Voices
in
Japan

have your say

In view of the shooting at the Florida nightclub, what is your stance on gun control?

43 Comments

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

43 Comments
Login to comment

If we were to do it the NRA way, the solution would be to make the carrying of guns mandatory so that they can fight back!

As for me, I can't see why anyone except a law enforcement officer needs to carry a gun - especially an assault rifle!

5 ( +7 / -2 )

I don't think you will ever convince pro-gun americans that guns aren't needed by the average everyday person, though they would argue its not about needing, its about the right to have one and that is protected by the constitution. Other more conspiratorial people will say they are going to need them to protect themselves.. cause the country is terrible and so on and its all obamas fault and whatever other nonsense they need to spout to justify the position they hold, not based on fact but their own emotional opinion.

The constitution is a living document and needs updating as our understanding about equality and society changes, and I think this gun section is a good example of that. A musket in defence of you home or community in colonial times is not the same as a high capacity military assault rifle, that needs to be recognised in my opinion.

I think there is good research to show that a gun for protection is not very effective and more likely to be accidentally used on a member of the owners house.

Now, Im all about the maximal freedom for as many people as possible, this however as many with dogmatic agendas seem to miss, actually comes with a lot of responsibility.

So if you like guns, you should probably be able to have them, however there should be checks and balances that come with that like any other thing that potentially effects other people, driving being one example.

Drivers licences, training, testing insurance and in most places safety checks are mandatory, it seems completely reasonable that guns should be treated similarly, if not with the extra requirement that especially in the case of a military style weapons that some additional checks, mental heath, part of a responsible gun club and in good standing in the community for example are necessary too, along with police checks on safe storage and security.

I think there is another aspect in this case that can't be ignored, that is an attack was against a group of people that are targeted, put down and discriminated against by groups that some americans consider protected by their rights, and even more scarily used as political fodder for right wing politicians to garner votes from conservatives.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

In a case like this gun control will not help. This guy used a gun at his place of work and was no amateur with guns.

So it comes down to people protecting and defending themselves from people like this. You take away guns and you take away that defense. = Nobody at the club was armed and this guy had free range to do whatever he wanted.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

This guy used a gun at his place of work

The guns he got didn't come from his work. He bought them at the store.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

The rifle used by the Islamist terrorist in Orlando was instead a Sig Sauer MCX carbine, a modular, multi-caliber (able to swap to different calibers, including 5.56 NATO, 300 BLK, and 7.62×39) rifle system that sometimes utilizes STANAG magazines common to more than 60 different firearms, but otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form.

-The guy knew guns well and not just any store has a $2000 Sig MCX.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/10/foghorn/gun-review-sig-sauer-mcx/

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

The number of times these kind of tragedies happened in US are evidence enough to prove that my view or anybody's views here doesn't really matter. People will make noise, mourn, blame others and gradually get back to their daily routines till the next tragedy strikes. Annoyingly even the helpless politicians mourn with the masses again and again and again.

The only people or parties whose opinion really matters are the ones who influence the vote banks in US elections. There is no will in the administration as such to bring a change on this gun control issue. Simple as it sounds.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Guns are for law enforcement and military. Civilians should be allowed hunting rifles only, and THAT should heavily regulated.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Guns are for law enforcement and military.

After a military career, career in law enforcement, fire dept, federal / state employment they should still be able to posses firearms. Even allow some or most of these folks ccw's.

You cannot deny them the right for pete's sake.

In view of the shooting at the Florida nightclub, what is your stance on gun control?

Guns cannot be banned even if the gov said so. There are too many armed Americans. Some law abiding, some thugs, some religious radicals. Just how it goes. For better or worse.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Guns cannot be banned even if the gov said so. There are too many armed Americans. Some law abiding, some thugs, some religious radicals. Just how it goes. For better or worse.

The same can be said about drugs, but we ban them. And drugs only harm the user.

I'd be for VERY strict requirements for gun ownership. Former military / law enforcement career, rigorous training, periodic license renewal, etc., but we can't even get Republican lawmakers to ban sales to suspected terrorists.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Gun control is and always has been to the outside world a no brainer. Those that get a rush from firing weapons , and fantasize about what they would do to the "bad guys" seriously need their head examined. Even killing game for sport is abhorrent to most these days. Will never understand what is fun about gunning down a moose, a dear , or anything for that matter. Of course you may as well be talking to a brick wall to those of this confused and sad inclination. So the meaningless killing continues. Blood sport.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

The guy knew guns well and not just any store has a $2000 Sig MCX

Thanks, Badsey3 for proving that any US citizen can easily get to know guns well, and procure that weapon

...incontrovertible facts which are just as responsible for Orlando as Mateen's self loathing about his sexual impulses.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

After a military career, career in law enforcement, fire dept, federal / state employment they should still be able to posses firearms. Even allow some or most of these folks ccw's.

When retired hand them in. Cops do hand in their guns after retirement too you know. And they can still have hunting rifles. No more.

You cannot deny them the right for pete's sake.

Sure you can. If you wanna carry arms, join a gov agency. Once you are a civilian, NO.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

As Bertie said... the solution that will satified and be aproved swiftly by the NRA and the Republicans most probably will be so that every US citizen, young and old have at least a gun so they can "fight back"....

Sure... that will not only eradicate the problem but it surely will be a huge step forward to the disillusion of gun violence (wink wink)

indeed, i can understand either why the need for people to carry a gun.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Those people who say they need a gun for protection don't realize it's most likely to be used against themselves--by themselves.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

People have no business owning guns. Or any other weapons for that matter.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

We have multiple mass shootings every year, yet certain people somehow think this one was different because a Muslim (well, a dubiously devout Muslim allegedly with bipolar disorder, a history of threatening behavior, shall we say complex feelings about his own sexuality, and a dubious comprehension of the politics of Islamism) did it.

As long as people are ready to latch onto their imaginary view of his otherness as the cause of the shooting rather than his easy access to guns (as has every other mass shooter in American history), we'll never get anywhere.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Before we let our feelings take over, let's look at the facts. First of all, mass shootings in general and gun deaths in particular are trending downwards. Have been for decades. At the same time, gun ownership is trending upwards. Coincidence?

Second, the hysteria surrounding so called "military style assault weapons" needs to stop. Long guns of all kinds account for a small fraction of all gun crime in the US. More people are killed with knives, blunt objects, even hands/feet than with rifles (at least according to the latest FBI statistics).

So, the problem isn't multiple shootings or rifles. The problem lies in handguns. THese are the hardest to regulate, the easiest to conceal, and the easiest to manufacture. There are also about 200 million of them floating around the US. So, what to do... it is legally and logistically impossible to get rid of them.

It is a lot easier in countries that don't have a gun culture, a gun history, a legacy of violent revolution, etc. I don't think there are any legislative answers for the United States. Criminals could easily get guns even if they were to be made illegal.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

mass shootings in general and gun deaths in particular are trending downwards.

Say what?!

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Look at the statistics Strangerland. We live in a media culture that feeds the frenzy of fear. We have too much information about what is happening around the world, and it makes us paranoid.

The reality is that the murder rate by all firearms has dropped by nearly 50% since the 1990s. You may not like the facts, but you cannot refute them.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

What statistics? All you made was an unsupported claim.

I suppose what you say is possible, but I'm skeptical.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Strangerland: they are the FBI's statistics. Just search for it and you will find the truth.

1993 Murder rate per 100,000 people: 9.5 by firearm 7.0 Rape 41.1 Assault 440 Robbery 256

2012 Murder rate per 100,000 people: 4.7 by firearm 3.4 Rape 26.9 Assault 242 Robbery 113

It is not an unsupported claim.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Thanks, Badsey3 for proving that any US citizen can easily get to know guns well, and procure that weapon

Contrary to general opinion many USA citizens are not allowed to buy or keep firearms. Felons and even pardoned ex-felons (Bill Clinton etc) are not allowed firearms. People with domestic abuse issues/claims (Bill Clinton-again) cannot legally purchase firearms and must disperse any firearm collection they have even upon a claim of domestic abuse or hostile action. These laws vary by each State.

Schweizerische Industrie Gesellschaft (SIG) is a Swiss gun maker of very high standards. My favorite SIG is the STG57 which was the standard for Swiss Miliary (and home) Service for many years. Uses the same match-grade GP11 ammo as the venerable Schmitt-Rubin K31 (Swiss shooting clubs standard arm).

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

When retired hand them in. Cops do hand in their guns after retirement too you know. And they can still have hunting rifles. No more.

What? Cops use their own firearms in most cases, not a department issued clunker. Most cops carry two guns on their person. (one holstered and on on the ankle).

Reality check. You think their fellow officers are going to "make" them turn-in their guns?

They're not gona dime-out their own. They're going to look the other way because they're all unwilling to surrender their own personal firearms after retirement.

You must be very liberal in your way of thinking, if you think cops hand in their guns after retirement. Some have arsenals of rifles, firearms and knives . . . . but thats a good thing.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Badsey3: thanks for reminding us what felons aren't supposed to do.

Is the hypothesis (to help us sleep soundly) that the US has no recidivism?

And speaking of Bill Clinton...

Attila: gun homicide rates per 100,000 people nearly halved under Clinton's presidency, then started climbing during the Bush years, to fall again during the Obama presidency:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I had multiple weapons in the states for years, handguns and long guns, and none of them ever hurt anyone. But I sold all of them after my then-teenage son took my gun locker key while I was in the shower. Fortunately, I found out quickly and nothing happened. I am happy to report that he is now an Army Warrant Officer, and carries a weapon as part of his duties.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Gun control ! this is a stupid question. because if anyone can buy a war weapon and ammo, that is not gun control that un-control gun laws

1 ( +2 / -1 )

In view of the shooting at the Florida nightclub, what is your stance on gun control?

The same as it was before:

the Second Amendment is a dangerous anachronism, and must be destroyed.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The Second Amendment is a limitation on government power. A government that engages in illegal renditions, illegal tapping, and secret courts needs its power limited. A government that arrests people for burning a flag needs its power limited. Scrapping the Second Amendment because it is perceived as anachronistic or inconvenient further empowers the government. There is peril in living in a country where private gun ownership is legal and a crazy person might massacre the innocent. This peril can be avoided by moving to China, where a tyrannical government can make you disappear if you say or believe something inconvenient... But you won't have to worry about shootings... Just knifings. Admittedly, some weapons do seem excessive, hence degrees of regulation. But woe be the gun-control fanatics when the machines rise up ;)

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The Second Amendment is a limitation on government power.

Maybe back in the day when people were fighting with muskets. But to think that the people could rise up against the American military with it's weapons and training now is about as ridiculous a belief as one could have.

This peril can be avoided by moving to China, where a tyrannical government can make you disappear if you say or believe something inconvenient...

Or to Canada, where the government listens to the people, and the people aren't so stupid as to think unregulated gun ownership is a good idea.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

there has got to be a better way to balance the right to bear arms and the right to be free from being shot by a maniac.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Or to Canada, where the government listens to the people, and the people aren't so stupid as to think unregulated gun ownership is a good idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/the-rise-and-fall-of-canada-s-long-gun-registry-1.2862001

The "Long Gun Registry" in Canada is most likely a $2-3 Billion failure. You probably had 90% of the people around Ottawa on the registers and 10-20% elsewhere. Thankfully they ended it.

Canada does have the import of Norinco (banned in the USA). The Norinco M305 (M14 clone) over time was made into a fine battle rifle and is a great club gun. Canada has a 5 round limit on the magazine though.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The Second Amendment is a limitation on government power

by vastly curtailing government's ability to protect Americans from sudden, violent death.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

What is my stance on gun control?

Well, there is no gun control in America and for the safety of innocents , I think there should be. They aren't cowboys living in the wild west anymore, get with the times.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

This debate is really never going to end simply because the NSA and the weapons industry is never going to allow it. Weapons mean money, a lot of it. The whole industry is a master at selling the illusion of "weapons = safety". It's just beyond ridiculous and outrageous to have guns as a private citizen, let alone semi- or full automatic weapons, period!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

In the Orlando case, any gun control regulation would have made no difference. The shooter was a licensed guard, as well as having a state-issued gun permit. These permits are costly, take months to get, and are not cheap. And in the absence of a firearm (which is unlikely in a country were there are 200,000,000 or so guns), there is no shortage of options available to those who want to kill. A bug sprayer filled with gasoline and a butane lighter, a suitcase bomb made with common chemicals, a large truck driven into the building, or flying hijacked planes into buildings; those who want to kill won't be slowed down by a lack of guns.

Who can we blame in this case? It was interesting to watch as the story unfolded, and the media had to chew on the fact that the shooter was not a anti-government, middle-aged white male, or a young, mentally disturbed man who wanted to get his name in the headlines. It was an islamic terrorist who was on an FBI watchlist, and who pledged his allegiance to the islamic state. Despite the inevitability of such and event occurring, they were not prepared for it.

But as time goes on, the story moves away from islamic radicalization, or the reach of the islamic state, and becomes a gun-control issue.

Who can we blame for what happened? The shooter to start with, then the rise of the islamic state, and it's influence on people around the world. The fact that he had access to guns is an issue, but as he had passed the extensive fingerprinting and background checks required to get a state license, the shooter did not at all have easy access to the guns he used. And lets not forget that American soldiers who have access to much greater firepower have become radicalized, and killed their fellow soldiers. Who is to say that the same won't happen to police officers or others who have full, official access to weapons of many types?

The oddest thing about this shooting is that no one shot back. In Florida, hundreds of thousands of people have concealed carry permits, particularly in the more rural parts of the state, like Orlando. Out of the hundreds of people at the club, no one else was armed? In Miami (where I used to live), the larger gay clubs always hire off-duty uniformed police to provide security. I have worked these details before, they pay $400 a night, which is nothing to sneeze at. But occasionally drunk patrons would come out of the bar, falling down drunk, and you could see from time to time that one was wearing a gun under their clothes.

We can assign a little blame to Mr Bush, whose war in Iraq destabilized the region, and set the stage for it's collapse. And we can also blame Mr Obama, who sat on his hands as the region fell, and did nothing as the islamic state filled the power vacuum. The "Arab Spring" he touted back when Egypt overthrew it's president has turned into an Arab nightmare, which has reached into Europe, and now America.

This is not a gun control issue, this is a terrorism issue. And Obama or the next president needs to decide where to fight. He (or she) can either fight the battle in the middle east, or they can fight the battle in the cities of Europe and America. Personally, I prefer the former over the latter.

What will be the result of the Orlando shooting? I am sure right now that gun companies are now giving their employees as much overtime as they want, and that this year gun sales will break all-time records. And you can also be sure that gays in particular will be heavier purchasers of guns than they have been in the past. And you can bet there will be a lot of political posturing, and fiery speeches made, but no new regulations will be enacted. Americans love their guns, and many of these Americans live in blue states.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Australia's 1996 gunlaws are the role model here. (No shooting rampages there in 20 years). Trying to justify private gun ownership is foolishness.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Forbid the sale of quasi assault weapons. Declare the NRA as terrorist organization and shut it dowm. Ban all gun lobbyists. In short, treat the gun industry like the tobacco industry. Only much more vindictively.z

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It is too late for the US -- they are stuck with guns permeating their society forever. Get ready for the next mass shooting! There is a record to be broken! New reality TV show: The Biggest Killer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope the bloke who own,s the gun store from where the gun were purchase feel like he is part of this misery. Because he is. He is the gatekeeper and he sold this man a gun. The gun shop owner is just at fault in this. Why would a Gun shop owner purchase a M16,s to sell has hunter rifles. One reason only, Profit / Money never thinking about public safety. Being a gun professional, he knows that a M16 is no good for hunting but he still sell this useless gun to a man who is a hunter!!! If He walk into the shop and ask I need something to defend myself from a unit of terrorist, What do you have that suit that ? the reply should be I only sell gun,s for recreation or hunting not for waring.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Forbid the sale of quasi assault weapons.

Why? These "assault" weapons make up a minute fraction of gun crimes and accidents, regular hunting weapons and common handguns are most often used. What many people don't understand is that "assault" weapons are designed to maim, not kill, whereas hunting weapons are designed to kill, and not maim. An AR15 rifle is the least powerful centerfire rifle one can get, and has a fraction of the killing potential of a $200 Walmart 30-30 deer rifle.

The Geneva convention created rules for war weapons and ammunition, these require that military guns shoot solid bullets which do not distort or mushroom. Military studies indicate that wounding enemy soldiers is more costly to the enemy than simply killing them, this was part of the logic behind the development of small caliber rifles besides their lighter weight, and increased ammunition capacity.

There are numerous semi-automatic hunting rifles with detachable magazines which are capable of blowing off limbs rather than simply punching clean holes through flesh. The difference between an AR15 "quasi-assault weapon" and a hunter's BAR is mainly cosmetic, except that the BAR is several times more powerful, and is designed to kill large animals with a single shot.

Australia's 1996 gunlaws are the role model here. (No shooting rampages there in 20 years). Trying to justify private gun ownership is foolishness.

Yet Australia's crime rate and murder rate are statistically unchanged? Isn't that correct? There have been no mass shootings, which is true, but neither has there been a decrease in the number of crimes committed, or the number of people killed each year by other means.

In Britain the murder rate actually increased after the banning of handguns, and even with the addition of 20,000 more police, the country has a slightly higher murder rate than before the ban. The murder rate in Ireland is roughly double now what it was before it banned firearms in 1972, right?

Trying to justify banning gun ownership on the grounds that doing so in any way reduces crimes or murder is also foolishness. And in America, the people are the final authority, not their government, and that being the case, the people cannot have less rights than the government, including the right to own guns. Americans are not subjects, they are full citizens with full authority to regulate their government, not the other way around. And for this to remain the case, they must have all means available to "regulate" those who are required to serve them, and respect their individual rights.

Declare the NRA as terrorist organization and shut it dowm. Ban all gun lobbyists. In short, treat the gun industry like the tobacco industry. Only much more vindictively.

Then you end up with nazi Germany. Who will be your Fuhrer?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Sangetsu: Your are totally wrong about the australian murder rate since the gun hand in. It has drop from over 300 to 250 victims in 2015. It prove your gun theory is WRONG. THis prove no guns less murders. The Number are there.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Same 'ol, same 'ol. Mass shooting, politicians make 'tut, tut' noises, twitter morons share their heartbreak for selfish reasons, famous buildings change their lighting schemes, nothing real happens, mass shooting.....

The equation is simple, Americans. More guns = more gun crime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sangetsu: Your are totally wrong about the australian murder rate since the gun hand in. It has drop from over 300 to 250 victims in 2015.

I am not wrong, one year does not a trend make. If you look at the annual average since 1996, there is no change. Tell me what the rates were in 1997, and 1998?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

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