Let's Talk About Gun Control
- Thread starter Black Magisterialness
- Start date
the founding fathers did know bestyou want to apply that same logic to slavery?
I've heard it said that, if you take a walk around Waikiki, it's only a matter of time until someone hands you a flyer of scantily clad women clutching handguns, overlaid with English and maybe Japanese text advertising one of the many local shooting ranges. The city's largest, the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club, advertises instructors fluent in Japanese, which is also the default language of its website. For years, this peculiar Hawaiian industry has explicitly targeted Japanese tourists, drawing them away from beaches and resorts into shopping malls, to do things that are forbidden in their own country.
Waikiki's Japanese-filled ranges are the sort of quirk you might find in any major tourist town, but they're also an intersection of two societies with wildly different approaches to guns and their role in society. Friday's horrific shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater has been a reminder that America's gun control laws are the loosest in the developed world and its rate of gun-related homicide is the highest. Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's.
But what about the country at the other end of the spectrum? What is the role of guns in Japan, the developed world's least firearm-filled nation and perhaps its strictest controller? In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.
Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.
Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan -- one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.
The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it's not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel's landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)
To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.
Even the most basic framework of Japan's approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America's. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that "No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords," later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.
Of course, Japan and the U.S. are separated by a number of cultural and historical difference much wider than their gun policies. Kopel explains that, for whatever reason, Japanese tend to be more tolerant of the broad search and seizure police powers necessary to enforce the ban. "Japanese, both criminals and ordinary citizens, are much more willing than their American counterparts to consent to searches and to answer questions from the police," he writes. But even the police did not carry firearms themselves until, in 1946, the American occupation authority ordered them to. Now, Japanese police receive more hours of training than their American counterparts, are forbidden from carrying off-duty, and invest hours in studying martial arts in part because they "are expected to use [firearms] in only the rarest of circumstances," according to Kopel.
The Japanese and American ways of thinking about crime, privacy, and police powers are so different -- and Japan is such a generally peaceful country -- that it's functionally impossible to fully isolate and compare the two gun control regiments. It's not much easier to balance the costs and benefits of Japan's unusual approach, which helps keep its murder rate at the second-lowest in the world, though at the cost of restrictions that Kopel calls a "police state," a worrying suggestion that it hands the government too much power over its citizens. After all, the U.S. constitution's second amendment is intended in part to maintain "the security of a free State" by ensuring that the government doesn't have a monopoly on force. Though it's worth considering another police state here: Tunisia, which had the lowest firearm ownership rate in the world (one gun per thousand citizens, compared to America's 890) when its people toppled a brutal, 24-year dictatorship and sparked the Arab Spring.
Ms~Opinionated
Rookie
America wrote Japan's constitution.
If Britain had won the war for independence and decided to write us a constitution don't you think it would also forbid us to own guns too.
Japan also isn't allowed to have a standing army or defend themselves in an international dispute.
I could understand if they purposefully wanted to disarm themselves, but that isn't the case here, so to me it isn't a good example.
THIS IS a good example that when people want to control your country they will try to disarm you.
They couldn't even have swords. LOL Those Samurais must have been lethal.
They will take away your ability to protect yourself and defend yourself and your nation. They will make you totally dependent on them. Is this not obvious that this is what they are trying to do?
Do you really think these people care about a few thousand of people dying per year, while they kill foreigners with no remorse? 40,000 die per year from car accidents, are they trying to protect us from cars? No. Don't tell me you believe the nonsense they are spewing on the TV. This is about controlling the population and not about "doing the right thing".
About Tunisia, I could go on a long story about how Western Powers topple foreign governments. This happened in Jamaica, where my parents are from and it is chronicled in the book, Confessions of an Economic Hitman.
I haven't read it, but I watched an interview with the author and I believe it is true because the same type of thing happened in Jamaica in the 70's and the President at the time said so. Tunisia fell from Western pressure, not for fear of the people. If Western Powers hadn't forced the issue, a genocide may have occurred. Massacres are what usually happens when people try to overthrow their government, e.g. Tiananmen Square. That is what happens when the un-armed protests against the armed. LOL
-----------------------------------------------------
"The constitution was drawn up under the Allied occupation that followed World War II and was intended to replace Japan's previous militaristic and absolute monarchy system with a form of liberal democracy. Currently, it is a rigid document and no subsequent amendment has been made to it since its adoption."[Wikepedia]
ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. [Wikepedia] lmao
I am ready for the day that you guys realize we have NEVER had consistent signficantly exceptional gun control in this country.
Once again do not bring up the predictable argument for Washington and DC and the whole "tough laws" thing
As I said we have never had consistent significantly exceptional gun control in this country. The 1994 Brady Bill which expired in 2004(forget the automatic weapons ban for a second) had a HUGE flaw with the background check system and that is why the estimated decrease in crime was only about3 to 6 percent.(or arguably barely at all).
Basically the bill was pointless because it ended up being a ban on assault weapons with like half percent background checks and barely anything to do with mental health or a gun trafficking law like Obama's gun control plan.
This was the reason with the "gun show" loophole we have heard about at some point recently, that allows a very high percentage of people to receive guns without getting them checked.
Some of you guys should read this article and others like it who are citing information and not just yahoo answers:
FactCheck.org : FactChecking GOP Response to Obama Gun Plan
Ms~Opinionated
Rookie
How do you respond to a post without addressing anything in the post. My opinion and my point is clear and has been clear in all my prior posts and I do not use yahoo answers. LOL
I do not care for gun control(loopholes, background checks and all) because I see it for what it really is, you can site the statistics, which I am currently viewing on fbi.gov, but the number of deaths or crimes is not the main basis of my argument even though it is interesting. I don't care to FactCheck Obama, because I believe these decisions should be left up to the states.
I mention D.C. in an earlier post because they have the highest gun related death rate per 100,000 despite having tough gun laws.
I am for state rights, and I do not like broad sweeping laws coming from Washington. So, I don't care that NY passed the laws it has passed earlier this month. I do not live in NY, but if Washington decided to make similar laws mandatory everywhere I would care. I do not like any laws that apply to every human, squirrel, and ant in the country.
I do not like centralization, because I abhor and fear dictatorships and centralization makes dictatorships easier. When power is dispersed among 50 states, then dispersed to each county, then dispersed to each locality it is harder for one person to command and control everyone.
That is obviously changing. If you understand that then it is easy to see why I would be against any sweeping measure coming from Washington and applying to everyone regardless its noble intent. I respect and honor NY's rights to make its own laws, even though I believe it is unconstitutional.
newworldafro
DeeperThanRapBiggerThanHH
Black Sheriff in Largest Urban County in Democratic Liberal Learning Wisconsin saying ..........................
Last edited by a moderator:
[ame=http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cWHlkhUfPIU&feature=relmfu]Fraud- NRA's LaPierre Fights Background Checks - YouTube[/ame]
Last edited by a moderator:
On Christmas Eve just 10 days after the massacre at Sandy Hook a convicted felon named William Spengler, who served 17 years in prison for killing his 92-year-old grandmother with a hammer, sat down in his home in Webster, N.Y., and wrote a note vowing to torch his neighborhood and do what I like doing best, killing people.
Since Spengler was prohibited from buying guns himself, he reportedly asked a neighbor to buy them for him. He went with her to a gun store and picked out a 12-gauge shotgun and a Bushmaster rifle.
Continue Reading
Then, after setting fire to his own house and several others, Spengler ambushed the first responders by spraying them with bullets.
Spengler murdered 19-year-old Tomasz Kaczowka, a young firefighter in training, and his mentor, Lt. Mike Chiapperini, a 25-year veteran, husband and father of three who was recently named Firefighter of the Year. Spengler also shot and injured firefighters Joseph Hofstetter and Theodore Scardino.
The families of these heroes will never understand why they were struck down with bullets while trying to rescue someone from a fire. Just as incomprehensible is why anyone would buy guns for this convicted madman.
Of all the legislation that may be considered in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook and these deranged murders in Webster there is one proposal that should garner a wide range of bipartisan support from Republicans and Democrats, as well as from gun owners and gun control advocates alike.
This week, we introduced the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013, which is the first truly bipartisan legislation of its kind to be introduced in the House of Representatives in some time. There are three main reasons we believe everyone can and should support it.
Most Americans already think gun trafficking is a federal crime but its not. They have no idea that there is no federal law targeting firearms traffickers who commonly use straw purchasers to buy guns for convicted felons and other dangerous criminals who cannot legally buy guns on their own.
This proposal respects the Second Amendment and protects the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Everyone agrees that convicted felons should not have guns and that buying guns for them should be illegal. By imposing stiff penalties for these actions, this legislation does not affect any legitimate gun owners ability to buy or use any firearm.
Law enforcement officials support this proposal. Multiple law enforcement officials have testified before Congress that they need this legislation to help them combat the flow of thousands of weapons to violent criminals, international drug cartels and a host of other dangerous people.
The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, which is the largest professional association representing more than 25,000 federal law enforcement officers from more than 65 agencies, has said, The objective of this bill is to take firearms out of the hands of career criminals in an effort to reduce violent crime.
And the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, which represents thousands of city attorneys, tribal prosecutors, district attorneys, states attorneys, attorneys general and U.S. attorneys, says, Due to the lack of a dedicated federal statute prohibiting illegal gun trafficking, large numbers of guns are diverted from legitimate commerce into the criminal marketplace every year.
As we engage in this important debate over the coming weeks, we must not allow it to devolve into yet another battle of partisan extremes in Washington. We must keep the fallen in our hearts and minds and come together to support common-sense proposals like this one that will save lives.
Read more: Bipartisan plan on gun trafficking - Rep. Elijah Cummings and Rep. Scott Rigell and Rep. Carolyn Maloney and Rep. Patrick Meehan - POLITICO.com
With all the disagreements going on in HL about this topic, I think this is something we can all find common ground on..
But really though..........gun trafficking isn't a felony?
Since Spengler was prohibited from buying guns himself, he reportedly asked a neighbor to buy them for him. He went with her to a gun store and picked out a 12-gauge shotgun and a Bushmaster rifle.
Continue Reading
Then, after setting fire to his own house and several others, Spengler ambushed the first responders by spraying them with bullets.
Spengler murdered 19-year-old Tomasz Kaczowka, a young firefighter in training, and his mentor, Lt. Mike Chiapperini, a 25-year veteran, husband and father of three who was recently named Firefighter of the Year. Spengler also shot and injured firefighters Joseph Hofstetter and Theodore Scardino.
The families of these heroes will never understand why they were struck down with bullets while trying to rescue someone from a fire. Just as incomprehensible is why anyone would buy guns for this convicted madman.
Of all the legislation that may be considered in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook and these deranged murders in Webster there is one proposal that should garner a wide range of bipartisan support from Republicans and Democrats, as well as from gun owners and gun control advocates alike.
This week, we introduced the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013, which is the first truly bipartisan legislation of its kind to be introduced in the House of Representatives in some time. There are three main reasons we believe everyone can and should support it.
Most Americans already think gun trafficking is a federal crime but its not. They have no idea that there is no federal law targeting firearms traffickers who commonly use straw purchasers to buy guns for convicted felons and other dangerous criminals who cannot legally buy guns on their own.
This proposal respects the Second Amendment and protects the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Everyone agrees that convicted felons should not have guns and that buying guns for them should be illegal. By imposing stiff penalties for these actions, this legislation does not affect any legitimate gun owners ability to buy or use any firearm.
Law enforcement officials support this proposal. Multiple law enforcement officials have testified before Congress that they need this legislation to help them combat the flow of thousands of weapons to violent criminals, international drug cartels and a host of other dangerous people.
The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, which is the largest professional association representing more than 25,000 federal law enforcement officers from more than 65 agencies, has said, The objective of this bill is to take firearms out of the hands of career criminals in an effort to reduce violent crime.
And the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, which represents thousands of city attorneys, tribal prosecutors, district attorneys, states attorneys, attorneys general and U.S. attorneys, says, Due to the lack of a dedicated federal statute prohibiting illegal gun trafficking, large numbers of guns are diverted from legitimate commerce into the criminal marketplace every year.
As we engage in this important debate over the coming weeks, we must not allow it to devolve into yet another battle of partisan extremes in Washington. We must keep the fallen in our hearts and minds and come together to support common-sense proposals like this one that will save lives.
Read more: Bipartisan plan on gun trafficking - Rep. Elijah Cummings and Rep. Scott Rigell and Rep. Carolyn Maloney and Rep. Patrick Meehan - POLITICO.com
With all the disagreements going on in HL about this topic, I think this is something we can all find common ground on..
But really though..........gun trafficking isn't a felony?
Slaimon Khan Shah
SLAIMON KHAN SHAH = SHAOLIN MONK/S OF ISLAAM
INTERESTING STUFF.
The measure would strengthen penalties to up to 20 years in prison for "straw purchasers" who intentionally provide false information when they buy guns. It also would increase penalties for organizers of drug trafficking networks, the sponsors said.
Bipartisan House group pushes gun trafficking proposal - Yahoo! News
Bipartisan House group pushes gun trafficking proposal - Yahoo! News