Gun Control Anyone?

was there anything the matter with the guy before virginia tech that might have kept him from going through the process of getting a gun if there was stricter gun control? from what i remember he did not have a past that might have sent out a red flag, which points to the side that even if there was stricter gun control, in this instance, and with most instances it wasn't a known criminal that has been committing crimes for years that was at fault. therefore proving that stricter gun control wouldn't help.

LOUDJL13W7;75481 wrote:therefore proving that stricter gun control wouldn't help.

Every act of violence cannot be stopped, but hey if they just didn't let him have the gun... as I said I'm not here to work out the technical details of it.

But honestly, If gun control doesn't work, then why do countries such as Japan (which the pinnacle of safety) have an insignificant amount of crime.
From: http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Japan-Gun-Control-and-People-Control...

Now first of all I'm going to say that some of this information is from the 90s but it is still applicable because it shows an example or a rate or something that just demonstrates the validity of gun control.

So, with very few exceptions, the Japanese are not allowed to own guns:

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

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

Yeah so 1985 (oh no! that's so old!) well, it can still demonstrate that gun control results in less crime because Japans gun laws were in effect then. Now, in 1985 the population of Japan was about 121 million (http://www.stat.go.jp/English/data/handbook/c02cont.htm)

So with Japan's harsh gun laws and insignificant about of crimes, what do you think is working to cause this?

i'd say that japanese laws are much stricter than america's. japan also has a better system of law enforcement than the US, and the gov't in general is very strict, for instance:

"In comparison to other countries in the developed world, Japan has a unique prosecutorial system. Ninety-nine percent of criminal defendants are convicted in Japan, and almost all are convicted following their own confession. Prosecutors tend to bring charges only when they have a signed confession from the accused, and

SUCH CONFESSIONS OFTEN OCCUR AFTER LONG QUESTIONING BY POLICE.

Although defendants have a right to counsel, it is generally not possible for them to obtain counsel between their arrest and indictment.

This makes it difficult to judge the true extent of criminal activity in Japan, since many possible criminals refuse to confess and are thus never indicted.

Japan has a death penalty that can be invoked by the Minister of Justice for murder, arson, and crimes against humanity. The death penalty's constitutionality has been challenged by some advocacy groups in Japan but continues to be upheld by the Supreme Court. There are five other basic forms of criminal punishment in Japan: imprisonment at hard labor, imprisonment, fine, detention (less than 30 days), and minor fine (less than ¥10,000)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Japan

this goes to show that in japanese people follow the rules because they are scared of the justice system, which does not happen here because our police don't have any respect since there are so many scandals and such that involves the police. that and our justice system is pretty weak, and wouldn't be able to enforce any measure of stricter gun control.

yeah, i quoted wikipedia, so what?

So, you don't think that any of the lower crime in Japan is attributed at all by a lack of guns?

From (http://www.unicri.it/wwk/publications/books/series/understanding/19_GUN_...):

There is a DIRECT Correlation between the number of firearms and the amount of violence. I have said this time and time again, and it has yet to be disproved.

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii11/Zichael/Guncontrol.jpg

Once again this correlation is true from another report:

Now from (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf page 6) there is a chart where you can clearly see that our firearm violence rate is closer to that of middle income countries than developed countries. That says something doesn't it?

Now in regards to the "right to bear arms": that is usually what most people say as their justification for owning firearms, however the actual second amendment states:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Now tell me if we need militias anymore.

These are just some more fun FACTS:

http://atlanticreview.org/archives/434-Murder-Rate-in-the-United-States-...

Basically just says that the murder rate in the US is six times higher than in Germany and that most of the murders involve firearms, similar in suicide levels too.

Militia: 1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

This may sound familiar... probably because it's still around today. (http://www.ngb.army.mil/About/default.aspx)

You see the National Guard is a NATIONAL Guard. They can carry guns because its their job, much like the army. Back in the early times of our country, when militias were not very organized, we had minutemen (people who had to be ready in a "minute" to protect a community). Nowadays, there is a highly organized National Guard service who should keep their weapons at a base, not a loose group of people in one tow.

Now I'll ask again: in the sense of what a militia was when the country was founded, do we still need militias or are we fine with the national guard?

i think we still need local militias. having a local group of ppl that have set their lives to protecting the community UNTIL the county national guard arrives. i'm thinking of joining our local militia. they are useful it just depends on when they're needed, if they are responsive.

Name one instance where a local militia has been useful. Otherwise, it is just an unnecessary number of firearms floating out there.

Gun control is only hurting the law- following people who keep guns as a self defense or recreation at their homes... when was the last time that the law has stopped the gang or law breakers from acquiring anything? There will always be a way for them to get through it... so the only people this would affect are ordinary citizens as well as the economy becuase these companies do give somethign to our economy either in taxes or revenue.. However, there should be permits, mental evaluations and age limits for someone to legally purchase a gun. Our government teacher also pointed out a fact that through out history, whenever the government has asked the citizens to hand in their weapons, it is usually becoming a totalitarian one, since the citizens can no longer defend themselves and must abide to whatever they are subjected to.

See, you can't tell when gun control has worked in a specific instance because no crime has been committed. What can be shown is the correlation between the amount of guns and the amount of violence, which has been presented again and again. Ordinary citizens commit crimes too, and there is not a need for them to have firearms. Those restrictions you are talking about, making it harder to obtain guns, ARE EXAMPLES of gun control which is trying to decrease the number of people who would use guns in a harmful way.

About the totalitarian regimes: It is not really possible for the US to become a dictatorship considering the checks that are imposed on the president, or anyone else in the government. Regardless, if a dictator was to rise to power, citizens would need tanks, artillery, aircraft, and other weapons of war to RESIST them. Sure they could stage a rebellion with small firearms, but that wouldn't guarantee any victory. The totalitarian thing is an example of how a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch. Obviously there are examples like Mussolini or Hitler who kept guns out of the population, but those kinds of people had tremendous power regardless of whether or not there was gun control.

It is more a case of the fact that totalitarian regimes lead to gun control (among many worse restrictions of freedom), but gun control does not lead to totalitarian regimes. An obvious example: The UK and Australia have gun control policies, and neither are dictatorships.