Hey, a civilian could be a PTSDing hard-as-nails combat vet. Who will cut off your genitalia and put it in your mouth after he kills you.

Or he could be a PTSDed combat vet who cries in his sleep, take 3 kinds of anti-anxiety medications, and nearly has a heart attack everytime someone slams a door.

Yeah. Rambo is not reality. PTSD doesn't make you a badass, PTSD robs you of some of your basic fucking humanity.

There's a reason why the corpsman who helped raise the second flag on Iwo Jima never told his family about the Navy Cross he earned or even really talked about the war. It probably has something to do with the fact that he still had nightmares 30 years after the war.

Well, I once knew someone who told me about the time that his roomate was a Vietnam vet who had a pretty dangerous startle reaction. This fellow always carried a handgun with him and basically if you startled him he'd very quickly draw and point the handgun at you. I recall another story about one fellow who if you startled him awake he'd reflexively punch your teeth out. I was thinking more about the twitch reflexes.

There's plenty of people who'll do that, regardless of their status as a combat vet or not. I knew a woman who accidentally maced someone when he jumped up in front of her at her surprise party. Heck, I nearly flattened one roommate of mine when he startled me, and I'm far from an expert combatant. Twitch reflexes are not created under combat conditions; they're virtually reflexes, after all, and reflexes are ingrained.

But to bring things back on target, martial arts training is supposed to help train your twitch reflexes, and some form of martial art is also part of the standard gym curriculum for Japanese students. It may not be hardcore MMA or Krav Maga self-defense, but it's decidedly more combative than swimming or racquet sports.

To point back to the article the author did state that there is no such thing as a witness relocation plan, or any kind of protection for those who want to speak up against the Yaks. If this is so then maybe everyone can see them as soft, but if you get shot by one of the Yaks and live.... well why say anything? Fessing up to the crime just means that you and your family are already dead. If there is a lot of cover ups on the violence in Japan then maybe there are a lot more shootings and hits then we can imagine. In the U.S. there is a problem with crime, but people are generally more willing to testify, because they know that the government can help them out if they are willing to "do the right thing." Hell I hate to sound mean but if I saw someone get shot right in front of me, and knew that if I testified it would mean the death of me and my loved ones... well to hell with that. One guy rots in jail for ten to life while everyone I know and love is dead? I think the author was mainly saying that the system is broken, and no one in their right mind is willing to help a system that basically supports organized crime.

There are at least second generation Yaks in America that I know of, and it strikes me as odd that there is not a single tie back to Japan. There are all kinds of ways to procure firearms, as well as other illegal and sundry items under the radar. You know the right people, you ask the right questions, and slowly with enough pressure you can find what you are looking for in any situation.

The last thing I have to say about the whole "who is more badassed" I find that although maybe the militia man in Sudan might have more use firing off their weapon, they might not ever receive the proper training on how to use it. If your given an AK, told how to shoot it, and given the amount of time it takes you to shoot a target thats 20 ft. away without any combat stress is that proper training? Even if they survive for years fighting in combat will they ever suddenly know exactly what stance you should take, how to properly hold your weapon, and the fastest way to fix your gun if it jams? Maybe some of it, but the guy who receives army special training for a year + and after he is finished goes and trains his other Yak friends? I would rather take the Yak over the militia man in Sudan. Sure that Yak might not have the combat experience, but hell at least he is well trained.

On a side note though my uncle has a love for oriental dragon tattoos and has them covering almost his entire body. At one point he decided to live in Japan for a few years. He said that the first time he went to a public bath house in Japan with two of his friends he took off his robe and reveled that he was covered in dragon tattoos, the place emptied in under a minute. Picture a tall white guy with tons of dragon tattoos flanked by two Japanese guys (who had yet to take off their robes) created so much fear that the entire place silently and quickly emptied. After that experience my uncle never went to a public bath house.

And it didn't occur to anyone to explain to him (or to the police) that he probably shouldn't be carrying a gun then? I realize that Americans are fonder of guns than most other western countries, but I'm pretty sure that would be adequate cause for having you license revoked.

American laws are different. It's not easy to remove someone's right to bear arms. They basically need to have been convicted of a violent felony before that can happen. You don't even need a license to carry a firearm; you just need one to carry it concealed.

Of course, stories like that guy tend to be second-hand: someone you know has a cousin, who heard it from a friend, who has a connection, etc, etc. There's not a lot of people who actually admit to knowing someone like that firsthand.

Pointing a gun at people without provocation is a violent felony. Also you might or might not need a permit to carry a firearm depending on the state, but even if you live in a state where you don't need a permit I can't imagine they'd allow obviously unstable people to carry guns. American laws are not that different.

"Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell who you are". Yeah I imagine that people might be reluctant to admit to associating with that kind of people.

Being startled is reasonably sufficient justification to draw and aim a firearm, though insufficient to fire.



With heroes, you mean? With people who risked their lives to keep theworld safe from Communist aggression without whom we wouldn't enjoy the ability to post on message boards about a game in which capitalists run the world? I imagine that most people would be proud to admit such association.

You're obviously unfamiliar with the NRA, aren't you?

I've personally witnessed eight-year old children with rifles at hunting events, and teenagers with handguns at a range. What's more, these events aren't even abnormal. No one even batted an eye. My half-brother was nine when he first went duck shooting, using a 20-gauge shotgun. He was hardly the youngest kid there, too. So, if *kids* can carry firearms openly, what makes you think that adults cannot as well?

You do not need a permit to carry a firearm anywhere in the US. You do need a permit to carry concealed, but that doesn't prevent people from carrying openly.

When I was on board my ships, if you wanted a violent reaction from me when I was sleeping in my Rack, you shook me. Proper method to deactivate violent response was to merely place your hand lightly on me, and call my name.

One found this out the hard way, he was in the rack above me, he dropped his tape player down the wall into my bunk, rather than wake me he thought he could reach in past my privacy curtains and feel around for the player. His screams woke most of the compartment. He had several weeks of physical therapy for repair the injury. He also got a attitude realignment from his Chief about reaching into a sleeping persons rack while they are sleeping and feeling around. Most in my compartment felt I should have ripped his arm off.

I served with many VN Vets who you had to learn the methods of awakening them and how not to surprise them.

As for drawing when startled I agree with Hyzmarca.

WMS

This is why I favor top racks.

As an added benefit drunk people have a lower chance of puking into or around your rack. Or randomly crawling inside and falling asleep naked, covered in vomit.

Fear the bottom "drunk" rack.

Well for my size, they preferred me to have the middle rack, and my rank agreed with them. When I came out of top rack, pity any underneath me.

WMS

Pfft! Give me my perch on high to tangle my smelly feet over the heads of my comrades. Lets the yak's come get me there!

Different states have different laws on carrying guns in the open. There are places where it is illegal, but no one cares. A law is only as good as it is enforced.

If someone would pull a gun on me whenever they are startled I would probably try and move out asap. I feel sorry for what that man went through to be that twitchy, but having him carry a gun and doing that is a time bomb waiting to go off. Those are the types of people I don't want carrying around a gun. Period.

EDIT: To preserve the peace.

Not sure if this is completely true. For instance, in DC any weapon in your possession must be thoroughly locked up. Maryland has laws on transporting firearms, and while I haven't tried walking around with them openly, I suspect the cops would frown on such.

However, in no Constitution-abiding part of the US is open carry restricted.

Here goes the thread.

Wait for it... wait for it...

Robert A Heinlein! Hitler!

There, we've already debated this flame bait to death. Let's move on. Holy crap weblife have you used the internet before? You should have thrown some links to furry porn while you were at it ;p

Shall we just call this Godwin 2 ? Or has anyone coined a term for this scenario yet?

Doc, I've removed my post, if you delete the quote this can pass silently.

You are correct, I should not have been baited.

No offense, but I really tend to doubt that. Granted, DC doesn't have any places to go hunting; but it should have gun ranges. Transporting a gun to and from a range is considered legal everywhere that I know of, and you can always claim you were coming back from a range, but had to run a few errands.

As a counterpoint to that: As I understand it the definition of "thoroughly locked up" can, in some places, be satisfied by being in your trunk, in your locked glove compartment, and yes, even in a paper bag which has been stapled shut.
There's always room for legal bull****.

In a word, No.

§ 7-2507.02 Firearms required to be unloaded and disassembled or locked

Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.

http://dcguncase.com/blog/dc-gun-laws/

Oh, and there is NO exemption for self-defense that allows you to load a gun at home. And people HAVE been prosecuted for using a firearm at home in self-defense.

Sometimes when you are transporting a gun you have it locked in a case, in the trunk of your car (which is generally locked as well.) Some guy walking with a gun in toe to a gun range might be suspect.... anyways it is all about how law are enforced. If there is a law against talking on your cellphone while driving and no one ever gets pulled over then that law is useless. Same with anything to do with guns. If your local police force is fine with people walking around with guns willy nilly then guess what? It might be illegal, but that might as well mean squat if no one is willing to enforce the law..... anyways back on point I thought the author was insightful and gave a further depth on the darker side of Japan that I appreciate.

Godwinaclypse might be an appropriate phrase.

First, to get it out of the way, everyone but me is wrong about everything.

Anyway, DC DOES have very restrictive gun laws. There's a case before the Supreme Court about it right now, though. I could be wrong about this, but I think that it has less to do with the constitutionality of gun control than about the constitutionality of Congress making DC its bitch. The ideas the people of DC have about the laws they'd like to have vary greatly from what some dudes from places like Wyoming think the laws of DC should look like. I'm not a big states rights kind of guy, but the people of DC just flat out have less rights than the people of, say, ANY state. I bitch a lot about how many of our freedoms have been stripped away in Ohio, but at least in theory, I have some representation in the process that's taking those freedoms away. DC's destiny is in the hands of people that don't have any voting constituents there.

/derail. You can get back to your flame war now: I think the federal government should be allowed to take your guns, homes, babies, temperature, and virginity

I wouldn't advocate that you put that theory to the test, it would not hold up in a courtroom. Not unless the thing that startled you was or could reasonably be interpreted as a threat. Waiving loaded guns around is dangerous and pointing them at people is criminal.



I was thinking of paranoid lunatics. If anyone pointed a gun at my face because they didn't hear me walk up behind them I would report them to the police or psychiatric authorities, whichever seemed more appropriate. I certainly wouldn't voluntarily associate with them. Perhaps being a traumatized war veteran explains his paranoia, but it doesn't make it safe. What if this guy ever ran into someone with the reflex of drawing a gun at or hitting anyone who pulled a gun on them? Reflexes that a normal and sane person might have.

A reasonable person would interpret someone sneaking up on him as a threat.

I'm familiar with the NRA, and I have no doubt that what you saw is legal is some states, not in all states though. Not according to what my American friends tells me.

Who's talking about sneaking up on anyone? Wounded Ronin said the guy did this whenever he was startled, not whenever someone snuck up on him. If you think that waving you gun around wildly at imaginary threats is reasonable then do yourself a favour and don't carry a gun, it will help keep you out of jail.

For my 2, I am a New York girl but my parents are both Japanese. This gives me a really odd view on the topic but here it is.

The yaks are criminals but more above board than the US mafia. I mean for example in New york growing up John Gotti was known to be the head of the mafia in NYC and his' club' the head of organized crime. But no one admitted to any of it. "No one knows nothing" is the saying." By comparrison in Japan the election of the head of the yakuza for a region or all Japan is a known fact reported almost like an election return. they have known offices. As A New yorker, that kinds of freaks me out.

I am sure the yak hard cases are nasty men, BUT compared ot Italian or Russian or Chinese mafias I think they would come up short. Japan is not a violent nation. Last year it made national news when a yak shot down a minor local official who was running on an anti-yak ticket. Something pretty common in Italy and not surprising in the US the act was denopunced accross Japan and his own people handed him over. A lot of the news i read at the time implied the Yaks might kill him themselves just because he had done somethnig so bad.

On the other hand there was a shoot out between two groups over a turf infringment and several men were killed. The press was no where near as upset. It was almost like being in the Yaks you accept the violence as a part of your life but it should not influence non-Yaks.

Like I said, I wouldn't be so fast to rule them out. I've met people who I suspected were Yakuza, and I've known more than a few Hell's Angels. I wouldn't care to place a bet on who'd win in a straight up fight, and I certainly do not want to know who could lay hands on the most resources. Just because they're more legit doesn't make them any softer, less violent, or less dangerous.

I don't see what's so odd about a child engaging in a recreational activity under adult supervision that it would require some sort of legal restrictions. I know it's not restricted here in MD, and MD is pretty restrictive about this stuff. After all, we see more deaths in football or cheerleading than we do in sport shooting.

(As an aside, in response to a previous post, in Maryland, if you are driving from the range to your house, or from your house in Virginia to your house in Pennsylvania, and so much as pull over to pee in a ditch, if you have a firearm in your car and you're not a police officer, you are in violation of the law and liable to be arrested if an officer has a looksy. While you are allowed to transport your firearm from legal point A to legal point B, you are absolutely not allowed to make any pit stops or errands along the way (unless it happens to be another range, repair place or place you're storing that firearm).)

God bless America

Our children are not allowed to drink, wear skimpy dresses to prom, vote, smoke, drive, or view R rated movies.

But suggest that maybe they shouldn't have unrestricted access to killing machines, and suddenly you're a communist.

Or a Democrat.

Funny, most past and present Communist countries exalt the military in a way that makes the USA come off as a child's playground. Western "Leftists" would have no place there.

Woops, politics.

*Ducks out.*

I am not saying they're cream puffs, but they are less likely to use violence. It is less a part of their cutlure than the threat of it.

Again, I dunno about that. As I understand it, right now the Yakuza run a lot of gambling rings; beating up welshes generally is a part of that. I wouldn't bet my health on them being "less likely to use violence".

Clearly, most rank and file are ready to commit violence at any given moment. It's part of the criminal program. But are they as accustomed to committing violence to the Vory soldier languishing in a Soviet prison circa 1931? Or the Halloweener set constantly at war with the next block over? Ad nauseaum.

No doubt the modern Yakuza and their 2070 ancestors will have bonebreakers and trigger-men and nice toys for them, but the average Yak soldier sitting at the local gambling den isn't the one I'd send to a foreign country to commit murder.

There's also a big difference between Yakuza circa 2008 and Yakuza circa 2070. The world's just a lot meaner in 2070.

1) In most states kids are allowed to drink, wear skimpy dresses, drive and watch R-rated movies in the presence of their parents, just like they're allowed to go sports shooting in the presence of their parents. In most states, kids can also drive at 15 and 3/4 (and in some much less).
2) (Assuming the child is too young to easily operate a vehicle) 5 items on those list are proven to be or believed to be very dangerous for the child in question, whereas I'm unaware of a child ever having shot another person at the range or hunting (not saying it doesn't happen, but I'm pretty sure it's never happened recently). As I said, it's statistically less dangerous than football or gymnastics, both of which are poorly regulated.



Are you talking about raising the driving age, restricting smoking or something else? ;P

Truthfully though, I'm pretty sure most states say that a child using a firearm without parental consent is breaking the law.

Not if you play their games, but by example in New York the Russian, Itaslian and chinese mobs are more likely to have collateral damage.

Right, but how much of that is cultural experience? HERE, yes, people run illicit casinos by breaking legs and what-not (I have very little experience in the field of organized crime, but I'm going off movies and what you said). But it's possible there's a different paradigm in the illicit casino industry of Japan.


I'm just saying it boggles the mind how much we worship guns in this country. Owning a machine designed specifically to kill is the only right we have that is seen as sacred. We let the government tell us who we can and cannot marry, but people who want to keep guns out of their neighborhoods are treated as though they want people to be raped and murdered. I just don't understand it.

And yes, I'd raise the driving age, restrict smoking, and regulate football and gymnastics. I hate kids, but I get this strange feeling that I don't like when they get hurt. It's weird.

I happen to be one of those "gun worshipers", and even growing up in the south, experience tells me I'm a minority.




Vast overstatement there. Try denying someone in this country freedom of speech, freedom of the press, due process, right to counsel, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure and THEN see how they react. You just hear a lot more about the 2nd amendment because it happens to be one of the only amendments that people in our government are trying to take way.




Not sure where you get this from, or if you are the type that wants to marry your sister or your mother, but I've never really seen laws that do this.





Time for a little clarification. First off, wanting to keep guns out of your neighborhood entirely is a noble goal, but terribly naive. All the gun legislation in the world will simply keep law-abiding citizens like me from having a gun in your neighborhood. To the street trash from downtown who got his piece illegally, gun laws don't mean shit. They don't control him, or influence his ability to commit crime with an illegal firearm. All they do is influence the penalties he gets if he gets caught committing a crime with one. No, what your gun control laws do is keep ME from owning a gun. They keep ME from being able to defend myself, my family, and my neighbors from that aforementioned street trash. So yes, people like me get incredibly hostile when people like you mention legislation that will keep people like me from being able to protect my family and those around me. I don't particularly care if you have no desire to defend yourself, but I refuse to let others tell me that I am not allowed to protect myself and my loved ones.





Yeah, I don't like it when kids get hurt either, especially when it's my kids getting hurt. Too bad that, in your world, only the bad guys will have guns, and the citizens will have to settle for themselves and their children being victimized by those badguys since we won't have any legal means to protect ourselves.

One Gun Nut/Worshipper bows to the words of wisdom posted by TheOneRonin.

WMS

I'm not pro-gun.

I just don't like the idea of a select few being the only ones able to own and be trained in the 'sword' of the modern era.

Functionally, this amounts to being pro-gun, however.

By the same token, I don't think that the standard Mafia soldier would be a guy I'd send to Japan for a contract killing. That doesn't make either of them any softer, or less accustomed/willing to use violence.


According to the original article, Goto is perfectly willing to incur collateral damage as well. If he's typical for a Yakuza boss, then I wouldn't want to know which is more willing to target innocent bystanders.


Not to my knowledge, but I've never incurred debt in a Japanese gambling den. I also haven't met anyone who'd admit to being Yakuza, but I knew a few suspected ones. When it came down to a willingness to resort to violence, they ran right alongside the Hell's Angels I know.

Violence is not a matter of culture.


Not that I have any particular opinions on gun control, but I do have to make a nitpick. There are more ways of defending yourself than owning a gun. In fact, guns provide a crappy defense. They provide one hell of an offense, though; and I can see how that makes people feel powerful and safer. That's largely an illusion, though. There's a huge, wide difference between being able to own a gun, and being effective with it.

Well, I guess it's time for another round of "All of Dumpshock vs. Me," but here goes...

Maybe you should move somewhere more gun-crazy than the South. I've only lived in the Midwest and the Northeast, but almost everyone I know is chomping at the bit to up the chances of accidentally killing their kids.





We take those rights away from people all the time. We execute people, and in addition to that, we keep scaling back the amount of appeals the accused gets. Freedom of speech gets trampled on, too, but if you want my opinions on that, you'll have to PM me, because it would be derailing this derail.




Gay Marriage. But thanks for assuming I have a mother nice enough to marry.





Time for a little clarification. First off, wanting to keep guns out of your neighborhood entirely is a noble goal, but terribly
So you get incredibly hostile when somebody mentions gun control? That's precisely why I don't think you should have a gun. Someone with different views might get hurt.


Well, the cops will have them, too. If you don't trust them to protect you, why even live in society, instead of setting up some cabin in the woods and declaring sovereignty? And in your world, there might not be that many kids to protect. Everyone's an expert on gun safety when they're talking about gun control, but somehow, mysteriiously, people (especially children) get shot by the very guns that were supposed to protect them. In fact, they outnumber the "bad guys" that get shot with them.

In this country you can buy damn near any type of weapon you want if you have enough money and care to fill out the right paperwork. When someone's allowed to buy a .50 caliber sniper rifle, I really have very little sympathy for the crowd that says their gun rights are being trampled. I'm much more concerned with the civil rights and human rights that we lose more of every year.

Why?

No, seriously. Most of that article is "this is creating a hassle for the US". Who the fuck cares? It's not like Japan is, y'know, a sovereign country or anything. My condolences for the reporter's situation, but I'm willing to bet he's better off than if he'd pulled something similar in my home city in the '80s. I'm not saying there's no room for improvement, but this feels to me an awful lot like there's a plank of wood in the eye of the beholder.

This has been circumvented by, IIRC, case law supporting the idea that being inside a holster is "concealed".

Ignoring the question of whether or not the Vietnam war had any possibility of doing anything useful, participating in something does not make one a hero. Please stop cheapening the term.

That's the least of your trouble—if you stopped to pee in a public ditch, you're on your way to a spot on the sexual offender registry where good, honest citizens can assume you're a father-raper on your way to the group W bench (and maybe burn your house down).

~J