From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:23:11 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <BxHFqq.JtI@ncifcrf.gov>, masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
> >This is a common argument.  We call it the "if it saves only ONE life"
> >argument

> [Irrelevant orphan drug analogy excised]

Your analogy is inept.  For the analogy to be proper, the funding of orphan 
drugs would have to entail the non-funding of another program benefiting more
people.  Since this is not, in fact, what has happened, the comparison to
"what the US government is doing today" with orphan drugs is worthless.

But let's assume that there ARE two health problems actually COMPETING for 
government funds -- one affecting hundreds of folks, and another affecting 
millions.  For every dollar the one gets, the other loses a dollar.  If you 
really think funding the former over the latter is an "expression of good 
conscience," I'm relieved that you're not in charge.

> I'm not trying to say that the orphan drug issue is comparable to the
> gun issue.

Then why even bring it up?  

> Of course, implementation of this kind of policy requires detailed
> and precise evaluation of its effect in each case. 

I thought we had left this kind of double-talk behind us on November third.

> I just wanted to say 
> that the saving-only-one-life argument could sometimes make sense.

I disagree, when saving that life causes you to lose others, or to remove
crucial rights from the rest of the citizens.

> >1) Accidents.
> >2) Erroneous use of a firearm.
> >3) Criminals intending to commit crimes.
> >
> >Courses will NEVER affect #3 -- they INTEND to be dangerous. Courses may
> >diminish the other two cases, but will never entirely remove them.
> 
>    Now that the shooter was charged for manslaughter, actually, I am not
> sure which of your three category includes the exchange student incident.
> Probably, I should wait for the judgment before I answer your question. 

Don't confuse a charge with a conviction.  Manslaughter, by definition, is
not intentional; therefore it cannot be described as "criminals intending
to commit crimes."

>    If the courses tell the attendants how to defend themselves more effectively
> with a gun, will it affect #3?

What does this have to do with the Hattori case?  The homeowner, if anything,
was OVER-effective.  Or is your point that Hattori should have been armed
(and trained, of course!) to defend himself more effectively?  Just what IS
your point?

> >Where do you think the government should spend its time and money?  On the
> >small problem, or on the big one?
> 
>    Both if they are both problems.

Well, I asked for that by saying that government was spending "its" money,
and not that the government was spending "OUR" money.  Of course, it looks
like you were fooled too, but somehow I don't think I can take the credit.

>    This makes me think of one imaginary scenario.
> If the Japanese student had been carrying a gun somehow legally, had had a
> better skill than Mr. Peairs and had shot him, would it have been regarded as
> a self-defense on the student's side? (No sarcasm. Just a simple question
> for me to learn more.) 

Let's see.  I'm armed, trespassing on someone else's property; the owner
is pointing a gun at me and telling me to freeze.  I drop the homeowner.
Now, would it likely be regarded as self-defense?  (Don't all answer at 
once.)

> since the American politics seems to be under a strong influence of
> lobbying and I've heard form an American that there are pro-gun lobbyists
> who are trying to avoid any gun control because that could reduce their
> profit

Thanks for making it perfectly clear where you're coming from.

I await your expose' of all those "medical lobbyists" who are "trying to 
avoid any control of abortion because it could reduce their profit."
Or those "telephone company lobbyists" who are "trying to avoid controls
on free speech because it could reduce their profit."

Certainly it can't be the result of millions of private citizens with 
strong opinions about government encroachment on their rights and privacies.

>    Despite the apparent and increasing similarities between the American 
> society/system/culture and the Japanese counterparts, Japanese are not aware
> of many aspects of the United States of America. For example, the riot in
> LA was shocking to many Japanese. Most Japanese had not been understanding
> that such a third-world-like violent incident could happen in the US.

Get out of that mindset as quickly as you can.  The people who say, "It
can't happen here" are the people it invariably happens to.  To put it
even closer to home, that goes for Japan as well.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan