CDZ A Week of Gun Violence Does Nothing to Change the N.R.A.’s Message

[320 Years of History]

There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.

Wait a minute...I thought a cornerstone of the gun rights position is that guns aren't responsible for anything. Per you, 54 guns are responsible for killing people.

As for gun control efforts, I personally don't support limiting access to rifles. I am, however, of the mind that however many folks are involuntarily killed or injured by gun users/abusers are "however many" folks too many.

How many folks were injured by rifles in 2016? How many by handguns?

the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......

I cannot find anything from gun control advocates stating that stopping mass shootings is the goal of Gun Free Zone laws. Can you?

What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:

Strategy
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.

Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
​

Even after reading a legal analysis that doesn't take kindly to the revised Gun Free Zones act, I see nothing intimating that curtailing mass shootings be the aim of that statute.

the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....

Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....

Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.

prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...

Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?

Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?

In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....

Are you suggesting that we adopt the Japanese model of jurisprudence so that our judicial and law enforcement personnel can act as do those in Japan? If you aren't, I don't see how the Japanese example is relevant.

Furthermore, how do the Japanese people's individual-level values toward killing others differ from those of Americans? Might those differences play a key role in the national attitudes towards gun violence and involuntary gun deaths/injuries?

How many people in Japan actually own guns? The answer is that comparatively speaking, "nobody."

Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.

Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.

The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.​

Why you brought up Japan is beyond me. That is among the very last nations on the planet that anyone would cite in an effort to advocate against gun control efforts in the U.S. That you did just goes to show that you'll "cherry pick" pretty much any point, take it out of context and then try to use it to make your point. I give you props, you've learned well that trick -- contextual misrepresentation -- of the conservative gun lobby's trade.

​

Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.

The Texans with guns....the normal, law abiding gun owners....knew the police were on the scene so they let the police handle it.......they were there...armed with guns...and they let the police do their jobs, they did not turn into Rambo...they did not try to help the police........and the police pinned down the sniper and dealt with him....

In the night club...the gun free zone...there were no armed cops...the cop working security retreated and let him enter the building while the cop called for backup.....300 citizens were in that club without guns...49 were killed....

49 to 5 ....immediate armed response...to 300 unarmed citizens in a gun free zone facing a killer...who brought a gun into a gun free zone....

??? People who refrain from using their guns are no different from a defense or violence abatement standpoint than are people who don't have a gun.

 

[2aguy]

There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.

Wait a minute...I thought a cornerstone of the gun rights position is that guns aren't responsible for anything. Per you, 54 guns are responsible for killing people.

As for gun control efforts, I personally don't support limiting access to rifles. I am, however, of the mind that however many folks are involuntarily killed or injured by gun users/abusers are "however many" folks too many.

How many folks were injured by rifles in 2016? How many by handguns?

the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......

I cannot find anything from gun control advocates stating that stopping mass shootings is the goal of Gun Free Zone laws. Can you?

What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:

Strategy
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.

Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
​

Even after reading a legal analysis that doesn't take kindly to the revised Gun Free Zones act, I see nothing intimating that curtailing mass shootings be the aim of that statute.

the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....

Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....

Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.

prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...

Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?

Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?

In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....

Are you suggesting that we adopt the Japanese model of jurisprudence so that our judicial and law enforcement personnel can act as do those in Japan? If you aren't, I don't see how the Japanese example is relevant.

Furthermore, how do the Japanese people's individual-level values toward killing others differ from those of Americans? Might those differences play a key role in the national attitudes towards gun violence and involuntary gun deaths/injuries?

How many people in Japan actually own guns? The answer is that comparatively speaking, "nobody."

Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.

Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.

The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.​

Why you brought up Japan is beyond me. That is among the very last nations on the planet that anyone would cite in an effort to advocate against gun control efforts in the U.S. That you did just goes to show that you'll "cherry pick" pretty much any point, take it out of context and then try to use it to make your point. I give you props, you've learned well that trick -- contextual misrepresentation -- of the conservative gun lobby's trade.

​

it isn't taken out of context...what is always taken out of context is when you and the others cite Japan as the gun control country we need to follow, when you don't even understand why they have low gun crime rates....as well as low rates of all crime...they are almost a police state...and their culture does not tolerate criminal behavior......there is group shaming to keep citizens in line.....which is lacking in our minority communities who make heroes out of felons with guns....

 

[2aguy]

There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.

Wait a minute...I thought a cornerstone of the gun rights position is that guns aren't responsible for anything. Per you, 54 guns are responsible for killing people.

As for gun control efforts, I personally don't support limiting access to rifles. I am, however, of the mind that however many folks are involuntarily killed or injured by gun users/abusers are "however many" folks too many.

How many folks were injured by rifles in 2016? How many by handguns?

the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......

I cannot find anything from gun control advocates stating that stopping mass shootings is the goal of Gun Free Zone laws. Can you?

What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:

Strategy
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.

Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
​

Even after reading a legal analysis that doesn't take kindly to the revised Gun Free Zones act, I see nothing intimating that curtailing mass shootings be the aim of that statute.

the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....

Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....

Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.

prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...

Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?

Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?

In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....

Are you suggesting that we adopt the Japanese model of jurisprudence so that our judicial and law enforcement personnel can act as do those in Japan? If you aren't, I don't see how the Japanese example is relevant.

Furthermore, how do the Japanese people's individual-level values toward killing others differ from those of Americans? Might those differences play a key role in the national attitudes towards gun violence and involuntary gun deaths/injuries?

How many people in Japan actually own guns? The answer is that comparatively speaking, "nobody."

Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.

Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.

The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.​

Why you brought up Japan is beyond me. That is among the very last nations on the planet that anyone would cite in an effort to advocate against gun control efforts in the U.S. That you did just goes to show that you'll "cherry pick" pretty much any point, take it out of context and then try to use it to make your point. I give you props, you've learned well that trick -- contextual misrepresentation -- of the conservative gun lobby's trade.

​

Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.

The Texans with guns....the normal, law abiding gun owners....knew the police were on the scene so they let the police handle it.......they were there...armed with guns...and they let the police do their jobs, they did not turn into Rambo...they did not try to help the police........and the police pinned down the sniper and dealt with him....

In the night club...the gun free zone...there were no armed cops...the cop working security retreated and let him enter the building while the cop called for backup.....300 citizens were in that club without guns...49 were killed....

49 to 5 ....immediate armed response...to 300 unarmed citizens in a gun free zone facing a killer...who brought a gun into a gun free zone....

??? People who refrain from using their guns are no different from a defense or violence abatement standpoint than are people who don't have a gun.

Wrong....you say you can keep them from having guns....I have shown they get the guns....they do not use them to commit murder as often......you are simply wrong.

 

[320 Years of History]

There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.

Wait a minute...I thought a cornerstone of the gun rights position is that guns aren't responsible for anything. Per you, 54 guns are responsible for killing people.

As for gun control efforts, I personally don't support limiting access to rifles. I am, however, of the mind that however many folks are involuntarily killed or injured by gun users/abusers are "however many" folks too many.

How many folks were injured by rifles in 2016? How many by handguns?

the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......

I cannot find anything from gun control advocates stating that stopping mass shootings is the goal of Gun Free Zone laws. Can you?

What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:

Strategy
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.

Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
​

Even after reading a legal analysis that doesn't take kindly to the revised Gun Free Zones act, I see nothing intimating that curtailing mass shootings be the aim of that statute.

the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....

Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....

Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.

prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...

Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?

Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?

In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....

Are you suggesting that we adopt the Japanese model of jurisprudence so that our judicial and law enforcement personnel can act as do those in Japan? If you aren't, I don't see how the Japanese example is relevant.

Furthermore, how do the Japanese people's individual-level values toward killing others differ from those of Americans? Might those differences play a key role in the national attitudes towards gun violence and involuntary gun deaths/injuries?

How many people in Japan actually own guns? The answer is that comparatively speaking, "nobody."

Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.

Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.

The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.​

Why you brought up Japan is beyond me. That is among the very last nations on the planet that anyone would cite in an effort to advocate against gun control efforts in the U.S. That you did just goes to show that you'll "cherry pick" pretty much any point, take it out of context and then try to use it to make your point. I give you props, you've learned well that trick -- contextual misrepresentation -- of the conservative gun lobby's trade.

​

Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?

Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?

There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.

Wait a minute...I thought a cornerstone of the gun rights position is that guns aren't responsible for anything. Per you, 54 guns are responsible for killing people.

As for gun control efforts, I personally don't support limiting access to rifles. I am, however, of the mind that however many folks are involuntarily killed or injured by gun users/abusers are "however many" folks too many.

How many folks were injured by rifles in 2016? How many by handguns?

the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......

I cannot find anything from gun control advocates stating that stopping mass shootings is the goal of Gun Free Zone laws. Can you?

What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:

Strategy
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.

Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
​

Even after reading a legal analysis that doesn't take kindly to the revised Gun Free Zones act, I see nothing intimating that curtailing mass shootings be the aim of that statute.

the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....

Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....

Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.

prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...

Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?

Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?

In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....

Are you suggesting that we adopt the Japanese model of jurisprudence so that our judicial and law enforcement personnel can act as do those in Japan? If you aren't, I don't see how the Japanese example is relevant.

Furthermore, how do the Japanese people's individual-level values toward killing others differ from those of Americans? Might those differences play a key role in the national attitudes towards gun violence and involuntary gun deaths/injuries?

How many people in Japan actually own guns? The answer is that comparatively speaking, "nobody."

Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.

Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.

The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.​

Why you brought up Japan is beyond me. That is among the very last nations on the planet that anyone would cite in an effort to advocate against gun control efforts in the U.S. That you did just goes to show that you'll "cherry pick" pretty much any point, take it out of context and then try to use it to make your point. I give you props, you've learned well that trick -- contextual misrepresentation -- of the conservative gun lobby's trade.

​

Yes....prosecutors do not want to spend time, money and energy putting baby momma's in prison for carrying their baby daddy's gun...often under threat of violence.....

Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?

Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?

This is the problem.......

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425452/straw-purchasing-america-needs-to-prosecute-it

Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.

In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

Red:
Again, you refuse to have a conversation. What you do is keep taking at me, but never directly answering my questions.

 

[2aguy]

Not one gun law proposed would actually target criminals. Name one gun law that doesn't effect normal gun owners while doing nothing to stop mass shooters and criminals.

The point you make has in it the implicit assumption that every would be criminal who wants to use a gun in carrying out their nefarious act(s) will get one/some. The more realistic assumption is that some of them will indeed get hold of a gun somehow and that others of them will not. To the extent that those who wanted a gun to aid in their criminal act do not in fact obtain one, a gun access limiting measure will have worked insofar as it will have prevented that would be illegal gun user from committing an act of gun violence.

How is that? 90% of the gun murders committed in the United States are committed by people who are banned from owning guns....

Reality shows you are wrong....Britain actually confiscated guns on your very premise......after they banned guns...what happened....their gun crime rate stayed the same....in fact, last year it went up 4%......

you guys are just wrong....

Red:
Firearms are used in about 67 percent of the murders committed in this country.

Simple arithmetic shows you are wrong.

And you are wrong again...

JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms


In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.

Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."

Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.

While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."

Throughout this essay I highlight dramatic recantations by criminologists who previously endorsed stringent gun control. For example, Professor David Mustard has stated in an article [PDF] for the University of Pennsylvania Law Review:

When I started my research on guns [at the University of Chicago] in 1995, I passionately disliked firearms and fully accepted the conventional wisdom that increasing the gun-ownership rate would necessarily raise violent crime and accidental deaths. My views on this subject were formed primarily by media accounts of firearms, which unknowingly to me systematically emphasized the costs of firearms while virtually ignoring their benefits. I thought it obvious that passing laws that permitted law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons would create many problems. It is now over six years since I became convinced otherwise and concluded that shall issue laws — laws that require [gun carry permits] to be granted unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness — reduce violent crime and have no impact on accidental deaths.

Actual research results — as opposed to unsupported opinions — pose a question embarrassed gun prohibitionists invariably try to evade: why ban guns to ordinary owners, i.e., people who never commit gun crimes? (This query does not at all impugn our laws against previously convicted felons having guns).



-------------------------

 

[320 Years of History]

There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.

Wait a minute...I thought a cornerstone of the gun rights position is that guns aren't responsible for anything. Per you, 54 guns are responsible for killing people.

As for gun control efforts, I personally don't support limiting access to rifles. I am, however, of the mind that however many folks are involuntarily killed or injured by gun users/abusers are "however many" folks too many.

How many folks were injured by rifles in 2016? How many by handguns?

the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......

I cannot find anything from gun control advocates stating that stopping mass shootings is the goal of Gun Free Zone laws. Can you?

What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:

Strategy
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.

Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
​

Even after reading a legal analysis that doesn't take kindly to the revised Gun Free Zones act, I see nothing intimating that curtailing mass shootings be the aim of that statute.

the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....

Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....

Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.

prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...

Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?

Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?

In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....

Are you suggesting that we adopt the Japanese model of jurisprudence so that our judicial and law enforcement personnel can act as do those in Japan? If you aren't, I don't see how the Japanese example is relevant.

Furthermore, how do the Japanese people's individual-level values toward killing others differ from those of Americans? Might those differences play a key role in the national attitudes towards gun violence and involuntary gun deaths/injuries?

How many people in Japan actually own guns? The answer is that comparatively speaking, "nobody."

Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.

Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.

The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.​

Why you brought up Japan is beyond me. That is among the very last nations on the planet that anyone would cite in an effort to advocate against gun control efforts in the U.S. That you did just goes to show that you'll "cherry pick" pretty much any point, take it out of context and then try to use it to make your point. I give you props, you've learned well that trick -- contextual misrepresentation -- of the conservative gun lobby's trade.

​

it isn't taken out of context...what is always taken out of context is when you and the others cite Japan as the gun control country we need to follow, when you don't even understand why they have low gun crime rates....as well as low rates of all crime...they are almost a police state...and their culture does not tolerate criminal behavior......there is group shaming to keep citizens in line.....which is lacking in our minority communities who make heroes out of felons with guns....

WTF? You introduced Japan into the conversation, not I.

 

[2aguy]

There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.

Wait a minute...I thought a cornerstone of the gun rights position is that guns aren't responsible for anything. Per you, 54 guns are responsible for killing people.

As for gun control efforts, I personally don't support limiting access to rifles. I am, however, of the mind that however many folks are involuntarily killed or injured by gun users/abusers are "however many" folks too many.

How many folks were injured by rifles in 2016? How many by handguns?

the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......

I cannot find anything from gun control advocates stating that stopping mass shootings is the goal of Gun Free Zone laws. Can you?

What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:

Strategy
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.

Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
​

Even after reading a legal analysis that doesn't take kindly to the revised Gun Free Zones act, I see nothing intimating that curtailing mass shootings be the aim of that statute.

the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....

Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....

Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.

prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...

Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?

Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?

In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....

Are you suggesting that we adopt the Japanese model of jurisprudence so that our judicial and law enforcement personnel can act as do those in Japan? If you aren't, I don't see how the Japanese example is relevant.

Furthermore, how do the Japanese people's individual-level values toward killing others differ from those of Americans? Might those differences play a key role in the national attitudes towards gun violence and involuntary gun deaths/injuries?

How many people in Japan actually own guns? The answer is that comparatively speaking, "nobody."

Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.

Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.

The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.​

Why you brought up Japan is beyond me. That is among the very last nations on the planet that anyone would cite in an effort to advocate against gun control efforts in the U.S. That you did just goes to show that you'll "cherry pick" pretty much any point, take it out of context and then try to use it to make your point. I give you props, you've learned well that trick -- contextual misrepresentation -- of the conservative gun lobby's trade.

​

Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?

Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?

There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.

Wait a minute...I thought a cornerstone of the gun rights position is that guns aren't responsible for anything. Per you, 54 guns are responsible for killing people.

As for gun control efforts, I personally don't support limiting access to rifles. I am, however, of the mind that however many folks are involuntarily killed or injured by gun users/abusers are "however many" folks too many.

How many folks were injured by rifles in 2016? How many by handguns?

the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......

I cannot find anything from gun control advocates stating that stopping mass shootings is the goal of Gun Free Zone laws. Can you?

What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:

Strategy
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.

Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
​

Even after reading a legal analysis that doesn't take kindly to the revised Gun Free Zones act, I see nothing intimating that curtailing mass shootings be the aim of that statute.

the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....

Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....

Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.

prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...

Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?

Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?

In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....

Are you suggesting that we adopt the Japanese model of jurisprudence so that our judicial and law enforcement personnel can act as do those in Japan? If you aren't, I don't see how the Japanese example is relevant.

Furthermore, how do the Japanese people's individual-level values toward killing others differ from those of Americans? Might those differences play a key role in the national attitudes towards gun violence and involuntary gun deaths/injuries?

How many people in Japan actually own guns? The answer is that comparatively speaking, "nobody."

Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.

Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.

The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.​

Why you brought up Japan is beyond me. That is among the very last nations on the planet that anyone would cite in an effort to advocate against gun control efforts in the U.S. That you did just goes to show that you'll "cherry pick" pretty much any point, take it out of context and then try to use it to make your point. I give you props, you've learned well that trick -- contextual misrepresentation -- of the conservative gun lobby's trade.

​

Yes....prosecutors do not want to spend time, money and energy putting baby momma's in prison for carrying their baby daddy's gun...often under threat of violence.....

Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?

Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?

This is the problem.......

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425452/straw-purchasing-america-needs-to-prosecute-it

Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.

In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

Red:
Again, you refuse to have a conversation. What you do is keep taking at me, but never directly answering my questions.

yes...everything I post is backing up my answers to your points.......you ask is there are reason prosecutors aren't prosecuting straw buyers...I give you the link with a pertinent quote.......I have been through the game with others where I state these things only to have people tell me I can't back up what I say....here...I am backing up what I say...

 

[2aguy]

Not one gun law proposed would actually target criminals. Name one gun law that doesn't effect normal gun owners while doing nothing to stop mass shooters and criminals.

The point you make has in it the implicit assumption that every would be criminal who wants to use a gun in carrying out their nefarious act(s) will get one/some. The more realistic assumption is that some of them will indeed get hold of a gun somehow and that others of them will not. To the extent that those who wanted a gun to aid in their criminal act do not in fact obtain one, a gun access limiting measure will have worked insofar as it will have prevented that would be illegal gun user from committing an act of gun violence.

How is that? 90% of the gun murders committed in the United States are committed by people who are banned from owning guns....

Reality shows you are wrong....Britain actually confiscated guns on your very premise......after they banned guns...what happened....their gun crime rate stayed the same....in fact, last year it went up 4%......

you guys are just wrong....

Red:
Firearms are used in about 67 percent of the murders committed in this country.

Simple arithmetic shows you are wrong.

And here you go again......the truth about killers in this country....normal gun owners are not using their guns to murder other people or commit crimes.....therefore, banning guns will not reduce gun crime......


http://reason.com/archives/1997/04/01/public-health-pot-shots



These and other studies funded by the CDC focus on the presence or absence of guns, rather than the characteristics of the people who use them. Indeed, the CDC's Rosenberg claims in the journalEducational Horizons that murderers are "ourselves--ordinary citizens, professionals, even health care workers": people who kill only because a gun happens to be available. Yet if there is one fact that has been incontestably established by homicide studies, it's that murderers are not ordinary gun owners but extreme aberrants whose life histories include drug abuse, serious accidents, felonies, and irrational violence.



Unlike "ourselves," roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have significant criminal records, averaging an adult criminal career of six or more years with four major felonies.

Access to juvenile records would almost certainly show that the criminal careers of murderers stretch back into their adolescence.

In Murder in America (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.

Contrary to the impression fostered by Rosenberg and other opponents of gun ownership, the term "acquaintance homicide" does not mean killings that stem from ordinary family or neighborhood arguments. Typical acquaintance homicides include: an abusive man eventually killing a woman he has repeatedly assaulted; a drug user killing a dealer (or vice versa) in a robbery attempt; and gang members, drug dealers, and other criminals killing each other for reasons of economic rivalry or personal pique.



According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or criminal history."

A 1994 article in The New England Journal of Medicinereported that 71 percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were documented members of violent street gangs." And University of North Carolina-Charlotte criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.

 

[320 Years of History]

And you are wrong again...

JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms

Really? You're citing an editorial as the evidence that what I had to say is wrong?

 

[320 Years of History]

There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.

Wait a minute...I thought a cornerstone of the gun rights position is that guns aren't responsible for anything. Per you, 54 guns are responsible for killing people.

As for gun control efforts, I personally don't support limiting access to rifles. I am, however, of the mind that however many folks are involuntarily killed or injured by gun users/abusers are "however many" folks too many.

How many folks were injured by rifles in 2016? How many by handguns?

the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......

I cannot find anything from gun control advocates stating that stopping mass shootings is the goal of Gun Free Zone laws. Can you?

What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:

Strategy
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.

Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
​

Even after reading a legal analysis that doesn't take kindly to the revised Gun Free Zones act, I see nothing intimating that curtailing mass shootings be the aim of that statute.

the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....

Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....

Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.

prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...

Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?

Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?

In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....

Are you suggesting that we adopt the Japanese model of jurisprudence so that our judicial and law enforcement personnel can act as do those in Japan? If you aren't, I don't see how the Japanese example is relevant.

Furthermore, how do the Japanese people's individual-level values toward killing others differ from those of Americans? Might those differences play a key role in the national attitudes towards gun violence and involuntary gun deaths/injuries?

How many people in Japan actually own guns? The answer is that comparatively speaking, "nobody."

Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.

Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.

The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.​

Why you brought up Japan is beyond me. That is among the very last nations on the planet that anyone would cite in an effort to advocate against gun control efforts in the U.S. That you did just goes to show that you'll "cherry pick" pretty much any point, take it out of context and then try to use it to make your point. I give you props, you've learned well that trick -- contextual misrepresentation -- of the conservative gun lobby's trade.

​

Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?

Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?

There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.

Wait a minute...I thought a cornerstone of the gun rights position is that guns aren't responsible for anything. Per you, 54 guns are responsible for killing people.

As for gun control efforts, I personally don't support limiting access to rifles. I am, however, of the mind that however many folks are involuntarily killed or injured by gun users/abusers are "however many" folks too many.

How many folks were injured by rifles in 2016? How many by handguns?

the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......

I cannot find anything from gun control advocates stating that stopping mass shootings is the goal of Gun Free Zone laws. Can you?

What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:

Strategy
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.

Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
​

Even after reading a legal analysis that doesn't take kindly to the revised Gun Free Zones act, I see nothing intimating that curtailing mass shootings be the aim of that statute.

the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....

Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....

Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.

prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...

Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?

Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?

In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....

Are you suggesting that we adopt the Japanese model of jurisprudence so that our judicial and law enforcement personnel can act as do those in Japan? If you aren't, I don't see how the Japanese example is relevant.

Furthermore, how do the Japanese people's individual-level values toward killing others differ from those of Americans? Might those differences play a key role in the national attitudes towards gun violence and involuntary gun deaths/injuries?

How many people in Japan actually own guns? The answer is that comparatively speaking, "nobody."

Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.

Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.

The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.​

Why you brought up Japan is beyond me. That is among the very last nations on the planet that anyone would cite in an effort to advocate against gun control efforts in the U.S. That you did just goes to show that you'll "cherry pick" pretty much any point, take it out of context and then try to use it to make your point. I give you props, you've learned well that trick -- contextual misrepresentation -- of the conservative gun lobby's trade.

​

Yes....prosecutors do not want to spend time, money and energy putting baby momma's in prison for carrying their baby daddy's gun...often under threat of violence.....

Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?

Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?

This is the problem.......

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425452/straw-purchasing-america-needs-to-prosecute-it

Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.

In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

Red:
Again, you refuse to have a conversation. What you do is keep taking at me, but never directly answering my questions.

yes...everything I post is backing up my answers to your points.......you ask is there are reason prosecutors aren't prosecuting straw buyers...I give you the link with a pertinent quote.......I have been through the game with others where I state these things only to have people tell me I can't back up what I say....here...I am backing up what I say...

I just want to understand whether you are making the intimations of which I asked. The easiest way for you to convey that understanding is to directly answer the questions.

 

[2aguy]

And you are wrong again...

JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms

Really? You're citing an editorial as the evidence that what I had to say is wrong?

Actual research....

JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms

the anti gunners keep telling us that normal people murder people simply because they have access to a gun...actual research into criminal behavior, in particular murder...shows that this isn't true.....not even close to being true...

But it forms the basis for their gun control measures....

 

[2aguy]

And you are wrong again...

JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms

Really? You're citing an editorial as the evidence that what I had to say is wrong?

Actual research as pointed out in this article.....that is why I always give the link......


In Murder in America (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.


---According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or criminal history." A 1994 article in The New England Journal of Medicine reported that 71 percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were documented members of violent street gangs." AndUniversity of North Carolina-Charlotte criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.

 

[320 Years of History]

And you are wrong again...

JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms

Really? You're citing an editorial as the evidence that what I had to say is wrong?

Actual research as pointed out in this article.....that is why I always give the link......


In Murder in America (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.


---According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or criminal history." A 1994 article in The New England Journal of Medicine reported that 71 percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were documented members of violent street gangs." AndUniversity of North Carolina-Charlotte criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.

Oh, that's useful. The data I cited is from 2006 to 2010. Apparently things have changed since 1994 and before.

 

[2aguy]

And you are wrong again...

JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms

Really? You're citing an editorial as the evidence that what I had to say is wrong?

Actual research as pointed out in this article.....that is why I always give the link......


In Murder in America (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.


---According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or criminal history." A 1994 article in The New England Journal of Medicine reported that 71 percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were documented members of violent street gangs." AndUniversity of North Carolina-Charlotte criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.

Oh, that's useful. The data I cited is from 2006 to 2010. Apparently things have changed since 1994 and before.

No....as you see in the actual article......it doesn't change...murderers are murderers through the ages.....gun murderers today...at the street level have long histories of crime and violence....

 

[320 Years of History]

And you are wrong again...

JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms

Really? You're citing an editorial as the evidence that what I had to say is wrong?

Actual research as pointed out in this article.....that is why I always give the link......


In Murder in America (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.


---According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or criminal history." A 1994 article in The New England Journal of Medicine reported that 71 percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were documented members of violent street gangs." AndUniversity of North Carolina-Charlotte criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.

Oh, that's useful. The data I cited is from 2006 to 2010. Apparently things have changed since 1994 and before.

No....as you see in the actual article......it doesn't change...murderers are murderers through the ages.....gun murderers today...at the street level have long histories of crime and violence....

Oh, I see. So now you are moving away from the substance of the statistic you shared, that citation being the only thing that led me to provide the link to data showing the stat you shared is materially inaccurate, and now shifting to discuss that "murderers are murderers."

 

[2aguy]

And you are wrong again...

JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms

Really? You're citing an editorial as the evidence that what I had to say is wrong?

Actual research as pointed out in this article.....that is why I always give the link......


In Murder in America (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.


---According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or criminal history." A 1994 article in The New England Journal of Medicine reported that 71 percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were documented members of violent street gangs." AndUniversity of North Carolina-Charlotte criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.

Oh, that's useful. The data I cited is from 2006 to 2010. Apparently things have changed since 1994 and before.

No....as you see in the actual article......it doesn't change...murderers are murderers through the ages.....gun murderers today...at the street level have long histories of crime and violence....

Oh, I see. So now you are moving away from the substance of the statistic you shared, that citation being the only thing that led me to provide the link to data showing the stat you shared is materially inaccurate.

Nope....90% of gun murder is committed by felons....who are legally barred from buying, owning or carrying guns......

 

[martybegan]

I don't get you sometimes you seem reasonable and willing to look at facts and sometimes you are just off the rails.

Look at these facts concerning assault weapons and come back again and tell me how important it is that we ban semi automatic weapons (unless you actually call to ban semi automatic hand guns as well, not just a return of the previous ban.

Gun Facts | Gun Control Facts Concerning Assault Weapons

For a variety of reasons.

Yes, for what it's worth, I said semi-automatic weapons and I meant just that. Including hand guns. And after you so kindly reminded me on the importance of using our words carefully, you start flinging around "assault weapons" again? If you don't like Congress's definition, don't use it. I'm sorry you think I'm off the rails, but guns that can deliver 20-30 bullets per minute are not necessary for Joe Citizen. You can't convince me otherwise.

The big black scary assault weapon is RARELY used in criminal activity.
But when it is, how many innocent people does it kill?

You want to ban hand guns as well ? LOL

I ask you, for the 12th time in this thread, why do you think banning semi automatic weapons would make them any harder for criminals to get than banning drugs made it harder to get drugs? That is a simple question that of course destroys your entire argument, and that is why you won't address it.

The ONLY thing you would accomplish by banning semi automatic weapons would be to create a black market for semi automatic weapons, ESPECIALLY sine you liberals so stupidly refuse to close the southern border.

Stop distorting what I said. Semi automatic weapons, hand gun and long gun, should be banned.

and the cops would give theirs up too, right?

And criminals would stop using them too, right?

Why should a lawful person put themselves at a disadvantage?

They have no actual idea how to remove them from the criminals, so next best thing is making sure the criminals are the only ones with guns, right?

It's the standard progressive cry of "DO SOMETHING" even if the something does nothing to help the situation.

 

[kaz]

Yes, for what it's worth, I said semi-automatic weapons and I meant just that. Including hand guns. And after you so kindly reminded me on the importance of using our words carefully, you start flinging around "assault weapons" again? If you don't like Congress's definition, don't use it. I'm sorry you think I'm off the rails, but guns that can deliver 20-30 bullets per minute are not necessary for Joe Citizen. You can't convince me otherwise.

The big black scary assault weapon is RARELY used in criminal activity.
But when it is, how many innocent people does it kill?

You want to ban hand guns as well ? LOL

I ask you, for the 12th time in this thread, why do you think banning semi automatic weapons would make them any harder for criminals to get than banning drugs made it harder to get drugs? That is a simple question that of course destroys your entire argument, and that is why you won't address it.

The ONLY thing you would accomplish by banning semi automatic weapons would be to create a black market for semi automatic weapons, ESPECIALLY sine you liberals so stupidly refuse to close the southern border.

Stop distorting what I said. Semi automatic weapons, hand gun and long gun, should be banned.

and the cops would give theirs up too, right?

And criminals would stop using them too, right?

Why should a lawful person put themselves at a disadvantage?

They have no actual idea how to remove them from the criminals, so next best thing is making sure the criminals are the only ones with guns, right?

It's the standard progressive cry of "DO SOMETHING" even if the something does nothing to help the situation.

I just wish not helping the situation was enough for them

 

[westwall]

That's true but the guy in Dallas already had a record that was not shared out till after he was dead. He was a known bad actor to a part of the government.

"Bad actor?" What was the man convicted of? I haven't heard he was convicted of any crime. Have you?

He was dismissed form the Army for being a sexual pervert, and a general bunghole..

"Pentagon records do not reveal the reason for Johnson's Army discharge in April 2015. But a military lawyer who represented him said Johnson had been accused of sexually harassing a female soldier and had to leave the service. Bradford Glendening, a military attorney who practices near Fort Hood, said that the Army sent Johnson home from Afghanistan, which was unusual. Discipline for sexual harassment is typically counseling, he said.

"He was very much disliked by his command, that was clear," Glendening said.

The woman asked that Johnson receive "mental help" and asked for a protective order for herself and her family, Glendening said, adding that he wasn't sure which type of discharge Johnson ultimately received."

Ousted from Army, Dallas shooter used military skills for murder

 

[yiostheoy]

That's true but the guy in Dallas already had a record that was not shared out till after he was dead. He was a known bad actor to a part of the government.

"Bad actor?" What was the man convicted of? I haven't heard he was convicted of any crime. Have you?

He was dismissed form the Army for being a sexual pervert, and a general asshole.

"Pentagon records do not reveal the reason for Johnson's Army discharge in April 2015. But a military lawyer who represented him said Johnson had been accused of sexually harassing a female soldier and had to leave the service. Bradford Glendening, a military attorney who practices near Fort Hood, said that the Army sent Johnson home from Afghanistan, which was unusual. Discipline for sexual harassment is typically counseling, he said.

"He was very much disliked by his command, that was clear," Glendening said.

The woman asked that Johnson receive "mental help" and asked for a protective order for herself and her family, Glendening said, adding that he wasn't sure which type of discharge Johnson ultimately received."

Ousted from Army, Dallas shooter used military skills for murder

Unfortunately this web page is running a bunch of slow running scripts so I could not access it.