The strict laws aren't strict enough. Ban all guns. It's the answer. The only answer, to the end of gun violence. Period.

RIP ABE

Shinzo Abe was a great man as far a politicians go, especially for one who ascended so high on the totem pole. I certainly hope the investigation into his death is thorough and transparent.

Yeah, a completely disarmed populace has traditionally been the best answer throughout history...The irony of course, if you are able to pour piss out of a boot as long as the instructions are on the heel, is that this policy has been tenable in Japan for an extended period, a testament to the superiority of their governance when compared to their more corrupt western allies. And just tossing this out there.....Japan already does "ban all guns". This guy built his gun at home from a transistor radio and a coconut.

I'm basically for a gun ban, too, but the guy built his own gun from scratch, he didn't buy a regular one.

Gun control worked in Japan.
They have eradicated almost all gun-related crime... So 1 individual shot dead doesn't really change anything.. Or discredit the lives saved over the decades or coming decades... If anything this will just renew the push to tighten restrictions further... And possibly introduce restrictions to technologies like 3D printers.

In 2021 Japan had just a mere 10 shootings... Compared to the USA's 321. - More guns, doesn't mean less gun-related crime.
USA should take note and individuals attempting to use 1-person statistics to justify owning a gun or troll... Check the statistics, they don't lie.

As for ABE, my condolences to him and his family, no one should go out like that, we should all have the right to live safe and happy lives to pursue things that we are passionate for.

Bingo.

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?

I'm going to assume this is also sarcasm, which would be quite ironic if so, based on the ban threat, even if sarcastic.

If it's not sarcastic, the fact the thought would occur period, to ban someone over sarcasm, is not a good sign to begin with. It would be somewhat understandable if a member was harshly being made fun of, or flat out being hated on, using sarcasm, then the thought of potentially warning someone due to that sarcastic manner wouldn't seem entirely out of the question.

My post was a general point about the unfortunate situation the former Japanese PM found themselves in and the weapon used. Not some gotcha moment towards another specific member. I don't see how anyone would think that to be the case.

I think that's pretty much confirmed.

The killer says that the "Unification Church" bankrupted his mother, and he shot Abe, because he was somehow involved with it.

https://japantoday.com/category/crime/urgent-unification-church-says-abe-shooter's-mother-is-follower

Japan should ban guns. Banning drugs and guns is the only way to stop people from using them

If there was no ban threat, or warning, can I assume this part of the post a joke as well?

"Translation: Because you butchered the sarcasm, maybe if we ban it, it'll spare us from having to witness any more of this.
(Such as through a system that prevents posts from being posted if it detects sarcasm in it.)"

"Sarcasm doesn't work if what you're saying doesn't make sense. And I'll go over whay that's the case in the US Politics thread since I see you're doubling down on it there."

I'm having trouble making sense of whether you're kinda warning or joking. It's not clear. Since you're a mod, being crystal clear about something like this would seem to be of upmost importance towards members, at least from my point of view.

Depends on what you mean by gotcha. Making a point and being correct could always be seen as a gotcha.

To me it's always been a snarky thing when dealing with someone say unreasonable or irritable. That obviously wasn't the case as you say, since I wasn't dealing with anyone and was just making a general point.

If someone else can clearly prove themselves right, or more correct than what I think, I don't accuse them of gotcha, I just admit they've got a point and then mold or change my view to include whatever they've enlightened me about.

*Edit - Added below.

My post most certainly implied the assassination of Abe was unfortunate. Unless anyone themselves thinks it was a good thing?