The Shooting That You Likely Didn't Hear About..... In Japan.

Meh, fair enough. Doesn't at all change my opinion that guns should be anything but banned though. ;P
And wasn't there already one thing we'd disagreed on the other day?

On this note, I have only seen one gun in my life (that wasn't just mounted as a trophy-type thing or on TV). Some hired guard guy had it in a holster when my dad was refuelling at a servo. So, yeah, not much gun threat here due to difficulty in obtaining.

 

Mafiacow, you seem to think that HAVING a gun and USING a gun go hand in hand. Even if I was to own a gun, I would be absolutely terrified if someone came at me with a gun. Why? Because if you're coming at someone with a gun, it's a completely different mindset to simply having a gun in case of attack. If someone comes at you with a gun, that person is apparently fully prepared to murder you, meaning you are now in very mortal danger. Unless you have been in that situation, there is simply no way to comprehend exactly how shit-scary it must be. Using a gun in self-defense is a way lot harder than using it aggressively.

Someone comes at you with a gun, you pull a gun out to defend yourself, you've got so many mental blocks. Is he bluffing? Will he shoot? Should you shoot? Could you shoot? What if you miss? What if he sees you trying to go for it and shoots you? What if you miss, then he'll definitely shoot you?
Your attacker, meanwhile, has already gone past these. Meaning that if someone bursts into your house in the middle of the night with a firearm, unless you are a trained soldier or are expecting such a scenario, or have trained in some way for it, you are not going to spring out of bed, opening fire as you do so - you are going to be a terrified lump of flesh and bedclothes, and if your attacker is serious, most likely dead. Also, your attacker - if he's doing what he's doing - has nothing to lose. You do. A hell of a lot. The defender is always at a disadvantage. Always.

And another point, the police thing has nothing to do with guns, once they receive an emergency call they drop all the stuff they're doing and go - not their fault if it's far away.

 

1. That's 'cause they kinda do... IMO anyway... And anyaway, I was mainly talking about accidental killings, like someone being a drunk idiot or a gun misfiring. ;P
2. And what if the intruder was just bluffing too, as a means to just scare you? You pull a gun, they get scared as well, thinking you have all intention to shoot back, they take the first shot.

And it kinda does add an impact... more guns = higher chance of a shooting to happen = more potential work for police to deal with = less staff to spare = more time taken to respond.

 

All this talk about guns and intruders makes me want to move back to Texas now.

 

Not true we have a mountain of other regs that they need to enforce. LEOs in cities where I live are some of the worst shots I've seen and police training also makes them more prone to violate gun safety rules then a civilian the most obvious violations are flagging (pointing or moving the muzzle over non-targets) and the biggest which is encouraged by police training: Never point your gun at anything that you don't wish to destroy. In fact a lot of negligent discharges are due to dumb cops. One of the best examples of poor training, frighting because they are meant to be the best police agencies have happened during the hunt for the Boston bomber suspect. When S.W.A.T. teams (that self deployed, illegally entering another jurisdiction, unnecessarily adding to the confusion) surrounded the suspect and all shot injuring other S.W.A.T. officers violating yet another gun safety rule: Know what is beyond your target. Thus why cops are bad role models for gun safety. Civilians where I live are better trained then the police and that says something.

 

Maybe it had rabies (I didn't read the article).

Here, we don't have a ban on guns, but strict policies and I had to call the cops once, there were there within 15 minutes. Since I work in an Italian restaurant, I can tell you that 15 minutes is the amount of time the pizza spends in the oven.

 

You need a gun to carry out those crimes? I don't think so. All you need is a motive or a history of mental health that may or may not have been documented. Life is unpredictable. I think certainly ensuring that civilians are not entitled to guns helps to prevent any random acts of terrorism or shootings. But, you also have to bare in mind who you are giving it to and whether or not background checks are thorough. Of course, people will find a way around prohibition by turning to the black market. But, the fact that the weapons were made in the first place and sold to someone or stolen seems a little silly. There is no certainty that everyone will obey the law no matter what. But, statistics of crime are never accurate reflections as a lot of crime will either go unrecorded, or certain crimes can be redefined and put into another category.

In regards of the article, you have to consider the history of the suspect. The gun was the suspect's weapon of choice because he already had it. Chances are he obtained it illegally with an intention to use it at some point. It comes down to more than one aspect. That article doesn't provide enough details to prove anything about whether or not laws on gun control are effective or ineffective as you seem to think Gunney. One case doesn't provide much of an argument. If anything, it would be better to look at a world wide case study. It also boils down to when the laws were introduced as well, as beforehand civilians may have been able to stock up and hide the weapons before the ban. Not everything in life is simple.

 

I really want to add to this but just got back from a weekend-long conference and can barely form a coherent thought.... *falls asleep at desk*

 

You misinterpreted what I said. Also I provided additional evidence further down the tread. What I meant was the idea behind most gun control measures is it was to help reduce violent crime by reducing the amount of weapons available but in 3 countries it has failed to do that in fact Australia has seen increase in the use of guns during violent crime http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/...aws-But-Gun-Crime-In-Sydney-Is-Out-Of-Control
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...130118_1_gun-control-mandatory-gun-gun-deaths

 

This school shooting issue has been debated to death over here but the fact is most of the guns used in school shooting were stolen before hand from friends and relatives that knew better. Only 2 shooting were were committed with guns purchased legally i.e full background check the works (yes they exist on most gun sales in the U.S.).

Plus the the poster above wanted for a what is essentially a gun registry and federally mandated training. Well in most states the mandated training already exist. In Iowa to get a concealed carry permit you must complete a mandated 25 hours of training every 5 years (the time between renewal) and if you choose not get a CCW you have to get a purchase permit from your local sheriff's office and before they hand a permit they run you though the National Criminal Instant Check system the gun shop and gun show dealers and federal firearm licence holders (you need it sell fire arms in bulk) do it again. To buy a firearm off the internet you need to ship the weapon to a FFL dealer where he is required to do a BGC before you get the gun. This system is already very taxing on the regulatory body overseeing the it: the BATF. The BATF a few weeks ago said they don't have enough agents to enforce current laws let alone new ones. They also had a huge backup of registrations for class 3 and 2 licences as well as electronically filed BGC requests the backup caused a delay of in some cases up to 18 months. The government in short can't manage a program like you purposed in a efficient and cost effective manner. Then again what government program IS efficient and cost effective? lol!!

 

I think you're giving the current measures too much merit. I'm also not sure what you mean by most states. Owning several firearms myself, I can say it has been incredibly easy to purchase them. Furthermore, even if my state did require some kind of training (we're not talking about concealed carry), extensive background check, or a license that would regularly be renewed, I can easily buy a gun from a show, from a friend, local pawn shop, or in another state.

The government can manage a program in which citizens are required to go through firearms training and submit to background checks and have firearm ownership tightly regulated, it just chooses not to. Like you said, what government program is efficient? Very few. But it doesn't have to be that way. Just because the government turns a blind eye and has crappy budgeting and project implementation today doesn't mean that it has to stay that way. This is totally doable, we just have to decide to make it happen.

In my opinion, it doesn't come down to "personal freedoms" or your right to not be inconvenienced by the government. Rather it is about the rights and safety of those around you. If you want something that is created with the intention of causing serious bodily harm to other living beings then yeah, you probably should be inconvenienced and really have to go out of your way to obtain one.

The problem with an overall ban is that gun-ownership is already so saturated in the U.S. Guns are everywhere, in the hands of just about anyone. With a ban you would not only have to stop the ability of the average citizen to purchase firearms but you would mostly likely need to seize currently owned firearms as well. And I just don't see that happening. Gun bans can work to prevent crime or accidents caused by the average citizen when availability and ownership is already rare, but our citizens are practically sitting on an arsenal. The only thing a ban would accomplish is preventing new gun owners from legally obtaining firearms, but it likely wouldn't dwindle the number of gun owners anywhere in the near future.

As far as protection goes, I do feel like owning a firearm is often necessary in the U.S. for self defense. When everyone and their grandmother owns a firearm, if someone has intent to cause you harm they're most likely going to be armed.

 

Both of the articles you cited there Gunney talk about increases in gang related violence, and doesn't go into any specifics or details about the statistics. For all I know they could be talking about murders being committed by baseball bats going up, or suicides by taking pills going up. You also have to bare in mind that the ban was introduced in 1996. So all the relatives of the nut-jobs probably inherited the weapons. There is more than one reason to suggest why gang related incidences using guns has gone up. Maybe it is just a more effective way for them to get the job done? Also, the guns are probably being smuggled in as well if they do have such tight restrictions on gun control. But, hey even the article says that mass shootings has gone! Any loss of life is a tragedy. But, don't forget an increasing population would also mean that the numbers go up. So maybe the statistics aren't being recorded accurately? For all I know all of that could have been made up! Especially when the article falls under the title of "BLOG". Which suggests it's an opinion piece. Not fact. I'm very wary of anything posted on the internet.

One more question, what does gun control laws in Australia have anything to do with a murder being committed in Japan?