If you live in Japan, you really don't have any right to own a firearm. Yes, it's possible to own one, but you would either need to be a criminal, like a gangster (called Yakuza), or you would need to have permission to own a firearm. It is not a rights based system. There is no recognized right of self defense using a firearm in Japan.
My Japanese father in law owned a hunting shot gun, with government permission. When he wanted to use it, he would have to go over to the Police station to retrieve it. After the hunt, he would return it. To me, it's quite safe to say that such form of ownership has nothing to do with defending yourself or your family. Isn't self defense the important reason for gun ownership?
The lack of any right to self defense with a firearm is one of the worst things about living in Japan. However, the great news is that there is almost no crime here. You could leave the door unlocked and no one would break in. Japan is that kind of place, particularly in the countryside where I live. Just last night at around 9:30 PM I saw 3 elderly ladies out for a walk, chatting like they do, with not a care in the world of a crime occuring.
Would you prefer to live in America and have some gun ownership rights, but also have to live in a high crime rate society? In most states, you can not carry a firearm with you outside of your home unless its locked up or disabled from being used. Plus, obtaining a firearm is subject to government approval (so callled instant check) and even fees, in some jurisdictions. Go ahead you New Yorkers and Washingtonians (the bad Washington), just try and buy a firearm for self defense. Bring your checkbook and don't hold your breath. It's tough cookies if you are poor or have been threatened by an abusive ex-spouse. The government idiocracy will do its best to keep you from defending yourself.
Then again, try and actually use your gun for self defense in America. Aggressive anti gun owner bigot government prosecutors in places like New York City are infamous for their hatred of gunowners and their frothing at the mouth attempts to jail innocent people. If you don't believe me, just ask Plaxico Burress, former New York Giants wide receiver who was jailed for accidently shooting himself in the leg while he was dancing at a New York night club. California, Chicago, Philadelphia, and other bastions of anti gun owner hate are far from the only places in America where someone could be jailed for simply exercising their right to self defense, using a firearm.
What I am proposing is that you would be better off in Japan, with its more honest system. No guns allowed, but in exchange, it's a safe, nearly crime free place to live. In much of America firearms rights are suspect and the crime rate is far more of a concern. Ideally, self defense rights and a low crime rate are what people really want. Too bad it's so hard to find.
I think the root of the system lies in Japan being a very old country that was very much based on a class system. The warrior class were the only ones who had the right to carry arms (swords, etc.) so that is why martial arts like karate were born. The other landed classes and merchants, etc. needed a way to defend themselves.
ReplyDeleteIn America, in California, I owned a gun because I felt it was necessary.... In Japan, I don't own a gun.... I prefer to live in Japan.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe recent incident in Norway and the way the Norwegians have been dealing with it, as well as the statistics for gun related deaths, suggests to me that each country/culture may function best for whatever reason with different rules in place.
ReplyDeleteThe estimated total number of firearms owned by civilians in Norway is 1.4 million with the rate of private ownership per 100 people at 31.3. Compare this to the statistic that around 3 in 10 Americans own a gun (Gallup Poll, 2005). The rate of ownership do not appear to be that different. However, it should be noted that although handguns are not illegal in Norway, "A Smith & Wesson Model 500, for example, is illegal due to its high power (read: Large bullet, Low power), but other, less powerful, guns are legal as they are used in sports shooting." (Wikepedia, Gun Politics in Norway).
The homicide rates are low in Norway on the whole. Their annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 ranges from 0.58 to 1.5 between 1991 and 2010.
For gun homicides I only found data for 1993 (0.11) and 2005 (0.30) per 100,000. Compare this to the US figure of 4.2 per 100,000 (2007?).
This suggests to me that even if a certain population has firearms, the homicide rate can differ significantly.
What factor results in this difference? I have no clue, but one thing is for sure: The Americans who say that Norwegian civilians need to buy more guns to prevent 'gun incidents' like that which happened a little over a week ago have probably not compared statistics.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/norway
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway
I found another source where the total gun homicide rate is significantly lower than the one I gave before at 2.98 per 100,000.
ReplyDeleteCome to think of it, the US data isn't meaningful unless we look at each state and its gun ownership rate versus gun homicide rates as there is such a thing as 'state law'.
Looking at the gun homicide deaths, the states that have the highest figures here are: District of Columbia (18.84), Louisiana (10.46) and Alabama (8.02).
Then we can compare the rate of gun ownership per 100,000 in states where the gun homicide rate per 100,000 is comparable to that of Norway: Idaho (0.33), Iowa (0.4), New Hampshire (0.34), North Dakota (0.49), South Dakota (0.57), Vermont (0.00!).
I found percentages so I'm going to convert the Norwegian figure into percentage. It is 31.3%.
US States:
Idaho (55.3%), Iowa (42.8%), New Hampshire (30%), North Dakota (50.7%), South Dakota (42.3%) and Vermont (42%).
FYI: District of Columbia (3.8%), Louisiana (44.1%), Alabama (51.7%),
These figures suggest that the percentage of gun ownership does not necessarily translate into more gun homicides.
This leaves me with the obvious suspect which is population density versus gun ownership rate, because Norway has a low population density of 12 per square kilometer (2006 estimate). Converted to square miles this would be around: 7.22 per square mile.
Now let's look at the population density figures per square mile for the US states with the highest gun homicide rates:
District of Columbia - 9,857
Louisiana - 104.9
Alabama - 94.4
The states with a comparable gun homicide rate to Norway:
Idaho - 19
Iowa - 54.5
New Hampshire - 147
North Dakota - 9.7
South Dakota - 10.7
Vermont - 67.9
North Dakota and South Dakota have the most similar population density as Norway and their gun homicide rates too are comparable.
And now for the Japanese statistics.
336 per square km ---> 208 per square mile (approximate figure)
Tokyo: 5937 per square km --->3681 per square mile
I couldn't find the figure for gun ownership in Japan per 100,000, but maybe you know what it is? I am guessing it will be higher in rural areas versus urban areas with a higher population densities.
My gut feeling tells me that in a crowded country like Japan, it just might not be a good idea for 50% of the population to own firearms, although I could be wrong. Whatever the case, we have fewer homicides now so there is no reason to rock the boat and *experiment*. Same goes for Norway. That's my two cents.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/general-firearm-discussion/9841-percent-firearms-ownership-state.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density
The statistics you mention are interesting. Has a criminal ever broken into your house at night? It happened to me once. I was terrified. 100% guaranteed, there wasn't a statistic in the world that would have protected me.
ReplyDeleteA loaded gun on my night table would have protected me. Faced with a prospective murderer or rapist, statistics are profoundly worthless.
So if, heaven forbid, some bad person broke into your house, would you want to have a loaded gun handy or would you prefer to be unarmed and at the mercy of a potential rapist?
Contrary to your insinuations that the statistics in anyway suggest that there is a correlation between gun ownership and gun control, there is none.
ReplyDeleteI have no clue why you are insinuating that I feel Americans should give-up their second amendment rights. Did I state anywhere that Americans should give-up their guns?
What I did say though is that it is misguided for Americans to tell Norwegians that what's wrong with them is that they do not have enough guns. Gun ownership appears to be around 30% for both countries. Should they really have more guns than the Americans?
I also did state my reservations about arming 50% of the populace in Tokyo with guns - which is an area with a high population density more similar to the population density in D.C. than Norway or North/South Dakota.
In the case of America, I have a suspicion that there is a valid reason for the second amendment, and that Americans should retain their rights to own firearms. However, it's misguided to apply American principles to everyone else.
Hope things are more clear now.
Seems like I need to speak more directly so people don't need to think I am insinuating things.
ReplyDeleteYou did not state that Americans should give up their guns. Whether or not people in one country should have more guns than people in another country is not anything I was trying to say. My belief is that self defense is a universal concept, though I would agree that American politicians should not force this concept or anything else on foreign countries.
To be direct, I was trying to say that when confronted with a dangerous situation, statistics are meaningless. The question is whether or not to be armed with a gun for self defense or to not be armed.
My preference is for people to have a choice in this important life decision. Gun control advocates want to force people to be disarmed and defenseless. They want to put people in jail for using a gun to defend themselves against a criminal. In Japan, the wishes of gun control advocates are enshrined into law.
The two questions I asked you were meant to provoke you to think about gun ownership and self defense rights in different terms. You are not obligated to respond and I notice you didn't. Maybe you would consider thinking about what I asked you and be so kind as to post a response.