From the article: In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions
Which is utter nonsense.
British gun restrictions mostly got tight after the 1987 Hungerford massacre ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre ); prior to that point, ownership of handguns and semi-auto rifles like Ryan's AK-56 (semi-auto Chinese AK-47 clone) was legal, with a license. Go back further: guns weren't licensed at all prior to the Pistols Act of 1903 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_King... ). Many rifle clubs historically existed, able to trace their origins origins to the early 19th century as semi-organized volunteer militias ready to defy a Napoleonic invasion. In other words, see also the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution, British-style, in the shape of organized militias.
TL:DR; Author of article is mistaking the current-day UK political consensus for a long-term historical status quo. It just ain't so.
This article is misleading in many ways. For example:
* They compare gun homicide instead of absolute homicide. Are we expected to believe that killers, in the absence of firearms, decide that maybe they'll be peaceful and productive members of society instead?
* They do not perform any normalization whatsoever. Not only do they fail to account for cultural differences that might affect all forms of homicide and/or crime in general, they don't adjust for population size at all
* They happily compare gun ownership rates in the US with conflict-dense areas like Yemen, but make no effort to correlate this with crime rates, which they only compare between "rich" countries.
* The title states that Japan has "virtually eliminated shooting deaths" but provides no evidence that shooting deaths were ever a serious problem in Japan
* The article implies that "a land without guns" having next to no shooting deaths, a logical truism, is a useful observation in the absence of any correlation with actual crime rates, let alone normalized ones.
Whatever your opinions about gun control may be, it should be clear that the author has some very strong ones, and isn't afraid of pushing them with misleading publications.
The last thing america needs is an excuse for the government to tamper with the 2nd amendment - the right to bare arms in order to defend against the government. and yes this is how it's actually written in the constitution and for a good reason - the founding fathers knew that the government will try to take control.
"... the right to bare arms in order
to defend against the government."
Are you sure that baring your arms will have any effect at all? Why does wearing short sleeves have anything to do with government?
And on a slightly more serious note, can anyone honestly envisage the American people bonding together to topple the government, using their legally owned weapons against what the US government can bring to bear against them?
well you should check them history books - only 15% of americans supported the idea of kicking out the brits. i'm not saying we need to topple the government, i'm saying we should keep the opportunity to do so as stated by the constitution (did you check that it explicitly says in order to defend against the government or you just assumed this was nonsense? better check that)
Which is utter nonsense.
British gun restrictions mostly got tight after the 1987 Hungerford massacre ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre ); prior to that point, ownership of handguns and semi-auto rifles like Ryan's AK-56 (semi-auto Chinese AK-47 clone) was legal, with a license. Go back further: guns weren't licensed at all prior to the Pistols Act of 1903 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_King... ). Many rifle clubs historically existed, able to trace their origins origins to the early 19th century as semi-organized volunteer militias ready to defy a Napoleonic invasion. In other words, see also the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution, British-style, in the shape of organized militias.
TL:DR; Author of article is mistaking the current-day UK political consensus for a long-term historical status quo. It just ain't so.
What else are they getting wrong?