Man Crashes Car into Tokyo Crowd

[Rich2018]

Before you ask that question, you need to pay attention to the lawyers. Never ask a question with knowing the answer. The answer. Quite a few.

The first and the most deadly, school murder. A bomb in the '20's. Suspect then killed himself using a gun.

Doors locked and building set on fire. Multiple, multiple deaths. No guns involved.

Airplanes hijacked using box cutters and flown into buildings. 3000 + dead. No guns involved.

And recently a mom decided to off her girl friend and their kids. She could have chosen any number of ways to do this. She drove them off a cliff.

There are more. Many more. But you should get the idea.

Define many, many more....you have given a couple of examples.


One example of a school attack with a bomb...in the 1920's....


How many since then with guns ???


In direct answer to you, when people in the USA (with easy access to guns) decide to attack a crowd or crowded place like a mall or school or church etc....how many decide to use a car ?
How many decide to use guns ?


Quite a few ???


List them !

 

[Rich2018]

"Gun control" is a nebulous concept. The only "gun control" you accept as sensible is a complete ban, therefore I have to assume that you mean "complete ban" when you say "gun control". I do not accept any arguments for a complete ban on gun ownership in the USA.

If you want to discuss specifics, I'll be glad to do so.

Without repealing the 2nd amendment, all gun control proposals are half measures.

Repeal the 2nd amendment and ban all firearms. Then you can make exception like double and single barreled shotguns, bolt action rifles, muzzle loaders for example.


You need to ban every gun and make exceptions because otherwise you'll get into a legal quagmire of trying to define certain gun types.
How do you define an "assault" rifle ?

How do you even define a hand gun ?

But basically I'd like to see all fully and semi-automatic guns banned
Then all hand guns banned
Then all shotguns with a capacity > 2 banned

Pretty much adopt British gun laws.

Allow any gun if it is totally deactivated.

 

[Rich2018]

And in other Japanese news. At least 12 people dead and 60 more injured in a Serin gas attack in a subway. So people who have access to other means and do not have guns do find a way.

Yes, Serin gas needs to be banned too.


What - it already is ?
I wonder why that is...Serin gas doesn't kill people, people kill people.
What about all the law abiding Serin gas owners - why were they punished ?

 

[jimbo]

So let's remove all TERRORIST attacks.

Now what your top 20 ?

Why remove the terrorist attacks? That's a new twist on your claim that guns bad because Japanese kid drives car into a crowd.

The first school attack in the '20's. Bomb.

First plane attack in my memory. Graham in the '50's. Offed his mom for the insurance money.

Fire bombings. At least 3 in my memory. Causes: Hated gays. Killed girl friend, Covering up a robbery.

Most high count incidents involve aircraft. Usually because there are seldom survivors and there are a lot of people in a confined space. Since there is often little evidence left that would identify the perp or the motive, it's difficult to know how many there actually happen. For these reasons, terrorists don't often use aircraft. Terrorists want the attention.

 

[Rucker61]

Without repealing the 2nd amendment, all gun control proposals are half measures.

Repeal the 2nd amendment and ban all firearms. Then you can make exception like double and single barreled shotguns, bolt action rifles, muzzle loaders for example.


You need to ban every gun and make exceptions because otherwise you'll get into a legal quagmire of trying to define certain gun types.
How do you define an "assault" rifle ?

How do you even define a hand gun ?

But basically I'd like to see all fully and semi-automatic guns banned
Then all hand guns banned
Then all shotguns with a capacity > 2 banned

Pretty much adopt British gun laws.

Allow any gun if it is totally deactivated.

How long have you been in the US?

 

[dogboy49]

So whose responsibility is it to pass gun control laws ?

??? You seem to be operating under the assumption that someone besides you is going to be responsible for carrying out your legislative desires. It is your responsibility to work that issue.

A motivated person would stop posting toothless rants on social media, and actually try to effect change. Some decide to become politically active, attempting to get Federal, State, and Local governments to pass more "gun control" laws (no matter how ineffective or impractical). When faced with the prospect that their legislative agenda is sometimes deemed to be unconstitutional by SCOTUS, it becomes their responsibility to act to have the Constitution amended.

In the meantime, the rest of us will watch with amusement. A few of us will actively oppose your legislative efforts. Such is the way the system works.

Of course, you can instead decide to continue ranting here...............

 

[veritas1]

Source ?

Then again what is your criteria for "lots"





Gun laws don't prevent shootings - not while the 2nd amendment remains in place


Gun laws don't regulate society - the USA is way more violent than in was in the 1950's


Gun ownership (not the total number of guns) is actually falling in the USA, yet gun violence is rising. This is because the number of people likely to commit violence (any kind of violence) is quite small.





I'm not sure I favor legalizing heroin, but the point is that just because something has been legal a long time, doesn't mean it can't be made illegal.
And yes, I'm fully aware of prohibition.

Whilst I have no objection to people destroying their lives with heroin, I would seek to keep it banned because of the damage it inflicts upon others like family members and the cost to society in general to treat addiction.


On your last point, gun deaths in the USA are at an all time high according to the CDC (and yes I know that includes suicides):

https://www.dailysabah.com/americas/2018/12/16/number-of-gun-deaths-in-us-at-all-time-high






Why would disarming gun owners by bloody - they are, after all, law abiding.


Sorry this is just excuse # 3a and 3b


If guns were banned, people would (reluctantly) hand them in.

Yes it would be a long process - perhaps years.

Yes criminals would be the last group affected....but all guns (or nearly all) were legally owned at one point

As criminals are caught, the number of guns will continue to fall.

Yes it will takes years...decades even to get US gun ownership levels to say that of the UK. But isn't it worth it ?

Since you admit that the number of people likely to commit gun violence is quite small, it makes zero sense to take away guns from the whole. That's not an answer. It can't work and won't work. BTW, of course, we've always had lots of guns from colonial times up to today. It's been one of the hallmarks of America. People are free to own firearms. It's what sets us apart from those who have knuckled under to government control of their lives. Find a way to get rid of all the criminals and then you can have the guns. Guns DO NOT make people criminals.

 

[veritas1]

My guess for the increase in mass shootings, recently, is an intolerable increase in 'strife'. Happy people aren't trying to kill off large segments of people.

Where are the largest amount of mass shootings occurring? If that can be quantified, I would surmise these environments have the most 'strife'.

That may be part of it but I'm not sure that's it. We do a very poor job of identifying and treating the mentally ill these days. In the quest not to "stigmatize" the mentally ill, we let them roam around in society free to do as they wish. Sometimes that turns into the tragedy of a mass shooting. That's not to say that all mass shooters are mentally ill but some clearly have been. (VA Tech for example) Some are isolated, desperate, disconnected or simply evil.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

So he tried to murder a bunch of people to protest capital punishment?

Seems rational.

 

[Gondwanaland]

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 ?

Maybe, sure let's go with it and say it could be so. If so, then clearly we should ban automobiles, right?

(also, let us note that most gun deaths in the US are suicides, not homicides - indeed, over half the gun deaths in the US are suicides. Now, with that in mind, what is the US suicide rate compared to the gun-controlled Japan's suicide rate?)

 

[zsu2357]

Have you informed the Dept of Defense about this ?

Get the marines to hand in those obsolete, inefficient guns....

HA,HA. Whens the last time a bomb or aircraft stacked on a door to clear a room? Hmm probably never.

 

[zsu2357]

The point is that he didn't find a way....unlike similar people in the USA who have access to guns.

And what if he would have killed them with his little car? Would you still be strutting around crowing? I think a few of those people got plain lucky.

 

[zsu2357]

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.

And that's it in a nut shell. The state started telling us how to raise our kids instead of leaving it up to us(my kids did learn my way) child labor laws,csd, every kids a winner and gets pushed through school regardless and less not forget drugs prescribed for every ailment real or imagined. I could go on all day. But I won't.

 

[noonereal]

We do a very poor job of identifying and treating the mentally ill these days.

when did we do better?

why do you say such stupid things?

In the quest not to "stigmatize" the mentally ill, we let them roam around in society free to do as they wish. Sometimes that turns into the tragedy of a mass shooting. That's not to say that all mass shooters are mentally ill but some clearly have been. (VA Tech for example) Some are isolated, desperate, disconnected or simply evil.

If you have no idea what you are talking about why open your mouth and tip everyone off to your shortcomings?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

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.

Sure they do. If the attempted killer had been using machine guns we wouldn't have zero dead. Why wouldn't they care about zero dead vs many dead?

 

[Rucker61]

Sure they do. If the attempted killer had been using machine guns we wouldn't have zero dead. Why wouldn't they care about zero dead vs many dead?

Zero dead in this attack is an anomoly. Why are you treating it like it's the expected result? It's anecdotal.

 

[OpportunityCost]

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 ?

Baitiest bait that ever baited bait.

 

[veritas1]

when did we do better?

why do you say such stupid things?



If you have no idea what you are talking about why open your mouth and tip everyone off to your shortcomings?

I see you're still butt sore over my having you made look stupid before so now you follow me around like a toddler who dropped his lollipop. When you have something to contribute other than inane whining, do so. Otherwise shutting your trap might be a good idea.

 

[noonereal]

I see you're still butt sore over my having you made look stupid before so now you follow me around like a toddler who dropped his lollipop. When you have something to contribute other than inane whining, do so. Otherwise shutting your trap might be a good idea.

Follow you around? I have no clue who you are... I have never noticed you. You are invisible as a poster to me.

Paranoia is helped with Thorazine. Just an FYI

 

[CLAX1911]

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 ?

No, it's the lack of presence of guns. is Japan ahead as many guns per capita as we did and there was laws against owning them the person with murderous intent would just acquire one illegally and kill people.

Nice try though.

 

[CLAX1911]

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.

You are making a boneheaded argument. Do you know the percentage of people who have survived gunshot wounds?

Don't worry I went ahead and figured it out. Estimates show that mortality from gunshot wounds or about 27%. So just over a quarter of people who suffered gunshot wounds died from them.

so yes I would take my chances with a tiny little hunk of lead over two and a half tons of steel.

https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2014/january/survival-rates-similar-for-gun

Also keep in mind cars are bigger in the US then they are in Japan.

 

[Rich2018]

You are making a boneheaded argument. Do you know the percentage of people who have survived gunshot wounds?

Don't worry I went ahead and figured it out. Estimates show that mortality from gunshot wounds or about 27%. So just over a quarter of people who suffered gunshot wounds died from them.

so yes I would take my chances with a tiny little hunk of lead over two and a half tons of steel.

https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2014/january/survival-rates-similar-for-gun

Also keep in mind cars are bigger in the US then they are in Japan.

Did you even read this article before pasting it ? Did you take a cursory glance and thought "Eureka" !


Let me examine it for you.


"A new study...has found no significant difference in adjusted overall survival rates between gunshot and stabbing victims in Philadelphia whether they were transported to the emergency department by the police department or the emergency medical services (EMS) division of the fire department....


...while previous studies suggest that trauma victims have similar mortality rates whether brought to the hospital by emergency medical services or police, the current Penn study is the largest investigation to date examining the relationship between method of transport and mortality in penetrating trauma."


https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2014/january/survival-rates-similar-for-gun



This article doesn't examine the relative survival rates of victims of shooting versus stabbing attacks...it examines the survival rates of those taken to hospital by ambulance rather than police vehicle.


Now let's look at a study on survival rates of shootings:



"Gunshot victims are four times more likely to die before reaching a hospital than they were a decade ago...

...the odds of survival for gunshot victims “worsened in at least 10 of the nation’s largest cities,” and that people who got shot were more likely to die compared to gunshot victims just 10 or 15 years earlier...

... among the 36,297 people declared dead-on-arrival at the hospital, the vast majority — 88 percent — had been shot. The remaining 12 percent died of stab wounds...."



https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/analysis-shooting-victims-gun-violence-intensity-trauma-baltimore/


Boneheaded argument?

Try acquainting yourself with some facts before embarrassing yourself.

 

[CLAX1911]

Did you even read this article before pasting it ? Did you take a cursory glance and thought "Eureka" !


Let me examine it for you.


"A new study...has found no significant difference in adjusted overall survival rates between gunshot and stabbing victims in Philadelphia whether they were transported to the emergency department by the police department or the emergency medical services (EMS) division of the fire department....


...while previous studies suggest that trauma victims have similar mortality rates whether brought to the hospital by emergency medical services or police, the current Penn study is the largest investigation to date examining the relationship between method of transport and mortality in penetrating trauma."


https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2014/january/survival-rates-similar-for-gun



This article doesn't examine the relative survival rates of victims of shooting versus stabbing attacks...it examines the survival rates of those taken to hospital by ambulance rather than police vehicle.


Now let's look at a study on survival rates of shootings:



"Gunshot victims are four times more likely to die before reaching a hospital than they were a decade ago...

...the odds of survival for gunshot victims “worsened in at least 10 of the nation’s largest cities,” and that people who got shot were more likely to die compared to gunshot victims just 10 or 15 years earlier...

... among the 36,297 people declared dead-on-arrival at the hospital, the vast majority — 88 percent — had been shot. The remaining 12 percent died of stab wounds...."



https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/analysis-shooting-victims-gun-violence-intensity-trauma-baltimore/


Boneheaded argument?

Try acquainting yourself with some facts before embarrassing yourself.

Do you need to read an article to know what being hit by car is? No I didn't read the article and I don't ever care to if that's a prerequisite for posting this forum just go ahead and ignore me.

 

[DebateChallenge]

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 ?

Because a car can kill just as many people as a semi automatic rifle. He didn't need a semi auto rifle to kill or to try to kill people. There was a case in New York of somebody committing arson and in doing so killed 87 people, more people than in any mass shooting in the USA, and all he used was gasoline that you can get at any gas station.

 

[DebateChallenge]

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.

And I think the victims and their families are mighty glad they're still alive during the 2017 baseball shooting Alexandria, Virginia where nobody was killed except the shooter. There was one critical injury, Steve Scalise, but thankfully he made a recovery.