# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  Several Stabbed in Tokyo...(Dangers of a disarmed society)

## thegodfather

For all of you bleeding heart liberals, democrats, and etc., who oppose the 2nd Amendment in some form. Here is a perfect example of the kind of tradgedy's that occur when the populace is disarmed. In Japan owning firearms is illegal, and in this case a man was able to kill SEVEN people simply by stabbing them with a knife. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. *IMO, The human mind is the most dangerous weapon in existence.* 

__________________________________________________ ______________

7 dead in stabbing spree in downtown Tokyo By SHINO YUASA, Associated Press Writer 
Sun Jun 8, 6:15 PM ET



TOKYO - A man plowed into shoppers with a truck Sunday and then stabbed 17 people within minutes, killing at least seven of them in a grisly attack that shocked a country known for its low crime rate. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The lunchtime violence in the Akihabara district, a popular electronics and video game area, sent thousands of people fleeing.

The assault, which occurred on the seventh anniversary of a mass stabbing at a Japanese elementary school, was the latest in a series of knife attacks that have stoked fears of rising violent crime in Japan.

A 25-year-old man, Tomohiro Kato, was arrested with blood on his face.

"The suspect told police that he came to Akihabara to kill people," said Jiro Akaogi, a spokesman for the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department.

"He said he was tired of life. He said he was sick of everything," Akaogi said.

The violence began when the man crashed a rented, two-ton truck into pedestrians. He then jumped out and began stabbing the people he had knocked down with the truck before turning on horrified onlookers, police said.

Police confirmed seven deaths  six men and one woman  but they could not say whether the victims had died of injuries from the truck or were stabbed to death.

Reports said the attacker grunted and roared as he slashed and stabbed at Sunday shoppers crowding a street lined with huge stores packed with the latest in computers, electronics, videos and games.

"He was screaming as he was stabbing people at random," a male witness told national broadcaster NHK.

Another witness told NHK that the suspect dropped his knife after police threatened to shoot him. Amateur video filmed by mobile phone showed policemen overpowering the bespectacled, bloodied suspect.

The attack paralyzed the district known as Electric Town and sent thousands of Sunday shoppers into a panic. Amateur video taken five minutes after the rampage showed shoppers helping victims and a man screaming, "Ambulance, Ambulance!"

At least 17 ambulances rushed to the scene, and rescue workers feverishly tended to victims in the blood-pooled street.

As night fell on Akihabara, several pedestrians stopped by and prayed at the crime scene. A bouquet of flowers, bottles of green tea and incense sticks were placed at the site.

Japan boasts a low crime rate compared to other industrialized nations and Tokyo, with a population of 12.7 million, is considered relatively safe. But stabbings, once rare in the country, have become more frequent in recent years.

In March, one person was stabbed to death and at least seven others were hurt by a man who went on a slashing spree with two knives outside a shopping mall in eastern Japan. In January, a 16-year-old boy attacked five people in a shopping area, injuring two of them.

A spate of knife attacks also have occurred in schools, the worst on June 8, 2001 when a man with a history of mental illness burst into elementary school near Osaka killing eight children. He was executed in 2004.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080608/...B_T6QxVC6s0NUE

----------


## FallenWyvern

:Aajack: 

7<32


http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/crime.html

----------


## Coop77

Gotta disagree with you there. How many people do you think this guy would have killed if he had an assault rifle? I see this as a perfect example as to why gun control in a modern society is a *good* thing.

----------


## spywizard

hahahah.. from the state (california) that invented drive by shooting..

the right to bear arms was intended to protect citizens from the Government imposing the will of the gov.. not idiots.. it's just evolved that we need to protect ourselves from people that are mentally ill, or those that intend a person physical injury. 

In california (when i lived there) the published expected response time for emergency services in the event of a major earthquake 1-12 days.. good luck with that..

----------


## Coop77

> the right to bear arms was intended to protect citizens from the Government imposing the will of the gov.. not idiots.. it's just evolved that we need to protect ourselves from people that are mentally ill, or those that intend a person physical injury.


If crazed lunatics don't have easy access to guns, you'll have less need to protect yourself from them. 

If this guy had a gun a lot more people would have been hurt. Before you try to argue if guns were legal in Japan somebody would have shot him.. most people don't carry guns around when shopping, even if they legally can, and I bet a crazy guy with an assault rifle can shoot a whoooole lot of people in a crowded shopping center before somebody shoots him.

----------


## soulstealer

> If crazed lunatics don't have easy access to guns, you'll have less need to protect yourself from them. 
> 
> If this guy had a gun a lot more people would have been hurt. Before you try to argue if guns were legal in Japan somebody would have shot him.. most people don't carry guns around when shopping, even if they legally can, and I bet a crazy guy with an assault rifle can shoot a whoooole lot of people in a crowded shopping center before somebody shoots him.


thats a retarded statement sir

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/com...ent/index.html

its been show people actually prefer gun free zones for shooting rampages as they know noone who is a "law abiding citizen" would break the law by bringing their gun in but it doesnt stop the criminal.... so thats where all the shooting rampages happen sometimes stopped by people running to get their gun from their car or other legal place of possession.. and in cases where people go on shooting rampages out side of gun free zones are often neutralized in a matter of minutes instead of hours...

----------


## soulstealer

Let me ask you this Coop77... seeing as how the police response time at say a mall would be lets say 15 minutes.... and they wouldn't breach immediately they would asses the situation and wait for swat... so were going to say in excess of 45 minutes... it would make you more comfortable having bullets fly at you only for 45minutes instead of having them flying both ways trying to take this lunatic out?

----------


## inheritmylife

I don't believe in gun control in any form whatsoever, but I don't think that people being armed would neccesarily discourage this sort of crime. These people are seriously ill, I don't think the thought that they could be killed in the process bothers them. Most of them end up killing themselves anyway.

Add to that most people will stand around watching and do nothing whatsoever, but I guess it only takes one person with some balls and a clear shot.

----------


## soulstealer

> I don't believe in gun control in any form whatsoever, but I don't think that people being armed would neccesarily discourage this sort of crime. These people are seriously ill, I don't think the thought that they could be killed in the process bothers them. Most of them end up killing themselves anyway.
> 
> Add to that most people will stand around watching and do nothing whatsoever, but I guess it only takes *one person with some balls and a clear shot.*


Thats all... plus muggings and crime of that nature go way way down once someone considering this also has to consider they're most likely going to get shot at...

----------


## inheritmylife

> Thats all... plus muggings and crime of that nature go way way down once someone considering this also has to consider they're most likely going to get shot at...


I hope that would be the case. I don't think we'll ever really get to test the theory with the current "laws" pertaining to the carrying of concealed firearms.

----------


## soulstealer

> I hope that would be the case. I don't think we'll ever really get to test the theory with the current "laws" pertaining to the carrying of concealed firearms.


But... with even the emergence of the recent "open carry" support one can see a decrease in violent crime as you never know who's around the corner or whom is the the coffee shop someones about to rob.... conceal carry being ideal of course but as you mentioned the so called laws designed for our protection will prohibit that so...(except of course for the explicitly licensed in certain states) open carry I feel has a very similarly positive effect in crime prevention....

----------


## inheritmylife

> But... with even the emergence of the recent "open carry" support one can see a decrease in violent crime as you never know who's around the corner or whom is the the coffee shop someones about to rob.... conceal carry being ideal of course but as you mentioned the so called laws designed for our protection will prohibit that so...(except of course for the explicitly licensed in certain states) open carry I feel has a very similarly positive effect in crime prevention....


I think you're right, open carry could have a similar discouraging effect as ccw.

Here in Ohio, open carry has been found by the Supreme Court to be lawfull without any restrictions or licensing necessary, but they refuse to take action striking down local ordinances prohibiting it. 

So, basically, if I carry openly, I'll still be locked up like a criminal, fined, and be relieved of my personal property permanently.

Even with it being a Right in Ohio, the system is so broken that it doesn't make any difference.

----------


## spywizard

> If crazed lunatics don't have easy access to guns, you'll have less need to protect yourself from them. 
> 
> If this guy had a gun a lot more people would have been hurt. Before you try to argue if guns were legal in Japan somebody would have shot him.. most people don't carry guns around when shopping, even if they legally can, and I bet a crazy guy with an assault rifle can shoot a whoooole lot of people in a crowded shopping center before somebody shoots him.


I carry mine..

----------


## thegodfather

> If crazed lunatics don't have easy access to guns, you'll have less need to protect yourself from them. 
> 
> If this guy had a gun a lot more people would have been hurt. Before you try to argue if guns were legal in Japan somebody would have shot him.. most people don't carry guns around when shopping, even if they legally can, and I bet a crazy guy with an assault rifle can shoot a whoooole lot of people in a crowded shopping center before somebody shoots him.


Your argument ignores the equalizing effect that guns have. It is one weapon which gives an elderly lady a fighting chance against an attacker, regardless of the type of weapon they are using. Criminals will ALWAYS get their hands on weapons, be it guns, knives, bats, hammers, etc, etc... Pretty much any blunt, sharp, or heavy object can be used as a weapon. In addition just about any device capable of propelling things at a high speed can be used as a weapon. If you outlaw guns, the only peoples hands that you take them out of is law abiding citizens. In this case, this man used a large vehicle as a deadly weapon, and then used a knife to continue his killing spree. Whether or not he had a gun was really inconsequential, because if Japan had an instituted CCW policy, at least 1 or 2 people in that crowd of victims would have been able to meet force with equal or greater force. I contend that even if the man had a firearm, less people would have been killed because an armed citizen would have taken him down. 

In addition, unfortunately for your argument statistics regarding CCW are in my arguments favor and not yours.

----------


## Coop77

> Let me ask you this Coop77... seeing as how the police response time at say a mall would be lets say 15 minutes.... and they wouldn't breach immediately they would asses the situation and wait for swat... so were going to say in excess of 45 minutes... it would make you more comfortable having bullets fly at you only for 45minutes instead of having them flying both ways trying to take this lunatic out?


You're describing a scenario in which the attacker was able to obtain a gun and the law abiding citizens are unarmed. You're basically describing failed gun control. Consider these scenarios..

*a) Absolute gun control* (such as Japan) - Attacker has a knife/hammer/whatever because guns are unattainable. Law abiding citizens unarmed. 

*b) No gun control* - Attacker has automatic assault rifle. A very few law abiding citizens carrying concealed handguns. All guns bought at Walmart.

Which crowded shopping center would you want to be in? "But criminals will find a way to get guns.. blah blah" They don't in Japan. Many countries make it really, really, really hard to get a gun.

----------


## Coop77

> Your argument ignores the equalizing effect that guns have. It is one weapon which gives an elderly lady a fighting chance against an attacker, regardless of the type of weapon they are using. Criminals will ALWAYS get their hands on weapons, be it guns, knives, bats, hammers, etc, etc... Pretty much any blunt, sharp, or heavy object can be used as a weapon. In addition just about any device capable of propelling things at a high speed can be used as a weapon.


That's a good point, about the equalizing effect. I can see why carrying a gun makes people feel safer. But really, does it make society safer if everybody's packin' heat, like the wild west? Think of every super heated fight/confrontation you've ever observed, or been in.. every road rage incident.. What if everybody had a gun on their belt. Accidental discharges in public places, kids getting a hold of them, etc. Most people are dumbasses. 




> If you outlaw guns, the only peoples hands that you take them out of is law abiding citizens.


Not if you do it right. Look at Japan. This guy couldn't get one. Shootings are almost non-existant in Japan. Maybe the mafia can get guns in Japan, but not your average mental case. 




> In this case, this man used a large vehicle as a deadly weapon, and then used a knife to continue his killing spree. Whether or not he had a gun was really inconsequential, because if Japan had an instituted CCW policy, at least 1 or 2 people in that crowd of victims would have been able to meet force with equal or greater force. I contend that even if the man had a firearm, less people would have been killed because an armed citizen would have taken him down. 
> 
> In addition, unfortunately for your argument statistics regarding CCW are in my arguments favor and not yours.


The pro-CCW statistics you're looking at are all statistics in the US, where gun control is half assed and criminals can get guns. Look at the crime rate of countries with strict gun control compared to the US.

----------


## soulstealer

> That's a good point, about the equalizing effect. I can see why carrying a gun makes people feel safer. But really, does it make society safer if everybody's packin' heat, like the wild west? Think of every super heated fight/confrontation you've ever observed, or been in.. every road rage incident.. What if everybody had a gun on their belt. Accidental discharges in public places, kids getting a hold of them, etc. Most people are dumbasses. 
> 
> 
> Not if you do it right. Look at Japan. This guy couldn't get one. Shootings are almost non-existant in Japan. Maybe the mafia can get guns in Japan, but not your average mental case. 
> 
> *BULLSHIT*
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-CCW statistics you're looking at are all statistics in the US, where gun control is half assed and criminals can get guns. Look at the crime rate of countries with strict gun control compared to the US.


http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/...r-Shooting.php
http://www.reuters.com/article/world...Name=worldNews

----------


## Flagg

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

How many people die in America from gun related deaths each year, something like 15,000-30,000? For people to suggest they need to carry guns to defend themselves from people with guns is pure paranoia and ludicrous and beggars belief. Do you really think, that if this guy had done this in America, that every dirty harry armed with a gun would just blow him away, no fear of accidently hitting someone else instead? Seriously, compare other countries in the West to America and the figures speak for themselves.

----------


## inheritmylife

> http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
> 
> How many people die in America from gun related deaths each year, something like 15,000-30,000? For people to suggest they need to carry guns to defend themselves from people with guns is pure paranoia and ludicrous and beggars belief. Do you really think, that if this guy had done this in America, that every dirty harry armed with a gun would just blow him away, no fear of accidentally hitting someone else instead? Seriously, compare other countries in the West to America and the figures speak for themselves.


In the website you linked the graph depicts only deaths involving guns. Take Switzerland for example: there are more guns per capita than nearly anywhere in the world, so of course a greater percentage of total homicides are going to include firearms. However, the Swiss have a substantially lower overall rate of homicide, rape, robbery, or any other violent crime than the UK, a country with very few guns and a total restriction of firearms.

Violent crime rates in America are not a result of the right to keep and bear arms. They are a result of many other factors that aren't so easy to just pass legislation to get rid of. Violent crime in America is actuallyfalling despite more guns being owned than ever, not to mention the sunsetting of the assault weapons ban and the increase in concealed carry states.

----------


## Coop77

> BULLSHIT
> http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/...r-Shooting.php
> http://www.reuters.com/article/world...Name=worldNews


According to the link in the post above this, Japan's shooting rate per 100k residents is *1/200* that of the US. I stand by my statement. The cases you found were very, very rare.

----------


## soulstealer

> http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
> 
> How many people die in America from gun related deaths each year, something like 15,000-30,000? For people to suggest they need to carry guns to defend themselves from people with guns is pure paranoia and ludicrous and beggars belief. Do you really think, that if this guy had done this in America, that every dirty harry armed with a gun would just blow him away, no fear of accidently hitting someone else instead? Seriously, compare other countries in the West to America and the figures speak for themselves.


So then you would propose that we disarm the entire populous and make sure the only the government and government agencies have firearms so as to what? create an authoritarian state? make the average citizen more vulnerable in their home? whats your motive?

----------


## soulstealer

> According to the link in the post above this, Japan's shooting rate per 100k residents is *1/200* that of the US. I stand by my statement. The cases you found were very, very rare.


http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/...le-Control.htm

Apparently non gun crime being equally as rare

Japans annual robbery rate being 1.8 per 100k per year
US is 205.4 per 100k per year that being 114.11 times the rate per capita if we extrapolate that out one would conclude that societal differences make the impact on the rate of crime and not gun control...

----------


## soulstealer

http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/crime.html

If you take a look at the page above specifically

The Japanese murder rate is about 1.1 per 100,000 people; West German has a rate of 3.9, Britain a rate of 9.1, and the U.S. 8.7 per 100,000 people.

we will see that a western society similar to ours except with extreme gun control laws has a higher murder rate then we do....

----------


## Peducho0113

> http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/crime.html
> 
> If you take a look at the page above specifically
> 
> The Japanese murder rate is about 1.1 per 100,000 people; West German has a rate of 3.9, Britain a rate of 9.1, and the U.S. 8.7 per 100,000 people.
> 
> we will see that a western society similar to ours except with extreme gun control laws has a higher murder rate then we do....


2+...

----------


## Flagg

> So then you would propose that we disarm the entire populous and make sure the only the government and government agencies have firearms so as to what? create an authoritarian state? make the average citizen more vulnerable in their home? whats your motive?


Motive? I'm not some secret government employee. The UK and Scotland had a gun amnisty a year or two back, that would be a good start! You seem to think owning a gun equates to freedom?? :Hmmmm:  Less vulnerable in their home from what? America isn't the only place in the world where people have their houses burgled you know, and most people outside of America don't require a firearm to feel invulnerable in their house.

----------


## soulstealer

> Motive? I'm not some secret government employee. The UK and Scotland had a gun amnisty a year or two back, that would be a good start! You seem to think owning a gun equates to freedom?? Less vulnerable in their home from what? America isn't the only place in the world where people have their houses burgled you know, *and most people outside of America don't require a firearm to feel invulnerable in their house.*


I think owning a gun equates to assistance in the defense of ones liberty..... So your telling me you would feel invulnerable in your own home wielding a bat against someone with a hand gun?  :Hmmmm:

----------


## Flagg

> I think owning a gun equates to assistance in the defense of ones liberty..... So your telling me you would feel invulnerable in your own home wielding a bat against someone with a hand gun?


Most burglars in the UK dont enter the premises with a handgun, do they in America?

----------


## soulstealer

> *Most* burglars in the UK dont enter the premises with a handgun, do they in America?


Conceding that a portion do...... I reiterate my question... Do you feel comfortable bringing a bat to a gun fight?

----------


## Flagg

> Conceding that a portion do...... I reiterate my question... Do you feel comfortable bringing a bat to a gun fight?


That's a ridiculous statement cause you are basing your paranoia that everyone is armed to the teeth. By the way, how big is this portion of American breakins? 70% 80%? Cause unless it's as high as that, saying you need a gun to protect from a possible armed break in is unrealistic. It's just perpatrating an ongoing problem.

----------


## soulstealer

> *That's a ridiculous statement cause you are basing your paranoia that everyone is armed to the teeth.* By the way, how big is this portion of American breakins? 70% 80%? Cause unless it's as high as that, saying you need a gun to protect from a possible armed break in is unrealistic. *It's just perpatrating an ongoing problem.*


I never said everyone was armed to the teeth but if 1 out of 100 breakins occur with firearms that 1% chance is great enough to warrant the owning of a firearm for ones protection! 70 or 80% would be required at 50% its not?! so you would feel comfortable knowing that 5 out of 10 times someone were to break into a home it would mean the homeowner most likely being shot and maybe killed defending themselves.... thats a ridiculous statement sir...

On top of that your saying law abiding citizens with legally owned and registered guns are perpetuating intentional gun violence?! again ridiculous! Your arguments have no basis in reality... and again you fail to answer my question! 

Would you feel comfortable bringing a bat to a gun fight?!

P.S. I dont know how you perpetrate a problem perpetrate being the execution or "committing of" perpetuate must have been what you were looking for...

----------


## thegodfather

For those of you unfamiliar with US politics, let me explain. The founding fathers of our country wrote in several checks&balances on governments power. The various branches of government which had equal power, the legislative, judiciary, executive, etc. They are supposed to curtail one anothers power if one or the other ever becomes too abusive. These founders realised from looking at thousands of years of human history in politics, that even with such safeguards there were still ways that government could usurp its restrictions and become despotic in order to oppress the people. The 2nd Amendment, the right for the people to bear arms, was never really intended as self-defense against muggers and theives(although certainly useful as such), rather it was intended as the LAST CHECK&BALANCE against a tyrannical government. The founders realised that if a large percentage of the population was equipped with the latest military style/grade weapons that the government could never go back on the Bill of Rights and oppress the people because the people could over throw that government. The founders plagarized a great deal of material from John Locke, one such instance John Locke wrote that (off the top of my head), "governments are instituted among men, in order to serve their interests, and whenever such government becomes destructive to those ends, it is the peoples right, in fact their duty to throw off such government." In addition it was written, I think by Jefferson, that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." 

If you want a good example of what happens when the populace becomes largely disarmed, you can look to England. Their violent crime rate SKY ROCKETED after firearms became illegal. In addition, New Labour, passed a huge number of laws which are completely ridiculous and oppressive to free people everywhere. They have more CCTV cameras on the streets than people, they are required to surrender personal medical information to the government, and one other such nonsensical law is that they can be arrested if they have too much trash in their trash can to the point that the lid wont close completely. They can use the judicial recourse, but they are playing on New Labours playing field, and by New Labours rules, so the game is rigged basically. Then what final recourse do they have? None, they just have to bend over, lube up, and take it !

----------


## soulstealer

> For those of you unfamiliar with US politics, let me explain. The founding fathers of our country wrote in several checks&balances on governments power. The various branches of government which had equal power, the legislative, judiciary, executive, etc. They are supposed to curtail one anothers power if one or the other ever becomes too abusive. These founders realised from looking at thousands of years of human history in politics, that even with such safeguards there were still ways that government could usurp its restrictions and become despotic in order to oppress the people. The 2nd Amendment, the right for the people to bear arms, was never really intended as self-defense against muggers and theives(although certainly useful as such), rather it was intended as the LAST CHECK&BALANCE against a tyrannical government. The founders realised that if a large percentage of the population was equipped with the latest military style/grade weapons that the government could never go back on the Bill of Rights and oppress the people because the people could over throw that government. The founders plagarized a great deal of material from John Locke, one such instance John Locke wrote that (off the top of my head), "governments are instituted among men, in order to serve their interests, and whenever such government becomes destructive to those ends, it is the peoples right, in fact their duty to throw off such government." In addition it was written, I think by Jefferson, that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." 
> 
> *Which I believe It to be totally necessary as previously stated but for a long time the gun controllers have pointed at crime at the reason that gun control should be implemented with current statistics after approved open carry legislation even that contention can now be successfully refuted.. its become a joke...*
> 
> If you want a good example of what happens when the populace becomes largely disarmed, you can look to England. Their violent crime rate SKY ROCKETED after firearms became illegal. In addition, New Labour, passed a huge number of laws which are completely ridiculous and oppressive to free people everywhere. They have more CCTV cameras on the streets than people, they are required to surrender personal medical information to the government, and one other such nonsensical law is that they can be arrested if they have too much trash in their trash can to the point that the lid wont close completely. They can use the judicial recourse, but they are playing on New Labours playing field, and by New Labours rules, so the game is rigged basically. Then what final recourse do they have? None, they just have to bend over, lube up, and take it !
> 
> *Disgusting I recently read an article where a girl was fined something in the neighborhood of 120pound for putting her trashbin out 2 hours early the night before...*


I am truly scared as to what this world is coming to...

----------


## inheritmylife

> If you want a good example of what happens when the populace becomes largely disarmed, you can look to England. Their violent crime rate SKY ROCKETED after firearms became illegal. In addition, New Labour, passed a huge number of laws which are completely ridiculous and oppressive to free people everywhere. They have more CCTV cameras on the streets than people, they are required to surrender personal medical information to the government, and one other such nonsensical law is that they can be arrested if they have too much trash in their trash can to the point that the lid wont close completely. They can use the judicial recourse, but they are playing on New Labours playing field, and by New Labours rules, so the game is rigged basically. Then what final recourse do they have? None, they just have to bend over, lube up, and take it !


Washington, DC is another example of failed gun control policies.

----------


## thegodfather

> Washington, DC is another example of failed gun control policies.


Yes, failed in the sense that they dont support handgun ownership and conceal&carry for its citizens. Instead they have turned the city of DC into a *criminal enbaling zone*, and made the populace there easy prey for criminals.

----------


## inheritmylife

> Yes, failed in the sense that they dont support handgun ownership and conceal&carry for its citizens. Instead they have turned the city of DC into a *criminal enbaling zone*, and made the populace there easy prey for criminals.


Handguns aren't banned in DC anymore actually. A federal appeals court overturned that law, citing the 2nd Amendment. First time in US history. Pretty cool.

Not that DC gunowners needed permission...

----------


## soulstealer

> Handguns aren't banned in DC anymore actually. A federal appeals court overturned that law, citing the 2nd Amendment. First time in US history. Pretty cool.
> 
> Not that DC gunowners needed permission...


Actually they appealed that and the decision currently lies with the supreme court scheduled for a ruling on the meaning of the second amendment..as in does it apply to the militia, the people, or both a very serious case.... being as I see the 2nd reading as both parties and the militia being the people it seems so ridiculous to me that we've even taken it this far...

----------


## inheritmylife

> Actually they appealed that and the decision currently lies with the supreme court scheduled for a ruling on the meaning of the second amendment..as in does it apply to the militia, the people, or both a very serious case.... being as I see the 2nd reading as both parties and the militia being the people it seems so ridiculous to me that we've even taken it this far...


No suprise, but it may be better in the end. I'm no fan of the recent appointments to the supreme court, but I think they'll read the 2nd as a right of the people.

I think they uphold it.

----------


## CSAR

This thread reminds me of why I don't believe most news stories and especially those that quote Japanese crime statistics and portray Japanese society as "harmonious".

Japanese culture is based on tatemae (the ideal) rather than on honne (the actual). So when you read about statistics or cultural information about Japan, take it with a big grain of salt.

Overall crime rates are low, because most crime in Japan is dealt with off the records. By simply apologizing and paying an adequate sum of money (hush money), the crime becomes nonexistent. Crimes against non-Japanese are often not reported as well, because only crimes against Japanese citizens actually count as crimes. On the other hand, crimes committed by non-Japanese are almost always reported. In this way, the Japanese government can continue to portray crime in Japan as the result of "dangerous foreigners". 

Convictions are high because if you are suspected of a crime, the J-police can hold you in jail for 23 days without legal representation - you won't even get a phone call. During those 23 days, you will be subjected to mental and physical means of torture until you sign a confession typed up by the J-police. After that, they will charge you with the crime, but because you've already "confessed" there will be no need for an investigation, forensic evidence, witness statements, or criminal trial. You'll get your day in court....when the judge passes sentence.

I laugh every time I read that Japan is a peaceful country where people live together in harmony. This is tatemae at it's finest - Japanese desperately want to be viewed in the best possible light. And to them, tatemae is not lying because it is a core component of their culture.

Bottom line - don't believe everything you read coming out of Japan.

----------


## BgMc31

> This thread reminds me of why I don't believe most news stories and especially those that quote Japanese crime statistics and portray Japanese society as "harmonious".
> 
> Japanese culture is based on tatemae (the ideal) rather than on honne (the actual). So when you read about statistics or cultural information about Japan, take it with a big grain of salt.
> 
> Overall crime rates are low, because most crime in Japan is dealt with off the records. By simply apologizing and paying an adequate sum of money (hush money), the crime becomes nonexistent. Crimes against non-Japanese are often not reported as well, because only crimes against Japanese citizens actually count as crimes. On the other hand, crimes committed by non-Japanese are almost always reported. In this way, the Japanese government can continue to portray crime in Japan as the result of "dangerous foreigners". 
> 
> Convictions are high because if you are suspected of a crime, the J-police can hold you in jail for 23 days without legal representation - you won't even get a phone call. During those 23 days, you will be subjected to mental and physical means of torture until you sign a confession typed up by the J-police. After that, they will charge you with the crime, but because you've already "confessed" there will be no need for an investigation, forensic evidence, witness statements, or criminal trial. You'll get your day in court....when the judge passes sentence.
> 
> I laugh every time I read that Japan is a peaceful country where people live together in harmony. This is tatemae at it's finest - Japanese desperately want to be viewed in the best possible light. And to them, tatemae is not lying because it is a core component of their culture.
> ...


Where's the proof of this?

----------


## soulstealer

> No suprise, but it may be better in the end. I'm no fan of the recent appointments to the supreme court, but I think they'll read the 2nd as a right of the people.
> 
> I think they uphold it.


X2 but I have to say not being a fan is an understatement some of them have a twisted view of reality... but I agree If I remember correctly a majority of them are true supporters of the 2nd amendment could be a landmark decision... so I'm waiting in anticipation...  :LOL:

----------


## FallenWyvern

> Where's the proof of this?


He lived there.

----------


## FallenWyvern

Not very logical argument to say that guns make you safer... Why not arm ourselves with automatic weapons or even tanks, why not give every one WMD's.... no one would ever rob my house if they knew I was gonna blow up the whole town!!! Stupid.

7 people dead at the hand of a manic is better than the 32 dead at VT. It would be pretty hard to kill 32 with a knife.

Saying that criminals will get guns anyways even if its illegal is quite moronic too. Kinda like saying that Mexicans are gonna come here anyways so might as well make them legal, or people are gonna do Meth no matter what the laws says, might as well make it legal.... 

My buddy was held up by a 12 year old with a gun. Do you really think a 12 year old would have access to a gun in Japan or the UK?

As far as keeping the government in check, that's dumb too. Do you really think you can do anything against a tank or a machine gun? I remember the Rodney King riots in LA. The national guard put everything on lock down. That was way more scary than the riots. I had no idea that they had so much power.


Guns are apart of America and they aren't going away.

----------


## inheritmylife

> Not very logical argument to say that guns make you safer... Why not arm ourselves with automatic weapons or even tanks, why not give every one WMD's.... no one would ever rob my house if they knew I was gonna blow up the whole town!!! Stupid.


You really believe you are better able to defend yourself, your neighbors, and your personal property armed with only a telephone with 911 on quick dial than you are with a firearm?

----------


## NotSmall

> Not very logical argument to say that guns make you safer... Why not arm ourselves with automatic weapons or even tanks, why not give every one WMD's.... no one would ever rob my house if they knew I was gonna blow up the whole town!!! Stupid.
> 
> 7 people dead at the hand of a manic is better than the 32 dead at VT. It would be pretty hard to kill 32 with a knife.
> 
> Saying that criminals will get guns anyways even if its illegal is quite moronic too. Kinda like saying that Mexicans are gonna come here anyways so might as well make them legal, or people are gonna do Meth no matter what the laws says, might as well make it legal.... 
> 
> My buddy was held up by a 12 year old with a gun. Do you really think a 12 year old would have access to a gun in Japan or the UK?
> 
> As far as keeping the government in check, that's dumb too. Do you really think you can do anything against a tank or a machine gun? I remember the Rodney King riots in LA. The national guard put everything on lock down. That was way more scary than the riots. I had no idea that they had so much power.
> ...


Let me explain your mistake here buddy - you are trying to use logic in a debate against someone who thinks that the solution to knife crime is to give everyone a gun...

----------


## thegodfather

The Anti-Gun people in this thread ought to watch these videos...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM...eature=related

----------


## thegodfather

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3Ede...eature=related

----------


## thegodfather

> Let me explain your mistake here buddy - you are trying to use logic in a debate against someone who thinks that the solution to knife crime is to give everyone a gun...


Is that as logical as the people who think the solution to violent crimes is to disarm every law abiding citizen in the country? UK's violent crime is UP since outlawing firearms, states within the United States violent crime is DOWN since encouraging conceal&carry of firearms in those states.

Obviously many of you are unfamiliar with a Realist theory called the Security Dilemma. We use this term in politics to describe a situation where there is Actor A and Actor B. If Actor A upgrades his armament, because we are using a realist lense to examine the world, Actor B cannot look at Actor A's ideals, views, or feelings, they can only look at Actor A's CAPABILITY to use that weapon against them, so Actor B must upgrade his armament to equal or greater. This means that if a large percentage of CRIMINALS (Actor A) have handguns/rifles/etc, then Actor B (Law Abiding Citizens) must also have the same weapon. Your logic is flawed when you talk about citizens having tanks, in that the majority of criminals do not own tanks and dont have access to them, if they did I would encourage all law abiding citizens to have tanks. Additionally, in our *UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION* there is no amendment which prohibits a law abiding citizen from owning a tank, so if a citizen would like to own a tank, I have no reasonable objection to it. 

If you guys in the UK and elsehwere in the EU and other countries like gun control, and being prey to criminals, that is fine. Just do not come into a thread and try to push your Socialist agenda unto us.

----------


## DSM4Life

God, now lets just say this happened in America where he could have easily purchased a gun, the number of deaths would have been well over 7 people. 

Unfortunately the stupid outweigh the responsible people in the U.S of A.

----------


## inheritmylife

> God, now lets just say this happened in America where he could have easily purchased a gun, the number of deaths would have been well over 7 people. 
> 
> Unfortunately the stupid outweigh the responsible people in the U.S of A.


That's possible, but far from a certainty.

----------


## inheritmylife

I'd rather have liberty than a marginal amount of safety any day.

----------


## thegodfather

> I'd rather have liberty than a marginal amount of safety any day.


+1.....

----------


## Coop77

> I'd rather have liberty than a marginal amount of safety any day.


That statement sounds like you agree less guns = more safety.

----------


## soulstealer

> That statement sounds like you agree less guns = more safety.


then obviously you need to google the definition of liberty...

----------


## inheritmylife

> That statement sounds like you agree less guns = more safety.


No, I'm not saying that less guns equals more safety, not necessarily. 

It seems the studies are contradictory anyways. Although, from what I've read, in western countries, more gun control means more violent crime. But that isn't universal, it isn't always the case.

The point I was trying to make is that I don't care whether or not it does or doesn't. I believe that I have the right to defend myself and my property by any means necessary. That goes for you too. I'm not going to try to kill you with a knife, or break into your house and rape your daughter, so why would I give two shits whether or not you decided to have an AR-15 in your closet?

----------


## thegodfather

*WATCH THIS VIDEO!!!!!!!*

Alan Keyes sums this up nicely...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6nBK...eature=related

----------


## Coop77

> then obviously you need to google the definition of liberty...


 :Hmmmm: I didn't say anything about liberty. 
inheritmylife's statement implied that gun control brings "a marginal amount of safety", that he's willing to trade for more freedom. .. oh nevermind. Who cares. 

I totally agree that no gun control whatsoever would mean more individual liberty. So would abolishing speed limits, legalizing drugs, prostitution, child pornography, or anything else. Every law that exists takes away someone's freedom to do something. Sometimes infringing individual freedom is necessary for the good of society as a whole.

----------


## Coop77

> The point I was trying to make is that I don't care whether or not it does or doesn't. I believe that I have the right to defend myself and my property by any means necessary. That goes for you too. I'm not going to try to kill you with a knife, or break into your house and rape your daughter, so *why would I give two shits whether or not you decided to have an AR-15 in your closet?*


Because you don't know if I'm a psycho or not. What if that dude in Japan had an AR-15 in his closet. Seung-Hui Cho bought his guns legally and killed 32 people with them in 9 minutes. Ironically he wouldn't have been able to do that in his native Korea.

----------


## SMCengineer

> Because you don't know if I'm a psycho or not. What if that dude in Japan had an AR-15 in his closet. Seung-Hui Cho bought his guns legally and killed 32 people with them in 9 minutes. * Ironically he wouldn't have been able to do that in his native Korea*.


...legally, that is. Illegally he would have had no problem getting it and you can bet someone that deals guns on the black market isn't doing background checks.

----------


## Coop77

> ...legally, that is. Illegally* he would have had no problem* getting it and you can bet someone that deals guns on the black market isn't doing background checks.


That's debatable. Your typical mental case isn't a well connected gangster. From what I understand, like in Japan, they do a pretty good job of keeping guns out of the hands of the common schmo, and have the crime rates to prove it.

----------


## SMCengineer

> That's debatable. *Your typical mental case isn't a well connected gangster.* From what I understand, like in Japan, they do a pretty good job of keeping guns out of the hands of the common schmo, and have the crime rates to prove it.


That's implying that you have to be a well connected gangster to be part of illicit black market activity, which _we all know_ is not true.

----------


## inheritmylife

> I didn't say anything about liberty. 
> inheritmylife's statement implied that gun control brings "a marginal amount of safety", that he's willing to trade for more freedom. .. oh nevermind. Who cares. 
> 
> I totally agree that no gun control whatsoever would mean more individual liberty.
> 
> So would abolishing speed limits, legalizing drugs, prostitution, child pornography, or anything else. Every law that exists takes away someone's freedom to do something. Sometimes infringing individual freedom is necessary for the good of society as a whole.


Piss poor argument.

Liberty does not allow depriving another of their life or property.

----------


## inheritmylife

> Because you don't know if I'm a psycho or not. What if that dude in Japan had an AR-15 in his closet. Seung-Hui Cho bought his guns legally and killed 32 people with them in 9 minutes. Ironically he wouldn't have been able to do that in his native Korea.


If he wanted to kill 32 people he could have done it like Richard 'iceman' Kukliski. He killed more than 60 people, one at a time.

He rarely ever used a firearm.

----------


## inheritmylife

> That's debatable. Your typical mental case isn't a well connected gangster. From what I understand, like in Japan, they do a pretty good job of keeping guns out of the hands of the common schmo, and have the crime rates to prove it.


Their crime rates are a reflection of their ethnicity and culture, not gun control policies.

----------


## Coop77

> Piss poor argument.
> 
> Liberty does not allow depriving another of their life or property.


If you're saying if someone takes your gun away they're depriving you of your life, that's a stretch. 

A lot of Americans seem to have their own concept of what "liberty" is, which is usually some vision of stars and stripes and whatever they think America stands for, and not the literal meaning of the word. If you want the most liberty, freedom from government control, look to some country like Somalia that has virtually no enforced law at all. You can have all the guns you want there. You can carry a machine gun around with you if you like. Of course they are in a state of total chaos, but freedom & liberty abound.

----------


## Coop77

> If he wanted to kill 32 people he could have done it like Richard 'iceman' Kukliski. He killed more than 60 people, one at a time.
> 
> He rarely ever used a firearm.


Yes, you can kill someone without using a firearm. It's much easier with a firearm though.

----------


## thegodfather

> I didn't say anything about liberty. 
> inheritmylife's statement implied that gun control brings "a marginal amount of safety", that he's willing to trade for more freedom. .. oh nevermind. Who cares. 
> 
> I totally agree that no gun control whatsoever would mean more individual liberty. So would abolishing speed limits, legalizing drugs, prostitution, child pornography, or anything else. Every law that exists takes away someone's freedom to do something. Sometimes infringing individual freedom is necessary for the good of society as a whole.


Driving, is a priviledge and not a right. Therefore limits on the speed that you can travel are legitimate. 

Firearms, are a 2nd Amendment inalienable right, meaning that you are endowed with the right to own a firearm from your creator. You obviously missed my example with the Security Dilemma, look it up and you will understand a bit better. Your arguments are nonsensical and ignore all the empirical evidence for the right to bear arms that exists. 

Furthermore...

*1)Speed limits exist, yet there are those people who speed and disregard these limits, they are called criminals.* 

*2)Prohibition of drugs exist, yet drugs are readily available, and their enforcement is quite heavy, however drugs are here to stay.* 

*3)Prostitution is one of the oldest professions on Earth. There is also no Constitutional provision for prohibiting a woman to sell her body. Actually, prohibiting this profession instead of regulating it and ensuring testing, makes the public safety danger more pronounced than if it was a legalized and regulated industry. Regardless, Prostitution is illegal, and this law enforced, yet many people will have no problem finding a prostitute.*

What does this all mean? *Where there is a demand, there WILL be a market.*  Guns are HERE TO STAY! Just as are Nuclear weapons, and a host of very unpleasent things that we could say in an "ideal world" wouldn't exist. Because of this fact, and ignoring any idealized liberal fervor, it is a necessary provision for LAW ABIDING citizens to be able to exercise their god given RIGHT to own firearms, any kind of firearms, and to carry them with them any place that they deem appropriate without restriction. The reason that 'gun control' and even having to obtain a PERMIT for a firearm is unconstitutional, is because needing to obtain a PERMIT implies having to get PERMISSION to exercise a RIGHT. You do not need PERMISSION to exercise free speech. *The government does not GIVE YOU YOUR RIGHTS, the government is RESTRICTED from infringing on your rights, therefore ENSURING your rights.*  You no more should need a permit to own and carry a firearm, as you do to protest or speak harshly of your government under the 1st Amendment. 

Many of the examples that you pointed to also failed to meet the litmus test proving that prohibition is effective even when enforced. So, you must really decide whether you support legislation which makes people much easier to be victimized or not.

----------


## inheritmylife

> If you're saying if someone takes your gun away they're depriving you of your life, that's a stretch. 
> 
> A lot of Americans seem to have their own concept of what "liberty" is, which is usually some vision of stars and stripes and whatever they think America stands for, and not the literal meaning of the word. If you want the most liberty, freedom from government control, look to some country like Somalia that has virtually no enforced law at all. You can have all the guns you want there. You can carry a machine gun around with you if you like. Of course they are in a state of total chaos, but freedom & liberty abound.


No, I'm saying it's depriving you of your property.

My concept of liberty is my right to exercise free will so long as I don't deprive another of their rights.

As for your Somalia example, I agree that government is necessary to protect peoples ability to exercise those rights. I like government, government is a good thing. It is supposed to enforce private property rights and to protect us from murderers and thugs if we are unable to protect ourselves. They don't have that in Somalia, they have anarchy. No system of common law, no recourse for people who are being coerced by others. 

So I'll concede that governments are necessary and good, but I believe that the individuals right to keep and bear arms is fundamentally important to human liberty, as well as the effective function of government. But that's a whole other argument...

----------


## inheritmylife

If you're interested in a great explanation of the purpose and scope of government, and a relatively brief (4 or so hours  :LOL: )description of the American system of government, check out these videos.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...KTuaC1Dw&hl=en

That's part 1. There are 5 or 6 of them. Very interesting stuff.

----------

