News Stories

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Guns are tools of war. No normal citizen should be allowed to carry a gun in times of peace. Police forces are there to protect the citizens, not clean up the mess and leave the corpses in a morgue.

I'm not so thrilled by the prospect that the large faceless entity that claims jurisdiction over my life (without my consent) should be the only ones allowed to hold on to firearms.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I'm not so thrilled by the prospect that the large faceless entity that claims jurisdiction over my life (without my consent) should be the only ones allowed to hold on to firearms.

Without your consent? You live in the country, you consent. Social contract.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I'm not so thrilled by the prospect that the large faceless entity that claims jurisdiction over my life (without my consent) should be the only ones allowed to hold on to firearms.

You can't say it's without your consent. Besides, you get to decide how you live your life, not the justice system. You are the only person who can decide what you want out of life, where you want to live, what job you want to have, who you want to love. There's no unseen entity that determines your fate unless you committed a crime, which I'm sure you haven't. It's not as if you're living in a society that's exactly like George Orwell's 1984 (although at least in the US and other developed countries, it is getting pretty close to that stage).

EDIT: An additional note to point out is that in Japan, because there are virtually no guns as I explained, police forces themselves hardly use guns and are instead trained in hand to hand combat, mainly Judo.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

It's not as if you're living in a society that's exactly like George Orwell's 1984 (although at least in the US and other developed countries, it is getting pretty close to that stage).

You just got it right there, though. What happens if this trend continues? Why should I give them even more power over me than they already possess?

I'm sure you're right that gun control can help curb violence in some cases. But really, the US government hasn't given me much reason to believe they're as trustworthy as they claim. Nor do I trust any government really. You can call me paranoid, but I'll point you to a world history textbook if you do

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

You just got it right there, though. What happens if this trend continues? Why should I give them even more power over me than they already possess?

I'm sure you're right that gun control can help curb violence in some cases. But really, the US government hasn't given me much reason to believe they're as trustworthy as they claim. Nor do I trust any government really. You can call me paranoid, but I'll point you to a world history textbook if you do

I don't blame you for being skeptical considering I have little trust in plenty a government myself, Italy being a good example of one, but I don't want to blame civil violence on the fact that for all intents and purposes, the political system in various countries is hypocritical at best. Complete destruction of personal privacy for citizens can be a cause for violence, but while civilization as we know it today is close to it, it's still a very long way from 1984 becoming a reality, so violence and gun control are a separate matter completely from this.

Justice systems change from one coutry to another, and as far as I'm aware, it's not wholly reliable in the US, and please don't get me started on Italy. That still doesn't mean normal citizens should be allowed to carry weapons. As I said, they are tools for killing, tools for war. That is a far cry from self-defence. By all means, people should be allowed to protect themselves, but there are other ways to achieve that apart from guns. In times of peace, it isn't right or fair that a certain someone be given the power to take another's life. The biggest reason people feel compelled to carry guns in the US is because of how easy it is to procure them there. More often than not, these weapons fall into the hands of people who don't buy guns for the sake of self-defense. If guns were harder to procure, and the police did what is morally correct and do what they can to prevent crime and protect the citizens rather than just act as federal cleaners, I'm quite certain many people would have far less reason to be distrustful.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Justice systems change from one coutry to another, and as far as I'm aware, it's not wholly reliable in the US, and please don't get me started on Italy. That still doesn't mean normal citizens should be allowed to carry weapons. As I said, they are tools for killing, tools for war. That is a far cry from self-defence. By all means, people should be allowed to protect themselves, but there are other ways to achieve that apart from guns. In times of peace, it isn't right or fair that a certain someone be given the power to take another's life. The biggest reason people feel compelled to carry guns in the US is because of how easy it is to procure them there. More often than not, these weapons fall into the hands of people who don't buy guns for the sake of self-defense. If guns were harder to procure, and the police did what is morally correct and do what they can to prevent crime and protect the citizens rather than just act as federal cleaners, I'm quite certain many people would have far less reason to be distrustful.

If firearms were the only way to kill a person, this would make more sense. But they are not. Violence persists even in areas where gun crime is practically unheard of. Ideally, no one should have the power to take another person's life... but even without guns that ability still exists. Firearms simply equalize that ability amongst persons of different ability (whether that ability be innate or situational), and there is currently no self-defense solution comparable to the utilization of a firearm. If you view it through an emotional lens, you distort the facts: People find firearms scary or dislike them because they associate them with violence, but they are ultimately just a device for making a small piece of matter move at a high rate of speed across a distance. That happens to be handy if some one wants to inflict violence for evil. It's much handier for some one that needs to threaten or inflict violence to prevent violence that would be otherwise inflicted upon them.

There is also the argument, of course, that disarming citizens removes their final recourse against armed tyranny. I personally find that argument very compelling. Even if it were possible to never worry about that, the police can never prevent crime perfectly. I don't personally know any officer who wants anything but to prevent crime in total, but the grim reality is that they are, primarily, a reactive force--enforcement, not prevention. We can and should try to shift that as much as possible, but thus far society has yet to find a solution.

Saying that guns "More often than not, these weapons fall into the hands of people who don't buy guns for the sake of self-defense" is simply incorrect. Studying the numbers on gun ownership, illegal gun ownership, and the sources of illegally procured guns sheds light on that.

[Reckoner]

Even still, there is no reason why someone would need to purchase an M16 to defend themselves. That's just getting over the top.

[LynnieS]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I would like to requote what the article said, but I don't think that counts as bullying, but rather slight scaring as the boys part of having fun.

Real bullying is intimidating the child everyday, until it totally saps away the kid's confidence. It only happened on a couple of occasions and by coincidence, the same boys.

Unless there is concrete proof that she is solely targeted for that reason, I think the Imperial family should just have her homeschooled and cultivate her androphobia.

I think that definition is a textbook one, and not exactly precise. It's also very close to what can be considered to be "psychological abuse" - except society tends to call what an adult does to a child that, and slams the adult with some rather severe penalties. Among kids, though, the reactions are usually more... laidback.

I'd also question how different cultures perceive this definition, but going into that will take awhile and be very incomplete.

The princess is only 8 yrs old also, and is likely to have been very protected throughout her life so far. It wouldn't have taken much to cause her to cry, for one, IMHO, esp. with the attitudes of some of the JP boys whom I had seen recently. They could give many punk kids in the U.S. a run for their money in a head-to-head "assh*le" competition - except without the learned fear already in the U.S. kids from wondering if their target would go postal in return.

It looks like the royal household is backtracking on the news as well.

Japanese princess not bullied: official

TOKYO -- Japan's imperial palace said Friday a grandchild of the emperor had skipped school after suffering from anxiety over “the wild behavior of a few boys,” but denied she had been bullied.

A palace official said Princess Aiko, granddaughter of Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko and daughter of Crown Prince Naruhito and Princess Masako, did not attend school this week because of “a strong stomach-ache and anxiety.”

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by LynnieS

Japanese princess not bullied: official

I win! Lol. Guess I was right about the situation after all.

[Kyuusai]

Iraq holds landmark vote, attacks kill 38
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100307/..._iraq_election

The results have not been announced, but I am watching this. It's severely disappointing that the choices seem to be between specifically religious or secular parties. The party system at work in yet another country. *sigh*

I want to see some substantiation regarding the claim of Kurdish people being missing from voting rolls, as well. That is a highly important claim, and either possibility is believable.

Despite the deaths here and before, violence in Iraq is better than it was under Saddam. Converting to a government run by the people will take time to do right, but I'm glad they have the chance now.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Even still, there is no reason why someone would need to purchase an M16 to defend themselves. That's just getting over the top.

If owning a rifle is justifiable, there is no reason to prohibit an M16--rather, an AR-15 as the semi-automatic version is called in the civilian world. It is functionally the same as any other magazine fed, semi-automatic rifle you'd find in the safe of a hunter.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

Iraq holds landmark vote, attacks kill 38
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100307/..._iraq_election

The results have not been announced, but I am watching this. It's severely disappointing that the choices seem to be between specifically religious or secular parties. The party system at work in yet another country. *sigh*

I want to see some substantiation regarding the claim of Kurdish people being missing from voting rolls, as well. That is a highly important claim, and either possibility is believable.

Despite the deaths here and before, violence in Iraq is better than it was under Saddam. Converting to a government run by the people will take time to do right, but I'm glad they have the chance now.

I have to agree with that violence in Iraq is better than in the past. The transition from violence to stability won't be an easy one, but there is an opportunity for change.

In the 21st century, US would have probably done something with all that billions spent and the lives of the soldiers lost : bridging a peace and alliance in the Mideast, starting with Iraq-Kuwait relations.

If owning a rifle is justifiable, there is no reason to prohibit an M16--rather, an AR-15 as the semi-automatic version is called in the civilian world. It is functionally the same as any other magazine fed, semi-automatic rifle you'd find in the safe of a hunter.

It all depends on who is behind the gun. Most people will responsibly own their gun, but it is the few criminals who use it for malicious purposes and the media that puts gun rights in the negative light that makes a mountain out of the molehill.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

If firearms were the only way to kill a person, this would make more sense. But they are not. Violence persists even in areas where gun crime is practically unheard of. Ideally, no one should have the power to take another person's life... but even without guns that ability still exists. Firearms simply equalize that ability amongst persons of different ability (whether that ability be innate or situational), and there is currently no self-defense solution comparable to the utilization of a firearm. If you view it through an emotional lens, you distort the facts: People find firearms scary or dislike them because they associate them with violence, but they are ultimately just a device for making a small piece of matter move at a high rate of speed across a distance. That happens to be handy if some one wants to inflict violence for evil. It's much handier for some one that needs to threaten or inflict violence to prevent violence that would be otherwise inflicted upon them.

It's exactly that equalizing aspect that makes guns that much more dangerous. Guns are much easier to use and much less personal than a knife or a bat. But to say there's no way to defend yourself from a gun is incorrect. People can train to disarm an offender carrying a gun (or any weapon for that matter). The problem comes if you're being attacked from a distance. To say they are a device for making a small piece of matter move at high velocity is correct. And that small piece of matter can kill you. That is why people associate them with violence, and rightly so imo. They are used in warefare and have a history of bloodshed. No matter how you want to describe it, guns are more than capable of killing. Granted, guns are not the only way to kill someone, but it makes killing that much easier.

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

There is also the argument, of course, that disarming citizens removes their final recourse against armed tyranny. I personally find that argument very compelling. Even if it were possible to never worry about that, the police can never prevent crime perfectly. I don't personally know any officer who wants anything but to prevent crime in total, but the grim reality is that they are, primarily, a reactive force--enforcement, not prevention. We can and should try to shift that as much as possible, but thus far society has yet to find a solution.

I have said this here before. I agree that it is virtually impossible to stop crime completely, and as someone else here pointed out as well, the number of criminals is much larger than the number of police officers. However, that is no excuse for police forces to just not to anything to prevent crime. If an officer knows someone is committing a crime, it's his duty to stop it, not sit and wait for everything to blow over and clean up the mess. That's why I don't agree with the constitution on this matter. Crimes are also committed by citizens in the vast majority of cases. Disarming citizens would remove a person's recourse against armed tyranny, but where is this armed tyranny when criminals don't have guns either? They have knives, of course, but as I already mentioned, there are ways for people to defend themselves against them too, even when unarmed.

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

Saying that guns "More often than not, these weapons fall into the hands of people who don't buy guns for the sake of self-defense" is simply incorrect. Studying the numbers on gun ownership, illegal gun ownership, and the sources of illegally procured guns sheds light on that.

Numbers are numbers. What interests me is why these people carry guns. Not that I don't trust you, but are there any studies to show that there are more people who procure guns for self defence compared to criminal intent?

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

It's exactly that equalizing aspect that makes guns that much more dangerous. Guns are much easier to use and much less personal than a knife or a bat. But to say there's no way to defend yourself from a gun is incorrect. People can train to disarm an offender carrying a gun (or any weapon for that matter).

The problem comes if you're being attacked from a distance. To say they are a device for making a small piece of matter move at high velocity is correct. And that small piece of matter can kill you. That is why people associate them with violence, and rightly so imo. They are used in warefare and have a history of bloodshed. No matter how you want to describe it, guns are more than capable of killing. Granted, guns are not the only way to kill someone, but it makes killing that much easier.

If you argue simply because of what firearms are capable of, why would you not apply the same logic to any other objects capable of being used to effectively inflict violence?

But regarding the statement of it being more dangerous... More dangerous to whom? The ability of a firearm to equalize force (including, as you mentioned, by being less personal) is exactly what makes it useful as a defensive weapon. In a world with people wielding disparate force, the strong rule over the weak. That is how the world worked for the history of mankind, gradually changing as arms advanced to the point where the weak could wield force on a similar level. Regardless of training, those who are weaker or have less will to do harm than an attacker are at a severe disadvantage... unless they are armed. To say that the availability of arms is a greater threat to the innocent is to suggest that those with the will to do harm would not do so without the availability of arms. History is fair proof that there will still be people harming others, arms or not. To paraphrase Archie Bunker, would you prefer they be pushed outta windows?

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

I have said this here before. I agree that it is virtually impossible to stop crime completely, and as someone else here pointed out as well, the number of criminals is much larger than the number of police officers. However, that is no excuse for police forces to just not to anything to prevent crime. If an officer knows someone is committing a crime, it's his duty to stop it, not sit and wait for everything to blow over and clean up the mess. That's why I don't agree with the constitution on this matter. Crimes are also committed by citizens in the vast majority of cases. Disarming citizens would remove a person's recourse against armed tyranny, but where is this armed tyranny when criminals don't have guns either? They have knives, of course, but as I already mentioned, there are ways for people to defend themselves against them too, even when unarmed.

The police aren't just sitting around not just trying to prevent crime. I'm sure there are some out there that couldn't care any less, but great effort goes into preventing crime. There's only so much they can do. As long as being omnipresent and omniscient isn't within their abilities (and as long as persons value their individual liberty), individuals will have to take responsibility for their own safety.

Tyranny can come from the state, and has quite often throughout history. Criminals have been inflicting violence since before arms existed, and taking their guns away won't stop that.

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Numbers are numbers. What interests me is why these people carry guns. Not that I don't trust you, but are there any studies to show that there are more people who procure guns for self defence compared to criminal intent?

Let me quote a Wikipedia article (I've left the reference notations. Links are available on the article page):

In 1995, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms estimated that the number of firearms available in the US was 223 million.[10] About 25% of the adults in the United States personally own a gun, the vast majority of them men.[11] About half of the adult U.S. population lived in households with guns.[12] Less than half of gun owners say that the primary reason they own a gun is for self-protection against crime, reflecting a popularity of hunting and sport-shooting among gun owners. As hunting and sport-shooting tends to favor rural areas, naturally the bulk of gun owners generally live in rural areas and small towns.[11] This attribute associates with low involvement in criminal violence, and therefore most guns are in the hands of people who are unlikely to misuse them and who tend to not have criminal records.[11]

Assuming ratios remained about the same as the population grew since that study, that makes nearly ~38 million people who own firearms specifically for the purposes of defense. Others own them for sporting purposes, but I doubt they are opposed to using them if need be. I don't know of any reliable studies that could provide numbers on illegal firearm ownership, but I doubt that the criminal ownership of firearms in the US comes near 1/8th of the US population. There is data on the number of firearm related deaths per year, but that is hard to extrapolate (and hard to prove that they would not have happened with another implement had a firearm been unavailable). And just as there are no solid statistics on criminal ownership, there are no solid statistics on deterred crime, since most such incidences go unreported.

Why do people own firearms? My grandfather keeps a firearm under the bed he spends the vast majority of his time in because age and illness has robbed from him his ability to defend himself otherwise. I am better able to defend myself with my hands and feet than the vast majority of the population, but carry a pistol on my belt because it is simply a better way to defend myself and others, should the need arise. Why take unnecessary chances when I have the tools available? My pistol has never shot anyone (unless a Hungarian police officer that might have carried it used it in the line of duty decades ago), and it never will unless I or some one else near me is in grave danger.

[TooPurePureBoy]

When are people going to realize the simple truth that in America, strict gun laws, will NOT stop criminals from getting guns. It's a total cliche' to say this and it will make me sound like some nut from the NRA but seriously it's true: Strict gun laws won't take guns out of criminals hands but they WILL take away the citizens ability to protect themselves from criminals.

Cops can't be there instantly, most of the time they show up in time to clean up the bodies and that's it. An individual would have to be a complete and total fool to put the safety of there selves and family into the hands of someone who tells them specifically "I WON"T BE THERE IN TIME".

Try and take my ability to protect myself away ....and you leave me no recourse but to protect myself. That's how most gun owners will feel if you try to take their guns away. So good luck with that.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

If you argue simply because of what firearms are capable of, why would you not apply the same logic to any other objects capable of being used to effectively inflict violence?

Yes, but the fact of the matter remains that guns are much more lethal even in the hands of a novice. The only thing you need with a gun is a good aim, a steady hand and a reasonable level of fitness.

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

But regarding the statement of it being more dangerous... More dangerous to whom?

Anyone who is a target for criminals. It could be you, it could be me. I am generally speaking when I say that guns are dangerous tools which were designed to kill from the very beginning.

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

The ability of a firearm to equalize force (including, as you mentioned, by being less personal) is exactly what makes it useful as a defensive weapon. In a world with people wielding disparate force, the strong rule over the weak. That is how the world worked for the history of mankind, gradually changing as arms advanced to the point where the weak could wield force on a similar level. Regardless of training, those who are weaker or have less will to do harm than an attacker are at a severe disadvantage... unless they are armed. To say that the availability of arms is a greater threat to the innocent is to suggest that those with the will to do harm would not do so without the availability of arms. History is fair proof that there will still be people harming others, arms or not. To paraphrase Archie Bunker, would you prefer they be pushed outta windows?

Let me emphasize the fact the the reason people use guns for "self-defense" is because people started using guns for all the wrong reasons in the first place. As much as you can deny it, the easy availability of guns in the US is a bigger threat to the innocent. If criminals didn't threaten innocent people with guns, they wouldn't feel the need to use guns in the first place. In Japan, it's rare even for policemen to use guns, and I don't know anyone in Italy who carries guns for self-defense either. The only other reason innocents would own a gun is for sport, and they wouldn't carry those around in public places to defend themselves anyways. I'm not saying people wouldn't cause harm to others if they didn't have a gun. What I'm saying is that normal citizens shouldn't have to carry such weapons of warefare in times of peace. They are not meant to be in anyone's hands. Their purpose was for the military, for war. We do not live in a society where the warrior class is glorified like they were in the middle ages anymore. Times have changed now.

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

The police aren't just sitting around not just trying to prevent crime. I'm sure there are some out there that couldn't care any less, but great effort goes into preventing crime. There's only so much they can do. As long as being omnipresent and omniscient isn't within their abilities (and as long as persons value their individual liberty), individuals will have to take responsibility for their own safety.

I don't deny that normal people need to defend themselves as well. As a matter of fact, I believe it would be wrong for people to be completely reliant on police forces to protect them and not do anything for themselves. The fact that crime prevention isn't part of US police's job description is what doesn't sit well with me.

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

Tyranny can come from the state, and has quite often throughout history. Criminals have been inflicting violence since before arms existed, and taking their guns away won't stop that.

You've been making it sound like people need guns to protect themselves from the government. Just because politics are brimming with lies and corruption doesn't mean that the state will suddenly carry out re-enactments of Stalin's purges. That's no reason for people to carry guns.

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

Let me quote a Wikipedia article (I've left the reference notations. Links are available on the article page):


Assuming ratios remained about the same as the population grew since that study, that makes nearly ~38 million people who own firearms specifically for the purposes of defense. Others own them for sporting purposes, but I doubt they are opposed to using them if need be. I don't know of any reliable studies that could provide numbers on illegal firearm ownership, but I doubt that the criminal ownership of firearms in the US comes near 1/8th of the US population. There is data on the number of firearm related deaths per year, but that is hard to extrapolate (and hard to prove that they would not have happened with another implement had a firearm been unavailable). And just as there are no solid statistics on criminal ownership, there are no solid statistics on deterred crime, since most such incidences go unreported.

Why do people own firearms? My grandfather keeps a firearm under the bed he spends the vast majority of his time in because age and illness has robbed from him his ability to defend himself otherwise. I am better able to defend myself with my hands and feet than the vast majority of the population, but carry a pistol on my belt because it is simply a better way to defend myself and others, should the need arise. Why take unnecessary chances when I have the tools available? My pistol has never shot anyone (unless a Hungarian police officer that might have carried it used it in the line of duty decades ago), and it never will unless I or some one else near me is in grave danger.

I would've believed you if:

1. You didn't quote wikipedia
2. You had studies on illegal ownership in addition to legal ownership. No smart or sane criminal (unless we're talking about Yagami Light kind of smart ) is going to buy a gun legally. It would make them easy to be tracked down by the police if they committed a crime with said guns.

I'm not saying people are not justified to carry guns. When so many normal citizens carry them for the wrong reasons, it is no surprise there are those people, like your grandfather, who can only feel safe if they also have adequate weapons. But as I said, the fact that there are so many people who use guns to cause harm is the reason people carry guns to defend themselves in the first place. If gun control was much more strict, people wouldn't feel compelled to carry weapons of war to feel safe.

[TooPurePureBoy]

America isn't Japan (as much as I sometimes wish it was) it is a huge area of mostly (still) untamed wilderness. How do you suppose you are going to mirror a situation like the one you describe in Japan in the U.S.A.? Even if you made guns 100% illegal in our borders it would take a massive effort to just get the legal guns from legal citizens. The black market gun traders would have way to easy a time hiding weapons all over the country. Not to mention that many people in an effort to be anti-government (which we all know is a long standing tradition in america, like it or not) would simply construct their own arms simply for symbolic purposes if for no other reason.

It's really a much more complex issue than simply saying guns are violent and I think you should make stricter laws against them. Guns in America are a symbol as much as they are a tool. You need to realize that if you want to talk about the issue of America and Guns.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

America isn't Japan (as much as I sometimes wish it was) it is a huge area of mostly (still) untamed wilderness. How do you suppose you are going to mirror a situation like the one you describe in Japan in the U.S.A.? Even if you made guns 100% illegal in our borders it would take a massive effort to just get the legal guns from legal citizens. The black market gun traders would have way to easy a time hiding weapons all over the country. Not to mention that many people in an effort to be anti-government (which we all know is a long standing tradition in america, like it or not) would simply construct their own arms simply for symbolic purposes if for no other reason.

It's really a much more complex issue than simply saying guns are violent and I think you should make stricter laws against them. Guns in America are a symbol as much as they are a tool. You need to realize that if you want to talk about the issue of America and Guns.

Yes, that is true and I don't deny any of it, nor am I denying that there are people who need guns to feel safe. But just because it's easy to create a black market for arms sales isn't an excuse for gun control in the US to be so relaxed. Let there be a legal market for guns, but the government should act more decisively to limit the number of guns coming in and out of the country and guns being traded both legally and illegally within the country. If the supply of guns was scarse, such a thing would be quite easy because you can keep track of the gun's movement. Considering how advanced information technology is today, such a think shouldn't be impossible.

For example, like I said in Japan, citizens are subject to frequent gun inspections. If someone illegally sold their gun, tracking it down would be simple if the number of guns flowing into and within the country was limited. The fact is that in the US, such inspections are virtually inexistent.

And just because guns are an american symbol doesn't mean it's a right for people to have them.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Yes, that is true and I don't deny any of it, nor am I denying that there are people who need guns to feel safe. But just because it's easy to create a black market for arms sales isn't an excuse for gun control in the US to be so relaxed. Let there be a legal market for guns, but the government should act more decisively to limit the number of guns coming in and out of the country and guns being traded both legally and illegally within the country. If the supply of guns was scarse, such a thing would be quite easy because you can keep track of the gun's movement. Considering how advanced information technology is today, such a think shouldn't be impossible.

For example, like I said in Japan, citizens are subject to frequent gun inspections. If someone illegally sold their gun, tracking it down would be simple if the number of guns flowing into and within the country was limited. The fact is that in the US, such inspections are virtually inexistent.

And just because guns are an american symbol doesn't mean it's a right for people to have them.

There is always the ballistic knife.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

There is always the ballistic knife.

Ironic how these have been banned and not guns. I'm just sayin'

[TooPurePureBoy]

And just because guns are an american symbol doesn't mean it's a right for people to have them.

My point about it being a symbol is that it's a lot harder to get citizens to except the government telling them to stop using a certain tool than it is to tell them to stop owning something that is almost ingrained in america as a symbol for independence.