# Stabbing in Japan--Ban Knives? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 8, 2001, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stabbing-in-japan-ban-knives/68055 "2001-06-08T14:06:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Tsubaki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@Tsubaki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tsubaki)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2002, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stabbing-in-japan-ban-knives/68055/101 "2002-07-15T06:19:54Z")
…and **MEBuckner** manages to beat me to it! (I haven’t been around for a couple of days). Yes, Japan DOES have the death penalty. A number of the people from the Aum cult who released sarin on the subways in 1995 have been sentenced to it. And this guy probably will be, too. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2002, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stabbing-in-japan-ban-knives/68055/102 "2002-07-15T07:24:39Z")
Couple of days, hell. That post is from June 12, 200 **1**. (In fact, you weren’t even _registered_ when that post was made.) The Straight Dope: Fighting Ignorance Since 1973…but sometimes it takes us awhile. ---
**Author:** ![Tsubaki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@Tsubaki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tsubaki)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2002, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stabbing-in-japan-ban-knives/68055/103 "2002-07-15T23:44:23Z")
Maybe I didn’t make myself clear… I did come hear a couple of days ago and read the whole thread after it had been bumped, and came across that death penalty bit. I wanted to comment on it, but really didn’t have time, and intended to come back and comment later. When I did so, you had beat me to the punch. I’m not really as ignorant as I seem. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2002, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stabbing-in-japan-ban-knives/68055/104 "2002-07-16T03:43:05Z")
Well, I think the problem here, **SenorBeef** , is that this matter bifurcates into two separate problems fairly early on. There is the issue of pure and simple reasoning, and there is the issue of the practicality of implementing reasoning and decisions. From a pure and simple reasoning standpoint, as discussed, I maintain that a nation without any firearms is inherently safer than a nation flooded with firearms. That would be the reasoning part. I pointed out in my last paragraph in my previous post, and you also mentioned, that there are large obstacles between us and the disarmament the nation. Clearly there are practical difficulties with implementing the reasoning, as you also pointed out (these are laws and not instantaneous magic, the law-abiding would disarm first and be vulnerable to the criminal elements, etc.). The problem is that the matter has become two different problems: put simply and perhaps too roughly, the issues now are: What is the Best Solution? and What is the most Practical Solution at the moment? Your message indicates you are talking about the second question. Almost everything I wrote pertains to the first. Logically speaking, the US Practical Solution (making sure law-abiding citizens can defend themselves accordingly against the criminal element) is no more than a temporary one, since it can never afford the degree of security that comes from eliminating guns altogether. But there is nothing to suggest that the Best Solution is impossible, and it ought to be a valid and recognized goal. Instead, many pro-gun folks tend to focus on non-arguments like “it’s a god-given right”, while anti-gun people prefer to avoid recognizing the important practical issues. I submit it’s time to stop treating the two problems as one and recognize that they require different types of thinking and solutions. > [@](#): > > You’re saying “You need a gun to protect yourself from other people with guns, this is circular logic - and if you banned all guns, you wouldn’t have a need for a gun”, and I disagree with this premise. Even if you make it illegal for me to own a gun to defend myself, you’ve not eliminated the threat to me posed by bad guys with guns. There’s nothing circular about my logic, because I assume criminals will largely always be armed. That’s an arguable point, I guess, but I think most reasonable people would agree. Well, it is ultimately still an assumption and, I believe, a harmful one. That is not to say the road to disarmament would not in many probabilities be hard and long under the present circumstances, but success is a possibility in any venture, just as is failure. By assuming that the criminal element will always have guns, you are eliminating all the other possibilities (and potential solutions, some of them quite possibly better ones). Because you make the assumption that the criminal element will always be armed, you _are_ engaging in circular reasoning by (rightfully, in the practical mode of thought) bringing in more of what is an integral part of the problem: guns. This is like an arms race, but instead of states there are individuals involved. In fact, **robertliquori** suggested exactly that when he said that “it worked in the Cold War”. I can’t imagine any safety in such a gun-reliant system, and I can’t imagine it eventually engaging in disarmament as states might in a similar position. > [@](#): > > So it’s not a case if “if you give up your gun, it’s alright, because all guns will also dissapear”, but “you should give up your gun and hope criminals don’t pick you.” Clearly that would be a foolish course of action, relying on wishful thinking for protection. No, what is needed is not summary instructions to relinquish firearms, but maybe a plan to ensure that firearms **are** removed from circulation in a certain time-frame, possibly from the criminal element _first_. I have no idea by what mechanisms this goal may be achieved, but that is work for the crime bureaus (maybe once they stop their war on marijuana there will be spare money and personnel for the government to play with). This is assuming that people would be willing to give up firearms in the first place without too many cries of “god-given right” and similar. So I really think that the answer to this problem depends on which mode of thought we employ. Both are valid, but in my opinion the greatest and longest-lasting good will come from the Best solution, while temporary measures are usually taken for the immediate Practical reasons. > [@](#): > > And even if there was a magic on/off switch, of course, that still leaves women, the elderly, the disabled, etc. open to attack by 250 pound criminals. Physical inferiority is not an argument in favour of firearms, especially because in a world with a magic on/off switch and only the law-abiding weak possessing firearms, the criminals would eventually start targeting the weak in the hope of obtaining the advantage of firearms, therefore putting the weak at _greater_ risk. I don’t know where the paranoia factor comes in, meaning the fear that one day US citizens may have to fight against their own government forces; frankly among all the stable and developed nations that kind of thinking seems to be unique to the US, and I don’t really have a reply for it except that if it really, incredibly, does happen, everyone is screwed anyway (what with the vast resources available to the government). On a small scale, conflict between civilians and the government does happen from time to time, and usually it’s _worse_ when the public is armed against the state (Waco and all that). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stabbing-in-japan-ban-knives/68055.md?page=5)