What about golf? I don't think I've seen it mentioned here yet. That might be something he'd enjoy and can't afford to do in Japan...

Mcjon01 Wrote:I'm pretty sure they have a maid cafe for that now.

I haven't been to a maid cafe, but I'm pretty sure this is different ->

http://[video=youtube]http://www.youtube...yU[/video]

Lol that hot dog place, well let's just say I don't think I'd ever trust them with my food. Golf is a possibility, although I don't think he plays and I sure don't play so it might be a fair sum of cash. Maybe substitute that for mini golf. >.>

TheVinster Wrote:Eh, I wish guns were illegal in America as well. I hate the perception that other countries have of us in that they believe we all have guns and carry them around the entire day. Although in a controlled environment it's not like one would be treating them as toys. I'd honestly just do it for the experience.

Personally, I'm glad guns are not illegal in the US and hope that more restrictive laws get removed. Fortunately, the Supreme Court in a very close ruling seems to back the idea that States and local governments cannot limit 2nd amendment rights. The one thing I can't figure out is why people who call themselves "liberal" are against the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms. Yet, it's in "Blue States" that you see more gun control laws.

As for being worried about guns, Texas has had a concealed carry law for almost a couple of decades. Statistically, those people are the safest to be around. You should be more terrified of people under 30 in cars as they're more likely to kill you (both proportionally and numerically).

Nukemarine Wrote:

TheVinster Wrote:Eh, I wish guns were illegal in America as well. I hate the perception that other countries have of us in that they believe we all have guns and carry them around the entire day. Although in a controlled environment it's not like one would be treating them as toys. I'd honestly just do it for the experience.

Personally, I'm glad guns are not illegal in the US and hope that more restrictive laws get removed. Fortunately, the Supreme Court in a very close ruling seems to back the idea that States and local governments cannot limit 2nd amendment rights. The one thing I can't figure out is why people who call themselves "liberal" are against the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms. Yet, it's in "Blue States" that you see more gun control laws.

As for being worried about guns, Texas has had a concealed carry law for almost a couple of decades. Statistically, those people are the safest to be around. You should be more terrified of people under 30 in cars as they're more likely to kill you (both proportionally and numerically).

Statistically speaking, gun ownership leads to a higher homicide rate. However, the factors that influence this statistic may be various. Gun control is a potentially useful measure for combating this statistic. It is important to keep in mind that gun control doesn't just mean banning firearms, but also includes things such as background checks, licenses, etc.

In terms of the 2nd amendment, I think one of the top priorities of self-ascribed liberals is social welfare (including public safety), which explains their opposition to gun ownership. Even though personal freedom is important to liberal politics, public safety ultimately supersedes it.

An aspect of the 2nd amendment that people sometimes fail to acknowledge is that it does not refer specifically to firearms, but simply arms. I think anyone, regardless of political alliance, would oppose personal military-grade arms ownership. The rhetoric of "for" or "against" the 2nd amendment is misleading. Almost everyone is for the 2nd amendment and against it in some ways. The difference is the degree to which people believe arms should be controlled or not.

As having experience with everything from handguns to fully-automatic weapons myself, I believe more gun control in the form of proper training and certification would be beneficial to society. A large percentage of firearms injuries and fatalities are the result of misuse. I find it horrifying that someone can waltz into Wal-Mart and buy a rifle without knowing how to properly operate it, let alone clean, store, and maintain it. I'm not afraid of the police officer or soldier with proper firearm training, I'm scared of the Joe Schmo who doesn't even know how to align the sights.

Anyway, apologies for derailing the thread.

quincy Wrote:He's probably never had Mexican food, so that's always a good one.

Yeah, except Japanese people just aren't ready for such bold exciting new flavors... those poor poor bastards dont know what their missing out on... （；_・）

Vileru, it was the extensive training and background checks necessary for concealed carry in Texas that might account for the low homicide/accidental shootings in those cases. I don't think requiring proper training or registration is in itself a bad thing. The problem becomes when the government uses such measures to effectively ban weapons.

Put it this way, imagine having to take a two year driver's course every time you bought a new vehicle. Such a measure is effectively a legal ban cars despite it helping reduce the number of vehicle fatalities. Yeah, I like the idea of deeming everyone that operates a vehicle a "professional operator" that allows harsher penalties against mishaps (professional negligence), but not to the point no one can effectively get a vehicle and use it within legal means. Again, the same would go for weaponry.

Yes, I do equate vehicle ownership with gun ownership. It's one of the fine lines where it's regulated enough while not trampling on the ability to possess and use fire arms or vehicles.

As far as liberals and the second amendment, I think it's less about liberals and more about city versus suburban/country life. In a city setting with dense population, you're likely to have better societal protections that reduce the need for weaponry. In less populated areas where the nearest law enforcement could be 20 minutes to an hour away, maybe having the ability to defend one's self has a stronger merit. Problem is, like many things in the US, they make a one-size fits all law that does not take the situation into account (worse on the federal level, though state and city can be just as bad).

The reverse situation happens with regards to civil rights, where in densely populated areas you have the equivalent of a standing army (police force) with enormous power. They're armed while a majority of the population is not as they've entrusted their safety to the police. In suburban and country areas, such abuse of power is easier to either ignore (too far away to see) or answer as ability to control who's in power has more sway on the individual.

Horrible thread drift, but this seems more interesting than restaurants around Chicago.

My post wasn't pro or anti gun, just a statement of fact.

I like that no one has guns in japan, but that doesn't change the fact that its still fun to shoot one and it'll likely be the only opportunity the Japanese person ever has to do it.

To me, my .45 Colt (not the 9mm nukemarine has, hehe) is nothing more than, or less than, a Katana. It's just an old weapon that's fun, and dangerous, to use. Sure, gun control in the US can be a bit more sophisticated, but I also think it is retarded the Japanese police arrests citizens for carrying a Swiss Army knife.

In any case, if you've never shot a gun before and are taking a friend to a shooting range, make sure you go to the ones where they can teach you how to shoot. It really can kill you if you don't know how to handle it. That's the fun part though. What's fun about shooting a gun if it's 100% safe? It'd be like playing video games

@Nukemarine. I don't know about Texas, but living in Chicago, I'd prefer a lot less guns. I don't know what the numbers are, but it seems like people are getting robbed and shot left and right. Lax gun laws might work in less densely populated areas, but not here. I went to UIC I was getting mass emails every week about students being victims in strong armed robberies.

I'm all for gun ownership... as soon as they close the gun show loop holes, place limits on number of pieces allowed per person, and enact a slew of other regulations.

You can kill a lot with a Katana too. If people are shot left and right now, there will be just as many people slashed and stabbed left and right even without guns.

I agree gun control in the US needs to be more "sophisticated", but the reason why there are people getting killed right and left is fundamentally not because of guns. Yes, guns can kill a bit more than knives, but I don't think it's that much of a difference. There are people go postal with cooking knives in Japan and they kill almost as many as the freaks with guns in the US.

Mexican food!

Jarvik7 Wrote:My post wasn't pro or anti gun, just a statement of fact.

I like that no one has guns in japan, but that doesn't change the fact that its still fun to shoot one and it'll likely be the only opportunity the Japanese person ever has to do it.

Well, maybe. I'm from the UK, which also has fairly strict gun laws, and so guns to me have mental associations of "dangerous" and "only used in extreme situations for very good reasons" (even the police don't habitually carry guns...) So I think I'd be a bit freaked out about going to a shooting range.

I'm not going to get into the gnu-control argument (IME the cultural assumptions of the average US and UK person on the subject are so wildly different it's rarely productive). I just thought I'd say it would be worth finding out whether your guest is in the 'freaked out' camp or the 'cool' camp beforehand...

pm215 Wrote:I'm not going to get into the gnu-control argument (IME the cultural assumptions of the average US and UK person on the subject are so wildly different it's rarely productive).

I'm fairly certain most people from the US or the UK have no opinion on gnu control. To most people, gnus are just a safari animal and rarely come up in conversation or thought. Besides which, they are rarely culled, being a good fodder for conservation-priority large predators.

pm215 Wrote:I just thought I'd say it would be worth finding out whether your guest is in the 'freaked out' camp or the 'cool' camp beforehand...

Or the 'why would I want to shoot a gun camp?' I'm also from the UK and can't see the attraction.

If there's any good nature then I'd def go there. When I visited the California area the Grand Canyon and Yosemite park won over Vegas, San Francisco and LA easily.

Depends what your friend is into tho.

oregum Wrote:@Nukemarine. I don't know about Texas, but living in Chicago, I'd prefer a lot less guns. I don't know what the numbers are, but it seems like people are getting robbed and shot left and right. Lax gun laws might work in less densely populated areas, but not here. I went to UIC I was getting mass emails every week about students being victims in strong armed robberies.

I'm all for gun ownership... as soon as they close the gun show loop holes, place limits on number of pieces allowed per person, and enact a slew of other regulations.

The irony though is that the numbers of crimes committed by registered handguns are very low. So, that means that gun regulation works in that sense. The problem is they want to add more laws as if that'll stop people that want to break laws with guns to stop breaking laws with guns. Just doesn't work that way.

Yeah, in your gut it feels safer, but the reality does not reflect the intuition. Plus, when you outlaw a gun, the gun doesn't disappear unlike tobacco or alcohol (the other two things regulated by the ATF). Guns are still out there when you say no one can legally buy a gun.

Personally, I think there should be a "collector's exemption" that takes into account that some people collect guns. These guys don't need the same hassle each and every time they purchase a gun. If he wanted to do wicked deeds he already has an arsenal at his disposal. He's no more dangerous with 20 guns than he is with 2 (the number of hands he has). Now, some guy that never bought a gun? Yeah, maybe there should be a background check and a nice two week cooling off period for such a fellow.

As for the urban areas, as referenced by the article posted, criminals are less likely to commit a crime if the chance of being punished is higher. Now, I consider getting shot by a guy I rob a severe punishment so I'm less likely to rob him if I know he's armed. If I know that 90% of the people around are armed I'm really not likely to rob them. So crime is lower. Problem then becomes you have 90% of the population with the great equalizer at their side with that one guy that's unhinged. In addition, mishaps will increase.

Personally I'm cool with a few people accidentally being killed (or outright murdered) in exchange for the second amendment. Same reason I'm cool with the 20,000 plus traffic fatalities in exchange for freedom of vehicular travel. Same reason I'm cool with getting fired in exchange with the freedoms of capatalism. Etc, etc. It's all a tradeoff.

Ok this thread is offtopic now

I used to live in Texas for one year and I had a loaded gun pointed at me by a fellow high school student. This is something I would (most likely) not have experienced in Germany where we have stricter laws concerning gun possession.

That being said, I very much enjoyed shooting the various guns (including fully automatic) at a friends house.

Why wouldn't a Japanese person be able to shoot in Japan? Sweden has extremely strict gun laws, and there's still shooting ranges close to most major cities. It's something you do for fun, it has little to do with how hard/impossible it is to obtain a gun for personal use.

oregum Wrote:@Nukemarine. I don't know about Texas, but living in Chicago, I'd prefer a lot less guns. I don't know what the numbers are, but it seems like people are getting robbed and shot left and right. Lax gun laws might work in less densely populated areas, but not here. I went to UIC I was getting mass emails every week about students being victims in strong armed robberies.

I'm all for gun ownership... as soon as they close the gun show loop holes, place limits on number of pieces allowed per person, and enact a slew of other regulations.

And how would any of that reduce guns in the hands of criminals, you know the people who do NOT follow the law?

Also, the violent crime rate in the United States has been on the decline for nearly 15 years. In fact, in the early 2000's, United States gun ownership was at the highest level in history.....and yet the violent crime rate was at the lowest point since the mid 1970's.

I'm also shocked you are talking about Chicago, the city that had, until recently, one of the most strict gun control laws in the United States. You do know that Chicago experienced the HIGHEST amount of gun homicides per capita AFTER the gun ban was enacted don't you lol? Not only that but the ratio of gun murders to non gun murders increased as well even in the years that total crime declined. In fact 20% of all murders in the United States occur in the 4 cities with the most restrictive gun control laws, even though those cities account for only 6% of the U.S. population. Worse yet is that of the 15 states with the worst homicide rates 10 of them have strict gun control laws.

activeaero Wrote:I'm also shocked you are talking about Chicago, the city that had, until recently, one of the most strict gun control laws in the United States. You do know that Chicago experienced the HIGHEST amount of gun homicides per capita AFTER the gun ban was enacted don't you lol? Not only that but the ratio of gun murders to non gun murders increased as well even in the years that total crime declined. In fact 20% of all murders in the United States occur in the 4 cities with the most restrictive gun control laws, even though those cities account for only 6% of the U.S. population. Worse yet is that of the 15 states with the worst homicide rates 10 of them have strict gun control laws.

This isn't enough to deduce or even suggest a causative link (though there may be one). In the case of Chicago, any number of factors could have lead to the increase in gun crime. There isn't any immediately obvious method by which restricting gun sales could increase gun crime.

For the other stats, did any of the states/cities in question increase the strictness of their gun control in (perhaps partial) response to the high gun crime? Again, even if there is a correlation there could be no causal relationship, or there could be any number of intermediate factors affecting both gun legislation and crime rates.

Can you suggest a way in which selling guns in a more restricted fashion could increase gun crime?

activeaero Wrote:And how would any of that reduce guns in the hands of criminals, you know the people who do NOT follow the law?

As was said in the above posted study, about 500,000 guns are stolen each year as part of petty crime. And, well, these are the guns that are used by people who do not follow the law. People who own guns legally largely are law-abiding people.

Now, if people who follow the law don't have guns, then petty crime wouldn't distribute guns to criminals. The only way guns would get into America would be through much more complex processes. You would need there to be a market big enough that criminal organizations could make a lot of money selling illegal guns. No doubt this would happen, but the amount of criminals getting guns would no doubt be lower. I'm guessing it would be way less than 500,000.

When it's through petty crime, obtaining an illegal gun does not even have to be the intent. The criminal just robs a house, sees a gun, and thinks that it would be useful for himself or to sell. If it's through a criminal organization there has to be more of an intent, and the gun will cost the criminal money.

Tzadeck Wrote:As was said in the above posted study, about 500,000 guns are stolen each year as part of petty crime. And, well, these are the guns that are used by people who do not follow the law. People who own guns legally largely are law-abiding people.

I already said it, I'm all for gun-ownership. I've shot several types of firearms, know people who collect guns, and my brother is in the marines. In fact, I used to carry around the bill of rights on me all the time. I love the constitution. That being said, something has to be done about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

I don't know what to be exact, but I'm sure there are a bunch of things that can be done. For example: (1) If a gun is stolen and not reported, then is involved in a crime, the owner is not allowed to buy another gun. (2) Collector licenses/dealer licenses/owner licenses.

@activeaero. Here is a fact about Chicago. 10-15 years ago, every hoodlum I knew wanted to be in a gang; so there were petty gangs everywhere. I remembers seeing these fools, dressed in their reds/yellows/golds on almost every corner. I'm not even talking about the bad neighborhoods. Then bam they all pretty much disappeared, in jail, or grew out of it. Overall, now there is less graffiti, vandalism, petty crime, etc. I know a couple CPD officers and a few cab drivers. Why don't you ask them if they feel safer. Do you honestly think that stricter gun laws created a spike in crime overnight? That is the most ridicules correlation I've ever heard.

Nukemarine Wrote:Personally, I think there should be a "collector's exemption" that takes into account that some people collect guns. These guys don't need the same hassle each and every time they purchase a gun. If he wanted to do wicked deeds he already has an arsenal at his disposal. He's no more dangerous with 20 guns than he is with 2 (the number of hands he has). Now, some guy that never bought a gun? Yeah, maybe there should be a background check and a nice two week cooling off period for such a fellow.

Until the day comes when he goes postal and start acting like Rambo, which in some places isn't such a strange thing.

Quote:As for the urban areas, as referenced by the article posted, criminals are less likely to commit a crime if the chance of being punished is higher. Now, I consider getting shot by a guy I rob a severe punishment so I'm less likely to rob him if I know he's armed. If I know that 90% of the people around are armed I'm really not likely to rob them. So crime is lower. Problem then becomes you have 90% of the population with the great equalizer at their side with that one guy that's unhinged. In addition, mishaps will increase.

That sort of makes sense in the case of robberies. Unless the criminal just pulls the trigger before giving the other person time to react. And robberies aren't the only occasion when people get killed by leprechaun using guns. Now, you just can't kill someone with a gun if you can't get a gun in the first place.

Quote:Personally I'm cool with a few people accidentally being killed (or outright murdered) in exchange for the second amendment. Same reason I'm cool with the 20,000 plus traffic fatalities in exchange for freedom of vehicular travel. Same reason I'm cool with getting fired in exchange with the freedoms of capatalism. Etc, etc. It's all a tradeoff.

I wonder if you would keep thinking the same after someone in your family gets killed or injured because some free constitution abiding citizen choose to exerts his rights on him/her.

Besides, your comparison is totally pointless. The objective of traffic is transport, and casualties are incidental. The main use of guns is for killing (you could take hunting for food as a "fair" use too), so you just can't take people killed by stupid using guns as incidental. Both situations are not the same.

oregum Wrote:@activeaero. Here is a fact about Chicago. 10-15 years ago, every hoodlum I knew wanted to be in a gang; so there were petty gangs everywhere. I remembers seeing these fools, dressed in their reds/yellows/golds on almost every corner. I'm not even talking about the bad neighborhoods. Then bam they all pretty much disappeared, in jail, or grew out of it. Overall, now there is less graffiti, vandalism, petty crime, etc. I know a couple CPD officers and a few cab drivers. Why don't you ask them if they feel safer. Do you honestly think that stricter gun laws created a spike in crime overnight? That is the most ridicules correlation I've ever heard.

As I said earlier violent crime across the nation, as a whole, has been on a decline for the past 15 years. Nothing in your so called "fact" posted above counters any of the actual data, nor did you show any relation to the gun ban. Do you know why? Because 10-15 years ago the gun ban had been in effect for a decade! All of the crime and gang bangers you speak of existed WITH a gun ban.

Furthermore, what I posted was simply data. Chicago's gun murders increased to their highest levels, per capita, AFTER the gun ban was put into effect (most likely from the very time period you are referencing). It is also true that gun crimes make up a HIGHER number of overall crimes, in terms of a percentage of total crime, compared to the pre Chicago gun ban.

And stop creating strawmen. Nowhere in my argument did I say the gun ban "created a spike in crime overnight", so if you though such a correlation claim was ridiculous then I agree........because you just made it up.


The truth of the matter is that people are fooling themselves if they think gun bans OR gun freedom has any major effect on a society's willingness to commit crimes. Blaming guns, or lack of them, for murder is the equivalent of blaming automobiles for drunk driving deaths. And guess what? Far more people are killed by drunk drivers every year than are murdered by guns, about 50% more in fact.

Sebastian Wrote:Until the day comes when he goes postal and start acting like Rambo, which in some places isn't such a strange thing.

Yes actually it is a VERY strange thing. I guess I'll repeat myself again but violent crime in the United States has been dropping for the past 15 years.

In regards to going Rambo do you mean like a guy driving a truck into the middle of an intersection and then jumping out and stabbing a bunch of people to death? I guess we should logically be afraid of anyone with kitchen utensils, as it is clearly obvious that they are a serious threat if they ever decide to "go Rambo".

Sebastian Wrote:I wonder if you would keep thinking the same after someone in your family gets killed or injured because some free constitution abiding citizen choose to exerts his rights on him/her.

I'm sorry but this is the type of argument used by someone who has no argument. By this "logic" I could show why EVERYTHING should be banned.

"You don't think thing X is bad? Well I bet you wouldn't be saying that if your family was killed by thing X."