The close surveillance of gun owners and householders comports with the police tradition of keeping close tabs on many private activities. For example, the nation’s official year-end police report includes statistics like ‘Background and Motives for Girls’ Sexual Misconduct’. The police recorded 9,402 such incidents in 1985, and determined that 37.4 per cent of the girls had been seduced, and the rest had sex ‘voluntarily’. The two leading reasons for having sex voluntarily were ‘out of curiosity’ for 19.6 per cent, and ‘liked particular boy’, for 18.1 per cent. The fact that police keep records on sex is simply a reflection of their keeping an eye on everything, including guns. Every person is the subject of a police dossier.
David B. Kopel
Japanese Gun Control
[Japan has extremely low rates of crimes committed using a gun. And, as you can guess from the details about sexual conduct of girls, they also have a police state. They visit every home twice a year. The confession rate of criminal suspects is 95%. And the police routinely engage in torture or illegal treatment.
If someone suggests we should implement Japanese type gun control in the U.S. let them know they can’t have the same “success” as Japan without a police state to back it up. Implementing a police state here would be “challenging”.—Joe]
And yet they can’t get rid of the Yakuza. I am always reminded of the case where a 16 year old girl was kidnapped, raped, and tortured who eventually succumbed to her wounds and was then stuffed into a 55 gallon drum. Over 100 people knew that she was kidnapped and being kept prisoner. They were all afraid of the man who they believed had Yakuza connections. That fear keeps Japanese citizens from turning in the Yakuza despite the overwhelming Police authority there.
Also I’ve been told that the Police and the Yakuza have agreements on what crimes they will look the other way on.
Like carrying of guns is totally illegal….except if it’s a Yakuza soldier out to hit OTHER Yakuza….that’s OK.
So unlike Organized Crime in the United States that runs off of front operations, and while people may KNOW that this person is a Made Mafia Man, it’s still very secretive if that’s true or a rumor.
Meanwhile the friend who told me about the Yakuza is a Professor in Tokyo and he’ll see Yakuza members on the subway and walking the street.
Their dress and tattoos CLEARLY identify them as Yakuza. They are also open about where their headquarters are and what business is conducted there.
I’ve been told the Japanese prohibition of Tattoos in certain establishment is NOT about people with ink (much to the chagrin of US Service members stationed/living there) but to quietly inform the Yakuza that they’re not welcomed.
So yeah, there’s that shit….and of course we all know that selective enforcement of the law is the first example of tyranny.
The reason Japan is both a police state and quiet is a centuries-long culture of submission to absolute authority. Europe has much the same. Some other countries don’t, which is why they are police states that are very much notquiet. Venezuela comes to mind. The USA would be another example, assuming the bad guys would ever succeed in getting that far. Matthew Bracken’s “Enemies trilogy” is a cautionary tale for this.
“…let them know they can’t have the same “success” as Japan without a police state to back it up.”
Which they would most assuredly consider to be a feature not a bug.
None of this matters. We all have the right ton keep and bear arms. The concept of America is NOT one of central planners, and thus we do not think in those terms.
A right is a right and that’s that. Only if you believe otherwise would you get into the swamp, the details of central planning and the causes and effects of this or that “policy” (of violating rights).
Once you decide to throw that whole bucket of shit (that is the Central Planning Mentality – then idea thqat our cleverness in examining statistics and making “policy” based on them) out the window for good, will you be able to advocate for liberty. This post, and all the other comments, are of the CPM. American don’t do that shit. If someone is violating the rights of another, you (and/or the police) go get him and haul him into court for his ACTIONS. Guns have nothing to do with it, except in their utility in going and getting the bad guy.
Yes, it does matter. A lot of people yearn for what they believe is the comfort of a life in a non free society. They don’t understand the comforts they believe exist come at a high cost. The principles the U.S. were founded upon are not their principles. They may claim Marxist, Wiccan, or Buddhist principles. They may subscribe to “the good of the many outweighs the good of the individual”. They may simply claim “Practicality” as their fundamental principle. You can’t reach them with “Liberty!” no matter how loud and long you yell at them. You have to demonstrate their principles are flawed and/or less desirable before you get them to subscribe to your principles.
I’m trying to give people tools and examples to accomplish that. If you have better tools and examples then let’s see them and show us them in action.
What is the difference in Japan between being “seduced” and having sex “voluntarily”? This implies seduction is criminal, or at least unacceptable and worthy of police investigation. I thought seduction was the enticement of a person to sexual intercourse, making the act voluntary and consensual.
Or is it meant that in 37% of initial sexual acts, the boy asked or convinced the girl, and in the rest the girl asked the boy? More explanation is needed to understand what the author thought was an obvious example of intrusive criminal investigation.
See, it is cultural differences like this that make for such difficulties in discussions of things like differences in how police do or should operate, how culture controls activity like sexual rights or gun use, and how we can control criminal violence here.
Tell me what was whispered into the ears of the 37% who said yes to the boys, and if that makes any sense to me we can move on to the rest of the talking. But if it turns out the girls were giving themselves up to the guys for a nice Hello Kitty sweater or to avoid some obscure loss of face among peers on Facebook, the talking is going to be long, involved, and have little to do with how we behave over here.
Perhaps in this cultural context “seduction” implies deception of some sort. Something like saying they loved the girl and wanted a long term relationship and the guy was actually just trying to “put another notch on his bedpost”.
I’m totally guessing on this…
So if it wasn’t “seduction” of the girl, was it then “seduction” of the boy? According to the feminists, heterosexual sex is always exploitative, and can never be completely voluntary. Exploitation includes acts classified as “seduction” . If the girl wasn’t exploited through seduction, it follows that the boy was. Did SHE tell him she loved him in order to get laid or get a new Hello Kitty sweater?
I think of the scene in an early “Happy Days” episode;
“But you blew in my ear”, said Richie Cunningham.
“I wanted to see Television,” said the girl.