From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:29:49 GMT

In article <BxE08w.JyJ@ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>   We were talking about a rationale or reasoning for enforcing something to 
>people and its possible association with a cultural difference. I used an 
>imaginary scenario because we were talking on a rather metaphysical
>basis. That could have been any other scenario. 

As long as you admit you're using an imaginary scenario, fine.

>>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?
I certainly do not intend to blame Hattori.

>   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.  You and the NRA are on the same side, except the NRA actually
offers training. 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, ranging from literacy tests for
black voters in the South to the current California situation where
courses will be required but no money has been allocated for actually
giving classes.

>   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.

>>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? 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.

>>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.

>     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.

>>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.

-- 
My opinions are my own.