Stabbing spree in Japan - Japan may ban survival knives
- Thread starter C Philip
- Start date
My brother lived in Japan for 5 years, and now does Japanese style wood-fired pottery in Tennessee. We had one of his Japanese friends come over to help with a fire, and help is always welcome. You burn a house-sized pile of wood in a week to ten days of firing.
Shooting is very expensive in Japan, and he was astonished when my brother brought out a bunch of guns and ammo. During is off hours, our Japanese friend could be found plinking away at the pile of dead pottery, grinning like crazy when one exploded in a satisfactory manner.
Despite their collectivist culture, Japanese can appreciate the fun of shooting just like anyone else. That's a spark of hope which can't be extinguished.
Shooting is very expensive in Japan, and he was astonished when my brother brought out a bunch of guns and ammo. During is off hours, our Japanese friend could be found plinking away at the pile of dead pottery, grinning like crazy when one exploded in a satisfactory manner.
Despite their collectivist culture, Japanese can appreciate the fun of shooting just like anyone else. That's a spark of hope which can't be extinguished.
How about banning trucks?
Of course how many people STOPPED this guy when he got out or did they all stand around with camera phones waiting for him to finish and the police arrive? Of course since they are all disarmed what can they do but wait for the state to save them...
Of course how many people STOPPED this guy when he got out or did they all stand around with camera phones waiting for him to finish and the police arrive? Of course since they are all disarmed what can they do but wait for the state to save them...
huchahuchax
New member
I never denied that guns make it easier. In fact, I agree with you. A gun is a wonderfully convenient way to murder someone, especially because you don't necessarily have to get your hands dirty. My point is that murder has always been here, and it has always been banned. In our culture guns are a convenient way to kill people, so they get used a lot and as a result the knee jerk reaction is to try and get rid of the guns. In Japan they went that route, so now the murderous people jump to the next convenient weapons - automobiles and knifes. The murders are that much more up close and personal and they are that much more bloody and violent. I hope Japan does not decide to restrict knifes. Commiting murder with knifes and guns is bad enough, but elevating baseball bats to the next convenient weapon of choice seems barbaric to me.
MedicineBow
New member
Well, my point is this: when gun availability is easy, there are far more murders. Guns make killing and maiming so easy that there are far more "impulse" crimes, that just don't and can't happen when the alternative is lots of work -- as you say, "up close and personal."
But can you always find a way to kill someone if you really want to? Sure.
The bottom line is that gun rights arguments here are better when based on discussion of "rights" rather than the pretense that lots of guns are good for the violent crime rate. Because the opposite is true. But that is the price we pay, and we might as well face it.
As you know rampage shootings were prevalent in the 50s when most schools had shooting teams and kids had far greater access to firearms than today.
Yes, the accessibility of a gun allows the deranged to possibly be more effective but the gun does not create the deranged. Stripping the firearms does nothing to stop the rampage killer, only reduce his death toll. The rampage killer is not a result of readily accessible firearms, he is a result of a diseased society which minimizes the value of life while maximizing the importance of fame.
MedicineBow
New member
Well, and as you know, our hallucinatory murder rate is not from "rampage killers." It's people who know each other killing each other.
The classic line thrown out by Brady and others... Friends and Family...
The FBI report included in the list of "people who knew each other" drug dealers killing each other, gang killings where the parties knew each other, ANY KILLING WHERE THE KILLER KNEW THE VICTIM. This is immediately taken by antis to mean husbands killing wives and children.
The real murder rate is primarily composed of the long term criminal who is killing a competitor or criminal associate, not some spouse suddenly snapping and deciding to off his or her significant other.
MedicineBow
New member
Musketeer:
First of all, you're wrong. Here are the facts, taken from a normal year:
Second of all, even if somehow correct, what you say is beside the point, or at least you now agree with me: our murder rate is not a result of "rampage" killers.
Last, the bottom line remains: guns make killing far, far easier. Everybody knows that. You know that. Lots of guns makes lots of killing far, far easier.
But that's the price we pay for our freedom to have guns. No one should pretend otherwise.
First of all, you're wrong. Here are the facts, taken from a normal year:
Second of all, even if somehow correct, what you say is beside the point, or at least you now agree with me: our murder rate is not a result of "rampage" killers.
Last, the bottom line remains: guns make killing far, far easier. Everybody knows that. You know that. Lots of guns makes lots of killing far, far easier.
But that's the price we pay for our freedom to have guns. No one should pretend otherwise.
huchahuchax
New member
Possibly, but I don't think so. To put it in perspective from my personal experiences: I live in in Oklahoma. I used to live in Southern California. I was not into guns when I lived in California but have gone completely gun crazy since moving to Oklahoma. Since I have a clean record, buying guns in Oklahoma is pretty easy (usually takes me about 10 minutes to buy a gun). I know I could never do that in California (if I'm not mistaken it would take at least a week for me to buy a gun there). Yet nobody ever confuses Oklahoma as a gun crime capital, and California is still legendary as a gangsters paradise. I think gun accessability has less to do with violent crime than the perception that the victim will not be able to defend themselves.
I don't think lots of guns are a bad way to combat violent crime, but more education about guns could go a long way. If the general public knew as much about guns as they know about their own cell phones, I think this would be a radically different (less violent) country.
Guns also level the playing field between criminal and victim. Remove weapons and the criminal will ALWAYS be able to ensure his superiority to the victim. Physically there is little the lone average citizen can do against the hardened criminal or gang.
The presence of guns also is not the factor which creates violent crime. As I stated, that is a problem dealing with the values our society teaches. The UK for instance has seen a rapid escalation of knife murders which again made the news last week when one of the actors (little known one) from Harry Potter was knifed and killed on the street.
I do agree with you the presence of guns ALLOWS the criminal to more rapidly make use of long range deadly force. At the same time it also allows the weaker to defend themselves.
The question is, would you rather have a society free of all firearms where brawn and muscle allow criminals to prey on citizens at will or one where firearms are available, criminals may use them but citizens as well have the means to defend themselves?
I'll opt for the latter.
Never though will I say that the gun is the causation of the crime. It is at most an enabling factor.
MedicineBow
New member
I'll do this in reverse order:
Of course. It just makes it a lot easier to kill on impulse, in a rage, to "settle" any kind of dispute, while drinking, etc., which is a big chunk of our murder rate.
It's sort of why I find that slogan -- "guns don't kill people, people kill people" -- deliberately beside the point. On the most simplistic level it's true. On the other hand, it ignores the reality on the ground. It's exactly like saying, "Money doesn't buy Porsches, people buy Porsches."
I take your point. But my point is a little different: we should move away from the argument that having 200,000,000 guns (or whatever the number is) floating around the country is the best of all possible worlds, or even the best of all achievable worlds. It isn't. Rather, we should spend our time talking about the right granted us which has led to this, and the solid reason for that right. So, lots of guns leads to more deadly crime? Of course they do. Likewise, the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments also have side effects that no one is in love with. But the bedrock reasons for and benefits arising from those rights outweigh the admitted downsides.
Of course. It just makes it a lot easier to kill on impulse, in a rage, to "settle" any kind of dispute, while drinking, etc., which is a big chunk of our murder rate.
It's sort of why I find that slogan -- "guns don't kill people, people kill people" -- deliberately beside the point. On the most simplistic level it's true. On the other hand, it ignores the reality on the ground. It's exactly like saying, "Money doesn't buy Porsches, people buy Porsches."
I take your point. But my point is a little different: we should move away from the argument that having 200,000,000 guns (or whatever the number is) floating around the country is the best of all possible worlds, or even the best of all achievable worlds. It isn't. Rather, we should spend our time talking about the right granted us which has led to this, and the solid reason for that right. So, lots of guns leads to more deadly crime? Of course they do. Likewise, the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments also have side effects that no one is in love with. But the bedrock reasons for and benefits arising from those rights outweigh the admitted downsides.
MedicineBow
New member
No, what I was saying I said in the previous post.
I understand what you are saying but disagree. Again, the amount of guns is a purely secondary factor. The society is the issue. By the logic of lots of guns = lots of crime then Switzerland and Israel should be overflowing with rates of violent crimes (not including terrorism which is a completely separate issue) higher than that in the USA. That though is not the case. The society creates the crime, guns simply are the tools of choice but were they eliminated then other weapons would readily take their place. The rampant escalation of knife crime is again a perfect example here. Mind you plenty of people still die in the USA from edged weapons because they are available. That number would certainly climb rapidly should firearms be eliminated. Remember, OJ didn't need a gun.
Now a society that has completely lost its sense of values for child rearing, tolerance, and respect of life is in bad trouble with guns prevalent. It is still though a mess without guns, as can be seen from the UK example. Will it take longer to rack up the body count of civilians without guns? At first it certainly will. As the society slips further though the lack of any means of defense for the law abiding though will only embolden the criminals. The criminal will be able to deal out death at will upon a defenseless citizenry. When this is realized the escalation will begin and people will come to barricading themselves in their homes and hiding (again, as in the UK).
I grant you this, eliminate all firearms from civilian ownership with the snap of your fingers and you will see an initial drop in the murder rate. It will be short lived though as the criminals begin to take advantage of their new superiority (since they can always choose a physically weaker target). Rapidly a diseased culture, such as ours, with a total ban will see violent crime climb as the criminals will have nothing to fear. Even those who were borderline on the issue of attacking someone weaker for fear of reprisal will be emboldened knowing the victim is incapable of real defense.
This is just plain silly. I could kill someone with a fountain pen, better ban those. Oh, gardening tools too.(or a tea cup if you saw Riddick) Come on. If you intended to do harm to someone, you can find a way or a tool to do it with. All this banning talk is just to quiet the mob.
There has been a spate of stabbings here in the UK in recent weeks, and predictably, the government has been spouting 'zero tolerence' for those caught with a knife. The law here forbids the carrying of a knife or any sharp object without good reason (non locking folding blades under 3" are allowed)
The problem is that these laws are never enforced - after the pistol ban the government brought in a MANDATORY 5 year jail sentance for anyone caught with an illegal firearm, but this is rarely enforced. Instead, the government just come up with new laws which chip further away at our liberties but do nothing to reduce crime.
But I've come to expect nothing less from a government which in the 10 years in power has brought in 3000 new laws, including banning hunting, smoking in pubs and handguns.
We host the Olympics in 2012 - the pistol ban will be waived during the games to allow the athletes to compete. You will be able to witness the bizarre spectacle of Olympic shooters competing under armed guard, just incase one of them decides to go on a deadly rampage.
The problem is that these laws are never enforced - after the pistol ban the government brought in a MANDATORY 5 year jail sentance for anyone caught with an illegal firearm, but this is rarely enforced. Instead, the government just come up with new laws which chip further away at our liberties but do nothing to reduce crime.
But I've come to expect nothing less from a government which in the 10 years in power has brought in 3000 new laws, including banning hunting, smoking in pubs and handguns.
We host the Olympics in 2012 - the pistol ban will be waived during the games to allow the athletes to compete. You will be able to witness the bizarre spectacle of Olympic shooters competing under armed guard, just incase one of them decides to go on a deadly rampage.