From: masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda)
Subject: Re: A Japanese student killed in Lousiana
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:38:22 GMT

In article <168969616.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>       Nobody has suggested licensing driver's as a way to reduce the
>number of cars on the road.  It *has* been suggested as a way to
>reduce the number of guns bought.  No area has used its driving
>license system to systematically exclude drivers like they have
>gun classes.

In article <1992Nov5.164217.4311@news.yale.edu> watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes:

>So Mr. Masuda, the sad fact of U.S. "gun control" is that it *does*
>mean I must surrender my weapon (eventually).  This is why we
>resist it so absolutely.  If Sarah Brady would endorse the scheme
>above which you and I appear to agree is reasonable, I would resign
>my NRA membership and join HCI (Handgun Control, Inc., headed
>by Mrs. Brady).  In the meantime (in other words, until Hell freezes
>over), I'll back the NRA to the hilt.

   There seems to be no disagreement among Mr. Veal, Mr. Watt and me
regarding the importance of the firearm education.

   The only point of argument seems to me to be "How to make the proper
education prevail."

   At this moment, I personally support those who support the establishment
of a legal system that requires a gun owner to take an appropriate training
and some test for a license. (Please note that I cannot support the issue
directly because I'm not an American citizen. I can only support the 
supporters.) The reason is: 

 (1) Unfortunately, the current gun education
doesn't give me an impression that it's working so effectively. (It's
just my impression. If someone could show me a data to convince me that it's 
working well, I'd not hesiate to correct my impression.)

 (2) Unfortunately, the most
effective way to motivate the largest number of people to take the education
seems to be a legal enforcement. (Of course, this might be true only in 
Japan, and if someone could show me that there's a more effective way to 
create an incentive in the US, I would not stick to my opinion.) 

 (3) I really
don't understand the feeling or fear against the US government that they might
use the legislation for technically banning the weapons. What is their
purpose of disarming the citizens? Just to decrease the gun accidents? Or
in order to make it easier for them to oppress people? (Probably, this is
the most Japanese way of thinking, but if there's a system working well
enough to allow people to control or resist their government non-violently,  
wouldn't it be possible to survive in the democracy somehow? Even though
the Japanese system is not even close to being perfect, we were able to
prevent the government from sending the troops to Iraq.)


    Even though I'm interested in minimizing the possible danger to
my family and me caused by either a violent crime or a weapon abuse during
our (supposedly) temporary stay in the US, I'm not attempting to do
something more than I am eligible to. Since the gun issue is probably the
most American and the least Japanese, it might be one of the best materials
through which I can learn REAL American culture.

    A culture creates a gun, and a gun creates a culture.
 
Michiaki Masuda
Xref: sparky soc.culture.japan:10379 talk.politics.guns:23805