Roe and Guns

[Ken]

How many lives would have been saved at any of the recent mass shooting in the US (Uvalde, Buffalo, Highland Park, etc.) if the shooter had been limited to only two shots from a home-made gun?

FYI, the recent reports out of Uvalde is that the shooter fired carried 315 rounds into the school and fired 142 in order to kill 21 victims. So about 1 death per 7 rounds fired. In Highland park the shooter fired 83 rounds and managed to kill 7 people so about 1 death per 11 rounds fired.

You do the math.

I guess if the Uvalde and Highland shooters had the Japanese home made gun, they would have killed 71 people and 41 people. This is figuring a kill rate of 1 death per 2 shots, which is what the Japanese guy did. At this rate, we’d have 112 deaths instead of 28, which is 400% more.
I don’t know how many extra rounds the Japanese carried.

I guess that is one way to do the math!

[Only an Anz]

Over and over, the argument for gun control is that we we need to reduce access to guns, then the criminals will not be able to carry out their crimes, because it's "all about the guns".

This guy literally made his own gun, and killed one of the most protected people in the world.

This once again decimates the idea that restricting guns will stop criminals or crazy people from shooting people.

If you want to stop violence, you have to address the motive or the environment that is necessitating the violence.

I'm relatively certain none of the resident liberals will read this, because it's doesn't align with their worldview, but maybe someone else will get some value out of it.

Michael Hanby expertly identified the problem in 2004, and explains exactly what is happening in his article:

THE CULTURE OF DEATH,
THE ONTOLOGY OF BOREDOM,
AND THE RESISTANCE OF JOY

https://www.communio-icr.com/files/hanby31-2.pdf

Because guns are so restricted in Japan he did literally make his own 2-shot double barreled handgun. Two shots at close range then done. No reloading. At least no quick reloading as one would have to pry the spent cartridge by hand out of the pipe and push in a new one if it was still functional after firing. And a home made gun like that with a smooth bore barrel would have extremely poor accuracy at anything but point blank range. This was the weapon made with pipe and held together with tape



According to the BBC:

The weapon appears to have been covered in black tape, holding together two barrels possibly made of aluminium and a base of wood. It does not appear to have a loading mechanism or traditional grip.

The rounds used are likely to have been preloaded as they were fired in quick succession, about three seconds apart.

How many lives would have been saved at any of the recent mass shooting in the US (Uvalde, Buffalo, Highland Park, etc.) if the shooter had been limited to only two shots from a home-made gun?

FYI, the recent reports out of Uvalde is that the shooter fired carried 315 rounds into the school and fired 142 in order to kill 21 victims. So about 1 death per 7 rounds fired. In Highland park the shooter fired 83 rounds and managed to kill 7 people so about 1 death per 11 rounds fired.

You do the math.

And FYI, I did read the article. And I would ask if we are indeed living in a culture of boredom and death then why on earth are we so eager to arm our bored nihilistic young men with weapons of war?

small correction - I think it'd be considered a blunderbuss, not a shotgun.

[Szdfan]

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/07/08 ... t-gun-laws

Experts who research gun laws stress that even the most stringent measures cannot totally erase the human capacity for violence. Rather, restrictions, if successful, can reduce the severity of that violence as well as impose hurdles that make it less frequent.

The details of the shooting in Japan seem to demonstrate precisely how.

The shooter apparently used a crude handmade weapon made with electrical tape and metal tubes. Such weapons, known as zip guns or pipe guns, can be assembled with materials from most hardware stores, making them functionally impossible to track or prevent.

If the gunman’s ability to build and use such a device shows that gun restrictions cannot completely eliminate violence from a society, then it also demonstrates that such measures tend to make that violence rarer and less deadly.

Contrast this attack with the recent mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, where the gunman’s high-capacity, rapid-firing AR-15-style rifle enabled him to kill 19 children and two teachers. Another attacker used a similar rifle to quickly kill 10 at a Buffalo grocery store. Last week, another still murdered seven at a parade in Highland Park, Ill.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/worl ... -ios-share

In 2021, there were 10 shootings in Japan that contributed to death, injury or property damage, according to the National Police Agency. Of those gun-related episodes, one person was killed and four others were injured. The figures do not include accidents or suicides.

Most of the roughly 192,000 licensed firearms in the country are shotguns and hunting rifles. By comparison, in the United States, where most firearms are not registered, the number of guns in civilian hands is by some estimates close to 400 million.

[Szdfan]

and killed one of the most protected people in the world.

It doesn’t appear that Abe was one of the “most protected people in the world.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/worl ... =url-share

On television and social media, there are numerous videos of the gunman walking unobstructed past security before pointing a large, handmade gun in the direction of Mr. Abe. The first shot seemed to startle the former leader and, a few seconds later, a second shot was fired and Mr. Abe collapsed to the ground. At that point, a group of men who appeared to be part of his security detail tackled the gunman to the ground.

The graphic footage has raised questions about why the gunman was able to approach from behind the riser where Mr. Abe was speaking and how, after the first shot, he was able to fire a second before security officers stopped him.

The seemingly relaxed security around Mr. Abe is a byproduct of the relative safety of Japan, where violent crimes and major disturbances at political rallies are rare.

Paul Nadeau, a former private secretary and adviser for a Liberal Democratic Party lawmaker from 2015 to 2018, said that he had attended campaign stops where Mr. Abe was speaking and that security was not overwhelming, even though he was prime minister at the time. He noted that there were around six to 12 security police officers guarding him but that the level of security did not come close to that of an American president.

[Robert]

[quotepost_id=162822 time=1657421258 user_id=287]
Most of the roughly 192,000 licensed firearms in the country are shotguns and hunting rifles. By comparison, in the United States, where most firearms are not registered, the number of guns in civilian hands is by some estimates close to 400 million.[/quote]
[/quote]

So this says it will be much easier for China, Russia, or North Korea to invade Japan, then the US.

I say disperse the military and go back to state militias and Privateers. Think of the national budget and how it would drop.

[Only an Anz]

and killed one of the most protected people in the world.

It doesn’t appear that Abe was one of the “most protected people in the world.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/worl ... =url-share

On television and social media, there are numerous videos of the gunman walking unobstructed past security before pointing a large, handmade gun in the direction of Mr. Abe. The first shot seemed to startle the former leader and, a few seconds later, a second shot was fired and Mr. Abe collapsed to the ground. At that point, a group of men who appeared to be part of his security detail tackled the gunman to the ground.

The graphic footage has raised questions about why the gunman was able to approach from behind the riser where Mr. Abe was speaking and how, after the first shot, he was able to fire a second before security officers stopped him.

The seemingly relaxed security around Mr. Abe is a byproduct of the relative safety of Japan, where violent crimes and major disturbances at political rallies are rare.

Paul Nadeau, a former private secretary and adviser for a Liberal Democratic Party lawmaker from 2015 to 2018, said that he had attended campaign stops where Mr. Abe was speaking and that security was not overwhelming, even though he was prime minister at the time. He noted that there were around six to 12 security police officers guarding him but that the level of security did not come close to that of an American president.

I thought this was interesting: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/ ... liticians/

[Ken]

So this says it will be much easier for China, Russia, or North Korea to invade Japan, then the US.

I say disperse the military and go back to state militias and Privateers. Think of the national budget and how it would drop.

Militias and civilian small arms haven't been much use militarily since Grant basically invented industrialized war with the sieges of Vicksburg and Petersburg and the southern campaigns of Sherman. The same basic techniques that Russia is still using in the Donbass. Blast the defenses into smithereens with mobile heavy artillery and mortars from a mile+ away then roll in through the rubble. This is a 9-ton railroad mortar used at the siege of Petersburg that fired 200 lb. shells.



Japan's military budget is about the size of Russia's and about 30-times larger than North Korea. They are ranked as the 5th most powerful military in the world after the US, Russia, China, and India. And the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine has caused them to accelerate military spending. The current ruling party is proposing doubling Japan's military budget and recent events in Ukraine have pushed public opinion strongly in favor of that direction. They are also projected to win and increase their majorities in the upcoming elections: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-wa ... 1657196729

I'm sure they will be just fine without putting AR-15s in the hands of unstable teenagers like we do in the US.

[Robert]

Militias and civilian small arms haven't been much use militarily since Grant basically invented industrialized war with the sieges of Vicksburg and Petersburg and the southern campaigns of Sherman.

Tell that to Iraq and Afghanistan citizens. I think they would disagree.

[Ken]

Militias and civilian small arms haven't been much use militarily since Grant basically invented industrialized war with the sieges of Vicksburg and Petersburg and the southern campaigns of Sherman.

Tell that to Iraq and Afghanistan citizens. I think they would disagree.

Afghanistan is starving. People are living bronze-age lives. What good are their weapons doing against the Taliban? or against Tuberculosis? You want to turn the US into Afghanistan? What you call "militias" the Afghans call "warlords"

The whole Afghan war wasn't really a war anyway. It was a "nation-building" exercise in a place where the local people didn't really want a nation built. At least not on the US model. It was the hubris of the Bush Administration to think that they could defy history and the shame of the Obama Administration that they let it continue when they knew better. Credit were credit is due, both Trump and Biden had better judgement. The only thing the proliferation of weapons did for Afghanistan is make the place both poorer and less safe.

I would personally rather live in Japan than Afghanistan. I would feel safer from both external threats and internal.

As for Iraq? How has the proliferation of weapons and militias made it a better and more peaceful place? Do the proliferation of civilian militias in Iraq make it safer and more prosperous than Japan or less so?

[RZehr]

I see it pretty much how Ken said it in his last post.

One scenario I could see small arms making a difference though, might be some scenario where small arms make enough difference to hold the tide until a major foreign power begins to support it with larger weapons. Like the west is doing in Ukraine now. Or like the communist supported the rebels in Rawanda/Zimbabwe.
No force can hold out successfully with only small arms, but if they can for a bit, someone may help them. Like the French did in the American Revolution. Or the Viet Cong were helped by the Chinese. America has plenty of enemies and rivals who would be thrilled to help a rebellion.
But if there is no major power interested in helping, small arms are a waste of time.

Just my two bit idea.