Japanese Mayor Shot Dead

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I just don't subscribe to the "old west" Lone Wolf mentality. The guy who shot those kids obtained weapons somehow and by current info apparently legally - had this not been the case I think he would have had to find another way of exorcising his demons in all probability in a way that wouldn't have resulted in 30+ dead people.

you've made your thoughts clear on what you term the "old west" mentality, which also shows your prejudice towards such just by the name you label such with.

yes, it's sad that he was able to purchase such legally. yet is the real answer disarming everyone who is a law abiding citizen the answer? i refer you to the above, which shows that although handguns are illegal in japan, killings still do occur.

my question is - if everyone is armed, will we really have events like this?

I'm not sure I understand your point - that firearms will stop all murders? I doubt too many people believe that...

I don't dispute the statistics that CCH and the liberal firearm laws have lowered crime in certain areas, but I don't think the answer to stopping criminality is to give everyone a gun. I just don't believe its a clear cut case - of "give everyone a gun" and you'll stop crime. Clearly its not as clear cut as that - as in the case of Japan, which (cultural factors aside) has a comparatively low crime rate. IMO the firearm issue is a short-term fix, sure you'll cut crime initially - but on balance you can't dispute that the kind of craziness that took place yesterday happens with disturbing regularity in the US - more so than other countries.

Noone wants to deal with the tough issues - for example, why do so many people in the US live below the poverty line (poverty a major factor in criminal behaviour). Its a quick fix to avoid having to actually address many of the disparities (economic and otherwise) that exist in this country. If Japan has a less violent culture, why don't we? What do you think is the cause of this?

not saying firearms will stop all murders - but it will give innocent people a way to protect themselves in extremis.

yes, those applying for a cch will need to pass certain background checks in order to qualify for such - and i do have some reservations about having to pay a fee for such anyways - the only way to exercise my right to bear arms is by paying a fee - it seems to be a necessary thing nowadays just to be able to have that peace of mind.

yes, the events of yesterday were crazy. my heart goes out to the victims of such.

as i stated earlier, japan has a different culture. honor and family and all of that. does such exist here? i also stated in a previous post that i felt drugs might be a contributing factor to the difference between japan and the usa's crime rate.

And yet, the NRA seems as opposed to increasing the amount of time necessary to conduct those checks as it is to restricting ownership in general.

I think you can separate general criminal activity from the sort of thing that happened yesterday. Crimes like this, committed by disturbed/depressed/psychotic people are directly facilitated by the fact that they can gain easy access to firearms (despite the current background checking procedures). I'm not convinced that 23 year old kid "angry at the world" really has the street smarts, knowhow or inclination to acquire an unlicensed weapon off of the black market (the way a street robber/gang member might), when he can apparently pick one up with relative ease to act out his "revenge fantasy".

It's a double-edged sword however you look at it.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

I just don't subscribe to the "old west" Lone Wolf mentality. The guy who shot those kids obtained weapons somehow and by current info apparently legally - had this not been the case I think he would have had to find another way of exorcising his demons in all probability in a way that wouldn't have resulted in 30+ dead people.

you've made your thoughts clear on what you term the "old west" mentality, which also shows your prejudice towards such just by the name you label such with.

yes, it's sad that he was able to purchase such legally. yet is the real answer disarming everyone who is a law abiding citizen the answer? i refer you to the above, which shows that although handguns are illegal in japan, killings still do occur.

my question is - if everyone is armed, will we really have events like this?

I'm not sure I understand your point - that firearms will stop all murders? I doubt too many people believe that...

I don't dispute the statistics that CCH and the liberal firearm laws have lowered crime in certain areas, but I don't think the answer to stopping criminality is to give everyone a gun. I just don't believe its a clear cut case - of "give everyone a gun" and you'll stop crime. Clearly its not as clear cut as that - as in the case of Japan, which (cultural factors aside) has a comparatively low crime rate. IMO the firearm issue is a short-term fix, sure you'll cut crime initially - but on balance you can't dispute that the kind of craziness that took place yesterday happens with disturbing regularity in the US - more so than other countries.

Noone wants to deal with the tough issues - for example, why do so many people in the US live below the poverty line (poverty a major factor in criminal behaviour). Its a quick fix to avoid having to actually address many of the disparities (economic and otherwise) that exist in this country. If Japan has a less violent culture, why don't we? What do you think is the cause of this?

not saying firearms will stop all murders - but it will give innocent people a way to protect themselves in extremis.

yes, those applying for a cch will need to pass certain background checks in order to qualify for such - and i do have some reservations about having to pay a fee for such anyways - the only way to exercise my right to bear arms is by paying a fee - it seems to be a necessary thing nowadays just to be able to have that peace of mind.

yes, the events of yesterday were crazy. my heart goes out to the victims of such.

as i stated earlier, japan has a different culture. honor and family and all of that. does such exist here? i also stated in a previous post that i felt drugs might be a contributing factor to the difference between japan and the usa's crime rate.

And yet, the NRA seems as opposed to increasing the amount of time necessary to conduct those checks as it is to restricting ownership in general.

I think you can separate general criminal activity from the sort of thing that happened yesterday. Crimes like this, committed by disturbed/depressed/psychotic people are directly facilitated by the fact that they can gain easy access to firearms (despite the current background checking procedures). I'm not convinced that 23 year old kid "angry at the world" really has the street smarts, knowhow or inclination to acquire an unlicensed weapon off of the black market (the way a street robber/gang member might), when he can apparently pick one up with relative ease to act out his "revenge fantasy".

It's a double-edged sword however you look at it.

why should it take longer than 30 days? either one is known to the police or they are not, eh?

i will go so far as to grant you that a mandatory psych test would be a good idea prior to ownership, but the nra would probably have my head for such

and one does not need to have the street smarts to get an unlicensed firearm - he or she just needs to know the right people.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I just don't subscribe to the "old west" Lone Wolf mentality. The guy who shot those kids obtained weapons somehow and by current info apparently legally - had this not been the case I think he would have had to find another way of exorcising his demons in all probability in a way that wouldn't have resulted in 30+ dead people.

you've made your thoughts clear on what you term the "old west" mentality, which also shows your prejudice towards such just by the name you label such with.

yes, it's sad that he was able to purchase such legally. yet is the real answer disarming everyone who is a law abiding citizen the answer? i refer you to the above, which shows that although handguns are illegal in japan, killings still do occur.

my question is - if everyone is armed, will we really have events like this?

I'm not sure I understand your point - that firearms will stop all murders? I doubt too many people believe that...

I don't dispute the statistics that CCH and the liberal firearm laws have lowered crime in certain areas, but I don't think the answer to stopping criminality is to give everyone a gun. I just don't believe its a clear cut case - of "give everyone a gun" and you'll stop crime. Clearly its not as clear cut as that - as in the case of Japan, which (cultural factors aside) has a comparatively low crime rate. IMO the firearm issue is a short-term fix, sure you'll cut crime initially - but on balance you can't dispute that the kind of craziness that took place yesterday happens with disturbing regularity in the US - more so than other countries.

Noone wants to deal with the tough issues - for example, why do so many people in the US live below the poverty line (poverty a major factor in criminal behaviour). Its a quick fix to avoid having to actually address many of the disparities (economic and otherwise) that exist in this country. If Japan has a less violent culture, why don't we? What do you think is the cause of this?

not saying firearms will stop all murders - but it will give innocent people a way to protect themselves in extremis.

yes, those applying for a cch will need to pass certain background checks in order to qualify for such - and i do have some reservations about having to pay a fee for such anyways - the only way to exercise my right to bear arms is by paying a fee - it seems to be a necessary thing nowadays just to be able to have that peace of mind.

yes, the events of yesterday were crazy. my heart goes out to the victims of such.

as i stated earlier, japan has a different culture. honor and family and all of that. does such exist here? i also stated in a previous post that i felt drugs might be a contributing factor to the difference between japan and the usa's crime rate.

And yet, the NRA seems as opposed to increasing the amount of time necessary to conduct those checks as it is to restricting ownership in general.

I think you can separate general criminal activity from the sort of thing that happened yesterday. Crimes like this, committed by disturbed/depressed/psychotic people are directly facilitated by the fact that they can gain easy access to firearms (despite the current background checking procedures). I'm not convinced that 23 year old kid "angry at the world" really has the street smarts, knowhow or inclination to acquire an unlicensed weapon off of the black market (the way a street robber/gang member might), when he can apparently pick one up with relative ease to act out his "revenge fantasy".

It's a double-edged sword however you look at it.

why should it take longer than 30 days? either one is known to the police or they are not, eh?

i will go so far as to grant you that a mandatory psych test would be a good idea prior to ownership, but the nra would probably have my head for such

and one does not need to have the street smarts to get an unlicensed firearm - he or she just needs to know the right people.

That would fall under the definition of street smarts wouldn't it? Seriously, I'm not sure that a "socially dysfunctional" loner would have those kinds of connections to begin with... He wouldn't need them if it was as easy as going down the road and buying a gun for a "rainy day".

I agree with psych tests - that they should profile people with sociopathic tendencies, psychopathic or other aberrant psychology and restrict/deny those who pose a risk. Anyone diagnosed with clinical depression should automatically be denied. Still given the way the NRA stands by a broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, its doubtful that they would go for anything that restricts (or appears to restrict) that freedom. That said, it seems a good idea until the lawyers get involved and pick it apart as "unfairly discriminatory".

Edited April 18, 2007 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

That would fall under the definition of street smarts wouldn't it? Seriously, I'm not sure that a "socially dysfunctional" loner would have those kinds of connections to begin with... He wouldn't need them if it was as easy as going down the road and buying a gun for a "rainy day".

I agree with psych tests - that they should profile people with sociopathic tendencies, psychopathic or other aberrant psychology and restrict/deny those who pose a risk. Anyone diagnosed with clinical depression should automatically be denied. Still given the way the NRA stands by a broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, its doubtful that they would go for anything that restricts (or appears to restrict) that freedom. That said, it seems a good idea until the lawyers get involved and pick it apart as "unfairly discriminatory".

not really. one can know the right people but not be street smart. just know a connection, etc.

we agree on the psych tests, that must be a first

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The yakuza are also behind most shootings in Japan, where handguns are strictly banned.

but if handguns are banned, there won't be any shootings.........at least that is what some sheep would like for us to believe.

Did you miss the next sentence to the one you quoted?

Two-thirds of the country's 53 known shootings in 2006 were gang-related, according to the National Police Agency. Police estimate that there are about 84,500 gangsters across Japan.

Imagine, the US being 2.5 times the population, this would translate into 120 or so shootings a year in the US. Yet today any average mid-size US city tops triple that number easily (that's assuming there ain't but one shooting on average a day where in many place there are far more). And there's a lot of cities around this place. You guys can twist and turn this all you want, the bottom line is the less people carry guns, the fewer shootings there will be. It's not that hard to grasp.

Edited April 18, 2007 by ET-US2004

[DeadPoolX 9]

Imagine, the US being 2.5 times the population, this would translate into 120 or so shootings a year in the US. Yet today any average mid-size US city tops triple that number easily (that's assuming there ain't but one shooting on average a day where in many place there are far more). And there's a lot of cities around this place. You guys can twist and turn this all you want, the bottom line is the less people carry guns, the fewer shootings there will be. It's not that hard to grasp.

In theory, you are correct. The fewer people to have a firearm, the fewer shootings that should take place. However, where that theory falls apart is that MOST criminal perpetrators DO NOT purchase a firearm legally at a gun store and go through the system and required background checks.

If you think about it, it would be extremely foolish for any wouldbe criminal to knowingly purchase a firearm legally. It would be too easy to trace. So what any reasonable intelligent criminal does is get his weaponry through illegal means. The one caveat to this, of course, is if the criminal in question KNOWS what he or she is doing is, in effect, a suicide mission -- such as the recent school shooting at Virginia Tech.

At Virginia Tech, the shooter did not purchase his weapons illegally, but then did not feel he would probably come out alive anyway. So there would be no harm in tracing the weapons to him or that gun shop. This is not the norm. Most criminals want to live; they like being alive. They may not enjoy every aspect of their life, but then who does?

If firearms were to become illegal, then all that would do is make it impossible for citizens (and as it stands right now, permanent residents) to own and operate a firearm legally. Criminals would still be able to gain access to firearms and use them for whatever purposes they have planned. I do not see how having an entirely unarmed populace solves the crime rate; if anything, it would probably soar much higher if criminals knew their prey were easier victims.

Do I think everyone should be "packing heat" or that the college professors/students at Virginia Tech should've been holstering firearms? No, I don't. I don't necessarily ascribe to the whole "an armed society, is a polite society" ideal. I think it's perfectly fine to own a firearm for home and family defense, but I think it's another thing to have a firearm in your vehicle or on your person. Unless every single individual who owns a gun was literally FORCED into firearm use & safety classes, I don't think the "average person" should have that kind of firepower at their fingertips. There are just too many people today who "fly off the handle" and would unholster out their firearm to solve a dispute. I am especially against the idea of college students -- individuals who don't know when "enough is enough" in regards to partying, drinking and drug use -- having firearms with them on-campus; professors, I'd agree with, if not for the fact that they could be overpowered by a group of unruly students and the firearm pulled away.

So overall, I think owning firearms is a good thing. I don't think everyone should necessarily own one nor do I think people should absolutely be walking around with firearms, but the right to own firearms should never be taken away.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Imagine, the US being 2.5 times the population, this would translate into 120 or so shootings a year in the US. Yet today any average mid-size US city tops triple that number easily (that's assuming there ain't but one shooting on average a day where in many place there are far more). And there's a lot of cities around this place. You guys can twist and turn this all you want, the bottom line is the less people carry guns, the fewer shootings there will be. It's not that hard to grasp.

In theory, you are correct. The fewer people to have a firearm, the fewer shootings that should take place. However, where that theory falls apart is that MOST criminal perpetrators DO NOT purchase a firearm legally at a gun store and go through the system and required background checks.

Yawn. The guns those perps buy on the street were typically, at some point in time, sold through a regular outlet. Yes, there's gun smuggling and there are guns out there that were never sold through a regular, legal outlet but the vast majority of shootings are done with weapons that were initially purchased legally in a store. If that initial purchase hadn't taken place, the perp would not have had the piece available for purchase on the street.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

The yakuza are also behind most shootings in Japan, where handguns are strictly banned.

but if handguns are banned, there won't be any shootings.........at least that is what some sheep would like for us to believe.

Did you miss the next sentence to the one you quoted?

no, but apparently you missed the irony of it - in a country where handguns are outlawed, handguns still exist

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The yakuza are also behind most shootings in Japan, where handguns are strictly banned.

but if handguns are banned, there won't be any shootings.........at least that is what some sheep would like for us to believe.

Did you miss the next sentence to the one you quoted?

no, but apparently you missed the irony of it - in a country where handguns are outlawed, handguns still exist

Doesn't really take a brain surgeon to realize this, though. After all, prostitution, drugs, drunk driving and teenage drinking, for example, are outlawed here and somehow, all those tend to stick around nonetheless.

What you seem to be missing is how the lack of ready and easy access to firarms translates into much less gun violence. In other words: Less guns, more safety.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

The yakuza are also behind most shootings in Japan, where handguns are strictly banned.

but if handguns are banned, there won't be any shootings.........at least that is what some sheep would like for us to believe.

Did you miss the next sentence to the one you quoted?

no, but apparently you missed the irony of it - in a country where handguns are outlawed, handguns still exist

Doesn't really take a brain surgeon to realize this, though. After all, prostitution, drugs, drunk driving and teenage drinking, for example, are outlawed here and somehow, all those tend to stick around nonetheless.

What you seem to be missing is how the lack of ready and easy access to firarms translates into much less gun violence. In other words: Less guns, more safety.

oh of course. the left wing mantra. less guns, more safety, baaaaaaa.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I find the argument that “an armed society is a polite society†to be not only offensive but wholly ridiculous. IMO the availability of weapons, particularly firearms, serves to turn a potentially lethal situation into a kinetic one. If the gunman in VA had not had easy access to a firearm, you can state with absolute certainty that number of casualties would not have been as high. Firearms act to place fast and "easy solutions" in to the hands of people unable to deal with problem situations. This combined with a media (TV and fillm and to a point - videogames) culture that shows problems are most easily resolved through the use of force.

Edited April 18, 2007 by erekose

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The yakuza are also behind most shootings in Japan, where handguns are strictly banned.

but if handguns are banned, there won't be any shootings.........at least that is what some sheep would like for us to believe.

Did you miss the next sentence to the one you quoted?

no, but apparently you missed the irony of it - in a country where handguns are outlawed, handguns still exist

Doesn't really take a brain surgeon to realize this, though. After all, prostitution, drugs, drunk driving and teenage drinking, for example, are outlawed here and somehow, all those tend to stick around nonetheless.

What you seem to be missing is how the lack of ready and easy access to firarms translates into much less gun violence. In other words: Less guns, more safety.

oh of course. the left wing mantra. less guns, more safety, baaaaaaa.

Both the numbers and common sense bear that out.