Nathan J

( I think Is Mise is meaning World War II when Japan fired a few bullets). Kamikaze pilots went down like the Bourke street jihadist but a knife is a bit smaller than a Zero ( aeroplane , Nathan). Japs carried samurai swords and Is Mise wanted to man a machine gun post in a Winston Churchill 'fight in the hills' of Melbourne . Failing that , a 4x4 tank charge would be the go.

I now see what Is Mise is trying to prove, but the analogy makes no sense, when one takes the following into consideration and what I have just said about guns in terms of their negative impacts.

One also must consider: What makes a country peaceful? Journalist Akira Ikegami analyzes the “Global Peace Index” survey of 140 countries and regions which the Economist Intelligence Unit released in March. According to the survey, Japan is ranked the 5th most peaceful country, following Iceland, Denmark, Norway and New Zealand.

https://japantoday.com/category/features/kuchikomi/japan-ranked-5th-most-peaceful-country-in-the-world

"Japan puts citizens through a rigorous set of tests" is an article to read.

Japan, which has strict laws for obtaining firearms, seldom has more than 10 shooting deaths a year in a population of 127 million people.

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test.

Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation at a hospital, as well as a background check, in which the government digs into any criminal records or ties and interviews friends and family members.

Finally, they can buy only shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and must retake the class and the initial exam every three years.

Unlike in the US, Japanese law has long outlawed guns. Still, the wisdom from Japan seems to be that tighter regulations keep guns confined only to those fit to use them.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-deaths-eliminated-america-learn-japan-australia-uk-norway-florida-shooting-latest-news-a8216301.html

The Melbourne guy would have been as dangerous if he used a brick, which can kill . Maybe police with bricks could have had a go , even killing him. Pistols are so 19th century and if difficult to aim then are evidently not suited to purpose. They can land on the moon but can't put a terrorist on the ground to stop him dying as a martyr for Allah.

Nathan,

"I now see what Is Mise is trying to prove, but the analogy makes no sense, when one takes the following into consideration and what I have just said about guns in terms of their negative impacts."

The analogy makes perfect sense, when considering the Japan of the day, Japan would not be like it is now if it had not been defeated in WWII, and, in the main, defeated by men with guns.

Kindly explain why it is wrong to defend one's self or another against unlawful attack by using a firearm.

Nathan,

" Language passes on messages to others, that one can appreciate.

Guns do not do that."

They do in my book, I can appreciate the impact of a burst of Owen gun fire on an enemy; the message is passed on!!

"Kindly explain why it is wrong to defend one's self or another against unlawful attack by using a firearm."
Footie players are sent off for unlawful attack, not given a burst of HE. Newspapers make unlawful attacks on reputations and the girl doesn't go in with fixed bayonet.