From: masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda)
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:20:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.005859.18489@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <BxGyrs.BI7@ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:

>Mandatory education is too easy to turn into a gun ban and wouldn't
>affect criminal misuse anyway.

   Doesn't it contradict your proposal of the mandatory firearm education
at high school?
 
>The problem is with CRIMINALs who misuse guns. How would you solve
>the problem of rapists? Train them how to use their penis?

   Not the best thing to say.

   Unless gunowners' taking education aggravates the criminal situation,
I don't see any good reason not to make an effort to promote education.

>>> 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

>Certainly there are some abuses the government can commit. I think this
>can be made to be harder to abuse. 

   Is it true for the gun control, too?

>What is there now to stop the
>government from framing innocent citizens and putting them in jail?

   Since you suggested the possibility that I don't know well about the US,
maybe, you could give a better answer.

>>possible to delete some climinal records. If the government is not

>Am I supposed to worry about the government deleting criminal records?

   If that's somehow beneficial to the government or people who control
the government, why not?

>>   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

>They could do that now.

   And are they doing that now?

>>capable of misusing the training system?  

>The kind of abuses most likely are requiring courses and not giving
>them. The scheme I proposed avoids this by making a diploma defacto
>evidence of competency.

   ??? Do you mean that it is OK if a school does not give courses that
the government require? 

>>>>     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 the bottom line is criminals commit crimes. If we could solve
>that problem, we wouldn't have to worry about gun crimes. If we
>can't solve that problem, other types of gun restrictions are like
>looking for lost keys at night under a lamp post even though you
>didn't lose them there.

   How would your mandatory education scheme affect the crime situation?

>>     We are not talking about gun bans, are we?

>You propose the same measures the gun banners propose, measures which
>are ineffective at reducing crime but highly effective at hassling
>gun owners.

   As I mentioned several times, I've been supporting the proposal of other
Americans whose goal is to establish a certain level of gun control
and education system without harming the right to bear arms.

> Why don't you clear the air and tell us exactly what
>you propose.

   Is supporting someone's proposal not good enough? If I really wanted to
propose the US government policy, I'd be spending my time to try to
obtain the US citizenship rather than posting on the USENET. 
 
> Go into clear detail about your ideas. Be sure to
>address the reservations gun owners have about measures that have
>already been tried. Don't forget the lesson of the voter literacy
>tests.

  Someone on the net said that we shouldn't restrict people's right
until they commit a crime. In the US, a country of freedom, this
argument seems to be a reasonable one. It was also interesting or
even surprising to know that there so many Americans who expressed a 
distrust against their own government. Therefore, I'm not necessarily 
holding on to the idea to implement the regulation by the government. 

  This exchange student case is a tragedy caused by misunderstanding, but
it can also be viewd from a different angle as a restirction of Yoshi 
Hattori's right (to live) before his committing a crime. If that is
the case, I believe that it is reasonable to make an effort to try to
avoid the same restriction. What I've been trying to know is if there is
anything that the US can change in order to avoid it, and it has been 
my impression that the education and a certain level of control for 
promoting the education is a reasonable measure. Of course, there are
many changes that we Japanese can and should make. The better understanding
of an unspoken danger in the US would be one thing. Collection and 
distribution of the information for facilitating the understanding would 
be also necessary. If there's nothing wrong with the US gun system,
if it was just a personal blunder of the shooter and nothing could have
corrected it, and if the final answer is that there is nothing that
the US can change to avoid the next Hattori incident which is a negligible
minor problem, I should probably try to go into detail about what we could 
do in Japan.

Michiaki Masuda