2 nations that tried

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
UK+Waving+Flag+Animation.gif




In the wake of the 1987 Hungerford massacre, in which one lone gunman killed 16 people, Britain introduced new legislation -- the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 --- making registration mandatory for owning shotguns and banning semi-automatic and pump-action weapons.



Within a year and a half of the Dunblane massacre, UK lawmakers had passed a ban on the private ownership of all handguns in mainland Britain, giving the country some of the toughest anti-gun legislation in the world.


After both shootings there were firearm amnesties across the UK, resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and rounds of ammunition.


Britain has never had a "gun culture" like that of the United States, but there were about 200,000 legally-registered handguns in Britain before the ban, most owned by sports shooters.


All small-bore pistols, including the .22 caliber, were included in the ban, along with rifles used by target shooters. Penalties for anyone found in possession of illegal firearms range from heavy fines to prison terms of up to 10 years.


The public generally supported the ban, with most saying they saw no need for guns.


Since then the number has fallen in each year.


In 2010/11 there were 11,227 offenses, 53% below the peak number, according to the official crime figures. Crimes involving handguns also fell 44% -- from 5,549 in 2002/03 to 3,105 -- in 2010/11.




Animated+Flag+of+Japan.gif



What is the role of guns in Japan, the developed world's least firearm-filled nation and perhaps its strictest controller?


In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides.


All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone.


And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal.


By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.


Almost no one in Japan owns a gun.


Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed.


Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.



Handguns are forbidden absolutely.


Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971.


Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.

The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it's not easy to do.


The process is detailed in David Kopel's landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)


To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month.


You also must take and pass a shooting range class.


Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police.


Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle.


Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.















http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/17/world/europe/dunblane-lessons/

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
 
Excellent ideas! The amnesty, in particular, would fit in with my plan. Thanks for sharing.

You think those two approaches - which apparently worked OK - would ever get a try here?
 
see grind...another thread about either severely restricting gun right or taking them away and how it worked

can you see why his comment about supporting the second is total bullshit?
 
Shotguns can be incredibly lethal, in fact were the real weapon responsible for taming the wild west.
Today, with rifled barrels, scopes and so called sabot amunition (a misnomer) lethally accurate to perhaps 300 yards or slightly more.

Air guns also have tremendous lethal potential. Relatively common 22 and 25 cal air guns can have a muzzle velocity greater than powder propellent guns if not equivalent but are also available in larger, far more lethal calibers.

Aside from that, Japan's policy of a mental evaluation sounds like a very good idea to me.

Britian's policy, not so much.
 
UK+Waving+Flag+Animation.gif




In the wake of the 1987 Hungerford massacre, in which one lone gunman killed 16 people, Britain introduced new legislation -- the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 --- making registration mandatory for owning shotguns and banning semi-automatic and pump-action weapons.



Within a year and a half of the Dunblane massacre, UK lawmakers had passed a ban on the private ownership of all handguns in mainland Britain, giving the country some of the toughest anti-gun legislation in the world.


After both shootings there were firearm amnesties across the UK, resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and rounds of ammunition.


Britain has never had a "gun culture" like that of the United States, but there were about 200,000 legally-registered handguns in Britain before the ban, most owned by sports shooters.


All small-bore pistols, including the .22 caliber, were included in the ban, along with rifles used by target shooters. Penalties for anyone found in possession of illegal firearms range from heavy fines to prison terms of up to 10 years.


The public generally supported the ban, with most saying they saw no need for guns.


Since then the number has fallen in each year.


In 2010/11 there were 11,227 offenses, 53% below the peak number, according to the official crime figures. Crimes involving handguns also fell 44% -- from 5,549 in 2002/03 to 3,105 -- in 2010/11.




Animated+Flag+of+Japan.gif



What is the role of guns in Japan, the developed world's least firearm-filled nation and perhaps its strictest controller?


In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides.


All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone.


And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal.


By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.


Almost no one in Japan owns a gun.


Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed.


Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.



Handguns are forbidden absolutely.


Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971.


Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.

The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it's not easy to do.


The process is detailed in David Kopel's landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)


To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month.


You also must take and pass a shooting range class.


Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police.


Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle.


Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.















http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/17/world/europe/dunblane-lessons/

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

They were both good ways (UK and Japan) to regulate guns.

Regarding the Second Amendment I don't see the relevance of it today. When it was drafted it guaranteed the people would have the same fire power as the government. To use an analogy it was like saying the government has a knife so the people can have knives to fight the government if the need arose. Then the government gets guns. What would be the purpose of still being permitted to have a knife? It's usefulness, it's purpose, is void.

The same applies to guns. The government can use concussion grenades and tear gas and rockets and drones and heat sensing equipment to determine where the person is hiding and....bringing just a gun to fight the government is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
 
Yet in 2001 Mamoru Takuma was able to kill 8 Osaka school kids and injure 13 more people all without a gun, which according to this should be impossible. Right?
 
They were both good ways (UK and Japan) to regulate guns.

Regarding the Second Amendment I don't see the relevance of it today. When it was drafted it guaranteed the people would have the same fire power as the government. To use an analogy it was like saying the government has a knife so the people can have knives to fight the government if the need arose. Then the government gets guns. What would be the purpose of still being permitted to have a knife? It's usefulness, it's purpose, is void.

The same applies to guns. The government can use concussion grenades and tear gas and rockets and drones and heat sensing equipment to determine where the person is hiding and....bringing just a gun to fight the government is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.


Except that as a proponent of one world government;
1. Your opinion on this matter is weightless
2. You are in fact the enemy
3. Yes, eliminating guns works well for your plan, in fact it is the only possible way it could be achieved.
 
Yet in 2001 Mamoru Takuma was able to kill 8 Osaka school kids and injure 13 more people all without a gun, which according to this should be impossible. Right?

Who said it should be impossible?

Link up.
 
They were both good ways (UK and Japan) to regulate guns.

Regarding the Second Amendment I don't see the relevance of it today. When it was drafted it guaranteed the people would have the same fire power as the government. To use an analogy it was like saying the government has a knife so the people can have knives to fight the government if the need arose. Then the government gets guns. What would be the purpose of still being permitted to have a knife? It's usefulness, it's purpose, is void.

The same applies to guns. The government can use concussion grenades and tear gas and rockets and drones and heat sensing equipment to determine where the person is hiding and....bringing just a gun to fight the government is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
then we should have grenades, tear gas, rockets, drones, heat sensing equipment, and machine guns too. Allowing the status quo to stand is betraying the ideas that the founders fought and died for.
 
then we should have grenades, tear gas, rockets, drones, heat sensing equipment, and machine guns too. Allowing the status quo to stand is betraying the ideas that the founders fought and died for.

Really?

Which of the Founders moved to suppress a popular armed rebellion in the early days of America?
 
Last year Handguns Killed:
48 in Japan,
8 Great Britain,
34 Switzerland,
52 Canada,
21 Sweden,
10,728 in The United States
 
Last year Handguns Killed:
48 in Japan,
8 Great Britain,
34 Switzerland,
52 Canada,
21 Sweden,
10,728 in The United States

Do you think that body count could be reduced by increased regulation?
 
Do you think that body count could be reduced by increased regulation?

No. But increased regulation MIGHT just encourage a culture change. I dont know what incresed regulation means. If it were up to me ALL firearms would be banned and those in existence forfeited. (Excluding, of course, those used by law enforcement etc).
I would totally BAN all gun shows and exhibitions and close all gun retail outfits.
I would treat the NRA like the KKK and restrict the number of gun related scenes in movies (Hollywood were forced to have a 'token' black in all movies). Anti-social behaviour would be: Smoking, Hard Drug use, Gun ownership and KKK. And I would start now.
The body count argument is a straw man as are all the other airy fairy excuses for doing bugger all.
 
No. But increased regulation MIGHT just encourage a culture change. I dont know what incresed regulation means. If it were up to me ALL firearms would be banned and those in existence forfeited. (Excluding, of course, those used by law enforcement etc).
I would totally BAN all gun shows and exhibitions and close all gun retail outfits.
I would treat the NRA like the KKK and restrict the number of gun related scenes in movies (Hollywood were forced to have a 'token' black in all movies). Anti-social behaviour would be: Smoking, Hard Drug use, Gun ownership and KKK. And I would start now.
The body count argument is a straw man as are all the other airy fairy excuses for doing bugger all.
in other words, you're projecting your own cowardice on to others, because you would readily submit to slavery, others must do the same. no thanks. the truth is, the body count of such a totalitarian exercise would be higher than the holocaust.
 
Except that as a proponent of one world government;
1. Your opinion on this matter is weightless
2. You are in fact the enemy
3. Yes, eliminating guns works well for your plan, in fact it is the only possible way it could be achieved.

Nonsense. As I asked what is the the typical gun going to do up against the government? It's absurd.
 
I'm really surprised that people don't remember England pulling this gun turn in shit prior to WW2, then begging for Americans to send them guns when Germany came-a-calling.
 
Back
Top