VABills Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 http://english.people.com.cn/200704/18/eng...418_367501.html Island nation, no guns allowed laws, even the police do not carry unless out on a specific sting. Yet somehow this mayor was killed with a gun. But this can't be, since guns are illegal. How did it get there, didn't the shooter know it's illegal to have guns in Japan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 http://english.people.com.cn/200704/18/eng...418_367501.html Island nation, no guns allowed laws, even the police do not carry unless out on a specific sting. Yet somehow this mayor was killed with a gun. But this can't be, since guns are illegal. How did it get there, didn't the shooter know it's illegal to have guns in Japan? This is extremely rare. The Yamaguchi-gumi which is based in Kobe doesn't kill government officials, it extorts them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 18, 2007 Author Share Posted April 18, 2007 This is extremely rare. The Yamaguchi-gumi which is based in Kobe doesn't kill government officials, it extorts them. Rare or not. I thought banning guns would prevent this. And yes I am well aware of how things work. Although they have been known to blow up houses, kill family members by drowning them, etc.... But you're right gun usage does tend to be lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Obviously, the problem is American gun laws...coming so soon after the VT Holocaust (sic) perpetrated by none other than an Asian student, this is clearly a copycat murder, and wouldn't have happened if America outlawed guns. [/bBC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 http://english.people.com.cn/200704/18/eng...418_367501.html Island nation, no guns allowed laws, even the police do not carry unless out on a specific sting. Yet somehow this mayor was killed with a gun. But this can't be, since guns are illegal. How did it get there, didn't the shooter know it's illegal to have guns in Japan? They seem to have got it just right in Iraq, where everyone owns a gun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 They seem to have got it just right in Iraq, where everyone owns a gun I'm happy with Amendment 2. Just not sure we should be promoting it abroad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 I'm happy with Amendment 2. Just not sure we should be promoting it abroad. They must have REALLY violent video games and movies in Iraq! http://www.silive.com/news/advance/index.s....xml&coll=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdh1 Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Rare or not. I thought banning guns would prevent this. And yes I am well aware of how things work. Although they have been known to blow up houses, kill family members by drowning them, etc.... But you're right gun usage does tend to be lower. How about this old school, no gun needed killing? DIYARBAKIR, Turkey (Reuters) -- Attackers on Wednesday slit the throats of three people in a Turkish publishing house which printed bibles, security officials said, the latest attack on minorities in mainly Muslim Turkey. NTV said a fourth person had died in hospital, but the report could not be confirmed. Security officials said six people had been detained in connection with the attack in the southeastern city of Malatya. Television pictures showed police wrestling one man to the ground and leading several young men out of the building, apparently in handcuffs. An official from the publishing house told local television that they had received threats over its publications. The attack follows the murder earlier this year of Armenian-Turkish editor Hrant Dink by an ultranationalist, which prompted extra security measures to be taken for writers and journalists. Dink was also from Malatya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 How about this old school, no gun needed killing?DIYARBAKIR, Turkey (Reuters) -- Attackers on Wednesday slit the throats of three people in a Turkish publishing house which printed bibles, security officials said, the latest attack on minorities in mainly Muslim Turkey. NTV said a fourth person had died in hospital, but the report could not be confirmed. Security officials said six people had been detained in connection with the attack in the southeastern city of Malatya. Television pictures showed police wrestling one man to the ground and leading several young men out of the building, apparently in handcuffs. An official from the publishing house told local television that they had received threats over its publications. The attack follows the murder earlier this year of Armenian-Turkish editor Hrant Dink by an ultranationalist, which prompted extra security measures to be taken for writers and journalists. Dink was also from Malatya. Very nice. In pdh1land all constitutional issues are about Muslims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 I'm happy with Amendment 2. Just not sure we should be promoting it abroad. So am I, "a well regulated militia". I have no problem letting each household have single shot muskets or pistols like they did when the Constitution was written. I'm also OK with hunting rifles and shotguns. But I see no need for the public to have semi-automatic weapons and quick load pistols with clips. They should be restricted to the military and police. But I'm also realistic and know it will never change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 I'm happy with Amendment 2. Just not sure we should be promoting it abroad.I'm happy with it too, just not how it has been selectively used and exploited. After all, how many gun owners do you know that are members of your local militia? The 2nd, after all, says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State and therefore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. If you take an objective look, if one is not part of a well regulated militia, one's "right" to bear arms is non existent - at least according to the highest law in the land, the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 I'm happy with it too, just not how it has been selectively used and exploited. After all, how many gun owners do you know that are members of your local militia? The 2nd, after all, says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State and therefore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. If you take an objective look, if one is not part of a well regulated militia, one's "right" to bear arms is non existent - at least according to the highest law in the land, the Constitution. Oh c'mon now, a "well regulated militia" is kind of like Calvin's Invisible Church. Only god knows its members. So don't try to play God here, mister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Oh c'mon now, a "well regulated militia" is kind of like Calvin's Invisible Church. Only god knows its members. So don't try to play God here, mister. FNORD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 I'm happy with it too, just not how it has been selectively used and exploited. After all, how many gun owners do you know that are members of your local militia? The 2nd, after all, says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State and therefore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. If you take an objective look, if one is not part of a well regulated militia, one's "right" to bear arms is non existent - at least according to the highest law in the land, the Constitution. If you take an objective look, the Constitution also clearly does not limit gun ownership to militia members. As well, since at the time of the writing militias were state-level organizations, one could objectively determine that the federal government is prohibited from passing laws restricting gun ownership, whereas the states aren't, since they're actually the ones regulating the militia. It's a semantic argument, for certain. So is most Constitutional law, frankly. "Objectively" the Second Amendment is not as objective as some would believe, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 http://english.people.com.cn/200704/18/eng...418_367501.html Island nation, no guns allowed laws, even the police do not carry unless out on a specific sting. Yet somehow this mayor was killed with a gun. But this can't be, since guns are illegal. How did it get there, didn't the shooter know it's illegal to have guns in Japan? I've been assigned the 2nd for a paper in my Comparative Government class so I've been looking at numbers and arguments for a few weeks now... These stats are a couple of years old, but according to the CDC: 0.21 Japanese kids are killed by a firearm each year. Over 5,200 American kids are killed by firearms each year. The rate of gun violence in the US is 12 times that of 25 other industrialized nations. American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. I support the 2nd so you won't get too much guff from me but it's not too difficult to see that America's infatuation with firearms and our refusal to enforce the 2nd as written (edit: due to DCTom's very good point, I should correct myself and say "how I believe it was intended") is killing us -- literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 If you take an objective look, the Constitution also clearly does not limit gun ownership to militia members. As well, since at the time of the writing militias were state-level organizations, one could objectively determine that the federal government is prohibited from passing laws restricting gun ownership, whereas the states aren't, since they're actually the ones regulating the militia. It's a semantic argument, for certain. So is most Constitutional law, frankly. "Objectively" the Second Amendment is not as objective as some would believe, though. Touche' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 These stats are a couple of years old, but according to the CDC: 0.21 Japanese kids are killed by a firearm each year. Uhhhh...oh, nevermind... Over 5,200 American kids are killed by firearms each year. The rate of gun violence in the US is 12 times that of 25 other industrialized nations. But - and here's the real key - how does that correlate with gun ownership compared to 25 other industrialized nations? Comparing firearms death rates across nations is ambiguous on its own, particularly when you're arguing gun ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 http://english.people.com.cn/200704/18/eng...418_367501.html Island nation, no guns allowed laws, even the police do not carry unless out on a specific sting. Yet somehow this mayor was killed with a gun. But this can't be, since guns are illegal. How did it get there, didn't the shooter know it's illegal to have guns in Japan? Can you point me to any quote by an advocate of gun control that states that making guns illegal is going to prevent all gun crime? Career criminals (certainly members of crime syndicates) are always going to have the right connections to get hold of a firearm. However, social misfits that feel like carrying out a massacre may find it substantially harder to do if getting hold of a gun is somewhat more difficult than walking into their local gunshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdh1 Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Very nice. In pdh1land all constitutional issues are about Muslims. They were muslims that killed those people? How did you know that? It is just as relevant as stories from Japan and Iraq are regarding constitutional issues. I guess the only usable news stories are the ones featuring white christians. A good thing I didn't use the story of the Iranian student running over students with his car last year at Chapel Hill to show violence on campus can be committed with things other than guns. Oops I just did.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 I hope you also point out how many of the 5200 are between 16-18 years old and gang members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts