Originally posted by Nephthys
Of course, it is only if the shooter is white.
This raises a question though. A guy who thinks his dog is telling him to shoot people is mentally ill.
What about a neo nazi? Is that person mentally ill if they share all the beliefs the nazis had? Or just a horrible person?
Originally posted by Surtur
This raises a question though. A guy who thinks his dog is telling him to shoot people is mentally ill.What about a neo nazi? Is that person mentally ill if they share all the beliefs the nazis had? Or just a horrible person?
I'm pretty sure that would be different for each person.
Originally posted by SquallX
Nice one. Bring race into this.But answer me this? Where’s the outrage for the 4 dead and 17 wounded in Chicago this 4 day weekend again?
Its more of an observable fact that many people deflect blame onto mental health problems when there isn't a non-white race card they can play and they don't want to blame guns.
Not being American I'm not familiar with that incident, but I would hazard a quess that your piece of shit country is so used to horrific shootings that a crime like that isn't particularly notable. Its geniunely tragic, but if one tried to feel strongly about each such tragedy that occurs in america you'd probably actually go insane.
Originally posted by lazybones
Uh huh, I know. And it highlights the Firearm and Sword Possession Control Law (originally enshrined in 1958) as a reason for the low crime rates in Japan, and says that it 'successfully regulated a broad range of firearms'. Of course, as it goes on to say, these laws had to updated and intensified with the changing situation, but the 1958 regulations set the groundwork for those laws through the prohibition of firearms for civilian use regardless of license, which was followed up by the banning of unauthorized gun imports in the 1960s (source:loc.gov).So to say that the strict gun control in Japan begun in the 1990s, as you did, is false. It predates those amendments by many decades. That was my point.
If the exact same citation happens to support the gun control that you deride, then I can't really help it. But anyway, my position is that the ultra-strict gun controls did not begin in the 90s, but in the 1950s with the literal prohibition of firearms for civilian use regardless of license, and the subsequent banning of unauthorized gun imports in the 60s. The 90s amendments obviously intensified gun regulations in several ways, but Japan's gun laws were already stunningly restrictive beforehand (general prohibition). This is mainly supported by the loc.gov link, which you didn't cite.
Okay, cool, but the underlying principle of Japan's gun regulation (ie. the literal prohibition of firearms for civilians regardless of license), predate the 1990s legislation. The 1990s legislation was updating and strengthening the laws with the changing situation, and it produced numerous positive results. For instance, the large drop in crimes involving guns and those shot dead by guns, which you conveniently decided to sidestep for some reason.
Okay, and now let's look at the homicide rate beyond that tiny cherrypicked timeframe, using the statistics you provided earlier.
In 1960:
2.81
http://www.nationmaster.com/country.../All-stats#19601970:
1.9
http://www.nationmaster.com/country.../All-stats#19701980:
1.44
http://www.nationmaster.com/country.../All-stats#19801990:
0.98
http://www.nationmaster.com/country.../All-stats#1990In 2014 (the latest I could find from this site):
1.02
http://www.nationmaster.com/country.../All-stats#2014Clearly, Japan has seen a significant long-term drop in homicides since the 1950s. Not all of this can be attributed to gun policy, but the original study you cited highlights the 1958 law as a reason for these low rates. The minuscule rebound in homicides since the 90s is worrying, but there are still positive signs amongst the data and in gun statistics in particular. For instance, far less people being shot dead by guns, which would obviously be a downward pressure on homicide rates and means that the greater gun control is certainly not linked to the rebound.
That's a lot of posting and words on your part where you don't admit you tried to be dishonest with your arguments and your post is very clearly lacking anything that admits you were wrong. Edit - Everything else you said that contradicts me is wrong. Literally, my response to everything else would be "No, what I said. You're wrong." You did not provide a rebuttal. You just simply responded with "nuh-uh"s. Yes, I very clearly cherry-picked by providing all those decades and the years surrounding the 58 and 93 legislation. I played your game. Showed you were you're clearly just lying. You're not even being slightly honest.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Citing dadoodoo's own sources in a rebuttal only demonstrates dadoodoo's inability to read, like so:
And yet I linked homicide rates which clearly show an increase, not decrease.
They can pat themselves on the back all they want: homicide rates went up or remained the same.
It's not that hard to read...I mean...it's right there for you. haermm
Originally posted by lazybones
What's more, although the slight increase in homicides since the 90s is worrying, there are positive signs regarding the gun control legislation introduced in the 90s. The total number of criminal cases involving guns has fallen from 200 in 2001 to 50 in 2011.
haermm
I still can't get over how funny this is.
Who cares about actual homicides? Dem guns, yo! looool!
Originally posted by Nephthys
Its more of an observable fact that many people deflect blame onto mental health problems when there isn't a non-white race card they can play and they don't want to blame guns.Not being American I'm not familiar with that incident, but I would hazard a quess that your piece of shit country is so used to horrific shootings that a crime like that isn't particularly notable. Its geniunely tragic, but if one tried to feel strongly about each such tragedy that occurs in america you'd probably actually go insane.
What sense does it make to blame guns, they're inanimate objects.
Originally posted by SquallX
Here’s a better one about Clinton trying to gather votes form Blacks. So, show went on this Black radio, don’t remember the name. So hey questioned her. What’s one thing you always carry with you?I swear man, I can’t make this up, the phycho claimed, hot sauce.
I was like, what the ****!? And Black people still voted for this women!
Well...I'm sure she remembered her hot sauce just randomly and it had nothing at all to do with her trying to appeal to black voters. We should give her the benefit of the doubt because she's never been dishonest or ever done anything questionable.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Its more of an observable fact that many people deflect blame onto mental health problems when there isn't a non-white race card they can play and they don't want to blame guns.Not being American I'm not familiar with that incident, but I would hazard a quess that your piece of shit country is so used to horrific shootings that a crime like that isn't particularly notable. Its geniunely tragic, but if one tried to feel strongly about each such tragedy that occurs in america you'd probably actually go insane.
Nobody really gives white tea partiers the benefit of the doubt.
I think class has more to do with it then race.. Whether it's white "trash" or black "hoodlum's".
If it's a student, they usually always get the benefit of the doubt, because society has an interest in protecting the young and all that goes with them (The universities, various industries like Silicon Valley, and marketers have a huge stake in "exploiting" the young.)
Originally posted by Surtur
I love him citing 2011. In 2011 we had more deaths from hammers and clubs than rifles. Also more deaths inflicted with physical damage like punches, etc.
Who cares about homicides. We only care about gun specific crimes. It's about guns, not the actual homicides.
Let's see a democrat in this thread actually admit that they are riding on the backs of their racist Democratic predecessors because the original reason Democrats want guns out of people's hands is they did not want black people armed.
Their talking points and their platform about "gun control" is just "black people control." They don't realize the roots of their position.
lol @ trying to use Japan for a gun control argument. That argument was destroyed over a decade ago. It's so old, tired, and just plain wrong that at this point, trying to point out and debunk the ol' Japan myth is a waste of time. But they are young....guess they weren't around on the nets over 10 years ago?
Originally posted by dadudemonPerhaps because I wasn't being dishonest and don't think that I'm wrong? Sorry, but the strict gun control laws in modern Japan clearly have their foundations in the 1958 law, when guns were prohibited en masse, which preceded a drop in homicide in the following decades and is referenced in the Pacific Rim Law study as 'successfully regulat[ing] a broad range of firearms' and responsible in part for the low crime rates. Your claim was that Japan's strict gun control regime began in the 1990s and that the regulations potentially even were responsible for the slight uptick in homicides that have occurred since then. This wasn't a fair depiction of the situation, as very strict gun regulations existed before then and actually had some link with the positive outcomes in terms of crimes/homicides, as per the study that you cited yourself.
That's a lot of posting and words on your part where you don't admit you tried to be dishonest with your arguments and your post is very clearly lacking anything that admits you were wrong.
Originally posted by dadudemonHuh? I have said more than once that the slight uptick in homicides is indeed disturbing. However, if less guns are being used in crimes, and more importantly, far less people are actually being shot dead by guns, then the slight uptick in homicides clearly hasn't been caused by the more stringent 1990s regulations, as you insinuated. If anything, the regulations would have had a downward pressure on homicide rates due to far less people actually being shot and killed by those weapons.
haermmI still can't get over how funny this is.
Who cares about actual homicides? Dem guns, yo! looool!
Of course, the uptick in homicide rates are a sign that Japan should broaden their approach to identify and solve other causes of homicides, but I never opposed a multi-pronged solution to the problem. Regulate guns, but also take other steps to tackle the root cause of social problems that lead to the crime that leads to homicide. I can get on board with that.