The violent wake of "gun control"

[Little-Acorn]

Japan has the kind of "gun control" that many of our leftists cherish: A complete absence of all firearms from all subject, law-abiding or not.

The result? When someone wants to kill a lot of people, it's a lot harder to stop him. He doesn't need a gun, but the people who want him to stop, do need one. To bad they must wait for police to bring one, while he goes on with his killing.

-----------------------------------------------

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66593

The violent wake of gun control

by Joseph Farah
Posted: June 09, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

A 25-year-old Tokyo man, describing himself as "tired of living," yesterday killed seven and injured 12 more people.

He did it without a gun.

He would have killed and injured more, but he was stopped by the mere threat of a policeman's gun.

My point?

Japan has among the very strictest gun control laws in the world. And that is precisely why one disturbed young man with a truck and a knife could wreak such carnage in a bustling neighborhood.

Tomohiro Kato drive his truck into a crowd of pedestrians shortly after noon, then jumped out of his vehicle and began stabbing any strangers he could reach.

One policeman, armed only with a baton, managed to duel with the assailant for a time – perhaps slowing down the violent rampage. But it took another officer with a firearm aimed at Kato's head to stop him.

People who believe gun control will result in less violence should be forced to live in societies where only criminals have guns – or where, like in Japan, police have broad search-and-seizure latitude to hunt down any illicit weapons.

They should be forced to keep signs on their homes that say: "No firearms kept in this house."

They should be forced to watch hours of newsreel footage of the genocides of the 20th century, all of which were preceded by massive campaigns of government firearms confiscation.

While no one could have prevented Kato from plowing his truck into a crowd of pedestrians anywhere in the world, there is simply no excuse for the kind of slaughter that followed. A community that protected its citizens' safety and respected the natural inalienable right to self-defense by firearms would have limited the carnage.

Imagine Kato trying to kill as many people as he possibly could in Tel Aviv.

Imagine Kato pulling the same bloody stunt in Texas.

Imagine Kato attempting to crash his truck into a gun shop, a police station or a military armory.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a place where the government has a monopoly on firearms.

It's not safer. It's more dangerous – and less free.

There are really only two alternatives to a free society that respects the right of armed self-defense: One is chaos and anarchy and the other is a repressive police state like the people of Japan live under.

Which of those options would we prefer here in the United States – one of the few nations in the world that recognizes the God-given right of every person to defend himself or herself?

It is very unlikely a policeman is going to be around to protect you or your family member when you are attacked. But in a civil society in which ordinary citizens are free to bear arms, there is an excellent chance either you or some other law-abiding person will be in a position to help.

The gun-control crowd often acts like it is the compassionate and caring side in the debate about crime. It is not. The gun-control activists would leave the most vulnerable members of society even more helpless. Their program would result in more death, more mayhem, and more violence.

It's not a matter of speculation. It's a matter of observation. It's a simple matter of analyzing the failed social experiments of the past – honestly and objectively.

We can learn from Japan, all right.

The lesson to be learned is not to repeat the mistakes that country has made on guns – trading freedom for safety and getting neither.

[diuretic]

Why does the author bother to have a view on gun control in Japan? Does he live there? :laugh2:

[Little-Acorn]

No reaction from anybody?

Other than the usual implication that the author shouldn't write about it for some reason?

[hjmick]

I guess I didn't feel it necessary to post a reaction to somethingwith which I agree. I was kind of waiting to see what the great legal minds of DP had to say.

As to why the author would bother to have an opinion...

I'd have to say that, if you consider the fact that at least one Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court believes that it is acceptable to use the laws and rulings of foreign countries to "help" intepret U.S. law, it's more than okay for an American to offer his or her view on gun control in Japan.

[Noir]

Righto little-Acorn, we do battle in the pit of gun control again,

I'll put this as simply and as quickly as i can, Japan has very strict gun laws, but a guy goes crazy, rams into a crowed area with his car, gets out and stabs a few peolpe...if there were not strict gun laws the guy would have ramed into a few people and been able to shoot others dead with his Mac 11, which do you think will have more innocents dead?

[Little-Acorn]

As to why the author would bother to have an opinion...

I'd have to say that, if you consider the fact that at least one Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court believes that it is acceptable to use the laws and rulings of foreign countries to "help" intepret U.S. law, it's more than okay for an American to offer his or her view on gun control in Japan.

Actually I almost get the feeling that pro-gun-rights people who look to Japan's example, are far outnumbered by the anti-rights people who do the same. Far more references to Japan seem to come from people who point out things like "Japan has very strict gun laws, virtually no civilian-owned guns, and virtually no gun crimes! Therefore we should have as strict gun laws as Japan does!"

They overlook, of course, the police-state environment it takes to enforce those laws, and the nearly-unlimited police power their government has in regard to guns. And this from people who say the Patriot Act, with its far lesser powers, is unconstitutional - a rare instance when leftists look upon the Constitution as something they favor.

The 2nd amendment points out that an armed and capable populace is necessary for security in a free state. That's mostly because an armed citizenry 300 million strong can resist tyrannical government... but also because that same armed citizenry can fight local crime, much better and more promptly than police can.

The author should refer to Japan's gun laws, because the anti-gun-rights people keep doing it... and they don't even do it right, as usual.

[Little-Acorn]

Righto little-Acorn, we do battle in the pit of gun control again,

I'll put this as simply and as quickly as i can, Japan has very strict gun laws, but a guy goes crazy, rams into a crowed area with his car, gets out and stabs a few peolpe...if there were not strict gun laws the guy would have ramed into a few people and been able to shoot others dead with his Mac 11, which do you think will have more innocents dead?

The former instance, where the guy has a sword. Because in the latter (theoretical) instance, where guns are freely carried, the guy would kill some by ramming with his car, then he would get out and get shot dead by a bystander who is armed and experienced. Even though the laws would allow all responsible adults to carry, most still wouldn't bother. But a few would... and in the crowd the guy chose to ram his car into, there are probably a few who are armed. And he wouldn't know which ones they are, and so could not defend against them until it was too late.

Actually, the possibility for fewer deaths in a freely armed society is even better. Because the nut with the car KNOWS there are probably a few armed people in the dozens or hundreds in the crowd, and knows he won't live to kill any more beyond those hit by the car... so some of the nuts with such murderous ideas, may choose a different line of work, knowing that they won't be able to rack up a very impressive Virginia-tech-like total and make the big splash they wanted. Not all would be deterred, but some would. And so there would be even fewer deaths, since some rammings wouldn't occur in the first place.

Hope this helps..... :coffee:

[Noir]

The former instance, where the guy has a sword. Because in the latter (theoretical) instance, where guns are freely carried, the guy would kill some by ramming with his car, then he would get out and get shot dead by a bystander who is armed and experienced. Even though the laws would allow all responsible adults to carry, most still wouldn't bother. But a few would... and in the crowd the guy chose to ram his car into, there are probably a few who are armed. And he wouldn't know which ones they are, and so could not defend against them until it was too late.

Actually, the possibility for fewer deaths in a freely armed society is even better. Because the nut with the car KNOWS there are probably a few armed people in the dozens or hundreds in the crowd, and knows he won't live to kill any more beyond those hit by the car... so some of the nuts with such murderous ideas, may choose a different line of work, knowing that they won't be able to rack up a very impressive Virginia-tech-like total and make the big splash they wanted. Not all would be deterred, but some would. And so there would be even fewer deaths, since some rammings wouldn't occur in the first place.

Hope this helps..... :coffee:

It helps so how foolish the whole idea is, lets look at it.


Actually, the possibility for fewer deaths in a freely armed society is even better.

And i assume the stats back that up?...
The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.
http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html
Hmmmm...( i do realise the stats are from 1994 but there were the first i could find and i'm sure the picture hasn't changed too much)...

[Little-Acorn]

And i assume the stats back that up?...
The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.
http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html
Hmmmm...( i do realise the stats are from 1994 but there were the first i could find and i'm sure the picture hasn't changed too much)...

I'm used to anti-rights people trying to change the subject from the "total deaths" that I was talking about, to "total gun deaths" which compares apples to oranges at best.

I was answering your question about Japan in particular, and what the differences would be in the particular case being discussed - the guy who rams his car into a crowd and then gets out and starts killing more people. He wouldn't kill many more if a few people in that crowd were armed. And he might decide not to even ram his car into the crowd in the first place, if he knew the laws in Japan permitted responsible adults to carry freely and that there would likely be a few people there armed.

In this situation, total deaths would be fewer. And might even be zero if the guy decides he can't go out in a blaze of glory like he wanted to, and so gives up and doesn't ram the crowd in the first place.

Hope this helps... :coffee:

[gabosaurus]

Too bad LilAcorn refuses to understand Noir's point.
Japan had another case where a man ran into a store with a knife and began to stab people. The Japanese are so mild-mannered, many didn't know what to do. They are not as accustomed to random violence as we are.
If the dude would have had a gun, he could have cut down 40-50 people.

The gun nuts enjoy the availability of mass slaughters. They believe it proves their point that the average person would be safer if they were able to carry a gun.

This was disproved recently in South Texas. A crazy went into a cockfight and shot several people. Pretty much everyone at the cockfight was armed. They just did not have their guns in their hands as the crazy did.

Same thing happened in an Asian open market. Two guys came up and opened fired. In addition to armed security, many of the shopkeepers had weapons. They simply were unable to get to them. Or were shot when they went for the weapons.

The gun nuts want to retain their weapons because they feel it makes them feel safer. They will probably believe such until they are shot dead.

[Noir]

Right i'll try again, keeping it as simple as possible...


anti-rights people trying to change the subject from the "total deaths" that I was talking about, to "total gun deaths"
We are debating that having gun access would reduce the number of murders in a country, yeah?

As you said


Actually, the possibility for fewer deaths in a freely armed society is even better.

So why is the gun murder rate so so so much lower in japan than the US?

...it honestly seems amazing than someone can disput this when presented with stats like "The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000."

What would you say if the stats were the other way round? and in 1994 The U.S. rate for gun deaths was .05 per 100,000, and japans was 14.24 per 100,000?
Would you then want to have strict gun control like japan? or would you say that america's low gun death rate was a sure sign that gun control doesn't work?

[Gaffer]

I will repeat myself from past posts.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

[Noir]

I will repeat myself from past posts.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Nice soundbite, but its not debating any of the issues gabosaurus or i have raised.

[Little-Acorn]

Too bad LilAcorn refuses to understand Noir's point.
I understood it... and ignored it since he was trying to change the subject.



Japan had another case where a man ran into a store with a knife and began to stab people.
If the dude would have had a gun, he could have cut down 40-50 people.
And if any of the people around him had had a gun, he would have cut down maybe 1-2 people before being stopped.



(gabby goes into another hysterical rant about gun owners being bloodthirsty savages, etc. No point in continuing)

[Little-Acorn]

its not debating any of the issues gabosaurus or i have raised.
True soundbite, and why should we be diverted from the original topic of the thread merely because you can't defend your own position on the subject? If you want to debate something else instead, feel free to start another thread.

[gabosaurus]

True soundbite, and why should we be diverted from the original topic of the thread merely because you can't defend your own position on the subject? If you want to debate something else instead, feel free to start another thread.

True right wing strategy! If you can't defend the subject at hand, change it to another subject that is more to your liking.

If you are drinking coffee at the mall, and some nut runs in with a gun, you would NOT pull out your gun and take him out. You would hide under a chair and shit your pants like everyone else.
It happened at the last mall shooting. One of people who took cover at a restaurant was an armed, off duty police office. When asked why he didn't pull his weapon, the officer replied that he thought attracting the attention of the gunman would endanger the other patrons of the restaurant.

It is easy to envision yourself as Death Wish Rambo when you are behind the keyboard of a computer.

[diuretic]

No reaction from anybody?

Other than the usual implication that the author shouldn't write about it for some reason?

It's not usual from me, it's usually the case that I'm the recipient of it. But my point was that the comparison is ridiculous.

[diuretic]

I guess I didn't feel it necessary to post a reaction to somethingwith which I agree. I was kind of waiting to see what the great legal minds of DP had to say.

As to why the author would bother to have an opinion...

I'd have to say that, if you consider the fact that at least one Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court believes that it is acceptable to use the laws and rulings of foreign countries to "help" intepret U.S. law, it's more than okay for an American to offer his or her view on gun control in Japan.

My personal floodgates have opened....thank you!

[diuretic]

Actually I almost get the feeling that pro-gun-rights people who look to Japan's example, are far outnumbered by the anti-rights people who do the same. Far more references to Japan seem to come from people who point out things like "Japan has very strict gun laws, virtually no civilian-owned guns, and virtually no gun crimes! Therefore we should have as strict gun laws as Japan does!"

They overlook, of course, the police-state environment it takes to enforce those laws, and the nearly-unlimited police power their government has in regard to guns. And this from people who say the Patriot Act, with its far lesser powers, is unconstitutional - a rare instance when leftists look upon the Constitution as something they favor.

The 2nd amendment points out that an armed and capable populace is necessary for security in a free state. That's mostly because an armed citizenry 300 million strong can resist tyrannical government... but also because that same armed citizenry can fight local crime, much better and more promptly than police can.

The author should refer to Japan's gun laws, because the anti-gun-rights people keep doing it... and they don't even do it right, as usual.

All of the above points are why the comparison is ridiculous.

[Noir]

True soundbite, and why should we be diverted from the original topic of the thread merely because you can't defend your own position on the subject? If you want to debate something else instead, feel free to start another thread.

Lawl, that is quiet possibly the worst dodge i have ever seen on a debating site,did you not have anything to say about post #11?

[crin63]

True right wing strategy! If you can't defend the subject at hand, change it to another subject that is more to your liking.

If you are drinking coffee at the mall, and some nut runs in with a gun, you would NOT pull out your gun and take him out. You would hide under a chair and shit your pants like everyone else.
It happened at the last mall shooting. One of people who took cover at a restaurant was an armed, off duty police office. When asked why he didn't pull his weapon, the officer replied that he thought attracting the attention of the gunman would endanger the other patrons of the restaurant.

It is easy to envision yourself as Death Wish Rambo when you are behind the keyboard of a computer.

There was a South African church shooting 1993 (I realize it was 15 years ago but I just read the book) the St. James Church Massacre. 3 terrorists went to a church with AK-47's and grenades. They picked the church because they expected it to be a gun free zone and they could kill as many people as possible with little or no resistance. The church services usually had around 1200 people in it. They ended up killing 11 and wounding 58. They would have kept going but 1 guy had a .38 snub nose revolver that he was carrying. He fired a few of his 5 or 6 rounds at them. He hit 1 of them and the terrorists fled. Only 2 of 3 terrorists went into the building the other waited outside the doors for people to come running out so he could mow them down. By their own accounts the only reason the terrorists left is because they didn't expect for anyone to shoot back at them.

[Little-Acorn]

And the number of home invasion robberies, convenience store holdups, etc. where the perp finds the hard way that the victim is armed, is legion. For every occasion where the armed victim can't get his weapon out in time, there are dozens when the perp winds up arrested, wounded, or dead, with the victim unharmed (and unrobbed, un-raped etc.). Plus uncountable numbers where a criminal decides not to do his crime at all, for fear of encountering armed resistance, and so leaving that many more oterwise-victims alive, well, and unharmed.

Why do you think so many crimes, especially mass murders, occur at schools, post offices, workplaces, shopping malls, etc.? Because guns are banned there! And the criminal knows he's facing unarmed victims... guaranteed by the government.

Back to the subject:
The guy in Japan crashed his car into a crowd, knowing his victims would be virtually unarmed and unable to resist. That gave him lots of time to stab people with his knife. If any of those in the crowd had been carrying a gun, and had the presence of mind to use it effectively (as most gun owners can), it would have been over much sooner, with a lot fewer people dead and injured.

Even liberals know who usually wins when you bring a gun to a knife fight... and how long the "fight" lasts. Or some of them do. :lol:

And even if the driver had come out of his car with a gun himself, he would not have known where the bullet is coming from that ends his little spree, would not have known which of the people in the crowd was armed.

A populace which is allowed to carry freely, is always at an advantage over a criminal, even if most of the populace doesn't bother carrying. The ones that do, outnumber and outmaneuver the criminal almost every time. It's enough to make a self-respecting criminal take up another line of work - unless the government guarantees him that his victims won't be armed.

[crin63]

Why do you think so many crimes, especially mass murders, occur at schools, post offices, workplaces, shopping malls, etc.?

The primary reason for those killings that you listed above is the anti-depressants that the people were on. If you go back and review all the mass shootings over the last 20 years or so (since anti-depressants became popular) you will find that the shooter or driver was on or had just abruptly quit taking anti-depressants (SSRI) or some other mood altering drug.

You have to be quick in reading about in the news. It will only be in the news for the first day or two and then they will remove that part from the story. The next mass killing you here about in the U.S. expect to find anti-depressants involved.

I don't remember these kinds of mass killings prior to anti-depressants and mood altering drugs. I'm not talking about the cults here. They just had psychotic leaders on other drugs.

[Little-Acorn]

The primary reason for those killings that you listed above is the anti-depressants that the people were on. If you go back and review all the mass shootings over the last 20 years or so (since anti-depressants became popular) you will find that the shooter or driver was on or had just abruptly quit taking anti-depressants (SSRI) or some other mood altering drug.

The primary reason was because those people were seriously f*cked up in the head. Lots of people come off antidepressants. Most of them don't get a gun or three and start shooting. The ones that do are a very small minority, but obviously get all the headlines. Maybe the loss of drugs tips them over the edge... but most people don't have an edge to get tipped over. Only the very rare, extremely-warped-down-deep ones do.

They didn't start shooting because they came off drugs. They started shooting becuase they were insane in some deep, hidden recess of their minds, with or without drugs. Whatever tipped them over the edge, is less important than the fact they weren't all there in the first place.

You always hear people trying to find "rational" reasons for these nutcases' actions. Maybe if his girlfriend hadn't dumped him. Maybe if he'd stayed on his meds. Maybe if school bullies hadn't teased him. etc. etc.

Sorry. It's not his girlfriend's fault he murdered a dozen people. And it wasn't the drugs' fault, or the bullies'. Lots of people go through all those things without committing murder afterward. It was HIS fault. There was a short circuit inside his head, which let him act normally most of the time ("He seemed like a pretty ordinary guy to me"), but caused him to freak out in response to an otherwise-common stress. There is no rational reason for what he did. He was, quite simply, insane. In a way nobody could detect beforehand.