| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| The Best Argument Ever About Gun Control |
| 2004-10-03 |
| Japan's rank-and-file police officers are calling on the general public to protect themselves as they believe law enforcers alone cannot maintain peace and order, a National Police Agency (NPA) report showed on Friday. The 2004 NPA white paper asked 2,000 experienced officers working at local police boxes across Japan about "what is needed to maintain security." A staggering 95 percent of them admitted that they alone could not maintain domestic order, the survey shows. Some 80 percent of them said that individuals should try to protect themselves, while 50 percent said citizens should form local crime prevention groups... Two factors determine how many police are needed: patrol area and population density. Officers are limited by both, and if either exceeds the average policeman's abilities, then the public must defend itself. Any effort at (reasonable) gun control must recognize this fact. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #7 I agree that it is a scary situation for the police in Japan. Gun safety is important. Gunowners need to act responsibly. I find that most of the time they do. In Tennessee we have had several incidents where carjackers were shot by some citizen--lowers recidivism. We have had a few cases where the citizen should have been armed and unfortunately was not. A few years ago, I read that violent crime was reduced as the results of states with concealed carry laws. However, crimes against property increased--the crimes that were easy increased. I am a believer in the Constitution of which the 2nd Amendment is a part. I like to think I am responsible despite my joking around. |
| Posted by: John 2004-10-03 7:18:26 PM |
| #6 An example of reasonable gun control would be prohibiting dangerous felons and the insane from carrying guns. But more to the point, one set of laws for NYC and another for rural Montana would seems to make sense *in relation to* the ability of their local law enforcement to provide adequate security for their needs, based on a patrol area to policeman ratio. If you have to wait for 2 hrs for a cop to arrive, you need to defend yourself against imminent threat. However, population density also matters. A policeman in rural Montana may provide security for 500 people, in NYC for 7500--an argument in *favor* of people defending themselves in NYC. That is, it doesn't matter if you have to wait 2 hrs for the cop to drive to your location, or because he is too busy to get to you immediately. Which is why *both* area and population matter in calculating out to what extent people need to defend themseves, when balanced with safety issues. A concealed handgun in NYC would be fine--seldom does anyone *need* a .50 cal MG in a dense urban area. However, in rural Montana, a concealed handgun is suspiciously odd, compared to a shotgun, rifle, or holstered handgun. This is an acceptable relativism, unlike most of the current debate, where gun control is based on fear of loud noises and other such nonsense. The article has something extraordinary in it, an admission by a police force that it physically *cannot* do its job--an admirable admission, and one I doubt any US police department could make, except when it was near budget time. And NO US police department would *ever* ask to public to individually protect themselves. They would develop hyperventilation at the thought. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-10-03 6:18:51 PM |
| #5 Reasonable gun control is in the teaching of the correct grip on the handgun. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-10-03 6:10:29 PM |
| #4 reasonable gun control is when you hit what you were aiming at |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-10-03 5:57:35 PM |
| #3 No personal nukes. Aw shucks. 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about personal nukes. I guess the founding fathers did not anticipate them. |
| Posted by: John 2004-10-03 5:43:55 PM |
| #2 "What is reasonable gun control?'" No personal nukes. I think that's reasonable. |
| Posted by: jackal 2004-10-03 5:31:49 PM |
| #1 I read the article. I did not read anything about gun control. What is "reasonable gun control?" |
| Posted by: John 2004-10-03 4:51:51 PM |