From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:52:41 GMT

In article <BxIIxw.61x@ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.005859.18489@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>Mandatory education is too easy to turn into a gun ban and wouldn't
>>affect criminal misuse anyway.
>
>   Doesn't it contradict your proposal of the mandatory firearm education
>at high school?

Not necessarily.  The mandatory firearm education in school is for everyone.
Maybe some schools would not offer it and flunk everyone, but gun owners
are willing to trust you folks on this one.  Considering how often
you've lied, that's quite a leap of faith.

Education requirements for gun ownership have been turned into bans
because not approving courses doesn't affect anyone but gun owners.
This is the sort of thing that teaches gun owners that gun-controller
promises aren't worth spit.

>>The problem is with CRIMINALs who misuse guns. How would you solve
>>the problem of rapists? Train them how to use their penis?
>
>   Not the best thing to say.
>
>   Unless gunowners' taking education aggravates the criminal situation,
>I don't see any good reason not to make an effort to promote education.

Why?  Because it doesn't help.  Of course, if we're serious about this
"it may not help, but why not do it anyway", we might as well require
Japanese tourists to wear red shirts and walk backwards.  That won't
help either, but "I don't see any good reason not to make an effort to
promote red shirt wearing and walking backwards."

If it doesn't help, why bother?  There are lots of things we can do
that don't help, so why is education a good idea even if it doesn't
help?

>>Certainly there are some abuses the government can commit. I think this
>>can be made to be harder to abuse. 
>
>   Is it true for the gun control, too?

The record isn't encouraging.

It's rather easy to make a "good faith, trust-me" argument.  All you
have to do is demonstrate good faith and demonstrate that you can be
trusted.  There are lots of opportunities to do so in the field of gun
control in the US.  AFTER you take advantage of them, we'll talk.

You might want to start with concealed-carry law or purchase
applications.

>>>   If the training is required by the government and the government is out 
>>>of control, they might be able to require the schools to teach the students
>>>that the violent resistance against the authority is an unforgivable
>>>crime under any circumstances. Didn't you mention that the government is
>
>>They could do that now.
>
>   And are they doing that now?

Yes.  Note that "failing" to satisfy the teacher that you've agreed
with the lesson doesn't have any consequences.

>>The kind of abuses most likely are requiring courses and not giving
>>them. The scheme I proposed avoids this by making a diploma defacto
>>evidence of competency.
>
>   ??? Do you mean that it is OK if a school does not give courses that
>the government require? 

Welcome to America.

>>I think the bottom line is criminals commit crimes. If we could solve
>>that problem, we wouldn't have to worry about gun crimes. If we
>>can't solve that problem, other types of gun restrictions are like
>>looking for lost keys at night under a lamp post even though you
>>didn't lose them there.
>
>   How would your mandatory education scheme affect the crime situation?

It wouldn't.  All it would do is satisfy people, like you, who think
that education requirements have some value.  It would do so without
singling gun-owners out for special abuse, without significant risk of
becoming a gun-ban.  Since you've said that you don't want to do those
things, that you want education, why are you so opposed to a system
that does exactly what you want to do?

>   As I mentioned several times, I've been supporting the proposal of other
>Americans whose goal is to establish a certain level of gun control
>and education system without harming the right to bear arms.

That's not their goal.  That's their marketing slogan.

>   Is supporting someone's proposal not good enough? If I really wanted to
>propose the US government policy, I'd be spending my time to try to
>obtain the US citizenship rather than posting on the USENET. 

Why would you use such ineffective means?  Bribing US govt officials
is the way to go if you're interested in affecting US govt policy.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan