BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[expatriate]

The key word is "society." Anti-gunners love to look at Japan's low crime rate and attribute them to some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. On the other hand, gun advocates like to point out Switzerland's low crime rate as evidence that gun abundance doesn't affect crime and may in fact reduce it.

Both erroneously ignore societal influences and assume cultures in other countries are just like the US only bound by other legal systems. That approach is patently false. After living in Japan for over four years, it angers me to no end to hear people imply we could be as safe as Japan if only we adopted their laws. There's a deep sense of community and respect for others that underpins Japanese culture. Unlike the US, which prizes the individual above everything, Japan focuses on the community. Thus, a Japanese individual tends to identify himself more as a member of a community than as an individual. When you value others around you as much (or more) than yourself, the idea of something as self-serving as violent crime against another is repugnant in a far deeper way than seen by Americans.

In that frame, I suspect it would be more appropriate to compare Japan to Switzerland, rather than comparing either to the US. Such a comparison would quickly point out the irrelevance of gun laws and the importance of unwritten social contracts between individuals and societies.

But until people start focusing on what's in the head instead of what's in the hand, we're going to keep missing the mark. Unfortunately, as long as liberal ideology subscribes to moral relativism, liberal lawmakers will continue to attempt to restrict hardware in lieu of behavior.

[bitmasher]

Good thoughts... saying gun crime is soully a function of guns per captia does sound pretty brittle. Societal values are important, among other factors.

Because I don't know much at all about Japan's gun control laws, I dug up this research piece:

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/La.....ontrol.htm

Its conclusions support some of what your saying about Japan's society, put also makes some other points about why crime is so low in Japan, specifically the relationship between government/police/citizens.

The article also notes that even in Japan's police state, organized crime still gets ahold of guns and accounts for nearly all violent crime w/ guns (even though it is relatively low).

[expatriate]

Excellent article, and a shining example of how far some people can go with "common sense" legislation. Thanks for digging it up.

As someone who's lived in Japan, I can vouch for the article. Is it any wonder US forces are so reluctant to turn over servicemen accused of crimes to Japanese authorities?

I worked with a guy (American) who was driving one night and saw something (like an animal) out of the corner of his eye. He swerved and briefly lost control of the car, causing it to drift into the other lane and strike another car with two Japanese in it. Everybody was injured, but one of the paramount things my guy had do do in accordance with custom was visit the family, bow deeply, and apologize with gifts.

But that wasn't all. The Japanese police took him back to the scene, grilled him, and tried to get him to confess that he crossed the centerline deliberately. Thankfully, he stood his ground. Yet when the case went to court, he was found guilty of reckless driving. Yet even that wasn't enough -- the judge slapped him with a $1500 punitive fine based solely on the notion that the judge didn't think the traffic fine was sufficient. We had to take up a collection at work to keep him out of jail.

Oh, and by the way, if you have a driver's license, you're considered a "professional" driver. Therefore, if you hit a pedestrian and kill him (even if he steps out in front of you on a dark street), you're guilty of negligent homicide and will most likely spend three years in Japanese prison.

Clearly, it goes deeper than gun control laws, and Americans would never live in the kind of conditions described in the article.

[ This Message was edited by: expatriate on 2003-01-17 21:56 ]

[bitmasher]

Do you think that the Japanese police were harder on the guy because he was U.S. troop or was this standard treatment regardless?

From the article it seems that Japan has achieved quite a low crime rate which is admirable, but it seems to come at a high cost in terms of personal privacy and miranda rights. Indeed while I read it, it seemed to be something more akin to 1984 than any other modern society I have heard of.

I accept that the Japanese are more community oriented and perhaps have a higher respect for life than Americans (although the sky high suicide rate seems to suggest a paradox), but it seems that the overbearing police/state has a lot to do with Japan's low crime.

This is a good example of how there is a trade off between crime rate and personal freedom. Where exactly the fulcrum hits between the two, depends on history and what the people feel is acceptable. Personally I would have deep reservations about being in the type of society described in the article.

[expatriate]

Anytime a US serviceman is up against the Japanese legal system, there's tremendous political pressure to drop the hammer hard.

But it's not just because they're GIs. It's a "gaijin" (foreigner) thing. The Japanese are an extremely homogenous society, and have no problem whatsoever with racial profiling within their country. "No foreigners allowed" signs on places of businesses in certain places attests to this.

Back to the topic, the Japanese case shows the danger of pursuing "common sense" legislation. The Japanese consider it common sense to investigate your family before granting you a gun license. If there's a criminal lurking in there, you're tainted and therefore suspect. They also consider it common sense to know a person's blood type before considering marriage, because they believe blood type affects a person's personality and therefore your children might inherit the wrong blood type and be doomed to underachievement.

Common sense is, unfortunately, not always common, nor does it always make sense. Whenever I hear that term in regards to legislation, the hair goes up on the back of my neck.