Kino's Journey Episode 1 Discusion.

[Nevix]

Episode 1 takes ideas in Objectivism and arguably the Freedom based US' Second Amendment to an extreme, to make a point that is... there.

Did we watch the same episode? I thought the episode was about a society that collapsed because everyone became a telepath.

In Objectivism, which begins with a solid moral foundation before anything else, murder would not need to be illegal because Objectivists would already have the standard that murder is both immoral and unnecessary in most circumstances.

I suppose in Objectivist societies, the criminals also arrest themselves.

I know the basics of Objectivism, which is more than most people who try to criticize it. I'm not an objectivist myself. Please take the time to do some research.

SPOILER if you want to watch the show

In the previous show, many of the stories used to be about concepts that sounded ideal, but when implemented, had a lot of darker undertones to it. This episode is all about a country that sounds like a dystopia, but when you actually go there - it's a good place to live in. In a way, the flip to a more beautiful art style feels like this is a 'mirror' to the original Kino, while still being the same world.

The use of Wild West scenery for the buildings subverts the normal things we think about when we think about Westerns. We usually think Westerns are full of lawless killing, but this doesn't have any of that.

I thought that the episode would end with Kino just leaving, but the extra touch with the second traveler is what pushes this story to a higher level. It shows the difference between a guy who merely dreams about killing and acting lawless, and a guy who has actually experienced it. Ultimately, the moral seems to be that even in 'anarchy', or what should be a chaotic state, humans will always aim towards order and law to earn mutual benefits.

To go deeper to the point, it has nothing to do with guns or owning weapons and especially the 2nd Amendment of the US constitution. To those that say it's pro gun, remember how the one guy was killed and it wasn't from guns or even from enthusiastic people. They did it because that's their way of dealing with a problem, not because they want to. This is a society that's developed on the idea that as a community, they need to look out for each other and protect each other.

I'm not saying this will actually work but it is the idea of, if you can be killed and it isn't illegally for it, then suddenly what bounds us together isn't law, but our morals.

Pro freedom and self defense (and my view on guns is that the self defense uses outweigh any misuse) is a good way to put one part of the message of this episode.

Pro morality/personal responsibility is another point to take.

The reason why I go to the point on guns is that a common anti gun control argument is that more guns/freedom to wield guns will cause more violence. (The exact opposite is true, and is borne out by the statistics and records of various places with differing gun control standards.) This episode of Kino's Journey hits very close to that by having all the people be armed/allowed to kill, and NOT killing because of their morality.

Your point about morality being the center of the episode both still stands, and is an excellent point as well. We just take different connections on what that message relates to in our views.

[excalibur]

It's also the sad truth that a lot of people don't trust their neighbors. Don't have a sense of community and really, that's also another reason why crime can be rampant in a large city of strangers. And because there is crime on such a large scale, people fear the outside and they fear others and what they are capable of because that's all they see. They don't see responsible people, just "ticking time bombs" and hide behind a cloak that does more to blind them than it does to protect them. You teach kids why they shouldn't do bad things not just because it's against the rule of law...but because they should know better. Otherwise, we're gonna live in a world where people aren't polite to you because they are good nature people, but because they don't want to be arrested.

[TGLS]

In Objectivism, which begins with a solid moral foundation before anything else, murder would not need to be illegal because Objectivists would already have the standard that murder is both immoral and unnecessary in most circumstances.

I suppose in Objectivist societies, the criminals also arrest themselves.

I know the basics of Objectivism, which is more than most people who try to criticize it. I'm not an objectivist myself. Please take the time to do some research.

Sorry, just making a silly joke. Just a bit of an observation on how the posed society only functions if everyone in the society is morally perfect.

[Madner Kami]

The reason why I go to the point on guns is that a common anti gun control argument is that more guns/freedom to wield guns will cause more violence. (The exact opposite is true, and is borne out by the statistics and records of various places with differing gun control standards.)

Since when?

[name_here]

For the confused viewers: people are discussing the first episode of the new Kino anime, rather than the one reviewed on the site.

The point with the new first episode, as far as I can tell, is that it's effectively policed by collective action of the citizenry. That's not a historically unusual structure; the origin of the term "outlaw" was someone who was exempt from legal protections and may be killed by any citizen with the means to do so. Unjustified violence is promptly punished by all citizens in the vicinity; murder is de facto a capital crime. Being able to participate is considered an obligation of citizenship. They apparently do have some formal law enforcement mechanism, since it's noted that theft is illegal. Probably they have a couple police who round up a posse if they're concerned someone will resist arrest.

[Nevix]

The reason why I go to the point on guns is that a common anti gun control argument is that more guns/freedom to wield guns will cause more violence. (The exact opposite is true, and is borne out by the statistics and records of various places with differing gun control standards.)

Since when?

Since people have been recording the statistics, and before that.

It's a fact that more freedom to have guns results in less violence, and less guns results in more violence. Recent reports have also found that in areas with heavy gun control, occupied house robberies are more common, so criminals can also take wallets/jewelry/etc. In areas with more gun freedom, criminals more often rob unoccupied houses, to avoid potentially armed owners.

Please, I invite (and implore) you to do the research and find the statistics reports that bear out my point yourself.

Because I'm not talking more than this here.

[TGLS]

OK. I've done some research and here's some statistics on murder rates for a few select countries:

Japan 0.31 per 100,000 people
Switzerland 0.69 per 100,000 people
China 0.74 per 100,000 people
Canada 1.68 per 100,000 people
Cambodia 1.84 per 100,000 people
Armenia 2.45 per 100,000 people
United States 4.88 per 100,000 people
Somalia 5.56 per 100,000 people

Thus, based on the argument that violent crime increases with heavy gun control, Somalia and the United States have the heaviest gun control, while Japan, Switzerland and China have the most lax gun control.

[Madner Kami]

OK. I've done some research and here's some statistics on murder rates for a few select countries:

Japan 0.31 per 100,000 people
Switzerland 0.69 per 100,000 people
China 0.74 per 100,000 people
Canada 1.68 per 100,000 people
Cambodia 1.84 per 100,000 people
Armenia 2.45 per 100,000 people
United States 4.88 per 100,000 people
Somalia 5.56 per 100,000 people

Thus, based on the argument that violent crime increases with heavy gun control, Somalia and the United States have the heaviest gun control, while Japan, Switzerland and China have the most lax gun control.

Exactly the point I was about to make. Your statistics may be true for the US, where the state as a whole consistently fails to make access to guns hard, so you end up with areas where people are unlikely to have a gun, while the next city over is a gang-ridden cesspool full of automatic firearms. The rest of the world however, disproves your theory. Exceptions make no rule.

[Dînadan]

OK. I've done some research and here's some statistics on murder rates for a few select countries:

Japan 0.31 per 100,000 people
Switzerland 0.69 per 100,000 people
China 0.74 per 100,000 people
Canada 1.68 per 100,000 people
Cambodia 1.84 per 100,000 people
Armenia 2.45 per 100,000 people
United States 4.88 per 100,000 people
Somalia 5.56 per 100,000 people

Thus, based on the argument that violent crime increases with heavy gun control, Somalia and the United States have the heaviest gun control, while Japan, Switzerland and China have the most lax gun control.

Exactly the point I was about to make. Your statistics may be true for the US, where the state as a whole consistently fails to make access to guns hard, so you end up with areas where people are unlikely to have a gun, while the next city over is a gang-ridden cesspool full of automatic firearms. The rest of the world however, disproves your theory. Exceptions make no rule.

Agreed with this; I regularly see people throwing out that Chicago has high gun regulation and high gun crime as an argument that gun regulation doesn’t work, but that completely ignores the fact people can just go a few miles out of town where there are less tight regulations and bring guns into town from there. Gun regulation will only work if it’s applied evenly across the board, not just in select areas.

[MithrandirOlorin]

I would rather live in a Free country then a country with no Violence.