Free Tibet.

imported post

Not just gun control, but they are not allow any types of weapons.

One of several Stories:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7299212.stm

imported post

http://www.csgv.org/site/c.pmL5JnO7KzE/b.3509205/

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) uses a Human Rights reports from China to tell us how guns are bad. We all know how China protects human rights.

Guns in US 'Serious Threat to Life, Security' - China's Human Rights Report
March 12, 2008 | [size=BEIJING -- The Information Office of China's State Council issued "The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2007" on Thursday, reveal.. [url=http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/13/content_7779858.htm]Read More >[/url]]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/13/content_7779858.htm


About 30,000 people die from gun wounds every year in U.S.

http://www.chinaview.cn

2008-03-13 10:37:20
BEIJING, March 13 (Xinhua) -- The Information Office of China's State Council issued "The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2007" on Thursday, revealing about 30,000 people die from gun wounds every year in the United States.

The United States has an estimated 250 million privately-owned firearms, the largest number in the world, according to the Chinese report.
"Frequent gun violence poses a serious threat to people's life and property security," said the report.
On April 16, 2007, the Virginia Tech University witnessed the deadliest shooting rampage in modern U.S. history with 33 killed and more than 30 others injured.
The report also cited an Associated Press story on January 29,2007 as saying that about 410,000 Floridians were licensed to carry hidden guns, including 1,400 who had pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies, thanks to loopholes, errors and miscommunication of authorities.








Editor: Bi Mingxin

imported post

I'm always curious about the link between weapon bans and tyranny.

I have heard that in Iraq under Saddam, families were allowed or expected to keep one assault rifle in the household. Perhaps it was just Sunnis (or perhaps I am smoking crack and haven't a clue).

I have always believed that the relationship between the RKABA and overbearing government, and crime, for that matter, is more complicated than a simple "gun ban = dictator" equation. It also involves cultural factors, which are harder to nail down.

Japan, for instance, has very strict gun laws and very little private ownership, and yet it is a fairly peaceful place to live as compared with England. And Japan is a fairly free environment to live in otherwise, with a capitalist system and respect for private property. (This doesn't make it right to ban guns there; a Japanese citizen is born with all the same unalienable rights an American is, of course. And the mafia still has guns, of course.)

So why can't England's, or Illinois',attempts to institute a similar scheme work? It must have something to do with culture.

So where does China fit in here? If firearm ownership was suddenly made widespread in China, would the dictatorial government suddenly become weak and collapse? I don't think so. As long as most people are willing to obey authority, the tyrants will continue to rule. Possession of weapons is not enough; you have to have the right frame of mind, the right philosophy, and the willingness to fight for independence, or else the gun is just a paperweight.

imported post

I think what China is missing is that in this country, we may have a lot of gun deaths, but that's because we call them "homocides" rather than "lawful government executions".

imported post

It is more a point that China is not known for its human rights. They just killed 80 people trying a peaceful protest. Yet you have gun banners talking about how China is saying Guns violate human rights. It is really sad that 80 people died for what we do everyday - voice our displease with a law. I would have been shot a few years ago for wearing an empty holster into DC everyday. Not a big protest, but I get questions and it is a show of dislike for the current laws and government rules in DC.

In Japan it is because of the strict control they keep over the citizens.

They are subjected to State interviews twice a year. A file is kept on each citizen tracking routines, jobs, relationships, hobbies, and lifestyle.

The "safety" of Japan comes at a great cost to individual rights.

You willing to accept that for safety? I'm not.

imported post

I see your point.

About Japan, that just strengthens my case. The people are not standing in bread lines and being sent to the gulag, despite having a very controlling government.

If you insitituted such a system here, it would quickly become a Stalinist nightmare.

I am of the belief that human nature is pretty much the same across the board. I am also violently oposed to living under the kind of stuff the Japanese do, if what you're describing about state files is true. I don't want to be catalogued, spied on, or told what I can and can't own.

The reason I and others like me cite for not wanting those kinds of conditions is that it leads to a brutal dictatorship. But Japan shows that this is not always the case. Why? Who knows; perhaps our knowledge of human nature is incomplete.

So I have changed my argument from "it causes dictatorship" to "its very existence is oppressive".

Sorry for jacking the thread. I find this stuff very interesting.

imported post

Every time I read thoughts such as ya'll's, my mind reverts back to 1st Samuel, chapter 8. The nation of Israel was being guided by the LORD, Himself. But, for some of the Jews, that wasn't good enough. Samuel was approached by some of the leaders of the 12 tribes who demanded Samuel appoint them a king " like the other (pagan) nations." Bear in mind, at this point, Israel had not ever been ruled by a king.
It's been all downhill from there. Please read the entire chapter and tell me whether you believe that man was intended to be ruled over by another man, whether individually or by a group of men known as "government."

imported post

Japanese don't need guns, they have ninja! And blow guns, and posionous fish, and of course, all that control needs a release so they have legalized prostitution....so it's a balance.

imported post

possumboy wrote:

In Japan it is because of the strict control they keep over the citizens.

They are subjected to State interviews twice a year. A file is kept on each citizen tracking routines, jobs, relationships, hobbies, and lifestyle.

Click to expand...

Cite?

Just curious to read more about it, really...

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

possumboy wrote:

In Japan it is because of the strict control they keep over the citizens.

They are subjected to State interviews twice a year. A file is kept on each citizen tracking routines, jobs, relationships, hobbies, and lifestyle.

Click to expand...

Cite?

Just curious to read more about it, really...

Click to expand...

I found this...

http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/

Coming soon...Issue 5(3): surveillance and Inequality

http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/issue2(4)abstracts.htm

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

possumboy wrote:

In Japan it is because of the strict control they keep over the citizens.

They are subjected to State interviews twice a year. A file is kept on each citizen tracking routines, jobs, relationships, hobbies, and lifestyle.

Click to expand...

Cite?

Just curious to read more about it, really...

Click to expand...

Been there, seen it. I believe it is also reference in The Samurai, the Mountie and the Cowboy a Documentary by David B. Kopel.

In answer to Tomhawks. You are correctin itnot working here. America spend a lot of energy enforcing fairness. In Japan, you can perform or not, they do not make all the allowances.

Oddly enough, if you have G4 you can see this in "Ninja Warrior". The women run the same course as the man - except for the "Woman of Ninja Warrior" show. The taller people have an advantage. The stronger people have an advantage. If you are not tall enough to complete some of the obstacles, too bad, too sad. Here in America, we would have to modify the courses for the shorter person. You see this in both the Women's and the Man's "Ninja Warrior".

Also, in Japan, you can be arrested and not charged with a crime. They can keep you in custody without charging you for a set amount of time - I do not remember the time limit - then they must release you. As soon as you leave the jail, you can again be arrested and not charged with a crime and the clock starts over.

It is also not uncommon for a person to have visible bruising and other signs of mistreatment, while denying a confession - but the denial is usually ignored.

BTW - gun violence is on the rise in Japan. It is a society that proves, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

imported post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Japan

imported post

The 30,000 guns deaths they mention I haven't yetbeen able to confirm. There are 15,000 murders in the US every year but only about 65-75% of those are with firearms from what I have been readingfrom FBI statistics. Suicide and negligent dischargesare a huge factor in the numbersand the Chinese are probably lopping everything together to make it look like more "gun violence" occurs here.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/index.html

According to this, Washington DC is the leading murder city in the world..

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

China has 20,000 murders every year and is a communist,totalitarian, controlledregime. This is all that is reported at least...I wouldn't be surprised if their government kills more of their own people than our murderers do...

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-05/17/content_592568.htm

500 kids are killed every year in backyard swimming pools and more kids will die this year playing football than will be killed with guns..

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0702.htm

imported post

possumboy wrote:

Also, in Japan, you can be arrested and not charged with a crime. They can keep you in custody without charging you for a set amount of time - I do not remember the time limit - then they must release you. As soon as you leave the jail, you can again be arrested and not charged with a crime and the clock starts over.

Click to expand...

According to the wiki it's 23 days. But the article is confusing, since it also says they need to issue a warrant for your arrest within 48 hours of picking you up.

It is also not uncommon for a person to have visible bruising and other signs of mistreatment, while denying a confession - but the denial is usually ignored.

Click to expand...

Doesn't sound too different from some locales in the US. In both countries,it's against the law but some cops do it anyway. Post-911, we even torture people, now.

BTW - gun violence is on the rise in Japan. It is a society that proves, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Click to expand...

Again playing devil's advocate, assuming what you are saying is true without citation, if guns have been outlawed for as long as anyone can remember, why is the "gun violence" (such an anti phrase) only now rising? How come England, by comparison, saw an immediate increase in crime after banning guns?

Whn analyzing differences between countries, you have to consider a few things, some of which may be politically incorrect:

-Japan is the opposite of a "multicultural" nation. Conformity and racial purity are considered virtuous there.

-Japan also has a background of authoritarianism, in which the commoners have no rights, only obligations to the aristocracy. They never had a Magna Carta Moment. The same goes for China, AFAIK.

All this aside, my original argument was that there are more complicated factors involved in the relationship between guns and tyranny than just the simple banning of guns or the lack of same. I don't think it follows that if you were to suddenly give every Chinaman a rifle that the communist government would topple, nor do I think it folows that the Japanese government is so strong simply because of the lack of civilian gun ownership.

In the US, we have been raised in a background of individualism and mistrust of authority. Even the farthest left hippies don't like being spied on. Gun ownership, whether it's of any practical use against tyranny or not, emboldens the individual. He feels he has a last resort, but he also feels that "he can handle it (weapons)". That sense of individuality, I think , is what makes the difference, and it goes back to the roots of our history, at least to the ideas behind the Magna Carta and perhaps as far back as ancient Greece. China is a different story.

imported post

I cannot answer a lot of your questions.

All I can say is that I will never be able to fully understand, or express the culture differences that allow that system to work.

But yes, arming every Japanese person will not lead a revolution. Most will run in fear of what will happen if they have even seen it.

I also understand what you are saying. My wife's family has told stories of raids on Germans only to have the Jewish hostages run back to the camps out of fear.

Getting OT or I would explain many interactions I had in Lexington, KY while OC'ing with Japanese citizens there.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

I'm always curious about the link between weapon bans and tyranny.

I have heard that in Iraq under Saddam, families were allowed or expected to keep one assault rifle in the household. Perhaps it was just Sunnis (or perhaps I am smoking crack and haven't a clue).

I have always believed that the relationship between the RKABA and overbearing government, and crime, for that matter, is more complicated than a simple "gun ban = dictator" equation. It also involves cultural factors, which are harder to nail down.

Click to expand...

Regarding Iraq, you're pretty much spot on in every regard. The Ba'athist regime handed out rifles to loyal tribal leaders, predominantly Sunnis, but even though the regime didn't actively arm the Shi'ites itself, it didn't make any serious effort to disarm them either (even though most of the AKs in private hands were stolen from the government during the 1991 uprising). Just prior to the Coalition invasion, Basra (predominantly Shi'ite) had an average of two firearms per household (one of which generally an AK variant, and we're not talking semi-auto-only jobbies either).

Other Arab governments don't typically restrict firearms ownership either, but most of them are still pretty repressive.

Private firearms ownership was also quite commonplace in Yugoslavia under Tito; mainly shotguns and bolt-action rifles (i.e. hunting weapons), and a scattering of handguns, but bear in mind that until 1966, the standard-issue military weapon was the M48 rifle (copy of the Mauser K98k). Also, quite a few people who'd fought in the second world war (including, but not limited to, former partizans) buried their weapons when the war ended, as insurance against the next time. Those weapons included stuff like captured German machineguns. Technically illegal, but the UDBA (security service) never made any serious effort to track such weapons down.

The thing is, I think, that an armed citizenry doesn't present a significant threat to a repressive regime if that citizenry can be prevented from organizing effectively, be it by government control of means of communication, or by fostering animosity between segments of the population so that they hate each other more than they hate the government (divide and rule). In Yugoslavia, there was a series of revolts between 1949 and 1953; because the government controlled the means of communication, almost nobody not directly involved in a particular revolt was aware it was going on, so it never became a mass movement and the government was able defeat them piecemeal.

imported post

Euromutt wrote:

The thing is, I think, that an armed citizenry doesn't present a significant threat to a repressive regime if that citizenry can be prevented from organizing effectively, be it by government control of means of communication, or by fostering animosity between segments of the population so that they hate each other more than they hate the government (divide and rule). In Yugoslavia, there was a series of revolts between 1949 and 1953; because the government controlled the means of communication, almost nobody not directly involved in a particular revolt was aware it was going on, so it never became a mass movement and the government was able defeat them piecemeal.

Click to expand...

That's a great observation. And Americans are not immune. The media in the U.S. is all too compliant with the authorities when it comes to suppressing or filtering information. We never seem to get the full story on what goes in Iraq, say, or in Waco, until well after the fact.

And it touches again on the issue of warrantless wiretapping and what its implications are.

And, back on topic, China has, or would like to have, firm control over information, especially about what goes on inside Tibet.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Again playing devil's advocate, assuming what you are saying is true without citation, if guns have been outlawed for as long as anyone can remember, why is the "gun violence" (such an anti phrase) only now rising? How come England, by comparison, saw an immediate increase in crime after banning guns?

Click to expand...

I think it's important to remember that, a lot of the time, increased restrictions on firearms ownership are a (knee-jerk) governmental response to rising violent crime rates. But when such restrictions fail to stem the increase of crime (as they invariably do, since violent crime is not caused by gun availability, but by other factors), it looks like crime increased as a result of the additional restrictions, when in all likelihood, crime rates would have increased with or without the imposition of the gun bans.

The speed with which the UK and Australia implemented their firearm restrictions in the wake of Dunblane and Port Arthur suggests that the laws had largely been drafted even before the shootings took place; but the governments in question were able to harness public revulsion at the shootings to get the new laws passed without serious opposition.

To the best of my knowledge, the law in Japan is that the police can arrest and hold you for 48 without charge, or access to a lawyer.
After the 48 hours, the police can turn you over to the custody of public prosecutor for another 24 hours. After that, the public prosecutor can ask a court to authorize another ten days of detention, and another ten when the first ten are up. Only after 23 days do the authorities have to charge you or cut you loose.
During those 23 days, the police and/or public prosecutor can interrogate you without your lawyer present (though you are entitled to see a lawyer after the first 48 hours), and they aren't required to record the interrogations either.

Of people arrested in Japan, 95% end up signing a confession.
Of criminal cases brought to trial, 99.9% result in convictions. The convictions are almost always based on the defendant's confession, at least in part; often, they are based on the defendant's confession alone, without corroborating evidence.
The prosecution is not required to disclose evidence they choose not use in court; obviously, this allows prosecutors to legally suppress exculpatory evidence.

The problem is a cultural one: police, prosecutors and judges are all under pressure to close cases, first and foremost. Convicting the actual culprit is almost incidental. As a result, police and prosecutors focus their efforts on finding a halfway plausible suspect and forcing him to confess, rather than actually building a case. Perversely, this makes it easier for genuine hardened criminals to avoid being convicted; they know that if they can resist the pressure to confess, the case will probably never go to trial because prosecutors are unskilled at building cases based on actual evidence (and probably too incompetent to).

(Source: The Economist, "Confess and be done with it", "Just plead guilty and die")

imported post

Interesting links, Euromutt, thanks.

imported post

for australia this is true..victoria already had restricted semi auto and there was a decision taken by nsw state gov. to go down the same path in early 1990's .

after the tassy shooting..
(now it is my understanding that up untill 1991 /1993 gun law, you could buy a machine gun off the shelf without licence in tasmania..not that many people bothered to)
the federal gov asked all the states to meet and suggest a minimum uniform gun law..funded the federal gov buy back

Euromutt wrote:

The speed with which the UK and Australia implemented their firearm restrictions in the wake of Dunblane and Port Arthur suggests that the laws had largely been drafted even before the shootings took place; but the governments in question were able to harness public revulsion at the shootings to get the new laws passed without serious opposition.

Click to expand...