Really interesting Delta. I googled and found this about guns and gun violence in Japan.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729 

HuckFinn wrote:

First of all, I agree with you.
But one of the problem here is that it's the anti-gun crowd that wants change, but the anti-gun crowd are the ones trying to force the gun owners to make the first move.

As I stated before: Gun owners have been the honest ones in this debate. They said they don't want to give up their guns. Any of them. Ever.
The anti-gunners blame the weapons and say we need change, but they REFUSE to say what that change is. You call it zero sum, but what are they being asked to negotiate? You demand flexibility but won't tell them how far they need to bend.

tailgater wrote:

Ya, logic would suggest that if a population has very few guns, then it's going to have far fewer gun deaths.

Because Japan started out pretty much banning guns, there's not a lot of guns there.

Japan isn't eve the size of Texas, but I would guess that there's more guns in Texas than Japan has people.

I feel sorry for the dumb fkers that try to get those guns.

Anyway, you can't compare the two, because the genie is already out of the bottle here, you can't stuff it back in.

bgz wrote:

If Bruce Jenner can keep his d[i]ck and be considered a woman, I can keep my guns and be considered disarmed - Patrick Henry

teedubbya wrote:

The only answer is to add manditory curriculum from grades 4-12 on how to safely use and operate firearms and to teach children this course with military-like discipline. Every citizen in our country should be qualified enough to be a soldier.

jjanecka wrote:

You that bad guy from Roadhouse?

jjanecka wrote:

we came close with a mandatory draft/conscription system that eventually was altered to excuse the privileged elite...

delta1 wrote: