From: masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda)
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:13:38 GMT

C. D. Tavares writes:

In article <Bx6rqE.LF6@ncifcrf.gov>, masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>>    Even if it's true that the number is not large, those cases are still a
>> tragedy. If there's a way to decrease the number, wouldn't it be
>> reasonable to go for it?

>This is a common argument.  We call it the "if it saves only ONE life"
>argument
.....
>Civil forfeiture is a great example of "if it stops only ONE criminal."
>Obviously, it's stopped at least ONE criminal.  Do you think we were
>"reasonable to go for it?"

  This reminds me of the issue of orphan drugs. There are rare human 
diseases that might not kill even 1,000 people per year in the US. Reasonably,
pharmaceutical companies are not interested in developing/testing/
manufacturing/selling the drugs that have a very limited commercial value. 
These drugs are called orphan drugs. As I understand it, the US government
is now subsidizing the R&D and production of orphan drugs. We could argue that
if the same amount of budegt were used on, let's say, the AIDS research, there 
should be more lives saved or more AIDS patients would be able to receive
a better care. If the same amount of budget were used for the mass screening
of breast cancer, there might be more cancer survivors. However, IMHO, the 
government should not always cut off a minor problem, and I believe that  
the orphan drug law is an expression of a good conscience of the US
government.  

  I'm not trying to say that the orphan drug issue is comparable to the
gun issue. Of course, implementation of this kind of policy requires detailed
and precise evaluation of its effect in each case. I just wanted to say 
that the saving-only-one-life argument could sometimes make sense.
 
>Say, which of the three are you discussing?
>
>1) Accidents.
>2) Erroneous use of a firearm.
>3) Criminals intending to commit crimes.
>
>Courses will NEVER affect #3 -- they INTEND to be dangerous. Courses may
>diminish the other two cases, but will never entirely remove them.

   Now that the shooter was charged for manslaughter, actually, I am not
sure which of your three category includes the exchange student incident.
Probably, I should wait for the judgment before I answer your question. 

   If the courses tell the attendants how to defend themselves more effectively
with a gun, will it affect #3?

>Are you aware that the ACCIDENTAL death rate alone of LICENSED DRIVERS who 
>have taken your highly-touted government driving tests and courses is 43 
>times HIGHER than the accident rate of American gun owners who are in general
>not licensed or tested?

   Again, I should wait and see if this case is judged as an accident. 

In another posting, C. D. Tavares writes:

>Where do you think the government should spend its time and money?  On the
>small problem, or on the big one?

   Both if they are both problems.

>If you have a gun pointed at me, I will stand still even if you say "Kudasai."

   This makes me think of one imaginary scenario.
If the Japanese student had been carrying a gun somehow legally, had had a
better skill than Mr. Peairs and had shot him, would it have been regarded as
a self-defense on the student's side? (No sarcasm. Just a simple question
for me to learn more.) 

In other postings, C. D. Tavares writes:

>In article <Bx84DM.ILM@ncifcrf.gov>, masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:

>>      Do you have any idea how to encourage people to take the training
>> without legislation?

>Encourage is the right word here.  Legislation implies force.  It is
>always harder to encourage someone to do something than to force him.

   Agreed.

>Encouragement, though, requires incentives, while force just requires
>disincentives.  And the government simply has no incentives to offer.
>Who could offer such incentives?  The industry, perhaps, and gun clubs.
>My club, for example, won't allow you to use the ranges without passing
>both a written and a practical test.

   Sounds like a good policy, and I hope that there is a good way to make many
good clubs like yours and to encourage many gunowners to join them.

>> If the pro-gun lobbyists and pressure groups find that they could make a 
>> good business out of the firearm education, the government will follow,
>> won't it?

>No, absolutely not.  The government is neither in the business of making
>a profit, nor of providing incentives to common citizens for "preferred
>behavior."  Not only is it not their business to do so, but whenever
>they try it anyway, they fail at it regardless.

   Sorry, I should have been more specific. I didn't mean to say that the
government can make a profit out of the education. What I meant to say was that
since the American politics seems to be under a strong influence of
lobbying and I've heard form an American that there are pro-gun lobbyists
who are trying to avoid any gun control because that could reduce their
profit, good incentives for those people to do business in a different way
might affect the government policy differently.

>  But we
>don't control any of these rights because you MIGHT do something wrong
>with them.

   Considering the American cultural background which always tries to admit the
maximum expression of one's right, I think that it is understandable.

>>    I think that one of the reasons why this incident had such a strong impact
>> (at least in Japan) was that in the US, just a couple of misunderstandings
>> could end up with creating a tragedy (both for the deceased and the shooter)
>> which involves a handgun.
>>    It might be a common knowledge for Americans, but Japanese learned a
>> lot, I believe.

>The universe in general often harshly punishes simple misunderstandings, 
>from "I didn't know anybody was working on that circuit," to "But he looked 
>JUST like Uncle Freddy."  I'm sure most Japanese are already aware of this.
>Of course, all of us are still allowed to be shocked by it now and again.

   Despite the apparent and increasing similarities between the American 
society/system/culture and the Japanese counterparts, Japanese are not aware
of many aspects of the United States of America. For example, the riot in
LA was shocking to many Japanese. Most Japanese had not been understanding
that such a third-world-like violent incident could happen in the US.
This exchange student case is another lesson that many Japanese
learned afresh. Probably, the Japanese who are planning to come to 
or are already in the US should realize the difference between the US and
Japan which is mush larger than we can perceive from the surface.

   You are right in saying that Japanese are aware of the fact that 
misunderstandings could end up as a tragedy. However, many Japanese 
including the late Yoshi Hattori have not been aware what kind of tragedy
awaits us. This is also a tragedy for Mr. Peairs and his family, too.

   I don't believe that this incident is causing any hostility or distrust
against the US in Japan. Instead, many Japanese seems to have learned the
importance of the mutual understanding in order to avoid another tragedy.

   I hope that this incident will somehow lead to a better US-Japan 
relationship. By this way, Yoshi Hattori's death, although it's a sad fact,
will have a value that it deserves.

Michiaki Masuda