Former Japan PM Shinzo Abe Unconscious After Shooting; Man in Custody(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Former Japan PM Shinzo Abe Unconscious After Shooting; Man in Custody
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-08/japan-s-ex-pm-abe-collapses-in-nara-shots-heard-nhk-says
412 comments
~17:50: Ex-PM Abe officially pronounced dead.
Devastating news. Rest in peace.
exact time, 17:03.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-ex-prime-mi...
Shinzo Abe's Death Celebrated in China: 'Open Champagne!'
https://www.newsweek.com/shinzo-abes-death-celebrated-china-...
https://www.newsweek.com/shinzo-abes-death-celebrated-china-...
I'm sure the feeling will be quite mutual when Xi takes a his last Pooh-bear moment.
The acrimony between China and Japan has never really abated as much as contorted into ever more passive-aggressive forms of theater. Sometimes its just dumbfounding.
The acrimony between China and Japan has never really abated as much as contorted into ever more passive-aggressive forms of theater. Sometimes its just dumbfounding.
Actively evolving entry on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe
Shizno Abe has died: https://twitter.com/myhlee/status/1545329491362598914
Terrible.
Terrible.
Since when did news sites retract by memory-holing? Not even a 410...
Archive of originally submitted link (archive.org crawler was blocked for 'unusual traffic'): https://archive.today/2022.07.08-043358/https://www.bloomber... / https://web.archive.org/web/0/https://webcache.googleusercon...
Edit: Some parts of the original text are in their new article at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-08/abe-in-gr...
Archive of originally submitted link (archive.org crawler was blocked for 'unusual traffic'): https://archive.today/2022.07.08-043358/https://www.bloomber... / https://web.archive.org/web/0/https://webcache.googleusercon...
Edit: Some parts of the original text are in their new article at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-08/abe-in-gr...
And after debating gun violence all week with my friends in the wake of the 4th of July shooting in Highland Park I made an example of Japan and it’s low gun violence. Now this happens.
Crazy stuff still happens in Japan but it’s usually a knife or ax. But guns and Abe are on another level.
Crazy stuff still happens in Japan but it’s usually a knife or ax. But guns and Abe are on another level.
My take is that gun violence has several different categories, and gun control only helps some of them (such as accidental, or emotional, spur of the moment shootings), but doesn't prevent any premeditated ones.
It will not stop people like the one at 4th july, nor those school shootings. Unless the gun control laws completely outlaw civilians owning guns - which i dont think will fly.
The root cause of gun violence is societal issues, not the guns themselves. Solve those societal issues (hard, and likely almost intractable unfortunately), or gun violence will persist.
It will not stop people like the one at 4th july, nor those school shootings. Unless the gun control laws completely outlaw civilians owning guns - which i dont think will fly.
The root cause of gun violence is societal issues, not the guns themselves. Solve those societal issues (hard, and likely almost intractable unfortunately), or gun violence will persist.
In the school shootings, at least, there is always some unhinged person behind it. Deeper mental health checks before purchasing a gun (like as is required in Germany) could be very useful. Also, rules in place that your gun is stored securely in a safe, and spot checks to verify such (again, in Germany) can help with guns making their way into other people’s hands either by being given or by being taken. A friend of mine in high school killed herself with her father’s gun…she might have not gone through with it if the gun was locked up and the suicide wasn’t so easy.
Think of gun restrictions and bans as friction. They act to reduce bad events, they don’t eliminate them. If you just make getting a gun harder (by legitimate and illegitimate means), that will have a marked reduction in gun deaths (and violent deaths overall since other methods require much more work/willpower/skills).
Think of gun restrictions and bans as friction. They act to reduce bad events, they don’t eliminate them. If you just make getting a gun harder (by legitimate and illegitimate means), that will have a marked reduction in gun deaths (and violent deaths overall since other methods require much more work/willpower/skills).
School shootings are an extremely tiny minority among shootings in the US. They just get a lot of attention.
That’s true. But high school student suicide by gun is much more common.
If the gun control people were to make this their foundational argument/prevention goal, I would be way more inclined to consider their suggestions.
As it stands, they're burning all their political capital on trying to ban high capacity semiautomatic rifles. Even if they were to succeed, which they won't*, it wouldn't even dent gun deaths in the US. I really can't wrap my head around why that is the basis of the gun control platform. It makes every point they make seem manipulative and disingenuous. What are their goals? I can hardly think of any without looking toward borderline conspiracies, which I refuse to do.
Are you* gonna sign up for confiscation detail? I bet the SWAT guys aren't.
As it stands, they're burning all their political capital on trying to ban high capacity semiautomatic rifles. Even if they were to succeed, which they won't*, it wouldn't even dent gun deaths in the US. I really can't wrap my head around why that is the basis of the gun control platform. It makes every point they make seem manipulative and disingenuous. What are their goals? I can hardly think of any without looking toward borderline conspiracies, which I refuse to do.
Are you* gonna sign up for confiscation detail? I bet the SWAT guys aren't.
If kids are trying to kill themselves it's not the guns that are the problem. I'd argue telling them constantly that they're horrible or incapable for being their race is probably closer to the real problem since that seems to cause a lot of other mental illnesses as well.
Guns make it really easy for kids and adults to make split decisions and follow through with it without making a mistake. They make suicide incredibly accessible, where otherwise committing suicide would be much more difficult in terms of skills, effort, planning, etc…
The same people who are against gun control are also against social spending on mental health. So it’s not really a problem they want to focus on, even though it disportionstebly affects them (Wyoming is number 1 or 2 for gun violence, but it is almost all suicide).
The same people who are against gun control are also against social spending on mental health. So it’s not really a problem they want to focus on, even though it disportionstebly affects them (Wyoming is number 1 or 2 for gun violence, but it is almost all suicide).
That is a slippery slope to every state having restrictive NY-like gun laws.
I don't care about legal or cultural precedent in germany or the EU. This isn't germany. The US plays a far more important role in global affairs, and as such must take more dramatic measures to prevent it from falling into the hands of some regime, those measures include the right to bear arms as well as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
I don't care about legal or cultural precedent in germany or the EU. This isn't germany. The US plays a far more important role in global affairs, and as such must take more dramatic measures to prevent it from falling into the hands of some regime, those measures include the right to bear arms as well as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Lol the fact that random people have guns has nothing to do with US dominance, and it’s not random people with guns that will protect the US in an exceedingly unlikely armed conflict on US soil, it’s the army - which has no shortage of funding. Unless you’re saying that random armed people are going to defend against a coup from our own army - doubtful. Hypothetical “defense” at what cost? Mass shootings every week is worth it?
I agree that random people with guns has nothing to do with US dominance globally, but you're wrong that the US army would win versus the armed civilians in the country. There are only 1 million US army soldiers and over 81 million armed civilians in the US capable of fighting a sustained guerilla war. You only need to look at history to know that's a bad scenario for any armed forces trying to take and hold control of a region. I agree the cost of mass shootings and also just regular daily non-mass shootings are not worth it in modern society.
It really depends on how vicious whatever commanding force controls the army would want to be.
If they're willing to rule over a country of bones, the asymmetric warfare resources the United States has available are sufficient to put down any rebellion. How much fight do you think 81 million armed civilians would keep in them if cities just started vaporizing?
A hypothetical American government with open rebellion wouldn't need to take and hold territory... It could decide specific chunks of the country are worth saving and nuke vast quantities of the rest.
I'd say that scenario is impossible, but this is America we're talking about... If there's one thing the history of American warfare teaches, It's that you can't apply the rest of the history of war to the way America fights wars. This is the country that gave us, in modern times, ending a rebellion by putting civilian cities to the flame until the civilians became too tired and hungry to support the war.
If they're willing to rule over a country of bones, the asymmetric warfare resources the United States has available are sufficient to put down any rebellion. How much fight do you think 81 million armed civilians would keep in them if cities just started vaporizing?
A hypothetical American government with open rebellion wouldn't need to take and hold territory... It could decide specific chunks of the country are worth saving and nuke vast quantities of the rest.
I'd say that scenario is impossible, but this is America we're talking about... If there's one thing the history of American warfare teaches, It's that you can't apply the rest of the history of war to the way America fights wars. This is the country that gave us, in modern times, ending a rebellion by putting civilian cities to the flame until the civilians became too tired and hungry to support the war.
I think you will see a right wing government using weapons of mass destruction on cities like NYC in our lifetime
>Lol the fact that random people have guns has nothing to do with US dominance
It's no laughing matter. It has more to do than you might think.
>Unless you’re saying that random armed people are going to defend against a coup from our own army - doubtful
Think again.
>Hypothetical “defense” at what cost? Mass shootings every week is worth it?
Yes. Those who trade their fundamental freedoms for a little greater safety will eventually have neither.
It's no laughing matter. It has more to do than you might think.
>Unless you’re saying that random armed people are going to defend against a coup from our own army - doubtful
Think again.
>Hypothetical “defense” at what cost? Mass shootings every week is worth it?
Yes. Those who trade their fundamental freedoms for a little greater safety will eventually have neither.
I constantly argue with people like you, feel free to read some of my other comments to see why you would do precisely nothing to a major armed force and would actually rationalize their targeting of civilians in your make believe Red Dawn world. (No, Vietnam and Afghanistan are not appropriate parallels).
PS: you also entirely fail to provide counterpoints to any of the points the person you are replying to made, only vague and nonsensical implications.
PS: you also entirely fail to provide counterpoints to any of the points the person you are replying to made, only vague and nonsensical implications.
It explains so much that many Americans are still dreaming of a Red Dawn scenario.
Sorry pal, it'll be a bright flash and then no more. Your guns aren't going to do shit.
Sorry pal, it'll be a bright flash and then no more. Your guns aren't going to do shit.
The sad part is that it’s much more likely Americans would turn their guns on each other in some sort of civil war type situation; eg the Democrats/Republicans think the Republicans/Democrats stole the election, and an armed uprising is the only way to give power back to the right party.
That’s the whole problem behind the right to bear arms. One person’s fight for liberty is someone else’s coup.
That's also the whole point of the right to bear arms.
Serious question (I also highly value personal freedom):
Isn’t the freedom to walk down the street or go to school without fear of a deranged shooter or accidental firearm discharge an important freedom too?
Isn’t the freedom to walk down the street or go to school without fear of a deranged shooter or accidental firearm discharge an important freedom too?
>Isn’t the freedom to walk down the street or go to school without fear of a deranged shooter or accidental firearm discharge an important freedom too?
No. You have no right to not be in fear.
And even using your argument, I feel less in fear walking down the street with "protection" than not, which by your argument strengthens my right to carry.
No. You have no right to not be in fear.
And even using your argument, I feel less in fear walking down the street with "protection" than not, which by your argument strengthens my right to carry.
> No. You have no right to not be in fear.
Strange conception of rights / freedom
Strange conception of rights / freedom
sounds like socialism to me
Lmao "the right to bear arms" domestically is going to what, stop a land invasion by Russia or something to the tune of that?
Somehow, I don't think so. Instead it's just allowing you and yours to kill each other. As a Kiwi living in the UK: gun control works, it really does.
Also, falling into a regime? Your current political atmosphere is that a regime of extremely conservative people who are pretty much the major group to own guns in America are trying to devolve human rights in your country. So really, in a way, you already have a regime trying to take over and _they_ have all the guns already.
Somehow, I don't think so. Instead it's just allowing you and yours to kill each other. As a Kiwi living in the UK: gun control works, it really does.
Also, falling into a regime? Your current political atmosphere is that a regime of extremely conservative people who are pretty much the major group to own guns in America are trying to devolve human rights in your country. So really, in a way, you already have a regime trying to take over and _they_ have all the guns already.
This is basically a good take. The intent of the second amendment was multifaceted, but the most important aspect of it was probably that it allowed for a state level check on power of the federal government. Remember, all 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights were originally checks on federal power only. The second amendment was a distribution of the capacity for violence from a federal government that would need it (the Founders believed) occasionally for country-level protection to the individual states that were still extremely responsible for their own affairs and may not have ratified a Constitution that stripped them of the ability to defend themselves from threats.
But almost a hundred years later, the calculus changed when several States banded together and tried to dissolve the country by violence. As a consequence of the 14th Amendment, rights previously recognized only at the federal level became enforced at the state level as well. This creates a bit of a philosophical contradiction in the original intent of the Second Amendment to provide citizens States the capacity to defend themselves from overreaching federal power, and evolution of that contradiction is how we eventually got to the notion that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms independent of any particular military application of those arms, despite the word "militia" being in the amendment itself.
But almost a hundred years later, the calculus changed when several States banded together and tried to dissolve the country by violence. As a consequence of the 14th Amendment, rights previously recognized only at the federal level became enforced at the state level as well. This creates a bit of a philosophical contradiction in the original intent of the Second Amendment to provide citizens States the capacity to defend themselves from overreaching federal power, and evolution of that contradiction is how we eventually got to the notion that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms independent of any particular military application of those arms, despite the word "militia" being in the amendment itself.
exactly this, the right wing are truly dangerous, we will see how it plays out
The question was simply “can something be done?” Not if it could be done in the USA. Of course, we have to put up with more dead classmates because someday we might use those guns to defend ourselves from a tyrannical regime (or much more likely, a civil war amongst us, like almost happened on 1/6/21).
> freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Lol. Just look at american media. And religion ? You mean baptist religion ?
Lol. Just look at american media. And religion ? You mean baptist religion ?
> and as such must take more dramatic measures to prevent it from falling into the hands of some regime
Yet funnily when that was in the process of happening (Trump's failed coup attempt) not only were there no "good guys with guns" against the regime, all the guys with the guns were for the regime trying to make a coup.
Yet funnily when that was in the process of happening (Trump's failed coup attempt) not only were there no "good guys with guns" against the regime, all the guys with the guns were for the regime trying to make a coup.
Because the leftist opposition (like you) are anti-gun
Pardon me, but lol. I'm nowhere near the US, and indeed I'm further to the left than both of your right parties, even if I'm center/right of center for my country.
And there are plenty of US "liberals" who are "pro-gun", whatever that means.
And there are plenty of US "liberals" who are "pro-gun", whatever that means.
> must take more dramatic measures to prevent it from falling into the hands of some regime
the pen used for voting has more power than a gun to prevent the US from falling into the hands of "some regime".
the pen used for voting has more power than a gun to prevent the US from falling into the hands of "some regime".
The guns are for when the pen doesn’t work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War
“The situation reached a climax in 1970, when the Bangladesh Awami League, the largest East Pakistani political party, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, won a landslide victory in the national elections. The party won 167 of the 169 seats allotted to East Pakistan, and thus a majority of the 313 seats in the National Assembly. This gave the Awami League the constitutional right to form a government. However, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (a former Foreign Minister), the leader of the Pakistan People's Party, refused to allow Rahman to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan.”
“The situation reached a climax in 1970, when the Bangladesh Awami League, the largest East Pakistani political party, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, won a landslide victory in the national elections. The party won 167 of the 169 seats allotted to East Pakistan, and thus a majority of the 313 seats in the National Assembly. This gave the Awami League the constitutional right to form a government. However, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (a former Foreign Minister), the leader of the Pakistan People's Party, refused to allow Rahman to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan.”
From the wikipedia link:
>The Bangladeshi Declaration of Independence was broadcast from Chittagong by members of the Mukti Bahini—the national liberation army formed by Bengali military, paramilitary and civilians. The East Bengal Regiment and the East Pakistan Rifles played a crucial role in the resistance. Led by General M. A. G. Osmani and eleven sector commanders, the Bangladesh Forces waged a mass guerrilla war against the Pakistani military.
The Bangladeshi military organized the resistance. It was not a simple civilians-with-guns-rising-against-tyranny scenario.
>The Bangladeshi Declaration of Independence was broadcast from Chittagong by members of the Mukti Bahini—the national liberation army formed by Bengali military, paramilitary and civilians. The East Bengal Regiment and the East Pakistan Rifles played a crucial role in the resistance. Led by General M. A. G. Osmani and eleven sector commanders, the Bangladesh Forces waged a mass guerrilla war against the Pakistani military.
The Bangladeshi military organized the resistance. It was not a simple civilians-with-guns-rising-against-tyranny scenario.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukti_Bahini
"The 'Mukti Bahini' was divided into two groups; the 'Niomito Bahini' – or 'regular forces' – who came from the paramilitary, military and police forces of East Pakistan, and the Gonnobahini – or 'people's forces' – who were civilians. These names were given and defined by the Government of Bangladesh. ... Civilians took control of arms depots in various cities and began resisting Pakistani forces with the acquired weapons supply."
Remember there was no "Bangladeshi military" at the time. It was the Pakistani military. The East Pakistan Rifles, for example, had maintained loyalty to Pakistan until Pakistan went too far in suppressing the revolt.
"The 'Mukti Bahini' was divided into two groups; the 'Niomito Bahini' – or 'regular forces' – who came from the paramilitary, military and police forces of East Pakistan, and the Gonnobahini – or 'people's forces' – who were civilians. These names were given and defined by the Government of Bangladesh. ... Civilians took control of arms depots in various cities and began resisting Pakistani forces with the acquired weapons supply."
Remember there was no "Bangladeshi military" at the time. It was the Pakistani military. The East Pakistan Rifles, for example, had maintained loyalty to Pakistan until Pakistan went too far in suppressing the revolt.
"The pen is mightier than the sword" is a stupid idea. The pen has no power on its own. A regime will throw out your ballots.
The full context of the line is:
Beneath the rule of men entirely great
The pen is mightier than the sword.
That is, the power of the pen is premised on power in arms being equal.
The line comes from Edward Bulwer-Lytton, of "It was a dark and stormy night" fame. It appears in the play Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy, about Cardinal Richelieu a/k/a a/k/a Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal-Duc de Richelieu et de Fronsac, who may have a line or two on the power of words to his fame (or at least ascribed) as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pen_is_mightier_than_the_s...
Beneath the rule of men entirely great
The pen is mightier than the sword.
That is, the power of the pen is premised on power in arms being equal.
The line comes from Edward Bulwer-Lytton, of "It was a dark and stormy night" fame. It appears in the play Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy, about Cardinal Richelieu a/k/a a/k/a Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal-Duc de Richelieu et de Fronsac, who may have a line or two on the power of words to his fame (or at least ascribed) as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pen_is_mightier_than_the_s...
One could argue the US has already fallen, and guns are the only way we are going to get it back. Of course, that’s not a popular opinion, but try to take guns away from the citizens and it will be.
> It will not stop people like the one at 4th july, nor those school shootings. Unless the gun control laws completely outlaw civilians owning guns - which i dont think will fly.
You sure about that? If we had an aggressive gun buyback program and really dried up the supply, sure, you might still be able to buy an assault rifle from the criminal underworld. However, if you have the disposable income to be able to afford to pay >$20k for that gun...you've probably got your life together and aren't going on shooting sprees.
You sure about that? If we had an aggressive gun buyback program and really dried up the supply, sure, you might still be able to buy an assault rifle from the criminal underworld. However, if you have the disposable income to be able to afford to pay >$20k for that gun...you've probably got your life together and aren't going on shooting sprees.
>”and really dried up the supply, sure, you might still be able to buy an assault rifle from the criminal underworld.”
Might still? It would kick the underground firearm economy into overdrive. It’s also the case that the United States has a mind boggling amount of guns, more than any forced confiscation program could hope to put a noticeable dent into. “I lost my gun in a boating accident” is already a meme in gun culture. The black market would be well supplied.
Might still? It would kick the underground firearm economy into overdrive. It’s also the case that the United States has a mind boggling amount of guns, more than any forced confiscation program could hope to put a noticeable dent into. “I lost my gun in a boating accident” is already a meme in gun culture. The black market would be well supplied.
That’s not how gun buy back programs work. Hint they don’t and never have. It’s the same as what happened to that town that tried to solve their rat problem by paying people to bring rat heads. Some enterprising townsfolk started breeding rats.
Gun Buybacks were incredibly successful in Australia after the Port Arthur Massacre and now we have f*ck all gun violence. Funny that.
My home country has scrict gun ownership laws. It is almost impossible for a citizen to get a gun and even when he does other rules applies to carrying and loading.
Last time I've checked we had around 60000 gun related deaths every year.
Last time I've checked we had around 60000 gun related deaths every year.
If you were less obscure about which country that was maybe we could probe into why those deaths happen but you weren't so we cant.
It's Brazil, no other country in the world has more than 40,000 firearm deaths per year.
Yeap. News about people getting killed during a robbery even after passively handling out their belongings without resistance are common occurrence.
Criminals still with plenty access to guns after 20 years of strict control regulations are emboldened by the fact that nobody can offer resistance.
Criminals still with plenty access to guns after 20 years of strict control regulations are emboldened by the fact that nobody can offer resistance.
It seems obvious that firearms deaths are a multi-cause issue. If you have a highly developed country (Finland, Iceland, Switzerland...) you can also have lots of firearms without fearing also massive killings. But if half your society is born and raised under violence (El Salvador, Venezuela, Honduras...) + easy firearms + raging black markets operating freely, it's a recipe for disaster. I wouldn't expect less deaths in Brazil by getting more guns in the streets and encouraging resistance: Venezuela is already there (more than twice the guns of Brazil, handguns and semiautomatic are more or less allowed, you only need a license), and their death rates are the worst in the world.
> I wouldn't expect less deaths in Brazil by getting more guns in the streets and encouraging resistance
in this sort of situation, i'd rather die resisting than die placid and unable to fight.
Gun violence from criminals can't be solved via gun control.
in this sort of situation, i'd rather die resisting than die placid and unable to fight.
Gun violence from criminals can't be solved via gun control.
You're deeply wrong about that. Gun buybacks have worked and do work everywhere that they've been conducted.
It's not a buyback since the government never owned it. It's coerced confiscation.
So if you sell your house, or sell your car, or sell a loaf of bread, is that also coerced confiscation?
If the government says "we're taking your house for %x percent of the value" then yes, it is.
Is extremely disingenuous to suggest that a gun "buyback" is voluntary. You either do it or you're a felon.
Is extremely disingenuous to suggest that a gun "buyback" is voluntary. You either do it or you're a felon.
You have to ban them _and_ buy them back at the same time. You make them illegal to have, then you compensate people for the economic value of the property they now need to surrender for destruction.
That is in fact how buyback schemes work in countries that aren't totally irrational about guns.
That is in fact how buyback schemes work in countries that aren't totally irrational about guns.
I clearly should have clarified. They don’t work in America where private gun ownership does not look like it’s ever going to get banned.
Also America isn’t land locked like Australia. The black market will have an easier time transporting the goods through South America. If that wasn’t the case, then drugs wouldn’t be as accessible here. And given US is the arms capital of the world (American manufacturers supply a significant amount of the arms used in conflicts), those guns will inevitably find their way back to America (conflict stops, owners need money more than weapons, etc). The bigger the conflict the cheaper the guns become.
Finally, Australia had a national moment of unity when they banned guns and so giving up your guns was a collective activity. That’s not the case in America.
Also America isn’t land locked like Australia. The black market will have an easier time transporting the goods through South America. If that wasn’t the case, then drugs wouldn’t be as accessible here. And given US is the arms capital of the world (American manufacturers supply a significant amount of the arms used in conflicts), those guns will inevitably find their way back to America (conflict stops, owners need money more than weapons, etc). The bigger the conflict the cheaper the guns become.
Finally, Australia had a national moment of unity when they banned guns and so giving up your guns was a collective activity. That’s not the case in America.
It's quite difficult to breed guns.
Guns, but only for criminals and rich people? No thanks.
Better than having guns for criminals, rich people and unhinged teenagers looking to shoot their school.
The largest demographic (hundreds of millions of people), which you seem to have left out, is law abiding citizens looking to protect themselves and their families.
Protect themselves from what? Unhinged people with guns? Seems like recursion.
People in other countries where guns are illegal seem to do just fine without having to protect themselves using their own firearms.
People in other countries where guns are illegal seem to do just fine without having to protect themselves using their own firearms.
People in unarmed countries get stabbed/beaten/shot if their attacker is larger/stronger/younger than them. Here, older/weaker people have a chance to protect their lives. Firearms are frequently used defensively to stop attacks.
Here's a couple from the past 2 weeks:
https://abc7.com/moreno-valley-intruder-shot-homeowner-inves... https://www.wfla.com/news/pinellas-county/man-fatally-shot-a...
Here's a couple from the past 2 weeks:
https://abc7.com/moreno-valley-intruder-shot-homeowner-inves... https://www.wfla.com/news/pinellas-county/man-fatally-shot-a...
Anecdotal evidence is great for appeals to emotion, but the data tells a different story[1].
[1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thr...
[1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thr...
I can show you hundreds of news stories of defensive gun use from the past 6 months, or you can be satisfied with a single study, which also claims:
>women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault
I don't know why anyone would choose to believe something that is so easily falsifiable with a 2 minute google search[0]
0. https://www.kfvs12.com/story/9273275/accused-rapist-shot-kil...
>women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault
I don't know why anyone would choose to believe something that is so easily falsifiable with a 2 minute google search[0]
0. https://www.kfvs12.com/story/9273275/accused-rapist-shot-kil...
As the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data. It's great that you read the page I cited, but you cherry picked your quote. Here's the full section:
> 11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions
> Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.
> This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.
> Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27.
Emphasis added.
> 11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions
> Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.
> This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.
> Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27.
Emphasis added.
>(in more than 300 cases)
Yes, this shows the bias of the authors. They come to a conclusion that is only supported by undersampled data, yet their language is strongly biased towards that specific conclusion ("women never..."). Unbiased language would not read that way. I suspect the language flies under your radar because you seem to agree with the conclusions. But its a huge red flag that the authors are not approaching the subject in good faith.
Studies on DGU is an oft-treaded subject. I've looked at quite a bit of data, and if you have also, you would also know how and why it is so difficult to compile reliable data on the subject. Which is why I find it nearly futile to throw studies at each other.
Yes, this shows the bias of the authors. They come to a conclusion that is only supported by undersampled data, yet their language is strongly biased towards that specific conclusion ("women never..."). Unbiased language would not read that way. I suspect the language flies under your radar because you seem to agree with the conclusions. But its a huge red flag that the authors are not approaching the subject in good faith.
Studies on DGU is an oft-treaded subject. I've looked at quite a bit of data, and if you have also, you would also know how and why it is so difficult to compile reliable data on the subject. Which is why I find it nearly futile to throw studies at each other.
>Protect themselves from what? Unhinged people with guns? Seems like recursion.
Protect themselves from larger people with other weapons. Protect themselves from unarmed people who want to kill them. Protect themselves from crazy guy who made home-made shotgun with home-made gunpowder and home-made projectiles. Protect themselves from cartel members who smuggle weapons channeled by foreign militaries. Protect themselves from wild animals, including grizzly bears that inhabit the US and Polar bears that inhabit places like Svalbard. Protect themselves from rabid or poorly trained aggressive domestic animals, such as the many dogs that attack and even kill children annually.
Protect themselves from larger people with other weapons. Protect themselves from unarmed people who want to kill them. Protect themselves from crazy guy who made home-made shotgun with home-made gunpowder and home-made projectiles. Protect themselves from cartel members who smuggle weapons channeled by foreign militaries. Protect themselves from wild animals, including grizzly bears that inhabit the US and Polar bears that inhabit places like Svalbard. Protect themselves from rabid or poorly trained aggressive domestic animals, such as the many dogs that attack and even kill children annually.
I've never seen anyone argue against this that wasn't essentially, "oh well, deal with it I guess." The police can't make it in time, and have no duty to protect you. Any other weapon that doesn't provide distance and lethal force is a liability. So what is the expectation for innocent victims, especially the smaller or weaker ones? Just get beaten/killed? I've never seen a real answer to this.
> So what is the expectation for innocent victims, especially the smaller or weaker ones? Just get beaten/killed? I've never seen a real answer to this.
Pepper spray is pretty great. You don't have to worry about killing someone, so you can use it with a lot less hesitation. I've been in a situation where I was in physical danger, but from someone I didn't want to kill, and pepper spray immediately ended the danger for me and allowed me to get away. A gun would not have done that because I wouldn't have used the gun.
Pepper spray is pretty great. You don't have to worry about killing someone, so you can use it with a lot less hesitation. I've been in a situation where I was in physical danger, but from someone I didn't want to kill, and pepper spray immediately ended the danger for me and allowed me to get away. A gun would not have done that because I wouldn't have used the gun.
I agree there are situations where nonlethal force is appropriate, and it sounds like you were in one of those situations. There are other situations where someone wants to and is trying to kill you, and pepper spray does not incapacitate that kind of aggression reliably. It also does not work well on drunk people or people with a high pain threshold tolerance.
In my case, the person was drunk, very strong, very angry, had quite a high pain threshold, and the pepper spray was shockingly effective. In about five seconds they went from screaming threats and swinging a 2x4 at family members to crumpled on the ground crying.
>Protect themselves from what?
Bears, wolves, mountain lions, elk, moose, bison are some of the things.
Bears, wolves, mountain lions, elk, moose, bison are some of the things.
[deleted]
> but doesn't prevent any premeditated ones
Not all premeditated attackers are equal in motivation and ability. Make the obstacle high enough, some people will still make it over, others will either lack the motivation to scale it or the ability to do so. Lower the obstacle, and suddenly that later group gets over it too.
"Premeditation" just means the attacker intended to do the act before-hand. The degree of preparation involved varies widely. Some premeditated attacks are the fruit of weeks, months, even years of preparation. Other premeditated attacks are triggered by a recent stressor, sometimes only days old. Gun control can make a big difference to the odds of the later kind of premeditated attack, but makes little difference to the odds of the former kind.
Not all premeditated attackers are equal in motivation and ability. Make the obstacle high enough, some people will still make it over, others will either lack the motivation to scale it or the ability to do so. Lower the obstacle, and suddenly that later group gets over it too.
"Premeditation" just means the attacker intended to do the act before-hand. The degree of preparation involved varies widely. Some premeditated attacks are the fruit of weeks, months, even years of preparation. Other premeditated attacks are triggered by a recent stressor, sometimes only days old. Gun control can make a big difference to the odds of the later kind of premeditated attack, but makes little difference to the odds of the former kind.
Strongly disagree.
Access to powerful firearms vastly increases how damaging shootings are.
Compare the single death in a decade for Japan to the hundreds, if not thousands of deaths per year from gun violence in the US[0] [1]. Keeping guns out of circulation reduces gun deaths.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
Access to powerful firearms vastly increases how damaging shootings are.
Compare the single death in a decade for Japan to the hundreds, if not thousands of deaths per year from gun violence in the US[0] [1]. Keeping guns out of circulation reduces gun deaths.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
Japan's death rate seems higher than the US by quite a bit (14 vs 10 per 1000). I believe this is because they have far greater violent death than the US, but don't call most killings 'murder'. E.g. a person that owes money is found hanged in a Japanese park, it's suicide even when it's obvious they cannot have hanged themselves.
Culture plays a large role in statistics. It's hard to interpret from outside. But surely the choice of weapon is less meaningful than the outcomes.
The term 'gun violence' is designed to cherry-pick numbers out of a whole landscape of social problems and argue toward a point.
Culture plays a large role in statistics. It's hard to interpret from outside. But surely the choice of weapon is less meaningful than the outcomes.
The term 'gun violence' is designed to cherry-pick numbers out of a whole landscape of social problems and argue toward a point.
Japans death rate is ~11, not 14.
But regardless, no, there is nowhere near as much violent death here in Japan. It is one of the safest countries in the world. The high death rate is due to the aging population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan
But regardless, no, there is nowhere near as much violent death here in Japan. It is one of the safest countries in the world. The high death rate is due to the aging population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan
"It's the exception that proves the rule".
In this case, it proved both rules.
One of the ostensible purposes of the Second Amendment is for Americans to be able to hold their own government in check via the private capacity to cause violence.
Well, lacking anything even approximating a Second Amendment, an individual Japanese citizen just forced leadership change.
One of the ostensible purposes of the Second Amendment is for Americans to be able to hold their own government in check via the private capacity to cause violence.
Well, lacking anything even approximating a Second Amendment, an individual Japanese citizen just forced leadership change.
You think in America citizens should shoot Bush or Obama to "hold their own government in check"? You think that's a valid exercise of the second amendment?
Are you asking me or the Founding Fathers?
I think it's a terrible and apocryphal idea and America would be well served by repealing the Second Amendment. The perpetual loss of civilian life to violent urges consummated by easy access to deadly firearms is in no way worth the possibility that Americans may need to rise up and shoot a bunch of their own politicians someday.
But among the reasons that it was put into place is definitely the idea that you must arm the citizenry because a government that disarms its citizenry is a tyranny. The US had, in living memory of the people who wrote the Constitution, just fought a war against their legitimate government and won it because, among other things, colonial life had made the average American familiar with a gun. They saw that as a useful facet of their culture to preserve.
I think it's a terrible and apocryphal idea and America would be well served by repealing the Second Amendment. The perpetual loss of civilian life to violent urges consummated by easy access to deadly firearms is in no way worth the possibility that Americans may need to rise up and shoot a bunch of their own politicians someday.
But among the reasons that it was put into place is definitely the idea that you must arm the citizenry because a government that disarms its citizenry is a tyranny. The US had, in living memory of the people who wrote the Constitution, just fought a war against their legitimate government and won it because, among other things, colonial life had made the average American familiar with a gun. They saw that as a useful facet of their culture to preserve.
I don't think "you can just shoot anyone for whatever deluded reason you want" is a valid rationalisation of the second amendment, or a reason to have a gun.
Not for any reason, but make no mistake: the militia was argued to be a check on tyrannical abuse.
"If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people?" ~Alexander Hamilton (as Publius)
I should perhaps clarify: the main purpose of the militia at the time of the Constitution's creation was to serve as a check on Federal power by providing the States with control of their own instrument of violence. But after, well, the states used that power to rebel against what they saw as a tyranny (the imminent end of slavery and therefore loss of what they perceived as their legitimate property in the form of other human beings) and the government crushed that rebellion, the Fourteenth Amendment pretty much extinguished that purpose for the Second Amendment. So the only aspect of this justification for its existence that remains is the individual conscience of the American citizen on whether their government is tyranny that should be opposed with violence. Every other check-on-tyranny purpose was nullified by the Fourteenth Amendment after the 1860s.
... And if that means 2A sounds stupid to keep around in 2022, we are in agreement and I would support repealing it.
"If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people?" ~Alexander Hamilton (as Publius)
I should perhaps clarify: the main purpose of the militia at the time of the Constitution's creation was to serve as a check on Federal power by providing the States with control of their own instrument of violence. But after, well, the states used that power to rebel against what they saw as a tyranny (the imminent end of slavery and therefore loss of what they perceived as their legitimate property in the form of other human beings) and the government crushed that rebellion, the Fourteenth Amendment pretty much extinguished that purpose for the Second Amendment. So the only aspect of this justification for its existence that remains is the individual conscience of the American citizen on whether their government is tyranny that should be opposed with violence. Every other check-on-tyranny purpose was nullified by the Fourteenth Amendment after the 1860s.
... And if that means 2A sounds stupid to keep around in 2022, we are in agreement and I would support repealing it.
I am sorry, but it will stop if guns are banned for ordinary people. How many school shootings happen in China or India? I am taking china and india because they are populous and don't have gun distributed freely like in US.
The fact is quantity matters in such cases. Having 1 incidence vs 10 or 20 is a huge difference.
The fact is quantity matters in such cases. Having 1 incidence vs 10 or 20 is a huge difference.
> I am sorry, but it will stop if guns are banned for ordinary people. How many school shootings happen in China or India?
I don’t know about school shootings, but guns are banned in Puerto Rico and the island has 4 times the homicide rate of the US and 6 times the homicide rate of India. Pakistan has way more guns than most Latin American countries but much lower homicide rates.
Homicide rates in the new world have been vastly higher than in Europe and Asia for hundreds of years, long before modern gun control. At the turn of the 20th century, the homicide rate in the US was 10x higher than the UK: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/humfig/images/11217607.0002.206...
Pop quiz: from the chart of homicide rates in the UK, tell me when the major gun control legislation happened.
I don’t know about school shootings, but guns are banned in Puerto Rico and the island has 4 times the homicide rate of the US and 6 times the homicide rate of India. Pakistan has way more guns than most Latin American countries but much lower homicide rates.
Homicide rates in the new world have been vastly higher than in Europe and Asia for hundreds of years, long before modern gun control. At the turn of the 20th century, the homicide rate in the US was 10x higher than the UK: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/humfig/images/11217607.0002.206...
Pop quiz: from the chart of homicide rates in the UK, tell me when the major gun control legislation happened.
> I am sorry, but it will stop if guns are banned for ordinary people.
and i do believe that this idea doesn't fly in the USA. The culture doesn't allow it. Gun control in the USA can, and will, only ever go as far as checks and registries. It will forever remain a place where anyone, after passing checks, will be able to acquire a gun.
There are countries with large gun ownership rates too - finland comes to mind. Those countries have good education, social safety net, healthcare, and other societal support, such that people don't become deranged or fall into crime (as easily).
Of course, having some gun control laws will help - i am all for a complete registry of guns (which doesn't exist in the US - and fuck those who are against it). But it's not a panacea. Effort and political capital spent on trying to get gun control means effort not spent on social progress, which is a deeper root cause of the problem.
and i do believe that this idea doesn't fly in the USA. The culture doesn't allow it. Gun control in the USA can, and will, only ever go as far as checks and registries. It will forever remain a place where anyone, after passing checks, will be able to acquire a gun.
There are countries with large gun ownership rates too - finland comes to mind. Those countries have good education, social safety net, healthcare, and other societal support, such that people don't become deranged or fall into crime (as easily).
Of course, having some gun control laws will help - i am all for a complete registry of guns (which doesn't exist in the US - and fuck those who are against it). But it's not a panacea. Effort and political capital spent on trying to get gun control means effort not spent on social progress, which is a deeper root cause of the problem.
There are hundreds of millions of americans. These mass shooting events are insignifigant in the grand scheme of things. I don't think we should give away our essential freedoms just so we can live in a "safe" country like... China and India?
> our essential freedoms just so we can live in a "safe" country like... China and India?
India has zero to no gun violence. Sure, there's a lot of petty crime, and there are enough murders happening - and the last thing we want is to arm those murderers with guns.
Your sentence seems to argue that the (much higher) degree of free speech enjoyed by Americans is owing to civilian gun ownership, which I don't think is true (though I don't have the data at hand to back up my claim).
>There are hundreds of millions of americans. These mass shooting events are insignifigant in the grand scheme of things
It's not just the number of people who get shot - it's this idea that a road rage incident _can_ potentially end in you getting shot, if the other person is deranged enough. Not to mention the amount of American tax dollars that go into ensuring that the police out-gun the civilians.
India has zero to no gun violence. Sure, there's a lot of petty crime, and there are enough murders happening - and the last thing we want is to arm those murderers with guns.
Your sentence seems to argue that the (much higher) degree of free speech enjoyed by Americans is owing to civilian gun ownership, which I don't think is true (though I don't have the data at hand to back up my claim).
>There are hundreds of millions of americans. These mass shooting events are insignifigant in the grand scheme of things
It's not just the number of people who get shot - it's this idea that a road rage incident _can_ potentially end in you getting shot, if the other person is deranged enough. Not to mention the amount of American tax dollars that go into ensuring that the police out-gun the civilians.
There are something like 130m people in Japan and yet firearm homicides appear to be at least a couple of orders of magnitude less frequent:
"A 2022 report from the University of Washington revealing that, while the US had more than four firearm homicides per 100,000 people in 2019, Japan had almost zero. Comparing high-income countries in the World Bank with the rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 people, the US had 4.2, Australia had 0.18 and Japan 0.02, the report found."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/abe-shooting-w...
In my opinion, of all the things that count towards a society being considered more civilised than another, not shooting each other is right up there.
"A 2022 report from the University of Washington revealing that, while the US had more than four firearm homicides per 100,000 people in 2019, Japan had almost zero. Comparing high-income countries in the World Bank with the rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 people, the US had 4.2, Australia had 0.18 and Japan 0.02, the report found."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/abe-shooting-w...
In my opinion, of all the things that count towards a society being considered more civilised than another, not shooting each other is right up there.
Surely there are more palatable examples of countries without guns than China and India.
cowtools(1)
There are occasions it happened in India. In fact, it happened in my city, I think I read of one happening 8-10 years ago. Could be more recent, I don't really remember, but it was a big deal back then that's for sure. Some bully kid shot some kid with his father's pistol. But it isn't as widespread a problem as in America. I personally had more things to worry about, like casual racism and bullying.
Considering the cultures of these countries are vastly different, not even just on the topic of gun control, I'm not sure you can make a good-faith comparison.
> The root cause of gun violence is societal issues, not the guns themselves. Solve those societal issues (hard, and likely almost intractable unfortunately), or gun violence will persist.
We have what, near 200 examples of other countries who are able to do better? It's almost like it doesn't require a society with no (vaguely alluded to) issues to prevent many gun crimes and mass shootings, and it's more about being able and willing to add common-sense restrictions instead of being committed to an extreme "no restrictions" policy.
> will not stop people like the one at 4th july, nor those school shootings. Unless the gun control laws completely outlaw civilians owning guns - which i dont think will fly.
The perpretator of that attack had the biggest of red flags for a long time. He should _not_ have been able to legally purchase a firearm.
We have what, near 200 examples of other countries who are able to do better? It's almost like it doesn't require a society with no (vaguely alluded to) issues to prevent many gun crimes and mass shootings, and it's more about being able and willing to add common-sense restrictions instead of being committed to an extreme "no restrictions" policy.
> will not stop people like the one at 4th july, nor those school shootings. Unless the gun control laws completely outlaw civilians owning guns - which i dont think will fly.
The perpretator of that attack had the biggest of red flags for a long time. He should _not_ have been able to legally purchase a firearm.
cowtools(2)
One very concrete action that requires no political will, would be for the media to stop giving a platform to the shooters.
If any would be shooter clearly sees that their message will go unheard, that they will die in anonymity, I think that could deter at least some.
Your point stands though, that the issue is societal.
If any would be shooter clearly sees that their message will go unheard, that they will die in anonymity, I think that could deter at least some.
Your point stands though, that the issue is societal.
yes, media has a huge role in aggrandizing the shooters, even if inadvertently. Unfortunately, due to the profit nature of most media, they gain clicks/views when such events happen. Political will - which might in this case be synonymous with profit motive - is definitely lacking.
Yeah, school shooters should just be described as "Anonymous Coward {$serialnumber}", with no picture shown or anything.
Sorry, but why would a complete ban on citizens owning guns, unless for very special cases not severely curb gun violence?
it would curb spur of the moment shootings, and may be accidental, or simple premeditated ones. It would not stop a determined religious or fundamentalist fanatic, as guns can still be acquired even if banned.
Plus, a complete ban on civilians owning guns is very unlikely to ever happen in the USA.
Plus, a complete ban on civilians owning guns is very unlikely to ever happen in the USA.
> It would not stop a determined religious or fundamentalist fanatic, as guns can still be acquired even if banned.
That's also the case in every country where guns are illegal and yet in practice it remains a very rare occurrence.
That's also the case in every country where guns are illegal and yet in practice it remains a very rare occurrence.
Why do you need to "stop" it? Why not just "lower" it? Like lower it with 90%.
And the fanatic, practice shows that a lot of times they take the easy road by using a knife, axe or bow.
And the fanatic, practice shows that a lot of times they take the easy road by using a knife, axe or bow.
Japan has 9 cases of gun deaths, the US had 35,000. You’d almost think it has an effect.
Very insightful and refreshing to see a nuanced take like this. I agree, it's a sick society problem, and blaming just guns or just "mental illness" (as if that's somehow unconnected from society as a whole) misses the bigger picture.
This was even more wild because of the guns involved were somewhat complex homemade guns.
Belgian gun owner here, so let me give you my take on this.
> It will not stop people like the one at 4th july, nor those school shootings.
Proper gun laws could definitely prevented the 4th of july shooting. Have you seen the guy's picture and background? No way in hell that he would have gotten a legal gun in Belgium. Same for most school shootings.
The solution is very simple: don't let aggressive and crazy people buy guns.
> Solve those societal issues
Or you need to accept that your society will have aggressive and crazy people, and make laws accordingly.
US always thinks black and white. Either everyone can buy a gun, or nobody can buy a gun. There seems to be no grey zone in between? Same for mass shootings, either you have them or you have 0, also no grey zone. Maybe you could try to prevent most of them? Like most sane countries?
You need a driver license to drive a car, seems logical. But in US, anyone can walk into a store and buy a gun with bullets. Absolutely bonkers in these times.
Like I said, I'm a gun owner. So let me tell you what I have to do to get a gun, to give you an idea how other countries work.
First of all I need a reason to own a gun, and "defend my home" is not a valid one. "I shoot for sports" is a valid one. In that sense, we don't have an NRA organisation, we have a Sport Shooting Organisation, which actually wants to have proper legislation with restrictive licenses.
So first I need to subscribe myself into a shooting range. I can't have any convictions, my doctor needs to approve I can handle guns. The shooting range itself also judges if they want a person like me in their club (=is this person going to be handling guns safely?). I can tell you there are no members in my club who have tattoos in their face.
For 3 months I can only shoot air guns. After 3 months, I can apply for a firearm. Again, no convictions, doctor needs to approve, all adult people in my house need to approve. Then you need to pass a theoretical and practical exam. Theoretical also includes gun laws, where to store guns, how to transport them, etc. After that is done, you can send the documents to the government, they have to approve it. After they say yes, they send your dossier to the local police, and a cop will come by to check where and how you store your guns (stored away from kids, bullets separate, not easily accessible, ...). After that person approves, it goes back to the government and you get your license. If any of the people in those steps says "no", you don't get your firearm. This application takes months.
Then, once you have your firearm, every year you need to prove you at least went 12 times to the shooting range, and have a clear criminal record. Every 5 years your doctor needs to approve. When you want to buy another firearm, do the whole thing again. Also, cops can come by any time and check where your guns are stored.
Do I like to do all of this every year? No. Do I prefer that over my neighbour owning a gun and no clue how to safely use it? Yes. Do I prefer that over any crazy idiot going to the shop and buy a firearm and bullets? Hell YES!!!!
What is the result? Compare the gun violence results of Belgium with any US state the size of Belgium.
> It will not stop people like the one at 4th july, nor those school shootings.
Proper gun laws could definitely prevented the 4th of july shooting. Have you seen the guy's picture and background? No way in hell that he would have gotten a legal gun in Belgium. Same for most school shootings.
The solution is very simple: don't let aggressive and crazy people buy guns.
> Solve those societal issues
Or you need to accept that your society will have aggressive and crazy people, and make laws accordingly.
US always thinks black and white. Either everyone can buy a gun, or nobody can buy a gun. There seems to be no grey zone in between? Same for mass shootings, either you have them or you have 0, also no grey zone. Maybe you could try to prevent most of them? Like most sane countries?
You need a driver license to drive a car, seems logical. But in US, anyone can walk into a store and buy a gun with bullets. Absolutely bonkers in these times.
Like I said, I'm a gun owner. So let me tell you what I have to do to get a gun, to give you an idea how other countries work.
First of all I need a reason to own a gun, and "defend my home" is not a valid one. "I shoot for sports" is a valid one. In that sense, we don't have an NRA organisation, we have a Sport Shooting Organisation, which actually wants to have proper legislation with restrictive licenses.
So first I need to subscribe myself into a shooting range. I can't have any convictions, my doctor needs to approve I can handle guns. The shooting range itself also judges if they want a person like me in their club (=is this person going to be handling guns safely?). I can tell you there are no members in my club who have tattoos in their face.
For 3 months I can only shoot air guns. After 3 months, I can apply for a firearm. Again, no convictions, doctor needs to approve, all adult people in my house need to approve. Then you need to pass a theoretical and practical exam. Theoretical also includes gun laws, where to store guns, how to transport them, etc. After that is done, you can send the documents to the government, they have to approve it. After they say yes, they send your dossier to the local police, and a cop will come by to check where and how you store your guns (stored away from kids, bullets separate, not easily accessible, ...). After that person approves, it goes back to the government and you get your license. If any of the people in those steps says "no", you don't get your firearm. This application takes months.
Then, once you have your firearm, every year you need to prove you at least went 12 times to the shooting range, and have a clear criminal record. Every 5 years your doctor needs to approve. When you want to buy another firearm, do the whole thing again. Also, cops can come by any time and check where your guns are stored.
Do I like to do all of this every year? No. Do I prefer that over my neighbour owning a gun and no clue how to safely use it? Yes. Do I prefer that over any crazy idiot going to the shop and buy a firearm and bullets? Hell YES!!!!
What is the result? Compare the gun violence results of Belgium with any US state the size of Belgium.
They've also had chemical weapon attacks which are scarier than gun attacks. Give me a person with a gun rather than some lethal chemical piped into the subway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack
I'm not sure if it should be scarier - the deadliest terrorist gas attack in Japan killed less people than the regularly scheduled weekly mass shooting in US usually does.
Not to minimise shootings, but at least you (or law enforcement) can shoot back, whereas with chemical attacks you cannot. The issue is really that you could scale chemical attacks up immensely and find some truly nasty chemical agents. I'm surprised it hasn't happened more - perhaps due to how dangerous working with extremely toxic chemicals actually is. Either way, wikipedia suggests 1k were injured in the attacks, so it's not just deaths. Imagine a terrorist who attacked with a chemical agent that just made you blind or gave you brain damage, but didn't kill you. Would that not be much scarier than being shot?
Someone did the math, scaling up chemical attacks is really hard because the stuff dissipates so quickly, even if you have something like sarin.
Also, it is really hard to gather the materials needed in the amounts necessary without raising suspicions, which also says a lot about how Japanese police handled the case.
Any link? Would be curious to read. That is, of course, good to hear.
There's this military historian perspective [1] on why chemical weapons aren't used by regular militaries becase they aren't actually that effective (compared to spending the same effort on making normal explosives). It is slightly different topic to terrorist attacks but I think it touched on that as well.
Be warned, the blog is a complete rabbit hole of "oh god why am I reading analysis of logistics of Lord of the Ring armies at 3 AM".
[1]: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
Be warned, the blog is a complete rabbit hole of "oh god why am I reading analysis of logistics of Lord of the Ring armies at 3 AM".
[1]: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
1995 was an eternity ago. Fewer than 100 people died. I am not scared of Japan, but I am scared of one country that has no gun control.
Whataboutism at its finest.
Looks like it was home made.
Guns are not complicated machines, anyone motivated with even basic household tools can make one if they want to do so.
And it looks like someone did.
Guns are not complicated machines, anyone motivated with even basic household tools can make one if they want to do so.
And it looks like someone did.
Although in this case, the suspect had worked for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, so it wasn't just your average person off the street. At least I imagine that being in the navy would entail much more domain knowledge about firearms than your lay perosn.
Not very likely, military arms are so many steps removed from ‘improvised weapon’ that the only thing they share in common is they use burning propellant to shove a projectile out the end. Everything from chemistry, techniques, methods, materials is different.
Military is all about ‘at scale’ and ‘ready and waiting after decades’.
A couple pipes and end caps, a drill, some wire of different diameters, a 9v battery, and some common household chemicals and time and you’re good to go with what I saw the dude using.
Some odds you’d blow yourself up, but that’s easy to test out in the woods or whatever remotely.
All the above can be gleaned with some easy google searches or YouTube, including people making them and showing all the steps.
Military is all about ‘at scale’ and ‘ready and waiting after decades’.
A couple pipes and end caps, a drill, some wire of different diameters, a 9v battery, and some common household chemicals and time and you’re good to go with what I saw the dude using.
Some odds you’d blow yourself up, but that’s easy to test out in the woods or whatever remotely.
All the above can be gleaned with some easy google searches or YouTube, including people making them and showing all the steps.
Not enough of a difference to make a difference. Single use shotguns from smooth pipes and black powder are very simple. Any lay person can figure it out.
> I made an example of Japan and it’s low gun violence. Now this happens.
I think your argument still holds. Japanese politicians usually have really relaxed security details partly because it's hard to get a gun in Japan. This kind of shooting is an exception, not a norm.
I think your argument still holds. Japanese politicians usually have really relaxed security details partly because it's hard to get a gun in Japan. This kind of shooting is an exception, not a norm.
Having spent some time in Japan and knowing many Japanese folks and many Western folks who have lived and worked in Japan a long time, my impression is that Japan is (like many East Asian countries) obsessed with looking perfect.
It often means actually nearly perfect (on some axis, at least in Japan, but with clear ‘acceptable’ issues on others), but coverups, suppressing inconvenient facts, oppressing or exiling troublesome elements, etc. all happen too.
Folks call it ‘face’, and it isn’t unique to East Asia, but it is very pronounced in Japan.
Japan also being an island and very culturally homogenous, makes it possible to take it to real extremes not doable elsewhere, and it can be a very oppressive environment if you don’t fit in (and are trying to do so).
If you’re ok with being treated as a foreign curiosity, everyone is very friendly and helpful.
With everything tightening the screws lately (Covid, economy, etc), it’s another example (like the attempted subway gassings) of something slipping out of control and blowing up where it can’t be swept under the rug.
It often means actually nearly perfect (on some axis, at least in Japan, but with clear ‘acceptable’ issues on others), but coverups, suppressing inconvenient facts, oppressing or exiling troublesome elements, etc. all happen too.
Folks call it ‘face’, and it isn’t unique to East Asia, but it is very pronounced in Japan.
Japan also being an island and very culturally homogenous, makes it possible to take it to real extremes not doable elsewhere, and it can be a very oppressive environment if you don’t fit in (and are trying to do so).
If you’re ok with being treated as a foreign curiosity, everyone is very friendly and helpful.
With everything tightening the screws lately (Covid, economy, etc), it’s another example (like the attempted subway gassings) of something slipping out of control and blowing up where it can’t be swept under the rug.
> Now this happens.
It's like the recent shootings in Norway and Denmark. Yes, those things happen even in "those" places (good quality of life, happy people, well developed, socialised healthcare, etc.) but they're a once in a decade, at most, event. Meanwhile the US has one of those what, weekly? It's unfortunate that guns are religious issue there, which means nothing meaningful will change.
It's like the recent shootings in Norway and Denmark. Yes, those things happen even in "those" places (good quality of life, happy people, well developed, socialised healthcare, etc.) but they're a once in a decade, at most, event. Meanwhile the US has one of those what, weekly? It's unfortunate that guns are religious issue there, which means nothing meaningful will change.
This argument that "look at the gun controlled state" after a shooting is such a dumb one to make.
How many mass shootings happen in Japan? How many kids are killed in Japanese schools because someone barged in with a military grade assault weapon, tactical gear and unlimited ammo? How many gun killings per capita happen in Japan? How many people per capita in Japan have gun violence as a priority as compared to the US?
So many questions that have answers in favor of gun control are ignored.
Guns are in-compatible with human nature (The off chance of a bad decision for revenge or murderous rampage is high enough to ban guns). Because they distort the power in favor of the gun bearer.
How many mass shootings happen in Japan? How many kids are killed in Japanese schools because someone barged in with a military grade assault weapon, tactical gear and unlimited ammo? How many gun killings per capita happen in Japan? How many people per capita in Japan have gun violence as a priority as compared to the US?
So many questions that have answers in favor of gun control are ignored.
Guns are in-compatible with human nature (The off chance of a bad decision for revenge or murderous rampage is high enough to ban guns). Because they distort the power in favor of the gun bearer.
Been living in Japan and US for a while.
There are substantial cultural differences in those countries. Even if tomorrow you would allow any weapon in Japan it won't change anything. There will be no school shootings (at substantial amount). Japanese people conditioned differently.
There are substantial cultural differences in those countries. Even if tomorrow you would allow any weapon in Japan it won't change anything. There will be no school shootings (at substantial amount). Japanese people conditioned differently.
Totally agree. But give every Japanese a weapon. And then wait a few decades.
Can you guarantee me that the culture will hold back gun violence?
Can you guarantee me that the culture will hold back gun violence?
I doubt anyone can "guarantee" how things will be developed in few decades. Noone knows for sure how the policy will transform societal relationships.
Presence or absence of weapons doesn't affect if someone will use it or not. Getting or making a weapon is relatively easy task even in Japan.
Growing a cohesive society where people use other means to cooperate instead of assaulting everyone who disagrees with their opinion is most important
Presence or absence of weapons doesn't affect if someone will use it or not. Getting or making a weapon is relatively easy task even in Japan.
Growing a cohesive society where people use other means to cooperate instead of assaulting everyone who disagrees with their opinion is most important
> Presence or absence of weapons doesn't affect if someone will use it or not.
Yeah No. When weapons are absent, the probability of using a weapon is exactly 0.
When weapons are cheaply and easily available, the probability is definitely not 0.
Those who wish to create mayhem, can and will, get weapons one way or another. Happens all over the world. No amount of laws or severity of punishments can change that.
But, gun restrictions prevent impulsive actions, and actions or situations exacerbated by the false security that having a gun gives, or plain right idiots who don't know how to safely handle guns.
Yeah No. When weapons are absent, the probability of using a weapon is exactly 0.
When weapons are cheaply and easily available, the probability is definitely not 0.
Those who wish to create mayhem, can and will, get weapons one way or another. Happens all over the world. No amount of laws or severity of punishments can change that.
But, gun restrictions prevent impulsive actions, and actions or situations exacerbated by the false security that having a gun gives, or plain right idiots who don't know how to safely handle guns.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This news about Abe is definitely a bit shocking, but nowhere near as scary as the indiscriminate killings we keep hearing about from the US.
If you're a high profile politician, having a target on your back is basically part of the job description. The fact that "being a US resident" is now on more or less the same level, is a bit scary.
If you're a high profile politician, having a target on your back is basically part of the job description. The fact that "being a US resident" is now on more or less the same level, is a bit scary.
Statistics still matter. The odds of dying in a car accident throughout your life are about 1 in 100.
If you take out suicide and gang violence, getting shot randomly is much less likely than dying in a car. Yet I go and drive around for fun some days and don't worry one but about it.
Guns are now the leading cause of death for people under the age of 24 in the US (and have been for several years). Yes, they exceed motor vehicle deaths.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/05/25/guns-are...
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/05/25/guns-are...
Now do the stats for people under 24 without gang affiliation... It's incredibly misleading for the Economist to tie that stat to Uvalde when in reality, it's 16-24 year old gang members shooting each other over the drug trade and personal beefs.
My first thought on seeing that statistic some weeks ago was that auto deaths must be falling.
They're not.
They're not.
Remove gun violence. Remove self defense. Remove gang violence.
The chance of someone just waking up, loading a gun and shooting you point blank for no reason are very small.
The chance of someone just waking up, loading a gun and shooting you point blank for no reason are very small.
I stopped going to San Francisco and Oakland years ago, so my odds of death are not anywhere near that. I also wouldn't go to Chicago and several other cities.
When I drove down Baja Mexico, I also avoided stopped at all in Tijuana. If you don't go where the murders are, it's pretty safe out there still.
Is that including suicides?
1/100 is shockingly high. IMO if you accept that you've been conditioned to some pretty crazy risk. I'm going to guess a lot of that statistic comes from drunk driving, at night, with many on rural roads, though. If the risk of flying was 1/100 of death over a lifetime the airline industry would be absolutely decimated by comparison.
[deleted]
It's not like that invalidates anything. Bad things can still happen, just much less often.
I'd argue that because gun crime in Japan is so low that the security required to prevent this sort of attack has not been properly prepared.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The most surprising thing here is that he was shot. How does someone even get a gun in Japan?
Number two is he’s the exPM, so what would shooting him gain?
Number two is he’s the exPM, so what would shooting him gain?
> he’s the exPM, so what would shooting him gain?
Abe still has important impacts on Japan politics. He leads the largest faction in the Liberal Democratic Party[1], therefore he could influence many voters during LDP President election. And LDP is the ruling party, so LDP President will be the PM.
Another example is he stated “If Taiwan has a problem, then Japan also has a problem.” last year as an ex-PM[2], although it is not official policy, this statements is still being discussed among Japanese government/people till now, it shows he still has huge influence in Japan.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Liberal_Democr...
[2] https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4361798
Abe still has important impacts on Japan politics. He leads the largest faction in the Liberal Democratic Party[1], therefore he could influence many voters during LDP President election. And LDP is the ruling party, so LDP President will be the PM.
Another example is he stated “If Taiwan has a problem, then Japan also has a problem.” last year as an ex-PM[2], although it is not official policy, this statements is still being discussed among Japanese government/people till now, it shows he still has huge influence in Japan.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Liberal_Democr...
[2] https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4361798
While the gun laws are strict, you can get a licence for hunting or sport. Requirements include testing, demonstration of safe usage, separate safes for gun and ammunition and possible random police checks on your gun and storage.
Shotguns are most common. Rifles are rarer but possible with a history of ownership of a shotgun.
Shotguns are most common. Rifles are rarer but possible with a history of ownership of a shotgun.
Sure, but I assume this wasn't out in the countryside either. I can't imagine it would be easy to get close with a shotgun or rifle.
It was in Nara which is a reasonably big city but has lots of surrounding rural areas. According to NHK, police are saying it may have been a shotgun (the article has been edited multiple times and it's even less sure of that then when I left my comment).
I'm not sure hunting deer in Nara is allowed (it IS known a "deer city" and deer freely roam the streets. Maybe permitted outside of the city), but of all places where someone could have a shotgun - Nara is definitely one of them.
Re: (partially) 1: looks homemade https://twitter.com/Mesuiki_aaaaa/status/1545247925990993920...
Any pics of it that dont require a Twitter account?
[deleted]
nitter.net is a free and open source twitter front end that, among many other things, lets you view tweets without an account.
always just replace twitter.com in URL with nitter.net or nitter.cz
Yes it does. What I can see of it.
> he’s the exPM, so what would shooting him gain?
He may be an exPM but he is the leader of the current mainstream faction (Hosoda faction) within the ruling party. So this is kinda huge.
He may be an exPM but he is the leader of the current mainstream faction (Hosoda faction) within the ruling party. So this is kinda huge.
Ah, didn’t realize that he was still party leader.
I don’t think he is an official part leader but more of an unofficial faction leader. Japan is pretty much a one party state and it’s the factions within the party that determine the direction of the country.
One party state? On Wikipedia I can see that even government is made of two parties in coalition, with 8 (mostly minor, but still) parties in opposition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Diet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Diet
His party has ruled for more than 55 years since WW2. That’s what I meant by “pretty much one party state”
Oh, I have no idea about it. Thank you!
How is multiple factions in 1 party meaningfully different from having multiple parties?
It’s quite different. It’s less democratic because there are no direct votes involved in faction fights. For example, the current PM was less popular than his competitor within the party but got the job because the faction supported him.
From the alleged pictures I saw, the gun kind of looks handmade.
https://twitter.com/nk55zRXFyFv1zgP/status/15452531252876451... Also see this video.. so much smoke...
Indeed, it looks to be a crude double barrel shotgun loaded with black powder. Such firearms are easier to make, as black powder has lower peak pressures which don't necessitate a very sturdy construction, especially in large bores. Also, black powder can be DIY manufactured from commonly available supplies like charcoal, sulfur, and potassium nitrate, unlike modern smokeless powders, which have a much more complex manufacturing process.
You can get a hunting rifle but there's still an illicit trade in firearms like in any other country. Too early to speculate on motivations but most of the violent crimes you see reported here are perpetrated by individuals with severe mental issues.
I doubt the shooter had any reasoning higher than "I don't like his policies, thus I should punish him"
> so what would shooting him gain?
To send a message.
To send a message.
You mean in the land of the yakuza?
I don't know what you're trying to imply here? Yakuza aren't know for guns or political assassinations.
A Yakuza boss assassinated the mayor of Nagasaki with a gun in 2007 because he was mad the government dinged his car and didn't pay him for it.
Seemed like more of a personal project though.
Seemed like more of a personal project though.
Just that no place is as pristine as people initially make out to be. There’s always a hidden underbelly, it’s just human nature to have one. So it wouldn’t be surprising that a determined person can get a gun in any place on the planet.
Sure, I wasn’t surprised about the assassination, just the gun part.
And Japan isn't known for accurate crime statistics
Update:
Former Japan PM Abe Dies After Being Shot
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/live-blog/2022-07-08/former-j...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/live-blog/2022-07-08/former-j...
Politically: what motives would the shooter have? I don't follow Japanese politics closely.
There is a lot of unspoken of politicial struggles that go on in Japan, take this one for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanrizuka_Struggle. It's not just a totally peaceful place as many believe.
Also, people are economically in a pretty bad place here, borders are still closed with no sign of opening. It might be a long shot but Abenomics was all about making Japan a "service economy", that relied heavily on tourism. No tourists, no money. Maybe a link there? Maybe Yakuza? Maybe the guy was just totally crazy and had trouble getting mental health assistance (which is also hard to get in Japan).
Japan is basically a one party state, it's advertised as a democracy but it's not really. I guess people feel desperate and there's no sign of any healthy change on the horizon. I guess that might be part of it too.
Shinzo Abe was a leader of the LDP which is the dominate party with no sign of that changing within the next few decades. It could feel oppressive for people.
Condolences to his family and friends.
Also, people are economically in a pretty bad place here, borders are still closed with no sign of opening. It might be a long shot but Abenomics was all about making Japan a "service economy", that relied heavily on tourism. No tourists, no money. Maybe a link there? Maybe Yakuza? Maybe the guy was just totally crazy and had trouble getting mental health assistance (which is also hard to get in Japan).
Japan is basically a one party state, it's advertised as a democracy but it's not really. I guess people feel desperate and there's no sign of any healthy change on the horizon. I guess that might be part of it too.
Shinzo Abe was a leader of the LDP which is the dominate party with no sign of that changing within the next few decades. It could feel oppressive for people.
Condolences to his family and friends.
I had never heard of the Sanrizuka Struggle. It feels crazy and sad to learn that the airport I arrived at for my move to Japan was on land to be used without consent of the local residents... And I had absolutely no idea of it. Thank you.
Narita is pretty much why all sizable international airports in Japan since then have either been converted from military bases or built in the sea on artificial islands, because neither involves land appropriation. And Narita still has a farm that wasn't appropriated in the middle of it. https://i.redd.it/zrftut6xrws31.jpg
What's interesting is that flights are actually now relocating back from Narita to Haneda, which was over capacity at the time, but Haneda has since added more capacity.
What's interesting is that flights are actually now relocating back from Narita to Haneda, which was over capacity at the time, but Haneda has since added more capacity.
Haneda has added capacity by massive reclamation of land, allowing it to build new runways.
Was the expansion as helpful they seemed to need Narita for? Could it have been done in the 1960's? If yes on both counts, it really gets the noggin joggin'. Maybe a pretense for stomping on the anti-government folks in Narita was the original motivation.
Some people held out and still have homes with a dedicated tunnel right in the middle of the runways. Some people I know recently arranged with an owner to rent their place and organized a small techno party there.
https://www.unilad.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Narita-A...
https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=JhYm1oXBN2Y
https://www.unilad.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Narita-A...
https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=JhYm1oXBN2Y
[deleted]
Guns are completely illegal there. Like you could point one at the average cop and it's so unthinkable that you'd have a real one they'd assume it was a toy.
I think you might be onto something with the Yakuza, could be foreign activity as well.
I think you might be onto something with the Yakuza, could be foreign activity as well.
No, it's not completely illegal, although it's heavily regulated. You can have a shotgun or an air gun with an approval and periodic check up from authority. And the suspect is known to use a shotgun for this crime.
I don't think you can carry in open though, those are meant for hunting use. I don't know the details, but for example in finland, gun license only allows you to carry a specific gun in specific places and at specific times, you need license for each gun and for each purpose.
People can and do possess guns, you just need A very good reason to have one.
For context, regional elections are coming this week-end (one of the reason he was touring around to support his party)
[deleted]
Removing this, apologies, was in bad taste given the circumstances.
-
It’s aways complicated to look back at economic policies and come out with simple summaries, but the picture is in my opinion a tad darker than described. He was a pretty polarizing figure and “Abenomics” is used more as a cynically jab than praise in most public interventions we hear.
For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abenomics#Results
For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abenomics#Results
Any economics policy will have winners and losers.
His gov. was investigated for cooking the books on GDP, but even leaving that aside growth has been mostly flat [0] under his helm, while only stopping the previously rising wealth inequalities [1]
So yes, he basically froze who would be the winners and losers for the span of his policy, and low income people didn't feel great about it.
I have my gripes yet still think he was a more decent PM than many previous ones. It's really sad it comes down to an assassination in the end.
[0] https://tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp-growth [1] https://wid.world/country/japan/
So yes, he basically froze who would be the winners and losers for the span of his policy, and low income people didn't feel great about it.
I have my gripes yet still think he was a more decent PM than many previous ones. It's really sad it comes down to an assassination in the end.
[0] https://tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp-growth [1] https://wid.world/country/japan/
According to local news, it seems he has died.
He hasn't been pronounced dead, but they are saying it seems he has no vital signs (心肺停止か).
In Japan people are officially declared dead in hospital. The media will often report clearly dead people as being in a state of "carido-pulmonary arrest".
You're quite right, though the police said that he was still conscious and responsive when he was put into the ambulance and the government is only saying his condition is "severe and he's lost consciousness":
> 警察当局によりますと、安倍元総理大臣は、救急搬送される際には意識があり、呼びかけにも応じていたということです。
> 政府関係者はNHKの取材に対し「意識はなく容態はかなり悪いという報告を現場から受けている」と話しています。
But if he still hasn't reached hospital, it seems pretty dire. It seems very possible he's already died.
EDIT: And now the government is saying they don't know his current condition[1]:
> 松野官房長官は総理大臣官邸で記者団に対し「安倍元総理大臣の容態は現在のところ不明で、引き続き確認中だ」と述べました。
[1]: https://twitter.com/nhk_news/status/1545258464179535872
> 警察当局によりますと、安倍元総理大臣は、救急搬送される際には意識があり、呼びかけにも応じていたということです。
> 政府関係者はNHKの取材に対し「意識はなく容態はかなり悪いという報告を現場から受けている」と話しています。
But if he still hasn't reached hospital, it seems pretty dire. It seems very possible he's already died.
EDIT: And now the government is saying they don't know his current condition[1]:
> 松野官房長官は総理大臣官邸で記者団に対し「安倍元総理大臣の容態は現在のところ不明で、引き続き確認中だ」と述べました。
[1]: https://twitter.com/nhk_news/status/1545258464179535872
Yes, unfortunately — that’s what’s on HK news too
chrisco255(2)
NHK World livestream here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0lYkdA-Gtw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0lYkdA-Gtw
[deleted]
Live-translated press conference, starting in 4 mins: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/live/
EDIT: Delayed a few minutes. Given Shinzo JUST arrived at hospital, they're likely seeing if he's coded before announcing.
EDIT: Delayed a few minutes. Given Shinzo JUST arrived at hospital, they're likely seeing if he's coded before announcing.
What happens now? Abe is not only an expm but also head of a political group.
They find a new head?
[deleted]
Just watched report on ANNNewsCH (Youtube). He has a bullet wound on the right side of the neck, and also internal/subcutaneous bleeding on the left side of the chest.
(I heard it as 左の胸の皮下出血).
Here is an interesting tidbit:
...また、男が銃を撃つ瞬間を見たと言う女性は、男は撃った後も冷静だったと話しています。
Also, a woman who says she witnessed the moment when the suspect fired the gun says that after firing he was calm/composed.
Here is an interesting tidbit:
...また、男が銃を撃つ瞬間を見たと言う女性は、男は撃った後も冷静だったと話しています。
Also, a woman who says she witnessed the moment when the suspect fired the gun says that after firing he was calm/composed.
Pardon me for making an outsider's observation, but it appears to me that in Japan you have either extremely safe and no crime / complete safety and courtesy (most of the time), or 0.1% of the time some guy goes off his rocker and kills many, many people or something like this.
No they don't "kill many people", you do hear about the eventual "knife attack" but the death victims are normally 0-5. In this particular case, which is already an exception because of a handmade gun (apparently) instead of a knife, there's 1 single victim and it's still unknown whether Abe will survive.
Edit: as someone living in Japan. Maybe not living here you do only hear about the once in 5-10 years attacks where there are more victims, but living in here you hear about an attack once-twice a year and they are pretty mild as I explained.
Edit: as someone living in Japan. Maybe not living here you do only hear about the once in 5-10 years attacks where there are more victims, but living in here you hear about an attack once-twice a year and they are pretty mild as I explained.
Yeah, like the guy that went off his rocker half a year back, and burned 30ish people to death in his psychiatric clinic.
Or the other guy that was probably the inspiration for that and burned down the Kyoto animation office (34 deaths).
Not all of them are pretty mild.
To be fair, not a weekly event like in the US either.
Or the other guy that was probably the inspiration for that and burned down the Kyoto animation office (34 deaths).
Not all of them are pretty mild.
To be fair, not a weekly event like in the US either.
I was thinking about the arson attacks (Kyoto and Osaka, and others) and some mass stabbings.
There's no place anywhere ever where nobody ever 'goes off their rocker'.
[deleted]
A few reddit comments pointed that the gun was a shotgun, the arrested suspect was in his 40s and presumably an NCO in JSDF. Nothing about motivation yet, just that he surrendered after the two shots
https://twitter.com/jessicadrun/status/1545260826038358017 if this is the source for the JSDF info, yeah you can call it fake news already.
Especially when the gun looks very much handmade.
I was wondering if he might be JSDF.
The site is giving me 404.
Btw. shooter used home made (shot)gun, so I guess we should ban steel pipes and wood to play it safe.
Btw. shooter used home made (shot)gun, so I guess we should ban steel pipes and wood to play it safe.
Update: He has died.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/live-blog/2022-07-08/former-j...
Maybe we just start with banning 30 round magazines?
This is a terrible tragedy. Shinzo Abe seemed like a good man. I hope he pulls through, though reading the comments here makes it seem less likely.
The assassination attempt is indeed tragic. As for his being a good person, many would disagree. Unfortunately, both within and without Japan, he is a controversial figure. Even if one takes his armament of Japan in a sympathetic light, his historical revisionism, courting of the ultra-right, and tone-deaf nationalism caused troubles domestically and with its neighbors.
All this is unfortunate as he genuinely boosted Japan's economy, doing much to Japan's status in the world[1]. The sibling comments here linked some blog posts calling him a "fascist" or just a patriot ("civic nationalist"). The reality is somewhere in between.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53950704
All this is unfortunate as he genuinely boosted Japan's economy, doing much to Japan's status in the world[1]. The sibling comments here linked some blog posts calling him a "fascist" or just a patriot ("civic nationalist"). The reality is somewhere in between.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53950704
Controversial, certainly. Deserving of death? Not even close.
[flagged]
Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32023521 and stop posting flamewar comments.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You know what Shinzo Abe didn't do? Invade countries and build death camps.
This is an idiotic narrative you are peddling.
This is an idiotic narrative you are peddling.
Please do not take HN threads further into flamewar.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
ACK
A good man?
He was a far right nationalist, japan war crime negationist and inserted revisionist propaganda in history school manuals. He was generally anti foreigners, anti equal rights. He was a member of the crazy nationalist cult Nippon Kaigai that wants a return to prewar status of the godly emperor and profess Japanese Yamato pure race superiority. Look that up.
Wikipedia :
"Shinzo Abe [0] was affiliated with the openly ultranationalist organization Nippon Kaigi (Japan Conference). He was considered a right-wing populist and ultra-conservative within the LDP, and some media and books referred to him as a far-right politician. According to Professor Dominique Tasevski, his legacy can be defined by nationalism, historical revisionism, and a deterioration in Japan-South Korea relations."
"Nippon Kaigi [1] believes that "Japan should be applauded for liberating much of East Asia from Western colonial powers; that the 1946–1948 Tokyo War Crimes tribunals were illegitimate; and that killings by Imperial Japanese troops during the 1937 Nanjing Massacre were exaggerated or fabricated". The group vigorously defends Japan's claim in its territorial dispute over the Senkaku Islands with China, and denies that Japan forced the "comfort women" during World War II. Nippon Kaigi is opposed to feminism, LGBT rights, and the 1999 Gender Equality Law."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinzo_Abe#Political_positions...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nippon_Kaigi#Objectives
He was a far right nationalist, japan war crime negationist and inserted revisionist propaganda in history school manuals. He was generally anti foreigners, anti equal rights. He was a member of the crazy nationalist cult Nippon Kaigai that wants a return to prewar status of the godly emperor and profess Japanese Yamato pure race superiority. Look that up.
Wikipedia :
"Shinzo Abe [0] was affiliated with the openly ultranationalist organization Nippon Kaigi (Japan Conference). He was considered a right-wing populist and ultra-conservative within the LDP, and some media and books referred to him as a far-right politician. According to Professor Dominique Tasevski, his legacy can be defined by nationalism, historical revisionism, and a deterioration in Japan-South Korea relations."
"Nippon Kaigi [1] believes that "Japan should be applauded for liberating much of East Asia from Western colonial powers; that the 1946–1948 Tokyo War Crimes tribunals were illegitimate; and that killings by Imperial Japanese troops during the 1937 Nanjing Massacre were exaggerated or fabricated". The group vigorously defends Japan's claim in its territorial dispute over the Senkaku Islands with China, and denies that Japan forced the "comfort women" during World War II. Nippon Kaigi is opposed to feminism, LGBT rights, and the 1999 Gender Equality Law."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinzo_Abe#Political_positions...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nippon_Kaigi#Objectives
we should all mourn this tragedy but do not paint this guy as a good man. He is a historical revisionist.
Would you like to expand your criticism?
I see a lot of vague hate for him here and biased links being posted.
What exactly is your issue with him? Without using buzzwords like "historic revisionist" or "far-right, ultra-racist".
- edit -
Mainly people are saying he's racist because he visited Yasukini Shrine that honors the dead from Japan's wars when he resigned to "inform the spirits".
It's not like visiting a "Nazi elite general" grave like another user made an analogy of.
This is all ridiculous and you people are despicable and disgusting for making slanderous claims especially at a time like this. Terrible.
I see a lot of vague hate for him here and biased links being posted.
What exactly is your issue with him? Without using buzzwords like "historic revisionist" or "far-right, ultra-racist".
- edit -
Mainly people are saying he's racist because he visited Yasukini Shrine that honors the dead from Japan's wars when he resigned to "inform the spirits".
It's not like visiting a "Nazi elite general" grave like another user made an analogy of.
This is all ridiculous and you people are despicable and disgusting for making slanderous claims especially at a time like this. Terrible.
He is, like many other Japanese, hell bent on rewriting Japanese history with a positive spin, completely ignoring or at best downplaying their colonisation atrocities before and during WW2. Wasn't he the one who went to a shrine to a "WW2 hero" who also just happened to be a war criminal?
Historic revisionism is an apt description, not a "buzzword".
Historic revisionism is an apt description, not a "buzzword".
Yasukuni Shrine isn't only for WW2 criminals, but also for who died on previous wars. As a Japanese, I don't think it's bad to go to the shrine unless denying historical fact or praising criminals. It's uncomfortable that foreign countries blames about that. Maybe WW2 criminals shouldn't be buried at the shrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni_Shrine
[deleted]
hunterb123(3)
Good man? Looking at the history it doesn't seem to be that much green. Right winged, over nationalist, corruption seems to be condoned here. He is even unpopular in japan.
Update 3 from terminal:
Jul 07 2022 23:10:51
By Ryotaro Nakamaru
(Bloomberg) -- Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was unconscious and unresponsive after he was apparently shot in the chest during a political event in the western city of Nara on Friday, national broadcaster NHK and local media reports said.
Abe, 67, was apparently shot in the chest, national broadcaster NHK said, adding a man had been apprehended at the scene. The suspect appeared to be a young or middle-aged man, an NHK reporter said.
Abe was rushed to a hospital and unconscious after the attack. He may have gone into cardiac arrest, Kyodo News reported, citing local firefighters.
07/07 23:17 ET Witnesses on NHK are saying that Abe was shot from behind. Abe took one step back at the first shot and fell at the second shot, they said.
07/07 23:24 ET Police have seized the gun, NHK is reporting. There is some confusion about the gun used, with one witness saying “it looked like a toy bazooka.”
07/07 23:24 ET The news reports are saying that Abe is in a state of cardiopulmonary arrest -- i.e. without vital signs.
As only a doctor can pronounce someone dead, this is language often used by police before a confirmation is made. While we don’t have details yet, the language being used is not encouraging for Abe’s condition. Oh
07/07 23:36 photos of the shooter have emerged
https://www.asahi.com/articles/photo/AS20220708001407.html?i...
Jul 07 2022 23:10:51
By Ryotaro Nakamaru
(Bloomberg) -- Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was unconscious and unresponsive after he was apparently shot in the chest during a political event in the western city of Nara on Friday, national broadcaster NHK and local media reports said.
Abe, 67, was apparently shot in the chest, national broadcaster NHK said, adding a man had been apprehended at the scene. The suspect appeared to be a young or middle-aged man, an NHK reporter said.
Abe was rushed to a hospital and unconscious after the attack. He may have gone into cardiac arrest, Kyodo News reported, citing local firefighters.
07/07 23:17 ET Witnesses on NHK are saying that Abe was shot from behind. Abe took one step back at the first shot and fell at the second shot, they said.
07/07 23:24 ET Police have seized the gun, NHK is reporting. There is some confusion about the gun used, with one witness saying “it looked like a toy bazooka.”
07/07 23:24 ET The news reports are saying that Abe is in a state of cardiopulmonary arrest -- i.e. without vital signs.
As only a doctor can pronounce someone dead, this is language often used by police before a confirmation is made. While we don’t have details yet, the language being used is not encouraging for Abe’s condition. Oh
07/07 23:36 photos of the shooter have emerged
https://www.asahi.com/articles/photo/AS20220708001407.html?i...
Abe has apparently still not yet made it to a hospital, after being ‘ambulanced’ to a helicopter and then airlifted towards a hospital
[deleted]
[deleted]
One of the darker reasons I've been pulled into an operational call about order drops in a region's marketplace...
Sorry for the ignorance but what's an order drop?
Parent poster most likely works at Amazon. When the rate of purchases falls below a threshold, many engineers across the company get paged to find the issue. As you can imagine a news event would decrease activity on Amazon for a while.
You can also observe the same effect during earthquakes if one occurs in a heavily populated region.
[deleted]
A dip in the rate of orders being placed, often signifying some part of the checkout flow having slowed or broken.
So OnCall is mandatory for Amazon engineers and you will literally get paged just because some stat drops, not that it goes to 0? And there's no human in the loop for a basic sanity check? Sounds awful
> And there's no human in the loop for a basic sanity check?
I mean, I'm not going to go to bat for Amazon's worker practices, but... how would you get a human in the loop for a basic sanity check without someone getting paged?
Like, you have to alert someone so that they can do a sanity check.
I mean, I'm not going to go to bat for Amazon's worker practices, but... how would you get a human in the loop for a basic sanity check without someone getting paged?
Like, you have to alert someone so that they can do a sanity check.
You'd have a separate 24/7 ops teams instead of every single team being first-responders for their own things. This team would be watching the dashboards and alarms with some first-level investigation/triage playbooks so that if all that's needed is "press this button to reboot the server" or "it's a holiday, or the national team just won the world cup, this is a drop in traffic cause everyone is outside" then nobody else has to get paged.
I don't know which model Amazon uses myself, but it sounds more like the "everyone is their own first responder" model which surprises me a little, but each model has its pros and cons. The justification I'm most familiar with is "if there's a separate ops team you're going to be complacent and throw shit over the wall without caring about quality" which is a somewhat lazy excuse for not actually getting your engineers to care about quality with anything but a hammer to beat them on the head with, but ....
I don't know which model Amazon uses myself, but it sounds more like the "everyone is their own first responder" model which surprises me a little, but each model has its pros and cons. The justification I'm most familiar with is "if there's a separate ops team you're going to be complacent and throw shit over the wall without caring about quality" which is a somewhat lazy excuse for not actually getting your engineers to care about quality with anything but a hammer to beat them on the head with, but ....
There are both models at Amazon. Individual teams have their own on-call; if for example an RDS instance is continually failing to boot, someone on-call (edit: from the RDS team) will get paged to look at it.
I believe order drops are looked at by dedicated reliability team, because it's such a significant problem. But they don't watch graphs because... why would they? They set up the machines to page them when metrics aren't within an expected range. Which is what happened.
I believe order drops are looked at by dedicated reliability team, because it's such a significant problem. But they don't watch graphs because... why would they? They set up the machines to page them when metrics aren't within an expected range. Which is what happened.
That makes a lot of sense.
The ops teams I've worked with watched graphs because (a) sometimes you see interesting changes or trends before they turn into actionable alerts and people can look into them/figure them out before shit's on fire, and (b) it makes it look more like you're doing something when everything is smooth sailing and not actively on fire, solving the "wait why are we paying for this if it doesn't take us long to respond to incidents anyway" naive-meddlesome-exec problem.
The ops teams I've worked with watched graphs because (a) sometimes you see interesting changes or trends before they turn into actionable alerts and people can look into them/figure them out before shit's on fire, and (b) it makes it look more like you're doing something when everything is smooth sailing and not actively on fire, solving the "wait why are we paying for this if it doesn't take us long to respond to incidents anyway" naive-meddlesome-exec problem.
Maybe the person who made the original comment is on that 24/7 ops team?
That someone was me when I used to be on call as a Fab engineer. I took responsibility and my team relied on my alertness when shit hit the fan a couple of times during my career. Yes, someone has to do it. The negativity and cynicism on HN astounds me.
I find the grandstanding and They-ification nauseating and possibly mastubatory.
It is possible to have someone who can say "oh there's a world shaking event in Japan" before paging engineers.
In fact, wouldn't this be an obvious efficiency improvement at world-wide scale?
It is also possible someone believes that is possible without them being a "negative cynic".
In fact, it's unclear why having this idea for an efficiency improvement would make one a "negative cynic"
I suggest coming with curiosity and asking why people believe something rather than working towards explaining what it says about people if they actually believe exactly what your mindreading says they do.
It is possible to have someone who can say "oh there's a world shaking event in Japan" before paging engineers.
In fact, wouldn't this be an obvious efficiency improvement at world-wide scale?
It is also possible someone believes that is possible without them being a "negative cynic".
In fact, it's unclear why having this idea for an efficiency improvement would make one a "negative cynic"
I suggest coming with curiosity and asking why people believe something rather than working towards explaining what it says about people if they actually believe exactly what your mindreading says they do.
"Some stat" here translates to millions, maybe tens of millions of dollars every minute at Amazon scale.
If you were running a business and suddenly started losing a million dollars a minute, wouldn't you like to have someone investigate why that's happening?
If you were running a business and suddenly started losing a million dollars a minute, wouldn't you like to have someone investigate why that's happening?
The pager is bringing humans in for the sanity check.
I think the human in the loop is the on call engineer.
[deleted]
Do you have some numbers (of course, only if you're willing and allowed to share them)?
Curious to know what's the usual on a normal day, and how much it dipped.
Curious to know what's the usual on a normal day, and how much it dipped.
Hope you’re holding up?
From the picture the gun is homemade -
https://twitter.com/bulletinletters/status/15452502106827325...
https://twitter.com/Global_Mil_Info/status/15452494953987194...
Standard pipe gun with I'd guess homemade ammunition, gunpowder and ball bearings.
https://twitter.com/bulletinletters/status/15452502106827325...
https://twitter.com/Global_Mil_Info/status/15452494953987194...
Standard pipe gun with I'd guess homemade ammunition, gunpowder and ball bearings.
The title doesn't match that of the article, “Former Japan PM Abe Unconscious After Shooting; Man in Custody”. The word assassinated is incorrect, because that means that he was killed. (Maybe he is dead, but the article doesn't say that.)
We've changed the title now. Submitted title was "Japan’s Ex-PM Abe assassinated during speech".
"Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
WaPo claims that "NHK reported that the 67-year-old was showing no vital signs."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/07/japan-shinzo...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/07/japan-shinzo...
If he has no vital signs at his age, he's dead. Very few people make it back from CPR, and if they do they're usually going to suffer serious consequences for the rest of their life from it.
As numerous news services are reporting (e.g., the account I heard a minute ago on BBC World Service, also The Guardian, BBC's website, NY Times), as well as numerous comments in this thread, it's noted that "cardiac arrest" is often used to describe a patient/victim who has not yet been officially declared dead, but would be very likely to not be in a recoverable condition.
It's a very grave state in any event.
It's a very grave state in any event.
Still, not declared dead. It doesn't look hopeful, though.
A good man? Do people here read anything non-tech related?
Shinzo Abe was a world-renown revisionist who tried to turn Japan back into a far-right, ultra-racist country. Look, you guys are super smart with computers, but stop this absolute nonsense.
https://jacobin.com/2017/03/abe-nippon-kaigi-japan-far-right
Shinzo Abe was a world-renown revisionist who tried to turn Japan back into a far-right, ultra-racist country. Look, you guys are super smart with computers, but stop this absolute nonsense.
https://jacobin.com/2017/03/abe-nippon-kaigi-japan-far-right
Please don't take HN threads into hellish flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
I understand the provocation in the GP comment, but reacting in full flame mode, complete with insults, is exactly what the site guidelines ask you not to do.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: you've started a bunch of other flamewars in this thread too. That's basically arson, regardless of right you are or feel you are. Please stop now.
(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32023133.)
I understand the provocation in the GP comment, but reacting in full flame mode, complete with insults, is exactly what the site guidelines ask you not to do.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: you've started a bunch of other flamewars in this thread too. That's basically arson, regardless of right you are or feel you are. Please stop now.
(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32023133.)
What about this one?
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
I'm not quite sure what you mean? if you're asking why the Abe story didn't count as off topic under that guideline, I guess the gruesome reason is that a major assassination in Japan is somewhat of an "interesting new phenomenon"—not literally, but it hasn't happened in a very long time. Also, it contradicts many perceptions about Japanese society and culture.
Also, sometimes a story is so big that moderating it is effectively impossible—the more you bury it, the more it spawns new threads and gets upvoted. Trying to stand in the way just leads to it taking up more space and oxygen. In such cases, we've learned to allow one big discussion to absorb the interest, after which the community is usually ok with us marking reposts as dupes or follow-ups. People still need to follow the site guidelines in such a thread though.
Also, sometimes a story is so big that moderating it is effectively impossible—the more you bury it, the more it spawns new threads and gets upvoted. Trying to stand in the way just leads to it taking up more space and oxygen. In such cases, we've learned to allow one big discussion to absorb the interest, after which the community is usually ok with us marking reposts as dupes or follow-ups. People still need to follow the site guidelines in such a thread though.
I can respect the need to moderate incendiary remarks, but then why wasn't the parent post also reprimanded?
This parent? What is there to reprimand?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32023133
> This is a terrible tragedy. Shinzo Abe seemed like a good man. I hope he pulls through, though reading the comments here makes it seem less likely.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32023133
> This is a terrible tragedy. Shinzo Abe seemed like a good man. I hope he pulls through, though reading the comments here makes it seem less likely.
The irony of lamenting people's reading material and then posting a Jacobin article the reads like a wall of text internet rant with some tabloid scuttlebutt sprinkled throughout.
This is NOT a serious take on Abe. Centrist and professional IR academics laugh at the narrative that he's a fascist.
A take that lives up to your handle.
Edit: example from (center)left leaning academic economist blogger that speaks specifically to the racist/fascist take you propagated here.
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-japan-that-abe-shinzo-...
This is NOT a serious take on Abe. Centrist and professional IR academics laugh at the narrative that he's a fascist.
A take that lives up to your handle.
Edit: example from (center)left leaning academic economist blogger that speaks specifically to the racist/fascist take you propagated here.
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-japan-that-abe-shinzo-...
To back the consensus opinion that he's a revisionary nationalist, here's one analysis:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53950704
Still, assassination is the wrong way to bring about change. As of now, he seems to still be alive; I hope he recovers, and I doubly hope that regardless, Japan is spared the chaos that sometimes follows assassinations.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53950704
Still, assassination is the wrong way to bring about change. As of now, he seems to still be alive; I hope he recovers, and I doubly hope that regardless, Japan is spared the chaos that sometimes follows assassinations.
Jacobin's tone sucks, but by your logic you should be ashamed to link noahpinion, right? He's an academic but that doesn't automatically obviate him from being scorned for his style.
Noah (who recently praised Taiwanese politicians for the extremely materialistic point of them sometimes being cosplayers) is not much of a deeper thinker than most stuff in Jacobin.
Abe is in Nippon Kaigi. He is a nationalist. He pushed for revising the constitution to remove the purely self-defense nature of the SDF. This is not a popular idea in Japan. It is barely a popular idea in his party! The guy also liked the idea of picking a fight with China.
Now of course there are more intense people in Japan, but the guys a nationalist, and would push for unpopular ideas along that axis!
Is he a fascist? He supported more nationalist education reform that minimized wartime questions, was involved in a personal scandal with a far right school, pushed for more expansive police powers… I mean a lot of the stuff aligns. The label itself doesn’t matter, but you can look at the details and judge based on that.
Noah’s analysis is that he got more people into jobs and got the military to be bigger.
Abe is in Nippon Kaigi. He is a nationalist. He pushed for revising the constitution to remove the purely self-defense nature of the SDF. This is not a popular idea in Japan. It is barely a popular idea in his party! The guy also liked the idea of picking a fight with China.
Now of course there are more intense people in Japan, but the guys a nationalist, and would push for unpopular ideas along that axis!
Is he a fascist? He supported more nationalist education reform that minimized wartime questions, was involved in a personal scandal with a far right school, pushed for more expansive police powers… I mean a lot of the stuff aligns. The label itself doesn’t matter, but you can look at the details and judge based on that.
Noah’s analysis is that he got more people into jobs and got the military to be bigger.
He’s a nationalist (who isn’t?) and he wants to re-arm Japan. Sounds like the right approach in a world where China is digesting Hong Kong, is eying Taiwan menacingly, and where the US is showing clear intention to abandon its role as world police.
Someone's political ideology is their political ideology, you might think it makes sense given the context but (for example) socialist economic policies don't become less socialist by being popular or making more sense or less sense in the economic context.
You might think that Abe's positions are correct or the norm, I don't believe that changes the judgement that he's a pretty heavy nationalist. Nationalists are willing to torpedo economic relationships with neighboring nations out of national pride. Loads of people are not nationalists!
You might think that Abe's positions are correct or the norm, I don't believe that changes the judgement that he's a pretty heavy nationalist. Nationalists are willing to torpedo economic relationships with neighboring nations out of national pride. Loads of people are not nationalists!
At the very least he’s an apologist for Japanese war crimes. Also pretty fascist imo but whatever, I’m also just some rando on the internet who could cherry pick articles to support whatever narrative I was looking for or am already biased towards. Lol substack. Anyways how about the far-right ultra-nationalist party he was an advisor to[0]?
I wonder if it was a pissed off Ryukyu native[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nippon_Kaigi
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/7bd3ee/this-one-island-is-th...
I wonder if it was a pissed off Ryukyu native[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nippon_Kaigi
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/7bd3ee/this-one-island-is-th...
"Some people used to point to my grandfather as a Class-A war criminal suspect and I felt strong repulsion. Because of that experience, I may have become emotionally attached to 'conservatism.'"
Shinzo Abe in his autobiography Towards a Beautiful Country, 2006
Shinzo Abe in his autobiography Towards a Beautiful Country, 2006
[deleted]
I haven't read an in depth dive of Japan's internal politics but he helped my country with some major investments, which has in turn helped some of my close relatives get good well paying jobs. Also, generally I have a lot of respect for Japanese people in general due to having met and worked with some people from there.
That being said his historical revisionism seems like a damn shame. I personally didn't know about that. However, I don't take all of the claims made by Jacobin seriously.
Even here it tries to paint Japan trying to create it's own army as a bad thing when it is clearly in response to territorial aggressiveness from China.
Even here it tries to paint Japan trying to create it's own army as a bad thing when it is clearly in response to territorial aggressiveness from China.
He did start a trade war with South Korea over the whole comfort women issue, when the countries had started off being closer allies. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/04/shinzo-abe-japan-south-...
> All of this drove South Korea-Japan relations to the brink, and then Abe’s most egregious misstep marched the relationship off the cliff.All of this drove South Korea-Japan relations to the brink, and then Abe’s most egregious misstep marched the relationship off the cliff. In order to settle the historical score, he weaponized the two countries’ trade relationship. In October 2018, South Korea’s Supreme Court issued the long-delayed opinion that Japanese corporations that used slave labor from Korea during World War II must pay reparations to surviving slave laborers. (The delay was in part because since 2013, Japan’s foreign ministry had been issuing barely disguised threats for the South Korean government to “respond appropriately” to the pending case, and the quasi-authoritarian Park Geun-hye government acquiesced and pressured the Supreme Court to delay the ruling in contravention of the most basic principles of separation of powers.) In response to the court’s opinion—which ordered the reparation of $89,000, a negligible amount for Japan’s largest corporations—Abe declared a trade war. The Abe administration announced export control against South Korea for three critical chemicals used in high-end display and semiconductor manufacturing, immediately after the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan, in which the prime minister called for a free and fair trade. When confronted with the criticism that Japan was using trade for political purposes, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga (the front-runner to be the next prime minister) vaguely cited national security concerns as the reason for the export control, even as he dangled the idea that South Korea “did not offer a satisfactory solution over the issue of former workers.” So flimsy was the justification that some experts observing the issue noted that Japanese officials “haven’t provided any evidence” and “have not named companies or said how supplies may have been mismanaged.” Others went further, calling Tokyo’s excuse “duplicitous” and saying it was behaving “spuriously.”
> All of this drove South Korea-Japan relations to the brink, and then Abe’s most egregious misstep marched the relationship off the cliff.All of this drove South Korea-Japan relations to the brink, and then Abe’s most egregious misstep marched the relationship off the cliff. In order to settle the historical score, he weaponized the two countries’ trade relationship. In October 2018, South Korea’s Supreme Court issued the long-delayed opinion that Japanese corporations that used slave labor from Korea during World War II must pay reparations to surviving slave laborers. (The delay was in part because since 2013, Japan’s foreign ministry had been issuing barely disguised threats for the South Korean government to “respond appropriately” to the pending case, and the quasi-authoritarian Park Geun-hye government acquiesced and pressured the Supreme Court to delay the ruling in contravention of the most basic principles of separation of powers.) In response to the court’s opinion—which ordered the reparation of $89,000, a negligible amount for Japan’s largest corporations—Abe declared a trade war. The Abe administration announced export control against South Korea for three critical chemicals used in high-end display and semiconductor manufacturing, immediately after the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan, in which the prime minister called for a free and fair trade. When confronted with the criticism that Japan was using trade for political purposes, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga (the front-runner to be the next prime minister) vaguely cited national security concerns as the reason for the export control, even as he dangled the idea that South Korea “did not offer a satisfactory solution over the issue of former workers.” So flimsy was the justification that some experts observing the issue noted that Japanese officials “haven’t provided any evidence” and “have not named companies or said how supplies may have been mismanaged.” Others went further, calling Tokyo’s excuse “duplicitous” and saying it was behaving “spuriously.”
> it is clearly in response to territorial aggressiveness from China
Abe's been trying to re-militarize JP since his first term in mid 2000s, long before PRC military modernization began. You suggest he's precient, but history + his associations/controversies suggest a revisionist national hawk who loves his war criminals that understands Japan has territorial issues with everyone of her maritime neighbours and needs a proper non-pacifist military for "self-defense". No one in the west seems like to discuss that Japan, a loser of WW2 who should have her territories prescribed via treaty, has shown zero ability to address any of her linger disputes, including SCS tier EEZ drama (Okinotorishima). At end of day, it's within JP self interest to re-militarize, but let's not pretend Abe/LDP's questionable attachment to revisionsm aren't responsible for causing much of the maritime drama in the region.
Abe's been trying to re-militarize JP since his first term in mid 2000s, long before PRC military modernization began. You suggest he's precient, but history + his associations/controversies suggest a revisionist national hawk who loves his war criminals that understands Japan has territorial issues with everyone of her maritime neighbours and needs a proper non-pacifist military for "self-defense". No one in the west seems like to discuss that Japan, a loser of WW2 who should have her territories prescribed via treaty, has shown zero ability to address any of her linger disputes, including SCS tier EEZ drama (Okinotorishima). At end of day, it's within JP self interest to re-militarize, but let's not pretend Abe/LDP's questionable attachment to revisionsm aren't responsible for causing much of the maritime drama in the region.
Perhaps he was influenced by his grandfather.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi
.
.
The SDF already exists and is huge. There is already a huge amount of American military across the country as well. The constitution does not prevent defensive measures and it is doable.
What isn’t doable or is very tricky is things like Japan joining an allied nation in a fight in another place (for example it could not participate in Afghanistan or Iraq). Abe pushed for the idea of collective defense to allow for the govt to send in forces for those kinds of actions.
Japan can defend itself against China all it wants, but the current legal idea is it can’t actively participate in conflicts where it’s not directly involved. This is the thing Abe wanted to change, and is an unpopular idea in Japan.
What isn’t doable or is very tricky is things like Japan joining an allied nation in a fight in another place (for example it could not participate in Afghanistan or Iraq). Abe pushed for the idea of collective defense to allow for the govt to send in forces for those kinds of actions.
Japan can defend itself against China all it wants, but the current legal idea is it can’t actively participate in conflicts where it’s not directly involved. This is the thing Abe wanted to change, and is an unpopular idea in Japan.
China, Russia, and North Korea. All three have nukes and untrustable.
>> Japan back into a far-right, ultra-racist country.
I was under the impression from friends who taught English there and other family members who worked there in various positions, this is how the country has always been - exclusionary to outsiders, racist and very intolerant to outsiders.
Was there a time (I lost track of the country after the first dot com bust in 2001) that the country wasn't like that? I'm genuinely curious.
I was under the impression from friends who taught English there and other family members who worked there in various positions, this is how the country has always been - exclusionary to outsiders, racist and very intolerant to outsiders.
Was there a time (I lost track of the country after the first dot com bust in 2001) that the country wasn't like that? I'm genuinely curious.
[deleted]
[deleted]
if you do want to toss out such a strong accusation with a link, please choose the strongest points in your mind from that terrible article.
edit: half of this conversation was nuked. wonderful flagging system. my comments were simply asking people to expand on their accusations.
edit: half of this conversation was nuked. wonderful flagging system. my comments were simply asking people to expand on their accusations.
Criticising a previous leader is racist? Or is criticising pro-militarisation racist? Please explain
Edit: there was a comment below stating that the GP was slandering Abe (which is false: slander means false and malicious statements. It cannot be labelled false if there is a pretense for the claim, and if you think that comment is malicious... That's a touch delicate, no?).
The comment also said GP was picking a 'classy time' to make such a remark, which is also perhaps not accurate. GP seems to be responding to OP, who stated known falsehoods. I'm that sense, it is not a 'poor time to say that' because it is a correction.
Edit: there was a comment below stating that the GP was slandering Abe (which is false: slander means false and malicious statements. It cannot be labelled false if there is a pretense for the claim, and if you think that comment is malicious... That's a touch delicate, no?).
The comment also said GP was picking a 'classy time' to make such a remark, which is also perhaps not accurate. GP seems to be responding to OP, who stated known falsehoods. I'm that sense, it is not a 'poor time to say that' because it is a correction.
hunterb123(1)
syockit(2)
[deleted]
> turn Japan back into a far-right, ultra-racist country.
Abe din't do anything like that. Japan was always ultra-right and racist, and there is nothing wrong with it.
Certainly he was a controversial figure but nothing justifies this kind of violence.
Abe din't do anything like that. Japan was always ultra-right and racist, and there is nothing wrong with it.
Certainly he was a controversial figure but nothing justifies this kind of violence.
kafkaesque(3)
I imagine this will be front page. It would be nice if the link could be changed to a non-paywalled site.
I recommend The Guardian though I’m mostly indifferent: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/shinzo-abe-for...
I recommend The Guardian though I’m mostly indifferent: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/shinzo-abe-for...
The Guardian’s reporting has had a distinct lean as of late.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/may/14/poisoned-legac...
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/may/14/poisoned-legac...
Guardian's reporting always had a very left lean, I am not sure if this is new.
There is a section in left of environment activists which sees nuclear as very dangerous.
There is a section in left of environment activists which sees nuclear as very dangerous.
This looks more like opinion piece (or book excerpt) though it's not marked as such - I mean it's by Serhii Plokhy, whose book is advertised in the end of the article.
This is really sad, he was a great leader of the world's top country Japan!
If the assailant had a reasoned motive, it might be Abe's relentless push to re-militarize Japan. I heard this voiced often. However, I found this mostly among elderly people with memory of the war. This guy too looks young.
Maybe he is just a nut.
Maybe he is just a nut.
In other news (Japan to start jailing people for online insults) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32011600
I think this is not a coincidence. We are back at mid 30s.
I think this is not a coincidence. We are back at mid 30s.
Japan has crazy intense cyberstalkers who will show up in real life; several online celebrities (streamers etc) have had to retire because of it, and there's famous cases of suicide due to online bullying, including a recent one of a star in Terrace House.
The apprehended suspect is identified as Tetsuya Yamagami (41), a Nara resident. According to sources from the defense ministry, he was employed by the Maritime Self-Defense Forces for ~3y until 2005. Weapon seems to be homemade.
No updates on Abe's status since a 13:30 update from the local fire department. He's injured in chest- and neck areas, has internal bleeding and did not show vital signs.
14:40: PM Kishida arrived at the PM residence by helicopter ~10minutes ago and is currently in discussions. A press conference is expected soon.
14:46: Police: Suspect Yamagami says he was frustrated with what ex-PM Abe was doing and approached him with the intent of killing him.
14:49: Live announcement from (a doubly understandably very sweaty and intermittently sobbing but surprisingly composed) PM Kishida: Abe is in critical condition. Hopes and prayers. Elections are ongoing. Unforgivable act. Doctors are working hard to save Abe. Not appropriate to address the political situation at this moment and I am not comfortable to do so. Cabinet members convening in Tokyo and work to be ready for any outcome. I do not have full information to be able to make any further detailed comments.