OT: China Highlights Contrasting Gun Law

You don't see these mass killings carried out with axes, knives, wooden clubs. Crowbars or arrows. IT IS Guns, usually semi-automatic.

I'm not a gun nut by any definition, but I'd like to point out that China executed around 5000 people last year, more than all other nations combined. They do not have freedom of speech, are not secure from arbitrary search and seizure, do not enjoy equal protection under the law, and in general are missing many of the freedoms we take for granted. In addition, their strip clubs suck and their women have no tits.

If our government tried to impose the kind of restrictions on us that the Chinese government imposes on their people, what do you think would happen? An armed populace is an effective deterrent to an oppressive government.

I do think there should be limits. I can't go out and buy a 40mm anti-aircraft autocannon, and that's probably a good thing. I don't know where you draw the line. It sounds like that guy's mom had a bigger arsenal than is reasonable.

And yes, I know the US isn't perfect either. But I'd rather live here with our gun laws than in China with theirs.

In 1927 Andrew Kehoe killed 44 people. 38 of them were school children and 2 were teachers. He injured at least 50 more.

He shot no one.

@Ermita - agreed. China is a fine place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there... However, we could choose less repressive laws AND sensible gun laws.

@jester - so your argument is that since it is POSSIBLE to kill people without guns we shouldn't restrict access to guns at all? Cool! I'm gonna get me some of that anti-aircraft artillery - never know when I might get buzzed by evildoers - and maybe get me a TEC-9 (oops, an AB10), a full auto AK47, and maybe a few RPGs. I betcha those street thugs won't threaten me when I go all Rambo on their asses and blow up their house with an RPG.

Will you join my resistance cell when Obama brings in those atheist Muslim socialist overlords from his birthplace in Kenya and they enslave us white people? I bet you would make a top notch guerrilla.

Straight banning is only good for criminals. However, I would support a measure to treat guns like automobiles requiring a training course, and yearly renewals. Could be as simple and cost efficient as an endorsement on your current drivers license: like Commercial or Motorcycle. This would allow anyone to own a gun while preventing the mentally unstable from acquiring one by the questions naturally raised at the required testings at gun range. Just a thought.

Japan’s crime rates have always been ridiculously low, for reasons that have nothing to do with the possession of guns. The issues are cultural. And they can only be replicated in the United States by making the country more Japanese, in ways that liberals would positively hate, rather than by banning guns.

Step 1 in the process of making America more Japanese would involve ending immigration and multiculturalism and there is little doubt, statistically, that this would do far more to lower our homicide rate, than banning guns.

You know, the real problem is the gun grabbers themselves. They never know when to stop. It is easy to see in places like England and Australia. First it's "sensible laws" and then nothing changes, so it's more strict laws and nothing changes, so then we have to BAN THEM ALL!!!! And of course, the only thing that changes is law abiding citizens are stripped of their defense and criminals run wild, yippee! This is why the NRA and gun owners fight so hard against ANY new laws, the other side is too stupid to know when to stop. And typically the laws they make up after some huge tragedy are stupidly written and do nothing but cause harm. It has happened time and time again, but they just have to keep trying it to feel better about themselves. The ironic thing is that even if we all agreed to ban guns right now, it is almost an impossibility to get them in, there are over 300 million in the country and a huge amount of those were bought because people were afraid of what the gun grabbers were going to do, Thanks Dems, nice job.

Live in Japan for a couple of years. Every day, the newspapers are full of stories of oyako-shinju and ikka-shinju and such. Various names for "family suicide". What in the US would be called murder-suicide - a parent killing their children and then themselves. A husband killing his wife and then himself. In the US, most of those killings (except for the suicide) are called homicide. In Japan, they are all classed as suicide.

Further, autopsies are regularly BS. In Japan, Yakuza/gangs kill privately and without guns. They take their time and beat someone to a bloody pulp. That means no public noise, no drive-by shootings by punks, and generally a quiet discovery of the body. Which means that the police can do their investigation quietly without the media getting in their face. If they find a perpetrator, then the autopsy will say homicide is the cause of death. If not, then the person died of a heart attack or something. It has everything to do with the "shame culture" - where the police themselves will be blamed if homicides increase. So amazingly - homicide rates always fall 1955 - 3000 homicides 1985 - 1800 homicides today - less than 800

There is a reason that 100% of homicides in Japan are either:

1. solved
2. so shockingly public that they can't be hidden

The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, which killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, and four other adults; at least 58 people were injured. The perpetrator first killed his wife, and committed suicide with his last explosion. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–14 years of age) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.

At least they weren't killed with guns! Feel better now?

Or maybe taking out about 3,000 with box cutters?

haha! Lets be more like China. Good one lol.

@zipman: your argument is that since it is POSSIBLE to kill people without guns we shouldn't restrict access to guns at all?

Spoken like a ultra lib in front of the cameras. That wasn't my point at all at. Duck and hide when you're confronted with something that contradicts your viewpoint, I get it.

There is no viable solution that will put a quick end to this type of killing. These killings will decrease over time if we do the following:

1. Stop the non stop media frenzy when these killings happen.
2. Require trigger locks on all weapons by their owner with severe penalties if your gun is misused.
3. Improve gun registration and restrictions on gun purchases at gun
   shows.
4. Severe penalties for the loss of a gun or having a gun stolen.

@jestie (and other right wing nut jobs): at least you sussed out the satirical nature o' my question. Perhaps you could work on thinking through your responses. I see no evidence that you would think on your feet when we are fightin' against Obummer, our socialist moooslim Kenyan overlord who has just forced us all to gay marry. The rest o' my resistance cell would prolly frag you.

We've seen some stifling examples of right wing logic here. Rather than wait for actual serious discussion the wingnuts call the "libs" "gun grabbers" and put words in their mouths. Easy to argue against the othe side when you construct the other side's arguments, in'it it? Likelihood o' your fevered scenario happening in 'Merica? Not very high... But never let that get in the way o' a good strawman!

Other gems of logic are Samsung's "Japan has a low homocide rate for cultural reasons we can't emulate...plus it isn't really that low..." So, is Japan the only country with a murder rate lower than the US? 'Cos if it is you've got a point. If not, you're full o' shit. I think I smell some bullshit!

Perhaps I'm just missing some brilliant but subtle point you genius right wingers are makin'. Spell it out for us "libs". I'll give you a template:

It is POSSIBLE to kill people without guns so we should...

Possible answers might include:

A. Make access to guns totally unrestricted B. give everybody a loaded gun at birth. A little one, of course, 'cos we don't wanna be all crazy... C. Take everybody's guns away. Humiliate all former gun owners by making them wear a scarlet "G" D. Restrict access to specific types of firearms E. fill in your answer...

I'm looking forward to the erudite inner policy wonk o' da Jestie man. It strikes me that the concrete policy proposals we have are "do ????? 'cos it is POSSIBLE to kill people without guns" and "become Japanese". I'll stipulate that "become Japanese" is off the table. How should we fill in the question marks?

I promise not to run and hid from an opinion I disagree with. I may, however, point and laugh...

To be fair tittyfan actually put out some proposals. They sound pretty fucking liberal to me though. I mean really... "Severe penalties for losing your gun" and "restrictions on purchases at gun shows".

Totally contrary to my "baby's first Derringer" proposal. The big issue with Derringers is low numbers o' bullets. But giving a baby a TEC9 would be stupid...even I as a right wing nutjob acknowledge that... no, my plan was that new loaded guns of an appropriate size would come in cereal boxes. Crazy people like the school shooter would KNOW that all the kids in class would be packin', so the wouldn't attack 'cos they would know the little kiddies would kill them in a hail of gunfire. Oh wait, I think I see an issue...

So Jestie...can ya help us out? Help fix my proposal. Your slot in my Obummer resistance cell is hangin' in the balance. Oops, I'm a wing nut, so it should be "you're slot in my resistance cell..."

I love this article... takimag.com

Some choice quotes:

"Others have noticed Drudge’s predilection for posting multiple tales of black “flash mobs,” especially on annual events such as Memorial Day and Black Friday.

The obvious weakness with these self-righteous complaints about Drudge’s editorial judgment is that he doesn’t invent these stories of mayhem, most of which (again) he lifts from liberal newspapers"

"And it’s so exhausting having to patiently explain that when Rush Limbaugh called Barack Obama “a Magic Negro,” he was simply quoting a black cultural theorist who’d used the expression (one with some provenance) to describe…Barack Obama. I’m nodding off just having to type all that. Again."

"I’d also bet fewer of them noticed a headline, lower down the page, but there just the same:

CHICAGOLAND: 10 shot, including 4 teens…

It turns out that the same day dozens of white women and children were murdered at Sandy Hook, ten African Americans had been wounded by assailants with firearms in one of the strictest gun-control cities in the nation.

Chicago could be said to experience a slow-mo Sandy Hook all year long, year in and year out, except the victims and the assailants tend to be black.

Neither the mainstream media nor Drudge’s excitable foes have expressed much outrage about this ongoing loss of life. Doing so might spoil their gun-control narrative."

When people start addressing the cause, progress might be made. Till then, these things will happen. When some sick person, or perhaps just an evil person decides to do these things, they WILL find a way, no matter what law is there to break, what restrictions to what they may or may not do legally, or the morally.

One good thing, however, is that even though these things are more publicized, they are on the decline in numbers.

Of tittyfan's suggestions I think #1 is the most important thing we can do to prevent these kind of attacks. #3 is also an idea I would fully support. Personally I think any gun sale should be through a licensed dealer and include some kind of waiting period.

#2 sounds good in theory, but I don't think it would change much. #4 is just silly. Punished for being robbed? Come on.

Clubber makes a good point about addressing the cause, but I think that's considerably difficult to attempt let alone accomplish.

No matter what the simple point is that any solution that calls for taking away guns or placing incredible limits on them is not a solution at all.

Oh, and I hate to burst your bubble, but I'm a registered independent and in general a moderate.

Cerberus to dump Bushmaster.

Dick's making a change.

jester,

You state, "Clubber makes a good point about addressing the cause, but I think that's considerably difficult to attempt let alone accomplish." I will agree under today's standards. However, there was a time when the nut cases could be put away to protect society. Of course now, that is not PC.

Most every one of these events, we hear the same story, "I knew he was having issues, etc." That said, nothing is done till he does it himself and takes innocents with him.

Dealing with the mentally ill is not a "PC" issue. It is mostly a rights issue. When the mentally ill go bonkers, when people try to intervene, a common response by LE and others is that it is not illegal to be mentally ill and that they can do nothing until the person is a threat to himself and or others.

Usually by the time the threat does surface, it is too late.

".... their strip clubs suck and their women have no tits."

The BEST reason not to adopt China's government policies.

Yep yep yep Jestie... You're a moderate. I guess that convinces me! You point 'bout folks being able to kill using methods OTHER than guns wins the day, since it clearly implies that... Oh wait, it doesn't imply shit.

Actually, you reply to tittyfan was pretty reasonable, so I'll be clear. Here is my issue with your BS of "but mass killings don't REQUIRE guns." Yes...so what? Guns sure as fuck make killings of all sorts easier. So we have a problem -- too many crazy MFs can get their hands on guns -- and we should be addressing it. But then wig nuts come on with BS like yours... So you're either a wing nut who claims to be moderate or you've been taken in on this issue. Since you claim to be moderate I'll ask you to think...somethin' you claim I wouldn't do.

How do we address the problems of too many crazy folks with guns? We could:

1. Deal with mental health problems seriously, trying to identify folks like the shooter at CT (and CO and VA and...) ahead of times. Costs money. Only addresses the worst killings.
2. Try to keep guns out of the hands of people most likely to cause problems.
3. Outlaw specific types of weapons.
4. Outlaw guns altogether.

#4 ain't gonna happen in America. Not in the foreseeable future. So if you're worried about you're stupid and shouldn't have a gun or you're crazy and shouldn't have a gun. We already do #3 -- I can't go to Walmart an' get me no full auto AK god damnit -- so the argument there is which guns to outlaw. Personally, I don't think this is the biggest issue...but be honest and admit the issue is where to draw lines and not whether there SHOULD be any lines.

#2 is complex but it ain't gonna be address until nut jobs stop insisting that the gummint gonna deny dem der guns if we make screening more thorough and deny some crazy folk der sweet sweet firearms. As with everything the devil is in the details, but some sort of gun control (notice that control can mean "banning" or "denying gun ownership to nutjobs". -- whadya think is going to happen here in America). You've already said you're cool with titty's #3, so you should be cool with some version o' #2. You even want waiting period...you fuckin' liberal you. I don't care 'bout that, although it will take time to do checks so we would end up with a de facto waiting period. But I don't see an explicit need for that beyond the logistics necessary to screen out da nutjobs.

And #1 is jes' common sense. But we ain't gonna do it...to damn liberal

And, just to be clear... The answer to "banning" vs "denying ownership to nutjobs" -- what do you thing is going to happen in America? The answer is neither... We'll cry and piss and moan and forget. 'Til the next mass shooting.

Wanna stop it? Root causes are important...but it is more important to say "we don't care about stable, law-abiding citizens having guns as long as they use them responsibly and secure them...but we don't want crazy folks to have guns". Then take that seriously and find ways of implementing. Is that too liberal for ya.

damn iPad. Typing on this sucks -- should be ...too liberal for ya?

"You point 'bout folks being able to kill using methods OTHER than guns wins the day, since it clearly implies that... Oh wait, it doesn't imply shit."

In a thread where the topic suggests that violent attacks in China aren't as deadly because they don't have guns my point was very clear if you actually thought about it. Unfortunately you took the predictable route.

Waiting periods have several benefits, and I know plenty of gun owners who don't have an issue with them. Banning weapons, even assault rifles, are not going to effectively prevent anything from happen. And as you said, it won't happen in this country in the near future. Not legal or feasible.

Detecting anyone with mental issues early on is something we should try to do, but again it's not really a simple thing to accomplish. Strict healthcare privacy laws and a litigious society only further complicate the issue.

Hmmm... So lemme get this straight Jestie. You were attempting to refute the argument that violent attacks in China weren't AS deadly as those here by pointing out that it is indeed possible to kill people without guns?

So, should I let you scratch your head to figure out what is wrong with your logic? Maybe read this post for the word that I stressed and ask yourself if your argument actually addresses anything of relevance.

You know, I heard you shouldn't worry about drowning due falling overboard while at sea 'cos it is possible to drown in as little as an inch of water. And it is like totally fine to get all drunk and send texts while driving 'cos people sometimes have car accidents when they are stone cold sober. Yep, guns couldn't possibly have any impact upon the degree of damage done in violent attacks -- after all, it is POSSIBLE to injure or even...gasp...kill people without guns. Now that I know I bow to Jestie logic.

Assault Rifles with large bullet magazines allow for infinitely faster and more efficient shooting and killing.

Alucard,

Correct, but don't confuse, as you say "Assault Rifles" with what the anti-gunners consider assault rifles.

At this point zipman you're either deliberately missing the point, or you're an idiot. No level of explanation is going to rectify those things.