The Killing is the Same-the Methods are Just Different
The rate of violent crime--especially against children--is growing in Japan. Just like US parents, Japanese parents are now having to worry about the safety of their children in going to school. In the Japanese crimes, strangulation and stabbing is the common method of killing. Here are some thoughts from Japan Today.
posted by Helen at 9:38 AM
11 Comments:
Japan is experiencing the same kind of existential crisis faced by most of Western Europe: stagnant economic growth and littler true social mobility and low rates of religious belief. The effect is a demographic implosion and rising crime rate.
The main difference is that Japan has not allowed the massive immigration being experienced everywhere else, so most of their problems are homegrown. They don't have to worry about "ethnic unrest"!
Arrgh, "little", not "littler"!
Sid,
No, I doubt the liberal left here or elsewhere will ever get it--they are too busy living in some kind of bubble where everyone lives in harmony singing Lenon's Imagine. Maybe when a few of them are hurt by the criminal element with guns and given no protection by the cops without sidearms, they will change. But my guess is, they will be too busy living in their safe neighborhoods where the riffraff are kept to a minimum so they will not have to worry their pretty little heads with such awful thoughts.
Jeff,
Don't worry about grammatical mistakes--we get your gist--it's a comment section--not an English Lit test!
I have never understood the Left's hatred of firearms.
I don't mind registration. I love the idea of a proficiency/safety test before being allowed to own a firearm (heck, the NRA can run the program!). I particularly approve of making people 100% responsible for the misuse of their firearms. And I am 200% behind mandatory sentencing for firearm related crimes.
To me, it is obvious that making firearms illegal doesn't much faze criminals. Unless the goal is to take away ALL firearms, no matter what, everywhere. Until you do that, the only result of such laws will be criminals with firearms and citizens without.
But saying that it will make the world safer to take away firearms...well, sure. But why stop *there* in particular? Let's make everyone travel by mass transit. Let's truly make alcohol illegal. Car accidents and alcohol-related deaths tote up to what number, per year? Much more than firearms.
The list of endless...and it is all predicated that Government, not the individual, knows best.
Personally, I think the Left hates firearms because they hate individualism. Just my belief, of course. But a government that doesn't trust its own citizens to have the ability to defend itself....well, that isn't much of a government.
The evil within our souls is always there---it doesn't flow out of a firearm or a knife or a baseball bat. It seems that we are blaming the weapon, instead of who wields the weapon.
Again, just my opinion. The Leftists don't like my opinions for obvious reasons, the Rightists don't think I go far enough, and the Libertarians think I go too far.
Oh well.
"Eric Blair"
I was quite interested by the people talking about "foreigners" and their suspicious and criminal behaviors. It strikes me as quintessentially Asian. (And I say that as an Asian woman.)
Mr. Blair,
I agree that citizens should have guns--if guns were all gone, would the world really be a safer place ?I think the strong could just prey on the weak without any recourse at all. I am not for mandatory firearms sentencing. If someone is killed with a knife--is that less of a crime than if they are killed with a gun? Actually it is worse--being stabbed is unbearably painful and often people suffer much more than if killed with a gun. Killing is killing. It reminds me of hate crimes where people are charged for their thoughts as well as their actions. If you kill someone because of their race,gender etc.--why should that be worse than if you kill someone because you "just feel like it?" Both are equally bad in my book.
What the...whoa! Some disgruntled people in the comments to that article.
Posted by Oyaji-san:
2 out of 8 mention foreigners as the problem yet statistically Japanese are more likely to commit crimes and only 1-2% of all crimes are committed by foreigners. That number, of course, includes visa violations, a victimless crime and one that many Japanese businesses depend on, and also includes arrests of foreign prostitutes without whom most Japanese mens' egos would whither.
"Even if they look like a nice person, I doubt if they are really nice at heart. "
How many older Japanese think like this? I'd guess most and to be honest, it makes me happy. It'll only help sink this nation and prevent others from copying the so-called Japanese 'model' of ignorance, racism, corruption and to be frank, one of the most collectively dishonest societies I've ever lived in.The Land of the sinking sun.
Yikes.
To Eric Blair:
1. When you say you are "In favor of registration", what is being registered: the person or the gun? If the person, is it a shall-issue concealed carry permit or is it a discretionary issue ownership/carry permit, such as NY's Sullivan law, passed in 1911?
2. What happens if the person fails the proficiency/safety test, perhaps because he or she is 70 years old, has essential tremor and doesn't see very well? To what extent does society then have an obligation to protect that individual against attacks by criminals and who bears the cost of fulfilling that obligation?
3. How much should the training and testing cost and who pays for it? Many states with shall-issue carry permits require recertification every few years and impose fees of several hundred dollars to exercise this "right". This tends to legally disarm poorer people, who incidentally tend to live in the more crime-ridden neighborhoods.
4. Like Helen, I don't care what weapon was used or the motivation of the murderer. Murder is murder and the person is just as dead.
Dr. Helen:
I see your point, yes.
When my parents were children, many, many households had firearms, and yet the rate of crimes committed with those firearms was quite low. Why? Fear of the law, coupled with what I consider (repeat, what *I* consider) to be more effective teaching of ethics and morals to children. Families were stronger, and despite what the Left says, that is not always a bad thing.
When I was a boy, my father owned two handguns, and it never occurred to me to pick one up. If I wanted to shoot, I asked my father and we went shooting. But those guns were my father's, they could hurt people, and they didn't belong to me.
When I was very small they were out of reach, of course. When I was older, my father taught me how to use them safely.
We live in a very different society now. The only reason I suggest mandatory sentencing for crimes committed with firearms is that the stigma of committing crimes with firearms seems to be quite low nowadays. An ethical framework begins at home, but not very many parents seem concerned with that at present...though I am finding more and more parents who do care about more than their salary or the newest fancy car to drive.
Some of the poorest parents (in terms of money) are among the best of parents (in terms of parenting), if you will excuse the world play.
I could be wrong, of course. Most posters to websites don't admit to that kind of possibility, but I do. Yet the facts remain. It is certainly true that crimes committed using firearms have increased greatly in number.
I am happy to hear other, better solutions.
"Bobh" makes a great point, and it illustrates why my Libertarian friends don't seem to respect me much. On the one hand, I think it is strange that we require testing and licensure for drivers---along with mandatory insurance in the several states in which I have lived---but not for firearms. On the other hand, there is no mention of automobiles in the Constitution. I am reminded of the old science-fiction story where the motto goes: "The right to buy find weapons is the right to be free."
But we don't live in that world, sadly. I am willing to compromise a bit. To me, it all comes down to personal responsibility. If I carry a firearm, I am 100% responsible for it. But most governmental entities do not agree. So they try to institute controls. I am trying to find a compromise (according to Ambrose Bierce, that is defined by a solution which angers everyone).
I don't mean to trivialize the firearm issue, but I do tend to see it in light of the automobile issue. It costs money to get "drivers' education," to take the test, and to get the license. Ditto the insurance required most places. Does that discriminate against the poor? How about older people who lose the ability to drive safely. Yup. But notice that most places have "workarounds" for that in many cases.
But "Bobh" makes good points. Playing Devil's advocate, I would say that drivers' licensure is not the same as firearm licensure due to safety issues of the license holder, and their ability to protect themselves.
Yet, as Larry Niven once wrote: freedom multiplied by security equals a constant. The more freedom, the less security. The more security, the less freedom.
Again, just my thoughts and I appreciate the responses.
"Eric Blair"
julian morrison--
The Japanese have a word for this pressure cooker feeling you describe--it is called "keriru" and means "bursting into a rage." I think you are on to something--the students there feel a great deal of pressure and have stabbed/injured others because of this rage.
情趣 用品 店aa片免費看本土自拍自拍貼圖aaa片免費看短片自拍美女聊天室 s383微風成人線上成人影片本土自拍性感辣妹成人網站成人光碟成人影城a片下載免費卡通a片成人光碟18成人成人聊天室85cc成人片成人電影成人圖片0204免費影片分享成人貼圖免費試看av成人影片情色a片成人聊天室-情色視訊jp成人彩虹頻道
Post a Comment
<< Home