From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:38:41 GMT

In article <BxH7r5.G76@ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>In article <BxH1Gz.IE7@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>
>>You're proposing all types of vague laws for U.S. citizens yet you seem
>>to think them fine and dandy.
>
>   No, I am not. Do you post without reading the message that you are 
>responding to? (Please, see below.)
>
>>>>>   First of all, although I appreciate your giving me more credits than
>>>>>I deserve, I don't think that I am the one who proposed those you mentioned
>>>>>above. As I clearly sateted in another posting, I am currently agreeing with
>>>>>those people who proposed and support those ideas.
>
>>>>So we gathered. Any other revelations? We can make our own laws or not,
>                                                 ^^^^
>>>> and do just fine, thank you very much.
>
>>>   Sorry, but your last sentence didn't make sense to me.
>
>>Any better?
>
>   Yeah, much better.
>
>>>>>   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 
>>>>>we can promote the education without going through the authoritarian 
>>>>>regulation. 
>
>>>>And we do, thank you, next point please.
>
>>>  How?
>
>>The NRA provides thousands of instructors free of charge all over the
>>United States.
>
>   How many percents of gunowners are taking these opportunities?
>
>>Your proposals are so vague, how is one to tell? If you're too ignorant
>>to say something concrete say nothing at all. 
>
>   Is the freedom of speech available to only smarty-pants like you?
>
>>>>>>I'm sorry Hattori
>>>>>>got killed, but people get struck by lightning too. We don't refuse to
>>>>>>go outside just because someone else might get struck by lightning.
>
>>>>>   No, we don't because we invented a lightening rod. 8-)
>
>>>>Next electrical storm, go outside with your lightning rod and we'll 
>>>>take bets on how long you last.
>
>>>   Are you ordering me to do it? Then, I'll take it as a threat. (No
>>>smiley here.) (FYI, a lightening rod is not something that you use in your
>>>hand. Don't try it at home. 8-))
>
>>Oh, pulllleeeease. You're feigned matyrdom is not only transparent but
>>moronic. <how to keep a lightning rod with you at all times>
>>If you take it as a threat, call the police and explain to them how 
>>someone 800 miles away "threatened" you by telling you go outside
>>with a lighting rod, said message being transmitted over a computer
>>network.
>
>   First, we cannot tell how far the poster is physically away from us.
>There is no gurantee that I am typing this in Frederick.
>
>   Secondly, whether it's transmitted by a computer network or not is
>not related to the fact whether it's a threat or not.  
>
>> They'll quickly have you in a rubber room drawing pretty
>>pictures in a coloring book. How idiotic can you be? No, don't
>>answer that.
>
>   Would you please know better than getting a self-satisfaction by ordering 
>someone to do or not to do something? No, I'm not ordering it. I'm asking it.
>
>>>>>>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?
>
>>>>If you can't see the difference between not prohibiting and subsidizing,
>>>>you should probably stop here.
>
>>>   If you think that I can't see the difference between prohibition and
>>>subidizing judging from my sentence, you should have stopped earlier.
>
>>In other words you can't tell the difference. That is *EXACTLY* what your
>>sentence implies.
>
>   I'm afraid that you couldn't make use of an opportunity to correct yourself.
>
>   Someone might think of rebutting me saying that I am confusing the right to
>bear arms with subsidizing, which could be a reasonable argument. However,
>no reasonable person would believe that I'm making that comment without
>knowing the difference between prohibition of gun possession and subusidy.

No reasonable person could believe I "ordered you to go out in a lightning
storm with a lightning rod." A reasonable could believe you are *quite*
confused.

>>>>>>>   The education would be very helpful if it could let people, who own a
>>>>>>>firearm without criminal intention, know how to protect themselves 
>>>>>>>effectively and how not to hurt others or themselves mistakingly.  
>
>>>>>>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?
>
>>>>Yes, that why this is not the case.
>
>>>   Then, you might want to rebut against Mr. Ngai's proposal. 
>
>>Why? saying why it is not is not at all the same as saying "it should
>>not be."
>
>   Then, please, say something concrete.

It was concrete. You couldn't understand it. 

>>>>>>Half the households in the US have guns. Maybe you should consider that.
>
>>>>>    Not "maybe." Definitely, I should. So should other Japanese. 
>
>>>>Why should Japanese interfere with what goes on in American households.
>
>>>   How will the Japanese's better understanding of the gun situation in the US
>>>interfere with American households? By considering the dager that we might
>>>encounter in visiting a stranger's house in the US, we Japanese would be able 
>>>to behave more properly. If you insist that Japanese should not consider the
>>>situation, that's an intereference from your side.
>
>>Are you really this big an idiot, "insist that Japanese should not consider
>>the situation," c'mon.
>
>   Is this a question or an insult?

Yes.

>> You're proposing laws for American households,
>
>   Once again, "No, I'm not."
>
>> I'm
>>telling you to mind your own nation's affairs. 
>
>  Another order, eh?
>
>  In several other posting all of which you mmight not be able to read, I
>already mentioned the possible problems (e.g., lack of information) in 
>Japan that might have caused the Hattori incident. You are coordially
>invited to soc.culture.japan where we talk about our nation's affairs.
>There seem to be other groups on Japan under fj. hierarchy.

Why should I interfere in Japanese affairs? You still don't get it.
Do you?

>>>>>>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.
>
>>>>Tu quoque!
>
>>>   Uh, would you mind translating it into Japanese?
>
>>No, it's a cultural *thing*, you know.
>
>   Do you mean you don't mind?
>
>   I'm afraid that the argument of mine with you is going further away 
>from the important points of the issue and getting more or less personal.
>I'd like to propose either you reply to this by e-mail or that you post your 
>rebuttal and win a last word and I respond by e-mail.

Is this an order or a threat? Both?



-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
 | Midterm Countdown-Bill and the Congress have to '94 to screw it up |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan