Looks like the Japanese need to get with the Gun Banwagon. http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/world/story/1277301/
.... In what way does Japan need to get on the 'gun bandwagon'? Are you saying they need more guns, or less?
*sigh* Having to explain my profound wit ruins the impact I didn't say bandwagon; I said banwagon. As in to ban. Of course it is very difficult to get firearms in Japan. So it's a pun on the one hand and ironic as well. The Japanese do not have the high crime rate seen in other countries for other reasons, i.e., it's cultural. The point being that the laws per se won't stop things like this from happening.
I find this situation highly unusual, considering the laws and culture there. As a rule it just doesn't happen. Matt
By killing a Japanese mayor hasn't this one Yakuza boss just made his life a living hell? Won't the Japanese police be all over this guy, even if he just ordered a subordinate to pull the trigger?
Doesn't the Japanese government require that cars be shipped out of the country once they reach 4 years old. Why kill a mayor and set yourself up for prison over a Toyota that's being shipped to Puerto Rico in less than 48 months?
No matter what the laws are, organised crime groups will always get their hands on weapons. The question is do we want burglars and theives owning guns? I'm sure your empirical knowledge of crime in Japan is limitless, that goes without saying
Well no. But can we stop them from having them? Not really. They'll just buy them on the black market, and from the organized crime guys. Now the next question is: Given that anyone willing to break the law, and pay enough to get it can get a gun, do we want law abiding citizens to be able to have guns, so that they can defend themselves?
If people want guns they get them. Over and over again, this is just the latest example. Of course you can stop normal people from getting guns and let the criminals and the government have a monopoly on firearms.
Okay, now I'm confused. You asked if we wanted burgalers and theives owning guns. I said no, but that we can't really stop them. Then you say... that it's not about keeping them from having the guns... but... about... minimizing gun... crimes? Well if we can't stop them from having guns, how does making guns illegal minimize gun related crimes? And if keeping those criminals from having and using guns isn't the intention of banning guns, what is?
Talking in absolutes isn't helpful. Making the ownership of guns illegal leads to less gun ownership and less gun crime. Which part dont you get?
That's a very Foucaunian (sp?) analysis - and in my opinion quite a good one. I would say that the higher gun crime rates in America are of course linked to availability, but that changing the law would cause a backlash, precisely because it is not backed by the cultural roots needed for the law to become accepted. The law does not shape society, it is the other way around. The law is really a very isolated and detached entity when looking at its relationship to people.
I basically agree with this; just look at traffic laws. The government knows some are obeyed and some are disobeyed by just about everyone. Occasionally tickets are written either for revenue, or for truly reckless behavior. The best way to change behavior on the large scale these days is by changing norms not by changing laws.