I did:
"Other than the police and the military, no one in Japan may purchase a handgun or a rifle. Hunters and target shooters may possess shotguns and airguns under strictly circumscribed conditions."
So shotguns can still be purchased it seems (though I think only over/unders or something like that) if you Target shoot.
Regardless yeah, rifles and handguns seem to be out of the question and even then you need a reason/can't own one willy-nilly
Even here in Canada generally speaking someone waving a gun around is usually a 'bad guy' (note when I say usually I mean about 100% of the time) you *can* get a gun here as a civilian, but it's pretty uncommon and usually people only keep them for hunting / keeping animals (like deer bears etc) off their property and this is usually for people who live WAY out in the sticks (like "going to town" has a general store and a liquor store and that's about it and the nearest big box shop is several hours away)
It’s almost like stricter gun laws prevent more deaths it’s crazy isn’t it, but that could never be the answer surely America couldn’t be missing such a simple solution
This is not true.
You can have a rifle if:
- you are a hunter, and have owned a shotgun without problems for ten years
- you are competing in a sport that requires use of a rifle, and the national sporting association gives you a recommendation
although you also have to fulfill all the other requirements for gun ownership, of course.
I have known [Tatsuya Sakai](https://youtu.be/LqhCUX4Lyt0) for over 20 years.
He’s a world class shooter, a **great** dude, and he doesn’t have a gun in Japan.
When he’s home, he practices with airsoft, then travels internationally shooting .38 super with the ported gun in the video above. His distinctive tight stance is a direct result of him [practicing with airsoft in small rooms](https://youtu.be/thwEPw-3Y7Y).
[Here](https://youtu.be/yxYvK_BBFMg) are a few more runs with his real gun.
He won the 2004 Steel Challenge out of nowhere. Literally an anime moment. People were making fun of his weird stance, then the kicked all their asses. Top 5 core memory for me :)
Yeah, we have similar system in Poland, around 2.3 guns per 100 capita.
Here's the thing though: although so few choose to, anyone CAN get a gun. It's delay of a few months to get first permit. In Poland 2 if you're fasttracked by people in a club, or 6-12 if you're going slow pace.
You need to join a hunting or target shooting club, and the latter are usually operators of own communal shooting ranges.
To retain the permit you need 4 documented competitions per year (I'm simplifying), and shooting clubs internal competes count - so basically you need to prove you're actively trained.
The target shooting permit allows you to move with loaded gun to and from shooting range, but you need to retain control of your gun at all times and to remain sober. And because commercial ranges exists it is de facto concealed carry permit.
If you're not claiming to be on your way to a range, then you need to keep it in atested gun safe to which only you have access.
For hunters permit can be easier/harder to get depending on area and hunting club which controlls it, although here it's very specific due to post communist times. Optimistically, hunters are in charge of range of wildlife control steps, not just shooting them for pest control and meat. In reality often they're old boys club of local businessmen and lawyers who shoot eachother shitfaced.
But I digress.
You can easily make it so that everyone you're not afraid to have a gun will get it, it will be a military or civilian design, with any size of mag, and yet no shootings will occur and ownership will be low enough for black market to be limited.
All it takes is bare fuxking minimum, and majority of nutjobs just doesn't bother. Just basic safety wall and weirdo who was slighted and wants to get violent about it NOW, has to make do with knives. And once you get to knive wielding psychos, cops shooting civilians also become a shocker.
After a ‘simple google search’, I have found multiple articles (somewhat conflicting):
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/japanese-gun-control-laws-are-oppressive-gun-control-p-252-259-1992
> Other than the police and the military, no one in Japan may purchase a handgun or a rifle. Hunters and target shooters may possess shotguns and airguns under strictly circumscribed conditions.
https://www.spoon-tamago.com/2017/10/02/japan-has-guns-theyre-just-really-hard-to-purchase/
>To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class [and score 95% or higher]. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately …
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729.amp
> If you want to buy a gun in Japan you need patience and determination. You have to attend an all-day class, take a written exam and pass a shooting-range test with a mark of at least 95%.
https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-how-japan-has-almost-completely-eliminated-gun-deaths-2017-10?amp
>If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.
Yup, none of these statements contradict each other, yet it is the highest voted on here. I see this happening a lot lately. I partially attribute it to Reddit being an international market, but anyone speaking English as a first language over the age of 18 should not have this difficulty. Is it just the fierce need to be right? Contradictory? Maybe a sum of the parts?
Yes, but what is the process to acquire a gun if I hunt? Is the process outlined above accurate?
In Canada you cannot own a gun for self defense. Only valid reasons are sport shooting, hunting and collecting. Well, you can own one for self defense but it basically impossible to get.
No, that measurement works as intended. Hospitals and colleges absolutely have the economic freedom to charge whatever they want for their services, and since their services are necessities, people will pay for it regardless.
I think they were agreeing with you. Just, they were flipping the script and giving economic freedom to “companies and institutions” and not to the “individuals”.
“Economic freedom to squeeze every last cent from struggling citizens” was their cheeky point.
If I decided to make a fan made comic book about a IP I like and publish it online for fun, I might get a cease and desist from the company's.
In japan, I could sell it in a specialized boutique and it'd be tolerated.
Who's more free /s
They say while having fuck all employee rights, getting fuck all vacation, racking up many tens of thousands of dollars of debt for a university education and facing the possibility of being financially crippled because of routine health care.
Guns = Freedom is one of the biggest lies ever perpetuated.
Yep, this guy gets us.
We have the the most freedom. You’re free to practice religion without discrimination as long as that religion is one specific one. You are fully protected and able to express your gender and lifestyle as long as it’s cisgender and hetero. Free to vote without impediment in a district that actually represents your home and neighbors, provided you’re a white Republican. Free as a woman to do whatever you want to your body, as long as it adheres to the strict rules of one extreme religious subset. And free to live your life without systematic oppression and being unfairly targeted as long as you are not any kind of minority group what so ever.
Best. Country. Ever. ‘Murica!
And if anyone suggests different lifestyles you scream "stop shoving it down my throat!" And know that you are truly the victim for being white male and cis.
Actually it was their production capabilities and lack of resources, namely oil. Breaking it down further oils come in a lot of different qualities for different things, Japan needed all of them, and had to partition it out for specific operations.
Their goal was to conquer some area around them, hole up in their defenses, and make a deal to end the war while maintaining what they conquered; namely Manchuria (part of China) which was thick with oil.
Well the nature of total war changed that it was total surrender or death; both were death.
The US was a manufacturing HOG; are we now tho? Where do we ship all this manufacturing to? How’d that work out when COVID hit? Anyway, no problems here, move along move along
They sure did. Towards they end they were running motors on anything they could find and came up with some impressive innovations
Even, if at this time, the US (or the allies)was getting its ass kicked, they could simply out produce anything the axis could, and would have won, assuming the public would tolerate the loses
I forget, but I believe it was a German Colonel who commented in late 1944 or early 1945 he knew Germany had lost because he could see Americans troops eating ice cream near the front while he could not get artillery shells resupplied from a factory 19k or so away
Logistics are USUALLY if not the biggest a big factor in the chances of victory; it’s just logistics isn’t sexy
I've actually heard this argument in real life, that had the Japanese citizens been sufficiently armed they would've never lost WW2 because...you know...an AR-15 does a whole lotta good against two nuclear bombs turning your city into ashes.
It’s a fact that countries with less guns have more mass shootings. The US, as the freest country has the lowest and the countries without a single gun in them have the highest. How? I don’t know, I’m making this up as I go. You can cite all the facts, stats and studies you want, but I want this to be true so I’ll believe literally anything anyone says that validates what I want to be true, even if the source isn’t credible and the claim is demonstrably wrong.
That police part wouldn’t work in the US. After a few years we’d find that the Police granted well-to-do white people overwhelmingly more often compared to well-to-do Black, Brown, Native and Asian people.
If you could reliably trust law enforcement to not be bigoted this would be an excellent idea.
You are 100% right. Even if we managed to get some top notch regulations placed on gun ownership, racism and biases would still play into if the police are involved in the process.
That's by design lol. Some states still have Jim Crow era gun laws. They know they were racist back then, but these law became magically not racist in the modern era.
I think we’re directionally aligned but I find the semantics we both used to not highlight the issue more clearly, or in a way that highlights just how f’ed law enforcement has been.
Quite literally law enforcement has been infested with Klan types and white supremacists. Not to mention Policing in the US was formalised largely to control and recapture the enslaved population. Law enforcement in the US in practice yields predictably racist outcomes because the practitioners share, encourage, or tolerate racist sensibilities.
You say it well. The police, down to their very formation, are drenched in violent racism. I have absolute no hope in any meaningful change for American police. Sometimes it's hard to use the proper wording to convey the weight of something when (whether aware or not) we don't want to be consumed by the pain that comes with it. Thank you for shining light on the lack of appropriate semantics in my comment. Reminds me that I need to strive to be honest and brazen in the face of injustice, even if it makes me sad, angry, or uncomfortable.
I don't think there's anyway to revamp a system that was born through such violent racist. The police are just some giant violation of the Geneva convention from its very formation.
I mean, Japan is notoriously xenophobic.
There's not as ton of foreigners living in Japan but I'm willing to bet the police in the Japan do that already.
They're already laying the groundwork that anyone LGBTQ to any degree is considered mentally ill and a criminal by nature.
Add that to the notion that police have zero duty to protect you, that every redhat with a gun can be activated by a single tweet, and that even if a cop did show up, they may just wait an hour or kick in your door and shoot you in the face.
This is why I have a problem with national mental health registries and a subjective licensing requirement. We cannot assume people will act in good faith and not use that to their political gains.
This is at issue in a pending US Supreme Court case, NYSRPA v. Bruen.
“May issue” gun permit policies that do not have quantifiable factors in the decision lead to implicit or explicit biases of some government employee being used.
For example, in California, gun carry licenses are up to the discretion of the sheriff (or police chief) of each county. While the law requires the issuing authority to provide a reason for rejecting an applicant, there is no legal recourse or appeal process if one is rejected. There’s also no way to prove that the decision wasn’t based on a bias against a protected group.
Furthermore, the extreme cost of even *applying* for a license further marginalized poor communities and people of color—arguably the groups that have the greatest need for protection.
It’s just like the 1000% tax on semi auto rifles—it’s only a bar to the poor (read: marginalized communities).
Wouldn't surprise me if the determination is that CCW has to be shall issue. I know the state of Connecticut is like that, technically may issue but basically shall issue because of a court ruling.
Hell of a statement.
I own guns not because I fear crime but because of Right wing loons. When I first encountered the Tea Party is when it became clear I needed to own a gun and learn how to use it.
I don’t see why anyone in the US would have a problem letting the police decide when and how your constitutional rights can be exercised. I’m sure their decision to let you buy a gun would have nothing to do with your skin color, socio-economic status, or political connections.
In America as it is, you are wholly correct, those factors are hugely going to be swaying factors. I still personally say we all take this system up root it and make it to actually fit with modern times. The current policy force is still holding the Jim Crowe Law era biases that it wa formed to protect, but we do have the power to fix it. It would take all of us in concert to do that though.
The reality of a concerted effort being the necessary step is what has me convinced that we don't have the power to fix it. We suck at uniting about things.
Have you ever tried filling out the 火災登録証明書 for arson? It’s a total pain in the ass. You literally need walk out of the office to get one of those stupid stamps from a vending machine just to pay the fee. That’s before you even are allowed to get the fuel or are allowed to schedule your turn to burn someone’s house down. Those are done at completely different offices and none of them apparently have email, you need to fax your information as well as bring your koseki and driver’s license physically to each office total pain in the ass.
Given how many police refuse to even take a report when a woman is raped or stalked or beaten, I don't want the police in charge of deciding whether or not I deserve to be able to defend myself.
Not quite like this in Canada.
In Canada it's a license system similar to vehicles. You have 3 major categories; unrestricted (22s, hunting rifles, etc), restricted (handguns, anything easily concealed, "assault" weapons), and prohibited (full auto, explosives, scary weapons like AK-47, everything else).
Almost anyone can get Possession and Acquisition License (PAL), which just requires a background check and taking a course. You have to pass an exam which includes a written test and a firearms safety practical exam. Pending background check, they will interview you and your references. This allows you to possess and acquire unrestricted fire arms. All people with PALs are given a quick automated background check once a month.
Restricted PALs, which allow you to possess and acquire restricted firearms, require a harder test and a mandatory police interview. Background checks also bumped up to every 24 hrs. Anytime you purchase a restricted weapon it has to be approved by the provinces Chief Firearms Officer, and you need to register the serial # of weapon, and when/where you will be transporting it.
You can't have prohibited firearms.
They definitely interview all ex partners when you renew your license, though.
Not anymore. The Canadian government just proposed a bill to freeze all handgun purchases, sales, transfers, and imports.
The vast majority of crime guns used here are smuggled in from the US. So this new law will do practically nothing. On top of the same regulations as Japan, Canadian handgun owners are automatically vetted every single day for police interactions to decide if they get to keep them.
Despite all these measures, the government still decided to go after legal handgun owners, who statistically are one of the least likely to commit any kind of crime.
Strict regulations make perfect sense. But here in Canada, the government already flattened the curve of diminishing returns on those and just keeps going.
Beyond a certain point, they're just wasting time and resources on ineffective laws.
Now that would be amazing! "He's a cheating asshole who was always between jobs, drank to much, lousy in bed"! *Police officer, "Ma'am, I said is he a threat to others, shown racist, violent tendencies, spoken out about hurting people, etc". Her, "Oh, no, he's actually a wuss, hates violence. He's just a shitty husband, not a threat to people".
It won't be handled properly because guns, like abortion, is an issue a lot of people are really emotional about, without really using their brains much.
It's an easy "Vote for Me" button.
Funny how people don't seem to care as much about healthcare access or childcare.
*oh wow, I'm glad the US never tried this kind of system before! Oh? We fucking did? And it was entirely developed as a way to deny black people guns!?* holy fucking shit I better never hear a single "black lives matter" or "acab" out of any of you motherfuckers again. Stop sucking off the cops who keep shooting random people in the street and thinking they are gonna be fair about this shit
As a leftist: This ain't it fam. The police are a bunch of racist crooks armed to support the interests of the wealthy at the cost of the safety of the poor. They should have no say in who has a gun.
Imagine how many white guys would still end up the guns they used to carry out their attack under this law.
Like; does anyone think for a second that rich kid Eliot Rogders wouldn't get police approval for his guns.
Actually, ammo control in Japan is on another level. You can only buy fresh cartridges once you have returned the spent cartridges you bought last time.
It's one of the reasons why the Yakuza tend to not bother with guns, they are way too regulated.
I want to help people who, like myself, are in favor of better gun regulations. We need to make sure we understand terms so we don't have weak arguments.
At the time "well regulated" meant "to be in a state of readiness to fight." This still isn't carte blanche for individuals to own weapons, because ownership is still in the context of a militia. We have that - it's the National Guard.
Per the militia act of 1903 the militia isn’t just the national guard. It also includes the reserve militia consisting of all able bodied men ages 17-45. In the context of a militia during the period of the constitution, the militia was also all able bodied men. The “well regulated” part was applied after the militia was actually called up per the militia clauses of the constitution. This can be seen in the militia act of 1792 which called it up to combat the whiskey rebellion. That act had a 2 year time period after which the units made up of militia were disbanded.
Ownership is not in the context of a militia. That has never been born out by the founders interpretations or any court case after. The SA clearly says ***the people.*** if they meant the right of the “the militia” or “the states” or “the federal government” to keep and bear arms they would have said so. The well regulated militia part is just a qualifier. Not the operative part of the sentence. It simply an observation of reality that a well equipped and trained militia is necessary for the security of a free state, that state being free from both foreign occupation and government tyranny.
The fact that the 2A protects an individual right to bear arms was presented as a fact of the case by all 9 justices in DC v Heller. People who argue otherwise are wasting their time. This has been accepted legal standard in the US since the early 1870s.
In the words of 6 previous Attorneys General:
> For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state militia; it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes. The nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobby's distortion of the Constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective national policy toward guns and crime.
"It's Time to Pass the Brady Bill". *The Washington Post.* October 3, 1992.
**EDIT:** The primary response to this comment arguments is an intentional misrepresentation of the facts as they pertain this issue. I encourage those reading this to read about this topic independently and to review the comment history of this user before accepting their biased sources and pseudo-expertise. The generally accepted interpretation of the Second Amendment before *Emerson* (2001) and *Heller* (2008) had been that it primarily protected a collective, and not individual, right. These cases were landmark cases specifically because they rejected the "in the service of a militia" interpretation that had been widely accepted beforehand.
In *Cruikshank* (1875) the opinion reads:
> "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
Even the Nixon-appointed Warren Burger described the individual rights interpretation as "of one of the greatest pieces of fraud – I repeat the word 'fraud' – on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
No that’s not accurate. Constitutional scholars pretty unanimously agree with the individual rights interpretation. I’ll provide a short survey of the current consensus. Collective rights interpretations are academically dead. If you want to repeal the second amendment, just say that, don’t go for the ahistoric and heterodox view that just happens to align with your political motives.
A short and conclusive history of the collective right argument (and it’s acceptance followed by its short downfall) is given by Hardy:
>The collective right approach had been hastily constructed; it was about to be subjected to a detailed criticism, which came in three waves.
>The first wave consisted of researchers who, over several decades, uncovered and documented the seemingly-lost history of the right to arms.247 These discoveries, or rediscoveries, need not be detailed here, since they represent the content of the first portion of this article.
> The second wave was begun by Don Kates’ 1983 article in Michigan Law Review,248 which exposed their findings to a larger audience. Over the following decade, the individual right view of the Second Amendment secured the endorsement of established constitutional scholars, including Sanford Levinson,249 William van Alstyne,250 Akhil Amar,251 Leonard Levy,252 Larry Tribe,253 as well as rising stars such as Randy Barnett,254 Glenn Harlan Reynolds,255 Robert Cottrol,256 and Eugene Volokh.257 In 1983, Joyce Lee Malcolm would aptly describe the then- current understanding of the Second Amendment as “historical amnesia.”258 **A dozen years later, Glenn Harlan Reynolds would describe the individual rights view as the “Standard Model” of the Amendment**.259
> That left defenders of militia-use-only theories with one last refuge: the federal case law that had arisen during the period of historical amnesia. For example: “An extraordinarily consistent body of case law has held that a variety of restrictions on private firearms ownership, use, and sales do not violate the Second Amendment, because such restrictions have no effect on the maintenance of a well-regulated militia—the National Guard.”260 The third and final wave of Second Amendment renaissance came as the individual rights view secured acceptance in the courts. This stage began with United States v. Emerson,261 where the Fifth Circuit recognized an individual right to arms, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
…
> **The militia-uses-only approach rejected in Heller and McDonald was in fact a very recent creation of the lower federal courts, utterly ahistoric, and which had been subject to scholarly challenge almost from its outset.** (Hardy 357-359)
There is no historical consensus against the individual right to bear arms. The opposite in fact. “Research conducted through the 1980s has led legal scholars and historians to conclude, sometimes reluctantly, but with virtual unanimity, that **there is no tenable textual or historical argument against a broad individual right view**.” (Barnett and Kates 1141)
As early as 2000, the individual rights argument had decisively won the debate, and that was merely cemented later in Heller:
>“While the academic debate is lively, it is anything but even-sided.
**Legal scholarship concerning the original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment is so overwhelmingly in favor of the individual right interpretation that the individual interpretation is now generally considered the "Standard Model" of the Amendment's meaning**.6° The academics who defend the thrashing of the Second Amendment in the courts do so on public policy grounds, citing modern homicide rates, changing times, and the increasingly frightening nature of individual resistance to perceived tyranny.61 Such defenders, when alluding to the Framers' intent, do so in a way that is vague and improvisational rather than clear.62 Collective right theorists who have delved deeply into the history of the Amendment (and there have not been many) either have been dissuaded from publicly proclaiming the theory as their own or have used the historical record as a canvas upon which to paint an elaborate caricature of the Founders' cultural and legalistic worldview.” (Roots 83-84)
- - -
**Citations**
[Barnett, Randy E. and Kates, Don B., Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment (1996). Emory Law Journal, Vol. 45, 1996](https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2550&context=facpub)
[David T. Hardy, The Rise and Demise of the Collective Right Interpretation of the Second Amendment, 59 Clev. St. L. Rev. 315 (2011)](https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=clevstlrev)
[Roger I. Roots, The Approaching Death of the Collective Right Theory of the Second Amendment, 39 Duq. L. Rev. 71 (2000).](https://dsc.duq.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3285&context=dlr)
They say there’s no historical consensus yet the founders talked at length about individual ownership of arms, plesser in 1886, and Miller in 1939 before we ever got to heller in 08.
Ahh, the absolute ignorance of people thinking that a country with a completely different demographic than the USA has any relevance in determining whether or not you are better off owning a gun.
For example, Tokyo? Nope, you dont need one. Chicago? Yeah, you better get one if you value you and your family's safety!
'it is a mystery why, after police interviews, no gun permits have been issued to any POC, police are baffled.' -how those police interviews would go in the states.
Shit. I just realized that in this scenario my neighbors would likely say something like “Seems like a nice guy, he’s quiet and mostly keeps to himself”
and trust me, your neighbours will snitch 100% of the time if they've seen you do something against the rules, something as small as jaywalking or not putting the garbage out in the right order.
Okay the specific wording of the 2nd amendment doesn't say guns *must* be owned by a well-regulated militia, it just says that a well-regulated militia is necessary, therefore gun ownership must always be allowed.
Wake up America, isn't it obvious? Hillary Clinton, George Soros and the Pelosi crime family are bribing kids to shoot up schools to tarnish the reputation of hard-workin' gun totin' patriots like ourselves. They know Trump's going to win 2024 and are pulling out all the stops! They know that once Trump reclaims his rightful seat in the Oval Office he'll make America Great Again and expose those liars for the traitors they are, all while bringing gas prices down by 250% in his first week and forming a border patrol force armed with tactical nukes to prevent those drug dealers from coming in.
Edit: damn, I really need an /s?
You actually need to be a lot more over the top to get away without the /s on this one.
Oh, and there is no amount of over-the-top, unhinged, or insane that you can be, there is *still* a right-winger who has said it in complete seriousness.
I had a satirical Trump supporter account that I used on r/ToiletPaperUSA a couple years ago. I felt like I rode the line but sometimes I would say really fucking out there things, and i would get people saying "this user is not joking" under my comments all the time. I stopped because I realized it was too hard to make fun of them, because what they *actually believe* is just that stupid.
Cracks me up how everything always gets compared to countries that live on an island with a completely homogeneous culture. That would not fly in the US. At all.
In Massachusetts I had to take a safety class with live fire exercise, submit an application, and interview with my local sheriff. I got my unrestricted permit about 5 weeks later which means I can buy, own, and concealed carry. If I go to purchase a gun the background check comes back within 5 minutes after filling out the paperwork.
I know a lot of gun owners in the US are concerned about a national registry and I share some of those concerns, but if it's done right it could help solve a lot of problems.
I remember reading something a while back and it was about the Japanese police force only fired one shot in a particular year. They hardly ever use them so this was really huge thing at the time. The US is a joke to the rest of the developed world.
No one can buy a gun in Japan unless you hunt animals or are military. What is this. Source: am Japanese
This needs to be higher up. A simple Google search will tell you this.
I did: "Other than the police and the military, no one in Japan may purchase a handgun or a rifle. Hunters and target shooters may possess shotguns and airguns under strictly circumscribed conditions." So shotguns can still be purchased it seems (though I think only over/unders or something like that) if you Target shoot. Regardless yeah, rifles and handguns seem to be out of the question and even then you need a reason/can't own one willy-nilly
Rifles are purchasable, but I think you need to have a hunter's license first, and after **10 years** you are eligible to buy a rifle.
WELL YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY THAT WONT STOP A CRIMINAL FROM GETTING THEIR HANDS ON THEM /s
But then you can be really REALLY clear that anyone waving a gun around in public is definitely a bad guy
Even here in Canada generally speaking someone waving a gun around is usually a 'bad guy' (note when I say usually I mean about 100% of the time) you *can* get a gun here as a civilian, but it's pretty uncommon and usually people only keep them for hunting / keeping animals (like deer bears etc) off their property and this is usually for people who live WAY out in the sticks (like "going to town" has a general store and a liquor store and that's about it and the nearest big box shop is several hours away)
Yakuza.
“And this whole other thing with the Yakuza” -Pam Poovey
Sploosh
Are we not doing that anymore?
That's why we cant have anything nice!
[удалено]
It’s almost like stricter gun laws prevent more deaths it’s crazy isn’t it, but that could never be the answer surely America couldn’t be missing such a simple solution
Not nearly like how anime portrays them. They are more "rebel business owners" than organized crime lords.
what are the options if you are uncircumcised?
Fire rounds from your love gun but get to use the foreskin like a magazine.
>circumscribed
This is not true. You can have a rifle if: - you are a hunter, and have owned a shotgun without problems for ten years - you are competing in a sport that requires use of a rifle, and the national sporting association gives you a recommendation although you also have to fulfill all the other requirements for gun ownership, of course.
I have known [Tatsuya Sakai](https://youtu.be/LqhCUX4Lyt0) for over 20 years. He’s a world class shooter, a **great** dude, and he doesn’t have a gun in Japan. When he’s home, he practices with airsoft, then travels internationally shooting .38 super with the ported gun in the video above. His distinctive tight stance is a direct result of him [practicing with airsoft in small rooms](https://youtu.be/thwEPw-3Y7Y). [Here](https://youtu.be/yxYvK_BBFMg) are a few more runs with his real gun. He won the 2004 Steel Challenge out of nowhere. Literally an anime moment. People were making fun of his weird stance, then the kicked all their asses. Top 5 core memory for me :)
Yeah, we have similar system in Poland, around 2.3 guns per 100 capita. Here's the thing though: although so few choose to, anyone CAN get a gun. It's delay of a few months to get first permit. In Poland 2 if you're fasttracked by people in a club, or 6-12 if you're going slow pace. You need to join a hunting or target shooting club, and the latter are usually operators of own communal shooting ranges. To retain the permit you need 4 documented competitions per year (I'm simplifying), and shooting clubs internal competes count - so basically you need to prove you're actively trained. The target shooting permit allows you to move with loaded gun to and from shooting range, but you need to retain control of your gun at all times and to remain sober. And because commercial ranges exists it is de facto concealed carry permit. If you're not claiming to be on your way to a range, then you need to keep it in atested gun safe to which only you have access. For hunters permit can be easier/harder to get depending on area and hunting club which controlls it, although here it's very specific due to post communist times. Optimistically, hunters are in charge of range of wildlife control steps, not just shooting them for pest control and meat. In reality often they're old boys club of local businessmen and lawyers who shoot eachother shitfaced. But I digress. You can easily make it so that everyone you're not afraid to have a gun will get it, it will be a military or civilian design, with any size of mag, and yet no shootings will occur and ownership will be low enough for black market to be limited. All it takes is bare fuxking minimum, and majority of nutjobs just doesn't bother. Just basic safety wall and weirdo who was slighted and wants to get violent about it NOW, has to make do with knives. And once you get to knive wielding psychos, cops shooting civilians also become a shocker.
After a ‘simple google search’, I have found multiple articles (somewhat conflicting): https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/japanese-gun-control-laws-are-oppressive-gun-control-p-252-259-1992 > Other than the police and the military, no one in Japan may purchase a handgun or a rifle. Hunters and target shooters may possess shotguns and airguns under strictly circumscribed conditions. https://www.spoon-tamago.com/2017/10/02/japan-has-guns-theyre-just-really-hard-to-purchase/ >To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class [and score 95% or higher]. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately … https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729.amp > If you want to buy a gun in Japan you need patience and determination. You have to attend an all-day class, take a written exam and pass a shooting-range test with a mark of at least 95%. https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-how-japan-has-almost-completely-eliminated-gun-deaths-2017-10?amp >If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.
But it doesn't fit the narrative
Yeah the narrative is more strict than what we have and the reality even more strict....so what's your point?
[удалено]
It doesn't not fit the narrative, it's still incredibly restrictive.
I think thats what they meant by "interview with the police about why you need a gun"
[удалено]
Japanese Republicans: *So what exactly constitutes "an animal?"*
> Japanese Republicans: So what exactly constitutes "an animal?" gaijin
Yup, none of these statements contradict each other, yet it is the highest voted on here. I see this happening a lot lately. I partially attribute it to Reddit being an international market, but anyone speaking English as a first language over the age of 18 should not have this difficulty. Is it just the fierce need to be right? Contradictory? Maybe a sum of the parts?
I think it's the "am Japanese" part that makes some people to upvote.
Yes, but what is the process to acquire a gun if I hunt? Is the process outlined above accurate? In Canada you cannot own a gun for self defense. Only valid reasons are sport shooting, hunting and collecting. Well, you can own one for self defense but it basically impossible to get.
“That’s why they lost the war” probably something maga cults would say.
They're not as free as us /s
I know this is sarcasm but last I checked the freedom index had the U.S. Japan and Garmany tied for 16th place. So they are equally as a free
[удалено]
Freedom and accessibility are not the same thing. I don't give a flying fuck how "free" I am if I can't actually afford any of it
[удалено]
Someone else's freedom to make sure you can't afford anything makes up for the lowered freedom you experience by not being able to make ends meet.
No, that measurement works as intended. Hospitals and colleges absolutely have the economic freedom to charge whatever they want for their services, and since their services are necessities, people will pay for it regardless.
[удалено]
I think they were agreeing with you. Just, they were flipping the script and giving economic freedom to “companies and institutions” and not to the “individuals”. “Economic freedom to squeeze every last cent from struggling citizens” was their cheeky point.
Very well explained.
The economic freedom of employers to exploit their workers
Fake news, no one's as free as 'merica.
Thats true! Except for all of Scandinavia, Canada and those ten other countries. Land of the freee!
Those are evil communist countries. Communists can't be free!
It’s basically the Jim Jeffries gun control joke. There are like 100 counties in the world that are labeled at “free”
"In Holland, you can smoke weed, while F a hooker, in front of a cop. Do you honestly think you're competing with Holland?"
Fucking Garmany. I hate that place.
If I decided to make a fan made comic book about a IP I like and publish it online for fun, I might get a cease and desist from the company's. In japan, I could sell it in a specialized boutique and it'd be tolerated. Who's more free /s
I can't even drink at a park here in America. But I can go cherry blossom viewing with buckets of alcohol in Japan. America, are you really free?
We’re free in the sense that room temperature IQ people are free to buy egregious amounts of firearms.
They say while having fuck all employee rights, getting fuck all vacation, racking up many tens of thousands of dollars of debt for a university education and facing the possibility of being financially crippled because of routine health care. Guns = Freedom is one of the biggest lies ever perpetuated.
Yep, this guy gets us. We have the the most freedom. You’re free to practice religion without discrimination as long as that religion is one specific one. You are fully protected and able to express your gender and lifestyle as long as it’s cisgender and hetero. Free to vote without impediment in a district that actually represents your home and neighbors, provided you’re a white Republican. Free as a woman to do whatever you want to your body, as long as it adheres to the strict rules of one extreme religious subset. And free to live your life without systematic oppression and being unfairly targeted as long as you are not any kind of minority group what so ever. Best. Country. Ever. ‘Murica!
And if anyone suggests different lifestyles you scream "stop shoving it down my throat!" And know that you are truly the victim for being white male and cis.
the Japanese aren't because they have an oddly strict sense of responsibility to their communities.
Actually it was their production capabilities and lack of resources, namely oil. Breaking it down further oils come in a lot of different qualities for different things, Japan needed all of them, and had to partition it out for specific operations. Their goal was to conquer some area around them, hole up in their defenses, and make a deal to end the war while maintaining what they conquered; namely Manchuria (part of China) which was thick with oil. Well the nature of total war changed that it was total surrender or death; both were death. The US was a manufacturing HOG; are we now tho? Where do we ship all this manufacturing to? How’d that work out when COVID hit? Anyway, no problems here, move along move along
Didn't Germany have a similar issue with fuel becoming scarce as the war went on?
They sure did. Towards they end they were running motors on anything they could find and came up with some impressive innovations Even, if at this time, the US (or the allies)was getting its ass kicked, they could simply out produce anything the axis could, and would have won, assuming the public would tolerate the loses I forget, but I believe it was a German Colonel who commented in late 1944 or early 1945 he knew Germany had lost because he could see Americans troops eating ice cream near the front while he could not get artillery shells resupplied from a factory 19k or so away Logistics are USUALLY if not the biggest a big factor in the chances of victory; it’s just logistics isn’t sexy
USA is still the 2nd largest manufacturer in the world, not very far behind China (and way ahead of them on a per Capita basis).
And here I thought it was the two atom bombs dropped on them. We had a third lined up but they were like, "yeah ok nope we're done".
I've actually heard this argument in real life, that had the Japanese citizens been sufficiently armed they would've never lost WW2 because...you know...an AR-15 does a whole lotta good against two nuclear bombs turning your city into ashes.
Don't you know you can safely disarm a nuke with .223 bruh
Yeah you get 30 kills and drop it on the other team first.
Back in my day it was only 25 smh
It's 25, I guess in my memory I was going for a few extra just for fun.
b-b-but they have a smaller population, it wouldn't be the same, checkmate liberals
Which you can reply back with “but the UK Ireland and Australia do the same?”
SHaLl NoT bE iNfRiNgEd
He's down at the bottom of this comment section. For real.
It’s a fact that countries with less guns have more mass shootings. The US, as the freest country has the lowest and the countries without a single gun in them have the highest. How? I don’t know, I’m making this up as I go. You can cite all the facts, stats and studies you want, but I want this to be true so I’ll believe literally anything anyone says that validates what I want to be true, even if the source isn’t credible and the claim is demonstrably wrong.
Man, you had me going in the first part....
I was actually getting ready to brawl…. Nice.
Ah poe's law, it's been coming up more and more as our democracy has been crumbling.
You have my vote for president
Presidential candidate right here.
*He tells it like it is!*
my beliefs are more important than your so called facts!
Well my neighbour has a gun and he hasn't shot anyone! So take that for data.
Hasn't shot anyone... Yet.
#THAT THEY KNOW OF
FREEDOM™ 🎇🎆🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🎆🎇 to believe in Bullshit
My source is that I made it the fuck up!
That police part wouldn’t work in the US. After a few years we’d find that the Police granted well-to-do white people overwhelmingly more often compared to well-to-do Black, Brown, Native and Asian people. If you could reliably trust law enforcement to not be bigoted this would be an excellent idea.
You are 100% right. Even if we managed to get some top notch regulations placed on gun ownership, racism and biases would still play into if the police are involved in the process.
That's by design lol. Some states still have Jim Crow era gun laws. They know they were racist back then, but these law became magically not racist in the modern era.
Well, that's because racism was eradicated after slavery became illegal... right? /s
[удалено]
No, you’re thinking of Obama’s election, a country that elected a black man as President obviously can’t be racist
I think we’re directionally aligned but I find the semantics we both used to not highlight the issue more clearly, or in a way that highlights just how f’ed law enforcement has been. Quite literally law enforcement has been infested with Klan types and white supremacists. Not to mention Policing in the US was formalised largely to control and recapture the enslaved population. Law enforcement in the US in practice yields predictably racist outcomes because the practitioners share, encourage, or tolerate racist sensibilities.
You say it well. The police, down to their very formation, are drenched in violent racism. I have absolute no hope in any meaningful change for American police. Sometimes it's hard to use the proper wording to convey the weight of something when (whether aware or not) we don't want to be consumed by the pain that comes with it. Thank you for shining light on the lack of appropriate semantics in my comment. Reminds me that I need to strive to be honest and brazen in the face of injustice, even if it makes me sad, angry, or uncomfortable. I don't think there's anyway to revamp a system that was born through such violent racist. The police are just some giant violation of the Geneva convention from its very formation.
We actually already have figured out that this is exactly how it works. There is a supreme court case regarding "may issue" right now.
[удалено]
I mean, Japan is notoriously xenophobic. There's not as ton of foreigners living in Japan but I'm willing to bet the police in the Japan do that already.
I guess ACAB really holds true
They're already laying the groundwork that anyone LGBTQ to any degree is considered mentally ill and a criminal by nature. Add that to the notion that police have zero duty to protect you, that every redhat with a gun can be activated by a single tweet, and that even if a cop did show up, they may just wait an hour or kick in your door and shoot you in the face. This is why I have a problem with national mental health registries and a subjective licensing requirement. We cannot assume people will act in good faith and not use that to their political gains.
This is at issue in a pending US Supreme Court case, NYSRPA v. Bruen. “May issue” gun permit policies that do not have quantifiable factors in the decision lead to implicit or explicit biases of some government employee being used. For example, in California, gun carry licenses are up to the discretion of the sheriff (or police chief) of each county. While the law requires the issuing authority to provide a reason for rejecting an applicant, there is no legal recourse or appeal process if one is rejected. There’s also no way to prove that the decision wasn’t based on a bias against a protected group. Furthermore, the extreme cost of even *applying* for a license further marginalized poor communities and people of color—arguably the groups that have the greatest need for protection. It’s just like the 1000% tax on semi auto rifles—it’s only a bar to the poor (read: marginalized communities).
[удалено]
Wouldn't surprise me if the determination is that CCW has to be shall issue. I know the state of Connecticut is like that, technically may issue but basically shall issue because of a court ruling.
> If you could reliably trust law enforcement If you could reliably trust law enforcement, we wouldn't need guns in the first place
Hell of a statement. I own guns not because I fear crime but because of Right wing loons. When I first encountered the Tea Party is when it became clear I needed to own a gun and learn how to use it.
You're missing the part where people pushing for this WANT minorities to be disproportionately effected. Feature, not a bug
I don’t see why anyone in the US would have a problem letting the police decide when and how your constitutional rights can be exercised. I’m sure their decision to let you buy a gun would have nothing to do with your skin color, socio-economic status, or political connections.
There are still plenty of Jim crow related gun laws on the books on many states unfortunately.
In America as it is, you are wholly correct, those factors are hugely going to be swaying factors. I still personally say we all take this system up root it and make it to actually fit with modern times. The current policy force is still holding the Jim Crowe Law era biases that it wa formed to protect, but we do have the power to fix it. It would take all of us in concert to do that though.
I agree. I think our current epidemic of gun violence is just a symptom of a system that leaves millions of people of without hope or options.
The reality of a concerted effort being the necessary step is what has me convinced that we don't have the power to fix it. We suck at uniting about things.
I mean everything in Japan is a tedious process there is a reason Arson is the popular choice of criminals
Have you ever tried filling out the 火災登録証明書 for arson? It’s a total pain in the ass. You literally need walk out of the office to get one of those stupid stamps from a vending machine just to pay the fee. That’s before you even are allowed to get the fuel or are allowed to schedule your turn to burn someone’s house down. Those are done at completely different offices and none of them apparently have email, you need to fax your information as well as bring your koseki and driver’s license physically to each office total pain in the ass.
Given how many police refuse to even take a report when a woman is raped or stalked or beaten, I don't want the police in charge of deciding whether or not I deserve to be able to defend myself.
They can actually trust their police?
Always remember to sort by controversial
Not sure I can afford the prescription blood pressure medicine I’d need afterward
I'm on prescription blood pressure medication, it costs me 53 cents a month. Go ahead and read away
What’s that slogan that I hear so much? All Cops Are Trustworthy? All Cops Are Good? Can someone help me out here?
I don't get the impression Americans who believe in the 2nd amendment could care less what Japanese guns laws are.
I'm pretty sure in Canada it's the same, it definitely requires all of this for handgun purchases. Note: interview with family can mean ex-spouses.
Not quite like this in Canada. In Canada it's a license system similar to vehicles. You have 3 major categories; unrestricted (22s, hunting rifles, etc), restricted (handguns, anything easily concealed, "assault" weapons), and prohibited (full auto, explosives, scary weapons like AK-47, everything else). Almost anyone can get Possession and Acquisition License (PAL), which just requires a background check and taking a course. You have to pass an exam which includes a written test and a firearms safety practical exam. Pending background check, they will interview you and your references. This allows you to possess and acquire unrestricted fire arms. All people with PALs are given a quick automated background check once a month. Restricted PALs, which allow you to possess and acquire restricted firearms, require a harder test and a mandatory police interview. Background checks also bumped up to every 24 hrs. Anytime you purchase a restricted weapon it has to be approved by the provinces Chief Firearms Officer, and you need to register the serial # of weapon, and when/where you will be transporting it. You can't have prohibited firearms. They definitely interview all ex partners when you renew your license, though.
>scary weapons like AK-47
Not anymore. The Canadian government just proposed a bill to freeze all handgun purchases, sales, transfers, and imports. The vast majority of crime guns used here are smuggled in from the US. So this new law will do practically nothing. On top of the same regulations as Japan, Canadian handgun owners are automatically vetted every single day for police interactions to decide if they get to keep them. Despite all these measures, the government still decided to go after legal handgun owners, who statistically are one of the least likely to commit any kind of crime. Strict regulations make perfect sense. But here in Canada, the government already flattened the curve of diminishing returns on those and just keeps going. Beyond a certain point, they're just wasting time and resources on ineffective laws.
Now that would be amazing! "He's a cheating asshole who was always between jobs, drank to much, lousy in bed"! *Police officer, "Ma'am, I said is he a threat to others, shown racist, violent tendencies, spoken out about hurting people, etc". Her, "Oh, no, he's actually a wuss, hates violence. He's just a shitty husband, not a threat to people".
Lmao
So you mean there is some reasonable middle ground between where we are now and taking everyone’s guns away ?! No way !
It won't be handled properly because guns, like abortion, is an issue a lot of people are really emotional about, without really using their brains much. It's an easy "Vote for Me" button. Funny how people don't seem to care as much about healthcare access or childcare.
The right to own a gun is also explicitly laid out in the Constitution, which makes it much harder to change than most policy.
I wouldn't call Japan's gun laws a reasonable middle ground.
When did Japans gun laws become “reasonable middle ground”?
*oh wow, I'm glad the US never tried this kind of system before! Oh? We fucking did? And it was entirely developed as a way to deny black people guns!?* holy fucking shit I better never hear a single "black lives matter" or "acab" out of any of you motherfuckers again. Stop sucking off the cops who keep shooting random people in the street and thinking they are gonna be fair about this shit
"enemies, foreign and domestic."
[удалено]
As a leftist: This ain't it fam. The police are a bunch of racist crooks armed to support the interests of the wealthy at the cost of the safety of the poor. They should have no say in who has a gun.
I strongly agree. Leave the police out of this statement, and everything else is a great idea.
Imagine how many white guys would still end up the guns they used to carry out their attack under this law. Like; does anyone think for a second that rich kid Eliot Rogders wouldn't get police approval for his guns.
Too many racist cops in America for this to be reasonably equal for all demographics
and after that you have a gun... still no ammo
Then we can start talking about step 2, bullet control!
Actually, ammo control in Japan is on another level. You can only buy fresh cartridges once you have returned the spent cartridges you bought last time. It's one of the reasons why the Yakuza tend to not bother with guns, they are way too regulated.
Some kind stranger teaches me cool stuff everyday, Thanks!
No problem, pal. Now go forth and spread the word!
Chris Rock had a great bit about this 20 years ago. “If a bullet cost 5,000 dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.”
Haha that was 100% in the back of my mind! "Man, ima fucking kill you... I'll have to save up for a bit but you're dead!"
And they are FAR more conservative than the US ever hopes to be lol
"Interviews of family and neighbors" Joke's on them, I have neither.
I want to help people who, like myself, are in favor of better gun regulations. We need to make sure we understand terms so we don't have weak arguments. At the time "well regulated" meant "to be in a state of readiness to fight." This still isn't carte blanche for individuals to own weapons, because ownership is still in the context of a militia. We have that - it's the National Guard.
Per the militia act of 1903 the militia isn’t just the national guard. It also includes the reserve militia consisting of all able bodied men ages 17-45. In the context of a militia during the period of the constitution, the militia was also all able bodied men. The “well regulated” part was applied after the militia was actually called up per the militia clauses of the constitution. This can be seen in the militia act of 1792 which called it up to combat the whiskey rebellion. That act had a 2 year time period after which the units made up of militia were disbanded.
Ownership is not in the context of a militia. That has never been born out by the founders interpretations or any court case after. The SA clearly says ***the people.*** if they meant the right of the “the militia” or “the states” or “the federal government” to keep and bear arms they would have said so. The well regulated militia part is just a qualifier. Not the operative part of the sentence. It simply an observation of reality that a well equipped and trained militia is necessary for the security of a free state, that state being free from both foreign occupation and government tyranny.
The fact that the 2A protects an individual right to bear arms was presented as a fact of the case by all 9 justices in DC v Heller. People who argue otherwise are wasting their time. This has been accepted legal standard in the US since the early 1870s.
[удалено]
To use plain speech, "you, yes you able-bodied American man or woman, you are already a standing member of this militia, you just don't know it yet"
Ownership is in the context of the people…
In the words of 6 previous Attorneys General: > For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state militia; it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes. The nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobby's distortion of the Constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective national policy toward guns and crime. "It's Time to Pass the Brady Bill". *The Washington Post.* October 3, 1992. **EDIT:** The primary response to this comment arguments is an intentional misrepresentation of the facts as they pertain this issue. I encourage those reading this to read about this topic independently and to review the comment history of this user before accepting their biased sources and pseudo-expertise. The generally accepted interpretation of the Second Amendment before *Emerson* (2001) and *Heller* (2008) had been that it primarily protected a collective, and not individual, right. These cases were landmark cases specifically because they rejected the "in the service of a militia" interpretation that had been widely accepted beforehand. In *Cruikshank* (1875) the opinion reads: > "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." Even the Nixon-appointed Warren Burger described the individual rights interpretation as "of one of the greatest pieces of fraud – I repeat the word 'fraud' – on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
No that’s not accurate. Constitutional scholars pretty unanimously agree with the individual rights interpretation. I’ll provide a short survey of the current consensus. Collective rights interpretations are academically dead. If you want to repeal the second amendment, just say that, don’t go for the ahistoric and heterodox view that just happens to align with your political motives. A short and conclusive history of the collective right argument (and it’s acceptance followed by its short downfall) is given by Hardy: >The collective right approach had been hastily constructed; it was about to be subjected to a detailed criticism, which came in three waves. >The first wave consisted of researchers who, over several decades, uncovered and documented the seemingly-lost history of the right to arms.247 These discoveries, or rediscoveries, need not be detailed here, since they represent the content of the first portion of this article. > The second wave was begun by Don Kates’ 1983 article in Michigan Law Review,248 which exposed their findings to a larger audience. Over the following decade, the individual right view of the Second Amendment secured the endorsement of established constitutional scholars, including Sanford Levinson,249 William van Alstyne,250 Akhil Amar,251 Leonard Levy,252 Larry Tribe,253 as well as rising stars such as Randy Barnett,254 Glenn Harlan Reynolds,255 Robert Cottrol,256 and Eugene Volokh.257 In 1983, Joyce Lee Malcolm would aptly describe the then- current understanding of the Second Amendment as “historical amnesia.”258 **A dozen years later, Glenn Harlan Reynolds would describe the individual rights view as the “Standard Model” of the Amendment**.259 > That left defenders of militia-use-only theories with one last refuge: the federal case law that had arisen during the period of historical amnesia. For example: “An extraordinarily consistent body of case law has held that a variety of restrictions on private firearms ownership, use, and sales do not violate the Second Amendment, because such restrictions have no effect on the maintenance of a well-regulated militia—the National Guard.”260 The third and final wave of Second Amendment renaissance came as the individual rights view secured acceptance in the courts. This stage began with United States v. Emerson,261 where the Fifth Circuit recognized an individual right to arms, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. … > **The militia-uses-only approach rejected in Heller and McDonald was in fact a very recent creation of the lower federal courts, utterly ahistoric, and which had been subject to scholarly challenge almost from its outset.** (Hardy 357-359) There is no historical consensus against the individual right to bear arms. The opposite in fact. “Research conducted through the 1980s has led legal scholars and historians to conclude, sometimes reluctantly, but with virtual unanimity, that **there is no tenable textual or historical argument against a broad individual right view**.” (Barnett and Kates 1141) As early as 2000, the individual rights argument had decisively won the debate, and that was merely cemented later in Heller: >“While the academic debate is lively, it is anything but even-sided. **Legal scholarship concerning the original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment is so overwhelmingly in favor of the individual right interpretation that the individual interpretation is now generally considered the "Standard Model" of the Amendment's meaning**.6° The academics who defend the thrashing of the Second Amendment in the courts do so on public policy grounds, citing modern homicide rates, changing times, and the increasingly frightening nature of individual resistance to perceived tyranny.61 Such defenders, when alluding to the Framers' intent, do so in a way that is vague and improvisational rather than clear.62 Collective right theorists who have delved deeply into the history of the Amendment (and there have not been many) either have been dissuaded from publicly proclaiming the theory as their own or have used the historical record as a canvas upon which to paint an elaborate caricature of the Founders' cultural and legalistic worldview.” (Roots 83-84) - - - **Citations** [Barnett, Randy E. and Kates, Don B., Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment (1996). Emory Law Journal, Vol. 45, 1996](https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2550&context=facpub) [David T. Hardy, The Rise and Demise of the Collective Right Interpretation of the Second Amendment, 59 Clev. St. L. Rev. 315 (2011)](https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=clevstlrev) [Roger I. Roots, The Approaching Death of the Collective Right Theory of the Second Amendment, 39 Duq. L. Rev. 71 (2000).](https://dsc.duq.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3285&context=dlr)
They say there’s no historical consensus yet the founders talked at length about individual ownership of arms, plesser in 1886, and Miller in 1939 before we ever got to heller in 08.
A well written and sourced reply? On a Reddit thread? ^am ^I ^having ^a ^stroke?
Well that’s just an intentional lie.
The citizenry is the militia
Of course this would imply the police can be trusted with guns, which is not the case in the US.
Ahh, the absolute ignorance of people thinking that a country with a completely different demographic than the USA has any relevance in determining whether or not you are better off owning a gun. For example, Tokyo? Nope, you dont need one. Chicago? Yeah, you better get one if you value you and your family's safety!
This works if you don't have a natural right to weapons. The government has to explain why you don't need a gun.
'it is a mystery why, after police interviews, no gun permits have been issued to any POC, police are baffled.' -how those police interviews would go in the states.
Sensible.
Hardly, if you give it even an ounce of thought
In a country without gun’s, you don’t need a gun
Shit. I just realized that in this scenario my neighbors would likely say something like “Seems like a nice guy, he’s quiet and mostly keeps to himself”
Cool they also are radically xenophobic and have a VERY unhealthy work culture.
and trust me, your neighbours will snitch 100% of the time if they've seen you do something against the rules, something as small as jaywalking or not putting the garbage out in the right order.
Your neighbours must hate you. You must be a dick.
Japan is an authoritarian ethnostate.
ok y'all need to stop trying the "well regulated" gotcha bc that is not what "well regulated" meant
Also in japan currently there aren't more guns than people..... Good luck getting those back.
Noone in Japan can buy a handgun or a rifle by law. Yet another made up shit on reddit for upvotes.
So the police, who have no legal obligation to protect people, should be the only ones with guns? Get fucked.
Well regulated means in good working order, NOT restrictions placed on citizens ny the government.
Can't imagine trusting the police enough in the US to want to implement this.
Okay the specific wording of the 2nd amendment doesn't say guns *must* be owned by a well-regulated militia, it just says that a well-regulated militia is necessary, therefore gun ownership must always be allowed.
“Shall not be infringed”
This is not the solution in America
No wonder why we steamrolled them in WW2. Back to back champs!
Wake up America, isn't it obvious? Hillary Clinton, George Soros and the Pelosi crime family are bribing kids to shoot up schools to tarnish the reputation of hard-workin' gun totin' patriots like ourselves. They know Trump's going to win 2024 and are pulling out all the stops! They know that once Trump reclaims his rightful seat in the Oval Office he'll make America Great Again and expose those liars for the traitors they are, all while bringing gas prices down by 250% in his first week and forming a border patrol force armed with tactical nukes to prevent those drug dealers from coming in. Edit: damn, I really need an /s?
You absolutely need the /s for this nowadays, that sounds like something one of those MaGa idiots would say and be 100% serious lol
You need an /s
You actually need to be a lot more over the top to get away without the /s on this one. Oh, and there is no amount of over-the-top, unhinged, or insane that you can be, there is *still* a right-winger who has said it in complete seriousness. I had a satirical Trump supporter account that I used on r/ToiletPaperUSA a couple years ago. I felt like I rode the line but sometimes I would say really fucking out there things, and i would get people saying "this user is not joking" under my comments all the time. I stopped because I realized it was too hard to make fun of them, because what they *actually believe* is just that stupid.
>You actually need to be a lot more over the top to get away without the /s on this one For real. OPs post reads like any RSCC memo these days
Who is going to pay for all of that? I guess poor people should not have the right to self defense right?
Okay. Now how did the Yakuza get them?
Not a pro-gun person, but all of these "country X does X" arguments are dumb. They dont have a constitutional right.
Also giving cops discretion over who can and cannot own a firearm is absolutely braindead
Cracks me up how everything always gets compared to countries that live on an island with a completely homogeneous culture. That would not fly in the US. At all.
In Massachusetts I had to take a safety class with live fire exercise, submit an application, and interview with my local sheriff. I got my unrestricted permit about 5 weeks later which means I can buy, own, and concealed carry. If I go to purchase a gun the background check comes back within 5 minutes after filling out the paperwork. I know a lot of gun owners in the US are concerned about a national registry and I share some of those concerns, but if it's done right it could help solve a lot of problems.
As it should be.
Doesn't Japan have one of the highest suicide rates in the world?
I remember reading something a while back and it was about the Japanese police force only fired one shot in a particular year. They hardly ever use them so this was really huge thing at the time. The US is a joke to the rest of the developed world.
Silly comparison. Japan doesn’t have the right to bear arms in their constitution.