is banned it turns into a slick, highly efficient blackmarket literally overnight. To me it all boils down to one question: do we accept the relatively minor bad with the disproportionately high good or do we try to fight human nature? Prohibitionists possess all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. I can't trust a man who'd deprive me of my freedom, my choice. We're not all criminals, we shouldn't be treated like them. A man is suposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
Yes obviously nothing should be banned at all, heroin flavoured nucleared powered hardcore porn for all!

Yes obviously nothing should be banned at all, heroin flavoured nucleared powered hardcore porn for all!
What's wrong with any of that? Nuclear power is safe, heroine is something you have to choose to start usuing, and porn...is porn.

What's wrong with any of that? Nuclear power is safe, heroine is something you have to choose to start usuing, and porn...is porn.

Nuclear power isn't safe when it's freely available to anyone. Plutonium over the counter is a recipe for disaster. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the general populace is only going to lead to one thing, nuclear holocaust over the height of a fence.

If handguns are banned and people start stabbing each other, knives are next. Then rocks. Then cement. Then hands. Then stubs. It goes on and on.
Because it's just as quick and easy to kill 32 people (some hiding behind walls and doors) in a few minutes with a knife as it is with a gun, isn't it?

If you shoot someone properly they don't get hurt?

*smacks head on keyboard*

Nice taking what i said out of context...
No, i am sayin gis if you are properly trained on how to use a gun we wouldnt have so many accidents a year like we do now...which is the largest reason why so many die from firearms.

Yup. Just like it has happened in all the countries that have banned or restricted personal gun ownership. My God, you have no idea how difficult it is to get your hands on cement in Japan. Or hands for that matter :eek: :rolleyes:

Then again you are also comparing two TOTALLY DIFFERENT cultures of people. Like beer is to germans as guns are to Americans.

I don't see much difference in someone shot to death and stabbed to death.
except it's a lot easier to (accidently or purposely) fire a gun at someone than stab them.

Banning guns to combat gun-related violence is scapegoating because the problem is violence. The United States has a violence problem. Japan, a gun-free nation doesn't. Swizerland, a gun-rich nation doesn't. Because guns aren't the problem and banning them isn't the solution.
Both you and DCD ("For some reason Americans are a more agresssive people") have used this argument.
I say that's bull, and merely an excuse, not an argument, for gun-related deaths in the US. It's dragged up over and over again in these pointless discusions, yet I've yet to see any research that shows this.
Where are the stats?

NZ you may be surprised to know has a very aggressive culture (the movie 'Once were Warriors' is more a documentary than a movie - and indeed, it understates just how angry and violent some people are in NZ), yet has less murders per capita than the US. Probably the same amount of assaults but less murders.
Main reason is strict gun controls. And yes, NZ also has a very strong hunting culture (more so, I would guess, than the States due to the amount of rural areas in NZ) and so there are lots of guns (read rifles and shotguns) out there.

Then again you are also comparing two TOTALLY DIFFERENT cultures of people.
Quite. Because Japan and the Japanese have never been a culture and a people that glorified violence, have they?

No, i am sayin is if you are properly trained on how to use a gun we wouldnt have so many accidents a year like we do now...which is the largest reason why so many die from firearms.
That's the biggest problem I see with guns in the States - lack of training. Just why can't that be part of obtaining a firearm in the US?
Surely proper training is part of the 'well-regulated militia' in the 2nd admendment. Can't really see how some dumb hick with a car full of guns is 'well-regulated'.

Nuclear power isn't safe when it's freely available to anyone. Plutonium over the counter is a recipe for disaster. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the general populace is only going to lead to one thing, nuclear holocaust over the height of a fence.
Anyone who really wants to make a nuclear weapon can assemble every component of the bomb with parts from Menards and could probably get a hold of some pitchblende ore and bombard extracted U238 with neutrons from a homemade fusor or some other neutron source to create Pu239. Hell, I made a model of the basic Teller-Ulam design for a science project. No explosives, just colored foam. By making radioisotopes illegal for a civilian to possess we're only making sure that governments and criminals have them. If some would-be mugger sees me strolling around with a nuke on my back he'll think twice about targeting me!:D

And did you ever consider that someone may want to make an RTG to live off the grid and pollution free (energy-wise)? No...we can't have that. If they aren't dependent then they can't be controlled! We must stop this at all costs!

That's the biggest problem I see with guns in the States - lack of training. Just why can't that be part of obtaining a firearm in the US?
Surely proper training is part of the 'well-regulated militia' in the 2nd admendment. Can't really see how some dumb hick with a car full of guns is 'well-regulated'.

If I'm not mistaken, The"Militia Act of 1792" states all of that as well. That every citizen, or one becoming, male is required to own a firearm worthy of military service and is to be properly trained in its use.

Not the exact words but that is the general break down of it, or so as I understood it to mean.

If I'm not mistaken, The"Militia Act of 1792" states all of that as well. That every citizen, or one becoming, male is required to own a firearm worthy of military service and is to be properly trained in its use.

Not the exact words but that is the general break down of it, or so as I understood it to mean.Actually that act only called for them to have a weapon if they were called upon for service in the militia. And the firearm specifically called for is a musket. Here is an exact quote.

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

So if your local captain calls you out for the militia you better have your muzzle loader.

Quite. Because Japan and the Japanese have never been a culture and a people that glorified violence, have they?

SAOrry there is more to teh idea of violence then they are both violent, tere is reasons of why they do what they do. Yes both cultures have a history of violence, but what society doesnt?

That's the biggest problem I see with guns in the States - lack of training. Just why can't that be part of obtaining a firearm in the US?
Surely proper training is part of the 'well-regulated militia' in the 2nd admendment. Can't really see how some dumb hick with a car full of guns is 'well-regulated'.

Actually some states have that you have to take so many classes in order to get your right to buy and use a gun. I agree all states should have this, like regulations and gun safety classes.

Because everyone has major metalworking implements in their garage.

It doesn't require major metalworking implements.

All you need is the capacity to machine light metal. A metal lathe and a drill press.

If you're willing to spend a few thousand dollars, you can get a computer controlled milling machine that, if you toss in a brick of metal, will produce all the parts without you touching anything.

CAD drawings used for input for these machines are freely available.

I could show you how to do it in about five minutes.

Then again you are also comparing two TOTALLY DIFFERENT cultures of people. Like beer is to germans as guns are to Americans.

So? That's completely irrelevant for what I said. There is no indication whatsoever that the slippery slope of banning other items will occur if guns should ever be banned, and the cultural differences does not matter in that regard.

So? That's completely irrelevant for what I said. There is no indication whatsoever that the slippery slope of banning other items will occur if guns should ever be banned, and the cultural differences does not matter in that regard.



Actually realizing that there is different cultures DOES matter. And i didnt mention anything else about banning ANYTHING else, that is you thinking i did.

What i merely did was to remind some of you that we all have different ways to look at issues of different cultures, and yes even differences between German and Americans. Please read my posts.

I'll take that option any day. I worry a lot more about people being able to walk out of Wal-Mart with a shotgun and ammunition than I do about someone setting up an armory in his or her basement.

The people walking out of Wal-Mart aren't the ones to worry about. They aren't going on a rampage anytime soon. The people making guns in their homes worries the heck out of me because they are going to use it aggressively and not for defense.

People don't understand that there is a difference between responsible citizens and lunatics.

People don't understand that there is a difference between responsible citizens and lunatics.

That's because there isn't a difference.

Until one of those 'responsible people' does something crazy.

Actually realizing that there is different cultures DOES matter. And i didnt mention anything else about banning ANYTHING else, that is you thinking i did.
I didn't think you did, but you responded to me, remember? And thus your claim about culture was a comment on my respons to the "Slippery slope" argument of United Law - and that made your statement completely irrelevant with regards to my post. (Which, I repeat, you responded to, aye?)

What i merely did was to remind some of you that we all have different ways to look at issues of different cultures, and yes even differences between German and Americans. Please read my posts.
I did - but as I said, it made no sense as a response to my post. And some of us have previously posted quite a bit in the Gun Culture thread and are quite aware of the presence of differences between cultures. It might bear repeating, but not in the way you just did. You should have made a stand-alone post.


Yes, I'm a bit grumpy today...

I didn't think you did, but you responded to me, remember? And thus your claim about culture was a comment on my respons to the "Slippery slope" argument of United Law - and that made your statement completely irrelevant with regards to my post. (Which, I repeat, you responded to, aye?)

I did - but as I said, it made no sense as a response to my post. And some of us have previously posted quite a bit in the Gun Culture thread and are quite aware of the presence of differences between cultures. It might bear repeating, but not in the way you just did. You should have made a stand-alone post.


Yes, I'm a bit grumpy today...

Sorry i thougth my response fitted your post quite nicely in my opinion, but whatever.

Because it's just as quick and easy to kill 32 people (some hiding behind walls and doors) in a few minutes with a knife as it is with a gun, isn't it?

If you use it right, yes. You can kill a person with almost anything. Bricks, trees, cement, water, basic cleaning chemicals, anything.

If you train for three days with a knife, and are cautious and careful about whom you kill and where, you could probably kill more people with a knife than with a gun.

If you use it right, yes. You can kill a person with almost anything. Bricks, trees, cement, water, basic cleaning chemicals, anything.

If you train for three days with a knife, and are cautious and careful about whom you kill and where, you could probably kill more people with a knife than with a gun.

You sound like Gareth from The Office.

The people walking out of Wal-Mart aren't the ones to worry about. They aren't going on a rampage anytime soon. The people making guns in their homes worries the heck out of me because they are going to use it aggressively and not for defense.

People don't understand that there is a difference between responsible citizens and lunatics.

There are many people that make firearms on their own (it's actually quite the hobby), and we surely would have heard in the news if someone used a home-built firearm aggresively. Some of the most common home-built designs are single shot falling block or break barrel rifles and pistols. Bolt action is another relatively simple design to make at home, with semi auto being less simple than the other designs.