- This post has been down-ranked. Click "View Post" to view it.
AnimeGalleries [dot] Net | AnimeWallpapers [dot] Com | AnimeLyrics [dot] Com | AnimePedia [dot] Com | AnimeGlobe [dot] Com |
Banned Forum / Chat
Spree shootings are really rare outside of the US. The only developed countries not engaged in domestic conflict that seem to get them are the US, Canada, Finland, and New Zeeland.
Australia had poor gun control, and a bunch of spree shootings, but have since gone with a more hard line on guns.
Israel has a similar story to Australia, but I'm reluctant to include it as an example, because of ongoing conflict and a heavily militarized population.
Of note is that China, with very strict gun laws, has had problems with spree stabbers. Because knives aren't particularly good at spree killing, the dead to injured ratio was "only" about 15%.
Last edited by Eris; 12-16-2012 at 05:10 AM.
Hey look, Japan made a movie about me!
I skimmed through the posts and summarized them into two main opposing arguments:
Pro: "Guns should be allowed because they are tools of self-defense."
Anti: "Guns should not be allowed because they do nothing but serious harm."
In my opinion, both sides are reasonable and correct:
Looking from the point of view of the pro side, if you want to preserve your life in the face of danger, you must render the hazard harmless, and gun is one of the options.
Looking from the point of view of the anti side, weapons like guns are irrefutably one of the most effective killing machines out there that have been in use in history.
Well, the following obvious facts are what I just have to say (Note that 'weapon' here is defined as “any form of tool/medium that can cause harm”.):
A person that uses no weapon cannot cause harm. A crazy person that uses no weapon cannot cause harm.
A person that uses a weapon can cause harm.
A person that uses a gun can cause serious harm. A crazy person that uses a weapon can cause serious harm.
A crazy person that uses a gun can cause massive harm.
See the development? The conclusion here is up to you to think about.
Not only does that have absolutely nothing to do with crime, you generalize that because a country produces porn that in turn will have a higher rate of sex-crimes. Do you realize the stupidity that comes off of your keyboard when you type? You not only try to defend gun rights, but also say that guns don't make killers. Yet you post that porn makes rapists. Seriously, dude. WTH?!
Two years and people still take VG and all his reincarnations seriously?
I stopped reading his posts long ago...It got old.
---------- Post added at 01:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 PM ----------
People don't realize that if guns are banned that only two sets of people will have it.
1) Cops
2) Criminals.
Yeah, not going to happen. It will make things worse.
Well, I personally am in favor of strict gun control regardless of how often spree shootings happen in the US. However, this doesn't mean I will try to persuade everyone to be on my side. I understand the freedom to bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment, so although I disagree with the current gun laws in the US, I won't start attacking those in favor of gun rights lol. That's why while stories like this do break my heart, I won't immediately start advocating stricter gun laws like some diehard liberals do.
There's a law that you must have a license for it. Problem is that it could be gotten second hand or already owned by the family. The shooting story says he went to kill his mother at the elementary, the other story says his brother talked him into killing her at home then going to the school and killing her. People say guns need to be banned but even if you get rid of the gun, humans still have pens, knives, forks, and anything they can find. Everything in this world can kill us with enough of it. It takes more than just banning the weapon, it takes cutting the problem at the source. People need help, mentally and physically. It's just that no one cares enough to help until the problem spirals out of control. Just look at high crime in rural areas full of African American people, look at domestic violence, violence against lgbt, bullying, students with weapons, students with fights, loss of jobs, and all of that. People are panhandling because its easier than getting a job! If the killer needed help, he couldn't get it. He tried finding a way but he couldn't, he was used and he cracked. The pressure built up, that's how it goes for criminals, the problem is that some of them enjoy it. They like the thrill and the fact that prison is like a friggin 5-star hotel isn't helping them at all, it's just making them want to stay longer and do more bad.
You find life unfair? Try being and egg. You only get laid once, you only get eaten once, it takes four minutes to get hard, but only two to get soft, you share a box with eleven other guys, but what's worse was the only chick to sit on you is your mom!
Just want to point out that both of those claims about the shooter are false. The mother was dead in her home prior to the elementary school shooting (Body was found after the shooting though), and the brother apparently had no knowledge or connection with the events. And also, Prison is not like a 5-star hotel. Just ask anyone that's ever been to jail.
There's a Brazilian prison that always criminals to get family visits once a month and the spouses of the criminals are allowed to go inside the prison and do whatever they want even have sex with their convicted partner, another prison allows TVs for the inmates, in Trinidad there's a prison that allows you to clean up outside and take a year off your sentence each week you clean. It may not be every prison but there's always at least one prison in every place that gives a bit more freedom that they should to the criminals.
Last edited by ~Fallen~Angel~; 12-16-2012 at 05:11 PM.
You find life unfair? Try being and egg. You only get laid once, you only get eaten once, it takes four minutes to get hard, but only two to get soft, you share a box with eleven other guys, but what's worse was the only chick to sit on you is your mom!
So being able to see your family and have a TV in the common area to watch, along with having the option of being productive with your sentence equates to a prison being like a "5-Star Hotel". Gotcha. And here I thought that was just normal to keep people from going insane from shear boredom and allow those whom wish to redeem themselves somehow (whether through sorrow or just to have the chance to get out early), provided they meet certain requirements, was something benefitting the government and the punished criminal.
I promise you jail isn't that great even with all though things. Hell most of that you have to earn your right to utilize them. But hey, why don't you go to jail and prove to me that I'm wrong. While you're at it, why not ask the rest of the inmates how they feel about their perks in jail.
tl;dr the rest of the thread.
However I will say the following
1. Strict gun laws is not the answer
2. making guns available for everyone to conceal for self defense is not the answer.
Take your focus off the gun, the video games, the media and focus on the individual. Lets see, I own two glock 19s, few rifles and I play violent FPS games. Do I have an interest to go out and murder someone? Nah. It's not in my mentality.
Having a gun in my possession doesn't create any rush or sudden urge to do damage. I grew up with guns. Slept in a room with a closet fully lined with them, wandered a house with a few guns in a corner by the door out in the open. I've gotten quite used to their presence. The object causes serious damage but it's not the object but the person. Other objects are just as dangerous, such as a car. One carefully intended maneuver with your car and you can do a whole lot of unsuspecting damage with this heavy piece of machinery.
People are going to have guns no matter what you do just like drugs. (heck if you think about it, a lot of murders happen over drug wars. Those two go hand in hand) However allowing everyone to conceal them will likely increase the probability of someone getting an adrenaline rush with it in their presence and might not quite be reasonable. However we have no way of determining the mentality of every human being on this planet and if they are at a breaking point or not..
今日...明日...永遠に...
Interested in Pop-Up Cafes in Japan? Dango News is the place for you.
Dango News | Twitter | Facebook | Instagram
You know what my grandfather used to say about "if"? IF a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its butt when it hopped.
Anyway to answer your hypothetical, it wouldn't make things worse, though it would make the statistics look better. That being said, people would simply use knives or tazers, or something else to protect themselves as well as commit crimes. It's a dysfunction within human nature that needs to be looked at right at the start. Mere gun bans or strapping more guns to folks is only a simple Band-Aid to a larger problem within the U.S.. Thus is why we need a serious discussion from everyone, and not some silly debate between a NRA spokesman and an anti-gun believer.
No it's the TYPE OF THINGS DEPICTED in hentai that are far worse than western porn, and would tend to appeal to sex offenders, so sex offenders are the ONLY PEOPLE who would buy THAT TYPE OF PORN. The fact that A MARKET EXISTS FOR THAT TYPE OF PORN is PROOF that there are LOTS OF SEX OFFENDERS IN JAPAN, FAR MORE THAN IN THE US.
Actually it's not that worse than the typical stuff you see coming out of LA. And even still you're argument is silly and not based in anything but pure conjecture.
Want the facts? Here's the facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics Apparently they aren't as sex-crazed as you think. At least no where near the U.S.. So you still want to try to make that argument of less guns = more rapes?
Knives are not as deadly as guns as don't cause shockwave tearing of tissues like bullets do (to they point you can litterally blow off someone's arm with a high enough callibur gun like maybe a .50BMG sniper rifle) when they go through you, but they can still kill, and not everyone is trained in hand-to-hand combat against a knife wielding thug. But if you have a gun, it's VERY EASY to defend against a knife wielding thug. Stand 20ft back and pull the trigger, and the guy who wanted to knife you is now dead if hit in or near a vital organ (or if you shoot him in the leg he'll collapse in pain and need hospitalization, so that he will not be able to continue his attack). So a gun can be VERY USEFUL FOR SELF DEFENSE even if your attacker doesn't also have a gun.
Using your link, you'll see 10 in the US (Saippan doesn't count). Clicking "Spree shootings in the United States" shows the list of them. Clicking "Category:American spree killers" then shows you the list of spree killers, a list of 68 people. Assuming Wikipedia is correct, and we've experienced 11 spree shootings in the US, how on Earth can this be argued as a frequent event?
Of which only the United States does not have strict gun control at the time of its spree shootings.
...Followed by two more spree shootings after adopting its hard line gun control policies.
You're smart Eris. I trust you can follow the trend. You're also smart enough to know that what's listed in the Wiki page is anything but all-inclusive; I'm looking at the PDF of a drawn out gunfight between two drug cartels across the Mexican/United States border that resulted in a dozen or so deaths. Mexico virtually prohibits firearms ownership, specifically of weapons chambered in calibers used by the government. Peru is much the same in this respect.
Violence is international. Gun violence in particular is not uniquely American; it occurs everywhere in the world regardless of that nation's policies on gun ownership. What is uniquely American is that we have, by comparison, excellent crime reporting and an extraordinarily politicized media in a nation of many ideologies.
Cumbria shootings, 14 years into the most strict gun ownership laws of the nation's history. A few years earlier, Home Office reported soaring rates of crime committed using guns, and has risen 60% since 1996 (the previous UK spree shooting, after which the Labour party came to power and changed the UK's gun laws into what they are today).
Gun control will not stop spree killings or spree killers. Proactive law enforcement, better mental health care (specifically better reaching out to those in need who would not seek help otherwise, or who man not know they need it), better overall economic circumstances, and a greater cultural focus on family and friends over working as much as possible for greater monetary income will go a hell of a lot further than making current and would-be criminals have to break the law to get weapons.
I agree, gun control will not stop shooting sprees since the reason for them lies deeper. However, gun control could make them more rare. If a country makes it very difficult to actually get a gun through legal means I think it will have an impact. Yes guns could still be attained through other means such as illegal ones. But then that would be a hurdle that everyone might not be able to overcome for various reasons.
In my country for example, I wouldnt have a clue where I could get a gun. Maybe its simple if you live in a bad neighbourhood, I dont know? But I dont live in such a place so for me, in my town, and my previous town, that would be a challenge indeed. And like some before me have said, guns are so simple to use once you get a hold of them, and so destructive if your intents are such. Therefore I say, make every effort to make guns as hard to acquire as possible.
If you say that the real problem is this dysfunction within human nature, it would take an indefinite amount of time for humans to correct this; you cannot correct human nature by just discussing it with everyone overnight. Also, you still cannot deny the fact that such weapon in itself has a great potential harm that can be unleashed.
The point that I want to make here is this:
Since we are uncertain whether we can correct this dysfunction or not, or have control over someone's mental state, it's better that nobody has to carry weapons that possess great potential harm, so that whether you are to defend yourself or to commit a crime, you won't be able to deal considerable damage to anyone else. Also, there was a point in time when such powerful weapons did not exist and mass murders (like we have today) were not feasible.
And since you brought up human nature, here's what I can say about it:
What we really fear are not the guns, but the people who carry them. People who carry guns pose a threat to those who don't. We fear not the weapons, but the imbalance of power due to the possession of weapons. We feel insecure because of this difference in power; someone who has greater power can inflict greater damage to others. Then we'd all want to be equal, i.e. for everyone to possess the same power, thus inflict the same degree of harm as anybody can. As long as somebody possesses a greater power, thus posing a greater threat, we will never feel absolutely safe.
Now, eliminating the existence of powerful weapons (like guns) so that no one can use them, may be entirely infeasible. But do you really think that giving everyone guns would make this world a better place to live in?
Last edited by Mizukoi Kurumi; 12-17-2012 at 09:20 AM.
It breaks my heart to hear about this and how many people were killed.
I heared this morning that the shooter had a serious case of mental illness and his neighbors said he would only answer questions, like "How are you?" with 2 word answers and would simply walk away. He would almost never smile.
The last time I checked, and you can look this up yourself, the rape rate in Japan is significantly low despite wide distribution of pornography. On the other hand, India has a significantly high rape rate despite low availability of porn. Not to mention, you are off topic.
Source: My Psychology Book
Last edited by Alice Lost; 12-17-2012 at 10:06 AM.
I can only post one day a week. ...Phooey.
I didn't say it was gonna be overnight. I simply said we need to talk about the facts and the issues here. Hope you packed a snickers because it's gonna be a long one.
So back with the guns. "I cannot deny the fact that such a weapon in itself has a great potential to harm that can be unleashed"... You're absolutely right. This is also the reason why I refuse to own and why I call for a ban on fully automatic rifles. They have no purpose in the civilian population; not sport, not hunting, not anything. Handguns and shotguns however, I support being able to own in cases of self defense and home protection. Hunting rifles are also ok in my book. They're only good for hunting. You can't tell me you're gonna go hunt a deer with an M249 SAW. There'd be no deer left for anything. Same goes for hunting with an AK-47 or a full-auto AR-15. All hunting rifles are semi-automatic and most are bolt action. But you missed my point about getting rid of guns entirely. People will simply move to another medium for killing. Whether it be a bomb or a knife, they've simply use something else. Hell, Maybe it'll be the rebirth of the swordsmen. You cannot deny the fact that there are more objects out there than just guns that also have a high potential to harm.
As for your bit on Human Nature, I'd like you to know that it's been said, "God create Man, but Sam Colt made all Men equal". But where did you get this notion that I wanted more guns for everyone? I've already said it in this thread that with 300,000,000 guns you cannot tell me more guns is the right answer.
Again, back to the prior discussion of having a long drawn out serious discussion on the topic of making our lives safer in America.
People have had no problems overcoming the hurdle of illegally acquiring weapons throughout the world and throughout history. In most of Central and South America, ownership of weapons of calibers used by the government are illegal, yet they're the most commonly owned weapons by civilians. In Australia earlier this year, a country which very strictly regulates sales and possession of firearms, Sydney saw a rash of shootings that police have yet to really solve or address. Finland's had 4 high-profile shootings in the last 5 years and has only slightly more permissive laws than Australia. Uganda has very strict gun laws and saw two high-profile shootings in the same year in the 90s.
What I said stands: strict gun control does not stop shootings, spree or otherwise. It's doubtful that it even makes it harder; nations with fairly low legal firearms ownership still see weapons illegally acquired/imported to use in crime. The only way to directly address these mass killings is to address the root causes, which includes not glorifying the events as the media does. This should not be an issue of gun control, but rather of addressing fairly serious social problems.
Prove it.
There are over 3,000,000 active licenses to carry firearms in the United States. Conservatively, a little less than half actually carry their firearms regularly. This is still almost double the number of law enforcement officers in the United States, including federal law enforcement. People who legally own and carry weapons are not the problem.
You fear an imbalance of power? 3 out of 7 sexual assaults are by multiple assailants. The vast majority of sexual assaults are of women, by men. Men are, on average, 15% heavier, 6" taller, and significantly physically stronger than women. Over 20% of sexual predators assault an average of 7 women before getting caught and about 15 women per hour will face sexual predators. We're talking 6 or so women per hour facing multiple sexual predators, of which 1 in 5 predators will have experience in the process.
By all means, suggest an effective method of self-defense for these women that is not a firearm.
Death, if you'd humor me, I'd like you to answer a few questions:
- How frequently are automatic weapons used in crimes?
- What is a hunting rifle? (Meaning, what distinguishes it from any other rifle?)
- How much do you know about hunting, to include the process, tools, laws, etc.
I think you'll find that in answering these questions, you'll modify your stance on firearms ownership a bit.
Side note:
Last edited by Forgotten Show; 12-18-2012 at 01:34 AM.
Relax, it's just my theory. Well, I personally feel a little paranoid around people who carry them, even if they're officers.Originally Posted by Forgotten Show
I'm not against the people; I'm against the existence of firearms.Originally Posted by Forgotten Show
That's what I'm saying. We would like women to carry firearms to defend themselves from the stronger predatory men. But even if you're a woman with a gun against many men, defending yourself might still be difficult.Originally Posted by Forgotten Show
If running, shouting for help, having guys with you, using a taser, and using martial arts all don't work, well spare me.
Last edited by Mizukoi Kurumi; 12-18-2012 at 02:55 AM.
Tasers and OC spray are useless against multiple assailants. Martial arts sounds good but in practice is orders of magnitude harder to implement, to say nothing of doing so when smaller and weaker than multiple attackers. Shouting for help is not very reliable, and having guys with you is likewise not a reliable option. Running apparently doesn't always work, given that rapes still happen every few minutes.
Like it or not, there is no practical tool better suited to overcome, to whatever degree, a discrepancy in force than a firearm. As the saying goes, "God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal." Before availability of personally-owned firearms, nothing existed that would level a playing field between the strong and the weak or the few and the many. I have no desire whatsoever to see firearms magically disappear and return us to a world where the strong dictate confrontations however they please.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks