Banning guns.... Would it work here?

[MrRIP]

I'm not in favor of banning guns. I found it very interesting when piers Morgan compared gun deaths in
The UK to those of the US. Did some research and can reasonably concluded that stricter gun laws do
Lead to less gun violence. Still more research to be done

http://m.theatlantic.com/internation...deaths/260189/

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths
Max Fisher | Jul 23, 2012

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.

How would you feel if we could get America's gun violence to Japanese levels by implementing strict gun laws?

On the other end of the spectrum

How would you feel if we implemented a system similar yo
Drivers licenses with guns where after a certain age one would be required to train on how to use a gun and purchase a gun?

My rationale is that if everyone had guns it could be safer since the threat of imminent death by gun fire would hinder one from doing crimes. Or lead to a massive slaughtering of all our citizens

[Kiknskreem]

How would you feel if we could get America's gun violence to Japanese levels by implementing strict gun laws?

The same way I'd feel if we could eliminate DUI deaths by bringing back prohibition.

(Edit- I see you said "strict gun laws" and not a total gun ban... I responded as if you had said the latter.)

[MrRIP]

The same way I'd feel if we could eliminate DUI deaths by bringing back prohibition.

(Edit- I see you said "strict gun laws" and not a total gun ban... I responded as if you had said the latter.)

I see. Although prohibition just created a huge black market since its pretty easy to make your own liquor if you're determined enough to do it. Creating your own guns would require a lot more time and effort. Although I'm sure smugglers would still find a way to get guns in the border I doubt it would be nearly as profitable as moonshining

[Kiknskreem]

I see. Although prohibition just created a huge black market since its pretty easy to make your own liquor if you're determined enough to do it. Creating your own guns would require a lot more time and effort. Although I'm sure smugglers would still find a way to get guns in the border I doubt it would be nearly as profitable as moonshining

I'm not actually comparing the efficacy of either. In fact, for the purposes of my post, we can assume that prohibition is actually completely effective.

Eliminating DUI deaths is a laudable end, so is eliminating gun violence.

Would I give up my freedom to consume alcohol or own the firearms I do to enable that to happen?

No.

[BenZowman]

Would I give up my freedom to consume alcohol or own the firearms I do to enable that to happen?

No.

Wow, so you drinking is more important than the lives of innocent children? Great job buddy, you sound like a real decent person.






















notsrs, lol

[lasher]

Wow, so you drinking is more important than the lives of innocent children? Great job buddy, you sound like a real decent person.




















[img]http://i.imgur.com/AtTZHmT.gif[/.img]
notsrs, lol

PSToolman logic of peace

[GarbagemanLB]

No, it wouldn't.

[lowkey122]

One of, if not the most important reason why mass killings are so easily carried out is due to the shooter having the upper hand carrying out their mission with the least amount of opposition. There's no arguing that you change the playing field when the shooter is matched or exceeded with resistance.

I think stricter gun laws would make it even more difficult for people to be adequately armed or prepared for the scenarios that bring these debates into the news in the first place. Perhaps a solution to the problem would be a new type of firearm license that could be issued which requires extensive training and background checks that allows the average citizen to carry in locations that are prohibited to many current carry concealed license holders. It's not feasible to staff police or military personnel in public settings, this would allow the appropriately trained citizen to diffuse the situation until law enforcement arrives without being a burden to taxpayers.

[NeoginCF]

Stricter gun laws don't lead to less gun violence per se.


Less guns lead to less gun violence.



Getting rid of the gun worshipping culture in the US will be way more effective at reducing gun violence than a ban will ever be.

[GarbagemanLB]

Stricter gun laws don't lead to less gun violence per se.


Less guns lead to less gun violence.



Getting rid of the gun worshipping culture in the US will be way more effective at reducing gun violence than a ban will ever be.

No idea how one would go about doing that, though.

[GeorgeCostanza2]

I'm not actually comparing the efficacy of either. In fact, for the purposes of my post, we can assume that prohibition is actually completely effective.

Eliminating DUI deaths is a laudable end, so is eliminating gun violence.

Would I give up my freedom to consume alcohol or own the firearms I do to enable that to happen?

No.

Wow I can't believe people are actually comparing alcohol with guns as if it's "intelligent". If you actually looked into the history of alcohol prohibition, more people were drinking more, and more excessively during prohibition. It raised the prison funding and criminal count dramatically, as does weed prohibition. Two completely different things require being seen in two completely different ways.

[Kiknskreem]

Wow I can't believe people are actually comparing alcohol with guns as if it's "intelligent". If you actually looked into the history of alcohol prohibition, more people were drinking more excessively during prohibition. It raised the prison funding and criminal count dramatically, as does weed prohibition. Two completely different things require being seen in two completely different ways.

Let's try reading a bit more carefully there George.

I'm not actually comparing the efficacy of either. In fact, for the purposes of my post, we can assume that prohibition is actually completely effective.

[Hola Bola]

Short answer = no.

Stricter gun laws don't lead to less gun violence per se.


Less guns lead to less gun violence.



Getting rid of the gun worshipping culture in the US will be way more effective at reducing gun violence than a ban will ever be.

Location: Belgium.

[Kiknskreem]

Wow, so you drinking is more important than the lives of innocent children? Great job buddy, you sound like a real decent person.

An effective Nanny State could no doubt eliminate many of the negative things we deal with today.

That doesn't mean its a model I want to move towards.

[tsbalr120]

No


See - chicago

/thread

[MrRIP]

There's another portion of my post in terms of setting up a licensing system and properly arming/training. I guess there would be caveats as to who qualifies but yea.... Would anyone be in favor of that?

[ToPHeR35]

There's another portion of my post in terms of setting up a licensing system and properly arming/training. I guess there would be caveats as to who qualifies but yea.... Would anyone be in favor of that?

We already do that in Chicago and do you see our homicide rate going down?......Criminals don't give a f*ck about your licensing systems and training sessions...

[MrRIP]

No


See - chicago

/thread

Chicago is a different animal. Always been a city with a strong criminal presence. It's pretty ridiculous. No?

[lowkey122]

There's another portion of my post in terms of setting up a licensing system and properly arming/training. I guess there would be caveats as to who qualifies but yea.... Would anyone be in favor of that?

That would really just be a subset of the police force or military without deployment, and yes I think there would be a tremendous turnout for the advanced certification.

[MrRIP]

We already do that in Chicago and do you see our homicide rate going down?......Criminals don't give a f*ck about your licensing systems and training sessions...

Chicago has a criminal activity problem. As far as I know criminal activity runs the city. I'm also willing to bet the guns used aren't purchased through legal channels

[marke8]

give every man woman and child a military grade rifle and leave them to it.im happy with the gun laws in the uk.
i feel safe in the knowledge i can start a fight with someone who starts on me knowing that he isnt going to pull a gun on me when im punching his face in and claim self defence when shooting me

[NeoginCF]

No idea how one would go about doing that, though.

That is another discussion. I see several groups in america doing something of the sort atm, allthough they do focus on banning guns.

Short answer = no.



Location: Belgium.

You can't deny that when you have a high amount of guns you have a larger amount of gun violence.

[DennisR1977]

Chicago has a criminal activity problem. As far as I know criminal activity runs the city. I'm also willing to bet the guns used aren't purchased through legal channels

Now that you've come to that conclusion, how would your suggestions stop the ILLEGALLY owned guns? Your suggestions only hurt the legal gun owners.

[wsuwarrior]

Switzerland also has virtually no gun violence and they have machine guns in every house. Its a cultural thing. The US has a violent culture therefore guns need to exist so good people are given a chance to protect themselves against the crazies.

And to limit someone to 10 rounds is about the most immoral thing I can think of when it comes to self defense. Unbelievable.

[MrRIP]

Now that you've come to that conclusion, how would your suggestions stop the ILLEGALLY owned guns? Your suggestions only hurt the legal gun owners.

One. The attractiveness of buying guns through illegal channels would be naturally lowered. Simply because the lure of weapon based crime would decrease since one would no longer have an advantage.

This is pure speculation tho.

I haven't done extensive research but my reasoning comes from
Thinking criminals usually go for easy targets. If you can't identify an easy target who do you go after?

Another way would set standards for security of your guns and set up another system to hold someone liable for not properly protecting their property.

If there is a country with extremely liberal gun laws and almost everyone has one we can see the results naturally. I'm not aware of any at the time

Idk really tho just something I'm wondering about. Many things have to change in this country for continued success. Education, crime, and violence need to be addressed. IMO

[BobisMighty]

Not in favor of banning guns, but I am in favor of giving the ATF the resources it needs to track down illegal guns. People will find ways to kill people, be it by legal guns, cars, knives, home made explosives, poison, etc. you can't account for crazy.

[brighamw]

I see. Although prohibition just created a huge black market since its pretty easy to make your own liquor if you're determined enough to do it. Creating your own guns would require a lot more time and effort. Although I'm sure smugglers would still find a way to get guns in the border I doubt it would be nearly as profitable as moonshining

Both of these statements are incorrect...

Would making guns be harder than alcohol? Yes, but that's only because it's currently not a necessity or in great need. There are plenty of engineers & machinist who love freedom & despise tyranny. Trust me the process would become very stream lined & easier per say if necessary...

As far as it not being as profitable as bootlegging was...

While the bootleggers had an advantage in that their product came with a built in customer base due to peoples addiction to alcohol, can you put a price on freedom & the ability to defend against a tyrannical government?

I think people would pay alot for security & safety, however I think many gun bootleggers as they would become would be doing it for much more altrustic reasons and therefore you may be right it may not be as profitible...

[Shortfuze]

What is more important for long term successs? Banning an instrument of possible violence or targetting the mentality that leads to violence?

[Jhalf]

I'm not in favor of banning guns. I found it very interesting when piers Morgan compared gun deaths in

What Morgan forgot to tell you was you are (I have heard 5x) more likely to face violent crime in england

[Rockchalk0420]

Does banning murder work yet?