Could absence of gun control have saved VT victims?

[colliric]

Todays news 4-25 2007
“Violent crimes and shootings have been skyrocketing in JAPAN and the majority are directly a result of or related to organized crime. Some of the toughest restrictions on gun ownership has had NO effect” MSNBC television.

Just a thought- What if we banned Hollywood movies that glorify Gangsters and gun violence. Read “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society” by David Grossman. Clear concise proven facts that the rise in violence is directly the fault of glorified violence in movies, television, and video games. Increased exposure erases the moral barrier to killing that 99.99% of humans are born with.

Police in Great Britian never carried guns until it became required after they started banning them.

2/3rds of those crimes were caused specifically by the Yakuza. They were not caused by citizens. That is a clear distinctional difference. The Yakuza has always existed and they are powerful. They have always been powerful even when there was gun control.

But restricting the effect of guns minimized the crimes not committed by the Yakuza and to Japan that is a big sucess.
Despite the fact that the yakuza has access to illegal weaponry anyway, the choice to go to gun control in Japan was to cut down on civillians killing other civillians and to try to get the Yakuza’s power down by trying to cut off at least some of their supplies.

If it’s had no effect on the Yakuza, it has however gotten rid of the civillians killing civillians aspect, and therefore it has been successful because it has culled gun crimes drastically, with the sad exception of the Yakuza which has evaded the law so far.

Japan is going to increase gun control laws again in another attempt to stop the powerful Yakuza organisation(they had a politician shot recently, in fact around the same date as the VT).
Japan sees it’s gun controls as a success in getting rid of Civilian gun crimes and also as the right route to stop the Yakuza, by cutting off supply, and they made the choice to continue down that path just last week.

Think twice about using the USA MSNBC opinion on Japan, because it is clearly NOT the Japanese opinion of their own laws. Thats like when protestants say “catholics don’t read the bible” when Catholics inside their own church will rightfully disagree.

 

[colliric]

And since then all privately owned firearms were confiscated by law enforcement. So why has your violent crime rate, and armed robberies increased by over 47% by the last data I read from your own government news releases.
Great solution that turned out to be. you should have learned from Great Britian. They made the same mistake and now are expiriencing an even higher increase in violence.

Sorry but those facts are wrong, the Aus government site that other user quoted showed that the overall crime victimization rate FELL by over 7% from 2000 to 2004 and PEOPLE FELT SIGNIFICANTLY SAFER. And that was an international report, not our own report. In fact If this report you talk about was the report the other user looked at, I already pointed out the first thing this release said, was the above 2 facts and that the other user ignored that and also ignored the title of the article.

If this is not the same report please provide a link to this other Aus government report.

 

[colliric]

• When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense – give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).
  *** Continued in NEXT Post ***

Hang on, isn’t Peter defending Jesus from Violent criminals who want to kill Jesus when Jesus tells Peter to chuck the sword and let them take him?

Or am I mistaken?

Defending your self is fine, but not to kill them and become them.

 

[Chancellare]

Again, at the risk of sounding like a nut case:

1. Guns and all other forms of weapon kill people. To protect innocents, we arm them to kill the bad ones.
2. Let’s say polluting the environment is another form of killing people (though slower), such that pollutants are the weapons of choice. To protect the innocents we arm them with stronger pollutants to kill the bad ones?

 

[Montalban]

And since then all privately owned firearms were confiscated by law enforcement. So why has your violent crime rate, and armed robberies increased by over 47% by the last data I read from your own government news releases.
Great solution that turned out to be. you should have learned from Great Britian. They made the same mistake and now are expiriencing an even higher increase in violence.

Perhaps you need to go back over a few earlier posts where crime stats have been stated.

Note when a pro-gun guy states out stats he shows a figure that involves ALL forms of sexual assault (including rape) and measures this up against the USA - citing only rape.

You might be convinced, but hey, you own a gun, right !?

 

[Montalban]

When the US Founding Fathers guaranteed the right of the people forever to keep and bear arms, it was not so that there could be a government-run national army. A “well regulated militia” referred to the public as the militia for the preservation of liberty and as a CHECK against the STATE (our US OF A) becoming tyrannical and oppressive of us, the people. If we are armed, the government cannot rule as a tyranny. A country in which the state alone possesses weaponry is a country that could easily become a tyranny against the common people, who, being unarmed, would be unable to overthrow the tyranny.
The USA was born by overthrowing the British occupiers, for pete’s sake. The founding fathers of the USA understood the danger of a government which had absolute authority over unarmed people.

Really? When you were at war against Britain, and you called out the militia, who did the calling? A colonial legislature, a governor, or Joe Smith down the road?

 

[Brendan]

Your own site about Australian crime doesn’t mention rape, but sexual assault. Rape is a type of sexual assault. It’s not all forms of sexual assault, so your figures are rubbery because you’re comapring a USA figure (one type of sexual assualt) with an Australian figure (all types of sexual assualt) and of course you get less from the USA category.

Well done!

Sexual Assault includes evrything from ‘copping a feel’ of a woman up onwards.

The US Federal Government classified Rape by degrees. First degree is sexaul penetration. Second Degree is sexual contact, Third degree is sexual viewing.

The rape figure reported by the FBI includes forcible rape in all three catagories, namley any 1st, 2nd or 4rd degree Rape that involved force or threat of force ( consentual Statutory Rape, such as between an 17 year old minor and an 18 year old adult would be excluded)

Most government, including all industrialized nations, report crime accoring to the UN Uniform Crime reporting standards. The US and AUS do so. The terms might be slightly different, but the comparison is ‘apples to apples’

 

[Brendan]

Really? When you were at war against Britain, and you called out the militia, who did the calling? A colonial legislature, a governor, or Joe Smith down the road?

A great example is Paul Revere, a silversmith from Boston. He called out the milita to Concord and Lexington when the British were setting out to capture the ( privately owned) cannon and powder.

And the milita officers were fellow townsmen that were elected by their troops.

 

[mary_bobo]

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Thomas Jefferson, “Commonplace Book”.

 

[mgrobertson79]

“( consentual Statutory Rape, such as between an 17 year old minor and an 18 year old adult would be excluded)”

For the record, Statutory Rape only happens when the victim is under 16 and the attacker is at least 6 years older. Older than 16 is no longer a minor when it comes to consent and thus all sexual matters.

 

[Brendan]

For the record, Statutory Rape only happens when the victim is under 16 and the attacker is at least 6 years older. Older than 16 is no longer a minor when it comes to consent and thus all sexual matters.

That is regulated by the individual States. Some have age of consent at 16, others do not. Michigan (where I live) has the age at 16, if the other party is within 3 years old.

IIRC, Oklahoma has the age of consent at 18, but Statuary Rape does not occur of both parties are below that age.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Hang on, isn’t Peter defending Jesus from Violent criminals who want to kill Jesus when Jesus tells Peter to chuck the sword and let them take him?

Or am I mistaken?

Defending your self is fine, but not to kill them and become them.

Hold on a second. You have a few misconceptions …

1. *] First off, Jesus commanded His followers to arm themselves with a sword. They were to do this even if they had to sell their outer garment to do it. Jesus, who was a strong supporter of the poor and often taught people to sell what they own and give to the poor, would not have commanded His followers to buy a weapon if He didn’t intend for them to use it if the need arose. Because if He did, then that would have been a waste of money and not consistent with the rest of His teachings to help the poor.
   
   *]
   

   Hang on, isn’t Peter defending Jesus from Violent criminals who want to kill Jesus when Jesus tells Peter to chuck the sword and let them take him?
   
   Or am I mistaken?

   You are mistaken. Jesus did NOT tell Peter to “chuck the sword”. To do so, would have been wasteful of money which could have been given to the poor. Instead, He told Peter to “put away” the sword and the reason why He said this was because Jesus knew that He had to suffer and die for our sins.
   
   *]
   

   Defending your self is fine, but not to kill them and become them.

   Your statement is not supported by the teaching of the Catholic church which tell us that we have a grave duty to defend ourselves EVEN IF it means killing our attacker for we are to take greater care of our own life than that of our attacker and if our attacker should die as a result of our defense, then we are NOT guilty of murder so we do NOT “become them”; as you put it.

 

[Brendan]

Or am I mistaken?

Defending your self is fine, but not to kill them and become them.

Pope John Paul disagrees with you

EVANGELIUM VITAE

“…legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case,** the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about**, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.”

If an agressor is killed in the process of attacking me, the death is attributable to the attacker, NOT me.

 

[mgrobertson79]

It sure is nice to see a consensus building here. I’m also glad the UN has little no no bearing on US policy regarding this matter. They claim we have no right to self defense. Is that because they now want to take over the world? Oh well, I guess that is to much like a conspiracy theory novel.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I’m also glad the UN has little no no bearing on US policy regarding this matter

Sadly, they do. According to our constitution, if we enter into a treaty, the provisions of that treaty become law. Fortunately, the last time around, Bush did not sign it.

 

[mgrobertson79]

I have a feeling that will start the war to end all wars. A truely global conflict between good and evil. I just hope it waits another 75 years or so.

 

[tbrown57]

For the record, Statutory Rape only happens when the victim is under 16 and the attacker is at least 6 years older. Older than 16 is no longer a minor when it comes to consent and thus all sexual matters.

Hate to disagree but at least 2 cases here in NC were statutory rape, Indecent liberties with a minor, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor involved 15 and 16 year old girls and an 18 or 19 year old males. Both males were convicted all three charges. The 6 years older rule doesn’t apply even in my old home state of NY, recent case from the Plattsburgh NY paper involving same age groups.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sadly, they do. According to our constitution, if we enter into a treaty, the provisions of that treaty become law. Fortunately, the last time around, Bush did not sign it.

A treaty, which merely requires a majority of the senate, cannot amend the Constitution.

 

[tbrown57]

Perhaps you need to go back over a few earlier posts where crime stats have been stated.

Note when a pro-gun guy states out stats he shows a figure that involves ALL forms of sexual assault (including rape) and measures this up against the USA - citing only rape.

You might be convinced, but hey, you own a gun, right !?

WRONG!!! Could not find the earlier stats you mention. and RAPE has nothing to do with the stats I quoted unless the criminal was armed. They were crimes involving firearms or deadly weapons in any way, even if the criminal only had it in his possession.

PS: Idon’t own a gun, I own several. Also I own several cars but don’t go around spinnig the facts about drunk drivers.

 

[tbrown57]

2/3rds of those crimes were caused specifically by the Yakuza. They were not caused by citizens. That is a clear distinctional difference. The Yakuza has always existed and they are powerful. They have always been powerful even when there was gun control.

But restricting the effect of guns minimized the crimes not committed by the Yakuza and to Japan that is a big sucess.
Despite the fact that the yakuza has access to illegal weaponry anyway, the choice to go to gun control in Japan was to cut down on civillians killing other civillians and to try to get the Yakuza’s power down by trying to cut off at least some of their supplies.

If it’s had no effect on the Yakuza, it has however gotten rid of the civillians killing civillians aspect, and therefore it has been successful because it has culled gun crimes drastically, with the sad exception of the Yakuza which has evaded the law so far.

Japan is going to increase gun control laws again in another attempt to stop the powerful Yakuza organisation(they had a politician shot recently, in fact around the same date as the VT).
Japan sees it’s gun controls as a success in getting rid of Civilian gun crimes and also as the right route to stop the Yakuza, by cutting off supply, and they made the choice to continue down that path just last week.

Think twice about using the USA MSNBC opinion on Japan, because it is clearly NOT the Japanese opinion of their own laws. Thats like when protestants say “catholics don’t read the bible” when Catholics inside their own church will rightfully disagree.

Sorry I’ve been to JAPAN and you are not quoting their opinion either. Most Japanese were against the gun control laws but the politicians did what they wanted anyway. Most Japanes citizens are now in greater fear for their safety than before, even their police are scared.