Voices
in
Japan

poll

The gun control debate: Do you support the right of citizens to own and bear firearms?

150 Comments
© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

150 Comments
Login to comment

Yes, but it depends on how much crime is involved in certain countries. For Japan, it wouldn't be such a big deal to have a firearm because they might not have to use it at all due to the low crime rate. Still I would like the store owners to own a firearm to scare off pesky thieves from who use knives as a weapon of choice. America, on the hand, should continue to allow people to carry firearms for obvious reasons.

-24 ( +8 / -32 )

Yes. As long as they're US citizens. As long as they have no criminal past, verified and cleared by NCIS and their state. Must also submit "livescan" fingerprints to the FBI. Pass a firearms safety course, pay all fees and do the 10-day waiting period. (Some states require this period, others do not).

-13 ( +13 / -26 )

This is a very complex question. In some countries there is high gun ownership and low gun crime rates (Switzerland). In some countries there is high ownership and high crime. (A few Africa nations) In some there is high ownership and lets same medium violence (USA) In some there is low ownership low violence (Japan) And in some nations there is low ownership and high violence (dictatorial countries.)

The answer to this question needs to be taken individually for each country. A blanket law should not be passed on all locations. Before a non citizen looks at another country and condemns what their law regarding gun control is they should look at the history and culture of that country as well as the reasons for their current laws.

It seems obvious that this question is posed because of the recent shooting at a Church in the U.S. The amount of gun violence in the U.S. is overblown by the media. It is certainly far to high, but that doesn't mean the media should blow it out of proportion. Because this was racially motivated the liberal media is covering it extensively, if it were religiously motivated then it would have been conservative media covering it. The problem is bad but the U.S. media seems to only make it worse.

6 ( +14 / -8 )

I support it but with limitations such as extensive training and background checks. This would be gun safety tests, gun range tests and basic psychological tests. Also no felony convictions or domestic violence convictions.

In the US it is easier to own a gun than to own and operate a car. This is insane.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

With no further information I had to say no.

If there was extensive waiting periods, background checks, training, licensing, and rules about secure storage and so on I'm not necessarily opposed to it but I don't think it should be easy to get them.

We have to have licences to drive, checks to make sure our cars are safe in public etc I don't see how this is different.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

No.

2 ( +15 / -13 )

No. No private person should be allowed to wield any weapon whatsoever. Period.

They should not be sold in stores.

15 ( +28 / -13 )

In Japan, hell no. We would get unemployed pachinko addicts wanting to kill people because they wanted to know what it was like.

5 ( +12 / -7 )

No. When you think about it it's the dumbest right in the world. Why in the world should people living together in a community be allowed tools designed specifically to kill each other? Ridiculous.

6 ( +16 / -10 )

I'm an avid 2nd amendment supporter, but I don't think allowing gun ownership in Japan or worldwide would work. It really depends on the country. I defer to Miyagi Ken's post on this issue.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

I believe people should have the right to own guns, but unfortunately there are wicked individuals that messes the whole thing up for responsible gun owners!

3 ( +11 / -8 )

Guns in the home are risk for death in the family at the hands of a family member. There is no real defense purpose to having guns, that is rarely the case. Most often guns are used to shoot other family members or guns are accidentally used by kids to shoot themselves or others. Guns are a public health hazard for all people, not just the bad guys as the NRA states incorrectly.

Across the US, children are being shot to death — in their homes, in their cribs, in playgrounds, and in supermarkets — essentially anywhere they have unsafe access to guns. And 48 children are now being wounded or killed in the US per day, a gun control group has said.

Recently released Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data indicates that child deaths in preventable gun accidents are on the increase, and that gun-related deaths are now the second most common cause of child and teen deaths, with only cars killing more kids than guns in 2013. Typically, the guns involved in these incidents belong to a relative or parent, according to The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which campaigns to prevent gun violence, and released an analysis of the CDC statistics this week.

11 ( +18 / -7 )

I'm in the NO corner.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

Wc626 - Yes. As long as they're US citizens. As long as they have no criminal past, verified and cleared by NCIS and their state.

NCIS? Are you referring to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service? The NCIS mission is to investigate and defeat criminal, terrorist, and foreign intelligence threats to the United States Navy and Marine Corps-ashore, afloat, and in cyberspace.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Guns and other lethal weapons shoulds only be owned by representants of the law, dully trained and controlled. Exception for rifles used for hunting, but which are also (or should be) subjected to usage permits. Or at least that what is happening in normal developped countries which do not allow common people to privately own assault rifles ...

0 ( +6 / -6 )

I vote 'no,' but I'm perfectly willing to compromise and settle for legal ownership with registration, certification, and strong regulation. Unfortunately, we can't have that in the US because too many people think compromise is impossible and insist that all attempts to restrict gun access are secret plots to ban gun ownership for everyone forever. We can't progress because too many of us have forgotten how to have a rational conversation.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

No, not that NCIS. The other one. Plus each state has a system operated by law enforcement.

For example, CA has CLETS. An acronym meaning; California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System. When your name and date of birth or vehicle Lic. Plate is run through the system, it provides any and all prior criminal history and other relevant info. It can identify who is on probation and or a parolee. The system features DMV status too. ncis, does all this too, but on a federal (not state) level.

ncis= National Information Crime Center.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I am a gun owner and hunter here in Kyushu. The law, courses, tests and other procedures which you have to abide by in order to get licensed are extensive, expensive, and basically a pain. It seems to me the process is designed to weed out those who aren't really serious about owning a gun. If I lived in the US, I would be much happier about not having to jump through various hoops to get a gun. That said, Japan is not really causing any harm by having such strict measures in place; well, except for helping the local deer and boar populations to explode!

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Gun are made for killing humans. Hunter can trap there pray. Farmer can use registered Shooters and Vets to help with stock and feral animals. There is no need for civilian to have guns unless you need it for your work like registered Shooters and Police. The old USA saying is I need to protect my home. NO BS no home is that precious. You can quote your continuation but that was written in a time when it was relevant. It is not relevant today.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

Yes. Because in a free society where all are considered to be equal, we cannot allow certain people, mainly the police and military, to have more rights than others. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. In America, every citizen has the right to arrest another citizen who commits a crime, every citizen has a right to self defence, and the constitution guarantees them the means.

"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."

Many people are confused by the wording of the second amendment, they read the words and think that only the "militia" is permitted to keep and bear arms, and that the armed militia is to be well regulated by the government. What people overlook is that in America, it is the people who regulate the government and the militia, not the other way around. Who else but an armed people could regulate a militia? Or prevent a government from evolving into a dictatorship? In America, the government is not intended to be a separate ruling class, and the police and military are not intended to be arms of the government. The intention of the founders of America was to limit the power of government so as not to be able to infringe upon the basic rights of people, and this is why a bill of rights exists. The people are to regulate the government, police, and militia, not the other way around.

There is no such thing as perfectly safe society, there never will be. Here in Japan there are nearly 30,000 suicides per year, an unbelievable number, nearly triple the number of gun murders in America, and Japan has less than half as much population. People will kill each other intentionally, or accidentally, no matter how many laws and regulations are implemented. If you want freedom, you have to take the good with the bad.

I was in Los Angeles during the riots in 1992, anyone remember that time? Robbery, looting, murder, arson, many killed, thousands injured. But when you called 911, it didn't work. And even if you could get through to the police, they couldn't send anyone. The police stood back and watched the looters as they robbed and burned, and did nothing. 1100 buildings in my city were burned to the ground, including my workplace. The few buildings left standing were unburned because their owners were armed, and kept the looters and arsonists back.

Later on I became a police officer myself, and as a police officer, I had no problem with citizens owning guns, most police officers don't. I know better than anyone else that the police can't always come quickly, or at all. In such situations, what are people supposed to do?

-3 ( +12 / -15 )

There is no such thing as perfectly safe society, there never will be. Here in Japan there are nearly 30,000 suicides per year

Suicides have nothing to do with safety. Someone who is suicidal is only a danger to themselves, they don't constitute a danger to others, with the extremely rare exception of when they jump off a building and land on someone or whatnot.

So trying to claim that Japan is unsafe because it has a large suicide rate, or make any comparison whatsoever to killings by guns in America, is about as apple and orange as you can get.

11 ( +15 / -4 )

sangetsu03 What are you supposed to do. Well those few building were proberly were not insured. That why there owners risk their lives to defend their property. The USA has always had a hugh problem with race. If USA had proper gun control the police would be able to do there duty. There reason why the Police did not respond is the fact that the civil population is arm to the the teeth with pistols to RPG.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

In US - not sure if that is still necessary now. But I'm not American, so I cannot decide anyway. I think it was necessary in the past, in the Wild West for example. In modern Ukraine - yes, right to possess guns is urgently needed now because people should be able to defend themselves against terrorists in the rebel-controlled areas where police is nearly useless.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Personally I am extremely happy to live in Japan where I don`t have to worry about guns. Why anybody would want more of these stupid things on the streets is hard for me to understand. Its a bit like saying "Gee, I wish we had more Bubonic plague in our country."

11 ( +14 / -3 )

Nothing better than this argument about gun control.

https://youtu.be/lL8JEEt2RxI

Just like Jim Jefferies says on that video, best argument USA has defending the right to carry fire arms is simply because they simply love them.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Later on I became a police officer myself, and as a police officer, I had no problem with citizens owning guns, most police officers don't.

That is totally wrong. In most cases police departments want stronger gun control as they are the ones that get shot at by criminals. In England police did not carry guns due to gun regulation that prevents any criminal, like Roof just last week, to get a gun and use it on police or others.

Great Britain has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world. The main law is from the late 1960s, but it was amended to restrict gun ownership further in the latter part of the twentieth century in response to massacres that involved lawfully licensed weapons. Handguns are prohibited weapons and require special permission. Firearms and shotguns require a certificate from the police for ownership, and a number of criteria must be met, including that the applicant has a good reason to possess the requested weapon. Self-defense or a simple wish to possess a weapon is not considered a good reason. The secure storage of weapons is also a factor when licenses are granted.

In fact it seems safer for police to not carry guns as well:

While there were 461 “justifiable homicides” committed by U.S. police in 2013, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, there was not a single one in the United Kingdom the same year.

In a 2004 survey, 82 percent of Britain's Police Federation members said that they did not want to be routinely armed on duty, according to the BBC. At least one third of British police officers have feared for their lives while being on duty, but remained opposed to carrying firearms.

So it is only the USA where the NRA runs the republican party that the stupid logic is used that more guns make society safer when in fact it is just the opposite. The whole we must protect ourselves from our government attacking us garbage is equally idiotic and treasonous as well. There is a reason Roof burned the American flag before he murdered people, he believed the same things as the NRA and many if not most gun nuts about their own country.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

This is a very complex question. In some countries there is high gun ownership and low gun crime rates (Switzerland)…And in some nations there is low ownership and high violence (dictatorial countries.)

The Swiss don't have to deal with it because they don't have a problem. But if a country does have a problem (even on a medium level), shouldn't something be done about it? I'm not sure what you're referring to with "low ownership and high violence dictatorial countries," but the problem isn't about violence in general, it's about how much harm a single violent person can inflict.

The amount of gun violence in the U.S. is overblown by the media.

I don't think it's overblown. It's just covered from the wrong perspective. There's not enough focus on what should be done about the problem. The conservatives have somehow convinced everyone that it's insensitive to politicize and talk about gun control immediately after these tragedies, because they know it's the best time for anti-gun laws to even have a chance at getting passed.

Everyone is shocked and horrified when it happens, nothing is actually done about it, we forget about it until it happens again, and the cycle repeats, because the gun lobby is so strong in the US that even Obama has to say he enjoys hunting once in a while.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

As somebody coming from a country where fire arms are strictly controlled I would not like to see ordinary citizens allowed to own fire arms. I am glad Japan has a strict control on guns, too. As for the USA, I think that their Second Amendment is outdated and it is obvious that, despite some people saying that it's is not the guns but the people using them, guns do not help the Americans be safer or any freer for that matter.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

It's the love if these things which often clouds lucid debate. I remember reading a gun magazine in the US glorifying these things and it was pure filth. I've got a pretty strong stomach but that tested it. I remember John Lennon saying the song 'Happiness is a Warm Gun' was inspired by that insane sentence he saw on a gun magazine. I don't think I need to remind anyone here what happened to Lennon.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Alexcook

Yes, but it depends on how much crime is involved in certain countries. For Japan, it wouldn't be such a big deal to have a firearm because they might not have to use it at all due to the low crime rate. Still I would like the store owners to own a firearm to scare off pesky thieves from who use knives as a weapon of choice. America, on the hand, should continue to allow people to carry firearms for obvious reasons.

The answer is in your face, the reason why Japan has a low crime rate is because people don't have access to guns, unlike the United States.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

If you're that terrified to be out in public without a firearm, you really have no business being anywhere but under your sofa, packing heat. Sure, you're more likely to shoot yourself or your family, but it's a small price to pay for staying safe.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

guns do not help the Americans be safer or any freer for that matter.

Good point. But if you were a foreign invading force, you'd prob think twice at an invasion of the continental US. Thus, in the long run, armed americans do make them safer and freer.

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

But if you were a foreign invading force, you'd prob think twice at an invasion of the continental US. Thus

A bunch of rednecks with guns aren't going to be what holds someone back from invading the continental US, the military is. The same military those rednecks are hording guns for which to fight against said military.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

The original intent of the framers of the Constitution was likely to allow the people to be armed to self-regulate militias. In the 1930s, the Supreme Court began using the collective rights approach—intending that the right to bear arms was meant for national protection, not individual ownership rights. This precedent lasted until 2008 when the court moved to a more individual-rights approach.

However, it's not the 1770s anymore. Firearms are far more powerful, more accessible and don't serve the purpose of regulating militias. I'd prefer to see firearms only made available in communities to police, animal control, etc. but since that's unlikely with the current Supreme Court interpretation of the second amendment, I'd settle for fully- and semi-automatic weapons being banned for public use.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Hey Wc626, I am not sure what you mean by invading a country as the largest part of the world has outlived the era when people did such things. If you meant “terrorist attacks,” I just can’t see the logic as the great number of privately owned firearms did not seem to make the Boston marathon bombers or the fanatics of 9/11 give up their plans.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

No. And those who do support it and as such help in passing legislation to make it easy to get and own guns bear some of the responsibility for the shootings that occur as a result. Period.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Yes. I concur with Miyagi Ken.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The joke of this question is that there is no right to bear arms. It's a fabrication made up by the people of the USA.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

It's absolutely true. There is such a right. If you dnt believe me, go a gunconvention in the US. Wear an anti-gun shirt and shout "redneck" -perhaps you're afraid to.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

There is such a right.

No, there isn't. It's a fabrication made up by the people of the USA.

If you dnt believe me, go a gunconvention in the US. Wear an anti-gun shirt and shout "redneck" -perhaps you're afraid to.

What does that have to do with rights?

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

'It's absolutely true. There is such a right. If you dnt believe me, go a gunconvention in the US. Wear an anti-gun shirt and shout "redneck" -perhaps you're afraid to.'

You're not painting a positive picture of some gun-owners here. Are you saying people who go to gun conventions are violent people?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Apparently even Karl Rove agrees that the only way to reduce gun violence in America is to repeal the 2nd amendment and remove guns altogether. Of course, he also says he doesn't think that that's the solution in the same breath... Guess we just have to live with it...

Really though, if prohibition was started and repealed through constitutional amendments, there's no reason guns can't be the same.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Of course citizens should not own and bear firearms. In Japan where pistols are strictly forbidden and hunting firearms closely controlled the total deaths by firearms was 11 for the year 2008. For the U.S. in the same year it was 12,000.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Much too complex a topic for a straight-up Yes/No answer !

1 ( +3 / -2 )

A bunch of rednecks with guns aren't going to be what holds someone back from invading the continental US, the military is. The same military those rednecks are hording guns for which to fight against said military.

I had NO idea, the Crips, the Bloods, MS-13, 18 Street, Jamaican Posse, Chinese Triad etc... and many more were Rednecks.

And once again, the gun fear mongering crowd is out in full force again.

So it is only the USA where the NRA runs the republican party that the stupid logic is used that more guns make society safer when in fact it is just the opposite.

You do know there are many high ranking Democrats that support the NRA: Max Baucus, Heidi Heitkamp, Tim Johnson, Joe Donnelly, Mark Begich, Joe Manchin, John Tester and yes, even the presidents lap dog Harry Reid.

So I guess that means, the NRA can't be stopped because the Dems have No control or the will, not to mention the votes to stop them because many of their liberal constituents are liberal gun owners themselves.

The whole we must protect ourselves from our government attacking us garbage is equally idiotic and treasonous as well.

How so? Government is the problem that is eroding America, too much of it!

There is a reason Roof burned the American flag before he murdered people, he believed the same things as the NRA and many if not most gun nuts about their own country.

Roof speak for all Americans or even some. Roof spoke for himself and that's all.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

I had NO idea, the Crips, the Bloods, MS-13, 18 Street, Jamaican Posse, Chinese Triad etc... and many more were Rednecks.

Ok, edit my post to 'rednecks and gangsters'. It doesn't change the point I was making one whit.

You do know there are many high ranking Democrats that support the NRA: Max Baucus, Heidi Heitkamp, Tim Johnson, Joe Donnelly, Mark Begich, Joe Manchin, John Tester and yes, even the presidents lap dog Harry Reid.

Gun rights is a bipartisan issue. That doesn't make it any less wrong.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Much too complex a topic for a straight-up Yes/No answer !

No, it's not.

I know that it is not the weapon that kills, but the bearer. But if you look at the US, you will understand what I mean.

So to me it's NO.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

In responsible hand guns are no issue at all. Olympians use them and don't kill anyone. Skeet shooters shoot millions of rounds annually in USA, and nobody killed.

In less responsible hands we occasionally have problems with accidental discharges.

In the hands on the criminal element we have chaos. It's their equalizer tool they'll use without concern for human life.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

In responsible hand guns are no issue at all.

The problem is that it cannot be separated. Guns in the hands of the responsible end up with guns in the hands of the irresponsible.

In the hands on the criminal element we have chaos. It's their equalizer tool they'll use without concern for human life.

Which is a good reason to get rid of guns - so the criminal element doesn't have access to them.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

If guns are a necessity for basic survival, the target is the government because they are not providing basic public safety. Case in point the U.S.A. where the gun killings are the rifest.

Instead of waging war against most of the rest of the planet, the U.S.A. would do well to look to its own back yard and clean up its area first.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

That is totally wrong. In most cases police departments want stronger gun control as they are the ones that get shot at by criminals. In England police did not carry guns due to gun regulation that prevents any criminal, like Roof just last week, to get a gun and use it on police or others.

Sorry, you are completely, absolutely wrong in this belief. Our captain happened to be the local chapter head of the second amendment society, several other officers were members, and though I am not a fan, a great deal of NRA members are in fact police officers. Many NRA instructors are police officers. Political organisations like police unions (whose leaders know as little about police work as they do genetic engineering) generally support gun control, but officers themselves don't. When a police officer rolls up on a call when a shop owner has shot a robber, or a homeowner has shot or captured a burglar, the first thing he does is give them a pat on the back, firstly because another criminal has been taken off the streets, and second, when a citizen shoots a criminal, there is far less paperwork involved.

I have seen many, many people killed by guns. A large number are suicides, the average victim is a 50-something white male, a high percentage are gay. The next cause is drug violence, in the area where I worked (northwest Miami), the victims are usually in their 20's, almost all are black. Next is self defence and police shootings, a great deal of people who live and work in the bad parts of town are legal gun owners, many have licenses to carry guns. As the police are generally very busy in these places, a lot of self defence shootings occur. Store robbers are a little older than drug dealers on average, and their ethnicity varies a bit more, one jewellery store owner has shot and killed 9 robbers over the years, he himself being shot several times over the same period of time. Lastly, there are accidental shootings, and a surprisingly large number of these involve police officers. As a police officer, I have to support people being allowed the means to defend themselves, because I know better than most that the police cannot always (usually) arrive in time to help. And in a country were there are so many guns, the main tool of self defence is going to be a gun.

Criminals can get guns in England, they can get them in Japan, they can get them anywhere, remember the mayor of Nagasaki being shot by a gangster a few years ago? And in a country like America, where there are as many guns as there are people, they simply cannot all be confiscated and/or destroyed. And, once again, compared to other preventable causes of death, gun violence rates quite low on the list. Cars cause more than 40,000 deaths each year, alcohol is responsible for almost 90,000 deaths each year. Increasing driver safety training, and cutting alcohol consumption would save many more lives each year than completely outlawing guns, yet there are no politicians promising to do either of these things.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Ummm... your safety is YOUR responsibility... not the copd... not the burglar alarm company's. God himself has never descended to save the life of a believer.

Of coarse i believe in my right to bear arms. Why is this even a question? If you dont wanna protect yourself, just die. Its really that simple. Even neanderthals understood that. You can laden it with every moral high ground stance, every statistic, and every beuracratic legislation you want... but when you're in danger, you will either kill or be killed. Guess which one I'd rather do? The police arent gonna save you, they will just scrape your and your family's cold carcasses off the ground. Gun laws won't save you from black market guns. The security guards from the burglar alarm place sure wont save you at the risk of their life for $17/hr.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

No because the main result of gun being provided to citizens is more suicides, more accidental shootings and more citizen owned guns being shot by burglars to said home owners- physical security of houses is far more effective than citizens having their own guns. Self-protection is an irrelevant issue. For the USA its pointless, that horse is bolted- to even slightly control should start with stopping gun production for local sales- they have shown zero interest in doing anything about that. Easy to control gun imports. If you think guns are a tool then don't stop possession of miniguns, explosives and every other weapon.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Are you a farmer, game keeper, hunter? In the armed forces? No? - Then you don't need a gun.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

This is a very good debate with many good input. So here is a perspective you may want to address.

Several thought always come to mind during these kinds of discussions. When you use statistics and specific incidents, you limit the scope of the argument and the value or meaningfulness of statistical data depends on one's perspective. And, when idealisms and values are discussed, it often detracts from "reality". Reality is also different for each society and for individual within that society.

However, when you look at the global picture and what is happening all over the world, whether we like it or not, when it becomes a matter of survival, guns are wanted and needed unless one decides to give up his life. The issue then, it appears to be, is the degree of gun control within each society. As many have indicated, one rule cannot be used for all. But, there can be one "desire" or one "objective" for and to which we all can agree.

The only "right" I recognize that we as living beings have is the "right" to choose. All other so called rights described in morals, ethics and laws are only "privileges" that we "earn" by taking "responsibility" for our choices.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Are you a farmer, game keeper, hunter? In the armed forces? No? - Then you don't need a gun.

Do you pay taxes? Obey the laws? Served in the armed forces honorably? And or retired from local/state/federal Law Enforcement? Have firearms in your family handed down from grandfather, son, grandson or granddaughter?? - THEN IT IS YOUR RIGHT, to own such.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

There are only two things you can do with a gun:

Kill or threaten to kill.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

There are only two things you can do with a gun:

Kill or threaten to kill.

Or practice to kill.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Negative. There are competitions to see who can blast "keyhole" after keyhole at various ranges and obstacles. It's not all about killing. Least that's not how my crowd thinks. But then again- we're law abiding citizens.

Not selling crack on a downtown corner with a tech-9 Uzi concealed under all that baggy (mostly hip-hop) style clothing.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

@ Robert Haddan nailed it. At that time they didn't have a central government regimented security apparatus in place, so defence depended upon the citizenry forming vigilantes and militias. Plus, with their type of weapons where one had to wait till one saw " the white of the eyes" before pulling the trigger is a far cry from today's most lethal weaponry in a tyros hands. Personally, I feel there ought not be any gun polemics at all ,just blanket-ban the guns. They have there place with the regimented security forces,Not with the public.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Wc626: "It's absolutely true. There is such a right. If you dnt believe me, go a gunconvention in the US. Wear an anti-gun shirt and shout "redneck" -perhaps you're afraid to."

Perfect example of why no one should have guns. Thank you.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

There are competitions to see who can blast "keyhole" after keyhole at various ranges and obstacles.

Exactly. Practicing to kill.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Ok, edit my post to 'rednecks and gangsters'. It doesn't change the point I was making one whit.

It does when it comes to racially stereotyping people, please don't go there.

The problem is that it cannot be separated. Guns in the hands of the responsible end up with guns in the hands of the irresponsible.

That is an small exception rather than the rule.

Which is a good reason to get rid of guns - so the criminal element doesn't have access to them.

Then they'll just get something else. If the person wants to kill you, they'll find a way.

If guns are a necessity for basic survival, the target is the government because they are not providing basic public safety. Case in point the U.S.A. where the gun killings are the rifest.

There are other serious and repressive governments that I think should be targeted, but that's for another thread.

Instead of waging war against most of the rest of the planet,

Which the US doesn't do.

the U.S.A. would do well to look to its own back yard and clean up its area first.

As soon as it helps all the countries asking it to take care of their own s*** since they won't clean it themselves.

Exactly. Practicing to kill.

Fine with me, I hunt anyway.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

No.

The 2nd Amendment is a dangerous anachronism.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Exactly. Practicing to kill.

Call it what it is. If I shoot at the range one a month, cause it's my hobby, I'm not practicing to kill anybody. (I'm a law abiding citizen, tax payer etc. etc). I have no intention to kill anyone. Separate your apples & oranges.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Guns are for those who need to feel powerful. Whether a hunter braving to go against the wild quail with only an automatic shotgun, or some punk with a cheap handgun, it is power in the hands of those who 'need" it which makes them dangerous to the Decent Folk.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I have no intention to kill anyone.

Bull. Guns kill. That is their purpose. That is their design. That is their affect.

Guns kill. They are killing machines.

They are not toys. They are not a sport.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Guns are for those who need to feel powerful.

Where is your proof of this?

Bull. Guns kill. That is their purpose. That is their design. That is their affect.

After the deer I've killed, you are so right!

Guns kill. They are killing machines.

So are knives, I vote we get rid of them as well.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Guns kill. Right. Roof didn't pull the trigger. It just "went off" -sorry.

@Virginia tech, that Glock 9mm and P-22 amazingly killed all those students that morning by themselves- don't blame that Korean guy. . . .

Domestic terrorism is accomplished by one's will. Not by a gun all by itself.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

There are many very good reasons to rigorously restrict dangerous goods, strong poisons and other life-threatening things to the usage by well trained professionals, so why on earth should every hillbilly be allowed to have one of the most instantly life-threatening things lying around at home?

Guns stand for ultimate power over other people. This is why criminals use them and it seems this is also what fascinates the NRA gun fetishists. While they pretend to own guns for protection in reality it is this violent hard-line "empowerment" that they are longing for.

Not getting heard with your arguments? Not enjoying this odd feeling of being overlooked or badly treated? No problem, with a gun in your hands nobody will ever look down on you again without triggering a twitch in your finger...

I wouldn't trust anybody above the age of 16 who is fascinated by guns and I welcome any law that rigorously restricts guns to indispensable usage by extremely well trained and regularly checked professionals.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

This question was posed because of the church massacre in Charleston, South Carolina, USA. and I'm not sure why the question was posed on a Japanese news site because no such right to bear arms exists in Japan, but whatever.

With regards to the UNITED STATES of AMERICA'S right to bear arms, I support the right of every American citizen to bear the ONLY arms that existed when this right was incorporated into the Constitution: front-loading flintlock pistols and muskets. The founding fathers, as forward-thinking as they were, were ABSOLUTELY IGNORANT when it came to the concept of 15 or 30-round magazines and semi-automatic weapons. It's not their fault they were ignorant. Those things simply did not exist at the time this right was added to the Constitution. So for the NRA and all its sycophants to insist that a badly outdated amendment applies just as well today as it did on December 15, 1791 when the amendment was adopted, it just boggles the mind.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@Fadamor - Extremely well said. Thank you.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Mankind of today are driven mad by civilization in either an aggressive or repressive manner. Less weaponry for the aggressive maniacs is a good thing, but ultimately, they'll find something to take life with.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No. I don't see any need for it. For home defence? Doesn't the right to bear arms mean that the intruders can also own weapons? So then, it would just end in a shoot-out, so you're dead, the intruder's dead, anyone hit by a stray bullet is likely to be dead, and the pensioner who had a heart attack upon hearing gun shots is also dead. And how many are protected by that Right? The right to bear arms has only caused more harm than good, not just in terms of those directly killed by firearms, but the families and communities torn apart by such tragedies.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Fadamor

You are incorrect. The 2nd Amendment wast about an individual and his musket.

The 2nd Amendment when written was all about about the People having access to war making weapons. It was about states resisting the federal government's standing army with a militia made up of citizens. Musket and canon, I will add, were contemplated.

That is the history of the 2nd A. That is no longer the case.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Anybody will think twice before approaching person or household staffed with guns which logically make this person and the property much safer. People dying from guns misuse but also dying falling of bicycles yet no debate about bicycle control exists.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Well, since you believe that, by all means, I'll take your gun, and you can have my bike.

.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Do you pay taxes? Obey the laws? Served in the armed forces honorably? And or retired from local/state/federal Law Enforcement? Have firearms in your family handed down from grandfather, son, grandson or granddaughter?? - THEN IT IS YOUR RIGHT, to own such.

Yes, I'm a law abiding tax payer. I don't see how that means I need a gun. And no, I do not have the right to own a firearm. What makes you think I do?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Yes, I'm a law abiding tax payer. I don't see how that means I need a gun.

And that is your perfect right not to own a gun.

And no, I do not have the right to own a firearm. What makes you think I do?

According to the 2nd Amendment, of course you have the right as a US tax paying citizen.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

'Guns are for those who need to feel powerful.

Where is your proof of this?

Bull. Guns kill. That is their purpose. That is their design. That is their affect.

After the deer I've killed, you are so right!'

I wonder why people would kill lots of deer and then boast about how many deer they've killed. Maybe it makes the the person feel....powerful?

'Guns kill. They are killing machines.

So are knives, I vote we get rid of them as well.'

Can I ask why you didn't use knives to kill all those deer? You could look really powerful taking down a deer using martial arts and cutting its throat. You look even more powerful by sending a knife spinning through the air from a distance and have the blade embed itself in the deer's neck, severing an artery.....Nah, use a gun. It's a far more efficient means of killing living things. That's why you use them to kill living things. That's why soldiers use them to kill living things.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Have firearms in your family handed down from grandfather, son, grandson or granddaughter??

Handed down from grandchildren?? You mean when the kiddies shot themselves with their birthday presents and Gramps took the gun back?

According to the 2nd Amendment, of course you have the right as a US tax paying citizen.

Luckily we aren't all hog-tied by centuries-old, outdated American laws. We have the right to go about our daily business with the reasonable assumption that we will not suddenly find ourselves caught up in someone else's gun fight, with the reasonable assumption that the phone ringing does not indicate we are about to get the news that yet another loved one has been gunned down while praying, or studying in school, or working the till in a corner shop.

Freedom to live in expectation of safety is a higher right than freedom to shoot deer or blast keyholes (whatever that means).

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

And no, I do not have the right to own a firearm. What makes you think I do?

According to the 2nd Amendment, of course you have the right as a US tax paying citizen.

Assumptions, assumptions.

I am neither a US tax payer nor a citizen. So, why do you think I have a legal right to bear arms?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

OK, I'll probably be voted down for this by Merkan second amendment supporters but I have to say "No".

I have one amendment to make to a previous commenter. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns are just a tool. The problem is that the second amendment in the US was passed at a time when law and order was in disarray - in fact in some places it was non-existant. You needed a gun to survive on more than one level. It's probably a reason why so many other countries such as Japan don't need or require a gun culture and have never really needed one (if you ignore the sword culture prior to the second world war).

In today's society, the only reason why some US citizens cling to the second amendment when all of their other rights are under attack - many of those other rights being far more valuable than guns - is fear and ignorance. They fear that if they are not armed, then they will be attacked by somebody that is armed, ignoring the fact that removing guns from all means that this situation is less likely to occur (unfortunately illegal gun ownership and use is a global problem). As it is, the second amendment fanatic will cling to the right to bear arms, whether a small pistol or a hulking great sub-machine gun, and the NRA and the gun manufacturers will continue to feed this fear because they fear the probable decline in their profits.

As far as Japan is concerned, they have the right approach IMHO.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The days British North American colony-born insurgents and militia needing their single shot muzzle loaded non-rifled barrel fire-arms are over, baby.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

How about hunters? Only the forces hovering over your daily life should have guns? When protests become uncontrollable and you are shot by those forces that`s ok? America is an entirely different ball of wax.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Handed down from grandchildren?? You mean when the kiddies shot themselves with their birthday presents and Gramps took the gun back?

No. kiddies don't get to shoot. I'm talking about antique heirlooms and other possessions. Example: when my grandfather served, he acquired an old ruger from a fallen german ss during WW2.

We don't shoot ourselves.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@ 25psot JUN. 23, 2015 - 07:31AM JST

Anybody will think twice before approaching person or household staffed with guns which logically make this person and the property much safer.

I suppose you want to say that the US is full of violent hooligans and the only way to contain them is even more violent hillbillies with guns?

Have you ever asked yourself how European and Asian societies achieve a manifold higher level of safety without having people running around with guns?

Is it a cultural thing? Of course it is!

It has a lot to do with the fact that most people in those countries don’t believe that personal violence should be answered with personal violence.

Of course in some cases it is possible to contain violence with threatening even more violence, but this doesn’t lead to violence disappearing, it rather leads to people believing in the meaningfulness of violence.

While guns don’t shoot people they are an integral part and the main symbol of a vicious circle of giving meaning to violence that a majority of US citizens have apparently accepted as part of their daily life.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

No. kiddies don't get to shoot. ..... We don't shoot ourselves.

15-year-old shot by friend in Montana:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3087018/Boy-shoots-window-kills-friend-trying-wake-him.html

3-year-old shoots 5-year-old in Colorado:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078377/Three-year-old-boy-accidentally-shoots-year-old-friend-dead.html

4-year-old shoots cousin in Detroit:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/16/us/detroit-child-shooting/

4-year-old shoots 6-year-old friend in Ocean County:

http://www.nj.com/ocean/index.ssf/2015/02/father_of_boy_4_who_shot_and_killed_6-year-old_fri_1.html

8-year-old shoots himself in the head in Massachusetts:

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/flashback-2008-8-year-old-killed-while

9-year-old kills instructor in Arizona:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/arizona-girl-fatal-shooting-accident/

2-year-old shoots himself in Arizona:

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/28949211/2015/05/01/police-investigating-shooting-of-2-year-old-boy

3-year-old shoots himself in Atlanta:

http://www.cbs46.com/story/26286195/3-year-old-shot-in-nw-atlanta

2-year-old shoots himself dead in Florida:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11361827/Two-year-old-boy-shoots-himself-dead-with-fathers-gun.html ("It's just one of those things that happens where everything lined up the wrong way..." says Florida sheriff after child finds weapon in car glovebox)

I expected to have to scour Google to find examples. I am overwhelmed and sickened at just how often the same thing seems to be happening, in all parts of the country. And the bambi-killers think this is a fair price to pay for their 'hobby'.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Jimizo/Cleo

Don't waste your breath. Gun fanatics are not interested in, well, facts and logic.

And the rest of us already know.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

It's simple: hate creates more hates.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I expected to have to scour Google to find examples

You wasted your time for that? People also die plane crashes, pedestrians on roads, vehicles etc. some by accident or gross negligence. Perhaps those kids' fathers should store their guns in a safe. End of problem-

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

People also die plane crashes, pedestrians on roads, vehicles etc. some by accident or gross negligence.

Flying, driving, walking - all have purposes required by humanity: movement. Remove these and society collapses.

Guns - has one purpose, to kill. Not required by society. Remove them and less people die.

Perhaps those kids' fathers should store their guns in a safe. End of problem-

If that were the end of the problem, then these incidents would never happen. The very existence of them proves that even though people should store their guns in a safe, many don't, and that results in kids dying.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The question is poorly & too simply worded so I took the 3rd option.

Clearly the US has got it horribly horribly WRONG though! Its insane how many & how easy hand guns can be had.

I think you need to look roughly at 3 categories:

1 Rifles for target shooting/hunting

2 hand guns

3 military & exotic weapons

Number 1 simple testing of knowledge for safety aspects, proper storage of rifles & ammo, check ones mental state of mind, register appropriate info etc

the later two are simply NOT needed in any modern society, the US is the poster child for what could horribly go wrong & DOES go wrong

1 ( +2 / -1 )

the US is the poster child for what could horribly go wrong & DOES go wrong

Yet, everyone and their mother want to flock here. And have been for decades, centuries.

I frequent the US Embassy often. Damm!! Those "VISA" lines long. Everyone waiting, document in hand!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Wc626

So you think the US has no problems with guns? Perhaps you should head to the church where people were gunned down & see what they think!

Far too many yanks have SICKLY twisted the 2nd amendment for their sick gun fantasies & we will continue to see more bodies pile up sadly! Hope none of those that picked up a visa today end up dead!

I grew up with rifles, I aint anti-gun, I am just for common sense & the US has little of this wrt to handguns & military weapons etc, if fact plenty of insanity, the NRA should be labeled a terrorist organizations

Click on this to see some fools & their firearms invading family restaurants about a year ago, clearly many lacking a few cards in their decks & should have their weapons SEIZED!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Should have added ths:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTpCUAK4ypA

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, I've never heard of a person being shot by someone that didn't have a gun, have you? The true irony of the American constitution is, people want guns to protect themselves from other people with guns. Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Handed down from grandchildren?? You mean when the kiddies shot themselves with their birthday presents and Gramps took the gun back.

Our grandfather taught us the basics and thanks to him, it helped me become a better hunter.

Luckily we aren't all hog-tied by centuries-old, outdated American laws.

Good for you, still wouldn't wanna trade ya.

We have the right to go about our daily business with the reasonable assumption that we will not suddenly find ourselves caught up in someone else's gun fight, with the reasonable assumption that the phone ringing does not indicate we are about to get the news that yet another loved one has been gunned down while praying, or studying in school, or working the till in a corner shop.

Ok, but I still feel safer and at least I can go and hunt duck, deer, squirrel or any other animal that I can legally shoot without having to worry about someone taping me on the shoulder and trying to take away my guns.

Freedom to live in expectation of safety is a higher right than freedom to shoot deer or blast keyholes (whatever that means).

Have you ever had deer chili?

'Guns are for those who need to feel powerful.

No, for me it's all about hunting.

Bull. Guns kill. That is their purpose. That is their design. That is their affect.

And they do a great job.

I wonder why people would kill lots of deer and then boast about how many deer they've killed. Maybe it makes the the person feel....powerful?

I feel powerful when I can kill a large deer, yes, it most definitely does.

Can I ask why you didn't use knives to kill all those deer?

For one thing there is the Lyme disease factor. Another thing is, deers tend to be a little faster, I have only 2 legs and lastly, why go through all that? I just prefer shooting it.

You could look really powerful taking down a deer using martial arts and cutting its throat. You look even more powerful by sending a knife spinning through the air from a distance and have the blade embed itself in the deer's neck, severing an artery.....Nah, use a gun.

I feel like I'm debating someone from PETA!

It's a far more efficient means of killing living things.

Not when you're hunting big animals.

That's why you use them to kill living things. That's why soldiers use them to kill living things.

I use them so that I can eat, if you are a vegan, then I understand why you find it all shocking. But my family and I love wild meat. How else are soldiers going to fight the enemy? Use a carnation perhaps or throw a couple of mistletoes at them?

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

GW - good one.

'The thing about gun culture is, it doesn't have much culture.'

0 ( +3 / -3 )

No. Guns don't die -- people do.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Giving the people the right to own and bare arms keeps things regulated. What needs to be adjusted, as far as America goes, is the access.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I bare my arms every day. Used to bare my legs too, when I was young and sexy....

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Not a smart poll to question foreigners who are from other countries the US constitutions allows the citizens constitutional rights to bear arms.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

For those that said no, you should edit your post to list roughly where you live and your circumstances (no obvious inclusions that would obstruct your privacy).

My example: One of the largest US cities, in a safe-ish neighborhood that borders the heroin outlet center for the country; gunshots heard many times per week, plenty of aggressive robberies in my neighborhood every year, have a girlfriend who lives with me, I'm a student.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not a smart poll to question foreigners who are from other countries the US constitutions allows the citizens constitutional rights to bear arms.

Where does the poll question say anything about the US?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

That is the history of the 2nd A. That is no longer the case.

Yes. Since the Supreme Court discounted the first half of the amendment that gives the reasoning behind it by referring to "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..." the right is now considered there for any reason under the sun. Currently, the only state that even pays lip service to maintaining a militia is Texas and that "militia" is more for show than capable of holding their own in a war. Each state now has a National Guard that replaces the archaic "militia" and each National Guard unit is issued weapons by the state. Personal firearms are no longer necessary, nor are they allowed for logistical reasons. So the whole reason the 2nd Amendment was put in there in the first place has been rendered obsolete. Well, that's how any sane individual would interpret a law that reads, "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." This can also be read as, "Because the free states don't have standing armies, they need militias and those militias will need to be able to bring arms whenever they are assembled. Therefore, Congress cannot infringe on a citizen's ability to participate in his state's militia by prohibiting the citizen from keeping or bearing said arms."

The NRA and their sycophants, of course, would like for the entire first half of the Second Amendment to disappear entirely because it's a thorn in the side of their stance that the right to bear arms is unconditional. The problem is, they would have to have the amendment amended, and it could backfire on them by accidentally bringing the amendment into the 21st century and prohibiting the high rate-of-fire weapons we see used in these massacres. So they leave it as is and pretend the first half of the amendment has no bearing on the second half.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Hilarious how decades ago japan sent hundreds of thousands of petitioned signatures to DC with the intention of eliminating the second am. LoL, if the whole world did this, the US still wouldn't budge. Who are you (non-american) to tell me if I should have the right to bear arms on me own soil? What nerve-

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

@Black Sabbath

Don't waste your breath. Gun fanatics are not interested in, well, facts and logic. And the rest of us already know.

Just looked at my own comment as well. I wasn't wrong. Nor are you. And yes, I know that much of what I wrote as well as others refers to the US rather than Japan, but gun nuts are often of the opinion that they can bear arms anywhere in the world and never understand why most other civilised countries, including Japan, don't agree with that.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

As a Lifetime member of the NRA, I support the right of my fellow countrymen to keep and bear arms. Because of our CWP law here in Texas, I'm allowed to walk around in public openly carrying a firearm.

In all the decades of doing so, I have never had to draw it in an act of violence. I believe that it is a form of deterrence. A person thinking about harming me or any of my family just moves on to seek out another victim because they realize dealing with the business end of my pistol is not worth it.

Don't expect nor care what non-Texans think about the mindset here in the Lone Star State.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

The gun control debate: Do you support the right of citizens to own and bear firearms? Poll Jun. 22, 2015 - 05:00AM JST ( 108 ) Yes No I'm undecided

I am confused. And perhaps this news(?)story is too. This is Japan, and I believe citizens here do not have 'rights' to own and bear firearms ... though I am not sure about hunters.

This question seems irrelevant to this specific country.

Moderator: Our readers are all over the world.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The real root of the question should be, what would be the point of owning a gun? One could argue security or constitutional rights all day long, but at the end of the day really what is the gun for?

The problem is that the American constitutional bit about owning guns could never have known what was to come. At the time it was written, were I to round up a town or two with their rifles it would be comparable to the military in terms of equipment.

That was one of the main points of owning a gun: Being able to defend against a tyrannical government and/or being able to defend from invaders. Today? As some pointed out above, a hand gun is not going to mean anything against drones, missiles and whatever else a military can throw at you.

There is also the argument that disarming a population would only disarm honest people...criminals would keep the guns. In the USA, that might be true, because guns are so saturated in the population it would be near impossible to reset to a gunless state. In Japan, however, the lack of guns is far superior as the average joe criminal would have no access or knowledge of underworld dealings to get one. Many of these criminals are just regular people who slip off the deep end.

Introduce that to the public and you'll also be handing them directly into those people. Quite a few of whom (according to recent news anyway), commit crimes just "to see what it's like".

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The guns ARE there. Removing the right to have guns will ONLY remove the guns from law-abiding citizens.

As for the USA, I think that their Second Amendment is outdated and it is obvious that, despite some people saying that it's is not the guns but the people using them, guns do not help the Americans be safer or any freer for that matter.

I am not so sure it's outdated. The main reason for the right to have guns was to protect the people from their government. The way the US government is behaving today, this right is as relevant as ever.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Ive read quite few comments left on this bulletin board, but not one has mentioned locking the guns away in a metal cabinet when not in use, this will stop children accidentally finding them or playing with them. in the UK our firearms laws are tough. i won't go into them as it will take ages to list them all. I can't get my head around why the USA allow fully automatic assault rifles to be sold in wall mart why do you need one? there not to good for hunting, nor target practice, the only time you need them is in a war or military combat situation, single shot, bolt action rifles are mainly used in hunting.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I'm surprised no one's mentioned this yet, but the 2013 gun violence report from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, via the Center for Disease Control in the USA, commissioned by the Obama Administration after the Sandyhook tragedy, estimated that defensive civilian gun use in the USA, interrupting or preventing a criminal act, ranged from 300,000 to 500,000 plus instances annually, with top end estimates as high as one to three million. FBI studies offer similar figures.

Both sources note that the majority of these incidents do not result in fatality, and many do not result in significant injury, or reduced injury compared to other defensive measures. Both note that guns are an effective crime deterrent, however, the effects of civilian gun ownership and defensive use - as a factor in the increase or decrease of gun-related violence is an unresolved question.

The CDC report offers many other surprising discoveries, both supportive of, and contradictory to common arguments used by pro-gun and anti-gun advocates. The report is easily found by Internet search - as are FBI statistics. I encourage everyone making an argument for, or against, to read these sources. Remember though, this only applies to the USA.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The "right" to bear arms? There is no such thing. It's merely a misnomer for the privilege to bear arms, which I support.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, naturally for the maintenance of a well-stocked militia, as the US constitution states. What? Those militias are long gone, you say? Well, that certainly renders this "right" wholly irrelevant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Ramzee:

I highly doubt whatever commercially available gun you could legally buy in the USA would even remotely compare to what the government has at its disposal. It would take very little for the Gov't to label a trouble maker as a terrorist and have them removed from society.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This one should be a no-brainer. With the exception of farmers, the military, and law enforcement (though that right sometimes gets abused) there is no logical reason for people to own firearms. Australia did away with them in 1996. No shooting rampages since

0 ( +2 / -2 )

This one should be a no-brainer.

Therein lies the problem - some people have no brains.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

No. Why do we even need guns? They have zero purpose in the advancement of human society.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Not handguns. But otherwise, under a proper system of licensing, yes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I highly doubt whatever commercially available gun you could legally buy in the USA would even remotely compare to what the government has at its disposal.

Indeed, the recent military-style arming of American police is quite concerning. What are they planning?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Ramzee:

Not sure where you're getting the information from. My best friend is a cop in the states and all his equipment is available to the public (He carries a handgun and has a shotgun in his police car).

There are certain equipment sets that can be deployed for specific situations (Riot gear, etc), but those are not in the hands of individual cops, nor are they regularly employed. (At least in my home state)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I can't get my head around why the USA allow fully automatic assault rifles to be sold in wall mart why do you need one?

This is just one example of misinformation out there. There are no fully automatic weapons sold at Wal-Mart.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@ kaynide

It's widely known that more and more military equipment is finding it's way to various police forces. I have seen many examples over the last few years that made me wonder if their function truly is to protect the people. Assuming you are correct, perhaps the examples I saw are not from your state, must have been from some of the other 49 states.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The right to bear arms was written a long time ago by people who wanted the ability to defend themselves for various reasons and mostly as a tool for the militia of a newly formed government. Guns in what is now the USA were introduced by every country that owned any piece of North America and guns were used for hunting and protection. What scares me more than people owning or using guns is that the police use them at the drop of a hat and many people are unnecessarily shot and killed because cops don't shoot to wing someone, they shoot to kill. To change the constitution will be nearly impossible in today's society and the best way to control guns and ammunition is to shut down the gun and ammunition manufacturers and in a hundred or so years all the bullets will be useless as the black powder will go bad and make them not fire.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Every nation has some form of gun control.

When the track record of violent crime and misadventure associated with guns in the States is reviewed there's only one conclusion; they have it wrong. (and, no, most citizens have no business with firearms due to mental incapacity or defect.)

"The United States has 88 firearms per 100 people. Yemen, the second highest gun ownership country in the world has 54.8. The third and fourth biggest countries may also come as a surprise - Switzerland (45.7) and Finland (45.3)." - Guardian News

Too many guns, too few controls and a rabid panicked frenzy of hyperbolical paranoia. Not much of an environment to expect rational gun control from.

The States doesn't sound like gun control, it seems more, 'guns in control'. Seems odd the citizen has to have a gun pressed their head to live in the freest society on earth.

Should the citizen have a gun? Obviously not in the pseudo patriotism model with the wild west kicking out the Brits so many slobber through half chewed NRA quotes. A comical mismatch of capability and lethality. In a word, bloody dangerous.

Here's a gun control that might work well in the States, verify a high school diploma. Then the six months of militia training the Constitution demands. And then, maybe a gun, if you're not crazy. That'll fix it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Ramzee:

Military equipment "finding its way into police hands" is not the same as a widespread militarized arming of police. Many police are retired or reserve military. Additionally such equipment is only deployed in emergency situations like the riots last year in Ferguson.

Matter of fact Obama and the feds have been cracking down on removing military equipment from these few police and instead equipping them with cameras.

Riot gear is not the same as everyday patrol gear.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

What some call "riot gear" scares the $#!7 out of many people. I have seen too many things that don't belong in a so-called free society, but typical in a dictatorship.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Japan has a history of building fine firearms and you have companies like Howa that continue that fine tradition. So, yes I believe it is still honorable for Japanese to own and even build their own firearms

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't get my head around why the USA allow fully automatic assault rifles to be sold in wall mart.

You can rest easy and stop trying to "get your head around" something that doesn't exist. Fully-automatic weapons (whether "assault" weapons or otherwise) cannot be sold in a place like Walmart. If an automatic weapon was manufactured after May 19, 1986, then it cannot be purchased per Federal Law (unless you are a dealer - presumably for resale overseas).

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The 2nd Ammendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a US Citizen to bear arms. While liberals in the USA would like to strip that right away from US Citizens blaming every gun related crime on "guns", any attempt to "disarm" law abiding American Citizens would be met with a firestorm. Outlawing the ownership of firearms in the USA would just assure law abiding US Citizens do not have guns, and criminals who could care less about following any law, will.

Statistics show that those states in the USA that permit concealed carry of a gun with a permit or without one have the lowest crime rates. A criminal is less likely to have you as their victim if they think you could be armed. Those states in the USA with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rates. Criminals who would rob, rape, steal, or murder care less about violating gun laws. All should remember guns do not commit crimes, prople do.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I process a firearm and shotgun certificate. Main function is to assist in pest and predator control (foxes), organized shoots on the family farms and land holdings in the UK.

However, I don't personally own any fire arms. If a person has genuine reason to process a firearm, is prepared to provide proof, pose no danger to public safety, and summits to a procedure that regularly evaluates that ownership then yes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the main reason why we chose canada over usa. bc usa its a very violent country. even greece was better than the us in living standards. so it would be a blow for japan to have guns

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Absolutely not. Absolutely unnecessary. The belief that citizens need guns is a complete nonsense that is radically out of step with 21st century living.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yes, having a gun has saved my life and the lives of countless others. More people have been saved especially as crime increases than those killed because of a gun in the hands of a looney. Besides having the right to own a gun or other arms keeps people from being controlled or manipulated by one crazy leader at the top making decisions for the entire populace.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime

the main reason why we chose canada over usa. bc usa its a very violent country. even greece was better than the us in living standards. so it would be a blow for japan to have guns

Canada has more property crime, rapes and auto theft per person.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is only a debate for the USA. No where else. No where

1 ( +2 / -1 )

In America, all rights are unalienable. Rights are self evident and can't in anyway be removed.

I certainly support the right to bear arms but more so, the right to keep all of my rights. The opinions of or even the vote of others or government has no effect on rights.

Any attempt to remove the right to bear arms is invalid because rights can't be infringed .

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Any attempt to remove the right to bear arms is invalid because rights can't be infringed .

If rights cannot be infringed, it means that bearing arms is not a right, since it can most definitely be taken away (and should be).

0 ( +2 / -2 )

In America, all rights are unalienable. Rights are self evident and can't in anyway be removed.

When a country is only concerned about rights, and loses sight of responsibilities, the rot has set in.

0 ( +2 / -3 )

As the son of a gamekeeper I used real guns from the age of seven or eight and owned one of my own. Shooting targets or bottles balanced on a fence was fun and still would be but the killing I did, even the vermin abhors me now. My father did his job and though he killed thousands of animals and birds I never saw him take any pleasure from it. I think only professionally qualified hunters, policemen etc should be allowed to have guns, need a warrant to have them when they need them and have regular psychological and background checks. People in general just can't be trusted to have such weapons at their disposal. My father like many of his peers was very strict and disciplined when it came to guns. Even toy guns were NEVER to be pointed at any person.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The opinions of many here quite frankly scare me.

So "No" would be my answer.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Anybody (except people with a history of violence) should be able to carry a gun whenever and wherever they want with no permits, licenses, tests, etc. Government attempts to restrict the carrying of firearms violate common law and should be resisted.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

As far as I know, neither Roof, nor the guy who killed all the kids at Littleton had a history of violence. Neither did the guy who shot up all the people in the movie theater in Colorado. Nor the kids at Columbine.

You think all of them should have been allowed to carry weapons without restriction?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Strangerland, Roof had a criminal record, he should not have been allowed to get a gun; somehow he slipped through the cracks... I believe the Columbine guys were prescribed medication for mental issues (I suspect most/all were).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And the fact that they were able to get guns shows that no matter what laws you apply, people will find ways around them. If you allow guns to be sold, people like this are going to get guns.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

And the fact that they were able to get guns shows that no matter what laws you apply...

No, the laws were not applied. Somehow, these guys slipped through the cracks, convenient for the gun grabbers. I suggest people look at the psychiatric drugs these people were on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As far as I know, neither Roof, nor the guy who killed all the kids at Littleton had a history of violence. Neither did the guy who shot up all the people in the movie theater in Colorado. Nor the kids at Columbine.

I think you are confusing littleton with newtown, littleton is Columbine.

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