Stabbing in Japan

[RedWolf]

I woke up this morning to see in my paper a horrible knife attack in Japan the other day.

A crazy walked into a school with a knife ans starte stabbing school children. I think he killed 8 or 9 kids.

There has been much talk lately about the "gun culture" in the US and how it leads to the "school shootings" that are happening with alarming frequency... (we've even had one happen in canada)

HOWEVER Japan has VERY tight gun control laws... and yet someone still managed to walk into a school and kill 9 children (injured even more than that)

People that want to kill people will always find way to do so... Making guns illegal will NOT solve the problem... it runs FAR deeper than that.

Maybe we should implement "knife control laws".

[This message has been edited by RedWolf (edited June 09, 2001).]

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by RedWolf:
HOWEVER Japan has VERY tight gun control laws... and yet someone still managed to walk into a school and kill 9 children (injured even more than that)

The keywords here are gun and knife.

Their guns laws can be as strict as they want but without knife control or weapon control, stuff like this will continue.

It's a sad state of affairs.

Anyway....on a similar note....I was watching the local news a few nights ago and a mother is sueing the school for not stopping a girl from being sexually assulted. But here's the twist.....they were in Grade 1. And it happened 3 times and the teachers wouldn't do anything. The one girl told the (assulted) girl that if she told anyone she would come to school with a gun and kill her.

Now this is the lowest point of all. (so far

)

Sorry for going a little OT on you RedWolf.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://images.honesty.com/imagedata/h/207/85/32078598.gif" border=0> I AM CANADIAN! <IMG SRC="http://images.honesty.com/imagedata/h/207/85/32078598.gif" border=0>
CivFanatics Moderator and Tech Support
CivFanatics Civ 2 Ladder
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

 

[MrLeN]

I couldn't agree more.
Voilence is a typical modern social problem.
I don't know what's wrong with this world, but I do know that it isn't gonna get any better

It's depreessing actually

MrLeN

------------------


ez0ne.com - Webmasters and Pagebuilders
Free Advertising - Free URL forwarding
Community - Forum - Chat

 

[RedWolf]

No problem Cornmaster. My topics are ALWAYS free for alls. Doesn't offend me in the least. In my threads the first one is just a kick start to get ideas flowing... people can say whatever they want after that.

As for knife/weapon control. It STILL won't work. Crazies can kill people regardless. besides a knife isn't a weapon - it's a kitchen utensil...

If he had of wanted to he could have just plowed his car at recess into a pile of children and killed them just as easily...

"banning" weapons will not stop these sorts of crimes.

 

[Loaf Warden]

Originally posted by MrLeN:
I couldn't agree more.
Voilence is a typical modern social problem.

Nothing "modern" about it. There has been violence for as long as there has been humanity. And I don't just mean wars between peoples, I mean local violence within communities. It used to be if someone insulted you, you could challenge him to a duel to the death. People carried swords around, and fights would break out. There have been drunken bar brawls as long as there have been bars, and there have always been people getting killed or injured by such things.

I'm not trying to downplay the tragedy in what happened in Osaka. Eight children were killed, and more than a dozen more were sent to the hospital. A few weeks ago, a very similar thing happened here in Alaska. A madman went to an elementary school and started stabbing children. Luckily, all the children here survived. Eight of the children in Osaka were not so lucky, and it is a gruesome, horrifying thing to have happened.

But don't kid yourself into thinking this is a modern problem that just never happened in the 'good old days', whenever they may have been. This sort of thing has happened, in one form or another, for thousands of years.

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

Originally posted by RedWolf:
"banning" weapons will not stop these sorts of crimes.

This is where Red & I part ways. What's missing from this statement is the word "all", to make it: "Banning weapons will not stop ALL these sorts of crimes." THIS would be a true statement. There is no way to stop all instances of any type of badness from happening. What the original statement does not acknowledge is how many lives could be saved (and ARE saved) by the "tight gun control laws" Red mentioned before.

If the man in Alaska (Loaf mentioned) got his hands on a gun instead of a knife, all the merely injured children would likely be dead and probably more. To state the obvious, it is much harder to kill with a knife due to proximity. It's much easier to kill more with a gun because you don't have to get that close. If the Japanese mental case got close enough to 8 kids to kill them with a knife, just imagine if he had had a gun. While 8 kids did die, the strict gun laws probably saved many, many more.

To point to one case of someone successfully doing something bad and saying "See, the law doesn't work" is absolutely ludicrous. I feel we must truly stop and consider carefully the utter ridiculousness of such a statement. This is another case of overly narrowing the view to make a point. You might as well say we shouldn't bother to have a law against murder because "see, people successfully commit them." And we shouldn't have a law against stealing because "see, SOME people get away with it."

How is that NOT the same as "we shouldn't have strict gun control laws because the criminals will get guns anyway"? Isn't that obvious?! THE CRIMINALS ARE CRIMINALS BECAUSE THEY BREAK THE LAW ANYWAY! It's just like how the criminals commit murder and steal. If they can do it, we shouldn't have a law (using that logic).

THE POINT OF GUN CONTROL LAWS IS NOT TO 100% ELIMINATE GUN-RELATED CRIME! That's a pipe dream and both sides know it. So, to the pro-gunners: don't act like that's the goal of your opponents. By saying that, you manipulate the issue and just set us anti-gun types up: you make up an impossible goal, say we said it, and then easily "shoot it down" (pardon the pun), as opposed to making a real argument.

You can't enumerate & measure all that the laws provide & prevent because they don't happen!! (duh! and thank goodness!) If gun control laws save even ONE life a year, if even ONE person survives an estranged spouse due to waiting periods, if even ONE person on the street lives because of someone failed a background check at a gun show, then the law has served it's purpose: saved that life AND the grief & devastation brought upon the family of that loved one.

My contention is it would save much more than one. The only important & relavent measure is the one that is impossible to measure: how many people DO NOT die because a gun control law stopped someone ... NOT how many die in spite of the laws (of course some still will).

To close, the key diff between a gun and a knife? The key reason we don't have anyone calling for the banning of knives? A knife has other uses.
Spiff <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/scan.gif" border=0>

[This message has been edited by SpacemanSpiff (edited June 09, 2001).]

 

[BorderPatrol]

I'm gonna make this short and sweet because I know if I post a long message that you won't read the whole thing anyway.

How many kids would have been killed if the man had a gun instead of a knife?

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0><FONT COLOR="green">If you cross the border, you better have your green card!</FONT c><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>

 

[Flatlander Fox]

At Columbine it was said that more than 100 gun laws were broken when those two kids shot up the place... Laws aren't the answer.

We don't need more laws, we need more morals.

Give me a good reason to have guns and I'll give you a good reason not to have them. Or vice versa.

An endless argument. But I think that if the person with the weapon knows how to act responsibly with it, then there is no problem at all. But teaching that person to act responsibly... Well we all know whose job that is.

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

"There you go again." You're proving my point about an overly narrow focus, FF. In my city last night probably about 50-100 laws were broken. Guess we don't need any of those laws because they didn't prevent the crime. Throw 'em (the laws) out!

And no one ever said laws were THE answer. But they are a significant PART of the answer.

Just because our species needs more responsibility (and we do partially agree there) doesn't mean we don't need the laws also.

I only say "partially agree" there because, being parent, I can see even at 4 years old, only a portion of my daughter's experience shaping her life comes from me and Mrs. Spiff. Society is another big part of that equation. She is taught by all of her experience, more and more of which comes from the REST of the "village" that's raising my child.

EDIT: And because so much outside my house has so much influence, I do want at least some say in that. Our say in such matters outside our homes is performed through our representatives making laws that protect us. We actually agree about the responsibility part. Where I give some of my anti-gun ground to the pro-gunners is around "responsible gun ownership". If you have proven to be responsible, sure you can have a gun! (not an UZI or AK-47, though) Proving responsibility could mean, among other things: no marks on your record, the ablity wait a few days, passing a gun safety course. All this applying to ANY gun outlet, including shows.

"WHAT?!" you say? Never hear of anything so preposterous as having to pass a course? Yes, you have. You've done it yourself. We don't let kids drive just from learning at home; they need a course & and test. Meanwhile, guns are MUCH more dangerous and we allow at home teaching (NOT from certified experts), no course and no test ... hmmm, sounds smart, right?

Anyway, my beef is that, without adequate gun laws to prove said responsibility you may claim to have, the irresponsible get them too easily. (I'm not talking about criminals here ... I already made that point.) And then my daughter plays at another kid's house, whose father did not have to sufficiently prove responsibility, who doesn't know or teach the level of gun safety you might assume everyone should know & do, and I end up with dead daughter.

You have a right to responsibly keep & bear arms. I also have a right regarding the safety of my children (and I think life takes precedence) so I insist there be laws to protect them where they (the laws) can. Proving responsibility before ownership is one of those ways. Preventing access to what I call "weapons of mass destruction" is another (guns fire so rapidly they have no use EXCEPT for mass killings).

Spiff <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/scan.gif" border=0>

[This message has been edited by SpacemanSpiff (edited June 10, 2001).]

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by SpacemanSpiff:
To close, the key diff between a gun and a knife? The key reason we don't have anyone calling for the banning of knives? A knife has other uses.
Spiff <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/scan.gif" border=0>

Guns have other uses as well. Self defense, hobby collecting, target shooting, hunting etc.

PLUS If American I'd want a gun so I can defend myself from Sun Tzu and all his fascist goons. (If president he plans to have federal agents arrest anybody with anti-government views) <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>

I don't want to get into a mud slinging match over gun control. I'm not really sure why I even started this topic. More of an "observation" then to open a debate. So I'm done with this thread (but everyone else feel free to keep fighting) <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>

[This message has been edited by RedWolf (edited June 10, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by RedWolf (edited June 10, 2001).]

 

[skyskipper]

Ok, here's a good one I've discovered... in Austrialia all SQUIRT guns have to be registered to be legal. How does that do anything? Besides, the American Revolution worked because the colonists had firearms. The British were coming to confiscate the firearms and if they had America wouldn't be the same or might now even existed. (USA)
In the 37 states that have conceal carry permits, crime has dropped 17-30%. (this is available through the FBI Uniform Crime Reports which can be found at any public library.)

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Spiff is absolutely right. TH

 

[andycapp]

Damn, must have hit the submit button twice - see post below.



[This message has been edited by andycapp (edited June 10, 2001).]

 

[andycapp]

Originally posted by skyskipper:
Ok, here's a good one I've discovered... in Austrialia all SQUIRT guns have to be registered to be legal. How does that do anything?

A number of years ago at Port Arthur in Tasmania, site of an historic penal colony - now a tourist attraction, 35 people were shot down and murdered by a man with an automatic rifle - giving Australia the dubious distinction having one of the largest cases of mass murder, amongst industrialized countries, in recent history. Following that tragic event a wave of public anger (right across Australia) against the availability of,and access to guns, forced the conservative Howard Government to introduce uniform gun laws which (to my knowledge) requires the registration of ALL guns. It is also my understanding that to own a gun a person must have a valid reason eg. required because of their employment - farmers, security guards etc, or they must be a member of a (bona fide) Sporting Gun club.

Preceding the introduction of this Federal legislation the Government offered a firearms amnesty and buy back of guns from the community in which millions(?) of firearms were handed in by ordinary Australians for compensation from the Government. What has this achieved? As far as I'm aware the overall effectiveness of this legislation is yet to be fully evaluated but in practice there are already a number of tangible benefits. For starters there are significantly fewer guns floating around in the community which makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on and there is (statistically) less chance of firearms causing acidental injury or death in the community. There are less tangible benefits such as a greater feeling of security and safety in the community knowing that there are significantly fewer guns in the community - admittedly this is ancedotal (although I remember some market research suggesting the same).

I haven't checked (I'm writing this of the top of my head) whether gun related deaths and injuries in Australia are down following the introduction of this legislation (I'd be very suprised if they weren't) but I do know that in my state, Victoria, violent crimes have been dropping for the past couple of years. The argument that legislation doesn't fix the problem is disingenious - it is part of the answer not the whole solution and to dismiss effective regulation of gun ownership and use, is akin to throwing your hands in the air and saying it's all to hard.

INMHO a society that believes it needs unfettered access to guns is one which feels very threatened and insecure. I, as part of a large majority of Australians (borne out by polling), have made a decision to reduce the use and access of guns in the community and that is something that makes Australia, IMHO, an even better place to live than before.

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

To andy:

I need a high-five smilie, but this will do.

Spiff

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by BorderPatrol:
I'm gonna make this short and sweet because I know if I post a long message that you won't read the whole thing anyway.

How many kids would have been killed if the man had a gun instead of a knife?

Most perpetrators would have been more dangerous with a firearm. In this particular case there is some question whether this mental defective would have been proficient or experience enough with firearms to use one as skillfuly as he used a knife.