Gun control: Japan has it right

[UnrepentantLiberal]

-snip-

First, anyone who wants to get a gun must demonstrate a valid reason why they should be allowed to do so. Under longstanding Japanese policy, there is no good reason why any civilian should have a handgun, so - aside from a few dozen accomplished competitive shooters -they are completely banned.

Virtually all handgun-related crime is attributable to gangsters, who obtain them on the black market. But such crime is extremely rare and when it does occur, police crack down hard on whatever gang is involved, so even gangsters see it as a last-ditch option.

Rifle ownership is allowed for the general public, but tightly controlled.

Applicants first must go to their local police station and declare their intent. After a lecture and a written test comes range training, then a background check. Police likely will even talk to the applicant's neighbors to see if he or she is known to have a temper, financial troubles or an unstable household. A doctor must sign a form saying the applicant has not been institutionalized and is not epileptic, depressed, schizophrenic, alcoholic or addicted to drugs.

More: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/27/3202860/around-world-gun-rules-and-results.html

[cantbeserious]

1. This Would Be A Step In The Right Direction For America

eom

[pipoman]

2. Yeah,

we should get right on that immediately after the new Constitutional amendment is adopted by 3/4 of the states..

[cantbeserious]

6. Every Journey begins With The First Step - It Only Takes Courage - Are We Lacking Such Courage?

eom

[pipoman]

7. And 'will'...the 'will' doesn't exist in many parts of the country..and certainly not 3/4..

I am among the unwilling and always will be..(as far as the measures in this thread are concerned)

[cantbeserious]

8. Pessimism Never Achieves Anything - Because Pessimists Never Take The First Step

eom

[pipoman]

9. Pessimism is no kin to unwillingness based on philosophical disagreement..

[cantbeserious]

10. Unwillingness Is Kin To Defeatism Which Is Spawned By Pessimism

eom

[pipoman]

11. Nonsense..I'm not unwilling for fear of defeat

I'm unwilling because I believe in the existing 2nd amendment.

[cantbeserious]

12. This Is Not About You - This Is About America And Protecting The Lives Of Our Children

eom

[pipoman]

14. It's about 3/4 of the states agreeing...not gonna happen any time soon..

it also isn't about you and fear..

[cantbeserious]

15. More Pessimism And Defeatism

eom

[DanTex]

26. It's a standard NRA talking point.

They can't actually make an argument against gun control, that we shouldn't model our gun laws after countries with far less gun violence and homicide. So instead they just say "never gonna happen".

[SQUEE]

30. So Pipoman, myself and millions of others aren't also America?

We differ on this, and so you have now decided we are not representative of 'America", how fitting to your forum handle.

[cantbeserious]

31. Attacking The Messenger - How Fitting A Discussion Tactic

eom

[SQUEE]

32. one problem, you are not my messenger.

you represent part of the American people, and I another.
I don't have the hubris required to claim I represent any but myself. If I wanted to live in a society like Japans, I would move there. I choose to remain here and bask in the awesomeness of our constitution.

[DanTex]

34. You haven't even attempted to argue the main point, which is that Japan is doing

a much better job fighting gun violence than the US. Admitting that Japan is doing better in this one area doesn't mean you can't bask in the awesomeness of America.

[SQUEE]

36. I can as I go to the range with my friends next weekend

It's quite simple, I have a right to own firearms, and yes that is great, hell even awesome. There is the only argument I need, it is my right, as laid down in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. To point to a single focus in law as why there is less violence, ignoring culture and societal norms as another factor, the same society that WANTS those laws, hmmm, that could also be a clue. I do not want to live in that society or one that mirrors that.

[DanTex]

44. "It's in the constitution" doesn't mean it's a good thing. That's simply a dodge.

Leaving aside the fact that you are going with Scalia's right-wing revisionist interpretation of the second amendment, the point is that it is impossible to argue based on facts and logic that the gun laws in the US are actually better than Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, basically every other first-world nation, where rates of homicide and gun violence are drastically lower. It is very telling that gun fanatics have generally stopped even trying to argue that our lax gun laws are a good thing, and instead are simply hiding behind the second amendment.

[SQUEE]

47. as long as it is I will enjoy it

You seem to be under some kind of misconception that because I choose to respond that I actually have to justify anything.
I am not hiding, I am out in plain sight enjoying one of the many freedoms I have.
I feel no shame, or even a slight bit of embarrassment that I have a lot of firearms, that I know how to use them, and that I will should the situation arise.
I am completely uncowed by the attempts (unsuccessful where I live btw) to make me a pariah. Hell I have quite the reputation as the Lefty gun guy, and have gotten many people to actually listen on many other left v right arguments.. mainly out of respect for my defense of the Second.
I argue on lax, it was annoyingly difficult to get my NFA stamps, and far more expensive than it should be.
The laws are rather stringent, time to actually use the ones on the books before we even try and throw more out there.

[DanTex]

72. Again proving my point...

Which is that the number one priority of gun fanatics is unfettered access to guns, and it doesn't matter how many innocent people are killed every year.

[SQUEE]

74. I do not support unfettered access.

nor do most gun owners I know.

[cantbeserious]

37. You Attacked My User Name - Ad Hominen Attacks Are Against DU Rules

eom

[SQUEE]

43. as a "delicate flower, with a tiny member, clutching my precious ..

that doesn't care to see children die, and shill for the NRA", I find your complaint a little ironic....

[cantbeserious]

57. Ad Hominen Attacks Are Against DU Rules - Go Read Them For YourSelf

eom

[SQUEE]

63. I dont see it as one, you disagree..

[cantbeserious]

66. You Denigrated My Choice Of User Name - Did I Denigrate Your User Name Or Your Choice Of Avatar?

eom

[SQUEE]

69. did I, dont see it but if you feel that I do appolgize.

[cantbeserious]

38. In A Democracy - Choices Are Made - Some Individuals Win, Others Lose

eom

[SQUEE]

41. Good to know

Let's face it as of now all out bans are a losing proposition, I hope you will maintain your respect for the majority when I still have my guns next year.

[cantbeserious]

56. Eradicating Guns From Society Is A Long-Term Proposition - As Is Said, Rome Was Not Built In A Day

eom

[SQUEE]

60. And not everyone is in agreement with your plans for the Circus Maximus

And since it is your declared intent to eradicate, I have no desire to compromise at all, in fact it puts me to mind to push back and loosen some of the onerous and arbitrary laws in place.

[cantbeserious]

64. My Plans Are Not The Point - It Matters Entirely What Choices A Society Makes

eom

[SQUEE]

68. Agreed, now take your ideas to America, and get the votes to overturn the Second

Be honest though don't candy coat, or obfuscate.. Complete eradication. How will that fly?

[cantbeserious]

134. America Must Choose How Safe It Wants To Be

eom

[NutmegYankee]

67. And the idea of a Constitutional Republic is that it protects the rights of minorities

from the tyranny of a majority. Also, I wouldn't spend so much time arguing that the SCOTUS was wrong and the right should be curtailed, blah blah blah - That's the EXACT thing that the opponents of a woman's right to choose say. And that right wasn't even clearly enumerated - it is reserved by the 9th amendment and the concept of liberty. Privacy was so basic and obvious to liberty that our Founders didn't think they had to state it.

Food for thought.

[apocalypsehow]

94. GO. AWAY. n/t.

[SQUEE]

100. no.

I like much of what is said here, and disagree with my fellows on a few things. I will stay as long as I am allowed and do not violate the rules. Most important one being that I support a progressive agenda and vote Democratic Party. We disagree on what is progressive in this case.

[apocalypsehow]

101. Yes. You're going to be shown the door eventually, in any event. You are no more a "progressive"

with your pro-NRA talking points and propaganda than the man on the moon. You'll get PPR'd eventually.

[SQUEE]

104. propaganda, I have no propaganda, and have even adressed, many times ..

The disdain I hold for the NRA and the 2A.
I have offered what I consider reasonable actions to control firearms proliferation. and yes i have addressed misinformation and disinformation spread here by well meaning, and not so well meaning people. Facts are not propaganda and no matter how much you wish it so, you have no monopoly on truth or what is reality.

[apocalypsehow]

106. Baloney. But you go right on spewing NRA talking points - it'll catch to you up eventually. n/t.

[tomp]

20. pessimism prevents wrong steps.

read seligman.

[cantbeserious]

25. Protecting Our Children Could Never Be A Wrong Step

eom

[Bay Boy]

54. Your comment is exactly why many

people are against assault weapon bans and magazine size restrictions. Even if they think a magazine size restriction is reasonable and won't affect them they know it is just a first step toward complete banning of all guns.

[cantbeserious]

62. Societies Must Choose Sometimes - In That Choice, Some Will Win And Some Will Lose

eom

[Rosa Luxemburg]

83. Many gun owners do believe in gun control

in fact may have welcomed it.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

18. We didn't need to rewrite the 2nd Amendment

to place restrictions on machine guns.

[Travis_0004]

27. There is quite a difference between banning machine guns, and having regulations similar to japan.

I don't think the machine gun ban was tested before the supreme court, but if it ever was, It would hold up.

If we passed regulations similar to japan, the supreme court would throw those out, it would be a violation of the second amendment.

Also, if the democrat controlled senate won't even pass an AWB, how the hell do you think they would pass this law?

And there are many gun owners who are democrats who would be very upset if an attempt to pass a law like this was even tryed. I guarantee attempting to pass a law like japan has would cost quite a few democrats their seat in congress when they have their next election.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

28. Just because Republicans and Blue Dogs won't pass something

doesn't mean this country hasn't become batshit crazy.

[rbixby]

29. How would this be unconstitutional? Your right isn't being violated, its just regulating the militi

[dairydog91]

39. Because current SCOTUS precedent protects an individual right to keep arms...

...and says that this right exists independently of whether one is a member of a militia.

[rbixby]

45. So the right should be given to the insane, the criminals, the irresponsible?

I think its okay to say that rights come with responsibilities, and making sure people meet those responsibilities is a good thing. You would rather protect the rights of criminals and idiots than regulate them and make sure that those types aren't getting their hands on guns? It seems to me like you're being an apologist for those few who would be irresponsible gun owners. There's no reason that we should just give guns to people without making sure that they're going to be responsible with them.

[NutmegYankee]

50. Felons and the insane lose that right through Due Process of law

It has nothing to do with whether we deem them responsible. It's a core Constitutional protection and is enumerated in both the 5th and 14th amendments.

[rbixby]

131. So then we should just arm everyone

And hope for the best

[NutmegYankee]

133. not sure how you arrived at that conclusion from my statement.

complete non sequitur

[rbixby]

137. I just wonder

if you're a responsible gun owner and you want to keep your right to bear arms, why would it be such a hassle to go through these tests annually to make sure that you're being responsible with them?

Rights don't come without responsibilities, so why should we allow people who won't be responsible with their right to bear arms to practice it? I'm just wondering, at what point does public safety trump your obsession with having as many guns anonymously, potentially with no background check, and not monitored by anyone?

It just seems like requiring people to pass some basic tests, and to license their firearms would make sense, and making the penalties for crime committed with guns much harsher would definitely help too.

[NutmegYankee]

138. You make a lot of baseless assumptions about me.

I pointed out that your take on rights as a whole was wrong.

Background checks are fine as they serve to ensure that people who have had the right to bear arms removed by Due Process can't acquire them. That is in full compliance with the Constitution. As for responsibility, I store my arms correctly and I handle and use them responsibly. If you want to register them to ensure tracking in case of theft, OK. But if the intent is to impose taxes or publicly shame/harass/endanger owners, then I will oppose. I don't need and won't support going through annual tests. It serves as nothing more than a harassment of a lawful citizen for exercising a right. Imagine being forced to take a test to maintain your right to free speech each year. It's a mockery.

I think a ban on magazines over 10 rounds is reasonable. I'd even support banning the AR-15 and similar high powered rifles. But harassing owners won't fly with me. I have done nothing wrong and don't deserve to have to undergo burdensome tests or fees each year to exercise the rights my father, grandfather, and great grandfather enjoyed. All but one gun I own was passed down from them to me. I simply enjoy sport shooting (pistol competition) as did my father and grandfather (from whom I got into the sport) and hunting.

And yes, I'm politically extremely liberal.

[rbixby]

142. Essentially you don't NEED your guns then

you just feel like you don't want to be hassled, even if its in the interest of public safety.

[NutmegYankee]

143. How does hassling me improve public safety?

Do you have any proof that I'm a problem? I have never harmed anyone while conducting my sport.

Also, I wouldn't focus on NEED. The right to pursuit of happiness (property) is fundamental in American society. Few people need the property they own, they wanted it. You don't need a sporty car when a VAZ 2101 would get you to work. You don't need an ATV. You don't need a boat. You don't need a 55" TV or Apple iPads. People wanted them.

I don't have an issue with removing the modern military designed weapons (AK-47/AR-15 and similar) from the market. They were designed to kill in a war, and they don't have a good civilian use. But I don't see how being forced to pay for a license and taking a class over and over again will enhance public safety. I already know the safety rules. We discuss them before every match.

Focus on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the unstable. Focus on reducing the deadliness of guns on the market. Don't focus on punishing people because you have contempt for their hobbies.

[rbixby]

144. I'm not quite sure how regulating and making sure you're being responsible

is punishing you for your hobby.

I guess if your hobby isn't worth the inconvenience of having to register and prove that you're responsible for it, then maybe its time to reconsider it?

[NutmegYankee]

147. That fallacious thinking doesn't work on a Liberal.

I've seen that type of thought process played out far too often. I love the vague phrases too - Responsibility - where have I seen that? I've been fighting this type of thought for decades. Don't get me wrong - I'm not implying that you are conservative at all. This type of argument works well against them because they defend their actions with this type of logic often and they are incapable of understanding the irony. Me - I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and have been very active in defending a Woman's right to choose.

The good ole is just a small burden game -
It's just a requirement for a photo ID to vote - who doesn't have one? Aren't you a responsible citizen?
It's just a little vaginal probe inserted into your vagina to see your baby before you abort - you want to make a responsible choice right?
It's just a $1000 bond to get a protest permit. Don't you want to be responsible and ensure no one gets hurts? Oh, and you can't schedule it until 2 days after the conference.
etc.

The key theme - If it isn't worth the inconvenience, then don't do it.


I listed solid gun control measures in the previous two posts. Is your goal really about reducing deaths and gun violence? Or is it about going after a certain demographic, which just happens to include 30% of Democrats?

[rbixby]

148. I'm just thinking of a good way to reduce the number of guns we have in this country

at the end of the day, that's all this is about, its not about you, your rights, my rights, whatever.


I guess you can make it into some sort of big deal, but I think that gun owners need to stop playing the victim and realize that gun violence is a huge problem, and just having a few more regulations that are mostly 'feel good' regulations isn't really going to make a difference, as has been seen with the previous assault weapons ban.

So what's more important, our right to not be shot by some pyscho with a legally purchased firearm, their right to have it and kill someone?

[SWTORFanatic]

149. SCOTUS can overrule itself

[legaleagle_45]

82. Machine guns

Many legal scholars would argue that machine guns are not an arm as that term is employed in the 2nd amend. The argument is based upon the common law definition of arms found in Sir Edward Coke's, Institutes of the Lawes of England, Commentaries on Littleton 161(b), 162(a) (1628).

The definition limited the terminology arms to single person portable and use items of offense or defense commonly employed in single person combat situations. Actual definition is "anything a man wears or carries or takes in his hands to strike out or defend against another".

The definition would obviously not apply to things which a person does not carry or wear, such as a tank, but the further limitation of single person combat would disqualify area weapons even if they are single person portable... such as hand grenades, hand held missles and the like. Full auto weapons such as a military grade AK-47 are oft times termed "spray and pray" and could be classified as more in the nature of an area weapon than a weapon designed for single person combat.

[pipoman]

126. And the standard which has become SCOTUS

threshold..established in 1939 Miller case is, "in common use for lawful purposes"..machine guns were never "in common use", in the Miller decision it was determined in the absence of a defense (because Miller was dead when his case made it to SCOTUS), that sawn off shotguns were not "in common use for lawful purposes". It has been applied a few times since.

[apocalypsehow]

95. GO. AWAY. n/t.

[pipoman]

125. No.

So Lame..

[NutmegYankee]

3. Vastly different culture though.

Japan has a long history of disarming its peasantry. For hundreds of years peasants were restricted on what types of weapons they could possess. Trade with the west brought in firearms, but after the Sengoku Jidai all firearms were rounded up and destroyed and Samurai rule was again maintained.

This contrasts with the long American history of private firearms ownership.

[baldguy]

4. So, because Medieval Japan limited the possession of arms to the aristocracy

We shouldn't have gun control today in America.

[NutmegYankee]

5. I'm saying our cultures are different.

I doubt we could accept a Japanese style system.

[pampango]

19. Which is a shame. Japan has strong unions, an equitable distribution of income and an effective

safety net along with strict gun control. In those ways it is very similar to many European countries.

It is a shame that Americans are so resistance to 'foreign' cultures. But you are right, we certainly are.

[NutmegYankee]

23. true.

Their Unions, distribution of income and controls on CEO pay would be a dream come true for me if implemented here. Alas, our culture is so drastically different that we realistically couldn't implement them. Hell, look at healthcare - we look like barbarians to the rest of the world with an active debate over whether it's a social obligation. The rest of the world is mumbling "fucking duh!" while we debate it.

[legaleagle_45]

89. Medieval Japan

It is more than that. Weapons control in Japan began in earnest when the Samurai Warlord Hidéyoshi completed his conquest of Japan. In 1588 he ordered a "sword hunt" to round up all weapons not belonging to his warriors. The edict was enforced by door to door searches (no 4th amend in Japan either).

After eliminating civilian ownership, Japan strictly controlled the means of production of both firearms and gunpowder beginning in 1607 under the Tokugawa Shogunate, with all manufacturing confined to Nagahama. This changed somewhat during the rise of militarism in the 20th century, but ownership was strictly controlled from the outset, with registration and licensing required. During the MacArthur era, most of these firearms were confiscated.

Japanese culture is significantly different from that in the US. Paternalism in lieu of individualism, deference to authority and the priority of the collective good predominates Japan... not so much in the US.

We have over 300 million firearms in the US, most of them unregistered. If we were to begin a system of such as Japans, we would need about 300 to 500 years to get there unless we were to eliminate the 4th amend and 5th amend as well as the 2nd.

[baldguy]

21. Comparing the Japanese to mindless lemmings?

Racist RW shit from RW gun worshipers.

[Lizzie Poppet]

71. Nationality =/= Race

Just pointing that out, although I also think calling the Japanese "lemmings" is idiotic.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

119. You have some...

...posting problems of your own. Better to clean your own house first.

[galileoreloaded]

16. No thanks. Im good.

Not into authoritarianism.

[Chef Eric]

22. The Japanese aren't into authoritarianism either.

They don't have an authoritarian government. They've got a parliamentary constitutional monarchy similar to that in the UK.

[NutmegYankee]

24. Their culture still shows many signs of their authoritarian past.

It's getting better, but for many decades they had a very bottled up social life, with a lot of taboos. Their society is also very homogenous, to the point that dying hair brown is frowned upon. Woe to the child who has it naturally.

[Chef Eric]

51. I am aware of Japan's insularity and homogeneousness.

My point was that it's simplistic to just write off another country's strict gun control laws as "authoritarianism."

[NutmegYankee]

53. It's a little simplistic, no doubt the preferred political thought mode of today...

On both sides. But having an authoritarian past makes it a hell of a lot easier to implement strict controls such as those gun laws. They were already used to such strict laws.

The USA is going from an extremely loose position on the other hand.

[Chef Eric]

58. I never argued that we could implement Japan's laws here.

Again, my only point was that it doesn't make sense to call Japan's gun control laws "authoritarian."

[NutmegYankee]

61. Given that their legal and political structure is not authoritarian any more...

That's a fair point.

[Chef Eric]

65. I'm widely known for my fair points. nt

[apocalypsehow]

97. GO. AWAY. n/t.

[galileoreloaded]

132. See, authoritarianism.

*facepalm*

[ileus]

33. No thanks, I'll keep my rights.

Best part about being American...

[MightyMopar]

35. The right to be murdered or terrorized with a gun?

[SQUEE]

40. like Mexico.

Oh, wait they don't have the right yet still get the murder and terror.
and Angola, Honduras, Australia, England...

[UnrepentantLiberal]

46. Murdered with guns pouring in from the US.

[SQUEE]

48. oooh wrong answer, full autos are not sold at WalMart or gunshows

MANY are coming from their south...or sold by law enforcement and soldiers from those bought for the military and police forces..

[UnrepentantLiberal]

52. So no guns flood into Mexico from the US?

[SQUEE]

55. Flood?

I say no.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

70. Guns in Mexico traced to U.S.

(And these are just the guns they've traced.)

By Pete Yost
The Washington Post
April 27, 2012

Mexican authorities have recovered 68,000 guns in the past five years that have been traced back to the United States, the federal government said Thursday.

The flood of weapons underscores complaints from Mexico that the United States is responsible for arming the drug cartels plaguing America’s southern neighbor. More than 47,000 people in Mexico have been killed in six years of violence between warring cartels.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, in releasing its latest data covering 2007 through 2011, said that many of the guns seized in Mexico and submitted to the ATF for tracing were recovered at the scene of cartel shootings while others were seized in raids on illegal arms caches. All the recovered weapons were suspected of being used in crimes in Mexico.

At a North American summit in Washington on April 2, Mexican President Felipe Calderon said the U.S. government has not done enough to stop the flow of assault weapons and other guns.

More: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-27/politics/35454066_1_operation-fast-and-furious-assault-weapons-gun-traffic

[SQUEE]

73. How many were legally bought by the Mexican military and law enforcement?

and then were sold to cartels?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

77. Yeah, let's just make things up as we go along.

[SQUEE]

80. Things like machine guns bought at gun shows in America and shipped south.

yes lets.

[Ian Iam]

76. England?

You are sadly mistaken.

[SQUEE]

79. there are no violent murders in England?

Huh.
and none with banned firearms as well..

[Ian Iam]

81. Not at the level that obtains here

In fact, nowhere near it.

[SQUEE]

85. so we quibble over numbers

when every life is precious.

[Ian Iam]

86. A simple question

Do you live under a bridge? I'm beginning to suspect so. Thus, I shan't be feeding you any longer. Good day!

[ileus]

128. Nope the right to protect and save lives.

Firearms were designed to save lives...

[apocalypsehow]

98. You're going to get new sensible gun laws whether you want them or not, sport.

Better get used to it.

[Coyote_Tan]

111. There will be a law...

I doubt it will be sensible or prevent a significant number of deaths.

[ileus]

130. Hopefully the regressives won't win a total victory.

Now isn't the time for 2A progressives to roll over and play dead. It's time to fight the good fight and do our best to keep our rights and try and continue the progress we've experienced the last 15 years.

As a nation we have to stand up for what's right and continue to make America a better place to live.

[tarheelsunc]

42. What I've said all along is if law enforcement did their job and had the resources to do so,

the illegal gun problems would be minimized. People buy alcohol underage and drive drunk all the time, but that doesn't stop us from having laws against those. That's what we have law enforcement for, to enforce the law, but I guess a lot of people forget that. Just because dangerous people acquire dangerous things illegally doesn't mean everyone should be allowed to legally acquire them.

[Mutiny In Heaven]

49. I don't even think that is necessary

I don't think anyone can argue in good faith against limiting the type of weapon available for home use to Mr. Average, of closing gun show loopholes and limiting magazine size, and the same goes for in-depth background checks and having the privilege suspended under certain situations. To me that's just common sense, no-brainer stuff.

Also, ratchet up punishment for allowing your guns to fall into irresponsible hands. Unless you're the victim of a home raid or violent attack, there's no excuse for a friend or kid to get their hands on your weapon. It's not hard to be responsible.

I don't think a system on-par with Japan's is feasible in the United States, but there's definitely room for a sensible compromise.

As an example, years ago I toiled in a lingering depression. I didn't come especially close to suicide and I certainly didn't hurt anyone else, yet I would expect to be subject to assessment beyond the initial check if I should ever wish to purchase a gun. I don't think that is victimisation, I wouldn't feel stigmatised, nor do I think it need render anyone who's wrestled with their own mind ineligible by default. It's just common sense.

[Lizzie Poppet]

75. Excellent post.

I might disagree with a detail or two, but the point is this is the sort of dialogue that needs to occur if the levels of gun-related homicide and injury are to be reduced. I'm a particular advocate of penalties for poor firearms security when those guns are later used to cause harm. Proper security is an implicit responsibility that attaches to the right to possess weapons.

Again, excellent contribution...

[SQUEE]

84. I would love to dialog, but not with those that want to ban everythig

I am in huge agreement on safe and effective storage, I am required by law due to the nature of some of my firearms.
Open NICS to private citizens, and prosecute those that do not practice due diligence on FTF sales.
State provided classes on the laws and even for technical proficiency that are not used as NRA recruitment fests.
Require firearm insurance, one that is affordable and not a back door type of restriction due to inflated costs.
I do not find it unreasonable to expect people to take responsibility for the disposition of their guns.
A tax rebate or lowered insurance being good ways to get people to lock their shit up, be financially covered to defray societies costs, and become skilled and educated on the tools they have. these are things I can get behind..
AND enforce current laws.
Freedom entails certain responsibilities.

[Lizzie Poppet]

113. Excellent. (nt)

[Mutiny In Heaven]

93. Just want to clarify this:

"Also, ratchet up punishment for allowing your guns to fall into irresponsible hands. Unless you're the victim of a home raid or violent attack, there's no excuse for a friend or kid to get their hands on your weapon. It's not hard to be responsible."

Bad writing on my part, and I don't mean to say people should arm their kids and friends to the teeth in the event of a burglary; more that there's potentially a window of opportunity for other people to get their hands on stuff if you've been ransacked.

[samsingh]

59. good ideas in Japan

[Glassunion]

78. I'd rather not model our laws on those created by a culture

That is more classist and intolerant to minorities than we are here.

[SQUEE]

88. The Ainu..

I bet they agree.

[dkf]

87. The Japanese experienced **no looting** after their tsunami.

Maybe when we have that type of respect for each other we don't need to protect ourselves.

[Hoyt]

90. Most of the looting after our "tsunami" was for food, etc., or in unoccupied stores.

Don't see that lethal weapons would have changed things, nor are most of us into shooting people over replaceable property.

[dkf]

91. If they won't take your food when they are hungry they won't take your property.

In 1990 the police identified over 2.2 million Penal Code violations. Two types of violations—larceny (65.1 percent of total violation) and negligible homicide or injury as a result of accidents (26.2%)—accounted for over 90 percent of criminal offenses in Japan.[3] In 1989 Japan experienced 1.3 robberies per 100,000 population, compared with 48.6 for West Germany, 65.8 for United Kingdom, and 233.0 for the United States; and it experienced 1.1 murder per 100,000 population, compared with 3.9 for West Germany, 1.03 for England and Wales, and 8.7 for the United States that same year.[4] Japanese authorities also solve a high percentage of robbery cases (75.9%, compared with 43.8% for West Germany, 26.5% for Britain, and 26.0% for the United States) and homicide cases (95.9% , compared with 94.4% for Germany, 78.0% for U.K., and 68.3% for the United States).[4] This is connected to the fact that prosecutions are less likely to be successfully challenged compared to the above mentioned countries, a fact that has caused human rights concerns and has led to a change in the law which took effect in 2009[citation needed].
Recently, the number of crimes in Japan are decreasing. In 2002, the number of crimes, was of 2,853,739. Was halved in 2012 of 1,382,154.[5]。

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Japan

[Hoyt]

92. Maybe when folks stop arming up, practicing to shoot people, playing cowboy, etc.,

we will be better off.

[apocalypsehow]

105. The thread in Meta the day you get PPR'd is going to be a sweet one to celebrate in.

In the meantime, your pro-NRA talking points and other related pro-gun garbage isn't really fooling anybody.

[dkf]

123. I'm not pro NRA. No guns, not a member.

But I do support our rights, including abortion rights and the right to bear arms. I dislike when we tell others how to live their lives. Advice is fine, using the law to compel behavior is a problem.

[apocalypsehow]

99. Good OP (Rec), but it gets quite tiresome seeing DU's gun trolls arrive to hijack it with their NRA

Last edited Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:49 PM - Edit history (1)

talking points and right-wing garbage about their "rights" to strut around town with a machine gun slung over their shoulder, or their beloved pistol perched in their pants playing the part of a Phallic Replacement Device.

Troll's gonna troll, I guess.


Edit: typos.

[SQUEE]

102. And yet, I do none of those things.

My phallus is intact, and due to my knee injuries I can not strut so much.This along with the fact my firearms only leave my property at a range or at a local gunsmith for a higher level of maintenance or repair than I can do myself, show I am not the one trolling.
But I actually do hope you have a wonderful day.

[apocalypsehow]

103. Yes, you do - you've littered this thread with obnoxious NRA talking points and garbage.

I don't give a whit about your phony biography, so you can spare yourself the keystrokes. But your pro-NRA talking points and memes aren't really fooling anybody, sport.

[SQUEE]

107. You accuse, now point out where I am not honest.

please expose my "lies", do it for the good of the board if that is your belief

[apocalypsehow]

108. You go right on spewing NRA talking points and lies - it'll catch to you up eventually. n/t.

[SQUEE]

109. So, you have nothing?

I thought not.

[apocalypsehow]

110. You go right on spewing NRA talking points and lies - it'll catch to you up eventually. n/t.

[Lizzie Poppet]

112. How convenient.

Label anything you find uncomfortable or inconvenient as an "NRA talking point" and keep your head wedged firmly...er...in the sand. So much fail.

Fortunately, actual adults are having useful conversations here and in other venues about how to actually accomplish something useful in this area. Perhaps someday you'll get there.

[apocalypsehow]

114. Baloney - they've been labeled for precisely what they are: pro-NRA talking points and right-wing

memes from the pro-gun culture. It oozes up here on DU quite frequently, unfortunately, as gun trolls flock to the Gungeon and then venture out here in GD whenever the topic gets hot.

"and keep your head wedged firmly...er...in the sand"

If you want to engage in a pedestrian and laughable personal attack, you should have the honest courage to simply do so openly, instead of skulking behind euphemisms and the ubiquitous internet "...er..."

But those are two things I've found our "pro gun progressives"* are quite short on: honesty & courage.

"So much fail."

Indeed, your reply reeks of it. Good call.

"Fortunately, actual adults are having useful conversations here and in other venues about how to actually accomplish something useful in this area."

And not one of those "conversations" involves a "pro gun progressive"** or any other stripe of NRA shill.

"Perhaps someday you'll get there"

And someday you'll get that well-deserved PPR. I'll be looking for that thread in Meta.

*( )

**( )

[Lizzie Poppet]

115. Pure comedy gold.

Free Clue: "NRA talking point" =/= any statement not vehemently anti-gun.

You can thank me later.

[apocalypsehow]

116. That indeed is what your replies in this thread have been - and pretty much everwhere else

on DU, for that matter.

"You can thank me later."

I'll thank that Meta thread about a newly-PPR'd member that's going to come some day, sooner or later, when yet another pro-NRA talking point spew-bot will have been shown the door.




Edit: typos.

[Lizzie Poppet]

117. "IKYABWAI"

Nice one, Pee Wee...

Noticed you screeching at other posters in this thread about their supposedly-imminent PPR, too. I realize that some precious snowflakes simply can't abide opinions that vary even marginally from their own, but don't kid yourself: there's nothing remotely "liberal" about that attitude, sparky. You may well get the echo chamber you apparently prefer this forum to descend to, but don't think that it will then have the slightest relevance or influence once that happens. Just like you have, by your performance in the gun threads you post in, removed yourself from the real and effective conversation, your sanitized view of the DU will have removed itself from the larger version thereof.

And no one else will care...

[apocalypsehow]

120. Uh-huh.

"You may well get the echo chamber you apparently prefer this forum" (Sic)

No, what we get when yet another pro-NRA troll is PPR'd is a little more of what the TOS explicitly states:

"Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like."

Here, go have some reading, sport:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

You can bray and bark about "echo chambers" all you like: the bottom line is this is a progressive Discussion board, not "debate with Right-wing Gun Trolls Underground."

"Just like you have, by your performance in the gun threads you post in, removed yourself from the real and effective conversation"

And here we have the psychological phenomenon called "projection": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection|

"DU will have removed itself from the larger version thereof"

[Lizzie Poppet]

121. You can pretend all you like...

...that my pro-gun-rights views make me a right-winger, but that doesn't make it remotely true (or even plausible). Kinda like your hilarious bullshit amateur psychoanalysis works, really...

I rather suspect my overall position on the political spectrum is more radically left-wing than yours. I'm a socialist, ferchrissakes. If I'm disqualified from posting here, it would be on the basis of being too leftist, not because some trolling non-entity thinks I'm a "right-winger."

[Apophis]

118. Indeed.

I would like to see this implemented in this country.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

122. Japan experienced real tyranny--the kind that China has now--

within living memory, and yet, when I've lived in and visited Japan (sixteen times, so far) and talked with Japanese people of all kinds, I have never once heard anyone express the wish to own a gun. People may be disgusted with the ineptitude of their government, but they are not afraid of it.

In fact, Japanese people think we're nuts in this respect. And I tend to agree. I see certain subsets of Americans who think that the answer to gun crime is more guns as being basically scaredy-cats. They feel that they have no control over anything in their lives and that no one is looking out for their interests, so they cling to their guns as symbols of power, precisely because they feel powerless.

[BainsBane]

124. the Japanese are right

We are nuts. This gun culture has driven the country insane.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

127. I want a better world, nobody said it would be easy.

But change will happen.

[derby378]

129. As I understand it, here's the whole process for owning a gun in Japan

Here's the scoop:

Step 1 - If a Japanese civilian of at least 20 years of age decides to seek out a firearm, she must sign up to attend a lecture on gun regulations for beginners, held once a month at her local police station. The lecture, which lasts for approximately three hours, is followed by a written examination with 20 questions; she must get at least 14 of them right to obtain a certificate that is valid for three years.

Step 2 - The prospective gun owner must supply her local police station with her employment history and all residences over the past 10 years, along with a roster of everyone who lives at her residence and a quick summary of her family history. Police will determine if she is seeking a firearm for hunting or competitive shooting. No other reasons for gun ownership will be considered, including self-defense.

Step 3 - If she does not have it already, the prospective gun owner must obtain certification from a doctor that she does not use illegal or recreational drugs and that she has no preexisting physical or mental conditions that would disqualify her from owning a firearm. She must hand this certificate over to the police, as well as her written examination certificate.

Step 4 - Police will check out her family to see if she is related to any Yakuza or other "undesirables." Having one black sheep in her somewhat-immediate family could disqualify her from owning a gun.

Step 5 - After a minimum one-month waiting period (usually takes longer because of background checks on family), if she qualifies, the prospective gun owner will receive a call from her local police station to come and pick up her license booklet. It looks similar to a passport, and will feature the prospective gun owner's name, address, birthdate, license number, date of issue, and a photograph of the licensee on the front page.

Step 6 - The new licensee must have a specially-designed gun safe installed somewhere in her home. The key to the safe must be hidden somewhere very secure, and not even her family should have access to the key. Police, on the other hand, may require that she provide them with a map of her home indicating where the key and the gun safe are located, and reserve the right to inspect her gun and gun safe with adequate prior notification.

Step 7 - The licensee must take a shooting class at an approved gun range, following by another examination. This stage is supposed to be fairly easy to pass.

Step 8 - After all of the prerequisites are satisfied, the certificates are approved, the safe is purchased, and the license booklet is deemed valid, our new licensee may finally head down to an approved gun shop and purchase...

...a single-shot, break-action shotgun.

Wheeeeee.

Step 9 - Time for our new gun owner to purchase some buckshot for that shotgun. Unfortunately, this requires a separate permit, and ammunition must be stored in a separate safe from that used to house the shotgun.

Wasn't that fun?

Step 10 (Optional) - Steps 1-9 must be repeated in order to gain legal possession of a pistol or rifle, along with mandatory membership in Japan's version of the NRA. The only difference is that rifles and pistols may not be kept at home, and must be stored at a firing range unless transported with permission from the government (for example, to a shooting competition).

Now, contrast the Japanese process for legally obtaining a break-action shotgun with the American process for legally obtaining the same type of gun:

My dad gave me one.

[cantbeserious]

135. Sounds Sensible And A Step In The Right Direction

eom

[sir pball]

145. One step?

What's the next step, pray tell?

[cantbeserious]

146. For America That Is A Country Level Call

eom

[baldguy]

136. You've hit the nail on the head.

Gun owners & dealers shouldn't be the primary authority to determine who can & can't have a gun. The fact that the last half-dozen massacres & many, many individual murders have occurred with weapons that were either legally obtained by the shooters, or with the knowledge of the legal owners, proves that the community of gun owners has failed spectacularly in their responsibilities.

[derby378]

139. Human beings, however, are pattern-seeking individuals

You can look at the massacres at Newtown, Aurora, and Columbine and tell me that the common denominator in all three was that the shooter had access to non-sporting firearms, which is true. But what is also true is that in all three cases, the weapons were obtained illegally, either through the gray/black market or by killing the rightful owner.

Here in Dallas, home to more gun shows than I can count, we've had an average decline in murder rates of about 10% per year for the past five years or so. There have been some flare-ups, true, but our numbers are still showing overall improvement.

Whatever happens with nationwide gun legislation - and you already know my position, so I won't bore you with it - great care should be taken with any "one size fits all" approach that is eventually adopted.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

140. James Holmes (Aurora) purchased his weapons legally. nt

[derby378]

141. I thought he faked the background check?

I'll look into it. Thanks.