bam_boo's past comments

  • -6

    bam_boo

    WilliB, what do you mean if you say there is no correlation? Of course there is a correlation between the 731, Hinomaru and a Japenese Primeminister. I guess what you want to say is that there is no intentional correlation.

    This combination of symbols might not ring a bell with you, but for people who have lost relatives to the infamous 731 unit it will definitely arouse horrible feelings.

    This singular incident is not the problem, but the ambiguous and often obstinate stance most Japanese politicians take towards the history of their nation is.

    The German example shows us if a nation really cares about the feelings of its neighbors it can find a way to move on from the horrors it once inflicted on them.

    Posted in: S Korean media slam Abe's 731 jet photo

  • -4

    bam_boo

    Anybody who knew about the 731 unit and WW 2 history would look at this image, see the Hinomaru just beside the notoriously unlucky number and a smiling Japanese Primeminister just above it and would be puzzeld. It might not be something to get crazy about, but shit happens.  In similar cases  in Germany German politicians would just say sorry for being so inconsiderate and for hurting people's feelings and people would believe that there's sincere empathy and consideration for others.

    Posted in: S Korean media slam Abe's 731 jet photo

  • 3

    bam_boo

    The wikipedia summary mentioned by interuni321 is ok, but I strongly recommend everybody with basic knowledge of written Japanese to have a first hand view of how the LDP want's to change the constitution. There are a number of japanese sites that provide direct side by side comparisons of the current constitutions and LDP proposed revisions.

    The following page is a good place to start with (though it's japanese only) http://c3plamo.slyip.com/blog/archives/2012/12/post_2519.html

    It is stunning how boldfaced the LDP proposals are.

    I would say this kind of proposal is ruthless and only possible in society where the vast majority has never learned to critically analyze texts on social and political issues.

    Posted in: Abe's 'stealth' constitution plan raises civil rights fears

  • 11

    bam_boo

    If you have first-hand experienced of the Japanese education system you will know the LDP ruled education ministry has managed to completely eradicate education aimed at nurturing independent-minded and critical thinking citizens from its curricula.

    Though at first sight Japanese education might seem comparable to other modern democratic societies it is not. The LDP strategy in regard to educational curricula seems to be how to provide basic education without nurturing critical thinking and independent-minded citizens and the strategy seems to be working quite well. They can't completely prevent an informed minority of Japanese from trying to speak out, but they are incredibly successful at keeping the masses 'in tune'.

    I believe George Orwell would have been stunned by the efficiency and cunningness of the Japanese education system and it's effectiveness at educating well-behaved smooth-working contributors to the Japanese social mega-machine.

    Kudos for this will informed article! Would love to see more of this kind on JT.

    Posted in: Abe's 'stealth' constitution plan raises civil rights fears

  • 11

    bam_boo

    Posters who see no problem with the proposed revision don't seem to see the whole picture, or just don't know the facts. With this revision the LDP's clearly aims at suppressing civil liberties.

    It is more then obvious that in the eyes of people like Abe there ought to be the rulers and the ruled and odd enough they believe this is natural as 'Asian societies were working like this for ages'. (btw western societies did work like that for ages as well)

    Of course the LDP is not naive and doesn't aim at abolishing democracy all together, but they aim at controlling democracy and they have 60+ years of expertise with that.

    Appeasing posters like OssanAmerica, nigelboy or Kabukilover don't seem to understand that democracy is not just a political system, but has to embrace the whole of society in order to work properly. A society without truly independent and diverse media environment and especially without a properly implemented education system aiming at independent-minded and critical thinking citizens can only be a democracy on paper.

    Posted in: Abe's 'stealth' constitution plan raises civil rights fears

  • 2

    bam_boo

    @realdoll

    Lets outlaw rice cookers now that we found the Boston bombs were made using rice cookers.

    Strange argument...

    if rice cookers would be used to kill 30000 people a year in the States you would be thinking about restrictions on rice cookers, believe me.

    Posted in: U.S. Senate blocks gun background check legislation

  • -1

    bam_boo

    If they feel threatened or unsafe, that's unfortunate but feelings should never be a valid justification for legislation.

    I believe that the main reason for you to own firearms is because you feel threatened and feel safer with them, but I don't think there's any research which could prove the appropriateness of your feeling.

    Why do all those people who feel threatened by firearms around them have to accept that people own firearms just because they feel safer with them?

    I can very well understand why so many Americans are fed up with gun proliferation and I hope they succeed with turning the tide and getting America to become part of the civilized developed nations, who largely ban firearms, not just assault weapons, and live happily without feeling threatened on a daily basis.

    Posted in: Connecticut school shooting revives gun debate

  • -1

    bam_boo

    I do, that is why I fully support harsh punishments for assault and violent crime.

    The US has the harshest punishment for violent crimes that do exist and does it make the US a safer place?

    The US has highest proliferation of firearms in the world and does it make the US a safer place?

    Looking at the reality in the US, with the more then 30,000 death by firearms every year, it is obvious that your concept doesn't work and the only explanation you have for this fact is the 'virtue of the US society'.

    What you are basically saying here at great length is: the US is a violent place and I want my firearms, period.

    I don't believe that one right should be sacrificed for another.

    The firearms you own, TheQuestion, pose a threat to other humans, that's why you own them. In most developed nations this fact is seen as infringement of the right to live in peace and without threat to ones physical integrity.

    You will say, I don't pose a threat, I'm a responsible person.

    I will say, you pose a threat as you own potentially deadly weapons, and moreover you are a human who makes mistakes every day.

    Posted in: Connecticut school shooting revives gun debate

  • 0

    bam_boo

    I believe in justice and equality and one cannot have equality without the the protection of rights.

    If you talk about rights you mainly seem to be concerned about your individual right to posses firearms.

    You don't care about the right of physical integrity, e.g. the right of humans to live without the threat of homicide by firearms.

    Posted in: Connecticut school shooting revives gun debate

  • -1

    bam_boo

    To me a firearm is a tool, a law is something considerably more potentially destructive.

    I get the impression you have a problem with the democracy you are part of.

    In a country like the US legislation is a democratic process and you might not always agree with the outcome, but if a law is really destructive there are many ways to act on it.

    A man with a gun can be stopped, he can be killed, or he can be thrown in jail based on what he uses that tool for.

    I suppose you haven't really thought about how cruel and cynical this sentence must sound for the victim families of school shootings.

    I believe that is a perversion of just law. No fair system should favor the rights of any class over those of another, even if they are irresponsible are still human, and therefore entitled to the right to defend themselves.

    I was talking about the weak, that's not a class, or would you consider children a class? I might have used to vague expressions, but irresponsible people, like criminals, are of course humans with human rights, never the less should law provide a framework to protect weak humans, like children, from violence or crime.

    The average gun owner is a responsible individual that understands the burden that is placed on them and i do not believe that any greater purpose will be served in limiting the accessibility of firearms to law-abiding citizens.

    I really have problems to follow your logic... Was the mother of the Newtown shooter a responsible individual that understood the burden that was placed on her?

    Just try to imagine the shooter had lived in a country with no access to assault weapons. How would the shooting have proceeded with hand guns only? If there is the slightest chance that some of the children could have survived in such a scenario, it makes sense to ban all such assault weapons.

    You could of course never prove if you really did save lives with such a measure, but it would be irresponsible not to try. And luckily it looks like more and more US citizens seem to understand such a logic in the wake of Newtown.

    Posted in: Connecticut school shooting revives gun debate

  • -1

    bam_boo

    I seldom believe that legislation will solve our problems and feel that getting individual citizens, and the citizenry as a whole, to take responsibility for their actions is a far more successful method to avert these tragedies.

    Just to make it clear, you are fine with the fact that a semi-automatic assault weapon, that can be used to shoot dozens of people in minutes, is lying around a private home with more or less free access for the members of the household, be they mentally ill or minors, or what ever?

    ...

    Oh, that's the problem of the head of the household? Just an irresponsible person? So it is the not the weapon, but the irresponsible person and law can't do anything about this kind of situation?

    ...

    I think you are wrong on this.

    I'm far from being a law and order person, but I believe in the role law plays in organizing the life of citizens and I believe that the process of legislation is powerful if promoted properly. The written law is only a tool, not an ends in itself, and it should help with: getting individual citizens, and the citizenry as a whole, to take responsibility for their actions

    I believe that one of the primary roles of legislation should be to protect the weak from the wrongdoings of irresponsible people.

    And I see a realistic chance that the tightening of gun control, in connection with a discussion on gun control legislation, and the problems that come along with the omnipresent proliferation of deadly dangerous weapons in the US, can make the US a safer place to live.

    Of course, only if a majority of US citizens see that chance as well and choose to follow that path.

    Posted in: Connecticut school shooting revives gun debate

  • -1

    bam_boo

    I know that the US got safer recently again due to a shift societal consciousness and less tolerance towards violence mainly enforced by the police. But even with such really positive improvements the US is in category on it's own amongst developed democratic nations. Homicide rates are somewhere between 4 to 20 or 30 times that of other comparable nations.

    More then half of the mass shootings of the past decade happened in the US and what are your proposals to change this, TheQuestion?

    Of course gun control only works as part of a broader set of measures (especially with a shift in awareness as you pointed out), but it is one very real measure that can reduce the impact of violence. It makes a difference if a shooter has direct access to semi-automatic assault weapons or not. In the case of Newtown non-access could have saved lives.

    Btw, that's a slightly different viewpoint, but accidental death by firearms is higher per capita in the US then the homicide death by firearms in most european nations! And the unintentional firearm injury death rate among children ages 14 and under in the US is nine times higher than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

    Children are victims of gun proliferation in the US frequently, not only in Newtown.

    You are trying to argue very rationally to cast doubt on gun control and try to make it look like gun ownership poses no threat to anybody, but I really don't get your point, TheQuestion.

    Would you propose laws that require mentally ill to get educated not to pick up firearms? Or firearms and education on shooting ranges for every school teacher?

    I haven't read any real proposal from you about what to do and how to change this really frustrating reality in the US.

    By the way the following paper gives a very good international overview on the topic: http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf

    Posted in: Connecticut school shooting revives gun debate

  • -1

    bam_boo

    By contrast you have made the claim that increased gun control would reduce violence, the burden of proof is on you for that

    There is plenty of evidence that a strictly enforced gun control (one that manages to drastically reduce the actual proliferation of firearms) reduces gun related violence and death. Just to give you two links:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730132/pdf/v010p00280.pdf http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/191/3/253.full

    Of course every country has its own problems and it is difficult to compare such complex topics over national borders, but very simple common sense tells us that the absence of a semi-automatic assault weapon in the house of the Newtown shooter could have changed the course of this tragedy and saved the lives of innocent people.

    In any case you will find much more evidence that points to less violence with less proliferation of firearms then the other way around.

    You can already own these things if you have the right licenses. To my knowledge a licensed individual has never used such devices to commit a crime.

    If you look for it you will surely find crimes by licensed individuals, but in any case if you talk about licenses you are talking about gun control and restricting access to dangerous weapons and that's common sense. No weapon that can kill humans with ease should be lying around somewhere. The discussion about gun control is about how difficult to make it to get hands on such dangerous weapons.

    If it's easier for you to get weapons it'll be easier for some one with bad intentions as well. It's that simple.

    Also, spring guns area already legal in the US and Canada so long as the property perimeter is adequately posted with warning signs.

    Wow, couldn't have ever imagined that. North America must be a really scary place to live. Up to now I thought spring guns were one of those inhuman measures employed mainly by mean communists to keep their citizens from escaping to a better future.

    Posted in: Connecticut school shooting revives gun debate

  • -1

    bam_boo

    I cannot, however, condone imposing legislation on a citizenry that overwhelmingly acts exactly as its supposed to in regard to firearm safety and usage.

    So do I get it right, even if the chances for such a tragedy to happen would drastically be reduced by less proliferation of firearms, you would chose the freedom of the individual to posses arms?

    Is there a any limit in your world of radical individual freedom to protect yourself?

    Like grenades? Mines to protect your property? Or if you live in a dangerous neighborhood it might help to have a spring gun?

    Sorry for being a bit sarcastic, but your arguments for having firearms around your home are not rational and there is no research I know of that can prove that there is less violence where more individual possess firearms.

    If you find one please link it here.

    I believe in personal freedom and individual responsibility, and thats why I fight for gun control.

    Posted in: Connecticut school shooting revives gun debate

  • -1

    bam_boo

    TheQuestion, people like you, who say personal ownership of firearms and the direct threat of violence are an important part of their personal freedom, are actively taking part in creating a 'culture of violence'.

    I don't say that you commit any crimes, but I do want to say that you are responsible for creating an image that says violence or threat of violence does help.

    I'm not naive and I do believe a certain force to protect people from crime is necessary, but I do believe that in a democratic state with a developed civil society the only body able to put a threat on individuals and to cary around potentially life-threatening weapons (not restricted to firearms) should be state organs.

    If you don't trust your democratically elected state and your political system, that's a different problem. Then get active, but please leave the guns at home!

    I would even go so far to say that if the mother of the Newtown shooter wouldn't have been a gun lover her son wouldn't have committed such a horrible crime. Apparently he grew up surrounded by firearms and knew how to use them. The chances that he would have done what he did if his mother's main hobby would have been flower arrangement, and not firearms, are tiny, not 0 though.

    Can you see any relation, TheQuestion? No?

    In the countries I have lived up to now the relative absence of violence was also due to a virtue in society, an agreement between people that says violence and threat of violence between individuals are counterproductive in any case.

    Of course I don't mean to say that a school shooting like in Newtown couldn't happen in a country with strict gun control, they do happen, though much less frequently.

    There are many factors involved in such a horrible incident, and even in a country without any weapons occasionally people will kill people, but we are talking about how can we reduce such incidents.

    I firmly believe that really strict implemented gun control in connection with a civil society that believes in the need to ban violence (and tools for mass murder) from every day life of individuals will make a huge change.

    But maybe the US 'civil' society is not ripe for that change. (note the 'civil' in opposition to 'military' or 'militia')

    Posted in: Connecticut school shooting revives gun debate

  • -1

    bam_boo

    To be honest I saw more guns growing up than I do now and I own several.

    Tell me, TheQuestion, what is it that makes guns so important and dear to you, and so many other US citizens, that you feel your personal freedom taken away from should they be taken from you?

    There are so many things that the US constitution doesn't allow you to own or to do, and you don't mind, but guns...

    Reading in the news that the mother of the Newtown shooter was a 'gun collector', that she probably went to shooting ranges with her children for fun and that she had semi-automatic assault rifles lying around her home leaves me speechless.

    Just imagining that such weapons might be lying around every third or fourth household in my neighborhood, in the direct reach of people of whom I have no idea whats going on in their heads or hearts, scares the crap out of me.

    What ever was going on in the mind of this Newtown shooter, he just had to pick up a killing machine in his home to end the life of 26 innocent humans beings in an instant.

    I don't think that the NRA wants anybody to believe it is protecting this kind of 'freedom'.

    Posted in: Connecticut school shooting revives gun debate

  • -1

    bam_boo

    The US has always been considerably more violent than it's peers by sheer virtue of how the society operates

    What do you mean by 'sheer virtue of how the society operates'? Is that something written into the DNA of Americans?

    I do believe that the sheer virtue of a country with 250 million plus guns lying around in private homes is quite different from one with a fraction of that number.

    A country where children grow up surrounded by guns, and gun violence, creates a different mindset then one in which guns are so rare that you might never see one, except maybe in a museum..

    The 'culture of violence' in the US and thee idea that everybody should have the right to carry around 'homicide tools' are directly related.

    Of course strict gun control would not solve all violence problems in the US, but it would change the 'virtue' of the society. It would help creating a society where less people believe in the ability of violence, or threat of violence, to be of any value.

    And to prevent just one such unbelievably tragic disaster like the one in Newtown because the potential shooter didn't get access to guns is such a powerful outlook that It seems meaningful to do everything to reach that goal and if it took 3 generations.

    Luckily humans are able to learn and to change attitude.

    Posted in: Connecticut school shooting revives gun debate

  • 0

    bam_boo

    TheQuestion, your lengthy arguments are all but convincing.

    If the number of guns lying around in US homes would be drastically reduced, you would see a difference, believe me.

    It's math, it's common sense and it's a phenomena that can be observed in all democratic nations with a developed civil society... except in the US.

    Posted in: Connecticut school shooting revives gun debate

  • 4

    bam_boo

    It's easy to protest about something that isn't in a manner of speaking, in your own backyard, and feeding your family as well.

    Yubaru, your words must sound slightly off the track to the tens of thousands who had Fukushima in their backyard and who are now struggling to feed their families.

    Posted in: Anti-nuclear candidate loses Yamaguchi governor election

  • -3

    bam_boo

    UnagiDon, obviously you have no idea about the reality of Fukushima residents and even more obviously you don't have small children and live in an area with high radiation. For you the nuclear disaster must be rather far away.

    And what's the point in comparing an ongoing nuclear disaster with global warming? It's like comparing apples and oranges.

    it is only a question of when not if there will be another nuclear disaster

    This is a nonsense statement which cannot be proven.

    Mathematically it can be proven, it's just a question of time. The longer the nuclear power plants are running the higher the chances for a disaster get. And what about the contrary statement, that nuclear energy is safe and that there won't be a nuclear disaster in the future, is not nonsense? It was exactly what the Japanese nuclear cronies were saying for 50 years.

    Posted in: Japan's greenhouse gas emissions projected to rise 15%

View all