crime

Man fires shots into ex-wife's apartment in Yokohama

30 Comments

A 49-year-old man was arrested on Monday afternoon after he fired shots into the Yokohama apartment of his former wife, police said.

The suspect was identified as Hiroyuki Hori, a former gang member, police said.

Hori's ex-wife, 42, and her two children aged 15 and 12, were not hurt in the incident which occurred at around 11:40 p.m. Sunday.

According to police, the woman said she was in the livingroom when she heard the intercom buzz. Immediately after that, the woman told police the front door had been partially opened and someone -- whom she could not identify -- fired a gun through the gap, TV Asahi reported. The bolt on the door prevented it from being opened further.

Police found a bullet hole in the hallway floor and another in the bedroom door.

The apartment is on the 10th floor of a condo in Minami Ward. Surveillance camera footage showed a man clad all in black acting suspiciously in the corridor just before the shooting.

Police arrested Hori in Hakone at around 1:30 p.m. Monday.

The woman and her children moved into the apartment about two weeks ago after Hori beat her. The woman told police that earlier Sunday night, she received a call from Hori saying he was coming over.

© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

30 Comments
Login to comment

I can't wait to hear the anti-gun zealots comment on this story. After all, personal firearms can be had but you have to go through a very long process to have one, subject to constant and no notice police monitoring. And yet, a former "gangster" is allowed to have one. Just goes to show that just because a law is on the books, it doesn't stop people from getting what they want most of the time.

Also, I can see how the press/police is spinning this. Making sure to note that he was a former gang member, as to not rile up the public in a frenzy about an average guy owning a gun and using it. I guess it is just like the tattoo thing here in Japan, when you don't want the public to understand, you just label it as something only criminals will do and they shy away.

-29 ( +3 / -32 )

sore loser!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Extremely rare event.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Um, I think one look no further than my own United States to realize that loser gun laws are not a viable answer to domestic violence. Gun control is one of the things that Japan gets right. Firearms ARE incredibly difficult to attain in Japan and the penalties for possession much less use are severe.

Safe to say that just because a yakked-up wife beater gets drunk and puts a hole on a wall doesn't rationalize letting salary man Ichiro get his hands on a S&W.

13 ( +16 / -3 )

It's been said that even the Yakuza are reluctant to use firearms because the gun control laws are so severe in Japan. For that person to fire four bullets will likely result in a very long stay in prison.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

" When Guns are Outlawed, only OUTLAWS Will Have Guns "... just ask any Mexican citizen.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Alphaape

And yet, a former "gangster" is allowed to have one.

Wrong, he was not allowed to have one, but he was able to obtain one, same as anything, outlaws don't care if its illegal they will still do it, laws only work on law abiding people. Outlaws don't give a flying duck for them.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

but he was able to obtain one, same as anything, outlaws don't care if its illegal they will still do it, laws only work on law abiding people. Outlaws don't give a flying duck for them.

@ StormR: I understand that. This is why I have a difficult time in understanding the mentaility that if you are law abiding, and can show restraint on proper usage, why can't you have a gun to defend yourself. Bad people will be bad people, and it is safe to say that they practice at being bad. If you believe that like in fiction, good people will be able to "rise up" at the right time and defend oneself by hand to hand or that the bad person will have a moment of truth and decide not to harm you is living in a fantasy land. People need to have the inherent right to be able to at least defend themselves. True just owning a gun is not going to solve every problem, it takes a lot more than that, but it can provide a means of defense.

Safe to say that just because a yakked-up wife beater gets drunk and puts a hole on a wall doesn't rationalize letting salary man Ichiro get his hands on a S&W.

Why not? If Ichiro can't handle being a responsible adult with a gun, then I think we have far greater issues than gun control. Ichiro is a loose cannon according to your theory, that will use whatever is near him to eventually maim or kill someone because he hasn't the wits or maturity to survive in the real world. That mental health issue is the main problem that people like Ichiro will kill. Guns may make it easier, but how many "Ichiro's" have we read here on JT that have used a variety of items and schemes to maim and kill here in Japan?

-18 ( +2 / -20 )

Handguns are illegal, police inspect homes to ensure hunting rifles are under lock and key and possessing a single bullet can result in a $20,000 fine and five years in prison. Just more than half of all illegal guns in Japan enter by sea, while the yakuza flies most of the rest in.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I can't wait to hear the anti-gun zealots comment on this story. After all, personal firearms can be had but you have to go through a very long process to have one, subject to constant and no notice police monitoring. And yet, a former "gangster" is allowed to have one. Just goes to show that just because a law is on the books, it doesn't stop people from getting what they want most of the time.

Number of deaths per 100,000 people:

USA - 10.30 Japan - 0.06

If you think Japanese gun laws aren't working, you have a serious problem with logic.

There are over 1500x more deaths per capita in the US than in Japan. One gangster getting an illegal gun does not justify arming the entire populace. The above numbers show this to be true beyond any doubt. Only American logic would think that this story somehow justifies letting the populace arm themselves. No one from any civilized country anywhere (and probably even most uncivilized countries) would ever somehow think that a story like this justifies gun ownership by the populace.

19 ( +22 / -3 )

The article doesn't say whether his gun ownership was illegal or not. So far what he did with it was definitely illegal!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you think Japanese gun laws aren't working, you have a serious problem with logic.

@Strangerland

Well said — even though this should be painfully obvious to all the NRA supporters who think the answer to reducing gun deaths is arming more citizens.

The threat of me or a family member getting shot by a gun is one of the things I never ever worry about living here in Japan.

Even in this case, although I would prefer that Japan's yakuza did not have guns, it is fairly obvious that this gang member turned shooter was handed over to the police by crime syndicate higher-ups who fear repercussions of a more rigorous crack-down on organized crime otherwise.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

@ape: major flaw in your logic. In the UK and Japan, for example, where gun controls are very strict, someone breaking into a home knows the homeowner is extremely unlikely to be armed. Since penalties for taking a weapon on a burglary are severe and the weapon would likely never be required, the vast majority of criminals take the decision not to tool up. In the US, if you are breaking into a home and you are not armed, you are making a very bad decision.

We known this situation in Japan is not ideal. We know there is always the chance of being undefended against a rare armed robbery (so don't worry to google such stories or paste such links). But in the long run, we know that in taking that chance we save ourselves. If all home owners clamor for arms, more criminals clamor for arms and you end up with a crazy situation like the one in the US where people being shot dead does not even make the news. In avoiding this, we show intelligence.

I would agree that gun control is a difficult issue in the US. One you are in the mess you are in how do you get out of it when the criminal population is already armed and dangerous? In Japan though, the criminal population is not already armed and dangerous, despite rare examples like this story, so we return to the logic of the above paragraph.

Gun control advocates in the US may argue that guns result in accidental death more often than they are used for protection. That's true, but it doesn't alter the psychological hurdles in place taking weapons away from people who already have them.

But that 'inertia' is all the more reason not to arm in the first place in societies that have not yet got into the trouble the US is experiencing.

For these reasons, advocating wider gun ownership in Japan is just lunacy.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

It's quite scary really walking through shops that have knives of all shapes & sizes

1) Really? You're actually scared walking through a knife shop? I pity you....

2) What shapes and sizes have you seen? I've only ever seen knife-shaped, knife-sized goods....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Looking at what is going on in Ferguson MO now, the police are using bean bag guns and stun guns and yet people are still burning businesses and cars. So for all of those who believe you should not have the right to protect your property with a personal hand gun, if you were there how would you feel now? Seems like the police are trying to stop them but so far not so good.

Will they riot and loot in Japan or the UK like that? Who knows what can happen, but would you want to at least be able to take a little personal responsiblity for yourself, or just watch what you own go up in smoke for the common good.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

The woman and her children moved into the apartment about two weeks ago after Hori beat her.

Good on her for bailing on this scum.

As for gun control, yes, he was able to get a gun, but it's much harder to get one than it would be if they were legal. This isolated incident is not enough to draw the conclusion that gun control doesn't work. Gun control in Japan works very well.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Gun rights are not even an issue in Japan, Alpha. Just saying....

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Gun rights are not even an issue in Japan, Alpha. Just saying....

@ budgie: I understand, but Domestic abuse is an issue. Just by saying on a paper "no more contact" is not going to really stop someone who is irrational. Even in America, they don't really tell victims of DA one really important factor in protecting themselved, get armed and fight back.

But if you are going to just rely on the police to come to your rescue, if you don't have 24 hour protection and your former spouse is a known gangster, I guess you are out of luck.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

for all of those who believe you should not have the right to protect your property with a personal hand gun, if you were there how would you feel now?

I would feel extremely scared that anyone in the area could be armed with a gun, and it's almost definite that some are. I'd much rather be in the same situation in a country like Japan where it would be extremely doubtful that anyone is armed.

would you want to at least be able to take a little personal responsiblity for yourself, or just watch what you own go up in smoke for the common good.

It would be short-term, small-minded thinking to want to have a gun in this situation. The price for having a gun to protect my possessions would be living in a society where children get shot on the playgrounds for having toy guns, and kids get shot in classrooms by crazy people who get a hold of legal guns. Looking at the big picture, I'd prefer to not be able to defend my possessions with a gun in the case of a riot (which happens almost never), then have to live in a society where the populace is armed.

Domestic abuse is an issue. Just by saying on a paper "no more contact" is not going to really stop someone who is irrational.

No. But it's better if that person doesn't have access to guns.

if you are going to just rely on the police to come to your rescue, if you don't have 24 hour protection and your former spouse is a known gangster, I guess you are out of luck.

Yes and no. This guy has been caught by the police now, and will be locked up for a long time for firing a gun. They don't tolerate that in Japan. If this were the US, the gun would only be a slightly aggravating factor.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Hope this wife-beating piece of scum gets what he deserves... especially since he decided to take along a gun. What a loser.

@AphaApe - I will never understand why you and people like you think a gun will protect you. If someone thinks you have a gun they will either use a bigger gun, steal your gun and use it against you... or you will kill an unarmed burglar for breaking into your home to steal the TV. Guns are designed for one purpose: to kill people.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

if you don't have 24 hour protection and your former spouse is a known gangster, I guess you are out of luck

So you're saying that if the woman or her kids had a gun, it would have made the situation better? I don't think so. The situation ended the way it should have ended...peacefully, with no lives lost, and the perpetrator in jail...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

That's it, they're going to have to increase the penalties for former gang members using guns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ahh...reignition of the gun control debate yet again. A gun has the same features as a knife, a baseball bat, a car, a spare container of petrol/gasoline, a crossbow, a slingshot, a bb/pellet gun, and most people's brains. By itself, it's an inanimate object. It's neither good nor bad - but can be dangerous in the hands of a moronic imbecile or the impassioned - which abound in society regardless of nation or culture.

Guns receive high profiles because they allow the weak to be strong. Governments and government officials are terrified of guns as they permit and enable the rapid destruction of social disorder - anarchy. They fear the crimes of passion - people can become impassioned about anything - including the perceived disrespect of a persistently loudly partying neighbor(s).

Personally, I see no difference between a crime of passion using a gun, as demonstrated by Mr. Formerly a gang-member and tossing a lit container of gasoline at your intended source of displeasure - although a gun is certainly more surgical - thin walls, ricochets, and bad aim, notwithstanding.

Gun control has been and always will be an emotional argument - with both sides perversely quoting skewed statistics. Like many government imposed laws of emotion, gun control has always struck me as a law of emotion imposed upon the masses for the sometimes spectacular infractions of a few.

Statistically - gun related issues aside - the legal incarceration rate of most developed nations runs around 2-3% (prison population divided by government reported population at large). So gun laws, like drunk driving laws, don't rob bank laws, don't murder others laws, don't lie, cheat, steal laws are mostly written for that 2-3% of the population, but imposed upon the 98% who wouldn't normally even consider breaking such laws whether they exist or not - but it makes the masses feel safe and comfortable knowing there's a law against guns. Gun laws sate the irrational emotions of society, through the false illusion of safety and the false illusion that one's personal safety is the responsibility of the government and the government will protect you.

Gun laws and gun control have never been and never will be the root cause of the issue - it is merely a re-direction - the root cause of the gun control issue has been and always will be society's inability to take responsibility for its actions and the behavioral disorders of others and trying to push that responsibility to to an amply willing third party at the cost of personal loss of liberty. Governments generally delight in making laws and increasing taxes and budgets to support those laws, while continuously eroding our liberties and our abilities to rebel when those laws become tyrannical and oppressive.

The issue isn't gun control - Japan has some of the world's most restrictive and effective gun control laws, yet gun-related incidents continue to appear - albeit at a severely lower rate than the USA, but I believe that's also cultural. China similarly has comparatively tyrannical gun control laws (gas powered pellet guns are also forbidden and illegal - but continue to proliferate). As many of you are aware, a small focused group of disgruntled people from a specific people group managed to murder 29 people and injure another 140, armed with nothing more than watermelon knives - very sharp, easily procured, long-bladed knives for slicing watermelons. There was no knee-jerk reaction to ban watermelon knives, nor an international outcry from gun control advocates to ban nor limit the easily procured and prolific watermelon knives.

So - gun control as practiced and lobbied today, has and always will strike me as a rather emotionally charged issue, stoked by societies' ignorance and happily accommodated by our government officials, at the cost of erosion of our civil liberties - which we gladly surrender for the emotional illusion/delusion of social peace, harmony, and safety.

I'm NOT saying gun control laws are good or bad - but I do question the rationality and sanity of applying a social stigma to an inanimate object for an illusory benefit.

Personally, I enjoy the freedom of gun ownership that the USA currently affords - but I'm equally happy with my professional, competition level compound bow and arrow. The care of use of both instruments of my chosen hobbies are quite zen and my hobbies just happen to also scare people because of the stigma society attaches to these inanimate objects and yet illegal drugs, unrestricted gasoline containers - all are just as dangerous, if not more so.

Gun control is an exercise in futility, fueled by emotional impassioned advocates, but neither addresses nor resolves the root cause. It is a futile attempt to ban morons, imbeciles, criminals, terrorists, and crimes of passion - but attempting to draft those kinds of laws is ludicrous, irrational, and fundamentally insane - so we assign or stigmatize an inanimate object to make everyone feel comfortable because we actually cannot solve or prevent the root cause - making our government and security forces appear impotent.

There are three topics one should never discuss or raise at a party, religion, politics, and gun control.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@ seaforte03: Very excellent post!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

By itself, it's an inanimate object. It's neither good nor bad - but can be dangerous in the hands of a moronic imbecile or the impassioned - which abound in society regardless of nation or culture.

Exactly, which is why access should be extremely limited, as the moronic, imbecile and impassioned are not easily identifiable.

I see no difference between a crime of passion using a gun, as demonstrated by Mr. Formerly a gang-member and tossing a lit container of gasoline at your intended source of displeasure

The difference is that gasoline is required for society to function - without gasoline we could not transport goods and our society would collapse. Guns have no useful place in society, and without guns our society would improve.

Like many government imposed laws of emotion, gun control has always struck me as a law of emotion imposed upon the masses for the sometimes spectacular infractions of a few.

No. The pure statistics show that there is reason for guns to be banned. Statistics have nothing to do with emotion. When you have a difference in over 1500x as many gun deaths per capita in a country with free gun laws (USA) compared to a country with extremely strict gun laws (Japan), emotion is irrelevant. The fact is that having more guns means a significantly larger number of people die from those guns. Reading these statistics can create emotion, but that emotion is secondary to the facts, not the cause.

the root cause of the gun control issue has been and always will be society's inability to take responsibility for its actions and the behavioral disorders of others and trying to push that responsibility to to an amply willing third party at the cost of personal loss of liberty.

1) Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are correct that society has an inability to take responsibility for its actions. That in itself is an extremely strong argument as to why guns should be banned. Ideally society would take responsibility for itself, realistically it doesn't. Trying to set your rules based on an ideal makes no sense. Setting rules based on reality is the way to risk management.

2) The 'cost of personal liberty' that is required for guns to be legal, is that 5-6 year old children will sometimes be murdered at school (by legal guns), and that 12 year old kids will be murdered in the playground (due to fear of legal guns). Other people will be shot while shopping, sleeping, walking, and doing pretty much anything else you can think of. There is a cost whether guns are legal or not. When guns are legal, the cost is that society suffers. When they are illegal, the cost is that sometimes someone will not have the protection they wish they had. But the difference is huge. When guns are illegal, children DO die. People DO get killed while shopping. Society DOES suffer. When someone can't carry a gun, if they have bad luck, the MAY need a gun someday and not have it.

The issue isn't gun control - Japan has some of the world's most restrictive and effective gun control laws, yet gun-related incidents continue to appear

This is akin to saying "well, that cancer drug cures 99.99% of cancers, but since it doesn't cure the other 0.01%, it's ineffective". Absolutely ridiculous. Guns are NOT a problem in Japan. It's impossible to eradicate them 100%, but as any scientist will tell you, the eradication in Japan approaches 100% near enough to be considered as 100%. Again guns are NOT a problem in Japan, and trying to say that they are because there are one or two incidents a year in a country of 130 million people shows a serious lack of logic.

As many of you are aware, a small focused group of disgruntled people from a specific people group managed to murder 29 people and injure another 140, armed with nothing more than watermelon knives - very sharp, easily procured, long-bladed knives for slicing watermelons.

And think of how many more they could have murdered if they had guns. Add to this that while there is a valid reason for having a watermelon knife - cutting watermelons - there is no valid reason to owning a gun.

There was no knee-jerk reaction to ban watermelon knives, nor an international outcry from gun control advocates to ban nor limit the easily procured and prolific watermelon knives.

Because by banning watermelon knives, people would not be able cut all the things that you can cut with watermelon knives - such as watermelons. If guns were banned, the only thing people couldn't do is kill other people. Which is not a negative, it's a positive.

Personally, I enjoy the freedom of gun ownership that the USA currently affords

Do you also enjoy the fact that children have to pay with their lives for that freedom?

Gun control is an exercise in futility

Japan statistics proves this comment to be absolutely incorrect. Gun control is entirely effective.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

^ Ditto to what you said

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nicely said Strangerland and because the guy used a gun, he will go to jail for a long time, and will have to cut his pinky because this incident caused embarrassment for his oyabun. At least his Ex-wife will be safe for a few years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Strangerland & Sensato - Yet the suicide rate in Japan is higher in the U.S., all without guns! What you ignore is that firearm-related deaths in the U.S. include suicide AND justifiable homicide in most reported stats.

You also conveniently ignore the dramatic social differences and influences between the U.S. and Japan that contribute to both gun and other violent crime.

Now, you can be fearful of absolute freedom - that's your choice. Absolute freedom is not always safe. And yes, I will choose that freedom. You can exercise your right to NOT own a firearm (if you live in free nation that allows such a right), but do not attempt to take away my rights. You are nothing more than a man - inherent human rights are not to be dictated to anyone by another human being. The right to life is THE most inherent, obviously - yet it means nothing without the absolutely implied right of self-defense - that even the United Nations has affirmed.

That defense should be available through the most effective yet practical tools available. The firearm. It levels the playing field, especially for the those with a lesser advantage due to physical impairment or limitation otherwise. When a woman of small stature and lacking in physical prowess presents a .45 caliber hand gun to the 300lb. would-be rapist, the game changes.

And yes, the first thing you will say is that she is more likely to be killed by her own gun. WRONG. Look at the REAL statistics and facts provided by both the FBI and the Department of Justice with regards to this. Not the BS given to you by the Brady Campaign, and the usually crowd.

Banning firearms accomplishes nothing positive. Crime is crime, murder is murder. The Japanese are relegated to blades and other means, and they are successful at this method.

If you don't like firearms, or otherwise fear them, then stay in Japan. -OR- I might recommend another country where firearms are very strictly controlled. Say, Mexico? Oh wait. Heavy gun control, yet MORE gun violence than in the U.S. Wonder what's going on there? Why isn't gun control working? Oh right, criminals don't give a CRAP. Same thing in England - gun restrictions UP, gun violence UP. So no, gun control does not work.

And guess what? Guns were not always so strictly controlled in Japan, nor in places lIke England. It used to be much more common (and easy) for a civilian to possess firearms in either place, a great example would be in the earlier part of the 20th century - and guess what? Very little gun violence. Particularly in the case of England. Japan was effectively disarmed by the United States at the end of WWII and the subsequent government structure took that to an extreme. Fortunately, Japan still manufactures very nice firearms that we are able to possess in other nations that still have that acknowledge the freedom.

Japan is very safe, yes. Loved that part of living there. But I'll keep my freedom, I'll keep my firearms. And I love America for that. At least until the liberals totally manage to destroy the country.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yet the suicide rate in Japan is higher in the U.S., all without guns!

And apples are not oranges! Anymore irrelevant points that you'd like to bring up?

What you ignore is that firearm-related deaths in the U.S. include suicide AND justifiable homicide in most reported stats.

I haven't ignored it, it's just irrelevant. Taking away guns takes away a tool for killing. If people are killing themselves with guns, then taking away the gun takes away one of their tools for killing themselves.

You also conveniently ignore the dramatic social differences and influences between the U.S. and Japan that contribute to both gun and other violent crime.

I haven't ignored those either. The fact is that if these social differences were fixable, the US would have fixed them. They obviously are not, and which is all the more reason to take away guns. If you can't fix the problem, then remove the method.

Now, you can be fearful of absolute freedom - that's your choice.

You aren't afraid of absolute freedom? You mean you'd rather live in an anarchy without laws where you are free to literally do anything you want? I suggest Somalia, if you love absolute freedom. I'd imagine you think it's an absolute paradise.

Now if it so happens that you are not a person who wants to live in an anarchy with a lack of laws and therefore absolute freedom, then the only difference between us the degree to which we think control is necessary. And I am saying that guns absolutely need to be controlled.

You can exercise your right to NOT own a firearm (if you live in free nation that allows such a right), but do not attempt to take away my rights.

I can't take away your rights, so it's a moot point. But I will definitely be vocal about pointing out how that 'right' should be taken away. If you don't like it, you should probably stop reading the internet.

inherent human rights are not to be dictated to anyone by another human being.

Owning a gun is most definitely not an inherent human right.

the first thing you will say is that she is more likely to be killed by her own gun. WRONG.

First off, if you are going to make that claim, you should back it up. Second, whether or not she is killed by her own gun is one thing, the other is that the price for your 'right' to own a gun is that children will be killed while at school, and kids will be shot in playgrounds. The cost to society is not even remotely in line with the benefit.

Banning firearms accomplishes nothing positive.

Sure it does - it stops people from being shot. If someone doesn't have a gun, they cannot kill anyone. Sure, some guns will slip through the cracks, and some people will still get shot. But that becomes the rare exception rather than the norm.

If you don't like firearms, or otherwise fear them, then stay in Japan.

Trust me, I have no intention of moving to the US. One of the things I love about Japan is the safety.

So no, gun control does not work.

1500x as many gun deaths per capita in the US as compared to Japan. Fifteen-hundred times. The numbers prove your statement to be wrong.

Guns were not always so strictly controlled in Japan, nor in places lIke England. It used to be much more common (and easy) for a civilian to possess firearms in either place

Then I'm really happy they came to their senses. It gives me hope that America may someday move out of this senselessness as well.

Sorry, but no matter which way you try to spin it, nothing about guns is defensible on a logical level. Only an emotional level. And that emotion is responsible for the deaths of thousands and thousands and thousands every year in the US, including so many children.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I and my family are constantly on guard with rampant knife attacks as to gun shots in Japan. Gun control and its laws are far more efficient here than most parts around the globe. Japanese people are just not that into guns here. In my opinion, this felon in the act of B & E (Breaking and Entering) was likely to just scare off his family rather than committing a deadly crime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites