One student commented to the media that the gunman “looked Asian”.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that it is suspected that the gunman had come to America from Shanghai last August. I’m a little sceptical since the CS-T is the only one reporting this while everyone else is saying the gunman is inidentified. Plus, I doubt someone who has been in the US for less than a year on a student visa could legally purchase a firearm.

That’s true, but I’m going to assume that were bought legally since there was mention of the police trying to find his identity by tracing the purchase records for the two handguns he used. Of course, here I’m assuming he didn’t steal the guns or buy them from a shady gun dealer.

“Speaking of which, I will dropkick anyone who tries to use this tragedy as an argument for gun control.”

Oh, you know someone will. This is going to turn into a big political thing. Every asshat with an opinion is going to be using this to push his or her political agenda.

I’ve been drop-kicked.

Firmly anti-gun.

It’s i-Moore-al.

*America is not my country..and it really isn’t my place to comment on this at all..but I am a parent and I would think that something like this would affect any sane decent person .. I hope.*

rem.

According to Bloomberg, they haven’t identified the shooter by name yet, but they are confirming that he was indeed a Chinese student from Shanghai.

“He is Asian, he lived in the dorm where the first shooting occurred and he recently broke up with his girlfriend — he also happens to have a web blog packed with pictures in which he poses with firearms. On the Internet, Wayne Chiang is as good as convicted.”

So people got wind of this guy’s journal (and facebook): http://wanusmaximus.livejournal.com/ and assume that he’s the shooter. People send him death threats (why send threats when we know the actual shooter had killed himself I don’t know).
Even Geraldo started smearing the guy on TV.
The guy isn’t all that sympathetic but at least he got to clear his name:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/i_want_to_clear.html

Official: The shooters name is Cho Seung-Hul. Age 23, from South Korea.

Wikipedia editors moved really fast on this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cho_Seung-hui

Apparently, anyone can purchase a gun from a gunshow in Virginia.

You’re right. I didn’t think of that. I’ve only been to one gun show so I can’t really comment on the procedure for buying a firearm there. One anti-gun site says that a state background check as well as the federal NICS check is required to purchase a gun in VA. Though how one can do that at a gun show is beyond me.

But since news sources has said that they tracked the shooters identity down via the guns, he obviously got them legally. I’m just surprised he could. Virginia doesn’t have the toughest gun laws, but I didn’t think they were so lenient either.

Ah, okay. Nevermind. I just found this article that says: Legal permanent resident aliens may purchase firearms in the state of Virginia. The buyer must, however, provide additional identification to prove he or she is a resident of the state.

RTN: Sauce, plz.

Fox News is turning this into an Asian Immigrant vs America story.

How are they doing that? Is it on TV? I’ve been reading their news stories on their web site and I haven’t gotten that from it. Am I missing something?

Nix, I’m pretty sure I read it on CNN.com, but they keep on altering the lead story, so I can’t find the specific details. Google his name w/ ‘filed serial number’ and a ton of hits come up.

fyi, the gun lobby has successfully lobbied for gun shows to be exempt from the normal background checking requirements.

On a Japan related note, now I’ll have to explain even more to Japanese that no, it isn’t typical for most Americans to walk around with guns.

madme0, imagine if that nut case would have had a pistol with several clips of ammo.

For what it’s worth, I must agree with Paul here. In particular, the contrast is worth noting. The university is a gun-free zone located in a state with relaxed gun-ownership laws. A potent mix indeed.

Seems the guy had mental health issues. Reminds me of the Dawson shooting here in Montreal last year.

What a very bleak picture of human nature being painted here. Glad I don’t share it. Must be very depressing.

You’re an absolute clown, Paul.

Having guns for ’self-defence’ in case of robbery or attack only encourages robbers and attackers to carry bigger guns in response.

This is a great discussion and an important one guys. But just a reminder to PLEASE keep it focused on Japan and the Asian aspect of things here ok?

This isn’t the place to discuss American gun policy.

Thank you.

33 students, 33 miners and 33 comments ( well 34 now

I wish everyone, both the drop-kickers and the drop-kickees, would come down off their political soap boxes at least until the dead are buried, the heroes praised, and a prayer said for mercy on the killer’s soul.

“I just want to make sure that we do not start talking about American gun policy.”

This does relate to Japan, because gun control is wrong wherever it’s enacted. It troubles me when even American advocates for gun-rights claim that Japan is somehow different about this and that gun control works there. It’s not true and it never has been.

“To what do you attribute the low crime rate, Paul?”

I’m not sure, but it obviously has nothing to do with gun control. After all, gun control has only made the United Kingdom more dangerous and oppressive, and yet most Britons refuse to see that (as unwittingly demonstrated by the clowns here who are mocking “self-defence”). In fact, defending oneself at all is practically illegal there. In Switzerland on the other hand, guns are virtually everywhere and yet it has a low crime rate.

“Having guns for ’self-defence’ in case of robbery or attack only encourages robbers and attackers to carry bigger guns in response.”

This is something else I’ve noticed about gun control’s advocates. They like to throw out legions of ridiculous hypothetical scenarios while defenders of gun rights actually rely on evidence and reason. Besides, you’re wrong. Even in the States, criminals largely stick with handguns and shotguns, even though .50 caliber rifles and such are legal throughout almost the entire country.

“Japan has a very low incidence of gun-related crime”

“Gun-related crime” is a red herring. Murder is murder, rape is rape, assault is assault, and robbery is robbery. It doesn’t matter whether a gun is involved. I hate to paraphrase Archie Bunker, but would you feel better if they were thrown out of windows?

“(yesterday’s killing of Nagasaki’s mayor is an extremely rare case) precisely because guns are not available.”

You’ve refuted yourself here. The killing of Nagasaki’s mayor proves that guns are available.

“If no one has guns, no one has to worry about having a gun to defend him or herself against gun-related violence.”

I guess you missed the part the absence of guns leaving the weak at the mercy of the strong and the individual at the mercy of the mob. By the way, you people should read the link I posted. You’ll learn something.

“Yes, I see it now. Every American at the age of 16 should be issued a sidearm. Then we’d see the gun crime stats plummet for certain. Thanks Paul. You’re right.”

I don’t want to force any unwilling person to carry a weapon, but your attempt at irony here is a miserable failure, because there is no irony to be found.

“Nuts who think that guns solve problems are the actual root of the gun problem in the US.”

There may be a crime problem, but there isn’t a gun problem.

well what about the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)..don’t they have anything to add to the general media hysteria ??….their Sports coverage is excellent.I swear by it.

*curse!curse!damn!drat!frot!…*

rem.

Paul, you think I’m being ironic. You are right. But on a perfectly serious note, you seem to think arming the general populace will reduce crime. I do not. It’s that simple.

Allow me, without sarcasm, to restate it: I would welcome the experiment. Issue guns to every American that wants one, and we can study what happens. If crime rates drop, I will admit I was wrong.

Just a few months ago, an 80-something-year-old woman was stabbed as she slept in her bed about a two-minute walk from my official home in Tokyo. Her 50-something-year-old son also was stabbed to death apparently when he came down stairs to investigate noises that he heard. The killer turned out to be a college student who lived next door to the victims, who was looking to steal money for video games.

I remember wondering at the time about whether the outcome would have been different if the victims had been armed.

“I remember wondering at the time about whether the outcome would have been different if the victims had been armed.”

Yeah,but what would happen in a society in which sick youth who are willing to kill human for a little money can get gun easily?

Paul,

Your explanation regarding the gun-related aspect (“it’s a red herring”) is pure garbage, as I explained.

A single person armed with a single semi-automatic handgun can quickly and easily kill a large number of people without much planning or forethought.

If the gun in question is lying around in a drawer with pens and old lipstick tubes, all a person needs to do is think, “guess I’ll kill some people today” and within minutes, this plan can be carried out.

In order to effectively kill large numbers of people via arson, bombing, etc, a great deal more forethought is required, not to mention the time required to set-up and carry out the crime, the cost involved, etc. Sure, anyone can just set a match to some newspapers in a garbage can outside a house, but that is unlikely to result in killing everyone inside within seconds.

You have consistently downplayed real-life issues such as those I have just mentioned above, apparently because you have some deep-seated idealistic attachment to the concept that everyone owning guns is somehow a “good thing.”

Fanatical idealists such as yourself are the reason why so many easily-solved problems persist.

Oh, and you seem to be unable to understand why the mass murder rate and the gun-violence rate is so low in Japan. You said you “don’t know” why it is so low.

Here’s a hint: almost no one has a gun:roll:

Paul, Paul, Paul,

Now I see what’s going on: I went to your website and saw the links to the Cato Institute, etc.

You are a Libertarian!!

Just like I said: you are an idealistic fanatic who says you are all for objective reality, but whose articulated dogmas betray devotion to a certain interpretation of the ways things OUGHT to be.

I think it was Socrates who said “Know thyself.” You should keep that in mind.

JP wrote “Just a few months ago, an 80-something-year-old woman was stabbed as she slept in her bed about a two-minute walk from my official home in Tokyo. Her 50-something-year-old son also was stabbed to death apparently when he came down stairs to investigate noises that he heard. The killer turned out to be a college student who lived next door to the victims, who was looking to steal money for video games.

I remember wondering at the time about whether the outcome would have been different if the victims had been armed.”

The woman was killed in bed. And she was 80. I put the chances of her being able reaching for a gun, aiming and shooting someone who’s already stabbing her at… very very small. And really… do we *want* 80-year-olds with guns by their bedsides?

The son was stabbed when he came downstairs to investigate. If he had a gun, what are the chances that he would have been in the right position and had the ability to aim and fire a gun in the dark. Or, better yet, make out a dark shape that may or may not have been, say, his mother. “He would have called out.” She may have not been able to respond because, well, she’s 80… and if she’s wandering around in the dark, she may be confused or having an immediate health situation. Which means… what? He may have shot his mother by accident? Or he may have let off a shot that, say, killed the next door neighbour’s kid who was sleeping in bed or, well, anybody.

I don’t think someone breaking in for money to buy video games should kill someone. I don’t think someone should kill someone looking for breaking in to money to buy video games… .

The simplistic answer may just be… get an intrusion alarm with lights. But I can honestly say I don’t know *anyone* who has one of those systems and I’m living in a country with lacker gun laws than Japan. Because, in the end, shit happens sometimes.

Unless when you write ‘armed’ you mean baseball bats or pepper spray. But surely things would have still been less drastic if the intrusion alarm with lights scenario still played out… .

The thing is he’s Korean, why does our ‘culture of guns/violence’ go on trail because he freaked out? Simple solution is to restrict the right to bear arms to US citizens or since it’s too hard or invasive to watch every American just watch the foreign students half of which are probably spies anyway.

Alex, in all frankness, I think your point is ill advised and smacks of hypocirsy. You can’t post something that initially had absolutely nothing to do with Japan, then turn around and ask us to keep our comments limited to Japan only. The only way to have introduced this subject in such a way that it was pertinent to Japan was to make it about contrasting gun control policies–which is what the discussion has morphed into anyway.

“I just explained to you earlier why the gun-related aspect is a red herring.”

And if I had a gun, would you still drop kick me? Honestly, I find it most interesting that the most aggressive comment on this post comes from the person who most insists on the right to bear arms.

These conversations tend to go like this:

Those who support the right to bear arms feel that if everyone had a gun, massacres like the one in Virginia wouldn’t have happened.

Those who oppose the right to bear arms feel that if everyone could not access a gun, massacres like the one in Virginia wouldn’t have happened.

Which takes us back to the beginning.

Rather than focusing on the emotional aspect of the issue, therefore, I prefer to look at the statistics which seem to bear out that arms control reduces crimes. No one expects arms control to eliminate crimes; it’d be foolish to assume that this is possible. But certainly limiting access has statistically made a difference. And that’s the information I choose to believe, not the intimidating comments of a blogging bully.

“I’m not sure, but it obviously has nothing to do with gun control. After all, gun control has only made the United Kingdom more dangerous and oppressive, and yet most Britons refuse to see that (as unwittingly demonstrated by the clowns here who are mocking “self-defence”). In fact, defending oneself at all is practically illegal there. In Switzerland on the other hand, guns are virtually everywhere and yet it has a low crime rate.”

Proof please, on all counts. I don’t see this as obvious, though I can see why emotionall you might feel it is. And how is the UK now more dangerous or oppressive? In what way? Please provide something other than an emotional appeal.

I agree with Marie.

The narrow gun control question, as well as the broader right to self-defense question, are serious issues that have been debated for a long time.

People who do not agree with do not necessarily need to be drop-kicked anywhere, nor does holding of a particular opinion on this issue make a person a fanatic, nut, etc.

If this discussion continues here, please let us all tone down the rhetoric on both sides and have a discussion.

Violators will be shot.

(Sorry! I just couldn’t resist.)

red herring..red herring..mmmmm..donut..azuki bean kitkat..mmmm.

“[G]un control has only made the United Kingdom more dangerous and oppressive, and yet most Britons refuse to see that (as unwittingly demonstrated by the clowns here who are mocking “self-defence”). In fact, defending oneself at all is practically illegal there. In Switzerland on the other hand, guns are virtually everywhere and yet it has a low crime rate.

These are established facts that prove at the very least that Japan’s crime rate has nothing to do with gun control.”

All of your arguments here are not established facts, at least not for me. Could you enlighten me by introducing proves?

“Proof please, on all counts. I don’t see this as obvious, though I can see why emotionall you might feel it is. And how is the UK now more dangerous or oppressive? In what way? Please provide something other than an emotional appeal.”

As for Switzerland, you can read this (skip down to the part about crime of course) and this. I know it’s Wiki, but this isn’t school, and I waste enough time here anyway. As for the UK, there is this.

“You can pull out all the figures you want, but if the Japanese government suddenly allowed everyone to carry a gun for me my enjoyment of the country would be seriously reduced.”

That would be your problem, not Japan’s. I’m more concerned with whether the country would actually be safer, and not at all concerned with people’s perceptions of it.

“In my mind, if you need to carry one, you’re weak. A loser.”

I guess a five-foot tall woman being raped by a six-foot tall two-hundred pound man is a winner because carrying a gun is beneath her.

“Don’t you think if they had easy access to guns they’d go out a kill a few more people who made their lives misery before blowing their brains out?”

Maybe, but we don’t know that. Pardon me if I don’t care to readdress everything else in your post. It’s been addressed already. I’ve stayed up too late as it is. Some of us live in different time zones.

“You yourself have said above that it would be an interesting experiment to arm everyone and see if that reduces crime.”

Actually, Kudan, that was me. Sorry.

“there is no data to support or refute the notion that a completely armed populace is safer.”

So far, no mass killings at NRA conventions. Funny, that.

I used to be for more gun control. No longer so sure. It’s obvious that guns are not the main problem. The reason I am not crazy about American cities is the level of hostility exhibited by so many people in all walks of life, barely under the surface. There’s a borderline violent form of frustration, and it’s not easily explained by “disparities of wealth” or other tired Marxist slogans that don’t really square with reality in the US. I see the same thing increasingly in the UK.

I’ll go out on a limb, and guess that it has to do with the loss of family structure, community structure and spirituality, coupled with the glamorization of violence, consumer excess, and pointless fame.

But, what do I know? Banning guns is so much simpler, and we can feel we are doing something good and pure…you know, good intentions.

Phew! Now that’s a very reasonable argument, ghoti.

Only banning guns would be a band-aid solution when the problem is obviously much deeper.

Still, I think banning guns in America is part of the solution. Not because of the crimes that will be committed by those guns, but because of the gun culture they create. Kids growing up with guns, going out shooting animals, or people collecting guns as if it’s just another sport seems pretty messed up to me.

Having guns for ’self-defence’ in case of robbery or attack only encourages robbers and attackers to carry bigger guns in response.
The statistics say otherwise. Criminals are cowards at heart. They want easy pickins.

Yes, I see it now. Every American at the age of 16 should be issued a sidearm. Then we’d see the gun crime stats plummet for certain. Thanks Paul. You’re right.
In Kennesaw, GA, after they passed a law saying that every head of household who was able must have a gun in their home, crime dropped 89%. I’ve seen statistics that in Australia, when they had over 600,000 people turn in their guns, crime skyrocketed. Robberies, for example, were up 44%.

Nuts who think that guns solve problems are the actual root of the gun problem in the US.
Actually, the people who don’t have a work ethic and want things the easy way are the actual root of the problem. Japan’s society is much different. As far as I’ve seen, it doesn’t have the high profile “poverty pimps” riling people up telling them that they deserve things they haven’t worked for.

“No. That would be everyone’s problem who shares the same opinion as me. And by the way I don’t see many people fighting for their right to bear arms in Japan, that’s most people I would assume.”

I don’t care whether most Japanese people think all their gun control is a problem. That doesn’t make it okay.

“I know what the 2nd Amendment says. The right to bear arms is not the right to bear any and all arms that exist. Private citizens cannot legally buy bazookas, can they? Same thing.”

For the third time, This has been dealt with. I’ll quote the relevant portion here, since you apparently refuse to read the link:

Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue–it’s in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 each had muskets, but not the large field pieces that fired exploding shells. In 2005, soldiers are each individually issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing free speech and freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV, satellite transmission, FAXes, and the Internet.

“If I was a six-foot tall guy in a society that allowed everyone to have a gun, I’d sure as hell expect that woman to have a gun and make sure I catch her by surprise or just bring a few friends along. I’m sure I’d have a lot more experience at shooting people than that woman too. So what’s your point?”

It’s like antibingo said, criminals don’t want a fight. By the way, “a few friends along” is one of the reasons for carrying a gun in self-defense. Having a gun still improves her chances regardless of whether or not you have one and whether or not you’ve brought friends with you.

“Yes, some countries may have gun laws similar to the US and not as much gun violence as the US, but that information only informs us that some societies somehow manage to produce people who tend not to resort to guns when they feel the urge to commit violent acts.”

That “somehow” is the fact that guns don’t make people more violent. You’re staring this in the face, and yet you claim it leads to this:

“If you line up the facts and then see where they lead you, you will find that logic brings you to one conclusion: there should be fewer guns in the hands of Americans.”

This is quite possible the biggest non sequitur I’ve ever read.

“You yourself have said above that it would be an interesting experiment to arm everyone and see if that reduces crime.”

Interesting because it would vindicate my position.

“There is data, however, showing that most people who own handguns to “defend themselves against armed intruders” are shot with their own guns.”

I had a feeling you’d mention the discredited Kellermann study.

You yourself have said above that it would be an interesting experiment to arm everyone and see if that reduces crime. There is currently no data regarding a completely armed populace, thus there is no data to support or refute the notion that a completely armed populace is safer.
Kennesaw, GA did this very thing. Crime dropped 89% and has stayed down.

Paul says — “That “somehow” is the fact that guns don’t make people more violent.”

Paul, you seem to be misreading what others are saying. Guns don’t MAKE people violent, but they ENABLE deadly violence much more efficiently than knives, fire, string, or what have you.

If it is a given that any society will have its share of disturbed and/or violent people, it seems obvious to me that we must reduce their ability to harm MASSES of people with one single weapon. There will always be murderers, but they won’t be able to murder as many people so quickly,

And re: your self-defense argument, you are ignoring the fact that people who keep guns for self defence have often misused them, had them stolen by criminals or even neighborhood children or their own children –with tragic results. Crimes of passion, neighborhood robberies, fights between children would still happen, but without the automated deadly tool that makes killing so very easy.

The relation between strict gun laws/lax gun laws and lower crime is far from being an established fact. Take the example of Finland, Switzerland and Israel. There are more (legal) weapons in the hands of civilians then in the US (per capita of course) yet they have negligible crime rates. On the other hand countries like the UK and Mexico have extremely strict gun laws and, especially in the case of Mexico, have high crime rates.
On the OTHER hand (i’m running out of hands here!) in the US and South Africa there are many (again, legal) weapons on the hands of civilians and the crime rates are high. In the case of South Africa sky high.
So, availability (or not) of guns doesn’t have that much to do with high/low crime. What has? I’d say culture (and the clash of different cultures) and education have more to do with it.

I’d say culture (and the clash of different cultures) and education have more to do with it.

I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head, there, madne0, at least as far as culture goes. Japan has an extremely homogeneous culture. The dominant culture and values are embraced by a VAST majority of the population. The US has a large heterogeneous culture, where the dominant culture and values are not embraced by large portions of the population, resulting in culture clash. Add to that the poverty pimps who make a living off of causing class strife, the “American dream” that anyone can move up and have it all, plus the fact that many won’t put the effort in that is required (and many that simply can’t because of intelligence or choices made in life), and you are looking at a recipe for high crime.

Cultural isolation is also a big part of it. Most of these spree shooters in the US are described as “loners” who were nerds / geeks / dorks / etc who were isolated from society. Self centeredness in American culture contribues to people not recognizing the warning signs in these individuals.

I don’t know how this is in Japan, how otaku are viewed and treated, or how the relationships between parents and children are (why were the parents in such shock when this happened? Didn’t they know something might be wrong with their son?). Any enlightenment on the concept of community in Japan and how outcasts are viewed would be appriciated.

Anyway, as Japan becomes a more heterogeneous society, I’d look for its crime rate to increase… although I pray I am wrong.

Paul, this statement: “If the statistics don’t show that more people are being murdered in countries with liberal gun laws, and if there isn’t a correlation among all countries or territories with similar gun laws (the examples of Switzerland, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan at least suggest that there isn’t) then all this talk of guns enabling more killing is just that: talk.” makes absolutely no sense in the context of what is being said.

Guns enable killing MORE EFFICIENTLY than other methods.

People will always murder each other — but if they don’t have guns, they might murder only 1 or 2 rather than 33 at one go. Culture, environment, personality are all factors that affect the crime rate. But removing guns removes at least the easiest and most lethal method of killing others. And that’s a fact that can’t be gotten around.

And I have read all the comments, thank you — you’re just not making any development in your argument or replying to others’ points with any cogent arguments.

And to bring this back to Japan, there is a parallel here between the use of regular bombs and nuclear bombs. A regular bomb does everything that a nuclear bomb (with the exception of radiation effects), but a nuclear bomb enables destruction MUCH MORE EFFICIENTLY than a regular bomb.

It’s this extraordinary degree of efficiency in relation to effort expended that has made the use of the nuclear bomb so abhorrent to so many.

And it’s the same extraordinary degree of efficiency in relation to effort expended that puts shootings on a different level than other forms of murder.

Killing someone is HARD WORK — they fight back, they might hurt you; you have to be pretty strong and/or well-trained to do it — and it SHOULD be hard work. Not as easy and brainless as pulling a trigger.

“But, the anti-gun people are almost overwhelmingly ignorant about the issues involved and argue from emotion, however well-intended.”

Although in this case, I’d say it’s the pro-gun posters who seem to be arguing more from reflexive emotion. and a sort of impatient arrogance (I don’t have time to be here with you idiots) and immaturity (drop kick!).

An NRA meeting is a meeting. It’s not a functioning society with random elements of chaos thrown in.

Marie, I was speaking generally. The “drop kick” comment was and irrelevant departure from what had been a very polite thread.

Please explain how your description of an NRA convention undermines my point (the one Kudan says doesn’t exist).

“Ummmm… no. You really think having a gun is somehow going to “level the playing field”? You think that girl is going to stand a chance with a gun she’s never had to fire in a real situation when she’s jumped by a bunch of hardened crims? She’d have a much better chance of living in a world without guns if she just A) called for help B) fought (not all girls are defenseless) or C) let herself be raped. If she even thought about bringing out a gun she’d be dead before she got a shot off.”

If I were a woman (or if I were to put myself in the position of my wife, for example), I would like to have a choice in the matter. The attitude reflected in the above comment is a bit paternalistic, if I do say so myself.

This thread is getting to be TL;DR.

Anyway, not to break up any intriguing discussion here, but I just read this on a website regarding gun laws and was wondering if anyone living in Japan could verify it. It’s sort of related to the topic at hand here (I found it on the NRA website).

Citizens have fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects, than in America. Every person is the subject of a police dossier. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay “home visits” to citizens` residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is more than 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Assn. has said that the Japanese police routinely engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions. Amnesty International calls Japan`s police custody system “a flagrant violation of United Nations human rights principles.” Suspects can be held and interrogated for 28 days without being brought before a judge, compared with no more than two days in many other nations. They aren`t allowed legal counsel during interrogation, when in custody may be visited by only criminal defense lawyers, are not allowed to read confessions before they sign them, and have no right to trial by jury. (Kopel, 1991, pp. 23-26.)

I thought the justice system in Japan was kind of crappy, but I didn’t think it was this scary.

RYO-
If I were a woman (or if I were to put myself in the position of my wife, for example), I would like to have a choice in the matter. The attitude reflected in the above comment is a bit paternalistic, if I do say so myself.

Ryo that comment was more than paternalistic it was sexist and condescending. Apparently tantan believes that all women are too stupid and emotional to handle a firearm. I know women who grew up with guns, who take them to a firing range on a regular basis, and who hunt with them. Hell, I’ve dated a girl with an AK, a nine, a glock, and a 12 gauge that could shoot circles around me. To insinuate that women wouldn’t be just as capable of aiming and pulling the trigger in a life or death situation as a man is bullshit.

What’s even more ridiculous was that Tantan thinks women would be better off it they
A) called for help B) fought (not all girls are defenseless) or C) let herself be raped.

I’ll take this point by point

A) Most rapes occur in isolated areas where the victim won’t be heard if they call for help, idiot. That’s why there are so many unsolved rapes, test kits, etc. Because no matter how loud the girl screamed there was no one near enough to catch the offender in the act or put a stop to it. (Either that or nobody responded)

B)So let me get this straight, tantan, a woman is too stupid and helpless in a rape situation to handle a gun, but they are simultaneously cool, calm, skilled and strong enough to fight off a group of rapist thugs with their bare hands. It takes a special type of person to come up with that one (and by special I mean you rode the short bus to school).

C) You’re lecturing ghoti for making a point about the morality of gun use, then attempt to justify rape as preferable to self defense. Tantan quit trying to b*******t yourself and everyone else about ethics, you obviously don’t have any.

But it really doesn’t matter what I think. Let’s ask the ladies of japundit. Ladies, do you find it offensive that Tantan’s believes you’re too stupid to fire a gun and if you were ever raped you should just lie back and take it?

All I know is that my mother was sexually assaulted, and tantan don’t you even presume to lecture us on what “would have been best” for her.

I can’t help but wonder if strict gun control laws would have stopped a person like this.

This may be a good point to introduce our Commenting Guide.

Bunnies and octopi. . . That’s quite a combination there, BW.

uurrhhh…hare raising…(groan)

excuse my euphoria but the exchange rate aussie dollar/yen has just cracked 100..Arden will be pleased.

in 6 weeks it rocketed up 12%…and still going!!..

sorry JP..(I am mindful of your policy).

The bunnies are great with a nice mustard sauce.

The octopuses I’d still want to call ‘George’. Yes. All of them.

but BW why not Bill?..as Tako Bill…

*one cyber-cigar please..garcon!!*

As an American, I have one question: can we now accuse South Korea of not showing the proper remorse over what they’ve done every six months, like they do to Japan?

The thought of encouraging citizens to carry guns is laughable.
Statistics say otherwise. Crime in Kennesaw, GA dropped 89% and has stayed at that level ever since they did just that.

I don’t know about requiring everyone to be armed, but if I lived in the U.S. I would carry a firearm for self-protection if allowed to. The worst thing I could imagine would be having to beg some thug for my life or the lives of my loved ones, or sitting by powerlessly as a loved one is brutalized.

That said, I am glad that firearms are restricted in Japan. As we saw in Nagasaki, however, the outlaws don’t have much regard for restrictions or laws. . . I guess that’s what makes them outlaws, isn’t it?

But she and I will both be a lot safer if said criminal DOESN’T HAVE A FRICKIN’ GUN!! Period. End of story.

Unfortunately, that isn’t realistic. Police must have guns and the military must have guns, so guns will always exist. If they exist, people will get them illegally. Weed, coke, meth, and crack are all illegal, but are obtainable by people with the right connections. In the 20’s and 30’s, alcohol was illegal in the US, but was still obtainable. If all guns (or anything for that matter) are made illegal, yet there is a market for them, they will still be obtained by those who want them. That is a proven fact.

antibingo – sure people COULD always get guns. But where I live most criminals don’t have one because they’re too difficult/ expensive/ time consuming whatever to get. Around here whenever someone does a hold-up, robbery etc. the most common weapons are threats of violence or a knife in the face.

The only people I notice who have guns where I live are real gangsters. And they just shoot each other, not people on the street.

If guns are difficult for everyone to get, less crimes will be committed with guns. I’m not making a hypothetical here, this is my actual living situation.

News and media on the net is getting pretty shocking in tacking Korea onto the end of everything. Why was the Korean president apologising when the guy has lived in America since he was 8? It reminds me of that guy who invented instant ramen, born in Taiwan, but he did something great so he’s claimed by Japan. We’re pretty funny like that.

Antibingo,

You’ve seen statistics huh? Well I don’t think I’ll be rushing out anytime soon to buy a gun, but I just can’t argue with all those statistics. You win.

Now excuse me while I take a stroll through one of the poorer areas in my city (has homeless people, mental hospital, youth detention centre etc.) Don’t need a gun, or have to think about being killed. It’s midnight here. I’m 165cm and built like a girl. I wouldn’t be doing that if guns were legal, no matter the crime rate. And I don’t need a bunch of numbers based on some biased study to tell you so.

Oh how I love empirical evidence. Numbers make me fall asleep.

Btw, from your stats can I assume that American crime rates are higher in comparison to Japan because guns are legal?

And this “…crimes committed in Japan with guns vs. the number of crimes committed in the US with guns is close to the same ratio”. What does this mean? Japan would be better off with more guns? I’m not trying to be sarcastic or anything here, I honestly don’t understand what you’re trying to prove.

Ahhhhh…. this topic has become so boring! I was only built for talking about Engrish signs and weird nattou combinations.

Tantan says it perfectly: If guns are difficult for everyone to get, less crimes will be committed with guns.

And as for the argument of self-defence — if a gun is located close by and kept assembled and loaded, as it would have to be — it would also be totally accessible to my 5 year old and her friends, to me when I get irritated at someone like my husband, and to any burglar who rifled my house in my absence. It’s just not worth it.

Tantan is also right in that this conversation has become very boring. Shall we agree to disagree and let it go? After you get the last word, of course.

Remora wrote (C#111), “but BW why not Bill?..as Tako Bill…”

Because I *love* Daffy Duck being squeezed with love by the Admoniable Snowman in “”The Abominable Snow Bunny”.

Surely you’ll recognize the lines: “I’m gonna hug him and pet him and sqeeze him, and I’ll call him George!”

So, ‘George’ is ingrained in my mind.

But, for you, I will allow one octopus to be called ‘Takei’ in honour of George Takei (whatever his name in Star Trek). Close enough?

And if you know a Japanese dubbed version of the scene, please let me know where I can pick it up.:grin:

All I can say, Rem, is that you lost me sometime back last November. . .

Mission Impossible Statement for Japundit?

And since you are marine life, I am shocked. . . abosolutely SHOCKED, I tell you. . . that you would use language like “cut and dried”

The thing about gun culture in the USA (And I know this seems like ignorant stereotyping, but then people in the British culture countries are very well aware of US culture, its extremes, its valuable meritorious heights, its terrible lows. Anyone well read and thoughtful, in New Zealand or Canada or such points, is a very good and informed judge of the USA. However, take that with a pinch of salt if you will) is it is predicated on fictions, fictions 300 years out of date.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.

Utter arrant nonsense. Without the darstardly intervention of the French fleet in the battle of Chesapeake bay, America could have had twice the milita at hand, and they would still have lost. And the disproportion in those days, between the military might of regular armies and milita was not even of the same order of magnitude, as the present state of things.

Even the best regulated milita in the world, would be futile against any modern military machine. Communications, supply, movement, are simply impossible in the face of the modern tools in the hands of governments. So the unspoken motive for the militas, which was, to keep Washington honest, is a failed reason. If Washington fell into the hands of a tyrant, no possible civilian milita could effect change. The South had a milita equal to the Norths during the civil war, did that milita prove decisively neccesary to the security of Dixie?.

That is the overt reasoning, for Americans being allowed to buy an arsenal.And it is simply wrongheaded, not reasonable at all, an appeal to unthinking boosterism. The COVERT reason is far less flattering, but then the Yanks are my friends, I won’t be typing it out.

And we will have this same discussion again once a year or more, for the rest of our lives. 32 families destroyed, the child they placed their hopes in, nurtured, were proud of, sacrificed to support an error 300 years old. Probably 200 people or more, who will wake every day, to an unbearable loss, and then 200 more the next time, and the next, and the next. I feel so sorry for those little sisters and brothers who lost their best example of striving and learning, when they woke to hear their bigger sibling had been sacrificed to the USA gun culture. A really sad event.

“Even the best regulated milita in the world, would be futile against any modern military machine.”

OK, now please tell us how the Iraqi insurgents are kicking the Yanks’ asses, and how that squares with the crux of this argument.

Resident of Japan, long time reader, first time poster.

Just wanted to introduce myself. Figured this thread probably had the biggest audience.

Howdy, JFA. Guns. Is yew fur ‘em ‘r agin ‘em?

hello JFA my name is rem..you can pun by any time you like, you are most Welcome…sit awhile – take it easy.

Well, thank you for the salutations. I’m Finnish, so “hyvää päivää” (how do you do) to all of you.

over: No really bias either way. The topic sure makes for heated debate though…

JFA: that’s an odd co-incidence – being a remora,I’m a bit on the finnish side myself.
They claim that Finnish being an Altaic language is quite similar in pronunciation to Japanese.. do you know anything of this,by chance??

hey Kurismaki!! isn’t there an annual Japanese Film Festival in Finland every year…dash it! I believe there is.
JFA: you have turned up at just the right moment…all this talk about guns and shootings is starting to turn my stomach.
Lets talk about Sake Brewers hands and the soap made from rice bran…..anything BUT this…it’s a morbid obsession.

hi-jack away JFA ! You are most welcome anytime.. normally this site has some wonderfully sane,balanced and informative comments about Japan being made. To mind it sets a benchmark for other similar sites to aspire to.

In a word its the BEST.

But..But…some of the things that have been said over the last two days really dumbfound me.

My rose colored glasses have probably slipped off and I have a severe loss off perspective syndrome (S.L.O.P.S.) attack.

I’m gunna get a Beer now (Stella)….goodnight and good luck.

yours gloomily remora

*********

But we need our cars for self-defence!

I think we should probably ban old age before we ban cars . . .

Seriously jet-lagged over here . . .

Remora. It is possible that you misunderstand me when I say British culture countries understand the American one. I meant that “Of all the countries looking on, British ones obviously understand much more”. How could we not.They are our offshoot, for one, we share so very much in the way of things. They speak our language, more or less. We share basic underpinnings in our social life, our religious life, our legal life, just about everything. We are a people, spread across a world, cousins Johnathan, Trevor,Bruce,Jock,Patrick,and John(Can’t think of one for Canada. Canuck? Poul? )
NOW, go ahead and repeat your comment, and I will smile at the naughty fish being WILFULLY obtuse, just as you may say “Silly Kiwi” back.

My point was to disarm the instinctive American right-wingers dismissal of others opinions with something like “OH NO, YOU may not comment on our American culture, because American culture is hermetically sealed from scrutiny. The rites of Shangi la are as clear glass, compared to how closely we keep our secrets”.
When in fact, there is not one single country in the world, more open to scrutiny. Ignoring how they export their fantasy life for our entertainment, though knowing their mental baggage of movies and tv is more than a bloody handed hint to someone wondering how these killings happen of course. Their deep thinkers on social topics such as serial killers, pathology of the soul, religious debate, etc, are the core of international acadamia. Some of the best journalists in the world, live in and write on, the American society. Anyone with an inquiring mind, can’t help BUT be aware of much true info on the American culture. AND the semi-true stories they hold as guidelines. In short, know about them.

Actually, it is my firm belief, that no American can see more clearly Americas virtues and faults, than a Kiwi or and Aussie can. Woods/trees sort of thing.

Ghoti. If that isn’t your opinion about Iraq, then of course you AGREE with me, and will never be one to use the hoary lie of “We gots to keep our’n shootin’ irons, ‘case them fellas up in Wash’tin turns into ty-rants”, will you.

Because the average Iraqi before the invasion, was armed. And knew how to fight. And was a harder person than the Average American. And bound into tribes in a way American society is not, so had a support system very much more difficult to crack than the US “Militas” have. And had so very much less to lose than the American society has.
And yet, almost ineffectual against the US war machine, as you agreee. They kill lots of Iraqis, and something like 2 percent of the US troops there have been wounded or killed. But the USA rules there still, can travel to any part they wish, destroy any component of the milita they wish.

So pleased to see the one person clearly , strongly pro-guns, agree with me that the predicating reason, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, is an anacronistic lie.

I honestly did expect you would disagree.

Antibingo. I thank you most sincerely for the implied invite. However, adding your blog to my surfing, I fear, would make this computor trip over the mass limit of bandwidth, and the resulting blackhole consume the world, so I won’t be coming along for a chat. Thanks though.

My point was to disarm the instinctive American right-wingers dismissal of others opinions with something like “OH NO, YOU may not comment on our American culture, because American culture is hermetically sealed from scrutiny. The rites of Shangi la are as clear glass, compared to how closely we keep our secrets”.

What is Sam Hill are you babbling about?

Tigger – You raised a lot of good points. I wish I could write that well.

An hungry man is a angry man