Crime Shooting and stabbing rampage leaves four dead in Nagano

The suspect, wearing camouflage clothing, a hat, sunglasses and a mask, grabbed the woman by the arm before stabbing her in the back with a blade that appeared to be around 30 centimeters long. He stabbed her again in the chest while she lay facing upward, according to the eyewitness. "I killed her because I wanted to," the suspect was quoted as saying when the eyewitness asked why he had done such a thing. As the man left on foot, the 72-year-old local rushed to his home about 150 meters away, called the police and took the officers to a parking area where the stabbing took place. The attacker reemerged as the police car was parking and immediately fired into the driver's side. The witness ran away. He said he heard more gunshots but was too afraid to look back. The suspect then entered the house of the assembly speaker, the police said. The woman who was stabbed and later pronounced dead was identified as Yukie Murakami, 66, while another woman who had been found injured nearby and later confirmed dead was named as Yasuko Takeuchi, 70. The two officers were identified as Yoshiki Tamai, 46, and Takuo Ikeuchi, 61. Another woman was also found injured and confirmed dead later.

Click to expand...

thomas said:

Coincidentally, there was another shooting yesterday, most likely 暴力団-related: a man was shot and injured inside a Dutour coffee shop at Machida Station.

Enough shootings for a week.

Tokyo police receive call about what appears to be shooting in Machida City | NHK WORLD-JAPAN News

Tokyo police say they received a call about a possible shooting in Machida City, suburban Tokyo, at around 8 p.m. on Friday.

www3.nhk.or.jp

Click to expand...

EmpJapan said:

It's really sad to see all such recent events, including Abe's assassination, the attack on Kishida, and more knife and gun cases, including one near my home. Never heard so many such things in all my years. All these are showing an emerging pattern of change.... changing for the worse. Increasing frustration levels? More influence of the not-so-good aspects of the outside world?

Click to expand...

Uncle Frank said:

I wonder if confidentiality with people in the medical field could be changed. Right now I could tell a shrink I had lots of weapons and really want to kill people and he can't say anything to warn about it. Many of the shootings in the US had warning signs ahead of the attack , but friends and family did not want to say anything for many reasons. I've been shooting since 1955 and probably owned well over 100 guns in my lifetime. There are some gun laws that I could live with rather than thinking you can somehow make all guns disappear. The die-hard gun owners would rather get into a shootout with anyone trying to take their guns and I can almost see a civil war if our government tries confiscation of all guns. Most gun owners here in the US own more than one gun and collectors and shooters often own many. I'm getting too old to go shooting now and am down to just 17 guns in my collection(for sale some day). If the government offered me a fair price , I'd sell , but many would not. I large part of America's gun culture dates back to the days of hunting to put food on the table. Now it seems many gun owners want guns because they distrust our government and think gun ownership will keep the government from turning communist. A bit of tinfoil hat stuff about the evils of our US government sure runs rampant on the internet and makes people think they will be safe with a gun. Maine is relatively safe and crime free , but I have been carrying a concealed handgun whenever I leave my house since 1974 when I was a police officer. It becomes a habit after a while that I don't even think about. I'm guessing I'll be long gone from this earth before the gun problems ever get solved. As an after thought , I never argue with anti-gun people , I'm set in my ways and doubt I'll ever change my way of thinking and won't try to change anyone's thoughts with negative views on guns.

Click to expand...

Uncle Frank said:

Now that I'm in my "gun" mode I want to take a minute to explain the attraction to the "AR" military type rifle that never seems to get mentioned anywhere.


View attachment 103280

View attachment 103281


Most young people who served in the military got used to the AR type guns and as a civilian , when they went to buy a gun went with that style. With the older style hunting rifles , they were fairly heavy with the wooden stocks , AR are usually much lighter to lug in the woods. The old style wood could get scratched and even crack if not given a lot of care. The blue coating on the older style guns could get rusty real fast in wet weather and required constant attention. The coating was also easily scratched. Inside the barrels could wear out over a few years if you did a lot of shooting. Now , on to the new AR type. Most of the stock & fore end are some type of plastic , hard to damage and quick & easy to replace. The gun itself has a special coating and unlike the blue type , requires little attention for care & upkeep. The inside of the barrels are usually crome lined and made to last for thousands of rounds fired. Cost also can be an issue with an old fashioned brand named classy hunting rifle costing $2000US or more. With so many companies making the AR style , cost is usually below $500US. A good quality AR in .308/7.62 is usually accurate out to 200 yards or more and will take down most animals hunted here in the US. I didn't give up my old type hunting rifle to about 5 years ago and now I'm sold on all the advantages of the AR type.

View attachment 103282


One of the bad images of the military type guns is the deal with extended magazines that can carry 20 to 30 rounds to fire before you reload. If you go to a shooting range these days , an hour of shooting can run you up to $50US. Reloading a magazine is a time consuming pain. I use 10 round mags and loading that at home allows you to spend expensive range time shooting , not reloading. Most states like Maine only allow a 5 round magazine for hunting with big fines if caught with over 5 rounds. You don't often hear about non-gun related deaths. Drunk drivers and doctor/medical errors probably kill more people than guns , but since we can't seem to outlaw doctors or drunk drivers , guns become an easier target to go after. I've been pretty lucky ,never had one of my guns shoot anyone so far.

Click to expand...

Uncle Frank said:

My main point is , you will never stop gun problems with laws that only effect the honest gun owner. Lets say you outlaw extended mags. Do you honestly believe that criminals or mentally ill will line up to turn them in. Sure , I can live without large capacity magazines , but the thousands of them now out there will stay out there in the wrong hands. Lets say you drive a Ford and only Ford cars were involved in DUI deaths so we outlaw Fords including yours. Will that solve the DUI problem , I don't think so. Punishing the honest gun owner while having basically no effect on the people that are dangerous seems a bit unfair to the good gun owners. Why should you or the government hassle me for what I own & shoot when it's the criminal element or mentally ill causing the problem. Maybe we need to make everyone to walk or ride a bike to stop DUI's? Think of all the millions of people in the US that never encounter a gun problem and the media won't mention that. The media has brain washed people believing they or their child might be killed at any moment because they control the sheeple with fear. If you can come up with a law that will actually work on disarming those who shouldn't have a gun , I'll be the first to vote for it. If you could somehow make every gun disappear overnight , knives would become the instrument of death. The world is filled with evil that will never be done away with. My first question is , who's going to knock on my door and demand I turn over my items. Almost all law enforcement says they will not take away a lawful gun owner's weapons that are now protected by the Constitution. America has been a culture of guns since it's founding. History has many bad lessons of what happens when guns are only in the hands of those in power. The reason gun owners fight so hard against "red flag" orders is because we live in a society where you are innocent until proven guilty , not guilty until you somehow prove you're not. I agree strongly that we have a violence and gun problem here in the US , I just want to make sure criminals & mentally ill have all their weapons confiscated before we talk about taking the honest guys guns away. I also believe that there is some truth in the fact America has never had a war enemy fighting in our country because the enemy knows in the US "there is a gun behind every blade of grass". Let's say America decides to do a nationwide buyback program. They could run the printing presses 24/7 and never come up with the trillions of dollars needed for a fair buy back. A fair price for my collection alone would be about $25,000. There are millions of guns here in the US. The barn door has been left open for years and all the guns have escaped so to speak. The justice system we have now in the US lets the criminal who misused a gun plea deal and get back out on the streets in no time. Unless you can make evil/criminal/mentally ill people fear punishment for doing wrong and have no financial gain from it we will always have a problem. A large part of gun ownership is for self protection in today's world. If I lived in a high crime area where it will take police a long time to respond , I would rather have a gun then a baseball bat. Again , I just wish people who buy & own a gun would get training on safe usage and storage. If you can come up with a law 100% guaranteed to solve the problem without screwing me and actually really making a difference , let me know.

Click to expand...

• The argument is based on a false analogy between guns and cars. Cars are not designed to kill people, while guns are. The purpose of regulating cars is to ensure safety and efficiency, not to prevent intentional harm. The purpose of regulating guns is to reduce the risk of violence and death by firearms, which are the leading cause of homicide and suicide in the United States1.
• The argument assumes that gun control laws only affect honest gun owners, while criminals and mentally ill people will ignore them. This is a fallacy of composition, which assumes that what is true for some parts of a group is true for the whole group. In reality, gun control laws can have an impact on reducing the availability and accessibility of firearms for potential offenders, as well as deterring or preventing some crimes from occurring. For example, a study found that implementing federal universal background checks could reduce firearm deaths by a projected 56.9%; background checks for ammunition purchases could reduce deaths by a projected 80.7%; and gun identification requirements could reduce deaths by a projected 82.5%2.
• The argument ignores the evidence that more guns lead to more violence, not less. A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that "legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death"3. Another study found that states with higher levels of gun ownership have higher rates of firearm homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths4. A meta-analysis of 130 studies from 10 countries found that firearm availability was positively associated with firearm homicide and suicide5.
• The argument appeals to fear and patriotism, rather than reason and facts. It suggests that gun control laws will lead to government tyranny, foreign invasion, or civil war, without providing any evidence or logic to support these claims. It also implies that gun ownership is an essential part of American culture and history, while ignoring the diversity and complexity of American society and its changing needs and challenges. It also overlooks the fact that the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns, but a conditional one that can be regulated by the government for public safety.
• The argument presents a false dilemma between doing nothing or taking away all guns from citizens. It does not acknowledge the possibility of finding a middle ground or a compromise between different interests and perspectives on gun policy. It also does not consider the benefits and costs of different types of gun control measures, such as banning certain types of weapons or magazines, requiring safe storage or training, or enforcing existing laws more effectively. It also does not address the ethical and moral issues involved in balancing individual rights and collective responsibilities.

thomas said:

Surging frustration levels and more economic pinch (inflation), but much of it is homemade.

JT blames it on cataclysmic demographic changes:

Are rising crime rates in Japan cause for alarm?

After tumbling for two decades, the number of criminal offenses in the nation jumped last year. Should we be worried?

www.japantimes.co.jp

Click to expand...

EmpJapan said:

Media is many times shallow. The journalists are in a hurry to write because, more than anything, they do it for daily bread ... some may for plain bread, some may for bread with butter, and some may for a full-course dinner. However, most of the time, it boils down to the bread.

Click to expand...