By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe dies after being shot

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



Around the Network
ConservagameR said:
Hiku said:

Maybe we should ban sarcasm instead, if you think Japan having 1 gun related death in the past year is some sort of gotcha moment.

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.

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.

Just wanted to point out that obvious joke was obvious. And there was no ban threat aimed at anyone.

ConservagameR said:

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 was referring to you think this was a gotcha towards gun control laws. Not a specific member.
And the post of yours I replied to said nothing about 'the unfortunate situation the former Japanese PM found themselves in'.
Except maybe just the term RIP.

Last edited by Hiku - on 14 July 2022

Hiku said:
ConservagameR said:

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.

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.

Just wanted to point out that obvious joke was obvious. And there was no ban threat aimed at anyone.

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.

Hiku said:
ConservagameR said:

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 was referring to you think this was a gotcha towards gun control laws. Not a specific member.
And the post of yours I replied to said nothing about 'the unfortunate situation the former Japanese PM found themselves in'.
Except maybe just the term RIP.

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?

Last edited by ConservagameR - on 15 July 2022

ConservagameR said:
Ryuu96 said:

Considering your posts elsewhere, I'm going to assume this is sarcasm, if it is then I'll just say that 1 person was killed by guns in Japan in 2021 compared to 45,034 in America. There was only 9 gun related deaths in 2018 for Japan compared to 39,740 in America. They have a firearm death rate of 0.01 per 100,000. Their strict gun laws are clearly working and one person being killed doesn't change that, even if he is a man of significance.

Tetsuya (the murderer) was a member of the Japanese Navy for three years so he no doubt would have received firearm training, he also served as a self defence official and then worked at a manufacturing plant. He also had to literally build his own 'gun' to commit this murder and according to police he used the strongest one he had, he fired two shots and at a relatively close distance, it appears as if the first missed and he got lucky with the 2nd.

I've watched the video of the incident and it looks like Shinzo and everyone around him including bodyguards were a bit confused about what just happened after the 1st shot but who can blame them, a gunshot is likely not the first thing to come to mind in a country where gun violence is so extremely rare.

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?

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."

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/07/10/national/crime-legal/diy-gun-abe-assassination/



Barozi said:
ConservagameR said:

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?

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."

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/07/10/national/crime-legal/diy-gun-abe-assassination/

The US has third world problems, so let's compare them to first world nations without those problems? Doesn't entirely make sense to me.

I mentioned making a gun from a coconut and radio, which I straight up borrowed from COKTOE's earlier witty reply which mirror's yours.

Not great for school shootings under 3 conditions:

1) If they only do so singlehandedly. They could just partner up like they have before, or start to team up instead.

2) If they only made a single gun. They could just avoid background checks and get their hands on more coconuts and radio's and bring a bag.

3) If they choose a school unlike Uvalde, where the cops actually stop you instead of just watching the shooting like it's a war reenactment.

They had to get close to Abe, and did so, quite easily. How much closer could they have gotten? What other weapons could've been viable?

Last edited by ConservagameR - on 15 July 2022

Around the Network
ConservagameR said:
Barozi said:

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."

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/07/10/national/crime-legal/diy-gun-abe-assassination/

The US has third world problems, so let's compare them to first world nations without those problems? Doesn't entirely make sense to me.

I mentioned making a gun from a coconut and radio, which I straight up borrowed from COKTOE's earlier witty reply which mirror's yours.

Not great for school shootings under 3 conditions:

1) If they only do so singlehandedly. They could just partner up like they have before, or start to team up instead.

2) If they only made a single gun. They could just avoid background checks and get their hands on more coconuts and radio's and bring a bag.

3) If they choose a school unlike Uvalde, where the cops actually stop you instead of just watching the shooting like it's a war reenactment.

They had to get close to Abe, and did so, quite easily. How much closer could they have gotten? What other weapons could've been viable?

You'll never improve when you only look at the ones below you. The US wants to be a first world country but then it has to fulfill all the basic requirements and not just GDP per capita. Life expectancy, wealth inequality, homicide, labor rights etc. are all important parts of being a first world country.

But you make it seem like as long as it's better than North Korea and Syria, everything is fine. I mean seriously, how can you not at least compare the US to Canada, which is not only a neighboring state but also culturally almost the same or at least similar. After all, the US has the money and means to change all these things but it just doesn't happen. And that's the reason why it shouldn't be compared to Brazil, Mexico, South Africa or whatever.

As for the coconut radio gun thing, you saved me the work to demonstrate how much harder it would be compared to a regular gun.

1) The need for one or more partners to do decent damage. Makes it more unlikely to happen. Also when trying to find a partner, more people will know of the plans and thus increase the likelihood of them warning the police.

2) More of these guns doesn't change the fact that their bullets have less impact than regular bullets, are more inaccurate than regular guns and you have to get close to fatally harm someone. I don't see how a bag would help since you can only fire two bullets and then have to either manually reload them or grab a new gun from the bag, which you would have to carry around at all times.

3) The cops certainly didn't do a good job in Uvalde but a worse gun also means less risk for the police when storming the place. They could easily kill the guy without risking any harm as long as they keep the distance.

Thanks for explaining why banning guns would lead to less school (or mall) shootings and even less dead people in case it still happens.



Barozi said:
ConservagameR said:

The US has third world problems, so let's compare them to first world nations without those problems? Doesn't entirely make sense to me.

I mentioned making a gun from a coconut and radio, which I straight up borrowed from COKTOE's earlier witty reply which mirror's yours.

Not great for school shootings under 3 conditions:

1) If they only do so singlehandedly. They could just partner up like they have before, or start to team up instead.

2) If they only made a single gun. They could just avoid background checks and get their hands on more coconuts and radio's and bring a bag.

3) If they choose a school unlike Uvalde, where the cops actually stop you instead of just watching the shooting like it's a war reenactment.

They had to get close to Abe, and did so, quite easily. How much closer could they have gotten? What other weapons could've been viable?

You'll never improve when you only look at the ones below you. The US wants to be a first world country but then it has to fulfill all the basic requirements and not just GDP per capita. Life expectancy, wealth inequality, homicide, labor rights etc. are all important parts of being a first world country.

But you make it seem like as long as it's better than North Korea and Syria, everything is fine. I mean seriously, how can you not at least compare the US to Canada, which is not only a neighboring state but also culturally almost the same or at least similar. After all, the US has the money and means to change all these things but it just doesn't happen. And that's the reason why it shouldn't be compared to Brazil, Mexico, South Africa or whatever.

As for the coconut radio gun thing, you saved me the work to demonstrate how much harder it would be compared to a regular gun.

1) The need for one or more partners to do decent damage. Makes it more unlikely to happen. Also when trying to find a partner, more people will know of the plans and thus increase the likelihood of them warning the police.

2) More of these guns doesn't change the fact that their bullets have less impact than regular bullets, are more inaccurate than regular guns and you have to get close to fatally harm someone. I don't see how a bag would help since you can only fire two bullets and then have to either manually reload them or grab a new gun from the bag, which you would have to carry around at all times.

3) The cops certainly didn't do a good job in Uvalde but a worse gun also means less risk for the police when storming the place. They could easily kill the guy without risking any harm as long as they keep the distance.

Thanks for explaining why banning guns would lead to less school (or mall) shootings and even less dead people in case it still happens.

Why isn't the US still in Afghanistan? Afghan's overall wanted to do their own thing? If it was Australia there instead of the US, would the Afgan's had better accepted them and would their country be vastly more like Australia now?

Not everyone wants to be like someone else, and some people go out of their way to be unique. Should they be forced to fully conform? Can people make their own lives in new places or different existing places?

Progress isn't one path in a straight line either. There's many paths which sway to and forth, rise and fall. That's what's great about democracy, it lets some take unforeseen poorer paths so that others can know to head a different direction. It also lets many take different paths that all end up in a similar worthy place, though at different times.

1) Hasn't stopped them before. More doesn't mean it won't happen or will automatically happen less. More shooters could also mean more deaths if it took place. Even with crappy guns and ammo, they would fully understand that every shot actually counted, so don't waste shots, which is not a good thing. Even when the police show up, now there's more than 1 to deal with and take out.

2)How many schools have armed personnel around to stop the shooting immediately? With a bag full of guns they could walk into a class room and fire, then grab another gun and continue. Now hopefully most would be able to run away, but how many would freeze? A bag makes all those guns reasonably mobile, so it's on to the next classroom if they run. At least until the police shows up.

3)Even if the police show up asap and don't procrastinate, how do they know exactly what the gun situation is? If you've got a bag full of guns, just because somebody saw the one being held, and told the police it's a coconut and radio slapped together, doesn't mean there isn't an AR-15 in the bag as well.

Upping the age restriction is an ok idea and probably will improve the number of these gun events declining, but I wouldn't be surprised if once guns are too hard to get their hands on, that these attackers will just start using other weapons instead. Same events, just different weapons and tactics.