Where the hell is the “suggest as answer” option? Kakugo knows his stuff.
Thank you, Kakugo and Andrew! Those were very good answers! As I thought, it had something to do more with their culture and upbringing. Well-thought answers.
Vitor, you should read your own posts. The question i asked was about Japan - not Switzerland or how whether the Japanese love shooting ranges in the US. Read your own comments and see for yourself if they were related to the questions that i asked.
Please don’t make uneducated comments, thank you very much
Your question is seriously flawed.
How do you know gun control is responsible for lower crime rates in Japan?
It should be the sai, I know when I took Shinjimatsu Karate, thats how it was presented, and this was the weapon I prefered out of all the ones we learned.
Japanese people get lithium in their water. Maybe the low crime rates are due to a docile population.
In Yokosuka, I walked across the street before the walk sign came on and everyone was staring at me like I had just assaulted someone. I think Japan would have a low crime rate whether guns are illegal or not.
There are a few reasons. Using government statistics, Japan has 1.5 homicides per 100,000 people, versus about 7.9 in the US(though as low as 0.8 in some states). However, this number in itself is extremely misleading. The Japanese government has a tendency to vastly underestimate relative to the US government, so the actual homicide rate is probably closer to 3.5. Japan also pays much more attention to the quality of their cops than the US does, there are also, on average, more of them. Japan also has a very tight conformist culture, keeping most people out of crime altogether. On top of that, the culture is extremely homogeneous in Japan, so there is little internal conflict. There is a lot more going on than just gun laws.
Hans Hoppe:
… it is easy to understand why a desire to control a state might exist. For whoever is a monopolist of final arbitration within a given territory can make laws. And he who canlegislate can also tax. Surely, this is an enviable position.
… Suppose you and your friends happen to be in control of such an extraordinary institution. What would you do to maintain your position (provided you didn’t have any moral scruples)? You would certainly use some of your tax-income to hire some thugs. First: to make peace among your subjects so that they stay productive and there is something to tax in the future. But more importantly, because you might need these thugs for your ownprotection should the people wake up from their dogmatic slumber and challenge you. [Bold added]
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe18.html
The State has a powerful interest in ensuring that its slaves do not kill each other.
Clayton -
You’ve raised an interesting point, but I’m not sure what that point is? ‘Japan has strict gun control.’ Correct. ‘Why does it work over there?’ Why does what work over there? Gun control, or lower crime rates? Compared to what? Are you putting the lower crime rates in Japan compared to, say, the US down to gun control?
Basically, there is a saying: The nail that sticks out gets hammered down, hence the social stigma attached to ‘sticking out’ in any form. The boundaries are always fluid, but to depart in any major way, such as criminal acts with guns, would be shameful - and there is nothing worse in Japan than to bring shame on yourself and your family. In the US, along with other post-Christian countries, the nail that sticks out gets recognized & applauded, (Is Paris Hilton, for instance, important in any way? No, but she is on the nightly news once a week, and what glossy magazine worth it’s salt doesn’t have something in it about her every month. Lindsay Lohan the same) hence the propensity for people, following the existential philosophy of Sartre, the Marquis de Sade, and Stirner, which still governs us, to ‘do what thou wilt, harmful to others or not.’ Basically, ideas have consequences, including ideas about guns. The State in the West has a vested interest in a certain level of criminal activity as it increases the centrality of power as well. The State in Japan is interested in criminal convictions - about 99% of all cases that go before the courts in Japan result in a guilty verdict, and in a country where the convict becomes a non-person in prison, with none of the 5-star resort style benefits that criminals get in this country, for instance, it’s no wonder that the only crimes that take place for the most part are genuine crimes of passion - someone just snaps, kills the offending party, then hands themselves into police, fully expecting jail or worse.
So it’s a culture-wide thing, not restricted to some silly assertion about gun control. Further, a quick reading of Japanese history would show that change in its history is not fluid, but a radical, sudden shift that takes place as a result of some external stimulus that changes it almost overnite. And the crime rate in Japan in times past has been very high. There is no ethical, meaning theological, reason why this won’t happen in the future.
Just quickly, there is no honor in guns, which is why Oda Nobunaga was so detested during the Sengoku.
This is a good analysis of Japan PRIOR TO the introduction of guns, as most Daimyo for the previous 800 years were nothing but petty warlords, of the kinds we see in Somalia today. Let it not be forgotten that Honda wouldn’t exist today if they had’ve been wiped out 700 years ago as was the plan at the time - one warlord going up against another.
BUT, as an answer to the question raised, it’s irrelevant. What you’ve demonstrated is that you can quote Hoppe at length, and then editorialize at the end - congratulations, champ, well done. But if you have a bee in your bonnet about State power in general, as you obviously appear to, find a street corner & a soapbox and preach it, brother, from there - you can quote Hoppe at the people ad nauseum then! Either that, or start another list.
I wasn’t aware that the content of this list was at your discretion.
I’d be interested to know why you think that. I quoted Hoppe giving reasons why the State imposes “peace”, perhaps you can respond with reasons why my quote of Hoppe is irrelevant.
Clayton -
Even pretending that the crime rates dropped specifically due to a causal link with gun control, you have to ask yourself what other kinds of violent crime are happening. Who do you think calls the police when someone gets stabbed in a bad part of town? Not the criminal. Not the victim. Because, for the most part, no one in ‘bad’ neighborhoods wants to be known for calling the police. When neighbors/etc. hear gunshots, they’re the ones who call. Violent actions with a knife, bat, or any other silent weapon and unheard and therefore are not reported. And you do also realize that the government usually tells you the crime rate, right? It’s like how countries with socialized healthcare always distributed information about how cheap (rationed) their healthcare is.
If someone wants to hurt you, they’re gonna find a way to do so. No one gets shot and puts the gun on trial. Humans can hurt without guns, but guns can’t hurt without humans.
Japan has the highest average iq in the world - 108. Intelligent people prefer to not resort to violence, more often than not.
^ I’ve yet to see a post made from this person that I would consider worth the few seconds it took to look over it.
108 is the highest IQ average in the world? Really? I thought the highest average was around 120.
I don’t know where he gets that number from, but according to Richard Lynn’s work Hong Kong is in the lead with an average iq of 107 followed by South Korea and then Japan.
“I’d be interested to know why you think that. I quoted Hoppe giving reasons why the State imposes “peace”, perhaps you can respond with reasons why my quote of Hoppe is irrelevant.”
Once again, becoz it didn’t answer the question. I would’ve thought that was obvious, but obviously not. Instead of answering the question about gun control in Japan, and why it works there as opposed to elsewhere, and that WAS the question in essence, you’ve simply answered the question about your own personal biases. If you can show how authentically AnCap you are in the process by quoting Hoppe, that somehow justifies you? Sorry, but that doesn’t hold water. If you used that answer to that question in an exam, you know what you’d get…duckegg.
“I wasn’t aware that the content of this list was at your discretion.”
Am I annoyed at this response? Damn straight! I go after Clayton for doing nothing other than revealing his own biases in answer to a question raised by someone else, and Mr Moderator decides to step in with, apparently, the only argument they’ve got, and that’s the ‘content’ of their contribution to this list.
Maybe Mr Moderator might consider looking at the nature of the argument I raised, and consider asking Clayton to stick to the topic at hand, rather than simply revealing his own personal biases…unless, of course, Mr Moderator & Clayton share the same biases. I think I’ve just found the crux of the issue, don’t you?
He doesn’t and thus there is no reason to answer the question. /thread