SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
3ders.org has an article on the conclusion of a trial in Japan of a man for making a 3D printed gun.
Earlier today, a verdict was reached in the infamous 3D printed gun trial that was being held in the Yokohama District Court in Tokyo, Japan. Presiding Judge Koji Inaba found the 28-year-old Yoshitomo Imura, a former teacher at a local college, guilty of violating laws controlling firearms and swords. For printing at least two workable guns using a 3D printer, Imura was sentenced to two years in prison.
Since Imura's arrest in May, a number of Japanese distributors of 3D printing technology have organized a '3D printer Promotion Council' to both educate people about the possibilities of this technology, but also to warn consumers of its dangers. They are currently looking into possibilities to avoid such events in the future, including better cooperation between the industry and the government and a blacklist of design data.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday October 20 2014, @08:14PM
All of which is directly contradictory to the common law legal principle of 'innocent until proven guilty.'
Yes, it's absolutely a good idea to keep people with criminal intent away from weapons - IF you can find a way to do it, without in the process depriving those with no such intent of their rights (including their right to bear arms and defend themselves.)
But you cant do that - 'intent' is not something that can be stuck on a scale and weighed. It's weighed by courts, based on indirect evidence, ONLY AFTER a criminal *act* has occurred. Outlawing 'intent' rather than action is a very slippery slope.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 21 2014, @01:41AM
The 2 standards I mentioned:
1. Those that have previously been found guilty of shooting and killing somebody. Now, obviously, that standard isn't perfect, but given what we know about recidivism somebody looking to buy a gun shortly after they get released from jail for shooting somebody is probably planning on shooting somebody.
2. Those who have been committed to mental institutions for diseases that are known to cause violent outbursts. As in the kind of person who would shoot their postman thinking that he's an alien spy or something.
The proposed mechanism is that we block the legal sale of weapons to those kinds of people by implementing a universal background check on people who want to purchase a gun, regardless of whether that is from a dealer, gun show, or private sale, which would catch both the criminals and the crazy people. That's obviously imperfect: Some will acquire guns illegally, and it's also possible that these people wanted to buy guns for completely non-criminal purposes. But it seems like it would be worth a try to reduce the body count, and I don't equate these kind of measures with jail time or fines and the like.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1) by Mr. Slippery on Tuesday October 21 2014, @03:48AM
Criminals and crazy people should be under supervision by prison guards, parole or probation officers, or psychiatrists. Not by gun store clerks.
If you can't trust someone to have access to guns, you can't trust them to be living unsupervised. Background check schemes are predicated on the idea that we have a list of people we don't trust. Ok, fine. Why are these people walking the streets? Either they should be locked up, or someone with the appropriate training and legal authority should be checking up on these folks regularly, not just to see that they aren't planning crime but to help them with the skills to build a non-criminal life.
It's absurd to put that on Grandma Alice when she puts an ad on Craigslist to sell Grandpa Bob's old hunting rifle. It's asinine -- indeed, violently insane -- to suggest that the state should force her into a cage at gunpoint for not filing the right paperwork in doing so.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:02AM
The way it works in Canada is certain weapons are basically banned or hard to get a permit for. This includes sidearms. Generally to own a legal weapon you have to have taken a short firearms course and it's illegal to sell a weapon to someone who hasn't taken the course. The only people who are actually banned from owning a legal weapon are people who a Judge has banned, usually at sentencing.
There are also laws on storage and such.
None of this having whole classes of people who are blanket banned, often for non-firearm related charges and none of taking away other rights such as to vote, which of course includes voting for a change to the law that you broke.