A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths

[mingus]

I'm not making an argument, dumb ass. It's me and God's opinions that you need it.

And based on the number of times you've used it, it's our opinion that you need it bad.

By your logic, you need to use word God, because it is used heavily in your vocabulary. Is that true? Number of times word used =\= need to use that word. Moron.

[mingus]

Speaking of burden of proof, is there anything other than anecdotes and tough guy posturing that gives credence to the deterrence argument?

Your question assumes there is more than anecdotal arguments and that there is evidence in the form of reliable statistics (similar to the extent of those that state how many people die from guns by accident annually, how many people shoot themselves in themselves in the foot accidently, etc) that give it credence. I don't know if that is true. I don't know if deterrence events are kept on record and/or they've been organized in a statistically reliable way (reliable enough to say it doesn't work).

[Wild Cobra]

By your logic, you need to use word God, because it is used heavily in your vocabulary. Is that true? Number of times word used =\= need to use that word. Moron.

May I suggest you copy this somewhere for quick use:

≠

[rascal]

LOL

You have no idea. I was young and bulletproof. It was not a situation where cops could be called and there was a lot of money/product involved. Bad guys wanted both. I don't give a what you do or don't buy. I prevented a homicide and negotiated an honorable solution for both parties involved.

Now you prevented a homicide. lol
Keep dreaming.

[rascal]

There are a couple reasons I won't ever turn in my .357. Here's one: about five years ago I was dating a girl who was being followed in her car by at least two other men from Wallmart. She didn't have a cell with her, so she drove to my house with them tagging right behind her. She runs up to my house banging on the door to let her in. I open and she tells me what's happening. The suburban is parked in front of my house. I run to get my gun and flash it so that they can see it and they take off like the pussies they were.

What if I didn't have a gun though? Maybe I get overpowered by both of them and they rape her. This is the part liberals don't consider. Those are the kinds of things having a gun prevents. It's a personal anecdote, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who has benefited from having a weapon. I acknowledge the other side of the argument--that they've helped facilitate massacres, killings etc. But it seems as if the liberals on this board and elsewhere aren't considering the other side of their argument. Until that happens, we can't have a serious debate about fun control.

They would have left had you had no gun. They were probably just young punks having some fun and screwing around with her because they saw that she was overeating in a panic way. You are over stating the importance of the gun.

[Wild Cobra]

They would have left had you had no gun. They were probably just young punks having some fun and screwing around with her because they saw that she was overeating in a panic way. You are over stating the importance of the gun.

I assume you have first had experience...

[rascal]

This is one of the stupidest posts ever on this forum.

Of course owning a gun increases the likelihood of shooting someone. The likelihood of shooting someone when you don't have a gun is nil.

The other points are just as stupid.

Not stupid at all. Those are facts you want to close your eyes to.

[rascal]

I think regulating weapons misses the point. In most if not all of these cases of mass killings, early warning signs are there. I think that if you are housing one of these mentally unstable people and you fail to keep your guns on lock down so that they aren't accessible to these people, you shouldn't be let off the hook so easy. That's just as much of a problem IMO.

Your a fool if you think you can identify who will carry out a mass killing. There are millions of social misfits in the country just try identifying which ones will carry out a mass killing is impossible.

[mingus]

Your a fool if you think you can identify who will carry out a mass killing. There are millions of social misfits in the country just try identifying which ones will carry out a mass killing is impossible.

What? I never said you can identify specifically who will carry out a mass shooting. But, taking preventative measures against people more prone to carry out mass shooting doesnt require that. However I think if warning signs were paid more attention to and followed through with, and on top of that these killers didn't have access to guns because of their mental instability, we could dramatically decrease the frequency of firearms (automatic or otherwise) used for mass killings. It's just easier, more politically correct, and conistent with its anti-gun agenda, for the mainstream media to blame guns rather than negligent, unaccountable people who enable these events.

Off topic, but what's funny as in all of this is how the Hollywood elite is seemingly MIA in this entire debate. Not surprising given 90% of movies are based on to some degree gun violence and glorification.

[monosylab1k]

also, Japan is a very strange country... Like strangers meeting up to commit suicide together. America has the few odd occurrences but its not very prevalent.

Well at least the crazy people there just kill themselves instead of a school full of kids.

[leemajors]

What? I never said you can identify specifically who will carry out a mass shooting. But, taking preventative measures against people more prone to carry out mass shooting doesnt require that. However I think if warning signs were paid more attention to and followed through with, and on top of that these killers didn't have access to guns because of their mental instability, we could dramatically decrease the frequency of firearms (automatic or otherwise) used for mass killings. It's just easier, more politically correct, and conistent with its anti-gun agenda, for the mainstream media to blame guns rather than negligent, unaccountable people who enable these events.

Off topic, but what's funny as in all of this is how the Hollywood elite is seemingly MIA in this entire debate. Not surprising given 90% of movies are based on to some degree gun violence and glorification.

there are no simple solutions, why are you surprised?

[LnGrrrR]

Well, once they do away with our 2nd amendment right, what's to keep them from taking away our first?

You completely missed my point. The NRA often says that GUNS don't kill people, people kill people. If you're taking that stance, then it's silly to blame violent media.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't think it came to that. They said the media shares some blame for these things. Even the Port Arthur shooter got much of his motivation from media reports on another shooting where they spent an insane amount of time discussing and advertising the shooter, his numbers, comparing them to other shooters etc... His lawyer said as much later.

The media didn't make these people crazy, didn't arm them, but they do their part in the training.

Using that logic, the gun certainly held a part in the incident as well. Without the gun, the killing spree would've been a lot harder to pull off. If you're going to hold people responsible for their own decisions, don't blame it on the media. It's a copout.

[DMC]

Using that logic, the gun certainly held a part in the incident as well. Without the gun, the killing spree would've been a lot harder to pull off. If you're going to hold people responsible for their own decisions, don't blame it on the media. It's a copout.

The problem with that is that it's the media who quickly finds ways to not hold people to their own decisions. On the same CNN page was "Do we focus too much on the shooters?" and the next story was "The shooter's father, who is he?" They have the entire stage and they no longer report news, they concoct it and use it strategically to sway public opinion. I don't care about the NRA, it wouldn't bother me if they totally dissolved. If there's culpability of an inanimate object, then there's culpability for actively programming fertile minds. The tobacco industry is still paying a huge amount for lawsuits centered around them advertising to kids. People still had the choice to not smoke however. The courts didn't really focus on that.

[Blake]

By your logic, you need to use word God, because it is used heavily in your vocabulary. Is that true? Number of times word used =\= need to use that word. Moron.

Yes, I need to use the word God in order to point out what a hypocrite you are.

similar to how I would need to use the word stupid in order to point out how stupid you are, which in turn fills my need for entertainment.

[rascal]

What? I never said you can identify specifically who will carry out a mass shooting. But, taking preventative measures against people more prone to carry out mass shooting doesnt require that. However I think if warning signs were paid more attention to and followed through with, and on top of that these killers didn't have access to guns because of their mental instability, we could dramatically decrease the frequency of firearms (automatic or otherwise) used for mass killings. It's just easier, more politically correct, and conistent with its anti-gun agenda, for the mainstream media to blame guns rather than negligent, unaccountable people who enable these events.

Off topic, but what's funny as in all of this is how the Hollywood elite is seemingly MIA in this entire debate. Not surprising given 90% of movies are based on to some degree gun violence and glorification.

How do you propose to take preventative measures against people who are more prone to carry out mass shootings without identifying those likely to commit the crimes?

[DMC]

How do you propose to take preventative measures against people who are more prone to carry out mass shootings without identifying those likely to commit the crimes?

Defense. How do you stop people from coming into your home to hurt you if you don't know who it's going to be?

[mingus]

Where/when have I ever stated what God I believe in? Provide a link. You don't know what you are talking about. I am a theist. I don't believe in any particular God. Me calling you a cuckold has made you crazy, apparently enough so that you have deluded yourself into thinking you have a basis for knowing what God I believe in and what value system my theism asks of me. Which, for the record, does not morally preclude me from calling you what you are--a ing cuckold.

[mingus]

How do you propose to take preventative measures against people who are more prone to carry out mass shootings without identifying those likely to commit the crimes?

You are changing your point. You originally stated it is impossible to identify who will carry through with a mass shooting. No . This is not Minority Report. I responded that we can label a group of people more likely to carry out mass shootings, and take preventative measures based on that. That is not to say we can identify specifically who is going to commit mass killings.

I don't get your beef.

[DMC]

Where/when have I ever stated what God I believe in? Provide a link. You don't know what you are talking about. I am a theist. I don't believe in any particular God. Me calling you a cuckold has made you crazy, apparently enough so that you have deluded yourself into thinking you have a basis for knowing what God I believe in and what value system my theism asks of me. Which, for the record, does not morally preclude me from calling you what you are--a ing cuckold.

ouch

[rascal]

You are changing your point. You originally stated it is impossible to identify who will carry through with a mass shooting. No . This is not Minority Report. I responded that we can label a group of people more likely to carry out mass shootings, and take preventative measures based on that. That is not to say we can identify specifically who is going to commit mass killings.

I don't get your beef.

No point was changed. How can you label a group of people more likely to carry out mass shootings and take preventative measures on that? You say we can? How ?

Same point. Because you need to identify who is likely to carry out mass shootings in the first place to label them in a group.

[rascal]

Defense. How do you stop people from coming into your home to hurt you if you don't know who it's going to be?

I don't live in fear of someone coming into my house and trying to hurt me.

[DMC]

I don't live in fear of someone coming into my house and trying to hurt me.

So you leave your doors unlocked?

I can see that, mentally, you're damaged goods. However, let me ask you a very simple question:

Why would anyone put valuables in a safe if they don't know who's going to try to steal them?

[mingus]

No point was changed. How can you label a group of people more likely to carry out mass shootings and take preventative measures on that? You say we can? How ?

Same point. Because you need to identify who is likely to carry out mass shootings in the first place to label them in a group.

Okay, I guess I missenterpreted what you said in the previous post.

I don't know specifically what can be done. Not because I don't think there are some good ideas, but because it is all hypothetical and I don't feeling like arguing about any further a hypothetical. But I do think a more rational, balanced, and fair approach can be taken, instead of the the one taken by liberals, which misses the point and penalizes many gun owners, the vast majority of whom never cause any problems and probably never will.

[Wild Cobra]

You completely missed my point. The NRA often says that GUNS don't kill people, people kill people. If you're taking that stance, then it's silly to blame violent media.

But those blaming guns should blame the media. Right? To what end?