have your say

What is your stance on gun control?


©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

More guns are better than less guns, all things being equal. There is ZERO statistical connection between the number of guns in a society and the amount of violent crime. The cause something else, but mentioning it here would be me banned in a hurry.

-14 ( +6 / -21 )

My stance is quite simple. Tough gun laws are a must. No civilian needs access to hand guns, no civilian needs access to semi automatic weapons of any nature. And people need to justify their need to own a weapon and no "self defence" isnt a justification. Neither is "i go hunting occasionally".

There should only be a small group of people within a society that have a genuine need for weapons and those weapons should be restricted to single shot weapons. That coupled with tight testing and licensing is the only way to reduce gun crimes.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

If you have the bad luck to be born in a country where violence has always been the method of choice to "solve" a problem, then you either have to own the bigger gun, or, you will be the loser in a conflict. To have an intelligent society, where intelligent laws can solve problems, you need intelligent people.

If you do not have those, then you will see massacres, and you will have them forever. Because no law is going to make the guns go away. Someone who is so frustrated, for whatever reason, that he goes out to massacre even children, will certainly not be deterred, because owning a handgun is illegal.

So, in a way, the gun lobby is correct, when they say: Not guns, people kill people. And now you start at the beginning again: "If you have the bad luck to be born in a country where violence has always been the method of choice to "solve" a problem,..."

So, there is NO solution, because this is America.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Gun control? Guns need to be banned completely, no exeptions. Nobody should be able to buy or use a gun. Not citizens, not the army, not even the president, the queen, the king or the emperor. I hate ALL weapons and violence, but if you want to be the biggest son of a bitch that ever existed (in other words; end lives) than you should use a sword and FEEL your evil deed. Even the army. If they want to kill each other so badly they should stop being a coward hiding in the bushes like targ (to quote a klingon) and actually run up the battlefield and FACE each other. FEEL what you are doing. See your opponent's soul vanish before your eyes. idiots..

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

In Japan? Keep it the way it is. No guns except for people who need them for their jobs (police, hunters, etc.).

In the U.S.? Sadly there are way too many guns in circulation. Ammunition however ages quickly. The solution to the U.S.'s problems is to allow people as many guns as they like... but ammunition should be limited to 10 rounds (enough for a day of hunting or home defence, not enough to go on a shooting spree). When people want new ammunition they should have to hand in the old ammunition and account for any missing rounds. Also ammunition should cost about $1000 a round, and the revenue should go to the families of victims of gun crimes.

Yes, I know that it is possible to make your own rounds, but it is also insanely slow and people who have that degree of gun expertise tend to respect their guns... also, after you've just spent 3 hours casting shells, moulding and filing heads, measuring grains of powder, etc... well, I think these people would tend to think carefully about whether they REALLY want to shoot someone.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Gun's are American people's liberty and their is no doubt that to ensure peace, security, and happiness the rifle and pistol are equally important. Firearms everywhere does restrain evil interference and deserves a place of honor for all that's good. However what America needs is stricter government control and not gun control. The evils of gun control show that it kills which history has proven. In the United States where men support the right to bear arms believe that rights do not come from their government or United States Constitution but only privileges do. Rights are considered God-given and inalienable. As a result they cannot be taken away since the Creator has authority over man. Therefore the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against authoritarianism in government. A very sensitive issue that can be debatable if done honestly. As for me I am scared of guns period.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

while banning firearms to reduce and ultimately prevent gun violence is a good idea, but for USA, it's not probable. the 2nd Amendment, Right to bear arms, have been here since the birth of America. it's provides citizens with the opportunity to protect themselves whenever danger suddenly appear. Law enforcement authorities cannot be everywhere to protect everyone at all times. America is not Japan that had little gun violence, or weapons violence since civilians are banned to own weapons since the 16th century when Toyotomi Hideyoshi confiscated all weapons from all classes except the samurai class. Even if America banned sales of firearms like assault weapons or handguns, they can just buy them on the black market trade. Criminals still get their firearms on the black market and on the street. If the gun control ban is enacted, it still wouldn't be effective, as this won't affect the criminal with guns. it just means they may now have the upper hand when law-abiding citizens cannot protect themselves.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Speaking as a gun owner in Japan, I think Japan has a halfway decent system set up. It's pretty difficult to own a gun here, and the process is designed to weed out those who may pose a danger. I had to attend courses, sit exams, get a psych test and more just to get a shotgun for hunting. At the end of the day though, you could have all the controls in the world, but some people will always slip through....

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Banning assault style weapons and multi-round casings and magazines would be a good start.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Simple, no guns.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I answer in general, knowing that some countries already most of what I say. I don't see the need for an exception in the US. For personal security, if people get teasers or new stuff like that, OK, another discussion. The usage of "fire guns" should be reserved to professional activities. I mean army, police, private security, hunters and conditioned to regularly renewed license, and strict registration of all guns and ammunitions. Even these pro don't have to keep any weapons in their house (with very few exceptions for those living in extremely remote places, with bears or lions...). The cops can let their tools at work place after hours, hunters can bring them back to a safe to store them. My uncle hunter always says that should be. He bought 2 safes to keep rifles and ammunitions locked separately in his house, but he says "it's if one of you becomes drunk, stoned, crazy, you can't get them...but if I'm the one having a fit, I can get them. That would be better if I couldn't." . But he had no place where to bring them in his region. That's not a big deal to organize a collective storage. A school friend's Dad had a hunting gun shop and he was proposing that service, and 95% of hunters living nearby would let their riffles there. Most of the 5% were guys that shouldn't be even allowed to go hunting snails and mushrooms. The biggest opponents of security measures tend to be the persons we have to fear the most.

last resort to protect themselves against authoritarianism in government.

I am not against civilians helping armies and police, or even if they want to keep the possibility to have their own militia, but that can be done without personal ownership and home storage of the guns. The guns have to be stored in a place and handed by the leader to the volunteers the day they have a task to do, and they have to take them back after every shift of their mission. They can train at professional shooting booths, but then let training guns there.

it still wouldn't be effective, as this won't affect the criminal with guns.

The criminals cause a minority of the casualties. I think the control is extremely effective when only those shootings are left. Then, even to deal with gangs, the authorities can seize their guns more easily when there are not millions of guns walking around and half of the people with a concealed gun entering the malls, supermarkets... They have less to control. Concretely, they can simply arrest anyone found with a gun (at some gate for instance, control on the road, searching house/office for another reason, etc...) , confiscate and send them to judges.

Rights are considered God-given and inalienable.

Well, let's give a phone call to God and ask him... Mythology can be updated sometimes.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I love shooting pistols.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Some of you are missing the point. The 2nd Amendment allows U.S. Citizens firearms partly as a protective measure AGAINST government tyranny, as well as self-defense.

And if the government ever attempts to "ban" weapons in their entirety, they'll find out why the framers put it in there. I'm not condoning violence or revolt.... but most with firearms will not give them up without a fight of the bloodiest kind.


0 ( +3 / -3 )

To answer the question of gun control, as was asked... I think it is an utter failure in the U.S. The way I see it, the failure lies in the enforcement of existing laws and rules. Checks and registrations are a joke. "Have you ever suffered from a mental illness?" Yes( ) No( ). Do you really believe that they take advantage of the holes blown in doctor patient confidentiality by HIPA laws, to even verify if someone is telling the truth on an application? Sadly, no. The current laws regarding gun possession, and use are just fine the way they are (for the most part). The failure lies in the lack of enforcement of laws already on the books. You need to prove you are physically fit enough to hold a Commercial Drivers License, by way of holding a D.O.T. med. card. In order to get your med card you have to take a physical from a licensed physician. In a lot of states you have to go to counseling sessions with a therapist, or member of the clergy, before you are granted a marriage license. For a gun. Just check the boxes for no felonies, no mental illnesses, and wait 3 days to pick up your gun. Don't waste time cluttering up the books with more laws that won't be enforced. Start enforcing the laws currently on the books.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Government tyranny does not come down the mouth of a gun these days. It's more insidious.

I own about six guns, but they are all antiques from by-gone eras. The founding fathers (just ordinary folks) would probably have approved.

A rule book needs to be introduced defining and regulating gun ownership in a clear and fair way. Possession of OTT guns (eg by gang members) which contravene these laws should be punished more harshly. Potential owners of legal guns should have to undergo a yearly check, and the reason for ownership would have to be clearly stated. Age and health should be considerations, and recommendation letters from acquaintances straight to the authorities should be mandatory. A commission should be set up to examine firearms laws around the world and decide what is best applicable to the unique situation in the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Regardless of crime stats, over 30,000 people die every year from accidents involving guns in the States.

If 30,000 people a year were dying in hang gliding accidents, I'd except the government to act swiftly to ban hang-gliders. Somehow, guns are "special" enough to merit special treatment, even as American schoolchildren die in massacres like this...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Other than legitimate hunting rifles -- owned by licensed hunters and/or collectors -- and small-magazine hand guns for personal protection, they should all be illegal. Plain and simple.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

No private citizen should own a weapon. If you allow one group to own them, another group will complain that they also want to own them, so on and so forth.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )


A prime example of the kind of person who stands in the way of a US gun ban.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

30,000 injured, not killed. Don't know where that came from. Apologies.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Before you think about controlling gun ownership, you should think about controlling and reducing gun manufacturing first. If tons of guns are coming out of a factory somewhere, they will be for sale somewhere. The same goes for bullets.

0 ( +1 / -1 )


You are a strange man.... What an idea, controlling the manufacture if guns....

There is profit to made! And if there is some "collateral" damage, its for the good of the country.

"Do not ask what your country can do for you, ask, what can I do for my country!" John F Kennedy (Son of the most hionest business man the US ever had)

Go, USA, USA, USA, the greatest country in the world!!!

PS: It would be nice if somehow we could convince the americans to keep ALL the guns they make inside their own borders. That would solve the problem for 95% of all humans on earth.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )


American broadcaster Charlie Wolf said British and European people should understand and respect US culture over guns. He said Americans saw them as a "natural right of self defence" and less than 1% of shooting homicides had been in schools.

Americans never cease to amaze me.. Why do you think they say it's necessary to be able to defend themselfs with guns in the first place.. And it doesn't matter one bit where shooting homicides take place. All loss of life is bad.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I consider Japan's gun law ideal and would like to see it adopted in the US. I know this is a futile aspiration, but it would be nice to save lives.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It's not rocket science - more guns means more killing, plain and simple. Readily available guns also mean you get a relatively high frequency of mass killings, as US society so vividly illustrates.

The question really has to be.....why does anybody need a gun?

I'm yet to see a compelling argument for them.

They are completely unnecessary.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Some of you are missing the point. The 2nd Amendment

No, we consider it's not a point.

allows U.S. Citizens firearms partly as a protective measure AGAINST government tyranny, as well as self-defense.

And that never worked. Millions of Americans have been victims of tyranny (don't tell me slavery was not a tyranny by the regime) and guns contributed to the abuses. Then now they are increasingly more unable to defend themselves from random violence thanks to those guns (that are absolutely not designed for defense and totally meant for butchery) in random hands. While in Osaka we deal with bag snatchers, Americans prefer dealing with having their kiddos shot ?

I'm yet to see a compelling argument for them

Some Americans think mass shootings are a good thing, so in their logic, it's all good. Browse Westboro.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

There is ZERO statistical connection between the number of guns in a society and the amount of violent crime.

There is a statistic connection between the availability of guns and a gun violence, including crime, suicide and accidental killings. The US has the highest rate of an industrial democracy. Japan, where guns are strictly controlled has the lowest.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whatever else you might think about the Japanese, I envy their common sense toward keeping guns out of the hands of citizens. Who, I might add, do not live in fear of armed robbers, because the criminals don't have guns either. But they don't make pithy statements about how they need a gun to prevent tyrannical government from taking over their lives either. Materially Japan may not be on par with the US, but I'd say the quality of life here is just as good if not better. Part of that almost certainly comes from not having to shoulder the financial burden of a huge military.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, we consider it's not a point.

If you don't consider the 2nd Amendment to have a valid point in this argument, then you have absolutely no business taking part in it. No matter what side you're on, you are going to need to address the 2A one way or the other.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

A gun has a single purpose - to kill.

I cannot believe that ANYONE needs to have one in order to survive.

3 ( +3 / -0 )


You are not technically correct there. There is such a thing as sport shooting, a large number of such events are even part of the olympics, so it's not an unknown competitive sport.

The killing part would also include hunting which is a perfectly normal activity.

The problem is large number of handguns and very lax regulation.

Guns should be much more strictly controlled, but not eliminated, and restricted to hunting purposes, imo.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I posted it in another thread but you can circumvent the second amendment and still have a fairly strict gun control by taxing handgun bullets like tabacco and have ATF control the trafficing of these handgun bullets from the source. If you do not have ammo the handguns will be useless with bullets going around 5 dollars a bullet, the average street gang will think twice before pulling the trigger especially in large quantity. With less gun related crimes less homes will consider keeping a gun at home.

The trick is keeping tax on rifle bullets at a minimum so that hunters and NRA at bay from opposing. You'll also need to outlaw modification of hand guns that can shoot rifle bullets although I believe it will not catch on that much since the kick of a rifle bullet is much greater than a hand gun with much more gunpowder within the cartrige.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pistols that shoot rifle bullets are uncommon. If you're thinking about the .50 caliber pistol, it shoots a modified bullet that in no way resembles what comes out of a machine gun or a Barrett rifle. BTW, even a modified bullet like a .50 cal has a horrendous kick to it, it will literally beat up the shooter after a session on the range.

Have you considered that, even if you tax bullets, you would have to tax that parts? There is a large group of people who buy the bullets, cases, powder and primers as seperate items.

0 ( +0 / -0 )


Yes I have but since trafficing of bullets will strictly monitored the people who buys the item seperately will also become responsible of the end product. It's like moonshine you can make them but you're sure into surious trouble if you try to market them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )


< No, we consider it's not a point.>

You would be right, only I have no interest at all in taking part in the argument. I speak only for the interest of the rest of the population of the planet when I state our wish, that you, your kind, and your guns remain within the broders of your country. Whatever you do there is none of my business, and unlike others I honestly say, that I do not give the slightest damn about it.... just stay wher you belong.

Does that answer the question you would never dare tio think?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I have no interest at all in taking part in the argument.

Whatever you do there is none of my business

I do not give the slightest damn about it

And yet... here you are, open gob and all.

By the way... what exactly is my "kind"?

Isn't it wonderful when someone as worldly and worried about the population of the planet as yourself starts to call people "your kind".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A certain percentage of Americans' take a stand on guns that looks a bit like how some Japanese stand on whaling. "It's our culture".

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