JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Do you support same-sex marriages?
( 58 )
-
Do you enjoy watching movies in 3D?
( 24 )
-
Do you support torture as an interrogation method if the objective is to prevent a terrorist attack or capture criminals?
( 73 )
-
Would you like to see all U.S. military forces removed from Okinawa?
( 95 )
-
Should Japan be pledging funds to the IMF, Mekong and for other causes overseas?
( 11 )
-
1
Hosono visits Fukushima No. 4 reactor amid concern over fuel pool
-
2
Lady Gaga's Indonesia concert canceled after threats
-
3
Oceanographer says beachcombers on West Coast may find bones in tsunami debris
-
4
New Jersey town's monument to Korean sex slaves upsetting Japanese officials
-
5
241 civil servants file suit over salary cuts
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
242 Comments
Login to comment
0
Xeno23
One thing that's largely missing from the gun debate is cogent, adult discussion. Most arguments, on both sides of the issue, aren't much more than Junior High School mentalities shouting at each other.
The yelling points are always the same, from either direction, and typically only serve to entrench positions. Genuine maturity includes personal responsibility, accountability, and respect for other opinions and life styles without the need for imposing one set of belief structures on others.
Adults recognize there's a degree of the uncontrollable inherent in most of life's aspects, and that there will always be dangers and outlier instances that can't be accounted for, regardless of our attempts to regulate them.
It doesn't matter if the topic is guns, child safety, security, education, science or religion, grownups decide things for themselves, take ownership of their own positions, and are secure enough in their beliefs and life style that other paths don't pose a problem requiring reliance on some third party authority to make others tow their line.
One hallmark of adulthood is the recognition of diversity in freedom, and acceptance of that. Any kind of legislation not directly related to logistics or general operations (e.g., government, infrastructure, trade, etc.), in a truly adult society should only be as guides to behavior, to assure freedoms not deny them, or to accommodate response to outlier events, as outlier events.
Adults support rights of freedom for all, because they realize the reduction of rights for one will lead to the reduction of rights for all.
0
bcbrownboy
Obviously there are a lot of Americans voting in this poll.
0
PeaceWarrior
Own, yes. Carry (as in some U.S. states) NO. I don't see a problem with people owning guns, even handguns. It's high-capacity magazines and assault weapons I have a really big problem with and the right to carry them around when there's no need to.
0
jinjapan
guns are so embedded in u.s. culture & so many millions own guns, that it's too late to stop ownership . obviously, much safer in countries w/out firearms & they should never change the laws in those countries.
0
stevecpfc
Anyone who wishes to own a fire arm unless for hunting or other sports is a menace to society. Gun ownership in teh USA leads to over ten thousand deaths a year and fifty thousand injuries. The wild west finished a long time ago, ban guns and jail all those who break the law.
0
HermioneGranger
I am American, and I think that guns should be banned. It would be best if we "forget" how to make them. The same goes for tobacco and illegal drugs.
One of the many reasons that I will never move back to America is the gun law. It feels too vulnerable and dangerous over there. Don't see many stories of kids bringing guns to school and shooting their classmates in Japan.
0
TheQuestion
Any firearm can be used for hunting or sport.
Odd, I feel the same i just about evey country I visit. Whether they allow the people to own firearms or not. If a person wants to hurt me they will, I just like being able to do something about it.
0
stevecpfc
The Question; Guns for sport in my country are held in safe places approved by the police. Firearms can be used by farmers to control vermin and these must be securely kept by lawso burglars cannot access.
In my country deaths by gun are very low and guns are banned. Gun ownership along with the death penalty are something all decent americans should be ashamed of.
0
WordStar
As a person who has had guns fired at him (by lousy shots, fortunately), I must say that I can find nothing good to say about them. Let people own bolt-action .22 caliber rifles to drive away pests from their yards. Otherwise, they do noting but intimidate, maim and kill people. Who needs 'em?
0
soreleftarm
Saying that, the worst violence that I've suffered as an adult has been in Japan; a firearm would not have been useful in my defense. It would not have been a deterrent to my attacker, and I would not have been able to employ it effectively.
0
cleo
No one in their right mind thinks it's a good idea to let any demented Tom, Dick or Harry - or Taro, Jiro or Saburo - have access to, never mind possession of, lethal weapons.
Those who worry about their 'freedom to bear arms' being taken away should perhaps worry more about the freedom of the rest of us to walk the streets without fear of being mugged at gunpoint, getting in the path of some loser gone postal, or catching a stray bullet from a gang drive-by.
0
cleo
Or being in the wrong place at the wrong time at a political rally.
0
linro
Lets face it Americans are probably the most naive people today, guns are designed to kill!! if you need protection then get a bullet prof vest and a helmet!! lot of stray bullets in the US of A !!!
0
retaliator
Wow 60%. Most readers must be American republicans!
0
WordStar
No, some are almost certainly American Democrats who are convinced they need firearms to defend themselves from American Republicans.
0
Ravonsky
Hm, more discriminatory remarks present than I would've guessed. I vote against guns. There aren't really any true reasons to have them around. I understand the usage in hunting, but I disprove of that as well unless the population is coming over powering or for food. Hunting for sport sounds inhumane.
Call me what you want, but I don't even like to be in the presence of a gun--safety on or otherwise.
0
WilliB
The question is vague. Carry what kind of guns and under which conditions? There are also a lot of guns around in rural Japan, although this island is supposed to have strict gun contro. Ditto countries like Switzerland or Norway, which don´t exactly have a reputation for gun violence.
0
naturalmystic
Yes=unbelievable......
0
namabiru4me
Put strict controls on guns, and let the people have their toys.
*Make wannabe owners have to go through strict licensing processes, classes, and safety training.
*Make current owners register their guns and get licensed.
*Force gun manufactures to increase technology so guns cannot be used by anyone but the owner (yes, it is possible).
You are naive if you think you can pry away guns from the American mind and culture. Gun sales are WAY UP after this most recent incident. Why? People are afraid their right to own guns might be threatened in the near future.
If I had a choice, I would eliminate all guns. Unfortunately, they are in the USA to stay...
0
dolphingirl
cleo summed it up nicely. It's just plain crazy to let anyone own a gun! As namabiru said, there should definitely be strict processes for obtaining one. Or better yet, just get rid of them all! Well, maybe not possible but a nice thought anyway...
0
nandakandamanda
"The right of..."?
The question assumes you are from the US of America, or a country where such a right is enshrined in law.
I live in Japan and have four working guns of various sizes, legally, but not for hunting or shooting people. It's not a "right", ...or is it? They are pieces of history. Powder is very strictly regulated and none must be left over if permission is ever given for its use. In my home country I have a flintlock ladies' muff pistol from around the French Revolution, another piece of history. Again, it is legal, but I doubt whether I would be allowed to carry it around exposed or even hidden in public.
Any new legislation or restriction would need to be clearly worded. Some of the posters here are using unworkable blanket statements. Depending on the circumstances guns have roles to play on this planet. Education and legislation are essential. I am not happy with all these guns flowing into the hands of gang members.
0
Mark_McCracken
There is no such right in Japan. So if this poorly defined question applies to Japan, I would vote no.
The U.S. Constitution supports the right of citizens to own and bear firearms. I support the Constitution. So if this poorly defined question applies to the U.S., I would vote yes.
0
Sarge
No, only the cops should be allowed to bear arms. This means, of course, that only the cops and the criminals would bear arms. But hey, whaddya gonna do, you can't let law-abiding civilians have guns, lol.
0
proudnippon
bottom line; if you voted yes you have a screw loose
0
Mocheake
I was pro gun until I came to Japan and saw that there ARE societies where citizens don't carry firearms. The gun culture is deeply entrenched in the U.S. and the love of guns goes back to the Wild West days. The U.S. needs to reexamine the casual nature of gun tolerance which is cultivated from its bloody history, movies, music, macho culture and folklore and realize that guns have no place in society. I know people will bring up crime and talk about the need for defending oneself but what needs to be done is to make it a crime for anyone other than law enforcement and military personnel to carry handguns and assault weapons. Make strict punishment for people who violate the law. Double the punishment for a person who is convicted a second time. My opinion would never be very popular in the U.S. but there needs to be a change of thought because what's going on now clearly isn't working. Kids are killing each other at an alarming rate and no one seems to want to stop that. Also, I believe over 50 children are killed every year after finding the firearm of a parent or relative and accidentally shooting themselves or a playmate. Something needs to be done, and soon. The Constitution was written over 200 years ago and the second amendment doesn't (in my opinion)refer to individual citizens but to militias (organized gov't troops). Times have drastically changed since the Revolutionary War. The Republicans rail about Democratic judges being lenient but they are being irresponsible by talking about not retreating but "reloading." What kind of message is that? Just kill the person you disagree with! Just as the man who shot those people in Tuscon did. The next shooting is just waiting to happen. Guns really don't solve anything.
0
Noliving
Really? What's the rate?
0
Barbarossa
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution has nothing to do with hunting or sports. It has to do with ensuring that the American people would always have the ability to violently overthrow a tyrannical government just as the Founding Fathers did. With the Patriot Act, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and the melding of the Democratic and Republican parties (note how Obama kept so many of Bush's appointees), the day may soon come that the American people shall have to defend themselves against a government of the elites, by the elites, and for the elites.
0
pacific08
I just read that Arizona is going to vote for allowing students and teachers to have their own firearms in school, university : crazy Americans !
0
TheQuestion
In your country, good, I'm happy for you. People should live where the laws suit them best, I like guns, I like hunting on my family's property in northern Michigan, I like trap shooting, I like cleaning and collecting, and sometimes I like buying fruit from Wal-Mart just for the heck of shooting it in my backyard. That's one of the reason's I've elected to stay in the U.S despite several and ongoing attempts to get me into my company's foreign offices in Asia and Europe. They’re all nice countries but I'd be too limited as to how I’d be able to conduct my personal life.
That’s one of the best points about the Second Amendment one can make. It doesn't exist for school shooters or criminals; it exists so that if things become as unacceptable as they did at the time of the revolution people would be able to react. And it is a right that many, myself included from time to time, take for granted.
0
limboinjapan
Barbarossa:"The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution has nothing to do with hunting or sports. It has to do with ensuring that the American people would always have the ability to violently overthrow a tyrannical government just as the Founding Fathers did."
I love this type of comment/justification that Americans (USA) use! Do tell how many times have the people of the USA had to overthrow a tyrannical government in the past 200+ years since its foundation? Talk about your paranoia!
What the USA has gotten is the highest murder rate (by percentage) the highest portion of its population in jail, the highest accidental rate of death due to guns, the highest rate of poverty, gated communities and private security firm of any other developed nation.
0
knews
Mocheake
You said everything I wanted to say. Nicely put!
Noliving
The rate of kids being killed by guns in the U.S. is far higher than in countries where guns aren't as easy to get.
0
Noliving
The truth of the matter is that what Mocheake said is hyperbole, according to facts and figures only around 500 kids that also includes teenagers are killed each year by guns, the reason why I say only is because the US is a nation of 300 million people and legally own guns that are owned by 64 million people, 500 kids out of 64 million gun owners out of 300 million legally own guns out of a population of 300 million people isn't a very high rate, in fact is amazing low.
0
kujiranikusuki
I love guns. I probably know MORE about guns than most people who own a gun, but I am agiasnt private ownership of handguns. most, not all, but most of the people who are for private ownership are the last people on earth I want to have guns. I know many people can and do own and use a gun safely, but there are FAR too many idiots in the world. You have to admit that the majority of the world is filled with people who are not so brilliant. only 1% of the world has even been educated in a university or college.
0
SezWho2
I think it's hard to say why the Second Amendment is in the US Constitution except that not including it would have been a deal-breaker. Except in American mythology, British rule was far from tyrannical and American "subjects" enjoyed freedoms which were largely unequaled in the rest of the world. Canada and Australia coped quite well without declaring an independence which was later denied to southern "states" in the US. Obviously, though, revolution would not have been possible without firearms.
I support the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms but I do not support the status quo in America, so I voted "no" to this question. I think there is a lot of nonsense around this issue. The US Constitution says that the right of citizens shall not be "infringed". Now what does that mean? It seems to me that licensing requirements are an infringement. It seems to me that denying a license to felons who have served their time is an infringement.
So, America does not have a problem with infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. It has a problem with what constitutes infringement. I don't think that citizens should have cannons, shoulder-mounted heat-seeking missiles or flame-throwers. And as long as we can accept the premise that certain types of weapons can and should be denied to the general population, we certainly can and should regulate what types of firearms are permissible and who has the "right" to own and carry what.
0
cleo
What an amazingly callous statement. 500 kids a year dead (on top of all the other homicides, suicides and accidents) so that a bunch of wannabe cowboys can act out their Wild West/Die Hard fantasies is OK?
0
Noliving
Look I'm not trying to trivialize there deaths, but when someone like Mocheake uses hyperbole to try and make a point I'm going to call them out. 500 out of 300 million is not an alarming rate, do you ban baseball because four kids die each year from playing the sport? How about hockey and football? 449 kids on average die each year in the US from choking on balloons. Do we ban balloons now because people want to act out their party fantasies? How about Alcohol? over 1000 children in the US die from alcohol each year. Out of a population of 300 million are those really alarming rates cleo? If the goal is to reduce child deaths you would save far more lives by taking the keys and cell phones away from them. Heck cars in the US cars kill more people then guns do in the US even though there are more guns then cars in the US.
If we are going to ban private ownership of guns in order to save lives we might as well ban private ownership of motor vehicles and don't give me that crap about cars being necessary while guns are not. Because you can always take public transportation to get where you want to go and if you don't have public transportation then what you do is you take the money you would have spent on a privately own car and instead put it towards public transportation.
You really honestly think Cleo that people who own firearms are doing it because they want to act out there fantasies?
0
arrestpaul
It's not difficult at all if you study the history surrounding the 2nd Continental Congress. They were trying to establish a central government where none existed. A federal government that would combine the governments and residents of 13 individual states. The first 10 Amendments, or Bill of Rights, was written to include certain "inalienable" (pre-existing, natural or god given) rights that were NOT granted by a State or a government but belonged to "the people". You're right about it being a deal-breaker.
The members of the Continental Congress were well aware of how European royalty ran their countries and their SUBJECTS and refused to follow that path. They believed that "the people" could do a better job of governing themselves and they were right. What countries are still run by royalty?
British rule was far from tyrannical - in England. The Welsh, Scots and Irish chaffed under English rule and still do. Except for Canada and Australia, every other nation has kicked the British out (and not because they loved them so much).
0
arrestpaul
Hmmm... Callous or sanctimonious... tough choice.
You're willing to make criminals out of 180 million firearm owners because a sheriff didn't bother to enforce existing safeguards against a crazy person. The voters don't agree with you. They expect the laws that are on the books to be enforced. Arrest the gang bangers, put them in prison and keep them there. If a firearm is used illegally, put the user in prison. Don't punish the rest of the country for the stupid or illegal acts of a few.
0
cleo
After reading the 'reasons' the pro-gun people give for 'needing' their guns, I have to say, Yes I do. I can't see any other reason.
I'm willing to keep guns out of the hands of the 180 million crazy people who delude themselves into thinking they need guns to protect themselves/because it's their right/because it's their culture.
Yes, it is. Maybe more time should be spent teaching kids to swim and less time spent teaching them their gun rights. Maybe parents should spend more time supervising their kids at the beach or river or lake instead of polishing their guns or stalking Bambi through the forest.
0
Noliving
Or maybe the state should just ban recreational swimming or just swimming in general.
0
yabits
I strongly support the right of responsible, mentally and morally fit citizens to own and bear firearms.
The problem is that we in the US do a much better job requiring that people demonstrate their responsibility when applying for a job or for a driver's license than we do when handing over to them the means to deliver lethal firepower. In so doing, our society has largely abdicated its responsibility in this regard.
I believe that a morally or mentally depraved person has no right whatsoever to purchase and keep firearms. But the insane view of many is that they should get the arms first until later actions prove them to be irresponsible. Now that we are a nation that believes in preemptive war, I believe that we should take a more preemptive stance to determining who should never be able to legally acquire a firearm.
0
Gurukun
Exactly! That's why the one's who wish to pack some heat, should be able to.
0
Noliving
Also cleo what makes the 775 out of 300 million an alarming rate?
0
cleo
Just one dead child is an alarming rate. Try being that child's parent.
0
Pachipro
The right to keep and bear arms ensures that we will always have a first amendment: Free speech! Take our arms away and we will lose the first.
"When the government fears the people, there is freedom. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
0
Noliving
Such a cliché answer, one dead person no matter the age is a tragedy cleo, try being the friend or relative of someone that has died. Your going to have to do much better than that answer to explain why 775 is an alarming rate.
0
Gurukun
cleo, yes one child is an alarming rate. However, if you try to prevent every childs death, then we all just should live in square, padded boxes for the rest of our lives.
Moderator: Readers, back on topic please.
0
tokyokawasaki
Do you honestly believe that? If you do, I hope you do not own a gun. No offense to you personally. Just using the freedom of speech argument to warrant gun ownership is a little pathetic don' you think?
0
SezWho2
Oh, my! I've studied the history of the formation of our government and I still say that it's difficult to say exactly why the Second Amendment is in the Constitution. I'll go you one better and say that it's easy to say that it's in the Constitution because the founders were trying to establish a central government where none previously existed. However, in my opinion that says nothing more than not having the Amendment would have been a deal-breaker. And that is trivial.
Scotland, Ireland and Wales were ethnically different from the folks in England and they were conquered entities. It is little wonder that they chafe still. The colonies were granted rights by the crown and given a fairly free hand in the governance of their affairs until they decided to bite the hand that chartered the considerable freedoms they enjoyed.
I have no doubt that the right to keep and bear arms was written into the Constitution partially because there was the threat that the British would return with a vengeance. However, arms had been a necessity for colonization--necessary for procuring game, necessary for defense against the native Americans that we cleared from the land, necessary for defending livestock against predators and so on.
Today, the arms in the private hands of private citizens would be somewhat ineffectual against a tyrannical US government with all its firepower. A greater defense would be the presumed patriotism of the existing military. Against a foreign invasion, arms might be useful if it ever came to that, but considering our borders and considering our military outlay, the scenario is rather far-fetched and, in any event, arms could be stashed in armories. I know the vigilantes in Arizona are armed against the great invasion from the South, but we don't need arms so much for protection against predators, for securing game or for beating down the native Americans.
The "right" has already been vastly infringed. It's time to infringe it in a way that makes sense for civilized societies. People walking around with iron on their hips and a sense of "don't tread on me" just isn't civilized.
0
limboinjapan
I think the gun debate and the USA constitution by many here shows how little the people of the USA know about their own history.
People of the USA seem to have this fantasy that the so-called founding fathers actually had the best interest of the regular population when they wrote the constitutions but forget that at the time mass production of guns did not exist and guns were mussel loaded single shot and quite expensive so that mostly the rich and the government could afford good ones.
They also forget the those same founding father at the first sign of rebellion were quick to put down those rebellions (see whisky rebellion), they also haven't the slightest idea that prior to the USA revolution a group know as the New England traders (as in trading) lead by Benjamin Frankly and other founding members, argued for the deportation of the French Catholics in the newly acquired Acadia under the argument the the French Catholics despite signing that the would never go against the crown could not be trusted to be loyal to the king they also unsuccessfully made the same argument when the rest of French NA was taken by the British and were taken aback at the fact that French Catholics were given full rights and that they (the New England Traders) were not given the exclusive trading rights for the newly conquered territories, and this (money) was the true motivation for the revolution.
Many other thing were included in the USA constitution that guarantied that the same elite that ruled under the King continued to rule, the second amendment was more a way for the elite to have a right to maintain their own little militias because if you look at history you will find that this elite owned the guns and the land that the rest lived on and when needed they would distribute the guns to their "tenants" (black slaves and white slaves AKA indentured servants,etc..) so they would do the fighting and then when things were calm they would take back the guns.
0
hokkaidoguy
I noticed the bold on "crazy".
Got a laugh out of that, because when I got my firearms certificate in Canada years and years ago, I had to have a doctor assess and certify my mental and physical health. In addition, I had to provide references from people in good standing to assess my character, and submit to a police check. Having that license in your wallet is as close as you can get to an official document confirming you're NOT crazy.
Let's face it, Cleo, you're a vegan. And as such, you're never going to like things like hunting to feed your family. But calling people crazy for wanting to do because it goes against your dietary habits is out of line.
0
cleo
hokkaidoguy, read the thread (and other threads on the same subject). The so-called law-abiding citizens aren't up in arms (pun intended) about being able to go out in the woods and shoot dinner. They're ready and eager to shoot what they see as the scum of society come at dead of night to steal their plasma TVs. And yes, if someone thinks they live in a place where they need to pack fire to protect themselves and their families, and their first concern isn't to get themselves and their families to a safer living environment - they're crazy.
People who shoot Bambi aren't crazy. Sadly misguided (from my point of view), but as others have pointed out elsewhere, if you're a crack shot poor Bambi is probably better off than the prospective hamburgers and drumsticks that spend their lives dyspeptic on feedlots or crammed into tiny cages in factories.
0
SolidariTea
" I know the vigilantes in Arizona are armed against the great invasion from the South, but we don't need arms so much for protection against predators, for securing game or for beating down the native Americans"
They are? Who are these vigilantes you speak of? Are they organiized? No. They are not. Many of the illegals in the US come from Mexico as well armed as the vigilantes you imagine populate Arizona.Seen any of the photos of the armories those Mexi drug cartels have?
0
limboinjapan
@hokkaidoguy at 06:37 PM JST - 18th January
Canada has fairly strict gun laws that for the most part only allow guns that are for hunting and rarely hand guns it has a national gun registry that the conservatives and loonies primarily in central Canada backed by the USA gun lobby have unsuccessfully tried to kill when most of the rest of the population wants stricter gun control.
The biggest problem right now in Canada are GUNS brought in illegally from the USA that is fueling gang wars that are getting innocent people killed.
Why are they being smuggled in from the USA because Canada is not stupid enough to view and assault riffle or hand gun as necessary for hunting.
The nut case that killed all those students at Dawson college in Montreal got his weapons from the USA piece by piece even though the USA sellers knew it was not legal to ship these weapons and parts to Canada.
So USA with its guns and its lack of control is and has been the cause of criminals in Mexico and Canada getting weapons and if anyone thinks that the gun lobby and gun maker don't know or are not behind this then they are either fools or idiots.
0
limboinjapan
SolidariTea:"Seen any of the photos of the armories those Mexi drug cartels have?"
Yes I have! And where do those guns come from?
From the supposed legal sales in the USA!
Kill the legal insanity of the sale of such weapons in the USA and that will make it much more difficult for these lowlifes to get them!
0
SolidariTea
"Kill the legal insanity of the sale of such weapons in the USA and that will make it much more difficult for these lowlifes to get them!"
then they will have to buy AK47s , and Glocks!Oh, wait...they already have those.
0
arrestpaul
The drug cartels are buying hand grenades, machine guns and rocket lauchers by the shipload from China, Russia and any other country that's willing to supply them. Only a few thousand bolt action and semi-automatic rifles have been traced to the U.S.
0
haoushokuhaki
Yes, guns don't kill; it's just the millions of loonies living in the U.S. who can so easily get a gun that kill. I mean, how many stories have we heard when a once normal dude suddenly goes whacko because of some circumstance and decides to purchase a gun and kills a bunch of innocent people. The gun just ends up being such an easy way to indiscriminately kill many people in a short amount of time with very little effort.
0
SezWho2
"Vigilantes" in Arizona may be a strong term, but it is one the ADL uses. You could prettify it, but I'm wondering what term you would use for volunteers who bring their weapons for the purposes of border patrol for which they are not paid by the state. I don't see how whether they are "organized" or not has much to do with it.
0
arrestpaul
"Millions of loonies"? You're quite the sweet talker aren't you. How many firearm owners do you think you'll convince to vote your way? How many citizens will give up their "right to bear arms" because you called them loonies?
0
knews
With some of the comments here, it is almost tempting to support gun ownership in the U.S. and just hope for a big shootout one day. That would solve a lot of problems. A quick-draw-McGraw tournament that goes on for a few years and eventually leaves just one "winner" (or loser depending how you look at it) who is really happy that they were the best out of 300 million! And really happy that he or she had a great gun and the right to have one.
0
arrestpaul
You can always hope for change. Gun control advocates have been "hoping" for that big shootout for a very, very long time. They just can't explain why it never occurs. It could be because they can't grasp the fact that the vast majority of firearm owners are not criminals. They are law abiding citizens (not subjects of a government) who want to keep themselves, their families and their communities safe from criminals.
Passing new and useless gun control laws don't affect criminals. They don't obey the law. That's why they're criminals.
0
knews
Must be sad to not even be able to imagine a life without firearms in the Un-tied States. You guys need to get to the root of the problem and that is to work out why there are violent crimes and criminals in such numbers in the first place. Guns are a temporary fix in the evolutionary scheme of things. Yes, you can shoot the mutation that results from the problem but the problem itself remains solved.
0
knews
.....remains unsolved (sorry!)
0
Darren White
The right to keep and bear arms is not an article in the constitution of Japan and is a specifically American problem, so please let us know when you have sorted this "gun thing" out, and get back to what's going on in Japan today.
You do realise that a lot of non US citizens read this site, right ? People who are interested in what's going on in Japan, but not necessarily in what's going on in the US, which has a more than adequate mass-media to cover issues like this, and can usually deal with them in a more sensitive manner.
0
limboinjapan
Most of the so-called founding fathers were loyalist up until they realized that with the acquisition of the new territories that once belonged to France and the expiation northwards they would now have less power most if not all were appalled by the fact that the new territory did not allow slavery and granted equal rights to the French speaking population and even more the Catholics and that the British crown agreed to respect the treaties and territories that the French crown had made with the natives, Benjamin Franklin was most appalled by the fact the French Catholics could sever on the limited jury system that existed and even wrote a letter to the King protesting this fact again claiming that they (French and Catholics) could not be trusted to remain loyal to the King.
The second amendment talks about the right to bear arms in a militia style situation and who at the time owned most of the guns and financed those militias? Well the answer is: The elite Founding fathers that ruled under the King and then ruled under a quasi democracy for several more generation through cronyism and nepotism.
I would guess that if they were alive today they would be the first to want to remove guns for the general population as it would have jeopardized their control, in the same manor the same elite move to remove citizenship of Irish Catholics and other immigrants and other citizens born in the USA when they felt that these people posed a threat by just being catholic.
The gun lobby and others have so well brainwashed so many it is quite funny to listen and read how little the population of the USA knows about its own history.
0
arrestpaul
Looks like many of the members of the American "colonies" tried to reason with the "Crown" and when they unable to do so, chose revolt as the last resort.
In the 1700's, there were more civilians with firearms than there were in the organized militias. Armed civilians were constantly called up to suppliment the low numbers of paid soldiers.
You also seem to be unsure or confused about who the "founding fathers" were. Maybe you skipped that chapter?
0
kendoboy
I'm Australian. I was indifferent to guns until something happened during my trip in the US. Some guy held me up at knife point and cornered me so I couldn't run. I was scared and resigned myself to fight for my life (what was to stop him from killing he after he took my wallet?) when a someone who walked by the alley we were in pulled out his handgun and threatened my attacker, calling it a 'citizen's arrest' or something. Because of him, I'm back home safe.
That's why I support ownership of firearms by responsible citizens. I realise there are evil people in this world who will use whatever (fists, blades or firearms) to inflict harm on innocent people. Yes, even in your beloved Japan. At least with firearms I have a chance to defend myself.
0
stevecpfc
kendoboy; The thing si without easy access to guns your attack may not have been able to get hold of a gun.
Ban guns in the hands of the general public.
0
SolidariTea
"but I'm wondering what term you would use for volunteers who bring their weapons for the purposes of border patrol for which they are not paid by the state. "
State workers repairing a road in Arizona or texas ( I forget which) last week were fired upon from across the border by what authorities later determined was a high-powered assault rifle. Will the ADL declare this an act of war by Mexico? I rather doubt it. Like good doctrinaire leftists they will invert reaity and blame the US side for provoking Mexico.
0
kujiranikusuki
@cleo about the 500 deaths thing. He has a point. I am against private onwership of guns, but 500 deaths is nothing. Its a waste of time and money to try to get rid of guns to save 500 lives. I hate that so many idiots have guns out there. but do you have any idea how many guns there are in the world. The going estiamte right now is that there is THREE guns per person in the world. 3 per person. 2 per person is low balling. what are you going to do? it would cost TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS to get rid of all those guns.
0
limboinjapan
@kujiranikusuki at 08:52 AM JST - 19th January
Are these numbers more significant?
Note that the number of legal death by guns which include police is 35 time smaller than the number of homicides.
It is also interesting to note that no other developed country comes anywhere near the numbers or percentage of that of the USA, are we to take this as meaning that Americans (USA) are inherently more violent then the rest?
In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (CDC, 2006).
0
cleo
500 is only the kiddies. limbo has posted more complete figures.
limbo -
You know, I do believe that that is what a large number of Americans themselves think. Why else would they come on JT and tell us how necessary guns are to protect themselves and their families from muggers, rapists, murderers and young exchange students wandering about on the front lawn? Yet they're quite happy to come to Japan and other countries where they're not allowed to arm for self-protection, and they manage to survive.
0
Mark_McCracken
Zero, possibly because U.S. citizens were well-armed.
The First U.S. Congress believed strongly in this justification for granting its citizens the right to own and bear firearms in the 2nd amendment.
Those who oppose gun ownership in the U.S. might prevail with a repeal of the 2nd amendment if they address how this risk of tyranny no longer exists.
0
Gurukun
Yes, sir! Like I stated before, that's why I'm living in Japan. However, if guns started to be a problem in Japan too (and it will never be a problem), I will get a gun again...or move to another country.
0
Zenny11
To a certain degree with Cleo and others.
Why is there such a high violent crime rate, etc in the USA. Also going according to some other posters anyone without a gun would be getting regular visits from burglars, rapists, etc.
Yet, in other countries where people don't have guns they can survive without the fears of burglars and rapists knocking at the door, which is strange as those countries would be a heaven for those criminals as no-on can defend their property and family.
I reckon the high gun-ownership makes both the citizen and criminals safer, bolder and more willing to take risks + violence rate climbs. Plus, a criminal always has the worry to get shot while fleeing, etc.
BTW, one question from what age is one entitled to carry a weapon in the USA? Newspaper article on AOL makes me ask that question.
0
stevecpfc
Guns are for trained forces not for tens of millions of Charles Bronson wannabees.
0
SezWho2
SolidariTea, that state road workers in Arizona or Texas (you forget which) were fired upon by a high-powered assault rifle hardly answers the question of what you would call vigilantes in lieu of calling them vigilantes. Neither does the firing of said assault rifle constitute an act of war by Mexico against the US except in the thinking of an unbalanced mind.
0
PeaceWarrior
In my case, I believe it would make for a really boring biathlon if there weren't any legal access to guns. That was our main winter sport (besides hockey, that is) back home.
I'm happy that firearms are strictly regulated in my little area of the world. I also like the fact that to get a weapon back home you have to jump through major hoops and that's the way it should be too. I like the fact that it is really difficult to get a weapon in Japan too.
About the US; I was completely flabbergasted when I watched Michael Moore's documentary about Columbine. That's not how things should be but I think many US residents don't know any better. I'm from one of those places described in Moore's movie where people still leave their doors unlocked so I'm probably pretty biased here though.
0
limboinjapan
OK the question is about private gun ownership!
So lets take this scientifically:
Lets take 2 countries with similar backgrounds and demographics: USA and Canada
The latest numbers of homicides I could find are these:
USA 4.2 per 100,000 for a total of 16,204
USA gun related 2,7 per 100,000 for a total of 9,369 or 58% of all homicides
Canada 1.49 per 100,000 for a total of 523
Canada gun related 0.5 per 100,000 for a total of 144 or 27%
Now if we remove the gun factor the USA has a 1.5 rate pre 100,000 for a total of 6,835
And Canada has 0.99 per 100,000 for a total of 379
Now looking at these numbers we can clearly see that with guns the USA has nearly 3 times the homicides than that of Canada.
But when removing the guns from the equation we find that the USA has only 1.5 times the homicides than that of Canada.
Yes Canada has guns but the types of guns available in Canada rarely include handguns and never assault rifles and Canada has a tricked control and registration of all guns.
So one can only conclude that the people of the USA are not overly more violent than Canadians but that the availability of guns for those that are violent makes it more dangerous.
The best scenario would be like this:
In Canada a thief trying to rob a convenience store would most likely use a knife the store employee behind the counter could move back grab a bat and press the alarm at which point the thief would probably run.
In the USA the thief would most likely us a gun the employee may try and move away press the alarm or even reach for a gun at which point the thief will start shooting perhaps both start shooting employee may be killed, other customer may be killed in the shootout.
Gun control has a proven track record and crime in general is lower in countries with such controls the odd man out in the developed world is the USA with a crime rate, murder rate and gun death rate that no other developed country comes close to, the USA is grouped in with third world countries and basket cases.
0
SezWho2
Well, if we could start with a clean slate, we could ask those who support gun ownership in the U.S. to address how gun ownership would prevent tyranny. The U.S. has put down every armed rebellion against itself, including the rebellion of the South. Shouting "sic semper tyrannis" does not actually make someone a tyrant. That is name-calling pure and simple.
Furthermore, even if the founding fathers--who apparently "believed" that blacks had no right to vote and only counted for being 3/5 of a person for apportionment--also believed that personal weaponry would be effective in preventing the emergence of a tyranny, the effectiveness for that purpose now should be weighed against the mischief that personal weaponry causes.
As I said earlier I generally support the right to keep and bear arms. However, citizens of other countries keep and bear arms without having this right enshrined in their constitutions, without tyranny and without the widespread gun violence that exists in America. There are saner ways to keep and bear.
0
vulcan
THe question should be; Do you support criminals being the only ones who have access to firearms?
0
Zenny11
Not sure why posters insist that Gun-Control = a Gun Ban.
Big difference between Controlling and Banning.
0
vulcan
Why do people insist that controlling guns equals controlling them for criminals when criminals by nature will break the law anyway. Why assume that anyone who would kill or rape would allow some gun law to stop him? It is the law abiding that are affected by laws, hence "Law" abiding.
0
SolidariTea
"Furthermore, even if the founding fathers--who apparently "believed" that blacks had no right to vote and only counted for being 3/5 of a person for apportionment"
Hey that s pretty funny.You , sezwho, are good at working in these completely gratuitous attempts to deligitimize not jusst the 2nd Amendment but the idea of the United States in general. Question - when the Constitution was drafted were blacks in Great Britain allowed to vote? of course not.
What does that have to do with gun control? Nothing really.
0
vulcan
sezwho:
There are also countries who's citizens don't have the right to keep and bear arms in their bill of rights (individual rights) and get mowed down on the streets for protesting "their" government. What is to stop a government from becoming corrupted with tyrants besides an armed populace?
0
vulcan
We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists. For more information, please see: Guns, Revolutions, History. Here is a quote from the Lexicon Universal Encyclopedia:
‘‘War clouds were gathering rapidly. The sending of more than 3,000 British army regulars under Maj. Gen. Thomas Gage to Boston further exacerbated the imperial rift. When a column of these troops under Lt. Col. Francis Smith moved into the countryside to collect arms and munitions gathered by the patriot militia, hostilities erupted at Lexington and Concord on Apr. 19, 1775.’’
0
limboinjapan
vulcan:"THe question should be; Do you support criminals being the only ones who have access to firearms?" and "Why do people insist that controlling guns equals controlling them"
You again conjecture that gun control means that criminals will be able to obtain guns and not law abiding people but if you read what I wrote at 01:59 PM JST - 19th January you will see that in Canada were all guns are controlled the use of gun by criminals is more then 4 times lower than that of the USA.
Why is that as many here like your self will point out criminals get there guns illegally but what you like to omit is that those illegal guns were originally purchased legally in the USA but with no controls and were resold of to criminals.
As in Canada it is difficult to obtain a gun permit and handguns are viewed as not necessary so therefore fewer guns available for criminals making it more difficult for them to get one.
It should be noted that most guns used by criminals in Canada are bought legally in the USA and smuggled into Canada and that in 2008 the government of Canada estimated that 75% of all guns use in a criminal activity in Canada were legally purchased in the USA so not only is the USA with its weak guns laws responsible for their own criminals having guns but they are also responsible for most of those in Canada.
0
vulcan
But in Canada the population is 10 times lower than that of the USA.. so your gun crime rate is over twice that of the USA. Even if it has taken into account the population (which is what I expect you to say) it makes no difference. Cananda is a different place, with a different demographic that accounts for a lot of crime in America, a different impact on society and the need for individual self protection. We have different histories, traditions etc. We don't necessarily distrust our government, but are keenly aware that they exist for the people and are not voted into office to "oversee" us as a king oversees his subjects.
The gun debate when equated to crime is irrelivent and small compared to cars and alcohol's relation to drunk driving deaths. You don't complain about these privleges, but you complain of our rights?
0
limboinjapan
vulcan:"We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists. For more information, please see: Guns, Revolutions, History. Here is a quote from the Lexicon Universal Encyclopedia"
Try reading a history book not "approved" by the USA government and its fantasy about the USA revolution.
You will find that Taxes and Guns were not the actual reason the actual reason was that the British were planing a consolidation of all their territory including the newly acquired French territories which would have reduced the control and power of those you call your founding fathers as well as the fact that the new territories would not have slaves and recognized the native treaties with the French.
Flighty tyranny or to protect from the possibility of government abuse are a fantasy created buy the gun makers lobby the USA government never hesitated to put down any insurrection or rebellion and did so within its first 15 years in existence and until the 20 century was still controlled by a hand full of land and industry Barons many of whom were the descendants of the Land Barons that controlled prior to the revolution and were the backers of the revolution as well as the owners and financier of the militias of that time, meaning they owned and controlled the guns.
0
limboinjapan
vulcan:"But in Canada the population is 10 times lower than that of the USA."
I'm going to take a wild guess you didn't read my post at 01:59 PM JST - 19th January or if you did then that would explain most of your comments.
That is per capita, by percentage, based on the number of crimes per 100,000 people, do I need to go on?
And I think you need to look up Canada it has a very similar demographic as the USA with 2 major exception medical care and Crime, actually on a per capita basis more Canadians hunt than in the USA so you would think that Canada would have more guns per capita then the USA but it doesn't because you don't need an assault riffle for hunting or even a hand gun.
vulcan:"The gun debate when equated to crime is irrelivent and small compared to cars and alcohol's relation to drunk driving deaths. You don't complain about these privleges, but you complain of our rights?"
You are joking here, I hope! Guns account for nearly 60% of all murders in the USA everything else pales in comparison!
0
cleo
I'm beginning to think the cordite must affect the brain.
0
jruaustralia
I support the Constitution of a country to dictate what is just and necessary for people under its laws.
(BTW is there a gun control debate in Japan right now?! Did I missed anything... on Japan?)
0
vulcan
Actually this sounds as if the Constitution has nothing to do with the people of the country. In fact in the USA, it is precisely the people who dictate the contence of their Constitution and put the politicians in place to represent their views. I'm sure you understand that, but I wanted to clairify.
0
arrestpaul
Not if you listen to the rhetoric of the gun-control advocates and their supporters. They have repeatedly made it clear that if they could round up all the firearms in the U.S. they would. They tell their supporters that whatever new gun control scheme they are curently pushing is only the "nose of the camel". Small bans will lead to wider bans and eventually to a complete ban. Ban bayonet mounts. Ban folding stocks. Ban lead ammunition. Ban large calibers. Ban cheap firearms. Ban semi-automatic firearms. Ban pistols. Ban revolvers. Ban large capacity clips. Ban, ban, ban.
The majority of the voters
0
knews
I guess it will always be difficult to stop the gun business in the U.S. because it is precisely that - a business - and a big one at that. The U.S. is the world's largest weapon supplier by miles so there'll always be a nice big supply of them at home for U.S. citizens to practice with (and continue killing one another with). It's hard to think of a more destructive business. Is this part of the American Dream?
0
arrestpaul
oops. The majority of the voters do NOT agree with the gun control, registration/confiscation, total ban zealots that want to disarm Americans. Except in a few areas of the country, the majority of voters un-elect the politicians who attempt to control or ban firearms. The majority of voters expect their elected representatives and law enforcement officers to enforce the laws that are already on the books. New laws that will be ignored are not needed.
0
arrestpaul
Interesting revision of history. You're confusing the revolutionary war with the civil war. But don't let the facts stop you.
0
vulcan
I seen a CNN poll about a week after the Tucson shooting, it said only 8% of those polled thought it was related to gun laws.. and CNN isn't known for it's conservative positions at all.
0
SezWho2
SolidariTea--you still haven't answered the question about vigilantes. You seem to keep finding distractions.
I haven't delegitimized anything. It's interesting that you seem to worry whether my comments delegitimize the US. It would be more interesting if you had a counterargument.
I agree that whether blacks could vote in England in 1790 is beside the issue of gun control. It's also entirely beside my point. My point was that the constitution has been changed to reflect the fact that conditions in later days were not the same as conditions in the late 1700s.
"Arms" definitely are not what they used to be.
0
SezWho2
Not a true believer in democracy, I see. The people are the what stop a democracy from becoming a tyranny. If you don't trust the people to do that without arms, why would you trust that people with arms will not be the very force which turns a government into a tyranny?
As for the British disarming the militias, that was merely common sense. This was not the spark that ignited the revolution. The revolution was already brewing. What do you think the militias were collecting arms for? Of course the British tried to disarm them and the United States would do exactly the same thing to any private militia which it suspected of being formed for the purpose of overthrowing the government.
0
Noliving
Which ironically helps support the argument that the government is not to be trusted.
0
SezWho2
arrestpaul--I don't think there is any revisionism or confusion on my part. Would you care to state exactly what facts I am revising or how I am confusing the Revolutionary War with the Civil War?
The founders wrote many things into the Constitution and we have had to analyze the legitimacy, propriety and usefulness of these provisions over time. At the time of writing the Constitution, the founders gave the vote to white, male property owners--about 15% of the population at most. At a later date, we figured that was not a provision which should stand for all time.
The "rights" incorporated into the Constitution also need to be tested. None of the "rights" should be considered to be so immutable that they cannot be restated. Personally, I really doubt that the founders envisioned a society in which private citizens could walk around with machine pistols as a defense against the military force of tyrants and I doubt that would gladly accept the carnage from firearms which has become almost boringly commonplace in American society. Even if they did, sanity should dictate that this "right" should now be infringed.
0
Noliving
Battle of Blair Mountain could be seen as one that help prevent tyranny, in that the US was able to put down that rebellion, but the long term results of that rebellion were a major victory for those who rebelled in that it substantially improved Unions in multiple industries and the working conditions of miners in the decades to come.
So although the US was able to put down the rebellions that didn't mean they didn't change their policies after "defeating" the rebellions. So in a lot of ways those US government wins were Pyrrhic victories, because although they were victories the fact that the possibility of future insurrections was to great to keep the status quo in terms of laws/policies.
Kind of like with whats happening in Afghanistan and that is they are able to pretty much win every single gun battle they engage in but its not putting an end to the insurgency, so in a sense the US wins the battle but it loses the war.
0
SezWho2
While we're at it, let's not trust anyone over 30, either.
I suppose that if you were a radical with a design to overthrow the US government, having that government confiscate your arsenal would be a sign that you can't trust government. On the other hand, if you were a citizen who was worried about your government being overthrown by a radical group, you would look at the confiscation of that group's arms as a sign that you can trust it.
I think it's very possible to be vigilant without being paranoid.
0
SezWho2
I don't know much about this battle, however I doubt that it can be seen in isolation from all the other labor violence. Additionally, I don't think I would describe the US as tyrannical with respect to labor conditions although there is no question that it favored ownership. Positive social changes have also been achieved without recourse to guns--the expansion of suffrage being one of the most notable.
0
Noliving
I would say it can be considering it is the second largest armed insurrection next to the American civil war in the history of the US, over 1 million rounds of ammunition were fired. The battle's aftermath strengthened several key unions that were involved in the creation of the 1933-34 new deal package, that has been called the economic bill of rights.
The US back then was tyrannical with respect to labor conditions, that is why they kept having armed insurrections back then over labor conditions. Remember the book "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair, well if you read that book the US meat packing factory industry was very very very tyrannical with respect to labor conditions and sanitation.
US companies during the early 20th century were very much tyrants against their employees.
The Jungle is example in which positive social change can take place with out guns, but keep in mind all the Jungle did was improve sanitation it didn't actually improve in a lot of was the working conditions like pay, hours worked, vacation, retirement etc. but in some cases you need guns, like the miners of West Virginia in the battle of blair mountain.
This battle at blair mountain is a turning point, in that unions start to get involved in politics to get the law on their side and it accumulated in the New Deal of 1933 and the second new deal of 1934.
The US is really no longer as tyrannical with regards to its labor conditions primarily because of what happened at the battle of blair mountain.
0
Noliving
Also suffrage was expanded with the barrel of a gun and through peaceful means, black suffrage was expanded through the barrel of a gun while women suffrage was not.
0
jruaustralia
Trivial-- Amendments of the US Constitution happened 27 times, which following your logic, means that 'we the people' have dictated the contents of US Constitution only 27 times.
But perhaps I should strike the word 'dictate' with 'foresee'
"I support the Constitution of a country to foresee what is just and necessary for people under its laws."
Happy?!
0
Noliving
Just to clarify this, it doesn't mean that because the US government was able to defeat the rebellion that it forced unions to enter politics, what happened was in the immediate aftermath the Union numbers in west virginia dropped substantially in west virginia but what happened was unions around the rest of US grew and became more powerful to the point that they could become a force to be reckoned with politically.
Another thing that is important to note about the battle of blair mountain was that the Sheriff of the county went on a shooting rampage with a private mercenary force paid for by the coal companies against union sympathizers which ignited the battle.
0
arrestpaul
"We the People" didn't pass every Amendment proposed and there was that initial vote to ratify the Constitution in the first place.
0
jruaustralia
Thanks for clarification...
0
Disillusioned
Wow! 59% have voted, yes. I guess that means the majority are American. It seems somewhat ridiculous that the main argument supporting possession of guns is for self-defence against other people with guns. However, if no one had guns there would be no need. Right?
0
forinagai
If American's are quite happy to kill or be killed by the right to bear arms, so be it. They're obviously happy with the number or mass shootings etc or else they'd have changed things by now.
Trying to think of a good anti-American joke... but can't. However, lawyer jokes abound: What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the sea?.... A good start.
Let them shoot and be shot... all in the support of their brand of democracy
0
amerijap
This is the right that has been debated for over a century, and will be the center of the issue for another half century. While I voted 'yes' for the right to bear arms, this shouldn't be treated similarly with free speech and its associations. There ought to be strict regulations and legal due process for the sake of human life.
0
SezWho2
If you want to consider it as such that's fine with me. However it was not an insurrection against the US or against the American form of government. It was a large scale armed action in response to the practices of private enterprise.
The practices were certainly inhumane and unnecessarily venal. And I'm sure that this was a turning point in changing the law. However, that is not what the Second Amendment contemplates. It does not empower citizens to cherry-pick laws they do not like and take armed action to change them.
I wouldn't say that denying the vote to women or blacks constituted a governmental tyranny either. Nor would I say that suffrage for these groups was obtained at the point of a gun. Guns may have been involved but that was not the consideration upon which suffrage was changed.
0
MarieInJapan
Of course people who support this are Americans. The states are so paranoid about their safety that they are suspicious about anyone anywhere. The whole neighborhood; one can be a serial killer!
But honestly, somebody who is voting with "yes" can be the next serial killer on the news tomorrow! Who knows?
A civil right means ANYYBODY would be entitled to get a gun! I guess that all the people here voting "yes" know somebody that they would definitely NOT want to see with a loaded gun! I could think of a lot of guys and girls!
But now a little question: what has a gun to do with self-defense??? A nife or using your fists is something I would call self-defense. A gun is to KILL! Which chance do you leave to the other one? How do you know you would have been killed while NOT having a gun?? Never heard of the studies that people carrying a gun are killed several times more often, when it comes to confrontation, than people who were not? I think, for some people here civil war has never ended! So from the battlefields now to your neighborhood? Very interesting! And after a law like that would have passed you would still send your kids to school or let them play on the street? Are you mad???
With this scenario in mind, yes, in a country full of guns life is only safe with a gun!
Ask yourselves:
Are the states safe because of guns? When I think about cities like New York than I have to doubt that... My husband's classmate at CCNY was shot and nearly died. Now don't tell me he would have been safer with a gun! A gun nearly killed him!
Or think about Afganistan: Oh yeah, of course, it's very safe there with all those guns! And in Ruanda it's even more safe!
Ever been to Europe? I feel much safer there, knowing people do NOT have so many guns. In my neighborhood in Germany only hunters use to have guns. And because of that people think they are suspicious!
I wonder what all those people in the past fighting for freedom and peace would say, if we would tell them that the result of their fight is "guns for everyone"! Any gun is a gun more against peace! You don't have to be a pacifist to understand that!
What sort of ideology were you taught at school??
"Let's pray for NRA!" ???
To clearify; I'm not against protecting your country on YOUR ground! But war should be kept a minimum if not completely avoided and it shouldn't reach our living room!!!
0
Zenny11
The way I see it.
Criminals know you got X-weapon they will arm themselves with X-weapon+1. You will get X-weapon+2 to counter they will counter with X-weapon+3, etc. In the end you got an arms-race aka the cold-war.
Problem is that the crims got no calms about using theirs. While YOU the legal citizen are still bound by laws and rules. Guns or no guns, the crims win(most of the time).
Where the downfall comes in is when people think that X-weapon will make them secure or give them the ability to kill/hurt someone. NOT going to happen if you have the ability to kill/hurt someone you also got it with a knife, baseball bat, gun, whatever.
Look at the teen(17) recently, things got rough at/around the school so he took one to school as he was scared. Dumped the bag and 2 kids in the gym-class got hit with ONE bullet as the gun fired by accident.
Now I don't think he was legally entitled to have the gun at school, etc. Legally he is a criminal now even if he was allowed to carry as there was no trigger guard, etc.
For what because he thought that the gun would make a difference and protect him.
This is why gun-control has to come with SOLID education about what and what you cannot do. From the posters here I get the impression that most are not aware of when and how they are allowed to discharge their guns = can land them in jail.
I read a lot of attitudes of "I will kill him", etc. Fine do so but be prepared to face the legal system of your county/state/country that disagrees with you.
Not going into that fact that killing another person is not easy. Ask any VA, etc.
0
cleo
So here I am in Japan, armed (like everyone else) with zero weapons. That means all the criminals are armed with zero weapons plus 1, right? Wrong.
Gun control has to come with solid education, I agree with you so far, but not education about who you can or cannot shoot and where. What's needed is moral education to stop kids growing up with a X-weapon＋1 mentality. Japan can do it, America can't?
0
Zenny11
Cleo.
Yes, they will come with x-weapon+1(a knife/club) those are easy countered.
I managed to do it in a house full of guns, my grandfather had many guns from his WWII pistol to his hunting rifles, etc. Reckon about 40 hanging in the hallway, etc. I was also taken hunting at an early age and learned the taught to respect the prey, etc.
Like I said I used to carry a .357 at one time but it was needed in the environment I lived in, never liked it though.
Back on topic. I as a european learned it and I think americans can learn it from the right person. The right person were my family, military and my MA teachers that taught me what they can do and also their limitations/downfalls.
In short I know the strength of fire-arms and their weaknesses. Said that Japan can lull you into feeling safe and that is a nasty trap.
0
vulcan
zenny, you're way off base. Criminals in America are usually drug types and most people who get killed are druggies. I would guess it like this:
Breakdown of who gets killed in the USA:
1 Drug dealers killing another person into drugs. (70%)
2 A-holes killing another A-hole, gangs. (15%)
3 A-hole killing a lawabiding citizen (10%)
4 Lawabiding citizen killing an A-hole (in defense) (8%)
5 Law abiding citizen killing self or family member/accidental. (2%)
The way a lot of these gun control zealots seem to think is that it is the other way around. It's not. #3 would be a lot higher if there were stringent gun laws preventing the law abiding from obtaining a gun for protection.
0
vulcan
Okay, that equals 105%... you get my point though. I'll have to find the data on some website.
0
Zenny11
Vulcan.
Show me the stats.
0
Zenny11
Vulcan.
I asked before as did others. Explain why countries that have stricter gun control laws also got a lower rate of violent crime, etc. Do you even live in japan?
I gave my views why less guns result in less violent crimes. Those are based on living in countries where you can buy a gun with your breakfast and others like europe and japan.
Heck, I was offered a US(they are licensed to make) made Ak-47 for about $30 in one.
For me the difference is in the mindset and NOT the availability of guns.
0
benhur
i agree. lets ban them forever so no one can get badly hurt.
0
limboinjapan
I have just one thing to say or point out to the people who are pro gun and mostly from the USA.
Can you explain with concrete evidence or at least a relatively sane answer why if you take a look at all the developed nations that for the most part have strict gun laws and compare them to the USA you will find a dramatically lower crime rate, violent crime rate, murder rate and gun death and injury rate (per capita)than that of the USA.
Please think long and hard on this question and do not respond if you do not have any real argument or evidence also do not try and pull the drug gang bit because Europe has the Russian mob these days that are just as dangerous and violent and guns on the black market can always be had but black market guns cost more and are much harder to get as in the USA and you can check your own government stats on this most guns that are in the hands of criminals were bought legally then resold at guns shows and the like, were almost no controls exist.
If the pro gun group's logic were true then the USA would be the safest country in the developed world but it is not it is actually one if not the least safe.
I don't need to add any statistics to prove my point as I already gave the stats on Canada VS USA and a quick search will show that the USA is in the company of such places as Russian, Brazil, Columbia but every developed country has at least half the crime and murder rate (per capita)as that of the USA, so show me I am wrong make your pro gun point by showing real numbers and not fantasies.
The results of this polling reinforce why I for the past 19+ years have avoided going out in places where people from the USA hangout and prefer going to places where Europeans, Canadians and Japanese go, the macho gun mentality that USA males have permeates everything and makes things often unpleasant.
0
vulcan
zenny, you show me the stats!
0
vulcan
You show me the stats with concrete evidence that guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens makes them more of a deterent to criminals, whether the criminal is armed or unarmed..
0
Zenny11
Not going to show you any stats I asked you for. ;) Why should I?
Atleast till you start addressing raised points and start answering straight questions or start showing proof to your points.
0
vulcan
Yes, macho men are unpleasant but meterosexuals are unpleasant also. I am not sure who I dislike more, the blind-sheep or the wolf with eyes.
0
limboinjapan
@vulcan:"you show me the stats!"
It is interesting that most here on the pro gun side have not given even one piece of concrete evidence backed by statistics but the those for gun control have given proof that it works back by evidence only to have the pro group ignore the evidence, dismiss it without giving a good reason or counter evidence or fall back on the constitution and or self defense argument.
Simple minded people that cannot hold a discussion to facts or use facts because they cannot find or are unable to find facts to back up their position.
We have given many stats and evidence of our point the ball is in your court to disprove our facts and stats but you have not done so, you have only repeated self defense and the constitution not one single fact, stat or piece of evidence to backup you position.
You will also find that in an attempt to play down the violent crime rate of the USA the USA government only counts Aggravated Assault, whereas other developed countries count violent crime rate includes all categories of assault, including the much-more-numerous Assault level 1 (i.e., assault not using a weapon and not resulting in serious bodily harm) and still the USA comes out on top on a per capita basis.
As for Murder:
USA: 4.28 per 100,000
The nearest other developed countries would be:
Finland with 2,83 per 100,000
Portugal with 2.33 per 100,000
France with 1.73 per 100,000
Australia with 1.50 per 100,000
Canada with 1.49 per 100,000
I can go on if you like I could also move on to only gun related murders which would show an even larger disparity.
0
cleo
I can't say I understand what you mean about the 'deterrent to criminals'. Look at Japan, strict gun laws, no guns in the hands of 'law abiding citizens' - and an overall homicide rate (that's all homicides, with and without guns) a tiny fraction of that of the US. Take yourself off to nationmaster and look at some of the stats there. They'll make you cry. We're not allowed to post urls, but google it and it comes out top of the list.
0
kchoze
The fallacy in the argument that gun control means that you take guns out of the hands of civilians while criminals still get theirs is that it seems to believe in the concept of the Spontaneous Creation of criminal firearms. Guess what? It doesn't work that way. Basically all guns and bullets in the hands of criminals have at one point been in legal hands. They were legally made, then legally sold and at one point they just "happened" to fall into criminal hands (often because seemingly "law-abiding citizens" want to make some cash on the side by selling guns to people who shouldn't have access to them).
If you reduce the amount of legal weapons in circulation and control their sale by holding their owners responsible, then you will reduce the availability of guns for criminals. What's more is that strong gun control laws mean that it becomes easier for police to act against illegally owned guns. The remaining problem then becomes the illegal importation of guns from countries with laxer laws (ex: the US is providing the vast majority of handguns in the hands of criminals in Canada, and even in Mexico, hurting their attempts at gun control). But importing a gun illegally still means crossing a border and involves risk of being found out, so this increases the costs of guns on the black market, and that's a damn good thing if you ask me.
Of course, if you tighten gun control laws in a country where they were lax to begin with, it will take some time to reduce the amount of guns on the black market (there may even be a slight increase when the laws are applied), but it will go down.
That being said, I believe personally that people should have access to hunting rifles with a permit and a necessity to register the weapons (so they can be held responsible if they sell it illegally). As to handguns, only with a special permit that wouldn't be handed to just over anyone, and purchased only through official security organizations like the police. Any type of weapon which purpose is to kill a lot of people, really fast, should be banned from civilian ownership. Sure, if someone wants to hurt or kill another, they can still try even without guns, but my reasoning is: why make it easier for them? Killing someone with a gun is relatively easy, with a knife or a bat... it's a much harder proposal.
0
Barbarossa
Don't you just love statistics? Funny how no one has mentioned that Switzerland has a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000 and that country REQUIRES private ownership of guns! Maybe homicide rates have little to do with the private ownership of guns.
0
arrestpaul
I guess that crime didn't exist before the invention of firearms??? Roving bands of murauders didn't rob, steal, rape and murder because of their superior numbers or individual strength.
The majority of voters in the U.S. realize that registration of firearms has alway led to confiscation of firearms. They also realise that police are only minutes away when seconds count. The majority of voters believe they have a right to defend themselves. The majority of police officers also believe that "the people" have a right to defend themselves. Many politically appointed police chiefs reject that right.
The drug cartels in Mexico are buying ship loads of weapons from China and Russia. Only a small percentage of their weapons come from the U.S. You can't buy hand grenades and rocket-propelled grenades (RPG's) at the corner store. This is no legitimate study showing Candiaian criminals are getting their handguns from the U.S., only the anti-2nd zealots are creating "facts" that prove that.
0
vulcan
limbo, the stats don't show the fear of the sheep. Who is killing who in America? Like I said, the criminals are the ones killing each other in the largest majorities. In Japan all you have to do is walk around like a yakuza and the sidewalk is yours.. why? Because all Japanese know that the only ones with guns in Japan are the yakuza..
0
yabits
Yes, and the government carefully screens out those deemed unfit for gun ownership. They also visit each gunowner on a regular basis to inspect that the guns under that owner's control are properly maintained and safely stored. The government requires gun ownership by responsible citizens because the gun owner is automatically part of the local militia.
Would you like the United States to adopt these measures? I'm sure they would dramatically lower the homicide rate here too.
0
limboinjapan
Barbarossa:"Funny how no one has mentioned that Switzerland has a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000 and that country REQUIRES private ownership of guns!"
I think you are a little confused about Switzerland!
It does not REQUIRE private ownership of guns what is does require is that every able body person between certain ages do their military duty on a regular basis and are on reserve the rest of the time and while on reserve they must have their military issued firearm at the ready.
And all you have proven in your statement is that Switzerland has a very tight control on their guns the government requires that all guns be registered and that all those in possession of guns must first pass training courses and register the gun and that at any time they are asked must produce that weapon to officials.
Do try and get your information right, unlike the USA Switzerland has strict control on all firearms is that what you think the USA should do? If so great and nice government control of guns, I'm all for that!
0
ariwrigh
Maybe you should stop pointing the finger at the gun and start looking at the people who are using them wrongly. A gun can be used to kill a deer(in the case of people who hunt), or to kill a person. It is the same with things like knives, a baseball bat, etc. It isn't the object that needs to be limited, its the people allowed to own them. Private use of guns isn't a problem when its the right kind of people owning them. People have the right to own guns, to protect themselves and to hunt. Maybe the process of getting a gun should be harder, but limiting the majority's rights because of the few who abuse them would lead to many human rights being taken away. Punish the wrongdoers, not the people who are actually obeying the law.
0
limboinjapan
@Barbarossa, @arrestpaul, @vulcan:
Again nothing but innuendoes hearsay and rumors but not one shred of proof to back up your point! Nothing, Nada, Zero!
You can't even find a single piece of anything not even what one of you posted was correctly done, fear mongering is all your paranoid minds can come up with no proof no evidence all you can say is stuff like
"the stats don't show the fear of the sheep." (@vulcan)
what is that supposed to mean? If it means the fear of the pro gun sheep that cannot understand or see the facts that countries with gun control have less violent crime and murders (per capita) but blindly swallow the gun lobby and NRA fear mongering that without guns they will all be raped, murdered of fall victim of a tyrannical government, then I guess that your statement could be true.
0
limboinjapan
ariwrigh at 02:09 AM JST - 21st January
I think what you have just described is what people call gun control!
How can you insure only those that are responsible enough to own a gun are the only ones to have one without basically having them checked out, trained in the use and proper handling and storage, and that they do not resell that gun to someone that shouldn't have one, without registration and controls?
And to my knowledge other then in the USA gun ownership has never been established as a Human right! Not even the most liberal interpretation of human right includes gun ownership
0
arrestpaul
According to Bill Clinton, Gore lost his attempt to become President because of the Clinton administrations attempts to ban firearms was rejected by the majority of voters and Gore had promised more of the same. Many anti-2nd politicians have lost their elected position by promoting useless, free-good, gun control laws that didn't prevent criminals from acting like criminals. Laws that only served to make criminals out of 180 million law-abiding, firearm owners. The majority of voters won't stand for it. Banning rifles with bayonet mounts was useless and registration always leads to confiscation. The gun-ban lobby and the Progressive Democrat Caucus rhetoric has been repeatedly proven false.
Your tirades aren't convincing the voters to change their minds.
0
kchoze
@arrestpaul
Ignoring the fact that your reply didn't really address anything I said, but that you merely used my message as an occasion to spout off typical pro-gun dogmas... as I said, though people may attempt criminal activities with or without guns, there is no question that guns help them a lot. So my question remains the same: why make it easier for criminals by increasing their access to guns?
Pro-gun advocates say that high gun availability will make criminals more wary and decrease crime... I think that what really happens is that it makes them likelier to shoot if they believe their victim is going to draw a gun and fire. Looking at the astronomically high (for a rich country) murder rate in the US, I'd say my theory is more likely than yours.
It's funny how on a Japanese site you still presume that the only voters who count are American voters. Thankfully, most of the rest of the industrialized world is more sensible than Americans when it comes to gun ownership. Interestingly enough, none of these democracies that highly restrict gun ownership have become tyrannies, as the gun lobby in the US claims is inevitable if Americans ever lose access to semi-automatic military grade weapons or to cheap, easily bought, handguns. I also wonder what a bunch of rednecks with AR-15s would do against tanks, fighter jets and APCs if the lobby's prediction of a government turning against its citizens were to happen.
As to the right to defend themselves, self-defense is recognized by all countries, but the extent of actions it covers varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Thankfully few countries have adopted laws that make it legal for a man to kill an innocent youth who knocked on the wrong door on Halloween (Yoshihiro Hattori, look it up). I don't think making guns easily available to everyone and telling them to shoot first and think later is a sensible social message regarding firearms. Not only it makes accidental deaths more likely, but it also encourages criminals to do the same thing, because they too are armed and they don't want to give the occasion to their victim to shoot first.
As to guns in Mexico, though it's true that some of the most potent weapons they have come from China or the rest of Latin America, a hell of a lot of them come from the US. Everybody understands that, except those whose livelihood depend on them not understanding it (pro-gun lobbyists and the like).
0
vulcan
Why choose to be vulnerable to a man, who is armed or unarmed that wishes you or your family harm? America has backround check, but if a person has no bad backround he will be clean. People will always slip through the cracks but it is a very rare case. When an innocent person defends himself and shoots an attacker it rarely makes the news.. why is this?
0
Noliving
It was both, it was primarily against private enterprise but the sheriff is a public/government official along with the federal troops and his actions aided by the private enterprise led to the insurrection. The point I'm making is that there is indeed evidence where people armed with guns have in fact ended tyranny at the private level and then eventually they were able to put laws into place and get the government to actually enforce those laws after doing battle with the federal, your argument now is well I'm talking about government not private. I don't care, that is example where a civilian population have ended tyranny.
Dude it isn't cherry picking at all, the miners didn't arm themselves and take armed action until the private enterprise and local government began attacking and shooting the civilians and the miners.
I didn't say it constituted government tyranny, you claimed that suffrage was an example of positive social change that didn't require the use of firearms. Giving black men the right to vote nationwide required the use of firearms don't tell me it didn't play consideration at all in which the suffrage was changed black men. The expansion of Suffrage to women and native americans didn't require the use of guns but for black men it did.
0
Noliving
Actually according to Gary Kleck, Ph.D. who is a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee, guns prevent or are used to defend the victim over 2.5 million times a year in the US. Keep in mind that doesn't mean the guns are fired just that at a minimum they are drawn. According to him guns are more likely to be used in defense then in the use of a crimes.
According to the FBI and the US justice department there are around 250k injuries by guns and there are around 35k killed by guns, half of which are suicides.
So you take 285k people killed or injured by guns versus the 2.5 million times a gun is used to defend the victim.
0
vulcan
Noliving, this is true... but the people fearful of guns in the hands of the law abiding won't listen to the studies.
0
vulcan
limbo seems to
0
limboinjapan
Noliving:"who is a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee, guns prevent or are used to defend the victim over 2.5 million times a year in the US. Keep in mind that doesn't mean the guns are fired just that at a minimum they are drawn. According to him"
Again an opinion no hard proof no stats just some random professor who claims something, can he or you show any concrete (I will repeat that) "concrete" statistics drawn from real evidence and not just "well my study suggest".
His research was never backed up by any concrete stats and was based on "surveys" and is also nearly 20 years old and he is a supporter of the NRA his so-called research claimed that criminal use was only in the hundred thousand range which has been disproved and in fact the criminal use by police reports was in the millions so sue me if I have a hard time believing a report by a man that couldn't even be bothered to correctly check the simplest thing like police statistics to confirm the number of criminal uses of guns, but then that would not have suited his purpose of justifying the NRA stance.
0
limboinjapan
@Noliving
It seems that David Hemenway a Harvard professors research showed that self defense use of guns was nowhere near in the millions as Kleck claimed and was in the hundred thousand range now we have a Harvard guy VS a Florida State University guy my money is on the Harvard guy!
0
limboinjapan
I will repeat my questions but this time I will try and make them as simple as possible so that the pro gun group can understand them and perhaps give some strait answers.
If guns are so needed for defense.
Why are violent crimes so much lower (per capita) in every other developed Nation than in the USA?
(before some smart @ss says something yes the UK has the highest crime rate of the developed nations the vast majority being B&E, and other non violent theft)
Why is gun violence by criminals also so much lower (per capita) in every developed Nation (where virtually all of them have strict gun control) than that of the USA (where guns are easily accessible)?
If the premise that criminals will obtain their guns illegally even with gun control ( I suppose on the black market).
Why are they not able to do so as prevalently in every other developed country (again that have gun control) as they seem to be able to do in the USA?
What is the main difference that makes crime in the USA so much more violent than all the other developed nations?
And please do not come back with the standard "gang" reply every country has gangs and many of these gangs are just as violent as the ones in the USA the only difference that I can see is that they don't use or can't get guns.
It is also interesting to note that the ATF's own gun trace program has shown that most guns (77% to 93%) were originally legally purchased in the USA and subsequently resold.
0
Noliving
My money is on the Flordia State university guy because FSU's crimonology & and criminal justice department ranked as the best in the entire nation.
Ah technically those "surveys" are statistics/hard proof. They are called statistical surveys or sampling statistics. In fact that is how the vast majority of University research on statistics is done is through surveys. In fact pretty much all research conclusions is based upon "well my study suggests". Where did he claim that the criminal use of guns was in the hundreds of thousands?
If you look at David Hemenway's research on other topics you will see that his primary evidence is based upon surveys too.
So what does that mean? That surveys are indeed stats/hard proof.
David Hemenway didn't do any research at all according to you considering you don't consider "surveys" to be hard evidence or stats, his research is almost entirely based upon surveys. So how can you call Kleck survey not hard proof but then claim/imply that Hemenway surveys is hard proof/stats?
Kleck notes, however, that Hemenway's own surveys confirmed Kleck's conclusion that defensive gun uses number at least in the hundreds of thousands each year, and that a far larger number of surveys (at least 20) have shown that defensive uses outnumbered criminal uses.
There are more studies not done by kleck that back up his position more than hemenway's position.
Also police reports were not in the millions, according to the FBI own statistics which are based off of the police department stats all around the country, 93 which was the peak year since 1973, only around 582,000 crimes were committed with firearms.
0
Noliving
in a single year.
0
limboinjapan
Noliving:"So how can you call Kleck survey not hard proof but then claim/imply that Hemenway surveys is hard proof/stats?"
No these are Statistics:
Belgium, Canada, France, Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, UK, Etc...
All with strong gun controls have:
Half to 6 times fewer violent crimes than the USA (per capita)
2 to 6 times fewer murders.(per capita)
4 to 10 time fewer gun related murders.(per capita)
Now these are facts not surveys polls or guesses FACTS on paper (or Data base) registered by each country and the USA statistics only count aggravated assault and up in their violent crimes statistics as the rest count all violence even if there were no injuries and still the USA is on top!
0
arrestpaul
Who are you? limboinjapan?
0
Zenny11
Vulcan.
I you took your time to learn how crime happens, criminal mindset, etc you would find that your gun is useless in many(if not most cases). Why, things don't happen they way they show them in movies, TV, etc.
You would also learn that the vast majority of burglaries and break-ins happen during daylight hours while you are working, etc.
Most criminals aren't stupid they will case a house, location, person before moving in for the kill(so to speak).
While you being mucked you will see maybe one or two guys doubt you will see their backup in the shadows covering you.
You will also learn that the gun gives you a false sense of security/power and that can be a fatal trap.
Just my experience.
0
Noliving
I don't believe that is an answer to my question.
0
arrestpaul
News flash - criminals don't want to be shot. Not really a surprise, is it? Criminals aren't looking for a "fair" fight. Criminals look for unarmed, weaker or oblivious-to-their-surroundings victims. Several mass shootings occured at "gun free zones" like schools and shopping malls. They know that their victims won't be armed.
Currently 48 States have some sort of concealed carry laws and violent crime rates have dropped as a result. The constant shoot-outs and blood-running-in-the-streets that was predicted by the anti-2nd, gun control crowd never occured.
Criminals look elsewhere for victims when they assume, or are not sure, their intended victim is armed.
0
Zenny11
kchoze.
Very nice post and good points raised.
0
limboinjapan
Noliving:"I don't believe that is an answer to my question."
Your questions??
Wow I am at a lose!
I read the "Study" you quoted from and if you had you would have seen the answers to your questions in that study look it up its available online.
But you are one for claiming I did not answer your questions I did answer everyone and with real answers and statistics as did several others on this discussion but YOU on the other hand did not even try to answer any of the questions I or anyone else wrote regarding the murder rate in the USA vs the rest of the developed world other then claiming the need for self defense and the 2nd amendment.
No I did answer but you did not like my answer or did not understand it so you chose to try and act like I didn't but I would like at least for you to try and give even one strait answer as to,
Why every other developed country has less murders, violent crime and gun deaths and injuries than the USA despite having strong gun control and few weapons in the hands of private citizens?
Its a strait forward question.
0
limboinjapan
arrestpaul:"News flash - criminals don't want to be shot. Not really a surprise, is it?" and "Currently 48 States have some sort of concealed carry laws and violent crime rates have dropped as a result."
News Flash; Currently every other developed Nation has strong gun control with no gun carry permits and they all have at least HALF the amount of violent crime and murder (per capita) than that of the USA.
0
Zenny11
I am asking the question that I asked Vulcan.
If a gun is such a prevention why do have countries that have strict gun-controls have fewer violent crimes, break-ins, etc.
For the people living in japan, since we can't have guns we should be sitting ducks for the criminals(according to some posters). Houses in japan are often left with their doors unlocked, no security systems, etc.
Japan, etc should be heaven for criminals(both domestic and overseas), yet no-one I speak to feels the need to carry a gun, etc for protection.
So gun-control and violent/high crime rate don't appear to be linked.
0
limboinjapan
Zenny11:
You are wasting your time, I have already asked this question several times now only to be met with silence, the 2nd amendment or self defense, not one of the pro gun group even attempted to answer the question actually they all just ignored it.
0
kamonochoumei
From Bob Herbert of the New York Times: "An important study published in 2009 by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine estimated that people in possession of a gun at the time of an assault were 4.5 times more likely to be shot during the assault than someone in a comparable situation without a gun."
0
cleo
The pro-gun crowd appear to be very sad people who have grown up in an atmosphere of fear and violence; they cannot imagine life without guns to 'protect' themselves with. Like the man with a hammer who sees every problem as a nail, they see every problem as a target.
0
Zenny11
kamonochoumei.
Thx, that echoes my experiences in a country wheres guns are easily obtained and is also known for its high violent crime rate. Many people that got mugged and carried were killed with their own guns.
As for criminals buying guns from legal owners, foregone conclusion as there is NO background check, etc involved.
Happened a few times in a few places/countries, Buddy ended up in a fight with multiple opponents, one guy comes up to me and asks aren't you going to fight too.
Said no he can handle himself or not my fight, guys that wanted to fight me walked away as there was no fight from my side.
This is MA at it's highest level where you create a situation where there is no fight for you, either by avoidance, prevention, etc.
As for burglars, hey, they can have my stuff I got "good" insurance and most likely end up buying better stuff than they took.
Remember on guy that got a bit out of hand at a party(years back), told him to walk into the study to talk. He never entered as he saw my MA weapon collection I keep there.
No need for a gun if you use the ol' noggin.
0
arrestpaul
Don't you think that if there were an actual study that actually said what Herbert said it did, that he would have published the name of said study? Do you normally accept such vague statements as "an important study" as fact?
0
arrestpaul
How many of the "other developed Nations" vote in the U.S.?
0
MarieInJapan
I see that it doesn't make much sense here to explain "good" and "bad" to people here. For all those "yes"-voters it's meaningless anyway. But it's worth a trial!
Please, could you please tell me, why guns are nececary in a civilized country? Tell me when the middle ages came back! I think I've missed that moment! Why is it safe to know that you and you neighbor could kill each other at any moment with a shot gun, both claiming it was self-defense?
I didn't know people here are so blue-eyed. Do you want Japan to become as crashed as the U.S.? With guns all over your neighborhood and somebody shot to death, murder or accident, every couple of days? Is that safety to you? Well, if then, why don't you live in Iran? Or maybe go to Pakistan! I think there YOU will be VERY safe with all those guns and bombs in the neighborhood!
I don't need a country full of weapon freaks just waiting for a chance to use them!
For your information, not even paid soldiers in Germany have guns at home! A gun means you are a hunter or a freak! Freaks are dangerous with or without guns! So I'd be the last one giving them a colt!
And when ever I hear about a death through a gunshot in Germany, which is very rare, it was a hunter or a freak! Understood that tragic comedy??
And about that check up; do you know how many little shops actually give a damn about that customer-check-up??!! And don't you think it makes it much much easier to get a gun illegally, if guns are available to a "wider public"?
A law like that ITSSELF is making it necessary to have a gun. If your neighbor doesn't have it, please, then what do you need it for?
What kind of civilized country are the states that you have to suspect the next best person passing by being a killer??!!
You don't need to start talking about civil war, weapon culture or what ever!
What do you REALLY need that gun for? To scare people??? Maybe you will be so scared that in the end YOU will KILL somebody by accident!
I don't want to be the neighbor of someone having a gun in his house! Do you?
Would you vote for free drugs, too?? Guys, what's wrong with you?
0
arrestpaul
There's no point in being petty just because you don't believe in a peoples right to govern themselves.
0
Zenny11
arrestpaul.
People that govern themselves live in an anarchy. :P
0
arrestpaul
Because the majority of the voters in the U.S. believe they have a right to defend themselves. Because the 2nd Amendment states that they have an individual "right" to bear arms. Because the Supreme Court agrees that the 2nd Amendment protects that "individual" right. Because their are over 180 million law abiding firearm owners who are not breaking any laws or causing trouble. Because the resent your implication that they are "killers" or "freaks". Because there are violent criminals who prey on defenseless victims. Because you have no say in the matter.
Firearms are used for hunting, target shooting, shooting sports and self defense. It's been that way since the colonies were first established and the majority of voters see no reason to change that.
The German government decided that Germans can't be trusted with firearms. Same with the government of Japan. When Germany or Japan manages to annex the U.S., then German or Japanese laws will apply. Until then.....
0
cleo
arrestpaul - Petty?? I'm sorry you think that. I was just trying to understand why it is some people are unable to see the wood for the trees. As for governing yourselves - you aren't governing yourselves. You're letting fear and guns govern you.
0
cleo
Guns are necessary in a civilised country because MarieinJapan has no say in the matter? and you're worried about me being petty?
She's asking about in a civilised country. If you count the US among the civilised, why is it you appear to have so many more violent criminals than other developed countries?
Meanwhile in the US the people apparently can be trusted with firearms... and the murder rate is ten times as high. Trusted to do what, keep the population down?
0
arrestpaul
If they are "governing" themselves........
0
arrestpaul
I answered MarieinJapan's question. If she/he did have a say in the matter, it's obvious that guns would not be nececary in the U.S.. As the situation stands today, MarieinJapan must not have a say in the matter.
0
cleo
arrestpaul - She didn't ask about the US. She asked about a civilised country. Oops.
0
arrestpaul
The difference is that in the U.S., the voters (aka "We the People") have decided that "We the People" have a right to own firearms and the government can not take that right away. Of the people, by the people.
0
Japlan
Because they are illegal, there should be no guns in Japan at all, but we know this is not the case. Based on the logic (that guns kill or make killing/violence easy), there should be much less suicide per capita in gunless Japan too, but not the case. At 24 suicides out of 100,000 people, Japan’s suicide rate is more than double that of the USA at 11/100,000 people; the country with the highest per capita gun ownership (88 out of 100 own a gun) in the world.
.
0
limboinjapan
arrestpaul:"How many of the "other developed Nations" vote in the U.S.?"
Ah yes I forgot I was dealing with someone from the USA and that they usually think everything is about them and only them.
Let me enlighten you on a few things the world does not revolve around the USA (Rome thought that and where is Rome today?).
The Question is:Do you support the right of citizens to own and bear firearms?
Could you please show me where it says "in the USA"?
You keep going back to self defense but you never (let me repeat that) NEVER address the fact that in all the other developed countries violent crime and murder are at least half to 10 times lower than that of the USA which disproves your theory about guns being needed for self defense or even a deterrent because if guns ownership had any impact on reducing crime then in theory the USA should have the lowest crime rates, murder rates and be the safest country which it is not it is the most dangerous.
0
limboinjapan
Japlan at 03:02 PM JST - 21st January
Suicide is a social problem and nothing to do with guns, guns are just one means of committing suicide and suicide is the "choice" (for lack of a better word) of the individual and not and attack on others, why not try and justify guns based on the impact of the violence towards other in society if you want to try and show guns are not the problem, I am guessing you used suicide because if you used violence and murder then you could not do anything but agree with those opposed to gun ownership.
0
limboinjapan
jagadeesh at 03:28 PM JST - 21st January.
Next time you see your USA friend remind him that The UK, Canada, NZ, Australia, were all fighting the Nazi and the Japanese for 3 years while the USA cowered in their little corner with all there guns and bravado and only entered the war when they had no choice, had the British and it allies not held their ground for 3 years the USA would have had a much harder time with a Nazi controlled government right on its door step with control of all the resources of the Crimean and Canada. All the little gun toting people of the USA would not have made much difference at that point.
0
vulcan
Because the majority of the voters in the U.S. believe they have a right to defend themselves. Because the 2nd Amendment states that they have an individual "right" to bear arms. Because the Supreme Court agrees that the 2nd Amendment protects that "individual" right. Because their are over 180 million law abiding firearm owners who are not breaking any laws or causing trouble. Because the resent your implication that they are "killers" or "freaks". Because there are violent criminals who prey on defenseless victims.
Firearms are used for hunting, target shooting, shooting sports and self defense. It's been that way since the colonies were first established and the majority of voters see no reason to change that.
The German government decided that Germans can't be trusted with firearms. Same with the government of Japan. When Germany or Japan manages to annex the U.S., then German or Japanese laws will apply. Until then.....
Okay, I posted his post but eliminated the only thing anyone could use to detract from the core of his post... anyone care to make any comments on this post?
0
vulcan
I'm a life member of the NRA and concealled carry permit holder and licenced EMT.. If you're in trouble you'd be lucky to have one of my type around than the "I'm scared of self reliance types" usually the ones who hate guns.
0
Zenny11
Vulcan.
Putting the right aside. Do you really feel the NEED for a gun to PROTECT yourself? And HOW will the gun make a difference, going through various scenarios in your head.
Will it help when you get a knife stuck to your kidney from behind? While in the shower/toilet, etc. Do you carry 24/7 even at home? Can you quick-draw? Been trained at a combat range, not just a shooting range, etc?
Your EMT qualification has nothing to do with the topic nor does your NRA membership, etc . Unless those give you skills, insights in handling a firearm beyond the average licensed gun carrier.
Think about it careful before replying.
0
SolidariTea
"the fact that in all the other developed countries violent crime and murder are at least half to 10 times lower than that of the USA which disproves your theory about guns being needed for self defense or even a deterrent because if guns ownership had any impact on reducing crime then in theory the USA should have the lowest crime rates, murder rates and be the safest country which it is not it is the most dangerous."
The fact? Great Britain has higher rates than the US for many crimes. The US also has a far more diverse population. 90 percent of the violence done with guns is drug and gang-related, and it is blacks killing blacks. I am sorry you are so ignorant on the subject.
0
limboinjapan
Vulcan:"The German government decided that Germans can't be trusted with firearms. Same with the government of Japan. When Germany or Japan manages to annex the U.S., then German or Japanese laws will apply. Until then....."
Not sure what your trying to get at by singling out Germany and Japan but they both have way, way way lower crime rates, lower murder rates, lower guns deaths and much, much, much safer countries.
And again I seem to need to pint out that the question does not mention the USA so why do you and others form the USA always think everything has to be only about the USA.
And despite all your rhetoric you have still avoid addressing the one major point.
If guns make you so safe then why does the USA have the worst record on violent crime, murder and gun deaths of all developed countries? For once try and address this point!
As for your little " licenced EMT.. If you're in trouble you'd be lucky to have one of my type around than the "I'm scared of self reliance types" usually the ones who hate guns."
I am a licensed paramedic trained in search and rescue (air, sea and land) I have work in the arctic and major cities, I was the first responder on several major disasters as well as one bombing that killed 4 people and a mass shooting that killed 14 and injured 14 I know what guns can do, after this massacre laws were tightened in my country and nothing like it happened again until some nut case bought guns in the USA and tried doing the same thing had the USA not had such easy access to guns the second massacre would have never happened, as for wanting to have someone like you around in a crisis NO THANK YOU I will be happy to rely on EMTs, rescue workers and police from countries where people have cooler heads.
0
limboinjapan
@SolidariTea,
One more point the USA violent crime figure only count aggravated assault as the UK and the rest of the developed country count all violent crimes in their numbers (e,i, assaults without injuries or weapons) I would venture to guess if the USA counted violent crime in the same manor as the UK and the rest the USA figures would be even more than the present 2 times that of the UK and 4 times that of Canada.
0
SolidariTea
"If guns make you so safe then why does the USA have the worst record on violent crime, murder and gun deaths of all developed countries?"
Examine the evidence. I'd recommend an African American journalist who last year examined the violence in New York
"95.1 percent of all murder victims and 95.9 percent of all shooting victims in New York City are black or Hispanic. And 90.2 percent of those arrested for murder and 96.7 percent of those arrested for shooting someone are black and Hispanic. "
Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post,
Do you really think Detroit, LA, St Louis are much different?
0
Zenny11
Sorry, but what do the race, etc proof? Unless you are trying to say that whites are SUPERIOR and thus can be trusted with guns.
0
techall
In 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Yes, Gun Make you safeR.
0
limboinjapan
@techall:at 07:17 PM JST - 21st January
First can you come up with even one sensible example not at least 60 years old or not from non-democratic unstable countries?
Second you are late with the Swiss thing and as your predecessors wrong on your statement.
Switzerland issues guns to every active duty person in the military (military service is mandatory yearly from 19 to 34 or 52 depending on rank) and during that time they must keep and maintain their military weapon.
They are also required to have it properly stored under lock and key and are not permitted to go around with it without permission, they are also required to present it for inspection whenever requested and to surrender it if requested (no questions asked).
Basically GUN CONTROL!
0
SolidariTea
"Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!"
I could believe those numbers if they were for Canada, despererate to the point of suicide to prove that they "aren't Americans! " but I Can't believe Aussies are that naive. Most of the ones I meet here seem fairly realistic.
0
techall
@limboinjapan: So I guess you think Australia is a non-democratic unstable country?
0
SolidariTea
So I think limboinJapan, you want the solution your country adopted ?If the US adopted the long-gun registry you have in Canada the US government could steal billions in taxes. But it wouldn't make a dent in the gun fatality figures. See the post about criminals in Australia .
0
limboinjapan
SolidariTea:"So I think limboinJapan, you want the solution your country adopted ?If the US adopted the long-gun registry you have in Canada the US government could steal billions in taxes. But it wouldn't make a dent in the gun fatality figures."
The long-gun registry is but a small part of what Canada adopted and if you knew anything about Canada you would know that Handguns are extremely restricted that is where the difference is, most crimes are not done using long-guns but using handguns, something Canada eliminated and if you look at the figures violent crime dropped after the crack down and end of legal sales of handguns in Canada.
0
SolidariTea
"most crimes are not done using long-guns but using handguns, something Canada eliminated and if you look at the figures violent crime dropped after the crack down and end of legal sales of handguns in Canada. "
Not in Toronto, it didn't.. But then, Toronto has a demographic much much closer to New York .
0
Zenny11
What has the demographic to do with anything?
0
techall
@Zenny11:
Go to Los Angeles and visit Santa Monica or Malibu and then visit South Central. Then come back and look at your question.
0
vulcan
zenny and limboinjapan, I agree with you.. you both shouldn't have the right to keep a pistol in your house for protection. You should have to call 911 and wait 10-20 minutes for police to arrive to save you, your wife and kids. I'd feel safer if neither of you had a weapon because you sound like the type who wouldn't use it, you may hesitate and in life and death situations you cannot do that... you're not ready for that type of responsibility.
0
vulcan
zenny, the typical liberal isn't the self reliant type. they even detest all traditional definitions of manhood. Strength, self reliance, provider, protector, individualist, brave.. these words if liberals had their choice would be erased from the dictionary.. oh and the word coward which describes the liberal idealist... the Alan Alda's of the world.. the ones who would watch their wife and children get smashed up rather than use a gun to shoot the attackers. Ideals are more important than the lives of their loved ones. I came upon an interesting statistic, it said that 32% of rape attempts are sucessful, but in only 12% are sucessful when the woman was armed and in less than 1% was her gun used against her.
0
vulcan
zenny, Blah blah! Then what is your beef with with gun ownership? Do you just figure you are the only one who should own one and noone else is responsible enough? Is everyone an idiot out there except you? Do you actually think that in America anyone can purchase a gun? They cannot if they are a convicted felon, they cannot if they have a record of unstable mental illness, there are many reasons and there are FBI and local backround checks. Are these checks perfect? No nothing is perfect. Just like the crackpot in Tucson. He was a nut but not a "certified" nut. What is your problem with guns? Maybe it is imagined or due to misinformation. Do you actually believe that the armed citizen doesn't deter criminal acts? Does this make any sense to think criminals would not evaluate the possibility of resistance when mugging or robbing someone?
Moderator: Vulcan and Zenny11, please stop this bickering. If you do not post in a civil manner, your messages will be removed. In fact, it would be best if you do not address each other at all.
0
MarieInJapan
OK, I owe you one! But I'm against guns for so called "self-defense" at home in any country! Civilized or not!
To me your post looks like the states are going to kill a huge number of inhabitants if that law would break. Do you believe in conspiracy? :-)
Infact, you would be the first person admitting that things happening in Germany during World War II. would be possible in ANY other country in the WORLD, too! I'll keep that in mind.
I'm half Swiss, by the way, and I would never NEVER compare Switzerland and the United States. My mother would move in her grave...
People in Switzerland are far less aggressive than most other (European) countries, but they are not stupid! In a country with such a small population it is not about defense for the individual, but about the fact that there are not enough people in total to protect the country if necessary! That's bit more than self-defense!
Another thing is that Switzerland is still a very strict society. You'll be "out of the club", if you act improperly. That's something anybody there is really afraid of! Another way to prevent crime! That group feeling is pretty similiar to Japan!
But anyway, terrorists, bank robbers and jealous exwifes will ALWAYS get guns - with or without a faciliating law - if they really want to. But it shouldn't be too easy for them!
0
vulcan
That's subjective.. the US has objective rules in place that the FBI and local law enforcement use as a guage. It works but doesn't prevent a criminal from using a knife or getting a gun through other means, just like obtaining drugs... a system is in place but you cannot prevent the possession if a person is really out to get it.
0
MarieInJapan
@vulcan
Of course, that's subjective. The feeling to be in the need of a gun is subjective, too, as long as there is no real enemy inside of your house. It's , anyway, more likely that a person legally in posession of a gun will be aming at you than a criminal who got hands on it illegally.
As long as there are gun-supporters, there will never NEVER be peace in this world.
But hey, I guess, you can't make much money with peace! War is so much more profitable, no? And weapon producing companies in the states would be the first ones to complain about a "too low rate of gun-use". You and others are just part of a big industry playing with peoples' fear and mind-gaming about some little "deals" with "local authorities" to keep the money flow. May I use some unpopular terms like "Mafia"? In other words, every thing has it's beneficiary. Guns should be treated like prescriptive medicine. You only get it if you "need" it. And "need" means for your job - Police, for example.
OK, if you don't trust the police while talking about the system all the time then vote for presidents that support "proper" institutions. I guess, lot's of people here have skipped the election couple of times in there lives. Am I right? :-) I mean, if you don't want to... Why don't you change to martial law directly?
0
MarieInJapan
But so far, thank you all for this quite active and interesting discussion! :-) It's good that lot's of people are taking part in this! What is a democracy if people don't use their right for freedom of expression!
0
vulcan
marieinjapan,
I don't know where you came up with this likelyhood. In fact a child is 7x more likely to drown in a backyard swimming pool than shoot themself with their fathers gun. Did you just make that up?
It's not that I don't trust police, I never said that. I just don't like to rely on anyone for my safety because I know it may take them a while to get to my home and even if they showed up in 3 minutes, they are outside and the 4 burglars are inside... with me. Also the police have a job to enforce the law, not protect me. I depend on noone to protect me except me, there is just no time. If I was rich I could hire a body guard, but I'm not. I believe in having an equalizer. It may sound like I am paranoid, but I'm not. I just like to think of the possibilities.
0
arrestpaul
What other country has a right of citizens to own and bear firearms?
0
Japlan
Exactly, you made my point. Yes, suicide is a choice. Life is a series of choices that make us responsible for our actions. Suicide is always blamed on the availability of guns in the States.
Detach yourself for a moment from all the divisive vitriol and be intellectually honest. Crime is also a social problem and has nothing to do with guns, because they aren’t widely available in Japan. But knives are everywhere even though there are strict laws about carrying knives. (Knives are not a social problem unless you want to make it one). So we agree! Like a knife, a gun is a tool, an inanimate object. It has no will, no mind. It can be used for good or evil.
The antigun crowd always hinges the argument on “more guns create more crime”. Australia has more gun crime now that guns have been taken away from its citizens. Smoke that in your pipe if its still legal.
Guns have always been a part of the American landscape. Violence to oneself or others is a social problem. Crime is a socioeconomic problem. It is the breakdown of the family in America that is the weak link. I make the same assertion about fatherless Japan. Violent Hollywood culture and violent video games fill the void of lost social consciousness to make killers numb to killing.
Why do cops need to carry guns in Japan? Because knives just impulsively jump into the hands of otherwise decent people and cause crime all by themselves. We must outlaw all those cheep 100 yen assault knives from China (!!!) and the Jcops would not need a gun in a knife fight. Most cops could then focus on socially redeeming activities like panty collecting instead. All the other cops (female) will still need a gun.
0
arrestpaul
Interesting revisonism. Great Britian's defense in WWII greatly imporve the chances of defeating the Axis powers. Personally, I don't think the Axis could have been defeated without it. The rest of your post is bizarre diatribe. After WWI, the U.S. did NOT spend their time and money rebuilding bigger and better militarys. They couldn't believe that Europe could want to subject themselves to another devistating war, let alone a world war.
In 1939, Canada had more men in military service that the U.S. did. G.B. rescued almost has many soldiers at Dunkirk (340K) as the U.S. army and navy had in 1939 (380K). When the British Expeditionary Force had to abandon many of their weapons during the retreat, it was the citizens of the U.S. who sent voluntarily sent hundreds of thousands of their personally owned firearms to England to aid in it's defense. It was the tens of thousands of U.S. merchant marine who, before the U.S. entered the war, risked their very lives to delivered needed goods to England and many died in the attempt. WWI didn't teach European governments anything and the Japanese government wanted to be just like them.
0
arrestpaul
Ask MarieInJapan. She used Germany and Japan as examples. I was responding to her and vulcan reposted my response.
0
arrestpaul
That would be your major point. It's because bleeding-heart liberals refuse to keep professional criminals and violent gang members in prison were they belong. A revolving-door policy allows repeat criminals to commit the same crimes over and over and over with an occasional short stint behind bars. If the government can't/won't defend "We the People" from career criminals then "We the People" intend to protect themselves. Politicians can release prisoners early to save costs or release their friends but they can't remove the 2nd Amendment.
0
arrestpaul
As long as their are criminals, violent dictators and governments who slaughter their own people - there will never NEVER be peace in this world. Firearms are just a recently invented tool that they use. The U.S. Constitution states that "individual citizens" have a right of self defense. The U.N. has repeatedly stated that their membership, the 193 dues paying member nations, have a right of self defense. The non-dues paying civilians have whatever rights their governments give them.
0
vulcan
I think that as long as Americans are allowed to own guns, there would be a second line of defense behind our military to protect our nation from invasion, thus keeping peace. I know it's just a movie, but have you ever watched "Red Dawn"? Not too far fetched if the situation (which is a little far fetched) were ever to arise.
In Afghanistan the locals were able to keep out the British and Soviets by sniping them out daily, a war of attrition. In our revolutionary war our armed citizens snipped the British and demoralized them.
Peace in the world? As long as we have men, we'll have power hungry men who will want control over his fellow man and we will never have peace. Peace takes constant effort and an armed citizenry without registered guns makes an armed takover almost impossible. Keeping the peace.
0
mikehuntez
I don't understand this question. Is this about Japan or are we here to debate about the United States as this usually turns into?
I support owning guns but think there should be a very difficult process to get them. Like supporting documents that you belong to a club, have had a psycho exam to determine you are a mentally stable person and a police background check to see if you have ever had any problems at school, work, with neighbors etc. Also there is no need for private citizens to own a cache of assault weapons. One maybe but if you are a certified collector then maybe you should have to pay for a license to do so and have to have them under strict lock and key. As for hand guns I think it should be allowed but they have to be very restricted as to their use and who can get them.
If this is about the USA it's already too late for that. Their history has brought them to what they have now. As with Canada, I'm happy with what we have. If Japan, I'd be worried with all these nuts in recent years trying to harm anyone and everyone. Many would fail the psycho exams and who would entrust a complacent population to do anything more than rubber stamp them anyway.
0
vulcan
Yes, and in Japan there would be plenty of bystanders watching a lone psyco hack people with a sushi knife, may calling 119 but noone tackling the guy like what happened in Tucson or shooting the man with their concealled weapon like what happens weekly in the US, saving many innocent lives. Why do I think this? Because once I found a motorcycle rider who crashed and was bleeding to death on the street, bystanders gathered but as I stopped the bleeding and gave cpr, noone helped. I would glance up and see terrified bystanders looking on, some men were dialing 119 (or their friends to chat about it), but no help until a young Air Force airmen helped me out. The guy died, I knew he was dead when I arrived but tried. Still I went home layed in bed and though about it, and realised that when you are in trouble, you're ultimately alone. You're lucky if someone comes along to get blood on their hands to help you out.
0
jasperandy
Ownership of a leathal weapon designed for killing is a sign of a distressed society. A constitution which gives the right to bear arms may have been valid 200 odd years ago, but is now wowfully out of date. Perhaps only useful for moose hunting Alaskan right wing extremists.
The NRA has serious blood on its hands.
0
SolidariTea
"As long as there are gun-supporters, there will never NEVER be peace in this world."
Do we need to get so melodramatic?As long as there are people in this world there will never be peace.Violence was part of life looooong before guns came into use. machetes killed more in Rwanda than the A bomb did in Hiroshima. The so called logic of the gun control crowd often seems like it is barely a step from turning its proponents into one of those voluntary extinctions loons from the ecological "movement."
0
vulcan
jasperandy,
Hmmm, amazing how you blame guns and not the conditions that created the stressed society. What causes this society to be stressed? Possibly high taxes? Not enough paid vacation from work? How about worrying about medical insurance for your family? High cost of groceries and other payments? College for the kids? Not being able to dicipline your children who are going amok in a dept store for fear of the hidden camera and child services visiting your home? Drug trafficing? Illegal immigration? Many things cause stress and chemical imbalances but you blame the gun rights groups who feel law abiding citizens should have the right to defend themselves if a stressed out psyco tries to rob them. How did the NRA create this stressed out society? All it did was ensure law abiding citizens could respond to the stressed out society if it created a nutcase who turned their anger on himself or his family.
0
vulcan
jasperandy,
If guns were outlawed, then who would have *blood on their hands *if a family was slaughtered during a robbery where the victims had no means to deter or defend themselves while awaiting the cops to arrive?
0
jasperandy
The majority of murders in the US are domestic, true you could kill with a knife but guns are more effective. Look at the gross murder rate, why does the US have a higher rate than counties with strict gun control, it is not due to the citizens, but the ease in which a nutter can get guns or sadly how a domestic argument can turn in to a homocide often followed by a suicide.
0
jasperandy
to vulcan, if guns control were tight, then most criminals would not carry guns either.
Having guns makes a slaughter during a robber far more likely in th first place.
0
seaforte03
When you outlaw guns - only outlaws will have guns. This makes us dependent on the police for protection and law enforcement - a police state. I prefer to protect myself than to wait for the police to arrive after I'm dead.
0
vulcan
jasperandy
Hmmm, kind of like there is no murder, theft, rape, robbery, muggings, illegal border crossing and no drugs in America because there is strict laws against them acts?
0
vulcan
jasperandy,
I really am not concerned with "most" I'm concerned with the one who comes into my home. You seem to admit that some criminals will have guns. This puts a lot of power in their hands and none in the citizen who obeys the law.
Also, even if he didn't have a gun, he will have some weapon so why should I meet him with equal force if I am the victim? If he has no weapon at all I am still at a disadvantage not knowing his intentions, and how many there are. Simply discharging your gun in the house at night with burglars downstairs will send them running and never come back, they won't know if a bullet flew past their head or if it was just a shot into the attic.
0
Sunjovi
If your neighbours keeping a gun and hes a freaky kinda person, how safe would you feel staying next to his house. Arms only brings terror to common people. I am just against it.
0
YuriOtani
I am not sure what the correct answer to this question. I see both points of view and each have their merit. Danger comes from people, if it is not a handgun it can be a cooking knife. Thus it is the person who kills and not the instrument.
0
Tamarama
Ah yes, The US and it's beloved 2nd Amendment. All men have the right to bare arms. For...'protection', right? And if you actually have a gun - go to the trouble of acquiring one, presumably you are at some point prepared to point it at someone and shoot them. And if ALL people in that country have the right to do that, and are also prepared to shoot the weapon, what a wonderful world it must be! A wonderful, paranoid, violent world. Guns don't prevent crime - they just mean that both the perpetrators and victims have guns. But to me, The US have a love affair with firearms and they are a part of the history, and culture of the place. We have a lot of American TV shows here, and guns are a central prop to the majority of them. Almost a theme. It's a massive part of the way America presents itself to the rest of the world. It's the way America wants to be known.
0
Zenny11
Here is what I see wrong.
Personally I got no problem with gun-ownership but the approval process in the USA is flawed and in need of fixing.(many americans agree with me there). Loughner just stayed on the legal side and thus was allowed to buy guns.
Another problem is the hype and myths that surround gun-ownership that is being spread and bought by many.
Different states and countries have different rules and laws regarding home-defense and self-defense.(Some have the castle law, in other places you can only respond with "appropriate" level.i.e. you can't shot someone that attacks you with a knife, etc).
Self-defense definition is also different from legal and what people think it means. So people need to attend a course to find out what they can and can't do, this should be combined with a extensive firearm training and safety course.
Another worry of mine is the ammunition, do you really need a hollow-point, teflon-coated, etc round to defend yourself? Do you need a 30 bullet clip, etc?
As for legal gun-carriers, I know many that use illegal loads and/or illegal holsters, etc. Which by legal definiton makes them criminals.
But for me the biggest danger is that many think carrying a gun will make them safe, etc and that a gun is all they need to deter crime, etc. Also carrying a gun makes many over-confident and that can also lead to problems(shootings, etc). Once you are out of bullets you need other methods of self-defense to fall back on.
A gun will only work as protection if it is within reach and can be reached and drawn before the other person/s can act. Also gun-carriers should ONLY draw a weapon to use it to disable someone/kill. NO drawing and threatening, etc.
Many professional criminals today do not worry if a there is a gun in the house as most owners are not trained properly in their usage and they are prepared to hurt the home-owner, something which an untrained person is unlikely to do.
My view.
0
umioso
I voted, "Yes!". To qualify my answer further, I mean that I support the right of citizens to own and bear firearms in the United States. Japan has its own laws and ways of doing things.
0
kurumazaka
I have mixed emotions about this subject. Raised in the sticks, I grew up with firearms. Support the Second Amendment in principle and would not want to live in most American cities without a gun. That said, I feel safer in the largest metropolis on the planet than I would in a town of 5000 back stateside. It is nice to know that I am not surrounded by people packing heat and that the young tough guy types aren't going to stick a pistol in my face for the fun of it. As scary as knives are, a guy with a knife can be disarmed if you know what you are doing (way back when I watched two marines take down a knife wielding dude trying to kill some dude who had hit on his girl in Roppongi. Was something to see)
0
Zenny11
Being a non-american of course my view varies.
Back home every male has to undergo military training and a 1-week refresher course every 2 years. Here you will learn to handle guns as well as unarmed fighting tactics, etc. We got few pub-fights, etc as your opponent has atleast the same military training.
Having lived in same rough countries and know many vets from across the globe, most are against an armed populace unless they are trained and responsible people.
IMO, my country trained me to defend it now why would they do that if they didn't want us to be able to fight (and that of course would also include the goverment in case it turns into a tyranny, etc).
FYI, even my TMA training includes firearms, counters to them, etc.
0
vulcan
zenny,
I don't think this is true, maybe the ones you talked to, but I think overall they are for an armed populace except for the country they are invading. I've known vets also, all my life and I am one also. Either way, it is irrelivent if they are not American. If they are not American I don't care what they think, their opinion is as irrelivent as my opinion is of what Japan should do.
I don't think there is a person in the world who would want people who aren't responsible to carry a gun. The NRA trains policemen and trains civilians on gun safety and the FBI and local authorities do backround checks on individuals before giving them a licence to carry concealled weapons in the states that allow it. Almost all of them states require some training in safety and marksmanship with the weapon they plan to carry. Some states like Utah, where it is predominantly country and most people hunt dont require it, but there are schools that teach it for them that want additional training.
Again, opinions are nice, but citizens of other countries have no say so in the internal affairs of America.
0
dobbin
Anyone who supports the right of citizens to own and bear firearms should be shot.
0
space_monkey
Its easy. The government should decide who can and can't have guns. For example if you are a child you cannot, mentally impaired, or a prisoner in prison. In all three cases the government has decided that these citizens cannot have guns. Further more the government decides what types of guns people can and can't have. You cannot have uranium enriched bullets and carry an assault rifle. So the argument is not so cut and dry can I carry or not carry a gun. Rather...what type of gun, what type of ammo, where, when and how can I carry a gun. Basically the government can change these laws whenever they like. The courts can interpret the legislation too anyway they like. Its a very complex issue. Not a yes no answer.
0
Carcharodon
Yes, but with conditions. Like a car, it should be fully controlled and licensed. Could you imagine the USA if the right drive was one off the amendments? It would be carnage, yet the right to bear arms which is much more ludicrous in an impartial comparison exists.
Have Background checks, interviews - of the applicant, and two referees, one family and one an upstanding member of society who knows you. Arizona nutter would not have been granted a licence in such a system.
No pistols, or military style weapons only rifles and shotguns.
System works pretty well for NZ, every now and then someone slips through the crack, but it is just that - a crack, not a gaping chasm that is the United Guns of America.
0
gyouza
Lets rewrite the wording of the second amendment...
"...shall have the right to enter a public place and randomly (or not randomly) kill and maime innocent citizens using firearms bought legally"
Yep, makes sense to me! The next amendment will be for citizens to own micro nuclear missiles just in case their neighbours are making too much noise.
Guys, you can't be serious - weapons like guns are not for use by householders in the 21st Century.
0
vulcan
It raises the red flag when the UN thinks they can pass a law banning private ownership of firearms and it is suppose to override the US constitution. It raises red flags also when non US citizens feel so strongly about changing the rights of US citizens. Outsiders should have no business about the internal affairs and rights of other countries citizens, this includes America. I guess the exception would be human rights.
0
vulcan
Does this idea apply to the criminals... drug trafficers and gangs also? Will they obey it?
The type of stock a rifle or shotgun has (paratroopers folding etc) doesn't change the firing capability or it's capacity. A criminal will simply cut the stock and barrel of a rifle or shotgun to conceal it better.. again, only changing the rules for law abiding citizens.
BTW, owning sawed off shotguns (under 18" barrels) is already against the law in America, has been since 1968. Hasn't prevented anyone from hacksawing barrels off in the ghetto.. and I have no problem with it if the gun is used for defense of the family.
0
Xeno23
As has been said in prior posts, the "right" to bear arms is dependent on the constitutions and laws of the country in question. If it's Japan, then clearly, there is no right to bear arms. If the question is should that right be enfranchised, that's a different issue altogether. It would be up to however laws and rights are changed, or added in Japan. That said, think of how many gun-otakus there are in J-Land ^_^
As to the Second Amendment of the USA, for those who read it and interpret it relying on their own intelligence and reason; this is an incorrect approach. In order to understand the Second Amendment you must read and understand the original Constitutional Congress debates; you must read and understand the essays and writings of the Founding Fathers, via articles published at the time, diaries, letters - there are copious documents in these categories. Once you've done this, the meaning is crystal clear, and unequivocal.
Now, you can agree with that, or not; freedom of speech being what it is, and all. And the US Constitution can be changed, laws can be changed - no argument there. But a correct interpretation of the intent of the drafters of the Second Amendment is absolutely available; it is history. Period.
0
SolidariTea
Americans and Canadians and I guess Mexicans who dont like the prevalence of guns in America are just going to have to keep pounding away at the keyboard,and twittering into cyberspace. Google reports that searchess for guns (and the other items needed to go off the grid or support your family when your state goes bankrupt and the stagflatiion tests social cohesion) are at all time highs. it is a little ironic. If Obama and his party understood wealth creation maybe more Americans would be sympathetic to "gun control." But I doubt it. Politics has invaded too much of our lives.
0
Robert Harden
Way I see it every person has the right to Life, in that they have the right to self defense, today guns are the means of self defense, like the quarterstaff was during The time Robin Hood is may have existed! If you take away the means of self defense, you are taking away the right to life!
That my take anyway!
Back to top