Would I be a very bad person to insert that I just learned that in America, flame throwers aren't illegal and anybody can own one (in some states you don't even need a license)?

Being burned alive would be a really crappy way to be murdered.

^_^

But seriously, as to Chicago . . .

I used to live nearby there, too. I lived in Kenosha, WI.

We're actually going to go there next week on vacation. ^_^

I think the restaurant that has waiters that yells at you is actually called Ed Debevic's. I remember (if it's still there) that people would stand in a line 10 blocks long to get in! But actually, the waiters and waitresses there are all actors and actresses, and each has their own personality.

(found it:http://featuredfoods.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/a-store/c-Ed_DebevicAns.shtml?E+scstore+debevic)

We're going to go to the nearby Renaissance Faire there (it's in between Chicago and Kenosha, but can't remember what town). That's a place Japanese people love (I know, we took 2 Japanese exchange students there and they *loved* it! Old World Europe-theme COSPLAY fair? Totally into that.)

Hmm, we're also going to the botanical gardens, but he might not like that so much. Not sure what else to suggest.

Sebastian Wrote:

Nukemarine Wrote: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.

Wonder no further. My father was murdered, apparently by his own gun that was stolen, when I was 18. Yes, I still stand by my opinion on the matter. Same goes if my daughter were killed by a drunk driver I would still rally against random breathalizers by police. If one's opinion on a matter is so easily swayed because it becomes personal, you never had a strong position on the matter.

Sebastian Wrote: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.

I don't stand by the hunting argument. I'm in the military, so at times I may be called upon to use my weapon to enforce the will on the US Government on civilians. Now, in Iraq, everyone civilian is allowed to have two AK-47s. Obviously, me trying to enforce our will on them requires more than brute force as they have a means of resisting besides a sharply worded NO. I'll have to be a bit more civil in matters with the civilian population. More on this after IceCream.

IceCream Wrote:I dont get the attraction either. And im not sure why people think its their right to own an object that allows them to kill someone by pressing a button in the first place. Actually, killing someone with a knife at least you have to make some effort...

imo the public should never be allowed guns.

The right comes from a simple interpretation: A free government MUST have an armed military "A well regulated MILITIA being necessary for the protection of a free state,". To reasonably protect from abuse or subjection from that necessity, then the population MUST be armed "The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed."

It's not about hunting, or collections, or protection against criminals. All of that is talk show window dressing. It's about preventing the government from totally abusing its power through the use of an armed military and police force.

Yes, I'm saying that people need to be armed so that they can kill ME should I be used as an armed instrument of oppression or abuse by the government. That helps ensure that I'm used is in a more noble manner: defense against foreign aggression and armed uprising.

Tobberoth Wrote: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.

It is actually illegal to "touch" an unloaded gun in Japan and you can get prosecuted for it.

There are a handful of place where the staff yell at/insult you in the city. Not my thing so I can't recall their names.

In lines with renaissance, there is also a place called Medieval Times. I went there when I was young and remember enjoying it. The place is a giant arena and they put on a 'a knight's tale' type show. I went too long ago, so I can't remember if it cheezy or not for adults.

oregum Wrote:There are a handful of place where the staff yell at/insult you in the city. Not my thing so I can't recall their names.

In lines with renaissance, there is also a place called Medieval Times. I went there when I was young and remember enjoying it. The place is a giant arena and they put on a 'a knight's tale' type show. I went too long ago, so I can't remember if it cheezy or not for adults.

I went to Medieval Times last year, maybe the first time since I was 11. Yeah... cheezy for adults. The food is good but the price isn't worth it. I actually live about 20 minutes away from it but he definitely wouldn't be into that. Good memories though, lol.

On a side-note I like how this thread took the weirdest turn of events. Not that I mind, carry on.

masaman Wrote:

Tobberoth Wrote: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.

It is actually illegal to "touch" an unloaded gun in Japan and you can get prosecuted for it.

Huh? There's definitely a shooting range north of Kyoto city, and some of my students have said that they sometimes go.

Tzadeck Wrote:

masaman Wrote:

Tobberoth Wrote: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.

It is actually illegal to "touch" an unloaded gun in Japan and you can get prosecuted for it.

Huh? There's definitely a shooting range north of Kyoto city, and some of my students have said that they sometimes go.

There are some shooting ranges in Japan. You just need a license to shoot there, which is harder than getting a driving license in the states. You might be able to get training sessions once you get a provisional license though. This is for shotguns and air guns. Getting a rifle license takes 10 years minimum. Hand guns are almost completely illegal. I don't know about your students, but I have never met a person who have experience shooting a gun in Japan.

Really, it's that hard? Three or four students said that they did it, all of them are just like 16-18 years old.

Tzadeck Wrote:Really, it's that hard? Three or four students said that they did it, all of them are just like 16-18 years old.

Well now you know for sure they're all Yakuza

IceCream Wrote:Perhaps it doesnt have an effect on whether a society wants to commit crimes or not (whatever that means) but this is a straw man too. The point is, after a period of time in which the number of guns gets vastly reduced, there simply isnt the means to commit the crime with a gun anymore. Yes, if your a criminal with a lot of the right connections, you can get hold of one. But it takes an awful lot of effort, so your average psycho either cant or wont do it.

And once again none of this matters if there is no direct correlation between gun bans and reduced crime. Would you also care explaining where all of the guns in the United States will go? Would you also like to provide evidence that it will take "an awful lot of effort" to obtain a firearm in the United States, even if they were banned, when all of the current evidence shows that the exact opposite is true? I already posted data that Chicago had it's peak level of gun homicide AFTER the ban, and now over 20 years later the ratio of gun crimes to non-gun crimes, as a percentage of total crime, has INCREASED.

And it seems no one still wants to address the fact that violent crime in the United States has been continuously falling for approximately 15 years......as gun ownership has increased. People keep crying about the violent crime rate in the U.S. but it has been doing EXACTLY what everyone wants, and it has been doing that for a very long time.

IceCream Wrote:As for the knives thing.... thats ridiculous. A knife isnt primarily designed as a lethal weapon. Consequently it does much less of a good job at it. Yes, people are killed every year in the UK with knives. But there are many more people that get stabbed that survive where they wouldnt have if the other person was holding a gun. Honestly, its a lot more difficult to kill someone with a knife.

Um most knives are specifically designed for being extremely good at slicing/piercing flesh......and in fact for the majority of human history there have been knives tailored primarily as a killing instruments. The idea that something comes packaged as a "camping" knife makes it ok, when it is nearly exactly the same as the CQC knives issued to infantrymen around the world, is quite ridiculous.

By that same logic I guess all sporting rifles and shotguns would be ok if they simply labeled them as such?

This whole "designed" purpose argument is a massive failure for anyone that has taken 5 minutes to think about it. However, I'm quite sure most people haven't which is why they simply rehash it. Using that "logic" I propose the banning of all sports cars, among an near endless variety of other objects, as they clearly have a "designed" purpose geared towards unsafe practices.

Tzadeck Wrote:Really, it's that hard? Three or four students said that they did it, all of them are just like 16-18 years old.

Yup, it's that hard. You need to be 18 and over to get a shotgun license, so if they really are 16, they are ether shooting air guns (which is unusual but technically possible), pulling your leg, or talking about something else like a "driving range".

Or, yes, Kyoto has a lot of Yakuza too

I remember Yodobashi having the sickest collection of air guns ever. They looked pretty much real, virtually every type of gun was available, and they didn't have the red barrel tip.

Or the students could all be 18+ and look young...

activeaero Wrote:I already posted data that Chicago had it's peak level of gun homicide AFTER the ban, and now over 20 years later the ratio of gun crimes to non-gun crimes, as a percentage of total crime, has INCREASED.

And it seems no one still wants to address the fact that violent crime in the United States has been continuously falling for approximately 15 years......as gun ownership has increased. People keep crying about the violent crime rate in the U.S. but it has been doing EXACTLY what everyone wants, and it has been doing that for a very long time.

The Chicago example is not a useful one at all. An isolated example of anything cannot tell us any information about the bigger picture. It could be that if similar strict gun laws were enacted in other parts of America, the gun homicide rate in those places would rise like it did in Chicago, on average. Or, it could be that the gun homicide rate in those places would fall on average. What happened in Chicago cannot tell us anything about what would happen on average.

It's like if you knew of only one case of leukemia, in which the patient survived, and determined the prognosis of the disease based on that one case. "Oh, you have leukemia? Well, you'll probably live. This one guy did." This is something you determine statistically, so obviously one case doesn't tell you anything.

Also, it's fairly obvious that the primary cause of crime is socio-economic factors. If violent crime is dropping in America, it's because socio-economic factors are improving. The question is, would violent encounters end in major injury or death less often if gun bans were enacted in America. In other words, would violent crime with horrible results have dropped MORE than it has if guns were illegal/banned/harder to get. And then, is the avoidance of those injuries and deaths a great enough benefit to justify the ban. Obviously, anything that is a personal freedom, and something that serves as a hobby for a lot of people, has some value to it. Is that value worth the number of lives that would be saved and the injuries suffered?

Of course, I don't have the numbers, and the numbers are really hard to determine, so I don't have an answer. But I'm posting because I don't think your response really addresses the issue.

Lol just got a call from the airport in Detroit where he had to switch flights. They were detaining him for it being unusual means for travel (he and I have just been pen pals and haven't met in real life of course). Doesn't Detroit have other things to worry about? Hah.

TheVinster Wrote:Lol just got a call from the airport in Detroit where he had to switch flights. They were detaining him for it being unusual means for travel (he and I have just been pen pals and haven't met in real life of course). Doesn't Detroit have other things to worry about? Hah.

I know authorities often exaggerate in these cases but since you don't know him well try not to get killed or robbed.

thurd Wrote:

TheVinster Wrote:Lol just got a call from the airport in Detroit where he had to switch flights. They were detaining him for it being unusual means for travel (he and I have just been pen pals and haven't met in real life of course). Doesn't Detroit have other things to worry about? Hah.

I know authorities often exaggerate in these cases but since you don't know him well try not to get killed or robbed.

He's here. Still alive. Will check in tomorrow. If you don't hear from me assume the worst.

Tzadeck Wrote:The Chicago example is not a useful one at all. An isolated example of anything cannot tell us any information about the bigger picture. It could be that if similar strict gun laws were enacted in other parts of America, the gun homicide rate in those places would rise like it did in Chicago, on average. Or, it could be that the gun homicide rate in those places would fall on average. What happened in Chicago cannot tell us anything about what would happen on average.

Did you simply ignore the other information I posted?

20% of all homicides occur in the 4 cities with the most restrictive gun control laws, even though those cities comprise of only 6% of the U.S. population.

The 10 of the 15 states with the highest murder rates are those with restrictive gun control regulation/gun bans.

Gun ownership in the United States peaked while we had some of the lowest crime rates in the past several decades.

I think people need to understand that the point I'm trying to make isn't gun bans = automatic increase in crime, or that more guns = less crime. As you've stated there are tons of factors that relate to crime........and that is exactly the point. People are focusing on the wrong issue, and those who think banning guns is a significant cure for eliminating/decreasing crime live in a fantasy world, period. There are places with very strict gun laws that have tons of crime, places with almost no gun laws that have low crime, and places that are all in the middle.

But instead of looking at the issue logically, many people would rather just direct their frustration toward a "tangible" goal....especially if that "goal" has a nice "evil" symbol to go along with it.

If you're going to look at the issue logically, the first place to start would be reading some of the literature. I'm no expert on this but I'll post a link to this article by Professor Bogus:

Bogus, Carl T., Gun Control and America's Cities: Public Policy and Politics. ; Roger Williams Univ. Legal Studies Paper No. 62. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1140442

Interesting tidbits:

Bogus Wrote:In fact, only about 16% of homicides occur during the course of a felony of any kind.30 The largest percentage of murders, more than 40%, occurs during arguments.31 Most murderers, it appears, are killing people they know. In 2006, among murders where we know whether or not there was a relationship between murder and victim, the murders of family members, friends, and acquaintances were more than triple those of strangers.32

Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins have written: “Most of
the circumstances that generate homicide are not property crimes
involving strangers, but arguments among acquaintances that
nobody would regard as distinctively criminal until the attack
began.”33

During 2006, handguns were used in 60% of all murders

America’s high rates of murders and robberies, and the special deadliness of aggravated assault in the United States, result in significant part from the prevalence of handguns in American society. If we can reduce the prevalence of handguns, we will reduce homicide and robbery rates and the number of people dying as a result of assaults.

robberies at gun point are more deadly overall because, even though fewer victims are injured, among those injured far more die. Studies show that robberies at gun-point result in death three times as often as those at knife-point and ten times as often as those involving brute force alone.56

This is already paying off. He gave me Japanese hair gel that smells like bubble gum and in the mall he taught me the phrase, "ナイスけつやな."

If this were Facebook I would "like" this...

TheVinster, you'll have to let us know what you actually end up doing during his visit and if you even end up going to the gun range that has sparked an interesting debate on this thread.

We'll see. I'm interested in shooting a real gun but I'm not sure how it'll work out for my buddy since he's Japanese and maybe there are restrictions.

We'll probably start our Chicago trips next week and he has a camera so maybe I'll share the pictures with you guys. MAYBE. Already went to White Castle and they didn't live up to his expectation of the Harold & Kumar movies. Saturday we're going to see Inception.

Also I did confirm that he's never had real Mexican food. Y'know, he had Taco Bell but we all know that isn't faithful.

Eikyu Wrote:If you're going to look at the issue logically, the first place to start would be reading some of the literature. I'm no expert on this but I'll post a link to this article by Professor Bogus:

It must be really hard to sound credible with that name. I honestly wasn't sure if you were being serious.

TheVinster Wrote:This is already paying off. He gave me Japanese hair gel that smells like bubble gum and in the mall he taught me the phrase, "ナイスけつやな."

You have to take him to Hooters today!