• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man Crashes Car into Tokyo Crowd

Rich2018

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
70,691
Reaction score
8,304
Location
Norcross, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Car slams into crowded New Year's celebrations in Tokyo, injuring nine, as 21-year-old man with 'intent to murder' tells police the attack was a protest at capital punishment


"Nine people have been injured, one seriously, after a man deliberately plowed his car into crowds celebrating New Year's Eve along a famous Tokyo street.

A man identified as 21-year-old Kazuhiro Kusakabe drove a small vehicle into Take****a Street in Tokyo's fashion district of Harajuku just after midnight.

Police say he acted with an 'intent to murder'. Local media said the suspect had initially described the incident as an 'act of terror' but later said the attack was in retaliation for capital punishment without giving more details."




https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-car-New-Years-Eve-crowds-intention-kill.html



Now why would he use a car to try and kill people. Surely it would be more effective to open fire with semi or full automatic rifles from a vantage point like Stephen Paddock did ?


Could it be Japan's gun control laws having a positive effect in saving lives ?
 


I don't think the families of those hurt really care what the guy used. When you have someone intent on killing people, they will try and use whatever they can. The car is no more to blame than the gun is. It's the person who did the act that is responsible. Nothing else.
 
holbritter said:
I don't think the families of those hurt really care what the guy used....
Click to expand...


Are you so sure ?

I think the victims and their families are mighty glad they're still alive...which would probably not have been the case (for all of them) had they been shot.

Had a similar individual acted in the USA - the go-to method would be guns.

It would be a mass shooting.
 

So he wanted to kill people to protest killing people?

He sounds like a pro-life Republican.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
So he wanted to kill people to protest killing people?

He sounds like a pro-life Republican.
Click to expand...


He's a messed up kid...probably wanted attention.

Now he's regretting it.


I'll bet that he too is mighty glad today that no-one died.
 


Yeah, I'm sure. People do get shot and survive.
 

Meanwhile in Manchester ....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/
 
holbritter said:
Yeah, I'm sure. People do get shot and survive.
Click to expand...


So you're SURE that had this Japanese kid been able to get hold of a gun...or if a similar incident happened in the USA but with a gun not a car, then:


All the victims would survive ? (because people survive gunshot wounds)


That there would be fewer casualties ?
 
Sweden said:
Meanwhile in Manchester ....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/
Click to expand...


Another great example.

In the USA that man would have been gunned down by police without a moment's hesitation.

The British cop didn't shoot him.


In the USA such an individual would have used a gun to carry out such an attack...I wonder why this guy used a KNIFE ?


So in answer to those who say that if guns were banned, then people wanting to kill would just use their cars or knives ... well yeah perhaps they would. AND FAR FEWER PEOPLE WOULD DIE.
 

It could be almost anything. Why not use a bomb, accelerant or larger vehicle? Your theory that a gun would have been used (if it was easier to acquire?) because of its greater ability to inflict injury or death implies that was the perp's intent and that their act of terror was premeditated - neither has been established as fact in this case.
 


I didn't say any of that. I'm saying people normally aren't as concerned with what object/objects their loved ones are hurt or killed with, as that they are hurt/killed to begin with. If he used a gun, my first thought would not be "OMG that gun hurt/killed my child". It would be "OMG that sick bastard hurt/killed my child".

The difference between us is I tend to blame the person, regardless of the tool. I'm into personal responsibility like that, and I know it's not trendy, but that's how I am.
 
Your last statement perplexes me. I mean, even after guns were banned in Japan, the man still found a way to mass murder.
Seems when guns are banned, other lethal weapons are substituted to do the work. And the consequence of banning guns is less guns but not, necessarily, less death.
 
Starting 2019 like ending 2018! Guns are bad...................... Guns are bad............................ Guns are bad........................... Guns are bad..........................

Oh did I tell you guns are bad! Try to spin a story into a mass shooting. And for good measure lets attack how police would respond in the United States.

How about making the criminal using guns in a illegal manner responsible and stop trying to ban guns from legal gun owners?
 
holbritter said:
Yeah, I'm sure. People do get shot and survive.
Click to expand...

And people get run down and die.

And liberals can turn a story about a deliberate attempt to murder by auto into a cars good, guns bad story.
 
jimbo said:
And people get run down and die.

And liberals can turn a story about a deliberate attempt to murder by auto into a cars good, guns bad story.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Lord knows, cars are safe:roll:. The OP could've turned his thread into a car safety thread, BUT NO.
 


The news story reports the Japanese police state that the 21 year old had "intent to murder".


The kid admits to acting deliberately.


Are you suggesting that the injuries he inflicted were "accidental" ?
 

And people intent on doing maximum damage often do. The fact is guns are relatively inefficient killing machines. You must pull the trigger at least once for each death.

Bombs, aircraft, fire, all do far more damage.
 
holbritter said:
...I'm saying people normally aren't as concerned with what object/objects their loved ones are hurt or killed with....
Click to expand...


Not if they're killed no

(though less people get killed generally when disturbed people use a knife rather than a gun...indeed less are injured too)

But those injured because someone used something other than a gun would probably be very glad that a gun wasn't used

There's some guy on another thread who actually claimed a cell phone was as lethal as a gun if thrown hard enough! So you're in hospital with a nasty bruise or cut from someone throwing a cell phone at you....not sure about you but in the USA I'd be thankful he didn't have a gun.

(you can't make it up sometimes)


...if he used a gun, my first thought would not be "OMG that gun hurt/killed my child". It would be "OMG that sick bastard hurt/killed my child".....
Click to expand...

And if your child was injured by some other inanimate object...afterwards, when reflecting that the USA suffers from almost a mass shooting a day (345 in 2017)...might your opinions change from rage to relief ?


...I'm into personal responsibility like that, and I know it's not trendy, but that's how I am.
Click to expand...


So whose responsibility is it to pass gun control laws ?


Or does your duty of "personal responsibility" not stretch that far ?
 
Putting this story in this area of the forums to make a point, tells us how ridiculous the gun debate has become.
 
Rich2018 said:
The news story reports the Japanese police state that the 21 year old had "intent to murder".


The kid admits to acting deliberately.


Are you suggesting that the injuries he inflicted were "accidental" ?
Click to expand...

Nope, I am suggesting that the attack was not well planned or likely even pre-planned at all. Why would anyone elect to use a small car for that purpose? One could certainly rent a truck for less than the cost of buying a gun.
 
jimbo said:
...guns are relatively inefficient killing machines. You must pull the trigger at least once for each death.

Bombs, aircraft, fire, all do far more damage.
Click to expand...


Have you informed the Dept of Defense about this ?

Get the marines to hand in those obsolete, inefficient guns....
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, I am suggesting that the attack was not well planned or likely even pre-planned at all. Why would anyone elect to use a small car for that purpose? One could certainly rent a truck for less than the cost of buying a gun.
Click to expand...


He is a 21 year old kid and acting on his own. And yes it could've been an impulsive act - but probably not. Attacks like these tend not to be.


Japan has a lot of small cars because space is tight and gas is expensive.


How do you know you could get a US sized truck through the nearby streets ? How do you know if he could rent a truck ?


The Boston bombings weren't well planned...

The MAGA bomber didn't plan very well.


The point is that had he had the same kind of access to guns as a US 21 year old has...it probably would have been a lot more bloody.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Putting this story in this area of the forums to make a point, tells us how ridiculous the gun debate has become.
Click to expand...


Oh really ?


And how would you make your point for gun control ?


Or if you're anti gun control, how would you suggest the gun control point be better made ?
 
cabse5 said:
Your last statement perplexes me. I mean, even after guns were banned in Japan, the man still found a way to mass murder...
Click to expand...


The point is that he didn't find a way....unlike similar people in the USA who have access to guns.
 
This thread is rather pointless. We have lots of guns, have always had lots of guns and will continue to have lots of guns. What we haven't always had are mass shootings. Something has changed about us and about our society. That is where the problem is. Trying to pass endless gun laws will solve nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…