News Stories

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

For those favoring stricter gun control, and/or a complete ban on (some?) guns, I'm curious to know your exact policy stance.

A complete ban on guns is, needless to say, completely unworkable given the quirks of American history and law.

Plenty of innovative ideas had already been suggested in this forum in the relevant thread. One of them is the setting up of insurance policies for gun ownership, thereby introducing a powerful commercial motive for ensuring responsible gun use.

On my part, I would suggest the creation of public or private armouries, where gun owners are legally obliged to store their firearms. That way, you could still be a gun owner, but your access to them could be better controlled to ensure that you'd use them only for legitimate reasons, like sport shooting, or what have you.

Exceptions can be made, perhaps, for rural communities, which do have a viable claim of requiring such personal protection, given their physically isolated environments.

Failing that, I would wonder whether it's possible to simply restrict the sale of ammunition. You can buy all the guns you want, but your purchases of ammunition ought to be limited and tracked by the authorities. This could make it easier to spot suspicious spikes in ammunition purchases, prompting the authorities to investigate.

It has also been pointed out several times before by forum members that the Second Amendment permits the ownership of firearms in the context of enabling Americans to set up militias if need be.

That being the case, I would strongly suggest making that a reality: Make it a legal requirement for any gun owner to also undertake relevant militia training. You'll not only gain suitable training on responsible gun use, but also come under greater peer review, raising the chances of spotting a potential criminal.

[Fireminer]

Could this really be a Domino Effect - too many mass murder and a lot of people start to have the idea of it?

And just don't start on the Swiss - even during our war, planting bomb on your own bridges is extreme.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

A complete ban on guns is, needless to say, completely unworkable given the quirks of American history and law.

I'm not even pro-gun, but you can discount history and law and just be realistic about it. It's not possible because we're right next to freaking Mexico, and anyone who wanted a gun to perform illegal activities could get one about as easily as someone could get an ounce of weed nowadays.

On my part, I would suggest the creation of public or private armouries, where gun owners are legally obliged to store their firearms. That way, you could still be a gun owner, but your access to them could be better controlled to ensure that you'd use them only for legitimate reasons, like sport shooting, or what have you.

One of the biggest arguments against gun control is that people fear the government will take their guns. Being forced to keep them in another facility that could easily be raided by said government would only foster such a fear and create huge backlash.

Another of the biggest arguments is they have their guns for safety. Ie: to ward off burglars. Can't exactly do that if your gun is locked up 10 miles away. Hell, can barely do that if your gun is locked up 10 yards away.

Exceptions can be made, perhaps, for rural communities, which do have a viable claim of requiring such personal protection, given their physically isolated environments.

Not like cities have the best response time either.

Originally Posted by Fireminer

Could this really be a Domino Effect - too many mass murder and a lot of people start to have the idea of it?

More like the media won't shut the fuck up about mass murderers, so people are willing to become infamous because they'll be talked about for months on end. The media glorifies these people way too much.

Because really, if you had it in you to be a mass murderer, it wouldn't take seeing other people do it every now and then to do it yourself. You'd either snap and do it, or not do it.

[Fireminer]

Also, a bit of thought: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember to have read about some arguements that every Americam citizen has the right to hold arm and stand up when their government become corrupted and commit atrocity.

Wonder how would Che Guevara and his "guerrilla war" concept like in this context?

[risingstar3110]

I think we already have a thread for gun control, so head there if you guys feel this topic could be dragged on.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

A complete ban on guns is, needless to say, completely unworkable given the quirks of American history and law.

Plenty of innovative ideas had already been suggested in this forum in the relevant thread. One of them is the setting up of insurance policies for gun ownership, thereby introducing a powerful commercial motive for ensuring responsible gun use.

On my part, I would suggest the creation of public or private armouries, where gun owners are legally obliged to store their firearms. That way, you could still be a gun owner, but your access to them could be better controlled to ensure that you'd use them only for legitimate reasons, like sport shooting, or what have you.

Exceptions can be made, perhaps, for rural communities, which do have a viable claim of requiring such personal protection, given their physically isolated environments.

Failing that, I would wonder whether it's possible to simply restrict the sale of ammunition. You can buy all the guns you want, but your purchases of ammunition ought to be limited and tracked by the authorities. This could make it easier to spot suspicious spikes in ammunition purchases, prompting the authorities to investigate.

It has also been pointed out several times before by forum members that the Second Amendment permits the ownership of firearms in the context of enabling Americans to set up militias if need be.

That being the case, I would strongly suggest making that a reality: Make it a legal requirement for any gun owner to also undertake relevant militia training. You'll not only gain suitable training on responsible gun use, but also come under greater peer review, raising the chances of spotting a potential criminal.

These ideas seem pretty good to me. Although I do see GDB's point on the public/private armory position.

Thanks for the well-considered reply.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by GDB

One of the biggest arguments against gun control is that people fear the government will take their guns. Being forced to keep them in another facility that could easily be raided by said government would only foster such a fear and create huge backlash.

Another of the biggest arguments is they have their guns for safety. Ie: to ward off burglars. Can't exactly do that if your gun is locked up 10 miles away. Hell, can barely do that if your gun is locked up 10 yards away.

And as long as Americans continue to believe these arguments, they'll never achieve effective gun control.

I wouldn't go so far as to claim that they are not legitimate reasons. I'd only say that this is a societal choice.

If Americans can't trust the authorities to do their jobs properly — and if they aren't willing to invest the necessary resources to make sure that the authorities can do their jobs properly — then there will always be a strong motivation for taking personal security into their own hands.

Pro-gun Americans are fond of saying that all it takes to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

But this latest tragedy shows that even "nice guys" can have a bad day.

If Americans are willing to live with that risk, well, who am I as a foreigner to tell them otherwise?

Anyway, I don't wish to derail the thread. As mentioned, a more relevant thread already exists here.

[Reckoner]

This UCSB, Isla Vista rampage is a little close for comfort for me because I lived exactly a block away from the incident until this year. A friday a 7:35 pm, I easily could have been right in the thick of that given its time and place.

All this tells me is no one is safe, anywhere in the US from these kinds of rampages.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

It seems to me, as an outsider, that it'll be easier just to tackle the gun-supply issue. But what do I know about American politics?

When someone goes insane in any country, it's hard to stop their rampages. I don't think we have the economic resources to monitor all those tagged as "mentally ill," nor do we have proper metrics to determine whether people are actually threats.

The sad fact is that this man bought his guns legally and that is what is mind boggling. A change in gun culture, and control of its supply is what we should focus on, but at this point I don't know how much can be done with so many guns already in circulation and the sheer influence of guns in our culture.

Doesn't the US also have an abnormally high rate of mental illness as well? There are various problems and I don't think there are any good solutions.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by GDB

More like the media won't shut the fuck up about mass murderers, so people are willing to become infamous because they'll be talked about for months on end. The media glorifies these people way too much.

Because really, if you had it in you to be a mass murderer, it wouldn't take seeing other people do it every now and then to do it yourself. You'd either snap and do it, or not do it.

You are a dirty communist who is depriving the free world of their for-profit media by saying so.

The news-writers need to know what it means by "flogging a dead horse". For all that talk in the society about "being different", they are being all the same reporting on the same piece of news.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Doesn't the US also have an abnormally high rate of mental illness as well?

You could lessen that with less Facebook and more libraries. And better certification of psychiatrists instead of licensing psychologists to do their job.

The problem with why people go nuts is because of peer pressure. People snap for a reason, and branding them with a mental illness until employers shun them is making matters worse. Businesses don't like liabilities, and HR staff are not qualified psychiatrists to make judgement about (potential) employees.

I have known school counsellors who had me sit-in with psychiatrists who tell me to go for a proper medical certification for ADHD and dyslexic so I can get access to proper counselling and exam conditions, but I didn't because I know that social stigma applies to my future job applications. This could be easily solved by gun legislation allowing me to debrain anyone with a social stigma, however that brings up a moral issue of killing anyone who vilifies the mentally different.

Getting rid of the less mentally capable does not solve the issue of social stigma caused by herd mentality and/or peer pressure. The difficult route is education, however people resist that because they feel they are wholly right. That is human ego.

So I am afraid that I agree with the simpler solution with arming everyone and let society settle itself; nobody wanted to fix the problem with bullies anyway.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

And as long as Americans continue to believe these arguments, they'll never achieve effective gun control.

I wouldn't go so far as to claim that they are not legitimate reasons. I'd only say that this is a societal choice.

If Americans can't trust the authorities to do their jobs properly — and if they aren't willing to invest the necessary resources to make sure that the authorities can do their jobs properly — then there will always be a strong motivation for taking personal security into their own hands.

Or by blindly believing that authorities can deal with their personal security when they can't even stop a riot. Or take bribes. Flout the law they enforce. Misuse the money they are entrusted with.

Seriously, who are you kidding? A police force is as good as the people who run them. Compare the BOPE to the rest of the Brazilian police force. The people from FBI to the cops in LAPD. The Special Branch to the street cops of Malaysia.

The issue is the choice of leadership. Unless the leadership chosen can convince the people that they can protect them without the civilians having to protect themselves, that's that. Nobody wants to be robbed blind; both of their possessions and their personal freedom.

Pro-gun Americans are fond of saying that all it takes to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

But this latest tragedy shows that even "nice guys" can have a bad day.

If Americans are willing to live with that risk, well, who am I as a foreigner to tell them otherwise?

A foreigner who probably hasn't been threatened (or be set upon) with violence, bluntly speaking. The police is only good at stopping a premediated crime they know of that is not committed by a monied or well-connected individual; ordinary civilians, regardless of where they stay, have to know how to defend themselves against violent and non-violent transgressions.

The law is as good as it is in paper. It doesn't always work.

Also, I would like the mod to move these posts to the gun control thread before it gets derailed any further.

[Ithekro]

Wasn't the Gun Thread sealed? (It isn't, just hasn't been used since January. Gun Thread)

The main argument I would hold for as someone who has fired guns many, many times, and yet in 25 years has yet to actually shoot a living thing, would be gun training. Teaching people how to handle guns, how to maintain guns, and expecially, how to respect guns. This would potentally drill into people how not to use them, since training specifically makes a point to not point them at anything else except the paper targets that are away from people. Training also intends to instill a respect for the damage of the gun while also keeping in mind that using it on a person is not ideal.

I think Vexx said they use to do that when he was little, but have since stopped. The Boy Scouts of America still have gun safety training if they have access to a local gun range and are working on the associated merit badge for Rifle Shooting or Shotgun Shooting. And if their scoutmaster and parents association agree to go to said shooting range.

The idea being to control the gun user rather than the guns themselves, as the guns can't do anything without a user. It isn't perfect, as driver training shows up on the freeways, but it would hopefully instill some basic concepts into everyone so at least no one is reacting out of fear of the gun, or acting out of a superiority complex based on the power of the gun. The gun is the gun. Everything else is in the person's head.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Elliot Rodger is said to have been diagnosed with "high-functioning Asperger's Syndrome". The first question is: How did someone with such a disorder get his hands on a gun?

The second question is: Why wasn't he monitored more closely?

I don't want to nitpick, but since I know people who have Asperger's Syndrome, I'd like to point out that you're assuming that it's the kind of diagnosis that should be setting off red flags. It's not. Not without something additional present.

[Fireminer]

This year Osamu Tezuka award

You know what? I recognize NONE of these (even though I spend hours per week to browse through translated series)! Is the gap between mainstream and awarded manga that big?

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

I don't want to nitpick, but since I know people who have Asperger's Syndrome, I'd like to point out that you're assuming that it's the kind of diagnosis that should be setting off red flags. It's not. Not without something additional present.

It was a rhetorical question. I'm pointing out that no amount of singling out mentally ill people would have helped prevent the latest incident. Which means that gun advocates who argue otherwise are shooting themselves in the foot by suggesting otherwise.

All of us have our bad days. Days when we are so blinded by rage, or fear, or some other inexplicably violent emotion, that we lose complete control of ourselves.

Be honest. We all have such moments.

In that light, to suggest that it only takes a good guy with a gun to stop with a bad guy with a gun is completely spurious.

Because you'll never know when that "good" guy would suddenly turn "bad".

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Wasn't the Gun Thread sealed? (It isn't, just hasn't been used since January. Gun Thread).

You're thinking about the Gun Control thread, which remains sealed, because these debates never goes anywhere.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

It was a rhetorical question. I'm pointing out that no amount of singling out mentally ill people would have helped prevent the latest incident. Which means that gun advocates who argue otherwise are shooting themselves in the foot by suggesting otherwise.

Singling out? It was bad enough that the guy's own parents reported him to the police, THAT should've triggered a red flag.

Also, it's not a matter of "singling out" mentally ill people, the simple fact is that the mental health care system in the US is flat out terrible. There's too much stigma because there's a lack of understanding, and there's inadequate support and care when help is sought out. Looking the other way and pretend there's no problem while shouting "lolguns" is hardly the way to address the problem.

All of us have our bad days. Days when we are so blinded by rage, or fear, or some other inexplicably violent emotion, that we lose complete control of ourselves.

Be honest. We all have such moments.

Speak for yourself.

In that light, to suggest that it only takes a good guy with a gun to stop with a bad guy with a gun is completely spurious.

People like this guy are usually stopped after being confronted by police, and what is the police?

Oh right, good guy with a gun.

Because you'll never know when that "good" guy would suddenly turn "bad".

Well damn, guess we better take guns away from the police too, after all we never know when they'll turn bad too.


Bottom line is, when you have a proliferation of weapons, crimes being committed by those weapons is ultimately unavoidable. The mistake many make is assuming that if said weapon is banned, those crimes will magically disappear, as if the weapons were the root cause of those crimes. Human history have shown time and again that people will do terrible things to each other by any means necessary if they choose to do so - case in point, half of the dead in this case was killed with a knife. If all the military forces in the world were to be disbanded tomorrow, do you believe there will no longer be wars?

Also, what many also does not like to admit, or even realize, is that when you decide to ban lawful firearms, especially in a world that's full of them, you're inevitably condemning some people to be raped/killed as well, by taking away their only realistic means of defense.

[Fireminer]

Really old news: India's first gun for woman

[RRW]

Tokyo (AFP) - Murder detectives were Monday investigating the case of a young nurse whose corpse was sent by parcel post across Japan in a box that claimed to contain a doll.

The body of Rika Okada was found in a storage lock-up in Tokyo. Investigators also found the 2-metre (6ft 6in) box in which it had been transported from the southern city of Osaka, reports said.

http://news.yahoo.com/japan-womans-b...072124155.html

[JokerD]

Originally Posted by RRW

http://news.yahoo.com/japan-womans-b...072124155.html

Now this is screwed up. I wonder how they discovered the body, through the smell?

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Fireminer

This year Osamu Tezuka award

You know what? I recognize NONE of these (even though I spend hours per week to browse through translated series)! Is the gap between mainstream and awarded manga that big?

Maybe because not many who won the prize made the name for themselves?

Originally Posted by RRW

http://news.yahoo.com/japan-womans-b...072124155.html

This is kinda fucked up.

It's strange through, as it normally will draw attention to pack and send a huge box weighted at least 50kg, but the criminal still somehow got away with it for 2 months. Also no defensive stab wound on victim arm and hands, and with the victim passport been used by likely the criminal herself (as she travelled out the country with the room partners) too. Almost felt like a calculated and well-planned murder

[Fireminer]

Dude, there are Umino and Fujiko on the list! How couldn't I know the work of author of Honey and Clover, or co-author of Doraemon?

Beside, that list of manga looks much more prominent than the Shonen I read everyday.

Then, the biggest question would be: What make a name? Is it by creating a really trendy series, or by become a trailblazer?

Six days exhibition of "The wind rises" to be held in Tokyo

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Fireminer

Dude, there are Umino and Fujiko on the list! How couldn't I know the work of author of Honey and Clover, or co-author of Doraemon?

Beside, that list of manga looks much more prominent than the Shonen I read everyday.

Then, the biggest question would be: What make a name? Is it by creating a really trendy series, or by become a trailblazer?

Six days exhibition of "The wind rises" to be held in Tokyo

Obviously to be backed up by a magazine due to audience positive feedback

If there was only two out of twenty years or so, then obviously it still far from success. If you tell me One Piece, Kingdom author also once won the prize there, then that is a different story.

Read Bakuman. Not that interesting manga, but it showed some challenges mangaka faces. For example a good manga might not be highly rated if it does not try to catch on mainstream genre or publish in a wrong magazine. Or chose wrong target audience