From: masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda)
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:07:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.052949.24161@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <BxE08w.JyJ@ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:

>>>Saying that Peairs might have acted reasonably is not the same as blaming
>>>Hattori any more than if Peairs had accidently run over Hattori because
>>>Hattori jumped in front of a moving car.

>>   Not quite a good analogy. If someone jumped in front of a moving a car
>>when he/she knows the car will hit him/her, that would be a reckless or
>>even stupid act. As far as I know, there is no proved evidence to
>>show that this was the case with the Hattori incident.

>Ok, we'll also stipulate the deceased came from an area where there
>were no cars and had no way of knowing the danger. Is that enough?
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   Probably, an important factor of this incident. 

>>   I'm not sure whether you intentionally omitted the "firearm education"
>>from "all the measures," but I don't see any reason why the education lead 
>>to banning guns. There are some posters who mentioned the possibility that 

>If you want to persuade people through voluntary education, that is
>great.

   Good to know that you finally agreed that the education is meaningful.

>  You and the NRA are on the same side, except the NRA actually
>offers training.

   Then, the problem seems to reside on the side of gun owners who do not
take these opportunities. How would you solve it? 

> If you want the government to require the training,
>then that is unacceptable because there is a long history of the
>government abusing such systems,

   I'll comment on this below.

>>   Even if those measures could end up with helping gun banners under some
>>circumstances, it is still possible to draw a line between the two opinions
>>if the US government is still under the control of American citizens.

>That's the problem. Many (and more each day) citizens do not feel the
>government is under control.

   I'll comment on this later, too.

>>>Citizens able to defend themselves. Especially women and the elderly
>>>who are often the victims of rape, assault, and robbery precisely
>>>because the criminals think they can not defend themselves.

>>   Do you propose a policy to distribute a free handgun to all the women and
>>elderly who want to have one?

>You mean like the people who think that the right to have an abortion
>means the government has to pay for it if the mother can not afford it
>herself?

   Not a bad idea.

> I don't believe in big government so I'm opposed to both. 
>But I think that people with a clean record should be able to carry
>weapons with them when they go out.

   If you are talking about a record in the government's hand and you distrust
the government, wouldn't you think of a possibility that they might be able to
manipulate what they have? It might be possible for them to frame
innocent citizens and make criminals out of them. It might be also
possible to delete some climinal records. If the government is not
trustworthy, wouldn't it be dangerous to expoloit a system which depends
on the government's record?

>>>Yes, it would. Why not make it mandatory in high school, like driver's
>>>education?

>>     Isn't (public) high school education rather vulnerable to the pressure
>>from the government?

>What kind of pressure did you have in mind? The kind of system I
>had in mind was that public schools were required to offer gun
>training and a high school diploma would automatically be considered
>evidence of competence in handling guns.

   Required by whom? 

   If the training is required by the government and the government is out 
of control, they might be able to require the schools to teach the students
that the violent resistance against the authority is an unforgivable
crime under any circumstances. Didn't you mention that the government is
capable of misusing the training system?  

>>     What made your attitude? Your genetic materials?

>It sounds like you don't know the US very well if you think attitudes
>are easily changed by education.

     Then, why don't you enlighten me by answering my question above?

>>>I think some posters have been asserting Peaires was racist. Whether
>>>he was or not (I have seen no evidence he was), I think the issue of
>>>gun control and racism have a lot to do with each other.

>>   Then, you might want to drop the racial propblem issue from this thread
>>until you see some evidence.

>Racism enters the picture as a factor in the consequences of gun bans.

     We are not talking about gun bans, are we?

Michiaki Masuda
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan,talk.politics.guns