From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:05:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.BxH1Gz.IE7
Organization: Indiana University

In article <BxGuxn.9nH@ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>In article <BxEuqr.B6u@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>>In article <BxE08w.JyJ@ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov6.173514.8091@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>.....
>>>>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.
>
>>He didn't write:"he/she knows the car will hit him/her," don't put
>>words on his screen.
>
>He didn't write, "he/she doesn't know", either. Unless that point is clear, 
>the jumping-in-front-of-a-moving-car analogy is not a good one.

You're proposing all types of vague laws for U.S. citizens yet you seem
to think them fine and dandy.


>>>In article <1992Nov6.174806.8454@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>>>The problem is all the measures you propose like registration and
>>>>licensing are very helpful for gun banners and are often proposed by
>>>>those who clearly are interested in immediately or ultimately banning
>>>>guns.
>
>>>   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?
>>>   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.

>>>   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.
>
>>If you're discussing the Hattori incident, he was hit, you know, how
>>would target training have avoided that.
>
>  Are you trying to put your words into my mouth? I've never said
>that "target training" would have avoided the Hattori incident. Only one 
>scenario that I can imagine in which the target training might have saved
>the student's life is the shooter aiming at his legs. However, although
>death and injury make a large difference, I don't think this scenario is the
>final goal to accomplish.

Your proposals are so vague, how is one to tell? If you're too ignorant
to say something concrete say nothing at all. 

>>>>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. 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.

>>>>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.


>>>>>   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."

>>>>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. You're proposing laws for American households, I'm
telling you to mind your own nation's affairs. 

>>>In article <1992Nov7.085201.2406@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>>>In article <Bx9n3w.HGF@ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>>>>>   Have you got the result of "Average Asian vs. Average American" vote?
>
>>>>If you think it is racist for an Asian to say that, you'd probably
>>>>think it sexist to say that men can't have babies too.
>
>>>    I wonder why you overreacted to a simple question that you can answer 
>>>by either "yes" or "no." It's a fact that you proposed taking a poll, isn't
>>>it? Do your words include anything that could make me think that you are a
>>>racist? 
>
>>Are you trying to say that all Asians are Americans?
>
>   Hunh? What makes you think that way?
>
>>>>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.



-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | 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,talk.politics.guns