Assasssination of Shinzo Abe

[timmy]

Japan has some of the most stringent anti-gun ownership laws in the world. Yet, these did not protect former prime minister Shinzo Abe from attack.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... ance-japan

From what I've read, the shooter's gun was homemade, according to this description: "A photograph showed two cylindrical metal parts that appeared to have been heavily bound with black tape lying on the road near the scene." Perhaps the improvised weapon was of double barreled configuration, given that two shots were fired: " . . . he stumbled and fell after two shots were fired from behind him at close range."

Police found other homemade weapons, which are not described, at the assassin's home.

Apparently, the harshest anti-gun laws cannot protect even the loftiest members of society, and are insufficient to change human nature.

Fifteen years ago, the mayor of Nagazaki was shot and killed by a member of a crime syndicate, after which gun laws were further strengthened. This reaction doesn't seem to have worked.

[eljefe]

Latest is , given the lack of access to a proper cartridge primer, he used black powder from fireworks( easily available in Japan) ignited by a couple of 9v batteries.
Oh very soon duct tape will be banned in Japan. The pics i saw floating around on the net showed the whole contraption held together with black duct tape.

[Jr.]

No matter how strict the rules and law,
There is little that can be done to stop an individual or group, with criminal intent.
Rules are applicable only as long as an individuals are willing to follow it/abide by it.
They are deterrents but never full proof.
The assassination of Shinzo Abe was tragic, but history is full of such incidences.
Their is a middle point to everything, too much or too less is harmful.
Everything should be in balance.
As far as Gun Laws go, the Americans are extremely liberal and India is definitely stringent.

Regards,
Jr.

[timmy]

No matter how strict the rules and law,
There is little that can be done to stop an individual or group, with criminal intent.
Rules are applicable only as long as an individuals are willing to follow it/abide by it.
They are deterrents but never full proof.
The assassination of Shinzo Abe was tragic, but history is full of such incidences.
Their is a middle point to everything, too much or too less is harmful.
Everything should be in balance.
As far as Gun Laws go, the Americans are extremely liberal and India is definitely stringent.

Regards,
Jr.

I agree, but I'd like to note that "balance" is also a principle that needs balance.

For instance, the truth never is found halfway between right and wrong.

When I look at a map of the USA that has events violence and murder plotted -- in other words, actually looking at facts and data, rather than responding emotionally to some event without considering context, cause, and effect -- I note that some areas in a gun-permissive society are burdened with violence, and others are not.

Similarly, when I look at other nations where gun laws are liberal, violence is largely absent in some, like Switzerland and Finland, yet is very present in others, like Yemen.

This causes me to consider that the problem of violence is an issue of morality, not gun laws, or the presence or absence of guns in personal possession. Places where life is valued and respected do not have high levels of violence, because respecting life means respecting others.

Where people don't respect each other then has to do with deeper issues. I think of Auden's observation about people to whom evil is done do evil in return when I see oppression, and wonder what people can realistically expect when others cannot feed themselves, or are subjected to a goon government that oppresses them.

I have heard some say that every nation is three meals away from revolution. Whether the precise number in this case really is three may be debated, but there is a basis for this saying, and it has played out history and is playing out right now around the world.

It also seems to me to be a mistake to assume that everyone else will be nice and respectful, and not come marching into my country or my home, or accost me on the street to take my possessions or entertain themselves by taking my life, or inflicting harm on my family. I expect the right to protect myself effectively as a law-abiding citizen.

What I don't expect is a government of hypocrites, criminals, and goons depriving me of my right to protect myself, my family, and my possessions while they help themselves to the fat of the land.

[eljefe]

I agree, but I'd like to note that "balance" is also a principle that needs balance.



What I don't expect is a government of hypocrites, criminals, and goons depriving me of my right to protect myself, my family, and my possessions while they help themselves to the fat of the land.
[/quote]

Amen to that,Brother.
praise the Lord and pass the ammunition