In Japan, gun ownership is a privilege, not a right

And on top of those rules, the license is only good for 3 years and you have to go and renew it without any notice like fore drivers license. If you forget to do it in time, well good luck as you might be charged for owning a gun illegally!

Japan got this Gun Ownership thing absolutely right, nobody can doubt or argue against this. The stats do the speaking.

Compared to just about anywhere else with a stable, developed government — and many countries without even that — the more than 11,000 gun-related killings each year in the United States are simply off the charts.

This is a very misleading statistic. The truth is that if you compare per capita data, specifically Murders per thousand per gun, the U.S. is only the fourth of fifth dangerous country.

Also, if you look at causes of death in the U.S., guns are way, way down on the list. Even below "Medical Mistakes."

All it takes is some time on Wikipedia, and some emotionally free logic, and that stats bear this out. There are many other causes for concern than gun ownership.

Guns should be a privilege and not a right. America could learn a lot from Japanese laws.

New Zealand has the same gun requirements. To get a firearms license in New Zealand I had to do;

1) : Police background check. 2) : A day of training. 3) : Pass a written test. 4) : The have the police interview my neighbors and partner (in a separate room from me) to check if I was o.k to have a gun. 5) : have police check that I had some place secure to store them in my house.

Handguns and semiautomatics are not allowed (unless for competetive sports reasons and then you must be endorsed by the club and remain an active club members and in competitive sport). Owning a gun for self defence is not a valid reason for having a gun according to the N.Z arms code.

However we still have quite a few armed hold ups and other gun violence. But less so in cases of domestic violence etc, because of the background checks. I don`t know how N.Z gun death statistics stack up against those of Japan, even though we have similar legislation.

I've heard ammunition is regulated too; how much you get one year is based on how much you used last year. This may only apply to those who have actual hunting licenses, though. Does anyone know if this is true?

Without making any comment on the whole gun thing... statistics about almost anything, as a single metric, comparing one country / culture with another mean almost nothing.

I just found a statistic for USA 2011 murders committed with a gun; ~8,600 (Guardian UK); given ~300M registered guns in the US at that time this gives 0.0029%. Using the stats in the above article, Japan gets 0.0018%. What does this say? Nothing.

Aren't most constitutionally safeguarded rights actually privileges - of being a citizen?

I've owned guns here in Japan for many years, and I really have no complaints about the procedures.

Japan got this Gun Ownership thing absolutely right, nobody can doubt or argue against this. The stats do the speaking.

That's Japan. gaijinfo is right. Japan can do what they want, I could care less, but Japan is not America, different laws, different countries and I'm happy for them, but I don't want my country to be like Japan.

Xeno23, your maths is terrible.

Using the numbers in the article above, the US has about twice the population as Japan (2.3x to be exact) but has forty times (40.7x) the number of gun murders as Japan.

So, from an individual's perspective, an average American is about eighteen (17.7x) times more likely to be gun murdered than an average Japanese person.

That is significant.

I've heard ammunition is regulated too; how much you get one year is based on how much you used last year. This may only apply to those who have actual hunting licenses, though. Does anyone know if this is true?

You are allowed to keep up to 800 rounds in your house, though you are encouraged to shoot off any remaining rounds left over from hunting season by attending an annual shooting meet held in April.

not applicable in US, the land of , erh, freedom

An American friend of mine wanted a gun for hunting (he's in Nagano). He worked through all the procedures only to have his Japanese wife oppose him actually buying a gun, out of fear that something bad might happen if one was in the house. So just in case anyone is wondering, foreigners can own guns here too, if they can pass the background checks etc.

Japan does not have the American gun culture. While the U.S. certainly has more firearms deaths, casualties and crimes, I bet we would lose to Japan on bladed weapons and kitchen knives.

Could someone expound on the "privilege" part please? To do what exactly?

"Virtually all handgun-related crime is attributable to gangsters, who obtain them on the black market. But such crime is extremely rare and when it does occur, police crack down hard on whatever gang is involved, so even gangsters see it as a last-ditch option."

Something tells me this might reduce US gun deaths as well.

Japan hasn't got a huge drug problem, either. If drugs were taken out of the equation the murder rate would surely drop.

I can freely own a Japanese bow (yumi) and arrows, and could carry them everywhere I go, if I'd wished so (no license required). They are pretty difficult to conceal given that the bow alone has around 230 cm. I never heard of anyone being killed with a bow on purpose (in the past 100 years at least), although, in the hands of a skilled person it is a very lethal weapon, up to 100 m distance. It's power and accuracy can be quite similar to a small rifles', and better than an airguns'.

The catch is that is takes around 10 years of receiving hard training from teachers in order to become proficient with such a weapon.

A gun and bullets, can be owned (and used) by any schmuch, mentally deranged person - as it happens now in USA. This makes them much more dangerous, and I am shocked the Americans hesitate so much into changing their constitution, while it is so obvious it would save a lot of lives.

Japan got this Gun Ownership thing absolutely right, nobody can doubt or argue against this. The stats do the speaking.

Hear hear. Give me the Japanese approach to guns over the US's any day of the week.

Historical and cultural factors aside this is another area where Japan trumps the US hands down. Gun industry is just too big, powerful and making too much money.

Yes; this is CORRECT, it is a " Privilege ", and you are a Servant of the Emperor, not a CITIZEN.

Has it escaped everyone that the backdrop of this range is SOLID ROCK ?; I would think TWICE about going to THIS shooting range.

Has it escaped everyone that the backdrop of this range is SOLID ROCK ?; I would think TWICE about going to THIS shooting range.

That's because it's a range for shooting skeet/trap, not a rifle range. These are much more common in Japan than rifle ranges.

Uchida said Japan’s gun laws are frustrating, overly complicated and can seem capricious.

“It would be great if we had an organization like the National Rifle Association to stand up for us,” he said,

Hmmm; INTERESTING Reading.

Kundong, my maths are fine; you've applied a second metric / modifier to the calculation - which misses my point entirely. I won't elaborate further.

I think it's amusing that Uchida thinks the laws are frustrating, and that it'd be great to have a J-NRA; so pretty much gun enthusiasts all over, even in Japan, are alike in that what many of them really want is... more guns! LOL

As for no gun culture in Japan, go to a bookstore and look at the magazine shelves; how many glossy gun porn journals are there? Japan pioneered and perfected the fake gun industry; don't even start talking about airsoft.

As a kid growing up in Tokyo, I had a huge arsenal of toy guns, purchased for a handful of yen from every mamasan toy shop in the area, and unlike American toy guns that shot mostly caps, these things shot pellets and BBs good enough to put your eye out. Japan has a gun culture, just a really frustrated one!

“Put a gun in the wrong hands, and it’s a weapon.”

Good point! The thing USA fails to recognise is that with their loose regulations of the gun ownership they are basically putting guns in the "wrong hands". With so many mental illnesses (depression, anxiety, let alone psychosis or schizophrenia) how can you expect more positive figures? Good on you Japan! Just keep up the good work!

1) : Police background check. 2) : A day of training. 3) : Pass a written test. 4) : The have the police interview my neighbors and partner (in a separate room from me) to check if I was o.k to have a gun. 5) : have police check that I had some place secure to store them in my house.

The part in bold is what the US needs to do to help improve its background check system.

I have said it before and I will say it again that the US background check system sucks and is not thorough enough and that banning semi-automatics or military style semi-automatics is not going to do anything. Background checks is really the only effective gun control measure that prevents gun violence.

I don`t know how N.Z gun death statistics stack up against those of Japan, even though we have similar legislation.

New Zealand's gun crime statistics including deaths per-capita is lower than Australia's and you guys have less restrictive gun laws than them.

These laws work in Japan, because Japan citizens are used to being sheep. They never had the right to own weapons, and have accepted it. And who, I wonder, decided that the peasants shouldn't have the means to defend themselves or revolt?

Why is it only "gun" violence matters? Is every other type of violence somehow OK? There are people who don't want the public (US) to have guns. That is the agenda, not stopping violence. More people are killed with hammers per year than with so-called "assault rifles." You are very nearly as likely to die brushing your teeth as to be killed in a "mass murder" like Sandy Brook.

America IS different than Japan. What works there WILL NOT work in America. Australia and the UK have gun bans, and their murder rates, assault rates, home invasion rates went WAY (69% in the case of Australian murders) up.

What's more, the purpose of 2A is to arm the people AGAINST the government: "When a government fears the people, there is liberty. When a people fears its government, there is tyranny." That purpose is probably lost on most Americans, but if things get truly bad enough, it is the government fearing (respecting) the people which matters, not an actual 1776-style revolution. The problem is, people (liberals) in the US will not realize this until it is too late, and it is already getting late.

The US gov wants a top-down authority-driven model like Japan, but the reason it works in Japan is because of Japan's particular and homogeneous culture. It can not work in the US, and all that confiscating guns form law abiding citizens will do is to insure they're unarmed when criminals, who will not turn them in, come a calling (e.g. home invasions up 29% in Australia).

Most people in the US are, in truth, not for gun control, at least "not for me" (just everyone else). Even those who "support" it will head to the gun store and buy one if they feel threatened. Liberals are hypocrites, and do not realize that if a law is not for everyone, it is for no one.

Likewise in Australia it is also a privilege. The background checks and reasons for ownership must be legitimate, i.e if you are a club member/hunter/farmer/vermin control. Personal protection is not a valid reason...

The figures are there plain and simple with Japan, the US could take a leaf out of their (and our) book..

I see many of you saying Japan got it right and American learn from Japan. No it cannot! Japan does not have bordering countries. It is an island nation. America is not an island nation.

I think it's amusing that Uchida thinks the laws are frustrating, and that it'd be great to have a J-NRA; so pretty much gun enthusiasts all over, even in Japan, are alike in that what many of them really want is... more guns! LOL

I think what he is talking about are laws that don't serve public safety for example you can "own" or apply for a shotgun license in Japan but since 1971, if I'm not mistaken, you can't apply for a new rifle license but those that had a rifle licensed before 1971 were allowed to keep them. In other words you can't even get your hands on a .22 LR rifle yet you can get your hands on a shotgun. Shotguns are more lethal than rifles and if you have a rifled barrel shotgun you can definitely get a lethal range of 250+ yards out of them. So the question becomes what service does it provide to public safety to stop giving out rifle licenses but still keep giving out shotgun licenses?

GJN48, " see many of you saying Japan got it right and American learn from Japan. No it cannot! Japan does not have bordering countries. It is an island nation. America is not an island nation." So you buy guns to protect yourself against invading foreigners ?!!

Everyone's forgetting the fact that Japan does not have the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is pretty much the one thing that America will never repeal and one that no one outside America can fully understand.

mikesbo

What's more, the purpose of 2A is to arm the people AGAINST the government: "When a government fears the people, there is liberty. When a people fears its government, there is tyranny." That purpose is probably lost on most Americans, but if things get truly bad enough, it is the government fearing (respecting) the people which matters, not an actual 1776-style revolution. The problem is, people (liberals) in the US will not realize this until it is too late, and it is already getting late.

It still failed miserably during the cold war with the ideology driven red witch hunt which was by far an injust by the US government against her own people.

Mikesbo - dont distort the figures: both the UK and Australia have much lower homicide rates than USA. They also have a far lower rate of gun deaths.

Its very clear - places like Japan, UK and Australia benefit from a lower homicide rate because of gun restrictions.

The above doesnt, of course, pretend to deal with your argument that guns are necessary to prevent despotic government. However, remove the guns and you reduce the death and homicide rate. Or can you prove otherwise?

Japan has it the right way - gun ownership is a privilege.

People, particularly of the socialist persuasion, love to point at Japan's case, as if that's the panacea for all nations. However, one should also look to the Swiss in their success.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.jp/2012/12/switzerland-gun-control-and-history.html?m=1

So BassFunk says does not want the USA to be like Japan?? Safe?? Clean?? Almost gun free?? No gangster thugs high on crack armed with AK47s like back in Chicago?? Miami?? NYC?? Dude! Speak for yourself because millions of other Americans are fed up with so much horrible violence!!!

@gaijinfo

This is a very misleading statistic. The truth is that if you compare per capita data, specifically Murders per thousand per gun, the U.S. is only the fourth of fifth dangerous country.

And you will notice that there are no "developed" countries up there with you. Every other country with the same issue is a developing nation.

Also, if you look at causes of death in the U.S., guns are way, way down on the list. Even below "Medical Mistakes."

However you look at it, 11,000 people could be alive today in the US if there were no guns available to the general public. Each cause of death need its own solution, saying more people died by "medical mistakes" isn't an excuse to not deal with the deaths caused by guns. Just means you have two issues to deal with hand not just one.

Second Amendment can be repealed, people make laws!! People get rid of stupid laws all the time! America needs a chane of heart so until Americans wake and say that enough is enough then and only then will true peace and safety be part of American life, now too many Americans walking around in a haze of confusion, so blood and guts will keep on spilling, me thinks.

However you look at it, 11,000 people could be alive today in the US if there were no guns available to the general public. Each cause of death need its own solution, saying more people died by "medical mistakes" isn't an excuse to not deal with the deaths caused by guns. Just means you have two issues to deal with hand not just one.

But it is important to note though that the US is dealing with gun violence, gun violence as a grand total including homicide is down 15% since 2007. Gun violence as a grand total including homicide is down basically by 50% since 1993.

So it is not like gun violence is increasing or just stabilized and not moving it is going down.

Also gun homicides in the US are at 8558+ not 11,000.

My right to own a gun in the US ensures the government will not take away my other rights. The founding fathers understood this. It wasn't about hunting. I have more trust in my fellow citizens than I do in any government.

My right to own a gun in the US ensures the government will not take away my other rights.

No, it won't "ensure" anything.

So the question becomes what service does it provide to public safety to stop giving out rifle licenses but still keep giving out shotgun licenses?

I was just talking to someone from the police department about this, and the concern is assassination or other sniping. The question is not which is more deadly; it's which is more stealthy.

For the US, it's too late. The toothpaste has left the tube. There is no practical way that the guns already in circulation can possibly be removed or confiscated. Instead, it is better to look for more workable solutions.

You also have to remember that many countries with low gun ownership have high crime rates. Take the UK, for example. The rate of every kind of violent crime (save murder with a firearm) is much higher than the US. Rape, armed robbery, home invasion, mugging, assault, etc. are much more common in the UK. And, the crime rate is rising. In the US, it is at a decades long low, in spite of higher gun ownership.

But it is important to note though that the US is dealing with gun violence, gun violence as a grand total including homicide is down 15% since 2007. Gun violence as a grand total including homicide is down basically by 50% since 1993.

Its the article that says 11k, not me. I've seen various stats, and even as high as 14k but do you know what, when it gets to 0 we should be happy right? Then we can rest. Until then, lets try ways to stop the carnage.

My right to own a gun in the US ensures the government will not take away my other rights.

Bush took away your healthcare - he hasn't been shot yet.

@Bakakun I agree with you 100% Unfortunately nowadays people discredit the founding fathers any chance they can. Those were amazing men. Have a look at any member of the current administration, not one even measures up to the level of human being the founding fathers were.

My right to own a gun in the US ensures the government will not take away my other rights. The founding fathers understood this. It wasn't about hunting. I have more trust in my fellow citizens than I do in any government.

Bakakun, you have blinkers on. Governments everywhere are taking away peoples rights but as long as you have your guns you cant see that, as it gives you a feeling of power!

Likewise in Australia it is also a privilege. The background checks and reasons for ownership must be legitimate, i.e if you are a club member/hunter/farmer/vermin control. Personal protection is not a valid reason...

The BBC reported today that Australia is experiencing a surge in indiscriminate gun violence among young people in Sydney. Very odd news considering Australia's strict gun laws.

The question is not which is more deadly; it's which is more stealthy.

Well if that is the case just make it mandatory that all rifles have non removable flash enhancers, those things make a gigantic fireball but they also make the gun extremely loud.

I don't think they were concerned about stealth I think they are concerned with the potential range, rifles have more effective ranges than shotguns, in other words they are more lethal at longer ranges than shotguns. A "deer rifle" that is chambered in .30-06 can be heard from at least a mile away. Plus shotguns can have silencers, the DNR where I live uses them on their shotguns.

Surf O'Holic - your link kind of killed my arguments. Honestly, I did not know that the Swiss are armed to the teeth, but, as we all kow, are still a very peaceful and safe nation. One can only conclude that the Americans can only blame their own people, education and their interpretation of freedom for the very high rate of deaths by the gun.

Just one thing I would like to know and why is this article under the crime section? Why isn't this under the features section?

Guns should be a privilege and not a right. America could learn a lot from Japanese laws.

Yes, Japanese (and most other countries') gun laws are all very good, but for us Americans these stipulations are about 240 years too late. The fact is it would be absolutely impossible to apply the same kind of laws now in the U.S. We may be able to ban certain military-style firepower, but there is just no way to control basic hand guns and hunting rifles. Many law-abiding Americans expect the right to be on an equal-footing with the gun-owning minority who do not abide by the law. Many Americans expect the right to take part in the American hunting tradition. And believe me, there are certain areas of my hometown of Chicago where it is only prudent to have a little "life insurance" at hand in a safe place. It may be an unfortunate situation, but I'm afraid that's how things are in the States. Beyond that, once a certain citizens' right is in place and established over many, many years, a government will have a mighty big problem trying to take that right away.

I think our laws are reasonable in Canada. Gun ownership is a part of our history, and the laws respect this fact. It was not very difficult for me to obtain my restricted-class possession and acquisition license, which permits the ownership of a range of rifles, shotguns, and handguns, along with ammunition, but it did entail training and a background check.

If there is one proviso I'd like to see integrated into the law, it would be a rural/woodlands pistol permit. Right now, it's technically illegal in Canada to carry a pistol with you out into remote or bear-ridden areas without obtaining a permit known as an Authorization to Carry from the RCMP. This is fairly difficult, and as a result, the law is widely ignored in some rural areas. Considering that it is already legal to carry a shotgun with you in the wilderness for self-defensive purposes, I don't see the need to also bar the carriage of handguns under the same circumstances.

But otherwise, the laws seem to work well for us. I think the whole of Canada only had something like 150 gun homicides last year.

I think our laws are reasonable in Canada. Gun ownership is a part of our history, and the laws respect this fact. It was not very difficult for me to obtain my restricted-class possession and acquisition license, which permits the ownership of a range of rifles, shotguns, and handguns, along with ammunition, but it did entail training and a background check.

This includes weapons that the media seems insistent upon calling "assault rifles," though in Canada, the magazines are limited to a five-round capacity.

If there is one proviso I'd like to see integrated into the law, it would be a rural/woodlands pistol permit. Right now, it's technically illegal in Canada to carry a pistol with you out into remote or bear-ridden areas without obtaining a permit known as an Authorization to Carry from the RCMP. This is fairly difficult, and as a result, the law is widely ignored in some rural areas. Considering that it is already legal to carry a shotgun with you in the wilderness for self-defensive purposes, I don't see the need to also bar the carriage of handguns under the same circumstances.

But otherwise, the laws seem to work well for us. I think the whole of Canada only had something like 150 gun homicides last year.

@ebisen,

Glad you read that informative article.

Certainly, there is a vast chasm separating the Japanese and Swiss cultures, but the US culture has roots much closer to the Swiss. Sadly, the US failed to emulate the Swiss as the Founders intended.

" For centuries, the Swiss cantons had no restrictions on keeping and bearing arms, though every male was required to provide himself with arms for militia service. By the latter part of the 20th century, some cantons required licenses to carry pistols, imposed fees for the acquisition of certain firearms (which could be evaded by buying them in other cantons), and imposed other restrictions —albeit never interfering with the ever-present shooting matches.

In other cantons — usually those with the lowest crime rates — one did not need a police permit for carrying a pistol or for buying a semiautomatic, lookalike Kalashnikov rifle. A permit was necessary only for a non-militia machine gun. Silencers or noise suppressors were unrestricted. Indeed, the Swiss federal government sold to civilian collectors all manner of military surplus, including antiaircraft guns, cannon, and machine guns."

That's not to say that the Swiss approach would be appropriate for any other culture, but each culture is different, and what works for one, or some, won't work for others.

In Japan, where conformity is cherished(or enforced : The nail that sticks up gets beat down), individualism is limited to inconsequential externals. The US is a whole different kettle of fish, particularly since it has been based on exceptional individualism since its inception.

@El

So BassFunk says does not want the USA to be like Japan?? Safe?? Clean?? Almost gun free?? No gangster thugs high on crack armed with AK47s like back in Chicago?? Miami?? NYC?? Dude! Speak for yourself because millions of other Americans are fed up with so much horrible violence!!!

El, right back at you, buddy. There are millions of Americans that are fed up with people like you that have the OPINION that we need to be like Australia and or like Japan, we don't need to be and for those that want to be like them, the door is always open, they can move there. Do I speak for every American? Of course NOT, but you also can't say that there are millions of Americans that are fed up, if they are, then why is congress having a hard time to enact these new gun measures, you think that these measures will pass the Democratic Senate?? It will be DOA for sure, don't even try to spin this as a Republican, country backwards thing. I own a bunch of guns because I can, I am a law-abiding citizen and as such, I have that right, it doesn't make me a killer. How about advocating more mental asylums for the mentally insane people out there, you are not addressing that issue, but you want to take my rights away as a responsible citizen. What's next, banning knives, baseball bats, because I can assure you, even if you could take away ALL and every single gun out there, people would use other means to kill you. Just take a look at the prisons and see what kind of ingenious ways these convicts come up with to kill people each and every day. They are only limited by their imagination. The gun problems that you are talking about in particular Chicago is something deeper than just using illegal firearms. There are a lot of social issues, don't want to stray off topic, but fatherless homes. Blacks have the highest birth out of wedlock over 70%, Hispanics 50% and Whites 25% don't give me that crap that guns are the problems, yes, it is a small part, but poverty, lack of education, No father in the home, drugs are the real cancer in these neighborhoods, which for some reason, liberals NEVER want to address. You guys think, taking the guns off the street will cure all these woes.

bass - what you dont seem willing to accept is that removing the guns from society reduces the murder rate (and accidental death rate.)

Japan shows this, hence the article. Even better, look at societies with a culture closer to the USA - Australia and UK - which have lower murder rates and gun deaths than than the USA due to strict gun control.

You may not be the one pulling the trigger in gun crimes in the USA, but the easy availability of guns does lead to a death rate far ahead of other western societies. Restrict gun ownership - reduce the killing. Its that simple.

Surf O'holic

In Japan, where conformity is cherished(or enforced : The nail that sticks up gets beat down), individualism is limited to inconsequential externals. The US is a whole different kettle of fish, particularly since it has been based on exceptional individualism since its inception.

So you're basically justifying gun ownership with individualism? (and also that criminally over-quoted Japanese idiom which should result in an automatic vote down) Biggest load of garbage I've ever heard.

If the US controlled gun ownership like Japan, you would have much less gun crime - surely that can't be disputed. Do you not want less gun crime?

@ebisen, @surf o'holic

Switzerland has compulsory military duty, and during service time conscriptees are required to keep their weapon at home. This means up to 200,000 people have weapons stored at home (90k are on standby out of that number). But you cannot compare this directly to the US. 1) The weapons are to be used at the command of the government, are the property of the government, and can't be used against the government (not without you being most likely killed). 2) The people given weapons are screened before being supplied, they are also trained in usage, so they actually become proficient in its use. 3) Switzerland does have a high rate of gun murders, so despite these controls, they have a problem because of access to guns. Not on the scale of US, but it is one of the highest in the developed world after the US, slightly higher then the next developed country being Finland. We could argue for days about who is/not developed, lets not go down that road for now.

It really is very simple maths - more guns available, more gun related murders. The answer does seem very simple but agree with surf's article that it will never be easy. It will take decades of changing the culture maybe generations). However, this is the time to start.

How do the murder rates, assault rates, home invasion rates in Australia and the UK compare to the US? (say per 100,000 people)

Why do some people think "one size fits all" when it's simply not the case?

I enjoy hunting(for sport and food) and use several different tools to do so, including some on the proposed ban list.

For once this is a good example of how Japanese laws and mentality protect its people very well, and the opposite -- lack of laws and a severe comprehension problem when it relates to guns and deaths caused by them -- is true of the US. They could truly learn from the Japanese on this, but alas, asking gun-nutters to admit the they don't really need handguns and assault weapons and learn something from the lessons of the countless massacres is like talking to a cauliflower and expecting it to be reasonable.

The law in Japan seems similar to that of the UK. Why does the writer feel the need to put the phrase 'nanny state' in there?

But then Uchida goes and says:

“It would be great if we had an organization like the National Rifle Association to stand up for us,” he said, though he acknowledged that there is no significant movement in Japan to ease gun restrictions.

He can't seriously want a bunch of right wing gun nuts have influence in Japan? Sad.

@some

what you dont seem willing to accept is that removing the guns from society reduces the murder rate (and accidental death rate.)

Sorry, not buying into that, my cousin works at a maximum security prison in CA and these guys use anything that they can find to kill their rivals, even wall paint. The stories that I often hear... There is no substantial proof that taking away guns will do anything to curb the violence. It's much more deeper and complex then that. To a small point, perhaps, but on a grand scale, nope!

Japan shows this, hence the article. Even better, look at societies with a culture closer to the USA - Australia and UK - which have lower murder rates and gun deaths than than the USA due to strict gun control.

As I said before, that's Japan and Japan NEVER had a gun culture, so comparing Japan to America is like Comparing Kobe Bryant to Mike Tyson.

You may not be the one pulling the trigger in gun crimes in the USA, but the easy availability of guns does lead to a death rate far ahead of other western societies. Restrict gun ownership - reduce the killing. Its that simple.

I think before going out a trying to take people's guns away, they should build or RE-build mental asylums, crack down in gang neighborhoods, take those guns, which most of them are illegal anyway, slap heavier fines, confront and try to fix the social problems plaguing the Black, Latino communities that are mostly fatherless, hold them accountable, go into these neighborhoods and close down these liquor stores which bring in drugs and prostitution and more guns, gang violence, no one EVER talks about that, liberals always want to sweep these problems under the rug and then blame the guns as the main culprit! Let's start there first and watch and see if crime doesn't plummet and take it from there.

I looked to see what the sentiment was in the US. Forget the Alex Jones, he seems to be on a mission to become famous. No shortage of people who just seem so extreme. Frankly it underscores surfoholic's view that it will be very very difficult to release dangerous weapons from some people. Very scary.

This guy owns a gun - and thinks the US is heading for tyranny if it gets taken away. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlkAjKk_4f8

This guy displays his collection - he thinks it is funny. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WKLXCHgOiA

This guy is amazingly chilling in his descriptions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooFIn8nIRhA

I love how people think taking away guns will somehow magically reduce crime rates. If someone wants to kill someone, they will find a way to kill someone. Guns or not. Japan having tight restrictions doesn't seem to stop people from knifing others, running them down with cars, etc.

Just look at famous Japanese massacres. Think only one involved a gun and they revoked his gun license. He used a gun, sword, and axe. Most others were just knives.

If you take the gun out of the equation more people will have a chance to escape. A gun can kill very quickly... a knife means you need to be very close, while a sword means you need to be at the most a metre away. Most opportunistic murderers prefer a safe distance as there is less chance of them being stopped... unless you are an idiot trying to hold up a bookies in the UK, then the tables are turned and the would-be gunman is himself killed by uinarmed people defending themselves.

I love how people think taking away guns will somehow magically reduce crime rates.

Some people just don't get it, huh?

NolivingJan. 28, 2013 - 11:47AM JST Shotguns are more lethal than rifles and if you have a rifled barrel shotgun you can definitely get a lethal range of >250+ yards out of them. So the question becomes what service does it provide to public safety to stop giving out rifle >licenses but still keep giving out shotgun licenses?

I have been using rifled barrel 12g shotguns for deer hunting since they started coming out in the late 1980s. I have yet to see one that can be lethally accurate out past 150 yards at best. 100 is more like it which is fine because a smoothbore is good only to 50 yards in most cases. And we are talking slugs and sabots of course. When you go to shot of any king accuracy out past 25 yards becomes almost meangless due to spread. For that reason in many parts of the US, shotguns are permitted in denser population areas whereas rifles are not. The dangers inherent in a centerfire rifle round in terms of penetration through walls and travel distance justify restrictions while allowing shotguns,

I love how people think taking away guns will somehow magically reduce crime rates.

Some people just don't get it, huh?

That's what I want to say. Some people will never get it.

If you take the gun out of the equation more people will have a chance to escape. A gun can kill very quickly... a knife means you need to be very close, while a sword means you need to be at the most a metre away. Most opportunistic murderers prefer a safe distance as there is less chance of them being stopped... unless you are an idiot trying to hold up a bookies in the UK, then the tables are turned and the would-be gunman is himself killed by uinarmed people defending themselves.

Thank God, that will never happen in the States, these new gun law measures will never pass the Senate. But again, if you are a deranged lunatic, it doesn't matter if you have a gun or not. Killing someone with a knife or a spoon, one person or 40, doesn't make a difference, murder is murder, guns are not the issue here, as I outlined earlier. When will people wise up and realize, we have a society that never want to take responsibility or accountability for their actions. They just think, get rid of the guns, it will God willing, never happen.

@bass

Killing someone with a knife or a spoon, one person or 40, doesn't make a difference,

Makes a heck of a difference to the other 39. And their families and friends....

I have been using rifled barrel 12g shotguns for deer hunting since they started coming out in the late 1980s. I have yet to see one that can be lethally accurate out past 150 yards at best.

You need the 45-70 rifle round, best of both if you ask me. Maybe the best feral hog weapon available when used in dense woods with the 1 shot (fist sized) take-down capability. Lot's of kick being a lever action.

Be wary of the new Marlin Lever actions since the Remington take over. Get an older one.

Interesting article, and it is obvious that Japan needs more guns in the hands of certified instructors and students like the fine Tsutomu Uchida. Every community should have one of these shooting ranges and I am sure they would be popular as well as educational. People here learn about guns from Hollywood movies and Manga -probably the most ridiculous way to educate yourself on any subject.

This right versus privilige stuff is all theoretical. In NZ they say that driving is a privilige and not a right as well. It all boils down to much the same thing - whether doing or having something like a gun or a car is defined as a right or a privilige there are regulations surrounding it and if you don't follow them then you don't get to have or use that thing. The real debate should be about what the regulations are.

@Luca

And that's your opinion and I respect that, but nothing will ever change in our society until the politicians, the media and others see that guns are NOT and should NOT not be the main issue to solving these problems and by the way, if you are so right, the Senate Democrats could try and sign a law limiting the sale of AR, but they know they would have to answer to their constituents which by the way many are Democrats and liberals, so you have way more than 40 that would not be for limiting the sale of firearms.

badsey3Jan. 28, 2013 - 11:34PM JST You need the 45-70 rifle round, best of both if you ask me. Maybe the best feral hog weapon available when used in >dense woods with the 1 shot (fist sized) take-down capability. Lot's of kick being a lever action. Be wary of the new Marlin Lever actions since the Remington take over. Get an older one.

I seriously would.... if I hunted in a zone that allowed rifles.

Title of article says it all. Privilege not a right. I read that, as Japanese do not have the right to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Sands, the condition they are in now. Typical Herd animals. Moo~ Or Bah~~~. News Flash! The Meek shall NOT inherit the Earth. (sigh).

"I know how weak and fruitless it must seem beguile the people of grief of a loss so overwhelming and seemingly senseless. But I cannot refrain from tendering to them the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they living in. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of their bereavement, and leave them only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be theirs to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom."

Yes, these are not my words. They still ring true to this day. Gun Ownership is not about, Hunting, Protection from our Neighbour with criminal intent, Shooting Sports, or Collecting. It is about preventing the Government from Being... what being allowed to Become due to the ignorance of the Masses who are not perspicacious enough to see the Slippery-Slope they have unwittingly stepped upon. There noses are buried in their Electronic Device oblivious to the real issues.

It is a Privilege? Ha! I'd love to hear a politician say that in the U.S.. MOOOooo BAAaaahhh~~

@San diegan In this modern developed age, with communication at the level it is, with the human ability to really understand, maybe for the first time in history IN REAL TIME, what propaganda is, do you honestly, hand on heart believe that there is chance that a government of a fiercely democratic country like the USA could fall into Tyranny if some of the people didn't have guns at home? What are the mechanics of that process? How would it all kick off? Hunting and self defence I can understand (although I do disagree with both in principle), but tyranny? Are all these random gun owners really capable of overpowering law enforcement and military elements of the government?

@ Moderator.

Ooops, you are right. It is about Gun Ownership being a privilege in Japan. My Bad. Yes, it is a privilege in Japan. That is why I am glad I don't live there anymore. Although, Ebisen did give a great alternative. My 70lb Mathews Compound Bow with 165gr LandSharks on the end of a X15 Easton Arrow has decimated many a wild boar in Yamaguchi. I wish I could post pictures! And the J-police gave me no trouble at all when I brought it through customs.

@Peter Payne. My Ex-J wife gave me trash about guns too.

"... simply off the charts."

Obviously this "journalist" has not done any research as the United States is 10th worldwide in gun-related deaths.

So, how do you classify the other nine countries that lead the United States?

The title of this article says it all. IN JAPAN it is a privilege not a right. Well IN AMERICA it is my right. I am really happy for Japan and there low rate of gun violence. I also love that people who don't live in USA can think they have the right to lecture me on what freedoms I have. Sure things like background checks are good ideas that make sense but all this talk about assault rifles and magazine sizes really doesn't matter. Those who will breaks laws will do it regardless. You really think that a criminal cares what gun laws they are breaking before they commit a murder. That has got to be the dumbest argument ever. Lets take things away from those that follow the rules because because it will give the appearance that we are actually taking some meaningful action. That type of blanket approach never solves a damn thing if you want an example look at the liberty policy that has been in effect for months for military members in Japan. IT CREATED MORE INCIDENTS rather than fixed the problem. I realize in the past I have commented that I would give my guns up if I thought it would save lives. But since I know me giving guns up as a law abiding American will not change anything. I retract my earlier statement. It is really easy to sit on the outside of this issue looking in and have the opinion that seems to be prevalent here and since this is generally a left leaning board I am not going to try to convince you that my statement has any merit, but I will say the day that Americans allow their guns to be taken away is just a first step in a scary direction.

BTW if you want good statistics on what happens in a country when harsh control laws are introduced look at Australia every type of violent crime increased significantly after they tightened their guns laws.

@Mark

So, how do you classify the other nine countries that lead the United States?

Palinly, or bluntly - they are developing nations, or non-developed countries. Includes El Salvador, Dominica, etc. I think the US. Switzerland seems to be the next developed country in the list, which oddly enough, doesn't have strict guns laws. Looks like a correlation, especially compared to Japan, UK, etc, right?

All the banter from those with opposing views here on JT illustrates the divisiveness of the general topic of gun control. Yes, this particular article is about the particular case of Japan. But the adamant gun control zealots take the illogical position that a one-size policy would, could, or should apply to all.

What seems to work in Japan is for Japanese, and that's fine. It's a fact, however, that since bans were enacted in some other countries, there have been increases in violent crime rates in those countries, not decreases.

In Japan, hunting is nearly non-existent, and as a result there are wild boar attacks which could be prevented, and hikers(and others) are sometimes attacked by bears but are defenseless. Granted, those are not very common, but they do occur. But, in other countries, where hunting IS a significant cultural tradition, such as Canada and USA, the Japanese style ban would be unacceptable to a large part of those societies.

Surf o'holic

In Japan, hunting is nearly non-existent, and as a result there are wild boar attacks which could be prevented, and hikers(and others) are sometimes attacked by bears but are defenseless. Granted, those are not very common, but they do occur. But, in other countries, where hunting IS a significant cultural tradition, such as Canada and USA, the Japanese style ban would be unacceptable to a large part of those societies.

Even the most ardent of gun control supporters will accept that a complete ban on guns is neither realistic or reasonable. What is painfully obvious though, is that there is no need for civilians to own assault rifles or magazines that house huge amounts of ammunition (if you can give us a reason, go ahead). If people want guns for hunting, fine - only sell guns that can hold small amounts of ammunition, get rid of the gun show loopholes, make the background checks more strict, etc. Perhaps then the US will be closer to a resolution and a safer society, where less nutcases are able to get hold of assault rifles with relative ease.

In Japan, hunting is nearly non-existent, and as a result there are wild boar attacks which could be prevented, and hikers(and others) are sometimes attacked by bears but are defenseless. Granted, those are not very common

So uncommon in fact, that your claim that one is a result of the other carries no weight at all. Like saying it rained because i forgot to do my rain dance.

Even the most ardent of gun control supporters will accept that a complete ban on guns is neither realistic or reasonable.

Really? As a gun control supporter I cannot think of any legitimate reason for anyone to own or carry a gun that trumps the right of the average citizen to walk the streets/send their kids to school/sleep in their beds secure in the knowledge that they are not likely to be gunned down by a trigger-happy nutter.

cleo

Really? As a gun control supporter I cannot think of any legitimate reason for anyone to own or carry a gun that trumps the right of the average citizen to walk the streets/send their kids to school/sleep in their beds secure in the knowledge that they are not likely to be gunned down by a trigger-happy nutter.

Fair enough. I'm all for gun control, but I'm not against people owning guns for something like hunting for example. Hunting ain't my cup of tea, but I'll accept that is for some people and they're entitled to enjoy it as long as it's in a controlled environment.

cubic - now don't get me started on hunting. Actually, while I still think they're nuts for living in a dangerous area, I can kinda understand the people who claim they need guns for self-defence. (They're wrong, but I can see where and why they're wrong).

But the folk who 'need' guns to kill Bambi? For fun?? Because they enjoy it?? No. Not Ever.

" So uncommon in fact, that your claim that one is a result of the other carries no weight at all. Like saying it rained because i forgot to do my rain dance."

Perhaps you've never faced one. Some areas occasionally organize a hunt to try to reduce the growing boar population.

http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/06/24/japans-wild-boar-problem/

Surf O'Holic - Perhaps you should read your own link. It says nothing about wild boar attacks being the result of them not being hunted (which was your original claim). It says boar that once would have starved naturally due to food shortages thrive on crops (in previously uncultivated areas?) and garbage left out by humans. Not to mention people who actively leave food out for them.

Nothing at all to do with hunting or the lack of it, and whether I've ever 'faced one' is also irrelevant.

Cleo - I'm no hunting advocate either, but until it's made completely illegal, people who wish to do so have the right to do it. There are some endangered species in Kenya that were saved as a result of controlled hunting of their predators - whether that's right or wrong, the people doing the hunting aren't just in it for fun.

until it's made completely illegal, people who wish to do so have the right to do it.

Yes of course, by definition - that's what legal means. And the same can be said of all kinds of things, including guns...which is the point of the article. Being legal is no indication that something is a good idea, or commendable.

There are some endangered species in Kenya that were saved as a result of controlled hunting of their predators - whether that's right or wrong, the people doing the hunting aren't just in it for fun.

Ah, but earlier you specifically said they're entitled to enjoy it. Controlled conservation and 'sport' hunting for the sheer pleasure of killing are two completely different things.

@cleo,

Nor did I say lack of hunting was the ONLY cause of the boar overpopulation, so no need to strain on a gnat.

Fortunately for Japan, the number of species dangerous to humans is possibly uniquely low (on land) which is not the case in other places. As I enjoy spending a lot of time outdoors (hiking, trekking in backcountry, skiing, fishing, and yes, hunting) there are several occasions where I've encountered some dangerous animals(excluding humans), and having had firearms was the difference between living and not. Even when not hunting I've often carried two handguns, of different calibers, and backup mags for each. Usually, one shot is enough to scare away most animals(cougars, wolves, etc,) but for some(bears especially), more are required. Been there, done that.

And since I have done some hiking in some areas of Japan known for bears, I really wished I could have had a self-defense option other than a BB gun(only loud, but non-lethal). I've seen two bears at less than 100 yards in Akita, but lucky for me I was downwind and spotted them first.

Surf O'Holic: maybe with no right for guns, the bears can enjoy a peaceful life in their natural environment. The human being does not need to colonize every square inches of the land.

Nor did I say lack of hunting was the ONLY cause of the boar overpopulation

You said, and I quote, 'hunting is nearly non-existent, and as a result there are wild boar attacks' - a clear claim of cause and effect, which you haven't been able to back up.

In Japan it's common sense not to go wandering around in bear territory. Stomping around in the backwoods packing heat and feeling strong is no way of communing with Nature.

Japan is no comparison to America. In Japan the citizens never defended their country with privately owned firearms as the US did against the British. Everyone needs to keep thier noses out of the US's constitution. The 2nd ammendemnt has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with an well armed citizenry ready to defend against govt tyranny and invaders.

Well said realdoll.

I think comparing Japan and the US in this regard is misguided. Japan is a different society and a different geography. What works here, would certainly not work in the US in the same way.

It would be much more valid to compare the US with Canada and Mexico, both of which have strict gun control and huge semi-open borders with the US. And the last time I looked, the strict gun laws in Mexico did not turn the country into something resembling Japan, or did they.

@cleo

In Japan it's common sense not to go wandering around in bear territory. Stomping around in the backwoods packing heat and feeling strong is no way of communing with Nature.

As I said before, Japan can do whatever it wants with its laws, but as an American, I would always want a handgun to protect me and my family because you can't always rely on the police, pure and simple, lesson learned in Katrina and the L.A. Riots. Many of those people tat didn't own a gun paid a heavy price for it, NOT gonna happen to me or my family. If i want to go hunting (done it twice, loved it) then that should be my right as a law abiding citizen in the US. In Japan I don't need to own a firearm and I'm ok with that. But it's interesting how in Japan, you can own a sword outright but can't own a gun, so basically, slashing a person to shreds is not as bad as shooting someone.

Cleo -

Ah, but earlier you specifically said they're entitled to enjoy it. Controlled conservation and 'sport' hunting for the sheer pleasure of killing are two completely different things.

Yeah, that was my bad with what I wrote first. Well, they can kind of be the same - some 'sport' hunting doubles up as controlled conservation. Anyway, whether they are ethical or not, they are just two reasons why banning guns completely just isn't going to happen.

realdoll & Matthew Simon - Good to see the pro-gun contingent citing relevant issues like the 'threat of invasion.'

@willi

It would be much more valid to compare the US with Canada and Mexico, both of which have strict gun control and huge semi-open borders with the US. And the last time I looked, the strict gun laws in Mexico did not turn the country into something resembling Japan, or did they.

Excellent point.

it's interesting how in Japan, you can own a sword outright but can't own a gun, so basically, slashing a person to shreds is not as bad as shooting someone.

All genuine 日本刀(katana) have to be registered, by law, which means the authorities know exactly who has what, how many and where. Owning an unregistered sword (ie not a genuine katana; a weapon, not a 'work of art' or 'historical artifact') is a violation of the Swords and Firearms Control Law, and carrying or transporting any sword in public, including a legally registered katana, is prohibited. So no, you can't 'own a sword outright', you can't carry a sword around with you and slashing a person to shreds is just as illegal as shooting them.

Somewhere much earlier in the discussion, someone wondered about weapon restrictions in Japan to begin with... Toyotomi Hideyoshi instituted the first nation-wide weapons ban - for other than Samurai, of course. He had authorities conduct regular mass confiscation of swords, etc., from non-samurai classes.

Tokugawa Ieyasu implemented the first nation-wide gun ban, confiscating and destroying many thousands of Japanese matchlocks - very fine weapons - but this time especially from Samurai and Daimyo. Certain trusted authorities retained limited arsenals of guns at strategic locations; strategic for the Bakufu.

As to Nihonto, registration is - as was said - for genuine Nihonto; that is, swords of registered / recognized artisan provenance. You can go buy a cr*p Daito set nearly anywhere, and let me tell you, because I've seen it, even these mantle piece trinkets can cause alarming damage. Also, Iaito ken, these are generally available, and they're much better quality than tourist knick knack sets; they're effectively real swords.

Now, waltzing around Harajuku with any of these is gonna get you police attention. Not surprisingly, so would sashaying down Hollywood Blvd with a Claymore...

@cleo

All genuine 日本刀(katana) have to be registered, by law, which means the authorities know exactly who has what, how many and where. Owning an unregistered sword (ie not a genuine katana; a weapon, not a 'work of art' or 'historical artifact') is a violation of the Swords and Firearms Control Law, and carrying or transporting any sword in public, including a legally registered katana, is prohibited. So no, you can't 'own a sword outright', you can't carry a sword around with you and slashing a person to shreds is just as illegal as shooting them.

Well, that's not entirely true. In Japan there are other problems that affect this society, suicides, knife attacks, either way, comparing a country that has never had a gun culture is like treading upstream, it is totally irrelevant. Japan is Japan and I don't want America to be like Japan. I don't want Japan to be like America. I love guns, proud owner, love collecting them and when I go back to the states this summer, I'm going to purchase another firearm, why because I can, my dad took us hunting as children ad I want to teach mine as well.

bass4funk - which bit are you saying is 'not entirely true'?

I don't want Japan to be like America

I'll second that one.

@cleo

I think you just want America to turn into Japan and adopt Japanese laws. If you don't like America, that's your prerogative, but as a gun owner, I will say, I think we should put tighter restrictions on gun control, but outright ban gun sales or taking guns away from law-abiding citizens, will never get traction in the US and rightfully so. What works in Japan, won't necessarily work in the US, in fact, I'm sure of it. Every country has its pros and cons and cons of adopting Japanese draconian laws is something that Japan can keep. We don't want it and don't need it.

bass4funk - what I 'want' or 'like' is neither here nor there. I asked you which bit of my explanation about Japanese sword ownership laws was 'not entirely true'.

it sounds like where there is tight gun controle and gun laws there is little in the way of misuse, dont forget here in the UK we have tight gun controle police check, background checks You must have to be a member of a rifle range and a stonge metel cabinet to store them in, we cant have a full auto rifles but we can have semi autos no hand guns, exept for black powder, and long barrel ( around 24" long ) we are restricted on how meny bulletts we can have at any one time, shot guns are another leicence altogether, as for missuse of any firearm is 5 years in the nick! then possible suspention in your leicence. I cant understand the USA, why on gods earth do you need to own a fully auto assult rifle for "target shooting" or "self defence"??

BrianWheway:

" it sounds like where there is tight gun controle and gun laws there is little in the way of misuse "

Ahemm.... like in Mexico?

@realdoll

Everyone needs to keep thier noses out of the US's constitution. The 2nd ammendemnt has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with an well armed citizenry ready to defend against govt tyranny and invaders.

Many seem to twist the words of the second amendment to suit their own desires. Did you know, for example, the "tyranny" referred to is the British rule (un-elected) direct from London imposed on the colonies in North America (i.e. not it's own government). It was Mr Washington himself who then rallied the armies of the colonies to fight the British. It wasn't "citizenry", that would have been chaos, and the French played a big part in defeating the Brits too.

@cleo

what I 'want' or 'like' is neither here nor there. I asked you which bit of my explanation about Japanese sword ownership laws was 'not entirely true'.

Don't need to, it's irrelevant to this thread, gun laws are the topic of discussion not swords.

it's irrelevant to this thread, gun laws are the topic of discussion not swords

And the poster who brought swords into the discussion was....?

In Japan guns and swords are covered by the same law, the Swords and Firearms Control Law. If you want to stick to the topic of discussion, it's guns in Japan, not what 'law-abiding citizens' get up to in the US.

@cleo

I was just making the point because your bias anti-Americanism is always clouding the issue that is why I brought up that subject. Just trying to get you back on track, that's all. Now we can once again proceed.

@cleo

I'm not anti-American.

I beg to differ, seriously.

I'm just amazed at how it's the people who go on about freedom and the rights of law-abiding citizens are the same people who assure us that America is such a horribly dangerous, violent society that guns are a necessity for self-defence.

Not horrible or over burden with violence, but I have lived in many countries and I have seen things and situations where if people were allowed to own a firearm the outcome of those particular situations would not have ended up badly. That to me is amazing. America is far from perfect, but as the 3rd largest country in the world. We don't have enough man power to handle and take care of EVERY single citizen or sometimes, the police might not be able to get to a residence in a certain amount of time. Whether its America with guns or Europe with knives, point is violence is violence and when people want to kill you, they will go by it through ANY means.

From where I'm sitting, they're the ones bad-mouthing America, not me.

I think you got it backwards

...and looking back over the thread, I see I did not even mention America at all except to agree with you that we don't want Japan to be like America. So....in what way exactly is my so-called 'bias anti-Americanism' clouding the issue?

You don't have to, but you always make bias anti-American comments, One can go back on so many of your past comments to see them. Can't dispute what you wrote. But again, it matters not how you personally feel, the point is, I'm proud to be a gun owner and I don't want or don't think, we as Americans need to adopt laws similar to What Japan has. Doesn't make sense and would never, ever, ever work.

@cleo, As you quoted me, it was A result, not THE result, but again, straining on a gnat. Let me rephrase, if there were more hunting of boar, there wouldn't be an overpopulation issue, and fewer attacks on humans. Farmers ' crops are also often damaged. Have a nice day.

i am one of those liberal democrats, and i'll be damned if i let anyone take away my constitutional right to bear arms! but i do think there should be stricter gun regulations, mandatory training programs, and better background checks. i also think there is no need for the public to have assault weapons. but i'm not giving up my handgun, or shotgun. just try and take them. responsible gun owners should not be penalized for the actions of a few. and even if there were no guns, people would still commit crimes and murder. my backup weapon is my baseball bat, which i keep next to my bed. as a woman living alone, i 'm going to shoot first and ask questions later, as my house has been broken into 4 times and i live in the suburbs. the police show up after the fact, and do nothing. i even had my outdoor air conditioner unit stolen .

@brian;

First of all, the private ownership of automatic weapons is ALREADY illegal in the US. Has been for decades. The new furor over "assault weapons" is just political theatre. They are used in less than 5% of murders in the US, and the rate has been dropping for years anyway.

Also, one unintended consequence of the firearms restrictions in the United Kingdom has been the rise in other forms of violent crime. The rate in the UK is now nearly four TIMES that of the US. Australia experienced similar troubles. After their strict laws went into effect, the murder rate went down modestly, but the rate of rape and assault went up.

No easy answers, I'm afraid.

Wasn't it restricted to law enforcement agencies? (total outlaw of private firearm ownership nationwide)

First of all, the private ownership of automatic weapons is ALREADY illegal in the US. Has been for decades

http://www.impactguns.com/machine-guns.aspx

You need a "Class 3" (NFA) License for full auto. $200 tax + the prices for these guns are ridiculous.

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

For civilian possession, all machineguns must have been manufactured and registered with the ATF prior to May 19, 1986 to be transferable between citizens.[

Having lived in Japan for over eight years I'll take their gun laws over ours any day of the week - also their DUI laws...and having raised my children there for over six years I know for sure it is one hundred percent safer and child friendly than the USA.

Privilege, institutionalized and imposed, the most insidious and pervasive of human constructs, is the ultimate expression of immorality, not just because of its injustices, inequities, burdens and destruction of wealth and life but because it has existed throughout most of history disguised as being legitimate. So long as privilege is allowed to stand, there can be no consistent, rational basis for morality. It is the greatest conceptual error ever made by humankind, the notion that one human can legitimately harm or burden another.

randy; To be frank, so would I. However, that's not going to happen. So, given the reality of the situation, wishing for impossibilities is a waste of time. So is trying to pass laws that won't actually do anything. The trick is to find both effective and practical ways to tackle the misuse of firearms.

Here is one reason why the 2nd is important. How soon we forget, or don't even know. Mooo~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_ofAthens%281946%29

http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-of-Athens.html

As an Englishman,I am astounded at how draconian Japans gun laws are.I thought we had it bad in Britain,with our gun bans following the Hungerford & Dunblane massacres,which effectively banned large-calibre semi-automatic & pump-action rifles & later on most types of handguns-but there's one country stricter than us-Japan.The lunatics who killed were known by the police to be unhinged but went unchecked,but thats another story.Over here a shotgun is far easier to acquire,than a pellet-gun is in Japan & it takes about three-months to get a license from the police & the same goes for a firearm license too,in which an applicant can apply for a rifle & for a shotgun,at the same time.No having to wait 10 years for permission,on a shotgun license & calibers are unrestricted too.No offense to your government,but thats just a bit unfair & if Japan does lighten its gun laws,it will never be like America.Britains gun laws are very lax in comparison & we've never been like America,even in the days of when we could own handguns & assault-weapons. America is unique in this sense for obvious reasons.