Guns Because

[Svartalf]

tattuchu, this post: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 6#p1425336
contains a personal attack on another member, which is against forum rules. Please desist in future.

I had given him the reminder within minutes of it being posted.

[Collector1337]

To Seth

Amazing how NRA propaganda and John Lott bullshit keeps getting quoted as if it were true. It is not.

There is a big difference between truth and bulldust. If you stick to reputable sources, instead of internet crap sources, you will report accurately. Sadly, you do not.

The wild west, as reported earlier had a homicide rate of 25 per 100, 000 people per year. More than 6 fold greater than today, and due to more guns.

All states in the USA have as many guns as its people want. Local laws mean nothing when you just need to pop across the state border to buy whatever guns you wish. So the murder rate, state by state, is just whatever number of murderous assholes there are. Nothing to do with state law since anyone who wants a gun gets one.

Most gun murders, according to FBI figures are two guys arguing. When one loses his temper, he snatches his gun and kills the other. Just that simple. The easy way to reduce this toll is to cut the number of hand guns.

Too bad you only believe anything that's anti-gun as "reputable."

[Coito ergo sum]

Blow me, you utter and complete waste-of-DNA embarrassment-to-my-country worthless piece of fucking shit. If I were insane enough to own a gun, I'd happily shoot you in the fucking face.

It has to be reiterated that one need not be "insane" to own a gun. Guns are tools, and useful devices, and there are plenty of good reasons to own them. I do not own one, but I can still see many reasons to own them. At a bare minimum to run around calling people "insane" if they own a gun is nonsensical, ad hominem, unproductive, puerile and silly.

[Seth]

To Seth

Amazing how NRA propaganda and John Lott bullshit keeps getting quoted as if it were true. It is not.

Sure it is, you just don't care to believe it. Your pet Harvard study was refuted by Lott and others long ago, and is therefore of no interest.

There is a big difference between truth and bulldust. If you stick to reputable sources, instead of internet crap sources, you will report accurately. Sadly, you do not.

No, you do not. And that's exactly what you use and you know it. Sauce, goose, gander.

The wild west, as reported earlier had a homicide rate of 25 per 100, 000 people per year. More than 6 fold greater than today, and due to more guns.

Depends on where you were and what was classified as a "homicide." That's where your "experts" like to play jiggery-pokey with the numbers, just as the Harvard crew did.

And you are assuming a causal connection, not proving it. Just because you think more guns was responsible doesn't mean that's the truth. What we see in the US today that refutes your claim is a drop in violent crime in EVERY jurisdiction where concealed carry has been made lawful in the last 20 years. More guns, less crime.

All states in the USA have as many guns as its people want.

So why did Mr. McDonald have to take a case to the Supreme Court of the United States in order to get permission to keep and bear a handgun in his own home for self protection? Explain that, Einstein.

Local laws mean nothing when you just need to pop across the state border to buy whatever guns you wish.

Damned right they don't. More importantly they mean nothing because they are, by and large, violations of the 2nd Amendment, and in most cases violations of the state's Constitution as well.

So the murder rate, state by state, is just whatever number of murderous assholes there are. Nothing to do with state law since anyone who wants a gun gets one.

Except for Mr. McDonald and a couple of million people in Chicago and everybody but the high mucky-mucks like Dianne Feinstein (the hypocritical cunt) in Washington, DC and a few million other people who live in places where their rights are being infringed...like the 12 million people in New York City.

Most gun murders, according to FBI figures are two guys arguing.

So? Who cares why one person is authorized to use deadly force in self defense and the other guy who is illegally threatening deadly force gets killed?

When one loses his temper, he snatches his gun and kills the other. Just that simple.

For simple minds perhaps. For those of us with even a modicum of intelligence, the matter is much more complex and nuanced.

The easy way to reduce this toll is to cut the number of hand guns.

...in the hands of criminals. I would agree. The best way to accomplish THAT is to put MORE guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, which has been conclusively proven to reduce the violent crime rate everywhere it's been implemented.

Sorry, but facts make your conclusion of little interest.

[Blind groper]

We have a different definition of 'facts', I am afraid, Seth.

Your definition is that anything anyone says that matches your opinions is a fact. in my case, a fact has to match up to high standards of empiricism, objective nature, and credibility. Like when a group of academics question Lott's "research", and Lott says "Don't worry. I assure you that I am not lying." Because Lott reinforces your own prejudice, you ignore the reputable work of a number of researchers and go with the liar Lott.

Sorry, but I need data, not bullshit.

Here is some data for you.
http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/?mg= ... j#view=all

This is a summary made by the Wall Street Journal of FBI murder data for the whole of the USA for the 11 years of 2000 to 2010, excluding Florida, which for some reason compiles crime data in a non standard format.

Total murders : 165,068
Murders with firearms : 111,289 - the vast majority of murders are done with a gun.
With a knife, by comparison (second most used weapon) is only 20,503

Circumstances of murder.
1. Argument (not over money or property) 39,686
2. Unknown (unsolved cases) 21,496
3. Juvenile gangland killing 8,451
4. other gangland killings 1,205.

In other words, gangs make a relatively small contribution to overall murder statistics in the USA.

What of the relationship between killer and victim? Often (70,896) this is unknown. But for those in which it is known, only 25,790 murders are done by a stranger. Murders done by someone known to the victim, whether family, friend or acquaintance, come to 71,341. So the greatest number of murders are done by someone known to the victim.

These figures do not not match up, Seth to your paranoid fear of strangers invading your home. If you get murdered, it will probably be someone close to you who does it. If you keep a gun at home, it is very likely that your murder will be done with your own gun.

But the biggest single type of murder is when two people argue, and one loses his temper, draws a gun, and shoots the other. No, this is not a self defense killing. This is a true murder, though of passion, since it is loss of temper. Actual killings of criminals by citizens (legal killings) over 11 years comes to 2,581. A small fraction of the killings by loss of temper.

In other words, Seth, with 39,686 murders over 11 years by a person losing his temper and pulling a hand gun, the whole nation would be safer if there were no hand guns. Fewer hand guns means fewer murders. This is clearly shown by the fact that other nations with almost no hand guns have a fraction of the murders per capita of the USA. Japan has almost zero hand guns in the possession of ordinary people, and their hand gun murder rate varies from 0 to 3 per annum.

Fewer guns = fewer murders.

[MrJonno]

The order for being killed by someone is in this order (most likely at the top)

a) you (suicide)
b) parents
c) partner
d) other relatives
e) friend

[Seth]

We have a different definition of 'facts', I am afraid, Seth.

Your definition is that anything anyone says that matches your opinions is a fact.

Actually, that's your definition.

Sorry, but I need data, not bullshit.

Well, you certainly have a surfeit of bullshit. We see it spew with every post.

Here is some data for you.
http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/?mg= ... j#view=all

This is a summary made by the Wall Street Journal of FBI murder data for the whole of the USA for the 11 years of 2000 to 2010, excluding Florida, which for some reason compiles crime data in a non standard format.

Total murders : 165,068
Murders with firearms : 111,289 - the vast majority of murders are done with a gun.
With a knife, by comparison (second most used weapon) is only 20,503

Circumstances of murder.
1. Argument (not over money or property) 39,686
2. Unknown (unsolved cases) 21,496
3. Juvenile gangland killing 8,451
4. other gangland killings 1,205.

In other words, gangs make a relatively small contribution to overall murder statistics in the USA.

Wrong again Sparky. "Other gangland killings" refers to organized crime killings, and organized crime organizations and street gangs are not necessarily synonymous.

In the United States, the Organized Crime Control Act (1970) defines organised crime as "The unlawful activities of [...] a highly organised, disciplined association [...]".[3] Criminal activity as a structured group is referred to as racketeering and such crime is commonly referred to as the work of the Mob. In the UK, police estimate organised crime involves up to 38,000 people operating in 6,000 various groups.[4] In addition, due to the escalating violence of Mexico's drug war, the Mexican drug cartels are considered the "greatest organised crime threat to the United States" according to a report issued by the United States Department of Justice.[5] Source Wikipedia

Here's a FAQ from the FBI's NIBRS section:

Please clarify the Data Values 04 = Gangland and 05 = Juvenile Gang within Data Element 31, Aggravated Assault/Homicide Circumstances.

Both the UCR Handbook, NIBRS edition, 1992, and NIBRS Volume 1: Data Collection Guidelines, August 2000, p. 94 include organized crime involvement in Data Value 04 = Gangland. Organized crime usually carries the connotations of the Mafia. However, in the context of Data Value 04, this is meant to include not only the Mafiosi and Cosa Nostra affiliations, but other organized crime rings such as motorcycle gangs, the Russian Mafia, the Tong, etc. In fact, organized crime should be viewed in the most general sense and differentiated from 05 = Juvenile Gang, which may also include organized crime involvement of participants under age 18.

Data Value 05 = Juvenile Gang is meant to include affiliation with any formal juvenile gang that is known to police or discovered during the course of the investigation.

Law enforcement should use these data values to explain the circumstances of aggravated assault or homicide when they believe that the offense was perpetrated in the furtherance of activities of either of these groups. Membership or affiliation alone may not necessitate choosing either of these data values, as the following example illustrates.

A known Mafia member used a knife to slash the face of a man who ogled the Mafia member’s girlfriend at a nightclub. In this case, the best description of the circumstances is 01 = Argument. The mere fact that the perpetrator is a member of the Mafia does not justify 04 = Gangland as the best description of the circumstances of the offense.

Soooo, what we have from the FBI quite clearly states that the 1205 "other gangland killings" are killings by non-juvenile organized crime organizations that were committed in furtherance of the crime organization's activities and NOT simply as the result of an argument. As we see from the on-point example given, an organized crime member (which does not automatically include every adult gang member anyway) who has an "argument other" with someone and kills them is NOT CLASSIFIED as a "gangland killing" merely because the killer is a member of the organization. It's quite specific in the instructions that "gangland killing (04 classification) does not apply to every argument involving a gang member, and that therefore "01=Argument" is how such killings are classified.

Thus, two rival adult gang members meeting in the street and having an "argument other" over respect or turf or anything but money or property will NOT be classified as "04 Gangland" but rather as "01 Argument."

So, in order to determine how many of the 39,606 "argument other" offenses involve "... a person losing his temper and pulling a hand gun" who is NOT doing so as a felon or prohibited person or person illegally possessing a firearm, we have to look deeper into the reports. You would have to individually review each and every one of those 39,606 reports and determine whether or not the perp was a law-abiding citizen lawfully carrying a firearm who just went insane as the result of an argument with another law-abiding citizen, or if either the perp or the victim was at the time a gang member who got into the argument over something other than money or property.

What you CANNOT say, based on the numbers you cite, is that all, or even a majority of the incidents were perpetrated "by a person losing his temper and pulling a hand gun" in the sense that you use it, which is as an indictment of the lawful carrying of handguns by otherwise law-abiding citizens who you allege lose their tempers and shoot others out of the blue merely because they happen to possess a handgun. You can only say (and I can only say) that 39,606 offenses were classified as "argument other" (not involving property or money)...AND NOTHING ELSE...without further research.

It may be that Joe Average law-abiding citizen who is ILLEGALLY carrying a concealed handgun for some reason might comprise some portion of that group, but then again they wouldn't be "law-abiding" if they carried illegally (which might itself suggest a propensity to use the firearm as an unlawful resolution to an argument), and therefore they fall into the category I suggested, which is "gang bangers and criminals."

Based on review of the statistics regarding the revocation of CCW permits by various states for crimes committed by the holder involving a firearm, it's clear that the vast, vast majority of licensed CCW permitees DO NOT just pull out their guns and shoot somebody over an argument. In fact, the percentage of CCW permittees in every state I've looked at whose permits are revoked for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER is far less than 1/2 of one percent of the total number of permittees.

Feel free to do the research yourself on the state websites, most of which have links to revocation numbers. Try Florida first, they have the longest experience with "shall issue" CCW, and therefore the largest data set on revocations and crimes committed by CCW permitees. Once you've done that research, you can try to fight your way out of that wet paper bag and sustain your silly conclusions.

What of the relationship between killer and victim? Often (70,896) this is unknown. But for those in which it is known, only 25,790 murders are done by a stranger. Murders done by someone known to the victim, whether family, friend or acquaintance, come to 71,341. So the greatest number of murders are done by someone known to the victim.

"Someone known to the victim." Which happens to include gang bangers who know the rival gang banger they are popping a cap on. Derp

Once again, you cannot make assumptions about the data that are not supported by the data, so you can't imply that just because the murders are of someone known to the killer this excludes gang killings or makes "arguments" between friends the largest component.

These figures do not not match up, Seth to your paranoid fear of strangers invading your home.

More bullshit statistical misinterpretation. The fact is that strangers DO invade homes. Rather a lot in some places. And however infrequently you might think such home invasions are, they are of supreme importance to those whose homes are invaded, and they have a perfect and unassailable right to be armed against that eventuality, no matter how remote you might think that eventuality might be. As I've said, and you CONTINUE to ignore, the right of all individuals to be armed for self defense is not subject to statistical analysis of the improper and illegal use of firearms. They don't get a 40% right to keep and bear arms because some nitwit thinks that abuses by others denigrates the rights of persons uninvolved in THAT incident. They get 100% of the right to keep and bear arms at all times, completely irrespective of what ANYONE else does with their firearms, subject only to THEIR lawful or unlawful use of those arms. If they use them unlawfully, then they are punished in accordance with the law. But they don't lose their right, not even part of it may be "infringed" because SOMEONE ELSE committed a crime with a gun.

If you get murdered, it will probably be someone close to you who does it.

Could be. All the more reason to keep your guns close by.

If you keep a gun at home, it is very likely that your murder will be done with your own gun.

Actually it's not at all likely in my home. In some homes, yes this is lamentably true, but that's a matter of individual ineptitude and poor planning, not a proper justification for disarming those of us who know how to handle our firearms. See above.

But the biggest single type of murder is when two people argue, and one loses his temper, draws a gun, and shoots the other.

Not exactly. "Argument" does not necessarily infer "losing of temper." Could be the perp did it in calculated cold blood. But as I've said above, that's ALL the data suggests. It does not identify who or why those arguments ended up in shootings, so you cannot draw any valid conclusions beyond the data given, and you certainly cannot draw the inference that you're making that mere possession of a handgun causes otherwise ordinary and law-abiding citizens to go suddenly and murderously berserk. I'm quite certain that in such cases, there's a LOT more involved than that.

No, this is not a self defense killing.

Probably not, and probably because the victim didn't have a gun with which to defend himself against that violent criminal attack. You are aware that when someone "loses his temper" and pulls a gun to shoot someone else, that happens to be a serious felony crime, and one which fully justifies the use of lethal defensive force by the intended victim, right?

This is a true murder, though of passion, since it is loss of temper.

No, it's an "argument." Whether it's a "loss of temper" or not is undetermined by the data because that particular factor is not tracked.

Actual killings of criminals by citizens (legal killings) over 11 years comes to 2,581.

Good. That's 2,581 potential victims who were not victimized or killed by their attackers. That number all by itself fully and completely justifies allowing every law-abiding citizen to be armed for self defense.

A small fraction of the killings by loss of temper.

No, a small fraction of killings involving "argument other." Be precise and don't extend the data beyond what it actually covers. That's why you have so much problem with this subject, you read lots of things into the data that aren't necessarily there. In other words, you make ass-umptions.

In other words, Seth, with 39,686 murders over 11 years by a person losing his temper and pulling a hand gun, the whole nation would be safer if there were no hand guns.

Not given the fact that between 80,000 (FBI) and 2.5 million (Lott et al) people PER YEAR use their handguns to prevent criminal victimization in a manner that does not include a murder. That's 880,000 to 27,500,000 individuals protecting themselves over the same 11 year period you use. That WAY outnumbers the 39,686 "argument other" killings, even at the very conservative FBI numbers.

Your conclusion is made invalid by the fact that you disregard defensive uses of handguns for lawful purposes that fall short of a homicide, which despite your denial, do happen. Sorry, you lose again.

Fewer hand guns means fewer murders.

Fewer handguns, more CRIME. As amply demonstrated by the relative per-capita crime levels in the UK, which are climbing, where guns are banned, and the US, where violent crime has decreased steadily in the last 40 years, and guns are ever-more numerous every day. Interesting how more guns in society results in less crime, isn't it?

Steady Decline in Major Crime Baffles Experts
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
Published: May 23, 2011

Recommend
Twitter
Linkedin
comments (195)
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Reprints
Share

The number of violent crimes in the United States dropped significantly last year, to what appeared to be the lowest rate in nearly 40 years, a development that was considered puzzling partly because it ran counter to the prevailing expectation that crime would increase during a recession.
Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

Read All Comments (195) »

In all regions, the country appears to be safer. The odds of being murdered or robbed are now less than half of what they were in the early 1990s, when violent crime peaked in the United States. Small towns, especially, are seeing far fewer murders: In cities with populations under 10,000, the number plunged by more than 25 percent last year.

The news was not as positive in New York City, however. After leading a long decline in crime rates, the city saw increases in all four types of violent lawbreaking — murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault — including a nearly 14 percent rise in murders. But data from the past few months suggest the city’s upward trend may have slowed or stopped.

Criminology experts said they were surprised and impressed by the national numbers, issued on Monday by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and based on data from more than 13,000 law-enforcement agencies. They said the decline nationally in the number of violent crimes, by 5.5 percent, raised the question, at least in some places, of to what extent crime could continue to fall — or at least fall at the same pace as the past two years. Violent crimes fell nearly the same amount in 2009.

“Remarkable,” said James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University. “Given the fact that we have had some healthy declines in recent years, I fully expected that the improvement would slow. There is only so much air you can squeeze out of a balloon.”

There was no immediate consensus to explain the drop. But some experts said the figures collided with theories about correlations between crime, unemployment and the number of people in prison.

This is clearly shown by the fact that other nations with almost no hand guns have a fraction of the murders per capita of the USA. Japan has almost zero hand guns in the possession of ordinary people, and their hand gun murder rate varies from 0 to 3 per annum.

Fewer guns = fewer murders.

And more crime.

Japan: Gun Control and People Control

By David B. Kopel

The American Rifleman, December 1988

This article is condensed from the law review article Japanese Gun Control, 1993 Asia-Pacific Law Review 26. The law review article is also available in Español. This article is based on Kopel's book The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? (Prometheus Books, 1992). More articles by Kopel on Japanese gun control are available here.

For gun controllers, Japan is a dream come true. The law is simple: "No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords."

Japan's crime rate is very low, and its gun crime rate virtually nil. Anti-gun lobbies tout Japan as the kind of nation that America could be, if only we would ban guns. Handgun Control quotes a Japanese newspaper reporter who writes: "It strikes me as clear that there is a distinct correlation between gun control laws and the rate of violent crime. The fewer the guns, the less the violence."

But while Japan may be a gun-banner's dream, it's a civil libertarian's nightmare. Japan's low crime rate has almost nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with people control. Americans, used to their own traditions of freedom, would not accept Japan's system of people controls and gun controls.
Japanese Firearms Laws

Besides the police and the military, the only group that is allowed to posses guns is hunters, and that possession is strictly circumscribed. The police even check hunters' ammunition inventory, to make sure that there are no unaccounted shells or bullets. Hunting licenses themselves are not particularly difficult to obtain. A prospective hunter must take an official safety course; and then pass a test which covers maintenance and inspection of the hunting gun, methods of loading and unloading cartridges, shooting from various positions, and target practice for stationary and moving objects. The hunting license is valid for three years. Total permit fees for hunting rifles and licenses are 15000 (about 125 American dollars). When not hunting, gun owners must store their weapons in a locker.

Trap and skeet shooting are also tightly restricted.

Civilians cannot obtain handgun target licenses. Even possession of a starter's pistol is only allowed under carefully- detailed conditions.

The section of the gun law which specifies who may be licensed offers no standards, just the vague statement that licenses must be denied "any person (taking into consideration also relatives living with him) who there is reasonable cause to suspect may be dangerous to other persons' lives or properties or to the public peace." Thus, the police have broad discretion in rejecting applicants.

As in Britain, shotguns are far easier to obtain than rifles. In a nation with half the population of the U.S., there are only 27,000 rifle licensees. There about half a million licensed shotguns, although their numbers have declined by about
20% in this decade.
Crime Control

Japan's strictly-regulated guns play very little part in crime. In 1985, for example, only 35 crimes, including 10 murders, were committed with hunting guns.

Although handguns are completely forbidden to civilians, they still figure somewhat more often in crime. Handguns were used in 209 crimes in 1985. About 2/3 of all gun crimes are committed by Boryokudan, organized crime groups.

As the gun-banners point out, the Japanese crime rate is dramatically lower than the U.S. rate. Tokyo, the world's safest major city, suffers muggings at the rate of 40 per year per one
million inhabitants. New York City's rate is 11,000.

According to government statistics, Japan has 1.5 homicides per 100,000 citizens each year, and America has 7.9. Actually, the gap between U.S. and Japanese homicide rates is not quite as large as the official statistics indicate. The real Japanese murder rate is about twice the reported rate; unlike the U.S., Japan does not count an attempt to injure, but which accidentally causes death, as a homicide. The F.B.I. also over-counts American murders, by listing the 1,500 - 2,500 legal, self- defense fatal shootings of criminals as illegal homicide. Still, Japan's actual homicide rate is two to three times lower than the U.S. rate. As for handgun murders, the U.S. rate is 200 times higher than Japan's.

Robbery in Japan is about as rare as murder. Japan's annual robbery rate is 1.8 per 100,000 inhabitants; America's is 205.4. Do the gun banners have the argument won when they point to these statistics? No, they don't. A realistic examination of Japanese culture leads to the conclusion that gun control has little, if anything, to do with Japan's low crime rates. Japan's lack of crime is more the result of the very extensive powers of the Japanese police, and the distinctive relation of the Japanese citizenry to authority. Further, none of the reasons which have made gun control succeed in Japan (in terms of disarming citizens) exist in the U.S.

The Japanese criminal justice system bears more heavily on a suspect than any other system in an industrial democratic nation. One American found this out when he was arrested in Okinawa for possessing marijuana: he was interrogated for days without an attorney, and signed a confession written in Japanese that he could not read. He met his lawyer for the first time at his trial, which took 30 minutes.

Unlike in the United States, where the Miranda rule limits coercive police interrogation techniques, Japanese police and prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. (Technically, detentions are only allowed for three days, followed by ten day extensions approved by a judge, but defense attorneys rarely oppose the extension request, for fear of offending the prosecutor.) Bail is denied if it would interfere with interrogation.

Even after interrogation is completed, pretrial detention may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a detained suspect, and those meetings are strictly limited.

Partly as a result of these coercive practices, and partly as a result of the Japanese sense of shame, the confession rate is 95%.

For those few defendants who dare to go to trial, there is no jury. Since judges almost always defer to the prosecutors' judgment, the trial conviction rate for violent crime is 99.5%.
Of those convicted, 98% receive jail time.

In short, once a Japanese suspect is apprehended, the power of the prosecutor makes it very likely the suspect will go to jail. And the power of the policeman makes it quite likely that a criminal will be apprehended.

The police routinely ask "suspicious" characters to show what is in their purse or sack. In effect, the police can search almost anyone, almost anytime, because courts only rarely exclude evidence seized by the police -- even if the police acted illegally.

The most important element of police power, though, is not authority to search, but authority in the community. Like school teachers, Japanese policemen rate high in public esteem, especially in the countryside. Community leaders and role models, the police are trained in calligraphy and Haiku composition. In police per capita, Japan far outranks all other major democracies.

15,000 koban "police boxes" are located throughout the cities. Citizens go to the 24-hour-a-day boxes not only for street directions, but to complain about day-to-day problems, such as noisy neighbors, or to ask advice on how to raise children. Some of the policemen and their families live in the boxes. Police box officers clear 74.6% of all criminal cases cleared. Police box officers also spend time teaching neighborhood youth judo or calligraphy. The officers even hand- write their own newspapers, with information about crime and accidents, "stories about good deeds by children, and opinions of
residents."

The police box system contrasts sharply with the practice in America. Here, most departments adopt a policy of "stranger policing." To prevent corruption, police are frequently rotated from one neighborhood to another. But as federal judge Charles Silberman writes, "the cure is worse than the disease, for officers develop no sense of identification with their beats, hence no emotional stake in improving the quality of life there."

Thus, the U.S. citizenry does not develop a supportive relationship with the police. One poll showed that 60% of police officers believe "it is difficult to persuade people to give patrolmen the information they need."

The Japanese police do not spend all their time in the koban boxes. As the Japanese government puts it: "Home visit is one of the most important duties of officers assigned to police boxes." Making annual visits to each home in their beat, officers keep track of who lives where, and which family member to contact in case of emergency. The police also check on all gun licensees, to make sure no gun has been stolen or misused, that the gun is securely stored, and that the licensees are emotionally stable.

Gun banners might rejoice at a society where the police keep such a sharp eye on citizens' guns. But the price is that the police keep an eye on everything.

Policemen are apt to tell people reading sexually-oriented magazines to read something more worthwhile. Japan's major official year-end police report includes statistics like "Background and Motives for Girls' Sexual Misconduct." In 1985, the police determined that 37.4% of the girls had been seduced, and the rest had had sex "voluntarily." For the volunteers, 19.6% acted "out of curiosity", while for 18.1%, the motive was "liked particular boy." The year-end police report also includes sections on labor demands, and on anti-nuclear or anti-military demonstrations.

Broad powers, professionalism, and community support combine to help Tokyo police solve 96.5% of murders, and 82.5% of robberies. In America, the police clear 74% of murders, but only a quarter of all robberies. 70% of all Japanese crimes end in a conviction; only 19.8% of American crimes even end in an arrest. A mere 9% of reported American violent crimes end in incarceration. Compared to the Japanese criminal, the American criminal faces only a minuscule risk of jail. Is it any wonder that American criminals commit so many more crimes?

Additionally, Japan's tight, conformist social culture does an excellent job of keeping citizens out of crime in the first place. As the head of Tokyo's Police Department explains, "A man who commits a crime will bring dishonor to his family and his village, so he will think twice about disgracing them."

Having lived together for several thousand years without significant immigration, the Japanese have developed the world's most homogenous and unified society. America's ethnic diversity causes tensions and crime, as the first or second generations of immigrants sometimes have difficulty adjusting to American ways.

But even if immigration does cause some crime, our policies certainly seem more humane than the ethnic policies of Japan. When Japan, under severe American pressure, admitted 100 Vietnamese boat people, a leading publication called them "the sword of an alien culture pointed at Japan."

Many Korean families have lived in Japan for longer than Michael Dukakis' family has lived in America. Although born in Japan, the Koreans have "impure" blood, which makes them forever ineligible for Japanese citizenship.

Partly because the Japanese are so unified and homogenous, they accept and internalize social controls. It is this attitude of obedience and impulse control that matters most in the low Japanese crime rate. Guns or not, the Japanese are simply the
world's most law-abiding people.

Japanese-Americans, who of course have access to firearms, have an even lower violent crime rate than do Japanese in Japan. Likewise, prisoners in jails in Japan and in America prisoners have no guns, but American prisoners commit about a hundred murders annually, and Japanese prisoners none.

Dr. Paul Blackman of NRA/ILA points out that if gun control were really the major cause of the low Japanese crime rate, it would be impossible to explain why Japan's non-gun crime rate is so much lower than America's non-gun crime rate. America's non-gun robbery rate, for example, is 60 times Japan's.

If gun control were really such an important factor in Japan's low crime, it would also be hard to explain why Japan's murder rate is higher than Britain's (a shooter's paradise compared to Japan). Both Switzerland and Israel have many more guns per capita than even America, and require citizens to own or train with pistols and fully automatic rifles. Yet these countries have less murder and violent crime than Japan, and
almost no gun crime.

In short, it is not the presence or absence of physical objects that matters, but how they are treated. In America, scaffolding collapses kill about 2,500 workers over the course of a decade. Japan, though, has not had a single scaffolding fatality in the past decade. Japan has not outlawed scaffolding; rather, the Japanese business culture simply takes workplace safety more seriously than does American culture.
Suicide

Japan's experience also indicates that gun control has almost no effect on a nation's suicide rate. While the Japanese gun suicide rate is one-fiftieth of America's, the overall
suicide rate is twice as high as America's.

American gun controllers argue that in America, more males die from suicide attempts because males are more likely to choose a gun as a suicide weapon. Yet in Japan, males are still twice
as likely to die in a suicide attempt as are females.

Japan suffers from many double or multiple suicides, called shinju. Suicidal parents often kill their children, at the rate of one per day, in oyako-shinju. In fact, 17% of all Japanese homicide victims are children murdered by suicidal parents. Thus, Japan's tight family structure, which keeps the crime rate low, is not an unalloyed blessing.

Even America's leading gun control scholar, Stanford's Franklin Zimring concedes: "Cultural factors appear to affect the suicide rates far more than the availability and use of firearms. Thus suicide rates would not seem to be readily affected by making firearms less available."

Zimring's observation fits with the evidence in America. All ethnic groups have equal access to firearms, but Jews are less likely to use guns as their suicide method, while Blacks and Southerners are more likely to use guns. Although American Blacks are more likely to use guns in suicide, the black suicide rate is below the American average.
Gun Culture

While Japan's gun control has been irrelevant to crime control or suicide prevention, it has been successful in another sense: virtually no-one in Japan, except for some carefully- controlled hunters, has a gun. Japan is truly a gun-free society. Most of the Japanese tourists who shoot at the Hawaii
Gun Club on Oahu have never even seen a gun before.

Yet it is doubtful that America could imitate even this limited "success" of Japan's gun control. Americans possess many more guns than the Japanese ever did; and, unlike the Japanese, Americans seem determined to keep their weapons.

Japan never had a significant stock of non-military guns, so gun control was simple to mandate. But in America, there are already over 100 million long guns, and 60 million handguns. In 1985, the Japanese police seized a record high 1,369 illegal guns. A big-city police force in the U.S. might confiscate that many in a few months.

An island nation, Japan can more or less seal its borders against illegal gun imports. Yet even if gun manufacture in America vanished, and all present guns were confiscated, illegal imports would quickly rebuild the American gun supply. If the United States imported illegal handguns in the same physical volume it imports marijuana, 20 million handguns would cross our borders every year. (The legal market for handgun purchases is about 2.5 million annually.)

For the vast majority of Japanese, never seeing a gun is hardly a deprivation, for Japan developed only the most minimal cultural attachment to firearms.

When Portuguese trading ships arrived in the middle of the 16th century, Japan's many feudal rulers investigated guns for use in the ongoing civil wars. Long before the "Southern Barbarians" (Western traders) ever arrived, Japan had far outpaced Europe in metallurgy. Within a few decades, the various Japanese armies had more, better-built guns than most European armies.

A military dictator named Hideyoshi was particularly expert firearms tactics, and Hideoyoshi finally conquered Japan and ended the civil wars. In 1588 Hideyoshi decreed the "Sword Hunt," and banned possession of swords by the lower classes. The pretext was that all the swords would be melted down to supply nails for a hall containing a huge statue of the Buddha.
Instead, Hideoyoshi had the swords melted into a statue of himself.

After Hideoyoshi, the Tokugawa Shogunate took power, and ruled Japan until the late 19th century. The Shogunate used guns extensively in its invasion of Korea. But after the invasion was repelled, Japan turned inward, rejecting all forms of Westernization. Western contact was limited to a single Dutch trading mission, which was required to stay on a small island in Nagasaki harbor.

The Tokoguwa began the gradual process of eradicating all Western influence from Japan, including the use of firearms. Under the Tokugawa, peasants were assigned to a five-man group, headed by landholders who were responsible for the group's behavior. The groups arranged marriages, resolved disputes, kept members from traveling or moving without permission, maintained religious orthodoxy, and enforced the rules against peasants carrying firearms or swords.

The Shogunate's gun control eventually disarmed not only the peasantry, but also the Samurai warriors. Gun-smiths were restricted in the number of apprentices they could adopt, and eventually sales to anyone besides the military government became illegal.

The Samurai did not mind, though. While American pioneers considered their guns a symbolic "badge of honor," the Samurai revered swords as the true symbol of knighthood. For combat, Samurai disdained guns because they allowed fighting from a distance, rather than face to face, and required the combatant to assume an undignified crouching position. Further, there was little practical use for long guns, since there was almost no big
game to hunt.

Thus, in the 1850's, when Commodore Perry re-opened Japan, Japanese were still using primitive matchlock guns similar to the type the Portuguese had introduced over 300 years ago. Led by American manufacturers, the rest of the world had replaced matchlocks with flintlocks. In 1872, the Samurai and the Tokugawas were deposed. The Samurai had used swords to fight against a conscript army, which was armed with rifles. (Although the army now had firearms, villagers still did not.)

In America, on the other hand, guns were owned by virtually all adult males. In response to the tremendous American demand for guns, America developed the world's leading firearms companies. Mass production of firearms led America into the Industrial Revolution, and became our first major manufactured
export.

Japan, however, has never had much of a firearms industry. MITI, Japan's Ministry for Trade, is hardly encouraging Japanese companies to capture the world's growing market for high-tech plastic/metal alloy guns. Indeed, Japan has only one handgun factory. The manufacturer's main business is heavy electrical equipment; the guns are just a courtesy for the government.

Factory spokesmen will not even reveal the factory's location.

Without a culture of civilians firearms ownership, the Japanese never saw strict gun control as anything out of the ordinary. And because the crime rate is so extraordinarily low, the Japanese, unlike many Americans, perceive no need to own a gun for individual self-defense.

Perhaps the most important reason the Japanese voluntarily accept disarmament is that their government does the same. After the disaster of World War II, war was perceived as an unmitigated horror, and the army was abolished.

The police carry guns, but rarely shoot them, instead using their black belts in judo or police sticks. In an average year, the entire Tokyo police force only fires six shots. Even if guns vanished from America, it is difficult to imagine a big-city American police force firing only six times in an entire year. Likewise, there is obviously a strict gun prohibition in American prisons, but the guards are still armed; the vast majority of Japanese prison guards carry only police sticks.

In a top-down society such as Japan, when the government disarms itself, it creates a powerful moral climate for citizens to do the same. Needless to say, a disarmed military and police are not likely in the United States, and neither is voluntary compliance with gun control.

In many American cities where it is nearly impossible to legally carry a gun for self-defense, many people do so anyway. Many more own illegal weapons at home for self-defense. Thus, American gun banners correctly insist that strict gun controls be accompanied by mandatory jail terms. The gun banners recognize that without mandatory sentences, judges and juries would rarely send their fellow citizens to jail for an illegal self-defense gun. Without the certainty of jail, strict controls are often ignored.

But in Japan, the citizens voluntarily comply with the gun law; accordingly, there is no mandatory minimum penalty for unlicensed firearm possession. If gun ban is readily obeyed in Japan, but is massively resisted wherever it appears in America, isn't that an indication a gun ban might be acceptable in Japan, but wrong in America?
Should America Import Gun Laws Made in Japan?

In the 1910 debate preceding the New York's Sullivan Law (the first major American gun control law affecting citizens entitled to full civil rights) one writer recommended that New York copy Japan, "where intending purchasers of revolvers must first obtain police permits, and sales must be reported to the police." In 1987, a letter to the editor of The New Republic announced that Japan has so little crime because "citizens forsake their right to own guns in return for safety," and that America must do the same.

Yet these gun controllers who want America to imitate Japan fail to understand that one culture cannot simply adopt another's laws. Post-war Japan was told to follow American criminal procedure and anti-trust rules, but soon stopped. The rules did not work in a culture used to unlimited police power, and enamored of giant conglomerates.

The Japanese Constitution, written by the American conquerors, has "rights" language far more sweeping than the American constitution. But because Japan lacks a tradition of individual rights or of judicial activism, the Japanese Supreme Court has been passive, unwilling to enforce the rights provisions of the Constitution. For example, the Japanese constitution, unlike the American one, has strong language guaranteeing equal political, economic, and social rights for women. Yet in practice, American women are far freer than Japanese women, and are given far more legal protection by their own constitution. America made Japan adopt a powerful liberal Constitution, but it could not make Japanese courts think about individual rights the way American courts do.

Gun banners who rejoice that Japan functions without a right to bear arms should note that Japan functions without other rights as well. Not only the laws regarding protection of criminal suspects, but freedom of speech, of intimate conduct, and of religion are far narrower than in the U.S. Japan even has an official religion, Shinto. The Japanese military recently consecrated a deceased military hero as a Shinto god, although
the man was a Christian, and his widow objected vehemently. The contrast between the individualist American and the communal Japanese ethos is manifested in everything from behavior at sporting events to industrial labor organization. As a result, pressure to conform, and internalized willingness to do so are much stronger in Japan than in America. This spirit of conformity provides the best explanation for Japan's low crime rate. It also explains why the Japanese people accept gun control.

Theoretically, America could adopt a gun ban like Japan's. But that ban would be completely alien to our society, which for over 300 years has had the world's freest, most uncontrolled gun culture. Japan's gun laws are part of an authoritarian philosophy of government that is fundamentally at odds with America's traditions of liberty. Such laws have no place in our country.

[Seth]

Double post.

[Blind groper]

Seth

How about showing a little consideration, and cutting the bullshit. Your massive copied reference on Japan was 99% irrelevant to the issue, and a big fat waste of time.

In fact, my point about Japan was simply to illustrate the fact that countries with fewer hand guns have fewer hand gun murders, which is 100% true. The USA has vast amounts of hand guns, and a disgustingly massive number of murders with those hand guns. Most western nations have few hand guns and a very low rate of hand gun murders. Japan is the lower extreme.

Few hand guns mean few hand gun murders.

You show confidence that you will not be shot with your own gun, but your earlier posts indicate that you are one at greatest risk. You have said you will not store your "self defense" weapons in a gun safe, but keep them close to hand. This also makes it easy for someone else in your home to get the gun and shoot you. Remember that in most murders, the killer is known to the victim.

You are claiming, without data, that a good proportion of the argument murders are done by criminals. I doubt it. If that were the case, the FBI would have set up a category for arguments between criminals. In either case, though, hand gun possession leads to thousands of needless deaths.

You continue to claim an enormous number of successful DGU's. Bear in mind the tiny number of criminals killed by citizens. Even if such killings are only 5% of DGU's, that is still only a few thousand each year, not the 80, 000 to 2.5 million you insist on. Also bear in mind that Dr. Hemenway found a very large fraction of claimed DGU's were illegal threats, not genuine self defense. Also bear in mind that all those DGU's, even when reported by honest researchers, are subjective claims only. When we bear in mind that 10% of all humans are, to a degree, delusional (unable to tell the difference between reality and their own imaginations), and that a big chunk of the rest are liars or wankers, you will realise, as I do, just how exaggerated those DGU findings are.

[Seth]

Seth

How about showing a little consideration, and cutting the bullshit. Your massive copied reference on Japan was 99% irrelevant to the issue, and a big fat waste of time.

You first.

In fact, my point about Japan was simply to illustrate the fact that countries with fewer hand guns have fewer hand gun murders, which is 100% true. The USA has vast amounts of hand guns, and a disgustingly massive number of murders with those hand guns. Most western nations have few hand guns and a very low rate of hand gun murders. Japan is the lower extreme.

So what?

Few hand guns mean few hand gun murders.

More guns, less crime. Proof is in the pudding. Millions more guns in the US in the last 20 years, and a 49 percent lower crime rate.

You lose.

You show confidence that you will not be shot with your own gun, but your earlier posts indicate that you are one at greatest risk.

Even if true, which it's not, that's MY choice to make and MY risk to take. You don't get a say in it. Nor does anyone else.

You have said you will not store your "self defense" weapons in a gun safe, but keep them close to hand.

Liar. I've never said that. Go ahead, post the quote and the link or retract your claim.

This also makes it easy for someone else in your home to get the gun and shoot you.

It would, if I was doing as you suggest.

Remember that in most murders, the killer is known to the victim.

Yeah? So what? "Known to" is a broad category and it includes a lot of people who don't have access to my home or my guns.

You are claiming, without data, that a good proportion of the argument murders are done by criminals. I doubt it. If that were the case, the FBI would have set up a category for arguments between criminals.

Now you're telling the FBI how to do it's job? Sheesh.

All murders are done by criminals. Derp.

In either case, though, hand gun possession leads to thousands of needless deaths.

And they prevent millions of crimes and uncounted deaths, many more than they cost. Besides, each one of those deaths is caused by an armed criminal, which justifies law-abiding citizens being armed for self defense.

You continue to claim an enormous number of successful DGU's.

Enormous, small, doesn't matter. If a handgun saves even ONE life, it fully justifies every citizen carrying a gun.

Bear in mind the tiny number of criminals killed by citizens.

You bear in mind the millions of crimes that are prevented entirely and deterred by armed citizens. You like to ignore that, but that just weakens your argument.

Even if such killings are only 5% of DGU's, that is still only a few thousand each year, not the 80, 000 to 2.5 million you insist on.

Strawman. Defensive killings are a tiny fraction of DGUs and you know it. And you are implying that I claim that number of KILLINGS, which is crap. The numbers cited by the FBI and Lott et al, are of defensive gun uses, NOT JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDES. The majority of DGUs are purely deterrent where no rounds are fired and the presence of the gun alone stops the crime or prevents it entirely. Most of those sorts of DGUs are not reported to police because no crime occurred, which is why there is such a large variation in DGU estimates. The only DGUs that are verifiable are those where shots are fired and a police report is made. This is where the FBI number (80,000 per year) comes from. It's taken from the UCR reports of police departments nationwide. The 80,000 is what the FBI can DOCUMENT.

So, your skepticism is based on your refusal to acknowledge that DGUs occur, and the best estimates run from about 15% to about half of the violent crimes that occur. This means that many, many violent crimes are averted and deterred by armed citizens. More guns, less crime.

Also bear in mind that Dr. Hemenway found a very large fraction of claimed DGU's were illegal threats, not genuine self defense.

He didn't "find" anything of the kind. He SPECULATED. His speculations are no kind of evidence at all.

Also bear in mind that all those DGU's, even when reported by honest researchers, are subjective claims only.

Which has what to do with anything? You claim they are subjective. The reports I've posted are objective. They are hard evidence of lawful and legitimate DGUs, of which you have not been able to refute a single example.

If a person perceives that they are about to be victimized by a violent criminal and they display their weapon and the attack never happens, that's a valid defensive gun use. It doesn't matter what you or Hemenway think about it, and it doesn't matter how many such DGUs actually occur so long as the number is greater than zero. And we know for a fact that it happens at least 80,000 per year according to the documented instances reported by the FBI.

You're not going to succeed in trying to argue that people should be disarmed and thereby made helpless in the face of criminal violence by pointing to incidences of criminal violence. That's just ignorant.

When we bear in mind that 10% of all humans are, to a degree, delusional (unable to tell the difference between reality and their own imaginations), and that a big chunk of the rest are liars or wankers, you will realise, as I do, just how exaggerated those DGU findings are.

Speculation influenced by your own bias.

[Blind groper]

Short on time here, so just a couple of points

1 Yes, crime rates are falling. But that hasnothing to do with gun ownership. We know that because it is an international trend in many countries besides the USA, including all those western nations with almost no guns.

In fact the USA in recent years, according to at least two surveys I posted, has fewer gun ow ners than for decades. However, there have been more background checks, which implies that the fewer gun owners are now buying more guns per person.

2. On the Hemenway finding. Yes, it is valid. He reported, in the peer reviewed journal his research findings were published in, that he used 5 judges to review the individual cases of claimed DGU's and those judges decided on the claims of "defense" that were illegal, and not true self defense.

Quite simply, the claims of hundreds of thousands of DGU's is bullshit and has always been bullshit.

[Seth]

Short on time here, so just a couple of points

1 Yes, crime rates are falling. But that hasnothing to do with gun ownership. We know that because it is an international trend in many countries besides the USA, including all those western nations with almost no guns.

More horseshit analysis. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt, just so we can see how ridiculous your argument actually is. Let's say, arguendo, that more guns in the US is not the cause of the crime drop. The fact remains that there are demonstrably vastly more guns, especially handguns and AR-15 sporting rifles in civilian hands in the US today than there were before crime began dropping.

Ipso facto your claim of more guns, more crime is horseshit. We have many more guns now than then, and way less crime now than then. You lose.

In fact the USA in recent years, according to at least two surveys I posted, has fewer gun ow ners than for decades. However, there have been more background checks, which implies that the fewer gun owners are now buying more guns per person.

Surveys of who owns guns are highly unreliable because many people will simply refuse to answer or will lie because they are suspicious of the motives of people being nosy about their guns, with good reason. How do I know this? Because I was solicited for a poll on gun ownership two years ago and I lied like a rug to the pollsters.

2. On the Hemenway finding. Yes, it is valid. He reported, in the peer reviewed journal his research findings were published in, that he used 5 judges to review the individual cases of claimed DGU's and those judges decided on the claims of "defense" that were illegal, and not true self defense.

Liar. He couldn't have done so because the vast majority of such DGUs are not recorded and therefore nobody would be able to "review" them. Nor is the opinion of very probably entirely biased and carefully selected "judges" of any interest. Hemenway is a notorious anti-gun zealot and his "research" is not credible because he and his "peers" all have a very clear anti-gun agenda.

Quite simply, the claims of hundreds of thousands of DGU's is bullshit and has always been bullshit.

[/quote]

And yet you can't refute a single one of the dozens of example I've posted over in the other thread. Not one. You're batting 0 Sparky.

Besides, it doesn't matter if it's 100,000 DGUs or 1 DGU. The right to armed self defense is vindicated by even a single event of successful self defense, and there's certainly more than one...because I myself have used my handgun defensively at least twice.

You lose.

[Collector1337]

It is very true that the AR-15, has been America's #1 selling rifle for several years now, couple decades or so, yet crime continues to fall.

So, according to anti-gun idiots:

We need to ban AR-15s and standard capacity magazines, which are selling at all time highs, even though crime is down and has been going down.

So, millions upon millions of AR-15s have been sold, but more guns = more crime? Clearly, that's false.

[Seth]

It is very true that the AR-15, has been America's #1 selling rifle for several years now, couple decades or so, yet crime continues to fall.

So, according to anti-gun idiots:

We need to ban AR-15s and standard capacity magazines, which are selling at all time highs, even though crime is down and has been going down.

So, millions upon millions of AR-15s have been sold, but more guns = more crime? Clearly, that's false.

Yeah, they really don't have a clue. Actually, they do have a clue, they're just applying the hoary old Marxist principle of the "Big Lie." Blind Groper is a classic example of the practice of repeating lies and half-truths endlessly until they become conventional wisdom.

And that is the ONLY reason that I take the time to call him out and rebut his bald-faced lies and idiotic analyses...because some credulous lurker reading his posts might get the mistaken impression that he knows shit from Shinola regarding guns. He doesn't.

It's important, Collector, that those of us who are rational on the subject of guns continue to rebut this horseshit no matter how many times we have to do it. Otherwise it looks like we're conceding the argument to the hoplophobe nitwits, and that's a bad idea.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Your last post is serious hypocrisy, considering the number of times I have posted references from reputable sources (like Harvard) and, instead of using data, you call it a lie.

If, as you say, surveys are crap, then your oft quoted survey results from the liar Lott must also be crap, since he claimed to get those results from a survey.

In fact, surveys, if carried out properly, generate good data. I quoted two surveys to you showing gun ownership falling. At the same time, more background checks were being run. The clear interpretation is that more guns are being held by fewer owners. In other words, fewer America gun nutters, but the remaining gun nutters are getting even nuttier and spending more of their hard earned cash on useless firearms. Useless, because there is no value in owning heaps of guns.

However, the total number of guns is not terribly important since most are not used on human targets. It is hand guns that are used in five sixths of all gun murders in the USA. In particular, it is those people who carry hand guns who are the big danger, along with those who keep hand guns in insecure storage at home.

More hand guns =more murders.