Shinzo Abe assassinated - gun controls

[alhoon]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62089486

The world is shocked by the assassination of Shinzo Abe, the longest-serving leader in Japan since WW2.
Shinzo Abe was ... controversial to put it politely. His views on history were favoring whitewashing the horrors of WW2 perpetrated by the Japanese and was affiliated with a far right group.
Economically, he was liberal - in the real sense, not the American sense. I.e. free market, low government oversight, etc. In foreign policy he was working to contain China's influence and promoted good relations with USA and other Asian countries and antagonistic relationship with China.

Regardless of his views, he was assassinated for them which is a horrific crime that shocked Japan and the world. Even his political adversaries were quick to condemn the action and show their respect for this man.

How do you think Japan and it's government will come out of this? Will there be a reckoning? Some transformation? Perhaps his controversial views will become more mainstream. Or perhaps with such an important member dead, the far-right of Japan will keep receding. What do you think?

EDIT
Here is an article on the legacy of Shinzo Abe: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-...5D-%5Bisapi%5D


**************************************

But Let's take a moment away from Abe's horrific murder to discuss something else. Namely:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/homemade-...150341241.html

"Japan, a nation of about 125.8 million people, has one of the strictest gun laws in the world. There were just 10 shootings in 2021, with one person killed and four people injured"
So, strict gun controls and very very very low shootings.

So, according to 2nd-amendment people, the government in Japan must be totally oppressing the Japanese, right? Since they have strict gun controls and VERY low deaths, they pay that by a complete lack of Liberty. No guns = government walks in and takes your rights, RIGHT?!

https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores
Oh... it seems that despite having very strict gun controls, Japan's government didn't steal their liberty. They just have very low murders.

Ban guns. Overturn the 2nd amendment and infringe on the people's stupid right to kill each other.
Alternative: Stop pretending it is for FREEEEEDOOOM! It is not. It's because a lot of people, like their guns. Sure, they are unhealthy but so is smoking and so is sugar.
You don't ban things people like. And you don't ban them, because they like them. Not because they supposedly stop the government from stealing your rights.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Japan is a monoethnic society with high trust. It hardly compares. Control for suicide and gang violence and the argument becomes extremely brittle.

But anyway the argument is dumb. Overturn the second amendment, oh wait that is wildly unpopular. Hundreds of millions of legal gun owners bear arms lawfully and without any intention to commit crimes. You don't get to take away their rights and punish them because other people commit crimes. Disarming law abiding citizens is not the wat to decrease crime. Blah, blah blah, the same recycled things every time. I don't care what Europeans think about any of our domestic issues, I don't care about or want European approval.

[alhoon]

Overturn the second amendment, oh wait that is wildly unpopular.

So... this?

Alternative: Stop pretending it is for FREEEEEDOOOM! It is not. It's because a lot of people, like their guns. Sure, they are unhealthy but so is smoking and so is sugar.
You don't ban things people like. And you don't ban them, because they like them. Not because they supposedly stop the government from stealing your rights.

This is perfectly acceptable. What boggles my mind is... why doesn't the majority of gun- fans own the real reasons. You rarely hear someone say "Hey, I like my guns. Obviously it is not about freedom, duuuuh. It's because I like guns. Yes, they are unhealthy. So is sugar, Tobacco and fast-food.
You don't get my sugar, my guns or my smokes!"

Say it. Simply say it and the entire discussion changes. Sure, there will still be people that would say "If you eat a lot of sugar, 7 OTHER people don't die!" but it's the same with "If I smoke in a gas station, more than 7 people will probably die." or "If drink and drive I will kill people and we don't ban alcohol."
The argument "We like guns. So you won't take them" has merit in a democratic society. The argument "People being able to get guns are the only thing that stops the government from turning us to China" doesn't have merit.

[Sir Adrian]

Japan is not a monoethnic society and number of ethnicities has absolutely nothing to do with this. There are plenty of examples of multiethnic societies where the number of murders is low and plenty examples of quasi-monoethnic societies where it isn't. For example take El Salvador, which only has 12% national minorities, and Belgium where there isn't even a majority. El Salvador has guns, Belgium does not. Where would you feel safer at night? In Brussels or in San Salvador.

People with guns will kill each other more often. This has been proven time and again.

Hundreds of millions of legal gun owners bear arms lawfully and without any intention to commit crimes.

This is at best wild speculation you will never be able to prove and at worst a big fat lie. And yes, disarming the population does decrease murder. See Japan as an example, or the many countries with strict gun laws that have less murders per capita in a decade than the US does in a year.

PS: The ability to take somebody else's life is not a right. I would hope lawyers know that.

[Pontifex Maximus]

So... this?


This is perfectly acceptable. What boggles my mind is... why doesn't the majority of gun- whores own the real reasons. You rarely hear someone say "Hey, I like my guns. Obviously it is not about freedom, duuuuh. It's because I like guns. Yes, they are unhealthy. So is sugar, Tobacco and fast-food.
You don't get my sugar, my guns or my smokes!"

Say it. Simply say it and the entire discussion changes. Sure, there will still be people that would say "If you eat a lot of sugar, 7 OTHER people don't die!" but it's the same with "If I smoke in a gas station, more than 7 people will probably die." or "If drink and drive I will kill people and we don't ban alcohol."
The argument "We like guns. So you won't take them" has merit in a democratic society. The argument "People being able to get guns are the only thing that stops the government from turning us to China" doesn't have merit.

Your unhinged rant aside, it is explicitly about freedom. It is about self defense, recreation, hunting, and explicitly about allowing citizens the means to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Any government moving to ban guns, then, at least has suspect motives especially when those motives are "think of the children" and especially when high profile shooting seem to happen as a result of failures of government such as back ground checks, red flag laws and not doing their job in the event of an active shooter.

As a gun whore, your appeal to emotion is just so underwhelming, lacks any legal or cultural basis, and just falls flat. "BE MORE LIKE JAPAN WHICH HAS STRICT GUN LAWS BUT STILL CAN'T STOP PUBLIC ASSASSINATIONS WITH GUNS." Really an astoundingly poor argument.

This is at best wild speculation you will never be able to prove and at worst a big fat lie. And yes, disarming the population does decrease murder. See Japan as an example, or the many countries with strict gun laws that have less murders per capita in a decade than the US does in a year.

It happens tens of thousands of times per year, at a minimum. Up to millions of times.

While estimates vary greatly, it is speculated that the prevalence of defensive gun usage in the United States ranges from 60,000 to 2.5 million incidents annually (National Research Council, 2013), and whenever guns are used in self-defense, the odds of injury to potential victims is significantly reduced (Cook et al., 2011; Kleck & Gertz, 1995).

PS: The ability to take somebody else's life is not a right. I would hope lawyers know that.

Unless it is abortion I suppose. But I digress, you're just wrong again. While soy boys like Justin Trudeau insist there is no right to self defense, more sanguine and rational jurisdictions recognize that right. Most lawyers know this. Most first year law students know this. Most people in general know this.

As an aside, what is your profession? I ask because I want to use it to qualify every single political opinion you espouse.
Only fair.

[Heathen Hammer]

Guns aren't the problem, so no need to ban them in the first plac, in fact population's access to firearms should be expanded to keep power-loving governments in check. .Plus the whole narrative of anti-gun lunatics that "our politicians can't feel safe with them gun owners not letting them fully oppress the population" stinks of elitism and privilege. Maybe they can call for less guns once they disarm their own security detail and move from guarded mansion into the projects? Be with the people, then speak for the people.

[athanaric]

Japan is not a monoethnic society

Compared to every country in Europe and the Americas, it is. That's not to say that it were the only factor, though. One would also have to look at urban vs rural population distribution, birth rates, population growth rates, etc.

[conon394]

Guns aren't the problem, so no need to ban them in the first plac, in fact population's access to firearms should be expanded to keep power-loving governments in check. .Plus the whole narrative of anti-gun lunatics that "our politicians can't feel safe with them gun owners not letting them fully oppress the population" stinks of elitism and privilege. Maybe they can call for less guns once they disarm their own security detail and move from guarded mansion into the projects? Be with the people, then speak for the people.

So you are back I see and with more incoherent non logic

Guns aren't the problem

Err yes they are.

in fact population's access to firearms should be expanded to keep power-loving governments in check

And this works how?

[Sir Adrian]

It happens tens of thousands of times per year, at a minimum. Up to millions of times.

While estimates vary greatly, it is speculated that the prevalence of defensive gun usage in the United States ranges from 60,000 to 2.5 million incidents annually (National Research Council, 2013), and whenever guns are used in self-defense, the odds of injury to potential victims is significantly reduced (Cook et al., 2011; Kleck & Gertz, 1995).

Makes claim he cannot prove. Claims to be able to prove it. Links to a study about public perception on gun ownership and quotes a statistic on defensive gun use that are completely irrelevant to the claim he made.

You do realize that if civilians do not have guns, there is no need for defensive gun use?

Unless it is abortion I suppose. But I digress, you're just wrong again.

Textbook whataboutism.

While soy boys like Justin Trudeau insist there is no right to self defense, more sanguine and rational jurisdictions recognize that right. Most lawyers know this. Most first year law students know this. Most people in general know this.

As an aside, what is your profession? I ask because I want to use it to qualify every single political opinion you espouse.
Only fair.

We're not talking about self-defense. Killing someone is not self-defense unless you literally have no other recourse, and even then is iffy in most countries that are not the US. Moreover having a gun does not protect you, it only escalates things. See the Ritterhouse trial as a textbook example. If he did not have a gun with him he would not have been attacked by so many people, he would have still been able to exercise self-defense, the people who tried to attack him would still be alive and he would not have spent a year in jail and went through a traumatic trial on television.

[alhoon]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-...5D-%5Bisapi%5D

This is an article about Shinzo Abe's legacy. Sure, it is a horrible thing to assassinate a politician (or anyone). That said, Shinzo Abe was, in my opinion, not a good example of the politicians Japan needs. Hawkish attitude towards China kept the West happy-ish but the man had some ... peculiar views on the role of Japan in WW2.

[Cope]

Makes claim he cannot prove. Claims to be able to prove it. Links to a study about public perception on gun ownership and quotes a statistic on defensive gun use that are completely irrelevant to the claim he made.

You do realize that if civilians do not have guns, there is no need for defensive gun use?

Not every assailant is armed with a firearm. See the RH case cited below (neither of the men killed in self-defense had firearms).

Textbook whataboutism.

Observing inconsistencies/hypocrisies on the right to life when discussing the right to life isn't whataboutery.

We're not talking about self-defense. Killing someone is not self-defense unless you literally have no other recourse, and even then is iffy in most countries that are not the US. Moreover having a gun does not protect you, it only escalates things.

If a person is not able to use deadly force when they have "no other recourse", their right to life is being infringed. The state prioritizing its monopoly on violence over an individual's right to exist is an act of tyranny.

See the Ritterhouse trial as a textbook example. If he did not have a gun with him he would not have been attacked by so many people, he would have still been able to exercise self-defense, the people who tried to attack him would still be alive and he would not have spent a year in jail and went through a traumatic trial on television.

This is speculation. I might just as well speculate that RH's initial assailant may have beaten RH to death had RH not been armed.

[swabian]

Abe. Honorable man, honorable life.

[Sir Adrian]

Not every assailant is armed with a firearm. See the RH case cited below (neither of the men killed in self-defense had firearms).



Observing inconsistencies/hypocrisies on the right to life when discussing the right to life isn't whataboutery.



If a person is not able to use deadly force when they have "no other recourse", their right to life is being infringed. The state prioritizing its monopoly on violence over an individual's right to exist is an act of tyranny.



This is speculation. I might just as well speculate that RH's initial assailant may have beaten RH to death had RH not been armed.

If the assailant does not have a gun it's no longer defensive gun use. Again, see the RH trial.

Use of deadly force does not require guns. Overcoming an opponent who is trying to use deadly force does not require guns. Avoiding getting beaten to death does not require guns. You are trying to create a false necessity when in reality guns are completely unnecessary and often an escalating factor in self-defense situations.

Observing inconsistencies/hypocrisies on the right to life when discussing the right to life isn't whataboutery.

Mentioning abortion in the US in a thread about the assassination of a Japanese politician where the discussion is mostly about the "right" to take a life is, however.

[swabian]

If the assailant does not have a gun it's no longer defensive gun use. Again, see the RH trial.

Use of deadly force does not require guns. Overcoming an opponent who is trying to use deadly force does not require guns. Avoiding getting beaten to death does not require guns. You are trying to create a false necessity when in reality guns are completely unnecessary and often an escalating factor in self-defense situations.

There may be countries where absurd laws prohibit the use of deadly force to fend off deadly force. The US may be one of them. The US has a schizophrenic relationship to violence. A public slap in the face is shouted down as 'violence', whereas invading souvereign countries against international law breeds heroes. They can't even deal with the fact that their murder rates are totally through the roof, but they get hysterical when a man slaps another publicly lol. In Germany, slapping someone as response to insult is lawful (as long as no real harm is done).

[EmperorBatman999]

The assassin made a makeshift firearm out of two pipes duct-taped to a wooden board as a stock, and then filled with black powder from fireworks for propellant and a bunch of ball bearings and shrapnel as ammunition. If someone really wants to kill another, they will find a way to do it. If they can’t buy a gun, they’ll make one out of otherwise household items.

[alhoon]

I heard that the assailant murdered Abe because of some issue he had with his bankrupted mother. He blames Abe, I think for his mother going bankrupt.

[Cope]

If the assailant does not have a gun it's no longer defensive gun use. Again, see the RH trial.

Use of deadly force (inc. with firearm) is justified as a last resort if a person reasonably believes they are at risk of death or serious bodily injury from an assailant. This is why RH is not in prison for murder, even though the men he killed were not armed.

Use of deadly force does not require guns. Overcoming an opponent who is trying to use deadly force does not require guns. Avoiding getting beaten to death does not require guns. You are trying to create a false necessity when in reality guns are completely unnecessary and often an escalating factor in self-defense situations.

Firearms not being necessary to create deadly force is precisely why a person can reasonably believe they are at risk of death/serious injury from an assailant even if their assailant is unarmed. At the same time, no one should have to submit themselves to a serious (potentially fatal) assault if they can defend themselves with a firearm.

Mentioning abortion in the US in a thread about the assassination of a Japanese politician where the discussion is mostly about the "right" to take a life is, however.

Blame the OP for merging discussions about the right to bear arms with the death of Abe.

[sumskilz]

The assassin made a makeshift firearm out of two pipes duct-taped to a wooden board as a stock, and then filled with black powder from fireworks for propellant and a bunch of ball bearings and shrapnel as ammunition. If someone really wants to kill another, they will find a way to do it. If they can’t buy a gun, they’ll make one out of otherwise household items.

Like the Carlo submachine gun:

An attack on Friday that killed an Israeli security guard illustrates how Israel’s forces are facing an enormous threat in the fight against West Bank security challenges - the manufacture of homemade guns…

Such craft firearms, known locally in Israel and the Palestinian territories as “Carlo” guns, are affordable, deadly DIY weapons being built illegally in small workshops.

A Carlo, which is said to imitate the design of a Swedish Carl Gustaf submachine gun, can vary significantly in style and layout, but all can be easily produced using everyday household items.

The craft weapons “are particularly easy to manufacture in a garage or home workshop setting, with limited tools and minimal skill,” according to intelligence consultancy firm Armament Research Services.

The internal components of a Carlo can be constructed using various metal pieces from home appliances, and the barrel of the weapon may be built out of repurposed fridge pipes or metal hoses, Ynet reported.

Because these items are also used for civil purposes, it is incredibly difficult to identify Carlo producers, and Israel must rely mostly on information uncovered through its intelligence network when confronting the threat of DIY firearms.

This ease of access, affordability, and virtual invisibility makes the Carlo an attractive choice for violent actors and criminal organizations, and as a result, the weapon has proliferated in various illegal channels.

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israe...does-it-matter

The systematic manufacture of the Carlo in the territories began more than a decade ago. In those early days, it was made and used primarily by gangs of car thieves and drug dealers in turf wars.

One Palestinian source intimately familiar with this manufacturing process told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “You don’t need a lot of imagination, professional skill or resources to manufacture the Carlo. All you need is a piece of pipe. With a lathe, you can convert it into the barrel, chamber and firing pin of a rifle.”

https://www.al-monitor.com/originals...-shin-bet.html

[Sir Adrian]

Use of deadly force (inc. with firearm) is justified as a last resort if a person reasonably believes they are at risk of death or serious bodily injury from an assailant. This is why RH is not in prison for murder, even though the men he killed were not armed.

Intellectual dishonesty hoooooooo.

You are taking the case of a few US states (not even all of them tbh) and expanding it to the entire world. And moreover even in those states you have to prove that nothing else would have worked to get away. Again, see the RH trial where his lawyers did just that.

The point of self-defense is not to teach the sumabitch a lesson but manage to run away and call the police. Self defense is not one on one combat like in ye olden days.

Firearms not being necessary to create deadly force is precisely why a person can reasonably believe they are at risk of death/serious injury from an assailant even if their assailant is unarmed. At the same time, no one should have to submit themselves to a serious (potentially fatal) assault if they can defend themselves with a firearm.

This is a self-contradicting argument. Guns are necessary because people might kill you. People might kill you without guns which means guns are not necessary.

Blame the OP for merging discussions about the right to bear arms with the death of Abe.

Abortion in discussion about guns is still whataboutism.

[Cope]

Intellectual dishonesty hoooooooo.

You are taking the case of a few US states (not even all of them tbh) and expanding it to the entire world. And moreover even in those states you have to prove that nothing else would have worked to get away. Again, see the RH trial where his lawyers did just that.

The point of self-defense is not to teach the sumabitch a lesson but manage to run away and call the police. Self defense is not one on one combat like in ye olden days.

Note the stated conditions: Use of deadly force (inc. with firearm) is justified as a last resort if a person reasonably believes they are at risk of death or serious bodily injury from an assailant. There is debate about whether this should include a requirement to retreat, and laws vary by state. As for RH, so far as I remember, his defense was not affirmative. It was incumbent on the prosecution to disprove his claim of self-defense.

As for the "rest of the world", any legal denial of the right to self-defense with a firearm is the state prioritizing its monopoly on violence over an individual's right to life/bodily protection. This is an act of tyranny.

This is a self-contradicting argument. Guns are necessary because people might kill you. People might kill you without guns which means guns are not necessary.

This is a non-sequitur. The fact that deadly force doesn't necessarily come from a firearm doesn't mean a person should be prohibited from using a firearm to protect themself from deadly force.

Abortion in discussion about guns is still whataboutism.

The comment was made in response to a claim made about the right to life. It was not whataboutery.