…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.
Couple of days, hell. That post is from June 12, 2001. (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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).