We all the know there is a solution to mass shooting in US. It's just that politicians and people fancy about gun way too much and like to keep a gun at hand for "safety"
I don't know, people have plenty of weapons in the U.S., and the person who won the presidency by 3 million votes still didn't take office. Yet in the U.K. where few people have guns, the people voted for Brexit and they will get one. It sounds like gun ownership level is inversely proportional to democracy level to me.
Yup, that's basically the plan. It's going to be a messy four years. Get ready to get some coffee and milk stains out of your clothes. If there's one thing we know about Nazis, it's that they're obsessed with wearing snappy uniforms.
Well yes, but then if people own handguns, the police has automatic rifles. At least in the US they do abuse using the firearms, especially when the perpetrators are black.
There's no doubt that the state always has more power than individuals, but the point is that the state will not have more power than all the individuals put together.
>We all the know there is a solution to mass shooting in US.
No, "we" don't.
The article states "Ever since guns entered the country, Japan has always had strict gun laws" but the US already has guns everywhere. Getting all those guns back is no easy task.
Also, Japan is an island so I assume border control is easier.
Switzerland has mandatory military service required for all men where they are trained for gun usage. Also, they require permits and are allowed only if you're over 18yrs.
Ok. In short, because of intelligence levels. Lower IQ correlates with higher crime. And the painful truth about intelligence is that it is almost entirely genetically defined. As you grow up the genetic factor is smaller, but as you grow older (~adulthood) the gap between genetics and environment narrows. So it is not true that any given person can become smart, if given the right opportunities. This is one of the most pervasive myths about intelligence. And if you stop to think about it open-mindedly, it makes sense. Many observations of separated twins and adopted children led to this finding.
Intelligence can be also denoted in the g factor. It is a metric that defines overall smarts in all disciplines. It is easiest to understand this as overall fitness, for example. A person that competes in the olympic long jump, will also perform above average in other sports. It carries over to other fields, and afaik is the best current metric.
Now it gets controversial if you bring in the human races. There are substantial observed differences in average intelligence. Intelligency levels among a population form a bell curve. When comparing certain racial groups (both when using IQ and g), the difference is more than a whole standard deviation. This difference has long been observed, and because of its controversial nature fallen to the wayside. Ashkenazi jews are the smartest, followed by asians, whites, hispanics and blacks. Look at Silicon Valley for example. There is a reason there are so many asians, as they are most capable in mathematical and geospatial settings. If you look at the racial breakdown of people, they correlate highly with the intelligency bell curves. There are few blacks, more whites, and the most asians.
There is an observed sweet spot of criminality for certain levels of intelligence. When looking at committed crimes this indeed checks out. That sweet spot is at an IQ level that is around the average for blacks. That's why crime increases starting from asians, whites, hispanics and blacks.
Along with that, you've got the welfare state that has effectively destroyed the nuclear family. This is especially true for the black households. Single motherhood is one of the biggest indicators for a life of crime. But it is not true that everyone goes down that path, here also there are some genetic differences that affect the outcome.
Insert the warrior gene (monoamine oxidase A [MAO-A]). People that have this gene are more violent. A less common version of this gene, the two-repeat (2R), is even more strongly linked. Compared to those with a "regular" version of the gene, people with the 2R form are twice more likely to be violent. About 5.5% of blacks possess this gene, while only 0.1% of caucasians and 0.0007% of asians do.
Now, it is important to recognise that the above facts don't mean that anyone belonging to the group in which these facts stack up (MAO-A R2, low IQ, bad neighbourhood) will become a criminal. It is after all, only a propensity. It turns out that good upbringing is most crucial. Abuse at a young age, single motherhood, living in a region with "hood culture" (I don't know how else to word this, glorification of drugs, etc.), ... these kinds of things are the primary triggers for criminal behaviour.
Acknowledging these facts could be a great step towards ending racial tensions. Currently the black man is living under the impression that white racism is causing him to be worse off than other racial groups. The media plays into this idea, because after all "everyone is equal (in terms of intelligence and some other things) right? If someone ends up worse than another, it is due to some form of invisible discrimination." Affirmative action in this sense is a farce, because it tells less intelligent people that they in fact can compete, when in reality they can't. Without the truth this will go on and on. If the truth came out, they wouldn't be able to put the blame outside themselves. They could start to go down the pat...
I am in no way starting or trying to start a racewar. I am actually in accordance with the linked post. I am trying to further the conversation with "intellectual curiosity, and civil, substantive discussion." Denying the facts goes against these guidelines. I believe getting the above information out there would be to great benefit to the society as a whole, as also explained in my post.
Those conviction rates are due to how they ignore the rights of defendants as you said and also how they browbeat suspects into confessing to doing something they didn't do. The accounts of that browbeating I've read/watched about are inhumane.
Their society has aspects to it that are suppressive and don't tolerate younger people questioning older people.
Violence through other means like knives seems to be increasing (correct me on that if I'm wrong).
The work hours they put force employees to go through is apparently taking it's toll on their society.
I'm predicting we'll see more issues in their society. I'd be glad to be wrong but they do have social issues to take care of just like most other countries.
Those conviction rates are due to how they ignore the rights of defendants as you said and also how they browbeat suspects into confessing to doing something they didn't do.
Sounds a lot like how I hear it's done in the US, a la "plea bargains".
Right, so I did a quick bit of tapping over here and found this:
The criminal justice system of Japan has a conviction rate that exceeds 99% (Note that it includes guilty plea cases.[1]), which has been attributed to low prosecutorial budgets impelling understaffed prosecutors to present judges with only the most obviously guilty defendants.[1]
Now, I'm no expect on the matter, perhaps neither are you.
However,I would appreciate more context than your comment provides because the way you've framed it makes it seem like an obviously bad thing, which, on closer inspect, may not be the case.
In 2013/2014, 63% of all cases completed in adult criminal court resulted in a finding of guilt. This proportion has remained relatively stable over the past ten years. In 2013/2014, 32% of all completed cases were stayed or withdrawn, and 4% of cases were acquitted. The remaining 1% of completed cases resulted in another type of decision, such as the accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.
Prison rape is kind of a meme in the United States, but apparently about 2% to 4% of inmates are sexually assaulted annually here[1]. I'd say that prison conditions are pretty horrible in the U.S. too.
To the US. Mental illness is extremely common in Japan due to have to maintain a kneeling posture for most waking hours for the duration of incarceration.
It's more complicated than the simplistic article suggests. For example, Japan has an exceedingly low crime rate, which is not explained by lack of guns.
>"The response to violence is never violence, it's always to de-escalate it. Only six shots were fired by Japanese police nationwide [in 2015]," says journalist Anthony Berteaux. "What most Japanese police will do is get huge futons and essentially roll up a person who is being violent or drunk into a little burrito and carry them back to the station to calm them down."
How telling. Reminds me of the cop who quit the police force after witnessing drug crime escalation as a direct result of increased criminalisation[0][1]
There was another article on the FT that questioned why Japan has not fallen prey to far-right extreme populism[2]. The explanation is, of course, extremely nuanced but one thing that doesn't seem to be discussed much in mainstream media is the positives of having a highly homogeneous country.
Nations which are ethnically homogeneous are also typically culturally homogeneous and this is conducive for high levels of social trust. See nations like Sweden, Norway and Switzerland. The ideas of social trust are discussed in Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt[3] (a book recommendation I picked up on here). Of course, it is not immediately constructive to say multicultural countries like the USA or UK should instigate mass deportation and ethnic purging, but it bothers me that it seems like even discussing the issue of ethnic homogeneity (not purging!!!) straddles the border of being taboo.
For instance, would it not be productive to discuss how to achieve high levels of social trust in a culturally colourful society? Nations like Singapore seem to have made some steady progress in this dimension...
> Nations which are ethnically homogeneous are also typically culturally homogeneous and this is conducive for high levels of social trust. See nations like Sweden, Norway and Switzerland.
I'm not sure you can say they're ethnically homogeneous. 15% of Swedish and 24% of Swiss residents are foreign born, for one.
I suspect that the difference between European countries and the US isn't that there's more homogeneity but that the various cultures and nations have been so close to each other for so long that they've just got over most of their problems. While the US has only been a civilised nation with its own identity and culture for a bit over 200 years, many European cultures and countries have been developing, warring, making peace and exchanging territory with each other for over a millenium.
The US is very very young and its people are still learning to accept each other and get along. Remember, slavery only ended 150 years ago and segregation only ended 60 years ago. It takes time to fully move on from things like that.
I wouldn't go as far as calling the people of the US savages but they certainly haven't learned how to get along as well as the Europeans do.
Slavery of local peoples (the people near Sweden) ended in 1335. Slavery of Africans ended in 1847. Unlike the US, Sweden doesn't appear to have a significant number of recent former slaves that need integrating, so I think my point still stands.
I live in Romania, which according to this list[1] is number 4 of gun related deaths per capita (Japan is number 2).
The long lasting communist regime ensured very few people had access to guns. Decades passed since its collapse but the strict law regulations remained in place to this day.
"Under current laws, if a low-level yakuza is caught with a gun and bullets that match, he’ll be charged with aggravated possession of firearms and will then face an average seven-year prison term. Simply firing a gun carries a penalty of three years to life. And for the “accomplice” reasons above, a yakuza boss may decide a death sentence is more appropriate if his thug miraculously gets released on bail before going to jail.
One mid-level yakuza boss told me, “Having a gun now is like having a time bomb. Do you think any sane person wants to keep one around the house?”
Interestingly, Japan actually has a homicide rate on par with the US if you include suicides (with the delta between the Japanese and US rates being filled by our murder rate).
45 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 87.3 ms ] threadThose constituents were, statistically and historically, in far greater support of gun control and far less armed.
So, it actually kinda illustrates your point--what're they going to do, wave their lattes in the air angrily at the trumptruppen?
Formula:
1. Outrageously bold claim
2. Obviously ridiculous and nonsense claim of correlation
3. Things are rarely as simple as some few-word slogan.
It seems most modern democracies get by fine without civil wars.
Or: what, exactly, are you suggesting.
No, "we" don't.
The article states "Ever since guns entered the country, Japan has always had strict gun laws" but the US already has guns everywhere. Getting all those guns back is no easy task.
Also, Japan is an island so I assume border control is easier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hyQDQPEsrs
I feel HN is greater when more substantially comments are provided.
Intelligence can be also denoted in the g factor. It is a metric that defines overall smarts in all disciplines. It is easiest to understand this as overall fitness, for example. A person that competes in the olympic long jump, will also perform above average in other sports. It carries over to other fields, and afaik is the best current metric.
Now it gets controversial if you bring in the human races. There are substantial observed differences in average intelligence. Intelligency levels among a population form a bell curve. When comparing certain racial groups (both when using IQ and g), the difference is more than a whole standard deviation. This difference has long been observed, and because of its controversial nature fallen to the wayside. Ashkenazi jews are the smartest, followed by asians, whites, hispanics and blacks. Look at Silicon Valley for example. There is a reason there are so many asians, as they are most capable in mathematical and geospatial settings. If you look at the racial breakdown of people, they correlate highly with the intelligency bell curves. There are few blacks, more whites, and the most asians.
There is an observed sweet spot of criminality for certain levels of intelligence. When looking at committed crimes this indeed checks out. That sweet spot is at an IQ level that is around the average for blacks. That's why crime increases starting from asians, whites, hispanics and blacks.
Along with that, you've got the welfare state that has effectively destroyed the nuclear family. This is especially true for the black households. Single motherhood is one of the biggest indicators for a life of crime. But it is not true that everyone goes down that path, here also there are some genetic differences that affect the outcome.
Insert the warrior gene (monoamine oxidase A [MAO-A]). People that have this gene are more violent. A less common version of this gene, the two-repeat (2R), is even more strongly linked. Compared to those with a "regular" version of the gene, people with the 2R form are twice more likely to be violent. About 5.5% of blacks possess this gene, while only 0.1% of caucasians and 0.0007% of asians do.
Now, it is important to recognise that the above facts don't mean that anyone belonging to the group in which these facts stack up (MAO-A R2, low IQ, bad neighbourhood) will become a criminal. It is after all, only a propensity. It turns out that good upbringing is most crucial. Abuse at a young age, single motherhood, living in a region with "hood culture" (I don't know how else to word this, glorification of drugs, etc.), ... these kinds of things are the primary triggers for criminal behaviour.
Acknowledging these facts could be a great step towards ending racial tensions. Currently the black man is living under the impression that white racism is causing him to be worse off than other racial groups. The media plays into this idea, because after all "everyone is equal (in terms of intelligence and some other things) right? If someone ends up worse than another, it is due to some form of invisible discrimination." Affirmative action in this sense is a farce, because it tells less intelligent people that they in fact can compete, when in reality they can't. Without the truth this will go on and on. If the truth came out, they wouldn't be able to put the blame outside themselves. They could start to go down the pat...
Their society has aspects to it that are suppressive and don't tolerate younger people questioning older people.
Violence through other means like knives seems to be increasing (correct me on that if I'm wrong).
The work hours they put force employees to go through is apparently taking it's toll on their society.
I'm predicting we'll see more issues in their society. I'd be glad to be wrong but they do have social issues to take care of just like most other countries.
Sounds a lot like how I hear it's done in the US, a la "plea bargains".
When fully half of your population walks away from one of the most important pillars of your society, you are screwed if you don't change.
The criminal justice system of Japan has a conviction rate that exceeds 99% (Note that it includes guilty plea cases.[1]), which has been attributed to low prosecutorial budgets impelling understaffed prosecutors to present judges with only the most obviously guilty defendants.[1]
Now, I'm no expect on the matter, perhaps neither are you.
However,I would appreciate more context than your comment provides because the way you've framed it makes it seem like an obviously bad thing, which, on closer inspect, may not be the case.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate
For 2012, the US Department of Justice reported a 93% conviction rate.
In 2013/2014, 63% of all cases completed in adult criminal court resulted in a finding of guilt. This proportion has remained relatively stable over the past ten years. In 2013/2014, 32% of all completed cases were stayed or withdrawn, and 4% of cases were acquitted. The remaining 1% of completed cases resulted in another type of decision, such as the accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.
Source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14226-...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape_in_the_United_Stat...
How telling. Reminds me of the cop who quit the police force after witnessing drug crime escalation as a direct result of increased criminalisation[0][1]
There was another article on the FT that questioned why Japan has not fallen prey to far-right extreme populism[2]. The explanation is, of course, extremely nuanced but one thing that doesn't seem to be discussed much in mainstream media is the positives of having a highly homogeneous country.
Nations which are ethnically homogeneous are also typically culturally homogeneous and this is conducive for high levels of social trust. See nations like Sweden, Norway and Switzerland. The ideas of social trust are discussed in Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt[3] (a book recommendation I picked up on here). Of course, it is not immediately constructive to say multicultural countries like the USA or UK should instigate mass deportation and ethnic purging, but it bothers me that it seems like even discussing the issue of ethnic homogeneity (not purging!!!) straddles the border of being taboo.
For instance, would it not be productive to discuss how to achieve high levels of social trust in a culturally colourful society? Nations like Singapore seem to have made some steady progress in this dimension...
[0]https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/26/neil-woods-u...
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12365667
[2]https://www.ft.com/content/987dddda-bbe2-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d...
[3]https://www.amazon.com/Ill-Fares-Land-Tony-Judt/dp/014311876...
I'm not sure you can say they're ethnically homogeneous. 15% of Swedish and 24% of Swiss residents are foreign born, for one.
I suspect that the difference between European countries and the US isn't that there's more homogeneity but that the various cultures and nations have been so close to each other for so long that they've just got over most of their problems. While the US has only been a civilised nation with its own identity and culture for a bit over 200 years, many European cultures and countries have been developing, warring, making peace and exchanging territory with each other for over a millenium.
The US is very very young and its people are still learning to accept each other and get along. Remember, slavery only ended 150 years ago and segregation only ended 60 years ago. It takes time to fully move on from things like that.
Slavery ended in Sweden in 1847[1] (153 years ago), so that can't be it.
1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_slave_trade
Slavery of local peoples (the people near Sweden) ended in 1335. Slavery of Africans ended in 1847. Unlike the US, Sweden doesn't appear to have a significant number of recent former slaves that need integrating, so I think my point still stands.
The long lasting communist regime ensured very few people had access to guns. Decades passed since its collapse but the strict law regulations remained in place to this day.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/01/06/national/media-n...
"Under current laws, if a low-level yakuza is caught with a gun and bullets that match, he’ll be charged with aggravated possession of firearms and will then face an average seven-year prison term. Simply firing a gun carries a penalty of three years to life. And for the “accomplice” reasons above, a yakuza boss may decide a death sentence is more appropriate if his thug miraculously gets released on bail before going to jail. One mid-level yakuza boss told me, “Having a gun now is like having a time bomb. Do you think any sane person wants to keep one around the house?”