Hacker News Reader

Comment by unpopularopp | Hacker News Reader

This video has the cleanest angle if anyone curious

https://nitter.cz/yamaneko2011/status/1545297780562096128

The guy straight up walks behind him but misses the first shot. Keeps walking but Abe turns around and then the 2nd shot hits him point blank

View on HN

How odd how no one runs away..

Yeah even after the first shot it seems like an eternity where nothing happens and Abe just casually turning around

In a country where the gun crime is low and leaders get attacked, it's not that weird that people are puzzled of what just happen

Living in a country where guns are not common, my first thought after a gunshot would probably be "what was that? did something fall over?"

Yeah, and it was a homemade gun so it doesn't look or sound like a regular one (certainly not like one from movies or TV)

Most movies or TV don't do realistic gun sounds anyways

Aren't speakers the limitation here? I'm not sure in what way movies or TV aren't realistic, but I'm pretty sure your speaker has less of a punch than a gun.

A nearby gunshot is loud enough to be painful.

The bank gunfight in Heat (1995) is still the apex of gunfight sound design

That shouldn't actually matter too much. If the projectile went supersonic, there would still be a sonic boom. If it didn't go supersonic, I'd actually expect it to be louder than a subsonic round from a production firearm due to less efficient design. (kind of how revolvers are almost always louder than pistols, due to the fact that the chamber isn't completely sealed, so pressure can start escaping before the projectile leaves the barrel)

But judging by the clip, the projectile didn't go supersonic, just based on the sheer power of it (Abe collapsed instantly). You could get hit a dozen times with a small energy projectile and still stay standing (for a couple of seconds at least).

> You could get hit a dozen times with a small energy projectile and still stay standing

I don't think so - the main reason (apart form saving weight) why we have small fast projectiles in rifles (instead of huge heavy balls like before) is hydrostatic shock. Also faster bullets penetrate armor better but that's another topic.

Projectile crossing certain speed threshold (for mostly liquid bodies we all have) will produce massive temporary cavity in the body, and shockwave from this will ripple through surrounding tissue. Imagine 7.5mm wide bullet blasting 10-15cm hole within the body, although entry point is not much bigger than bullet.

Just watch any shooting video with ballistic gels, they do tend to slow it down to see how much damage bullet is doing.

Any organ will become mushy pieces and goo. Even currently standard military 5.56mm is capable of this from close distance, if its not slowed/fractured by some big bones. And they are phasing it out for bigger and similarly fast (if not faster) cartridge for all these reasons.

I had that same thought watching the recent Chicago shooting footage. I have never heard a rifle in real life, they certainly don't sound like movies and if I had been sitting nearby it would have taken me a while to tell this is a flee situation.

If you have only heard a gun firing from a video, it sounds much different in person.

A lot of microphones do a very poor job of capturing the sound, and even the best recordings can't capture just how loud guns can be.

For those who are wondering, it sounds like someone clapping, but louder. Yet not as loud as Hollywood imagines.

Uh, no. Guns are really, really loud. Much louder than you get from TV and movies, which after all can't play sounds loud enough to damage your hearing.

Source: have fired a fair number of guns.

For non gun users - I recommend watching the heist/ambush scene in Heat at a painful volume. This is a reasonable simulation of the loudness.

Such a great movie, real classic!

As someone with tinnitus that started a decade ago after listening to some loud music over headphones, I strongly recommend everyone to not watch anything "at a painful volume".

Excellent comment. The audio in that scene is stunningly effective. I can’t think of any other gun fight scene in cinema that gets anywhere near close to that level of realism

Guns are very loud close up, but even a moderate distance and especially in an urban setting where sounds bounce all over the place and get partly diverted, they rapidly seem a lot less noisy. I live in a place that just a few years ago had regular gun battles just blocks away from my home and while you learned to rapidly identify the specific sound from things like firecrackers, it wasn't especially loud unless you heard it from very close by.

Exactly. Shooting a simple tiny slow 9mm (classic pistol cartridge, used ie by cops/military everywhere) has in indoor range such a blast you feel the3 shockwave in your guts. Even with hearing protection its a very intense experience that you need to get used to. You simply don't get anything similar elsewhere, unless some big fireworks blast very very close to you.

Not using ear protection constantly around guns will degrade your hearing significantly and permanently.

Key words were “indoor range” and firing the gun yourself (so right next to you). A shot fired down the block in an open-air city with trees and fences and irregular sonic shapes will be so loud.

This isn’t about firing guns. It is about hearing a gun fired some distance away from you in an open-air urban setting. Has that ever happened to you? I have unfortunately been in that situation multiple times due to the neighborhood I used to live in. It really does sound like a clap, not a bang, but much louder. But not deafening loud as Hollywood would have you believe (unless it goes off right next to you).

Echoing what the other commenter said, this is entirely inaccurate. I grew up hunting and even random deer rifles are just so much louder than even Hollywood is willing to show.

For context, out in the open country in a relatively flat area one can *easily* hear most centerfire rifles from 1-2 miles away and often much further. Shotguns are lower pressure and generally aren't as loud, and handguns even quieter still just due to the substantially reduced energy levels.

Firearms, particularly rifles, are so loud that there's just a qualitative difference in the sound that's impossible to capture with standard audio gear.

Perhaps someone can make a comparison to lightning or firework shells, which are relatively common detonations of similar loudness. Difficult to characterize in words an explosion, though. In all cases, higher frequencies attenuate faster, so one nearby tends to 'crack' and one distant, 'boom'.

I've spent a lot of time in life around all sorts of explosions, gun fire (everything from modern to old, including machine guns, cannons, etc.).

(My dad was Kent Lomont - google him for stories - he was one of the world's largest machine gun and destructive device dealers, and he/we shot everything from all of history all the time).

There is a distinct difference between gun shots and fireworks. There is a distinct difference between all sorts of guns (I can tell the difference between many, and certain guns, even full auto, have distinct patterns and noises).

For example, a Thompson machine gun (old Tommy guns from gangster movies) have a lower rate, "bup-bup-bup" sound of a certain frequency (.45 ACP caliber, Cutts compensator on the barrel, somewhat short). A Ma Deuce (.50 BMG large machine gun, very common) is a more rapid, lower, really impressive bang. A 22 pistol is a smaller pop. An A4 machine gun has a different rate, different (.308 or similar). Someone shooting a non-machine gun of the same caliber, trying to go at the same rate, never has the same mechanical precision at the rate. A mini-gun is just a constant buzz, like a saw, and terrifying once you see what it can do and associate that noise with that level of destruction. A .44 magnum is different than .357 magnum. Each is very distinct once you've heard/shot them enough.

But no good way to describe :)

I'm not sure how to explain it. But there is a place you can get some glimpse - video games and accurate war movies used to come to my dad's place to record all day, requesting this or that gun, which he would have and know how to work, with whatever rare or weird ammo was needed. Their sound guys would know how to record the noises well.

So many video games, especially ones that are trying to be historically accurate, will give you a taste, but none really capture the loudness.

It used to be you could go to the Knob Creek machine gun shoot twice a year and hear them, but even then you'd not learn different ones well since they all fire at once.

Or, if you're really interested, there are many places you can rent different guns, including machine guns, and hear the differences.

My first time firing a shotgun I was surprised it didn't sound anything like the video games I grew up playing (Doom, Duke Nukem, etc). In games they have a bassy boom with a lot of reverb while in reality it's a loud crack. At least that was the experience with my shotgun. I'm not sure how much it varies from model to model.

Guns also sound different if you’re firing them, or behind the firer vs alongside or in front of the barrel.

I once had a deer rifle fired above me when I was picking up shells, and I was just a bit forward of the barrel and it sounded much different.

I’m always surprised by how different auto accidents sound in person. Movie and TV audio just don’t pick up the low frequencies you hear and feel in person.

Yes and no, true you miss out on some of the sound, but is also startlingly loud.

I’ve never heard what a bomb or meteor strike but I’m sure I would instinctively jump and run.

Different ammos/guns produce different sound levels. A subsonic 22LR can be incredibly quiet. Black powder guns (as it seems to be the case here) are loud and produce a lot of smoke.

They are way louder than you think from the video.

me too, I've never even heard a real gun shot, not anywhere

My first reaction would be to look for a bicycle/car tire that blew up.

Video shows the guy standing on the far side of the busy road behind Abe, and the perp was taken down about half way across it. The loud boom and smoke resembled a car backfiring much more than any gun, so not really surprised the lack of immediate alarm. Kids backfiring sports cars would be a commonplace rebellious act in Japan.

Living in a country where gunfire is very common, the opposite starts to happen: even when you hear what you rapidly realize isn't gunfire but only somewhat similar (firecrackers, cars backfiring, etc), your first reaction is to assume gunshots or automatic rifle fire before assessing what you heard more carefully.

Apparently some of the people that were close to the shooting in Highland Park during the Fourth of July initially thought that the gunshots were fireworks.

Guns and shootings are uncommon in Japan. There is no natural response to run unless you are hyper aware of shootings.

Japan has some super strict gun laws. The onlookers probably had no experience with firearm violence and didn't know to run away. More of a deer in headlights kind of shock when they saw the smoke.

I guess "ghost gun" violence like this will become more normal in countries with restrictive gun laws as societies break down when the effects of climate change are really felt.

Interestingly, the gun looks home made https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/624/cpsprodpb/v...

It's definitely not modern 'smokeless' propellant either. Probably repurposed flash powder from fireworks or DIY.

I'm as cynical and prone to doomsaying as much as anyone but there's nothing new in assassination attempts the world over and I don't think it's helpful to imply we're all gonna be dealing with mass 'ghost gun' violence due to climate change. Like, maybe, or maybe not.

Perhaps I'm making a stupid assumption here but isn't almost all gun violence (outside the US) committed with unregistered and/or homemade weapons? Doesn't seem like anything unusual/new to me as a European.

I also don't see the relationship with climate change.

Unregistered, yes. Homemade, probably not.

A large percentage of gun violence even inside the US is committed with unregistered weapons. The only events that see international media play are the mass event shootings at malls and such; these guns tend to be registered.

More "typical" gun violence is committed regularly, and not with AR-style rifles (more typically 9mm carbines which are regulated as handguns in the US, as well as actual handguns).

There is no registry in America, (it's actually explicitly prohibited in statue) except for title II weapons federally, and in a handful of states.

Mostly unregistered/stolen, hardly homemade. AK-47s might be an exception since there are kits available online, official ones mostly from the US, but given how easily they're obtained in certain areas of the world I imagine there are loads of them smuggled by less official sellers from around the world.

The deadliest terror attacked in Europe at Utøya, Norway was carried out with a gun that the terrorist was a registered owner of. He had imported a high capacity magazine from a he US, as those are illegal in most of Europe.

But gun violence in Norway related to gangs is mostly from stolen guns. A terrorist however may not have a criminal network to use in order to obtain a gun. This they may have to go through the much slower legal route.

Yeah, I'm really envious of US citizens with all their hands on experience with active shooters. /sarcasm

I'd much rather be in a low-gun apocalypse than a high-gun one. Because I can run away from a guy with a knive, but not from a gun.

Also, what I never understood: no matter how many guns I carry, I still die to a single bullet in the back. So why should I feel saver in a high-gun environment?

As an American I've never understood the "good guy with a gun" theory either. Murderers do not generally announce their intent and instances of violence being prevented, as opposed to eventually brought to an end, by other shooters are rare enough to be news events. Certainly they are much less common than mass shootings. Where I live I've never seen anyone strolling around with their guns on display, but when I see someone announce their enthusiasm for the 2nd Amendment I don't perceive a peace keeper. I perceive someone trying to antagonize and dominate liberals. I perceive it as a threat directed at the people without guns.

I should say rather that I have an understanding of the "good guy with a gun" theory, but it is that it is a public excuse which sounds better than other motivations. It sounds better than "I just like guns" or "I like to get my way by threat when I can't get it by persuasion" or "I am gratified by the fear and anxiety of my enemies", etc.

It’s an extension of a good samaritan and believing in the basic goodness of others.

If you have individuals willing to harm, then certainly there are individuals nearby willing to help out.

But only if they’re not defanged.

This is the most extreme case: https://youtu.be/uRc_FlmW2Jc

The bad guy with a gun has already shot someone. The good guy can put an end to the violence in some cases, but almost never before the bad guy has harmed someone. In societies where guns aren't ubiquitous it's the bad guy with a knife or a brick versus the good guy with a lawn chair. It's still the case that the bad guy can cause some damage before he's stopped, but it isn't as much damage, and it's less likely, because you can run away from a knife and dodge a brick.

I question your good-faith intentions here.

> The bad guy with a gun has already shot someone.

So here you start from the assumption that the person was shot and killed.

Shooters miss; they may also miss vital points.

> you can run away from a knife and dodge a brick.

Why not start from the assumption that the person was stabbed or hit on the head with a brick?

Fine, in some cases the bad guy with a gun hasn't shot someone. In some cases the guy with a knife or brick has injured someone. What is the balance? It is easier to shoot someone than it is to stab them or brick them. If you succeed, the damage is much greater in the former case than the latter. This isn't just speculation. This is borne out by evidence. In the UK there is a lot of knife violence. It is much less lethal than our gun violence. This isn't because UK thugs are less competent. It is because it requires less competence to injure someone grievously with a gun.

I don't see how this has any bearing on anything.

> Fine, in some cases the bad guy with a gun hasn't shot someone. In some cases the guy with a knife or brick has injured someone. What is the balance? It is easier to shoot someone than it is to stab them or brick them

At point blank it’s easy. Once it’s at range and for pistols it’s a matter of practice.

It’s why rifles tend be used by soldiers; it’s easier to aim with, train, and be accurate with.

It’s a matter of geometry. It’s also highly conspicuous (unlike handguns).

Okay. Say you’re injured and not dead: If size isn’t a deterrent, then wouldn’t an armed good samaritan be able to do more to help than an unarmed?

What if the individual goes after more victims?

But whether a person is being stabbed and bleeding to death, knocked out, or shot incapacitated: They’re unable to run, nevermind help.

At that point they’re at the mercy of the attacker and the people around them.

What I’ll concede is that a gun also enables a lot of individuals to be an attacker: Equalizing goes both ways.

I’ll also concede that in the ideal world we’d have phasers to stun; but as far as I know even beanbag guns and similar are not meant for civilian use. I wish it weren’t this way, but even stun guns and tasers are illegal in places like NYC.

Also, fatality rate: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170622171421.h...

Approximately 25%.

If a single bullet can kill, that means the size of the attacker doesn’t matter.

What if your attacker with a knife is in better shape?

Cities and densely populated areas rightly restrict firearms, but what about anyone who is in poor physical condition? Pregnant? Elderly?

I think we're more likely to see drones rigged with explosives as a go-to method for political assassinations. Guns aren't that hard to make, but getting close enough to use one is another matter.

It makes me think of, funnily enough, a scene in an anime.

In this scene, set in a utopian, crime-free society (at least on the surface), a woman is beaten brutally in a public square in front of a large crowd. The people in this crowd just... stand and watch. They get their phones out and record it.

It is reasoned by one of the main characters that they act this way because they simply cannot process what is going on. The concept of this happening is so divorced from the reality they live in, it provokes little to no fear/horror/disgust/whatever response in them.

Something to this effect really happened in New York City (if memory serves) which led to Good Samaritan laws which protect people trying to help someone in need from being prosecuted if the person needing help dies or things go south in general.

> Something to this effect really happened in New York City (if memory serves)

Something to this effect was widely reported, the Kitty Genovese case. But the reports were lies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese

The Kitty Genovese story was a psyop:

https://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2012/09/tall-tales

Discovering the truth about the Kitty Genovese's story give me new ideas about Rorschach from Watchmen.

The Wikipedia page is a bit better in giving the actual details in which the story is incorrect, and without the extended editorialising (though the final sentence is quite nightmarish even in its blankly factual wording):

> Because of the layout of the complex and the fact that the attacks took place in different locations, no witness saw the entire sequence of events. Investigation by police and prosecutors showed that approximately a dozen individuals had heard or seen portions of the attack, though none saw or was aware of the entire incident.[67] Only one witness, Joseph Fink, was aware Genovese was stabbed in the first attack, and only Karl Ross was aware of it in the second attack. Many were entirely unaware that an assault or homicide had taken place; some thought what they saw or heard was a domestic quarrel, a drunken brawl or a group of friends leaving the bar when Moseley first approached Genovese.[8] After the initial attack punctured her lungs, leading to her eventual death from asphyxiation, it is unlikely that Genovese was able to scream at any volume.[68]

And some slightly overlapping details in an article from which it quotes:

> The article grossly exaggerated the number of witnesses and what they had perceived. None saw the attack in its entirety. Only a few had glimpsed parts of it, or recognized the cries for help. Many thought they had heard lovers or drunks quarreling. There were two attacks, not three. And afterward, two people did call the police. A 70-year-old woman ventured out and cradled the dying victim in her arms until they arrived. Ms. Genovese died on the way to a hospital.

I think a lot of it comes not from worrying about being prosecuted, but in some situations you don't want to/can't help because you're worried about endangering yourself.

I know some people (usually men) are expected to be 100% selfless and run in to be defenders, but not all of us feel that way.

Incidentally, that scene was inspired by something that happened IRL to a friend of one of the series writers: https://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=451019&show=0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

was this psychopass?

If it wasn't, psycho pass has a very similar scene.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1652510

> They get their phones out and record it.

IIRC UK encourages that if you can't help - that's in order to track down perpetrators.

It could also be the culture is unaccustomed to random gun violence so the people realized it was a targeted hit that posed little to no danger to themselves.

I imagine ordinary people (even most police) aren't legally able to carry a gun in Japan. Simply watching and recording is about all they can do in that scenario.

Which anime?

Psycho-Pass, is a really good anime in terms of society and crime

> Psycho-Pass, is a really good anime in terms of society and crime

At it's core it's an exploration in Bentham, Mill's view of Society, warped into some dystopian technocratic utopian ideal of what it should be.

Sadly, to appeal to the masses and get it on screen it had to be tied into some cop-drama, the first seasons were good, with good philosophical examination, but the movie in Netflix and following seasons were utter garbage. I've tried re-watching them, and other than re-hashing the cop plot it was pretty lame.

I highly recommend to first 2 seasons to techno utopians who have a very shallow and superficial understanding o the Human psyche and think that 'AI solves that' type hand wringing doesn't always end up like this. We Humans are the apex predator for a reason, and people who don't examine the Human condition and try to engineer society from an ivy tower always forget that.

The CCP is the best example of a Psycho-pass analogue and the mere fact that this latest hack reveals they are a more advanced Stasi-like police state with poor OPSEC shows just how feckless these things are in practice. Sadly, the consequences are real: Tibet, Xinjiang, Hongkong various African countries.

With that said, read this [0] as a primer and stick to the first 2 seasons in Japanese sub if you do give it a watch and end it with the movie if you MUST in order to spare yourself the disappointment of the latter parts.

0: https://logicmag.io/commons/panopticons-and-leviathans-oscar...

That's normal in societies where the average person never has to fear being gunned down.

An assassination by gunfire in a country where gun deaths don't happen is the perfect excuse for rubbernecking.

With the amount of smoke, my first thought might be a pyrotechnic or even malfunctioning AV equipment.

People nearby clearly do. The people near the camera probably have no idea what happened. In most countries, gun crime is uncommon and people would just be confused what had just happened.

Can second this. I'm from a country where gun crime is non-existent for the average person and was visiting a friend in their home country. We were in a bar when firecrackers started going off. I turned and looked and just sort of stood still while watching this man shoot at 2 people. By the time I realized what was happening my friend was already over the wall taking cover and shouting at me to get over the wall too. It's a very weird experience if you're not used to guns and gun crime.

I think gun violence is very uncommon in Japan. People were probably more confused than scared

Apparently "less than ten gun deaths nationwide every year", for a country of 125m people. It's generally a low crime country.

The crime rate is not linked to gun crime rate in that country as the guns are completely illegal. Even 10 gun deaths per year is virtually impossible if guns are totally banned - where are these guns coming from?

At the same time there is violent crime, just not with guns.

This guy made his own gun

Violence in Japan is so low, something like that is just outside their normal reality. It's more likely to see some malfunctioning tech, than experience a real gun fired. And with all the smoke, that's what people probably thought at first, that some tech went haywire.

> something like that is just outside their normal reality

It's the case in most developed countries I believe.

Yes. I've never had a gun in my hands or saw/heard one being fired and don't know anyone who has.

Same for most non-developed countries I imagine.

Until I was 42, I had never seen a real gun except on the belt of a police officer. I lived near an Army barracks for a decade and never saw a soldier carrying a gun.

In my twenties one of the crazy types at work brought a very realistic replica gun to work. He's the type that in some countries would bring a real gun to work, but here... it was just a toy to freak people out with.

His strange proclivities weren't what really freaked me out. The toy gun did. I could name the manufacturer instantly when I saw it. I knew how every part worked, and what every part was called. I could operate it without difficulty or confusion. I knew that it had a grip safety, a manual safety, and a trigger safety. I knew what all of those meant. I knew how to reload it, and what to do to release the slide from its locked-back position.

It was like... a dragon.

We've all seen dragons on TV and read about them in books. We can describe a dragon in detail. We can talk about their behaviour, their capabilities, and their nature. Most of us can name specific dragons.

But they're a thing of myth, not something real.

Until some guy brings a dragon to work and you realise that they aren't just figments of our imagination.

Somewhere out there, there's a country where every second person has a dragon like we have dogs here.

There must be a lot of fires there instead of just... barking.

Abe is the sixth Japanese PM assassinated.

I don't think these people were in the same area all those times.

Let's put that in context shall we: the last Japanese PM assassination before Abe was close to 100 years ago.

Technically true, but looking it up, it seems the last PM was killed in 1936. Additionally, in the 192x and 193x many high ranking politicians died, of which were many PM or former PM.

Could you list them please? Some googling got me the following, which includes survivors and non prime-ministers.

* November 14, 1930, Yukio Hamaguchi

* May 15, 1932, 11 Prime Minister Takeshi Inuyo

* July 14, 1960, Nobusuke Kishi (survived an assassination attempt)

* October 12, 1960, left-wing Japanese Rep. Inajiro Asanuma

* October 25, 2002, Ishii Hiroki (opposition leader)

* April 17, 2007, the mayor of Nagasaki, Kazucho Ito

* July 2022: Shinzo Abe

I started with

https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2022-07-08-looking-back-on...

2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinzo_Abe

1936 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sait%C5%8D_Makoto

1936 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takahashi_Korekiyo (same incident as previous)

1932 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inukai_Tsuyoshi

1931 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamaguchi_Osachi (initially survived assassination attempt, but succumbed to his wounds)

1921 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hara_Takashi

1909 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%C5%8D_Hirobumi

> It's more likely to see some malfunctioning tech, than experience a real gun fired. And with all the smoke, that's what people probably thought at first, that some tech went haywire.

What the hell did he shoot him with it, a relic musket from a Sengoku Jidai display? I don't think I've ever seen or heard anything like that outside of military battle reenactments, with all that smoke it sounds like a cannon more than a gun.

Abenomics would always end up this way, Japan has been facing an ACTUAL existential crisis since the end of the bubble era. You know you messed up when you made these people go from Karoshi to assassination.

It's a self-made gun.

> It's a self-made gun.

I guess that sort of makes sense, but even then DD's Liberator from 8 years ago was a far better option to go for here.

"better option" in what possible way?

I'm very sorry to say this homemade gun did exactly the job it was intended to do.

Terrible news. :(

You're forgetting that he also had to make his own ammo. A black powder shotgun is the easiest firearm to make from scratch if you have that constraint.

I read elsewhere that authorities think the gun was homebuilt as guns are so rare and hard to get in Japan.

It was literally two pipes strapped to what looks like a block of wood.

I think this comment is irrelevant. I would not explain this unresponsiveness in this way. The video is truly one of the weirdest videos I've ever seen.

The gun has a bizarre sound, I think I’d be confused and bewildered hearing that right behind me too.

It was a DIY gun.

Fireworks are also everywhere and used for many occasions, easy to mistake that sound for a fire cracker.

To add to the rarity of gun violence, there is sismic risk and people try to ubderstand what's the current danger before reacting.

For instance if the smoke came from something bursting because of a starting earthquake, avoiding the surrounding building and regrouping in a clear zone would be the right course of action.

They are not conditioned with decades of random gun violence.

It's like they don't even know the concept of gun violence.

Was that a shotgun? Seems like a lot of smoke for a gun.

Reports online mention a home made gun...

It was a home made DIY shotgun which looks like to had electric ignition too

https://nitter.cz/pic/media%2FFXH24fkWYAAZTTm.jpg%3Fname%3Do...

https://nitter.cz/pic/media%2FFXH24y9XoAITMIM.jpg%3Fname%3Do...

https://nitter.cz/pic/media%2FFXH25G7WYAI8o2D.jpg%3Fname%3Do...

Interesting that in the last photo the man (Abe’s security guard?) apprehending the gunman is clearly armed but hasn’t drawn his weapon.

In most other countries, training encourages the use of lethal force as a last resort. In Germany (pop. 84M), in 2015, a total of 101 rounds were discharged by police for the entire year:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country#...

How the UK police dealt with a machete-wielding individual:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY

I haven’t looked at any data but I imagine Japanese and German police don’t get attacked and killed and shot at the rates seen America. A lot of American police officers die each year so that probably plays into the officers using more force

The American ones die largely in car accidents.

Last couple of years COVID-19 has been the #1 killer of police.

You should try looking at the data. Being a cop isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs. They're just monsters.

A lot of American cops die in incidents completely unrelated to apprehending dangerous people. Things like car crashes. And COVID.

Meanwhile, being a garbage man is still more dangerous.

Being a police officer is the #22 most dangerous job in the US:

* https://www.ishn.com/articles/112748-top-25-most-dangerous-j...

After 4. Roofers; 5. Garbage collectors; 7. Delivery drivers; 8. Farmers; 11. Agricultural workers; 12. Crossing guards; 15. Landscaping supervisors; 21. Grounds maintenance workers.

Or #21 according to this list:

* https://finance.yahoo.com/news/30-most-dangerous-jobs-americ...

On average, <200 police officers have died because of the job each year over the past decade:

* https://nleomf.org/memorial/facts-figures/officer-fatality-d...

Eye-balling it, on average about one-third were shot. The biggest single outlier was COVID in 2020, but otherwise the causes and their percentages seem fairly steady.

The other side of the equation, people killed by police:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_killings_by_law_enfor...

Sad story. I understand gun laws are pretty strict in Japan. From this shot it looks like the murderer used a 1700s era musket.

Homemade shotgun.

Not just "pretty strict", but probably the most strict in the world, there are no legal guns in civilian hands in that country.

Its reported both shots hit him, probably did but was in shock.

No security chaps there? Are they incompetent? I admired Abe... Goodnight!

Different culture maybe?

Shootings are pretty rare in the developed world.

As in US?

the US doesn't count

No, the developed world.

The US manages to be the reigning empire and a failed state at the same time. Internationally, it's the empire, internally, it's failed beyond repair.

Hyperbole much?

Might sound like hyperbole but it isn't entirely untrue depending on what you believe should be the State role in supporting its society. The US is just really weird when looking through the lens of other Western developed countries...

And I say that coming from a society that's completely influenced by the American Way Of Life™ (Brazil), visiting the US multiple times and then moving to Sweden has really opened my eyes on how damn bizarre the US can be. It's more similar to Brazilian society (conservatism, sexism, violence, car-centric, so on and so forth) than to any other peer country to the US.

I immigrated to Germany from Turkey and I witness through the media that sometimes people in some parts of the US behave very similar to the ones in Istanbul, with all the bad and good things associated with it.

I've grown up being exposed to the American culture that's sold everywhere else, but after the weird events in politics I started paying more attention and it's disappointing me.

State failure means loss of control over territory. Not conservatism or violence or car-centricity. It’s completely untrue to say the US is a failed state.

Not necessarily, for example from Wikipedia:

> A failed state is a political body that has disintegrated to a point where basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government no longer function properly.

Depending on the philosophy you believe on what should be the role of the State the US has traces of failing on basic conditions and responsibilities to its citizens.

One of the major parties has candidates actively campaigning on a platform to have state legislatures intervene in elections.

If that’s not a sign of decline, what is?

It’s a sign of a poor understanding of both history and federalism.

Historically states have always controlled the election process. The amendment for direct election of senators, and changes necessitated during Reconstruction and 20th century Civil Rights legislation are the exception not the rule.

States are not administrative districts of the Federal government. They are political entities which in many cases preceded the Federal. government.

That one party has support more broadly across states while the others support is more concentrated explains that one would more vigorously assert federalist tendencies.

Historically states abused all of these powers. The Senate was a national disgrace even more so than by modern standards, fully dominated by machine political power brokers and regressive politics.

When that era was ended, the states systematically abused that power to exclude black and Latino voters. In some places that extended to Catholics and Jewish communities.

The play on nostalgia and ancient precedent is nothing more than a vacuous and flimsy veneer on supporting discrimination and exclusion. Reactionaries are always talking a big game about high and mighty principles, but delivering the same old machine politics in a new skin.

It doesn't look like it from up close because it happens over decades, but if you take a step back it's actually happening frighteningly fast. The decline and fall of the Roman empire took about 250 years. With the way things are going in the US it'll be done in less than a hundred.

Nothing a little duct tape can't fix.

There's no contradiction there. Voters would not submit to the horrors we perpetrate around the world, were we not subject to constant fear- and hate-mongering from corporate media. The horrors we perpetrate on ourselves are sort of a ricochet, because isolated desperate males are subject to the same media gaslighting as voters are, and they simply cut out the intended side-effect of further enrichment for Raytheon.

Actually yes. There are parts of the US that behave like the developed world with gun crime rates comparable to commonwealth countries and Western Europe. The parts with high gun crime rates are full of people who for whatever reason can't handle guns. Usually guns are illegal in these parts of the country to try to help them, although it doesn't really work.

EDIT: Yes, there is actually a slight negative correlation between gun ownership and gun violence by state if you run the data (rather than just eyeballing it.) Gun violence highly correlates with a different trait in the population.

I don’t think your assertion about locality of gun crime and gun laws in the US is consistent with the data. (Not trying to make an assertion as to whether such laws are effective here)

Sort state level data by gun murder rate, it’s not so clear cut: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_S...

States like Louisiana and South Carolina have the highest rates. Maryland is a state with high rates and also more stringent gun laws, but New York and California are pretty far down the list

I see US as a rich and powerful nation but not a developed one, along with Saudi, Qatar etc.

Yeah. They can casually campaign at the corner of a train station or on the truck with very lax security concern.

He had security. The guy got apprehended immediately after. Clearly they weren’t trained to deal with guns and/or were incompetent to not be aware of their surroundings.

Nobody even moved after first shot, they were frozen in astonishment. Not something you expect from guys protecting retired yet powerful ex-PM and party leader.

Violent crime is generally very rare in Japan, but particularly gun violence is near nonexistent. There have been years in recent history where firearm offenses number in the single digits.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com