All hail Tsar Illusionary for his enlightement.

The argument that banning guns in America wouldn't work is absolutely absurd. Firearm restrictions have worked in every other country that has adopted them which is clearly shown by the number of reported firearm homicides per year. To give you an example, in 2014, Japan (pop. 127.3 million) had 6 firearm related homicides and firearms are completely banned there. The United States of America (pop. 318.9 million) had 11,208 firearm related homicides reported in 2013. Japan has nearly half the population of the United States and its homicide rate is not even close to the USA's.

What about other countries with strict firearm regulations like, Australia? New Zealand? United Kingdom? France? Germany? Canada? and South Korea? Australia had 40 (2012), New Zealand had 8 (2013), The United Kingdom had 38 (2011), France had 140 (2012), Germany had 61 (2012), Canada had 131 (2013) and South Korea had 9 (2011). Keep in mind this is only including the latest firearm homicide statistics that are available from GunPolicy.org which uses research gathered from the University of Sydney. It does not included unintentional firearm deaths or suicide.

Now before you scream "My rights! My rights!" I'm not suggesting that the USA should ban firearms completely but place stronger restrictions on the ownership of firearms. A background check isn't nearly enough and being able to walk into a gun show and just walk out with a brand new assault rifle with no background check at all (which is legal in 33 states) is just crazy.

This debate about restrictions has very little to do with whether they will help or not. It's about the fact that none of them will get passed by the house and senate. All elected officials have to pander to gun owners in order to get votes. If you piss them off, you either won't get into office, or stay there if you already are. The only reason President Obama started speaking out against this stuff is because he's already won both presidential terms, so he has no more elections to run. The United States is largely comprised of stupid people. Many of them can't name the three branches of government here, and 80% of them generally believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead and will come back to earth once again to rapture everybody. Some schools here refuse to teach evolution, and others are eliminating cursive writing. We have a Creationism Museum here. Granted, it's run by an Australian, but the museum is in Kentucky. (This is a problem because a museum is supposed to catalog historical facts and tangible items.) Today's America won't pass most or perhaps even any of the restrictions that liberals want to put into place because of it.

Edited October 12, 201510 yr by unr3al

Topic cleaned up. Please stay on topic. 

Hitler disarmed Germany, 14 million killed.

Mao disarmed China, 80 million killed.

Stalin disarmed Russia, 50 million killed.

You don't think if the only people who had guns were criminals, cops, and the military that the common citizen would become so oppressed that they would revolt? It's not guns that are the problem, it's the maniacs that get a hold of them. They should have a more rigorous system to see if someone is responsible/mentally well enough to own a gun.

 

So you are comparing the US to fascist and communist countries? I heard someone make a comment that I thought was pretty on point. Pro-gun activist don't like it when people bring up how gun control works in other countries because "that country is different and it wouldn't work in the US" but when they are talking about people restricting guns they don't hesitate to talk about countries who had their guns taken away. So which is it? Not to mention that I think the analogy is completely ludicrous and just fear mongering. The US is no where near the state of Nazi Germany, China, or the USSR.

and if you consider him the sole cause or the main cause of WWII (which I don't)

I don't want to get too off topic but I couldn't help when I saw this. So Hitler wasn't the main cause of WWII? Pretty sure the whole reason WWII started was because Hitler started annexing countries that he shouldn't have annexed and invaded Poland. I agree it might not have been the sole cause, some of the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles and the economic depression Germany suffered following WWI contributed to WWII but overall, the main cause of WWII was Hitler.

 

Back on topic...I recently saw this video from one of my favorite Youtubers that pretty well sums up my opinion on this topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bm5sDfaqSU

I don't want to get too off topic but I couldn't help when I saw this. So Hitler wasn't the main cause of WWII? Pretty sure the whole reason WWII started was because Hitler started annexing countries that he shouldn't have annexed and invaded Poland. I agree it might not have been the sole cause, some of the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles and the economic depression Germany suffered following WWI contributed to WWII but overall, the main cause of WWII was Hitler.

Japan had been invading and wreaking havoc on China and other countries in the east years before the official start of a world war. Before Hitler even became chancellor, I believe, but I'd have to look it up to confirm. Hitler is responsible for the war in Europe above all else, and it would have remained there (and in North Africa) had he not decided to declare war on the U.S. when Japan struck Pearl Harbor, which gave us an excuse to get involved. Therefore, December 7th, 1941 is when it became a world war. A war with Japan was likely inevitable anyway even if Hitler never existed, as they were island hopping, capturing as much territory as possible and the Japanese government felt snubbed during negotiations for the ending of World War I. Japan basically got nothing out of the negotiations, so the government had a chip on its shoulder.

Back to the gun issue, a couple of police/suspect shootings happened in nearby towns over the last few nights. While searching for more information on those shootings; I accidentally stumbled on this:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/24/pokemon-shooting-plot-suspects-set-for-arraignment/rbmvQaA9jc7ONgdpnQUGcN/story.html
 

On a public Facebook page called “Mayhem Pokemon Crew,” Stumbo, 27, allegedly posted a photo of a white sedan with two long guns crossed over the trunk. “Kevin Norton and I are ready for worlds Boston here we come!!!” he wrote.

Before his arrest, according to prosecutors, Norton, 18, was not allowed access to a chat room from which he was banned for bullying, and allegedly stated, “Oh, ok, that’s fine then I will just shoot him on Friday thanks.”

Police say they found an AR-15 rifle, 12-gauge Remington shotgun, ammunition, and a hunting knife in the 2002 Chevrolet Prizm the two men had driven to Boston.

............

Both men were registered for the Pokémon tournament, police said. Stumbo appears to have won state tournaments this year in Nebraska and Minnesota, according to online results. The game is an international sensation, pitting players against each other using Pokémon trading cards.

The two men had allegedly threatened specific individuals and discussed mass shootings in online chat rooms.

One alleged post by Stumbo said, “My AR15 says you lose.”

 

- Boston Globe

My reaction: What the f*ck? Seriously... Over a Pokemon tournament?

 

Edited October 13, 201510 yr by unr3al

My reaction: What the f*ck? Seriously... Over a Pokemon tournament?

 

Nerds are arming themselves now are they? Pikachu is one hell of a drug.........

I don't understand how a thread about another shooting turned into a discussion about WWII and now probably Pokemon...
I'm just going to fully stay out of this, other than agreeing with Illusionary. 

Edited October 13, 201510 yr by Starmix

    My reaction: What the f*ck? Seriously... Over a Pokemon tournament?

'MERICA!

Seriously though, you don't hear about this shit happening in other countries. I'm a massive nerd who gets mad when people insult my beloved anime characters but you don't see me whipping out an assault rifle and making death threats because of it.

'MERICA!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R5A0pg4oN8

 

'MERICA!
Seriously though, you don't hear about this shit happening in other countries. I'm a massive nerd who gets mad when people insult my beloved anime characters but you don't see me whipping out an assault rifle and making death threats because of it.

...yet... 

Our own president agrees though; this sort of thing does not happen in other civilized western nations (although I guess Australia is technically eastern?).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3iU3A_fpQ4

I love listening to how people just claim "Restrict the firearms!"  "Ban Guns!". 

 

How? How do you manage to take away a staggering number of guns?  The latest figure was 100 per resident, I believe?  Even if you manage to disarm them, do you realize how easy it is to buy a gun? To manufacture a gun?  I think America has a pretty established past of finding a way to have something if the government takes it away.

 

All You'd accomplish by disarming the country, is taking firearms away from legal owners. Criminals will always have them. There's simply too many guns out there right now. People from other countries have absolutely no idea how improbable it would be for various reasons.. Everyone rallies behind gun control but it's empty rhetoric. 

I love listening to how people just claim "Restrict the firearms!"  "Ban Guns!". 

 

How? How do you manage to take away a staggering number of guns?  The latest figure was 100 per resident, I believe?  Even if you manage to disarm them, do you realize how easy it is to buy a gun? To manufacture a gun?  I think America has a pretty established past of finding a way to have something if the government takes it away.

 

All You'd accomplish by disarming the country, is taking firearms away from legal owners. Criminals will always have them. There's simply too many guns out there right now. People from other countries have absolutely no idea how improbable it would be for various reasons.. Everyone rallies behind gun control but it's empty rhetoric. 

Did you just claim that every resident in the U.S. owns 100 guns...? What?

As stated earlier; nobody said the U.S. government should disarm everyone. That's not a viable solution anymore. That ship sailed about 150 years ago. Restrictions need to be in place though, period. It's only empty rhetoric precisely because not everybody rallies behind it. There are too many stubborn people in this country who put selfishness before selflessness.

Did you just claim that every resident in the U.S. owns 100 guns...? What?
As stated earlier; nobody said the U.S. government should disarm everyone. That's not a viable solution anymore. That ship sailed about 150 years ago. Restrictions need to be in place though, period. It's only empty rhetoric precisely because not everybody rallies behind it. There are too many stubborn people in this country who put selfishness before selflessness.

I read that stat wrong.. There's approximately 112 guns to every 100 citizens.

 

Okay, but how do you plan to restrict them? I can go to my neighbor and give him 200 dollars for his used glock, and he still owns 30 more. People can sell guns like crazy, there's way too many of them right now to try to restrict. There's too many military grade rifles and weapon platforms, privately owned and in surplus to refulste.  We can even control the drug trade in this country,  why would we be able to do so with guns?  The bad guy will still be able to easily be able to access mil-spec weaponary. Is the reasoning behind this movement to restrict guns to everybody including the millions of Joe citizen who practices safety and responsibility and will never commit a crime with it, or the few thousands of criminals who use it to commit Crimes? 

Did you just claim that every resident in the U.S. owns 100 guns...? What?
As stated earlier; nobody said the U.S. government should disarm everyone. That's not a viable solution anymore. That ship sailed about 150 years ago. Restrictions need to be in place though, period. It's only empty rhetoric precisely because not everybody rallies behind it. There are too many stubborn people in this country who put selfishness before selflessness.

I agree, we do need some restrictions. I'll just rattle off some ideas if you don't mind:

• I really think gun control and gun laws should be more federalized(not too much) and have more oversight.
• Push the minimum age to 21(handguns and "assault type" rifles). Just like the federal government basically forced state drinking ages to 21, so should the minimum age be for handguns, since I believe they are used in the majority of firearm deaths and crimes. I'm ok with 18,19,20 year olds buying bolt action rifles and shotguns, if there is proof that it will be used for hunting and etc
• Just like for a driver's license, you need to get tested to see that you're competent to even handle a firearm. Pretty much basic/beginner NRA classes, only you MUST complete the class and test for the weapon type before you're allowed to purchase it.(First time buyers)
  • So if I want to buy a handgun, I need to get certified from an instructor and have proof that I passed the basic pistol class and I won't need to take it again when I buy a handgun. Full 8 hour classes
• Need a license for whatever reason, whether it be hunting, sport/range shooting, concealed carry, home defense. Can't just buy a gun for shits and giggles.
• First time handguns buyers get free safe, those little $50 ones(at the cost of the government)
• Some will hate me for this one: If police get tip from your friend, relative, neighbor that you're improperly storing guns, especially around children, I really do think law enforcement should be allowed to rip up your whatever license-your home defense license for example. They should take whatever guns are improperly stored in plain view, such as a shotgun lying on bed, an AR15 under your couch, rifle on leaning on your desk. To get your guns back and re-licensed, you have to complete a class pertaining to proper storage and etc, if you have no room in your safe, buy one. After all that's been checked, you get your guns back.
• Ladies no carrying in your purses, holster up like a man. No need to have another baby or toddler shoot themselves or you because of improper concealed carrying like that.
• No open carry in cities, or heavily populated areas unless you're security, Law Enforcement and etc. It justs scares people and it's annoying for cops when they have to deal with those idiots with an AR-15 slung on their backs, while getting ice cream on main street. It's stupid imo, just conceal carry.
• Another iffy one: I think you must get references from a law enforcement officer, range master, instructor, respectable personal reference and etc. for first time buyers. So after you take your mandatory classes, have them sign something, if they feel you're responsible enough and trusted to have a firearm.
• I think that's all I have

All of this can easily be followed by a reasonable person. It would definitely make it more expensive to own a weapon, but they don't make it completely impossible and will limit the amount of idiots. It won't stop every mass shooting, and if someone is desperate enough they will get a gun illegally, but it should cut down on the homicides. Since most private colleges and state universities have armed campus police, make community colleges, small private hire real armed security(not those mall cops). 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 15, 201510 yr by BlackJesus1

All those restrictions are decently reasonable, sadly there will always be those pro-gun activists claiming that "omg criminals will still get a gun easy on the black market on something so f*ck dat, we need moar guns, moar I tell you".

We can even control the drug trade in this country,  why would we be able to do so with guns?  The bad guy will still be able to easily be able to access mil-spec weaponary. Is the reasoning behind this movement to restrict guns to everybody including the millions of Joe citizen who practices safety and responsibility and will never commit a crime with it, or the few thousands of criminals who use it to commit Crimes? 

We'd be able to do it with guns because the majority of guns are purchased legally. Drugs are not. You're comparing apples and oranges, and you're downplaying the severity of the issue. The fact that there have been over 1000 shootings since Sandy Hook in 2012 should be alarming enough, but you're not including non-lethal crimes committed with a gun such as armed car jacking, bank robbery, armored car robbery, home invasion, kidnapping, false imprisonment, felony stalking, criminal threatening, hostage situations, intimidation with a weapon, terroristic threats, drive by attempts, assault on police, attempted murder, manslaughter, discharging a firearm in public... the list goes on and on. Criminals who use guns exist by the millions. Remember that the U.S. population is over 300 million people now. As of 2010 there were 5.8 million convicted felons in the U.S. This does not count people who haven't yet been convicted, got the charge knocked down to a misdemeanor or committed a misdemeanor gun crime, were acquitted on a technicality, or who simply never got caught.

That's who were trying to stop.

 

All those restrictions are decently reasonable, sadly there will always be those pro-gun activists claiming that "omg criminals will still get a gun easy on the black market on something so f*ck dat, we need moar guns, moar I tell you".

That's pretty much Pavelow's argument, actually.

Edited October 15, 201510 yr by unr3al

Now, I prefer to wait until all the facts are clear before forming an opinion, however after reading another article about the encounter, I'm pretty torn between whether this was self defense or not. Jones is claiming that, after being struck in the face, he returned to his car for his pistol,  and ended up firing at an approaching person after announcing he was armed, and even surrendered himself to a samaritan present at the scene.

http://www.kpho.com/story/30255251/court-documents-reveal-moments-leading-up-to-deadly-nau-shooting

 I remember a few years ago that six people were shot at a fraternity party in Akron after a fight. That being said, Akron is not a friendly place, especially after dark.

Japan had been invading and wreaking havoc on China and other countries in the east years before the official start of a world war. Before Hitler even became chancellor, I believe, but I'd have to look it up to confirm. Hitler is responsible for the war in Europe above all else, and it would have remained there (and in North Africa) had he not decided to declare war on the U.S. when Japan struck Pearl Harbor, which gave us an excuse to get involved. Therefore, December 7th, 1941 is when it became a world war. A war with Japan was likely inevitable anyway even if Hitler never existed, as they were island hopping, capturing as much territory as possible and the Japanese government felt snubbed during negotiations for the ending of World War I. Japan basically got nothing out of the negotiations, so the government had a chip on its shoulder.
 

Just to clarify some things, here we go, because World War II is my shiz: The Japanese really began their tirade in 1931 with their invasion of Manchuria, leading up to the eventual start of the Second Sino-Japanese War. Depending on who you ask, some would say Japan was responsible for some of the worst atrocities of World War II (see the Rape of Nanking and Unit 731). Somewhere in between, in 1933, Hitler gained his rise to power when President von Hindenburg granted Hitler the position of Chancellor. However, Hitler's invasion would have ventured further than Europe, as he looked towards Russia and the Far East for lebensraum (living space) for the Germanic people, regardless of our involvement in World War II (he outlined his plans for expansion in Mein Kampf, which he wrote while in prison for the Munich Putsch of '22). Hitler had actually begun his expansion plan before Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, launching Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union, in June of '41 (delayed from an initial launch date in May of the same year). The only reason Hitler had declared war alongside Japan was because of the Axis pact, the same reason we declared war on them. Technically, even though we were not directly involved in combat, we had been involved in the war since the beginning, giving over billions of dollars in lend-lease equipment to China, the Soviet Union, Britian, France, and other Allied nations. Japan had actually gotten a pretty sweet deal out of the Treaty, including governance over all of Germany's territories in Asia and the Pacific, and a permanent position in the League of Nations. (Sources: My bookshelf.)

Seriously though, you don't hear about this shit happening in other countries. I'm a massive nerd who gets mad when people insult my beloved anime characters but you don't see me whipping out an assault rifle and making death threats because of it.

You do, it probably just doesn't get as much coverage, but there's crazies everywhere, in every nook and cranny.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7771505/Video-game-fanatic-hunts-down-and-stabs-rival-player-who-killed-character-online.html

There's other sorts of crazies too:

http://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/german-nurse-says-sorry-for-killing-over-30-patients-in-thrill-seeking-game

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/57525243/ns/world_news-europe/t/man-kills-three-ploughing-suv-austrian-shoppers/#.Vh8ZFflViko

And who can forget the recent Hebdo attack earlier this year?

I agree, we do need some restrictions. I'll just rattle off some ideas if you don't mind:

• I really think gun control and gun laws should be more federalized(not too much) and have more oversight.

We already have Federal gun laws, but states make their own laws that can supersede those.

• Push the minimum age to 21(handguns and "assault type" rifles). Just like the federal government basically forced state drinking ages to 21, so should the minimum age be for handguns, since I believe they are used in the majority of firearm deaths and crimes. I'm ok with 18,19,20 year olds buying bolt action rifles and shotguns, if there is proof that it will be used for hunting and etc

Most "advanced" civilizations actually have a lower drinking age. Instead of pushing age requirements forward to meet our arbitrarily decided standard on when someone should legally be allowed to drink alone and buy alcohol, why not scale back all laws to meet the legal adult age of 18? Using a cliche argument, we allow 18 year olds to fight our wars using (actual) assault rifles, tanks, artillery pieces, and jets, but not drink or own pistols? Also, let's not use that term, "assault" please. We all know it's silly, and actually has no relation to what an actual assault rifle is (a select-fire weapon with at least two firing modes).

• Just like for a driver's license, you need to get tested to see that you're competent to even handle a firearm. Pretty much basic/beginner NRA classes, only you MUST complete the class and test for the weapon type before you're allowed to purchase it.(First time buyers)
  • So if I want to buy a handgun, I need to get certified from an instructor and have proof that I passed the basic pistol class and I won't need to take it again when I buy a handgun. Full 8 hour classes

This is a very reasonable law. Everything nowadays requires a class, or training. As it should be with firearms, because improper use leads to accidents. They require classes for CC licenses, and hunting licenses, but not for the actual safe use of a firearm.

• Need a license for whatever reason, whether it be hunting, sport/range shooting, concealed carry, home defense. Can't just buy a gun for shits and giggles.

Isn't buying a gun for sport/range shooting buying a gun for shits and gigs? How do you enforce the proper use of a firearm if no probable cause exists to believe they're using it improperly?

• First time handguns buyers get free safe, those little $50 ones(at the cost of the government)

All firearm purchases come with a free gun lock and key for secure and safe storage (it has a chain type link that goes through the magazine well and out the ejection port, locking outside. That prevents a magazine or clip from being loaded into the firearm, the slide from releasing forward and coming into battery, and a round from being inserted into the barrel). Anything more would be more money to be paid at the expense of either A. firearm manufacturers or B. the government, which means it would be something that they wouldn't do, and fought against.

• Some will hate me for this one: If police get tip from your friend, relative, neighbor that you're improperly storing guns, especially around children, I really do think law enforcement should be allowed to rip up your whatever license-your home defense license for example. They should take whatever guns are improperly stored in plain view, such as a shotgun lying on bed, an AR15 under your couch, rifle on leaning on your desk. To get your guns back and re-licensed, you have to complete a class pertaining to proper storage and etc, if you have no room in your safe, buy one. After all that's been checked, you get your guns back.

Probable cause and reasonable suspicion exist for just this, to prevent warrant-less and baseless searches. If law enforcement has no evidence of a crime being committed, aside from word of mouth from a third party, how do you obtain a warrant to search the premises without violating a subject's 4th amendment right?

• Ladies no carrying in your purses, holster up like a man. No need to have another baby or toddler shoot themselves or you because of improper concealed carrying like that.

They actually have purse holsters, but things like pocket carry and waistband carry are severely dangerous and stupid.

• No open carry in cities, or heavily populated areas unless you're security, Law Enforcement and etc. It justs scares people and it's annoying for cops when they have to deal with those idiots with an AR-15 slung on their backs, while getting ice cream on main street. It's stupid imo, just conceal carry.

I think these people are some of the worst, that make all responsible firearm owners look bad. However, on the same side of the coin, what they are doing is technically covered by constitutional carry or state laws, and they are well within their rights to act like a jack-wagon. I personally believe that OC and CC each have their pros, and convenience, but restricting someone's carry based on geographical location can have unwarranted effects.

• Another iffy one: I think you must get references from a law enforcement officer, range master, instructor, respectable personal reference and etc. for first time buyers. So after you take your mandatory classes, have them sign something, if they feel you're responsible enough and trusted to have a firearm.

I think it is a bit iffy, considering a background check (with a thorough mental health screening) and a safety class would already be implemented in an idealistic scenario. They have these on higher classed weapons and components, such as class 3 items, like SBRs and silencers. You have to get written permission from your local law enforcement chief and submit a fingerprint card to the ATF for any NFA item registered in your name, as well as a $200 tax stamp for the transfer from a dealer. And of course, you need to make sure you're legally allowed to own the item in your state.

• I think that's all I have

All of this can easily be followed by a reasonable person. It would definitely make it more expensive to own a weapon, but they don't make it completely impossible and will limit the amount of idiots. It won't stop every mass shooting, and if someone is desperate enough they will get a gun illegally, but it should cut down on the homicides. Since most private colleges and state universities have armed campus police, make community colleges, small private hire real armed security(not those mall cops). 

I put my thoughts and comments in the quote in bold, just some things I wanted to point out and discuss. 

All those restrictions are decently reasonable, sadly there will always be those pro-gun activists claiming that "omg criminals will still get a gun easy on the black market on something so f*ck dat, we need moar guns, moar I tell you".

And there will always be ad hominems thrown around all over the place stereotyping the response and views from people who don't share the same viewpoint as you. Tsk tsk. These situations are moments for reflection and discussion about underlying social constructs that could contribute to incidents and what we can do to better prevent incidents like this from happening again, in my case while respecting the rights and wishes of a people. I believe a responsible, peaceable society with firearms exists. One where these tragic incidents never occur. It already exists in small sub societies within the U.S.

Tell me why, the District of Columbia, can have a population of roughly 600,000, a firearm ownership rate of 3.7%, and a firearm homicide rate of 16.7 per 100,000? Did I mention they also have what would be considered some of the strictest firearms laws on the books?

NOW tell me why Vermont, can have a population of roughly 625,000, a firearm ownership rate of 42%, and a firearm homicide rate of 0.3 per 100,000? A state that has no registration requirement, and allows open carry and concealed carry without permits (what is known as constitutional carry). A state that was given an F by the Brady Scorecard on gun laws, has the lowest gun murder rate out of all 50 states (coincidentally, D.C., which was included in the first scorecard ever issued by the Brady Campaign, no longer appears to be scored).

Discussing possible solutions is fine and dandy, even proactive in finding THE solution. However, when you are verbally insulting others and demeaning them or their intelligence because of another viewpoint, that's just a dirty pool, mister.

Edited October 15, 201510 yr by Policefreak55

I'm pretty torn between whether this was self defense or not. Jones is claiming that, after being struck in the face, he returned to his car for his pistol

That sort of answers the whole "self defense" question right there. It's not self defense, it was revenge. He had the opportunity to walk out of the confrontation and he did. But instead of calling 911 he decided to take matters into his own hands. I have no idea how anyone in their right mind could defend against that point.
 

Japan had actually gotten a pretty sweet deal out of the Treaty, including governance over all of Germany's territories in Asia and the Pacific, and a permanent position in the League of Nations.

It actually wasn't all that sweet compared to the other countries at the table. They had a list of 21 demands which got knocked down to 13, and Germany had basically dick in the Pacific that was worth having. Japan gained the Marshall islands, Caroline Islands, Mariana Islands and Palau islands, along with the Jiaozhou Bay. The islands did not, and still do not offer anything substantial in terms of resources Japan could use, which is a major reason they invaded China. They wanted raw materials Japan doesn't have as a giant volcanic island. The biggest attraction to these islands to this day is tourism. Moreover, Japan tried to introduce a clause about racial equality at the Versailles Treaty conference, which was flatly rejected by the western powers, as white supremacy theory was still alive and well during that time, and the idea of having colonies or territories was partly dependent on the belief that the white race was superior and had a reason to confiscate land that belonged to the natives who actually lived there. Both Japan and Arabic countries were less than satisfied when the negotiations were over, but it was out of their hands.

As a World Word II enthusiast, I'm sure you know full well that the League of Nations was absolutely useless when it came to stopping another world war, and the representative of Japan simply walked out when faced with increasing political pressure from the west. The U.N. was later formed in its place after the war, which is a group of people who are slightly more effective than 'useless', but not by much, I'm afraid.

Good recap of Japan's history in China, though. I didn't feel like looking up specifics, but I've known for years now that Japan was actually the country to start major trouble over seas years before Hitler did anything to get any serious heat from people outside Germany.

That sort of answers the whole "self defense" question right there. It's not self defense, it was revenge. He had the opportunity to walk out of the confrontation and he did. But instead of calling 911 he decided to take matters into his own hands. I have no idea how anyone in their right mind could defend against that point.

Yes but he only used it after being approached by someone else, and identifying himself as an armed person. To be able to fully understand his mindset at the time (totality of circumstances), we'd need a whole lot more than what the news is giving us. Arizona is a stand your ground state, so he had no duty to retreat (even though stories show he did retreat to his vehicle, depending on how you interpret his actions). Unfortunately I'd like to know more to form an opinion. However, given the information, I can't form one, and I don't see them releasing much more since this is a pending trial, and prosecutors do not want to taint their potential jury pool, we won't be getting much more until the trial I'd imagine. What I would like to know is, what were the victims doing at the time of the shooting when they approached him. What did they say, how were they positioned, their stances. I want to see any photos, things like that.Injuries to the shooter would be a big help. They helped to establish credible assault stories for Officer Darren Wilson and everyone's favorite Floridian George Zimmerman. Right now, we just don't have enough information.

It actually wasn't all that sweet compared to the other countries at the table. They had a list of 21 demands which got knocked down to 13, and Germany had basically dick in the Pacific that was worth having. Japan gained the Marshall islands, Caroline Islands, Mariana Islands and Palau islands, along with the Jiaozhou Bay. The islands did not, and still do not offer anything substantial in terms of resources Japan could use, which is a major reason they invaded China. They wanted raw materials Japan doesn't have as a giant volcanic island. The biggest attraction to these islands to this day is tourism. Moreover, Japan tried to introduce a clause about racial equality at the Versailles Treaty conference, which was flatly rejected by the western powers, as white supremacy theory was still alive and well during that time, and the idea of having colonies or territories was partly dependent on the belief that the white race was superior and had a reason to confiscate land that belonged to the natives who actually lived there. Both Japan and Arabic countries were less than satisfied when the negotiations were over, but it was out of their hands.

No it wasn't the best, but given their involvement in World War I and their contributions compared to others, it's understandable why they didn't receive as much as other nations participating in the Treaty of Versailles.

Japan was getting over three-fourths of their domestic oil supply from imports, mostly from the U.S., Britain, and the Dutch government in exile (exiled when they surrendered to Germany after a week-long invasion, part of Fall Gelb. The Germans, to circumvent the Maginot Line along the France-Germany border, decided to go through the Ardennes in Belgium,  Luxembourg and the Netherlands, since France didn't think Germany would be so bold to attempt it, and France's mighty Maginot ended up being not quite as effective as they'd have hoped). When the Second Sino-Japanese War began, They needed that oil from somewhere, since most of their oil suppliers embargoed them for their actions in Manchuria and China, as well as out of fear of expansion into the Pacific, and more specifically, the Dutch East Indies, which were rich in oil, and still under control of the exiled government. The entire reason we moved our Pacific Fleet from Cali to Pearl was a show of force towards Japan, in case they decided to continue expansion into the pacific (we see how well that move turned out). It was do or die, so to keep their conquests and secure their materials, they decided to launch a preemptive attack on Western forces. 

As a World Word II enthusiast, I'm sure you know full well that the League of Nations was absolutely useless when it came to stopping another world war, and the representative of Japan simply walked out when faced with increasing political pressure from the west. The U.N. was later formed in its place after the war, which is a group of people who are slightly more effective than 'useless', but not by much, I'm afraid.

Absolutely, the successor to the League isn't much of a step up from the dissolution of the League in 1935, and the Abyssinian incident is a good parallel to the U.N. response to Russian involvement in Ukraine. When forced with an obvious show of defiance and military involvement, the aggressors in both incidents were met with nothing but economic sanctions. However, after Japan was exposed for their involvement in the Mukden incident, and their renegade army invasion of Manchuria using that as a pretense, they had no choice but to leave their seat.

Good recap of Japan's history in China, though. I didn't feel like looking up specifics, but I've known for years now that Japan was actually the country to start major trouble over seas years before Hitler did anything to get any serious heat from people outside Germany.

History's a very important topic, I love it lol. Japan's always had a bit of an imperialistic bug in them since early dynasty periods, and I think their post- surrender pacifism days are wearing thin, with their most recent bill allowing the JSDF to operate in more than a self sefense policy, and assist allies in foreign engagements. Of course China's expansion in the South China Sea isn't quelling anyone's fears of conflict. DAMN YOU, PACIFIC ISLANDS!!!!!!

Edited October 15, 201510 yr by Policefreak55

Yes but he only used it after being approached by someone else, and identifying himself as an armed person. To be able to fully understand his mindset at the time (totality of circumstances), we'd need a whole lot more than what the news is giving us. Arizona is a stand your ground state, so he had no duty to retreat (even though stories show he did retreat to his vehicle, depending on how you interpret his actions). Unfortunately I'd like to know more to form an opinion. However, given the information, I can't form one, and I don't see them releasing much more since this is a pending trial, and prosecutors do not want to taint their potential jury pool, we won't be getting much more until the trial I'd imagine. What I would like to know is, what were the victims doing at the time of the shooting when they approached him. What did they say, how were they positioned, their stances. I want to see any photos, things like that.Injuries to the shooter would be a big help. They helped to establish credible assault stories for Officer Darren Wilson and everyone's favorite Floridian George Zimmerman. Right now, we just don't have enough information.

The fact that he admits that he willfully retreated to his car solely for the purpose of getting his pistol to bring back and re-engage in an altercation means he would not be covered under the "Stand Your Ground" law. He no longer faced an "imminent and immediate threat" once he left. His lawyers can dick around in court about whether this should be considered murder or manslaughter, but in either case; somebody's dead and he's the cause of it.