From: masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:21:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: ncifcrf.BxH7r5.G76
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center

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.

>>>>>>   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.

>>>>>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?

> 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.

>>>>>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.

Michiaki Masuda