How many less gun deaths makes it ok? How many less gun deaths make America no longer a target and a gotcha example, like Japan?
The answer is anything more than just 1. Only 1 gun death in America per year won't change the outlook on how horrible America always is.
Which begs the question, if 1 gun death is too much, then no other nation with gun deaths should ever be used as a defense, yet that's the norm.
You also can't help but ask, what's the point in completely banning guns, if they can be 3d printed, or slapped together using a coconut and radio?
Of all the charts and stats I've seen, gun deaths were dropping for quite some time in America before they rose again more recently, yet guns were still being demonized instead a defense being used of less deaths were occurring, so it was acceptable. Odd how that's how it works for other nations though.
How many other countries have more deaths than America in anything besides gun deaths? Do those offset the death count? Do those countries constantly get bombarded with insults, hatred, and some constructive criticism, especially from the media, for not being better?
How long does something have to be gone, or is no longer normal, for people to get complacent to the point where individuals who are to be protected, typically by guns, at all costs, like certain world leaders, before guns can easily be used to kill again anyway? What's the point if people just become lax?
What level of less guns, that's actually achievable, could have saved Abe's life, or anyone else's for that matter? How many gun deaths is acceptable?
Because it makes more sense comparing the US to other first world countries instead of using third world countries to distract from the US' problems.
The US is dead last when it comes to intentional homicide among the first world nations but it comes to no surprise that it's also the worst (by a large margin) when looking at firearm related deaths, even when ignoring suicides.
Also I don't think you realize that the assassin didn't use a real gun but an improvised one that is far inferior to a real gun. The thing he used had not enough power to kill someone from a distance, so he had to get close to the target. It didn't use superior gun powder but black powder. Also he would have to manually reload that thing. In short: The improvised gun was far less capable than a real gun and can only be used to kill one or two targets from a very close range. Not a good weapon for school shootings....
"The large plumes of white smoke seen after each shot indicate that the propellant the gunman used was not the typical “smokeless powder” used in commercial firearms, but something more akin to black powder, which was possibly procured commercially or even self-made with some knowledge of chemistry, noted Amael Kotlarski, editor of “Jane’s Infantry Weapons.”
As for the ammunition, it is difficult to determine what type was used, given the limited information made available thus far. However, based on an assessment of the weapon’s physical characteristics and firing signature, N.R. Jenzen-Jones, the director of Armament Research Services — a consultancy specializing in arms and munitions analysis — suspects that “separate-loading ammunition” was employed.
With this ammunition type, the propellant and projectile are loaded into the weapon separately, either from the breech or the muzzle, with the latter process resembling that of a musket.
“Conventional firearm cartridges are tightly controlled in Japan. As a result, the assailant was likely forced to resort to a weapon that could fire an alternative ammunition type,” Jenzen-Jones said. “This supports the notion that separate-loading ammunition may have been selected, in part to circumvent these legal controls.”
In terms of the projectiles used in the shooting, they may have been single “slugs.” However, given the diameter of the barrels and the low probability the weapon had rifling, the inner spiral grooves needed for an accurate bullet trajectory, the gunman may have instead loaded several buckshot-like smaller projectiles into each barrel to increase hit probability — not unlike a shotgun, according to Moss.
This appears to be supported by Abe’s autopsy report, which indicates that at least two projectiles struck the former prime minister, even though the first shot seems to have missed the 67-year-old entirely.
“Considering Abe’s apparent lack of reaction to the first shot, as captured on video, it appears likely that the assailant had loaded multiple projectiles into each barrel of his weapon, creating a crude shotgun,” said Jenzen-Jones.
Given the weapon’s rudimentary design and firing characteristics, experts are not entirely surprised that the assailant missed the first shot, which was fired from a distance of at least 6 meters.
“It is highly likely that smoothbore (nonrifled) barrels were used. This lack of rifling, taken together with the short-barrel length and generally crude construction, indicate that the firearm most likely possesses a very limited range and is imprecise,” Jenzen-Jones said.
This would probably explain why the shooter decided to move closer to Abe to fire off the lethal second round."