Raj Feridun wrote:

> Most guns in Japan are cheap Chinese crap brought in by the yakuza.
> They're just as likely to blow up and kill the person firing them.
> There are shootings down here too although they are almost ALWAYS
> gangsters shooting each other.

I have the government data which states otherwise. Yes, it may be mainly gangsters
shooting at each other, but other people are in the way, and it happens in
people's neighborhoods or place of business.

> Japan's gun "problem" cannot even be put in the same universe with
> that of the US. I take it you're not a member of the NRA like me,
> Eric? ;-)

We are talking about Japan's imperfection, not dismissing the problem by comparing
it to a place with a greater problem.

> >> This place I'm in too is Japan.
>
> >Yes, but such a minor part of Japan, with an apparently insignificant problem
> >for you and others not to notice. I prefer hearing from people with experience
> >or to find out firsthand.
>
> I don't know if others noticed or not. Like I said I try to speak for
> myself. Sorry this place is so "minor" and that you'd prefer hearing
> from someone else.

Just a pointing out a matter of fact, not making an insult. How many people are
there in your immediate part of Japan, as a percentage of the nation's population,
and how does life there compare to how Japan is characterized (probably big city
life), perhaps by Japanese themselves? I am well aware how small Fukuyama and
Hiroshima are, but much of life corresponds, anyway, even to big city life, which
is apparently quite different from where you are. And I know how different my home
community and state are from the rest of the US, particularly the big cities.

> >> I don't think its someone else's problem
> >> either. I've got a problem with anyone who is unkind and void of
> >> compassion for others, period.
>
> >How about those "caring" people who do nothing, who are part of the reason the
> >problem continues, though they may not be the cause themselves? Do you realize
> >there is a problem with them (and the ignorant), as well?
>
> Wow, you are SERIOUSLY left-wing!

I have voted Democrat and do not foresee voting Republican in the immediate
future, but no, I am not left wing. I believe quite strongly in people being
responsible for themselves (and families) and living with what their choices have
brought them, but ONLY when are able to. Once people are elderly, jobless, poor,
and on the street, for example, it is rather late to criticize them for not
studying harder as kids or not planning their futures better. Berating them for
not having good jobs is simply cruel. As for partaking in vices such as drink and
tobacco, even to try to forget the misery of their lives, if that is in fact what
they are attempting, that is irresponsible if they do it at the expense of eating
decent food.

I have referred to some Fukuyama homeless as "ignorant" "idiots" and "asses I
would prefer not to do anything for". In any case, if the people are unable or
unwilling to care for themselves and in the extreme case, I see them lying on the
ground in the cold, I cannot hold it against them and there is not much else I can
do but to try to provide for their immediate needs such as winter clothes or some
futons and food, so something worse does not happen such as exposure or
malnutrition.

> >> Scott, sorry if you think I'm all about insults. That's not it at all.
>
> >I don't believe you are about insults. I believe you are ignorant or in denial
> >like many "people" I know, about 99% of whom are Japanese.
>
> Thank you for the compliment(s)..
>
> >And not kind.
>
> Wow, a bonus. To whom??

Japanese.

> >> To answer your final question no, it never bothered me because IT is
> >> not something I am very familiar with.
>
> >You are not required to be familiar (have experience) with something for it to
> >bother you. You don't care that it happens elsewhere, or to anyone else? For
> >some reason, posters think I must have personal experience with some problem
> >to have such strong views on them. No, I do not. I can have strong views, and
> >also act, on problems which have nothing at all to do with me or anyone
> >related to me.
>
> Experience goes a LONG way towards helping people undertand things,
> Eric. Don't knock it till you try it.

I have understood some things through experience, and I have understood some
things with no experience at all. It's better to have experience, if it does not
hurt too much, but it is hardly necessary. Even Japanese use the term "heiwa boke"
in reference to themselves and how they may think or live, but how people can be
"heiwa boke" about important issues is kind of difficult to understand. They
should not, for example, expect the government of North Korea to simply hand over
any Japanese and children or spouses of Japanese right away, because what North
Korea did was wrong, and giving Japan the people would be the right thing to do.
They should not expect peace in Iraq or elsewhere, if the US simply leaves or lays
down its weapons. They should not expect SDF personnel to be safe anywhere in Iraq
and make safety one condition of going over. They should not simply shake their
heads in disapproval at a local rise in crime, and not lock their own doors or
windows or secure their cash and valuables.

> But I see your point. I'm not personally experienced with being a
> racist yet racists bother the SHIT out of me.

Who would this be? Do you know any Japanese racists?

If you are referring to the people at the beginning of this thread, longtime group
regulars, you should be aware that there appear to be some personal issues at
work, which is why I will not go beyond asking what's happened.

> >"My" experience is not the universal experience (though it corresponds rather
> >well on a smaller scale), and also why your experience where you claim not to
> >see homeless at all is rather irrelevant. But what is happening to others
> >elsewhere does better represent the universal experience, which is why I care
> >about people who have nothing to do with me.
>
> Is your whole thing homeless and nothing else?? What about the poor
> who still have homes? What about orphaned children? How about the
> aged, the terminally ill, Lepers? There are lots of things to be kind
> about and you see to be majorly focused on just one.

Homeless exposed to the elements in increasing cold with *obviously* not enough to
eat and not enough clothes for the winter are the most immediate need. As I have
written, at least one man has been hospitalized because people who could easily
have done so at any time, did not act until it was too late. I am so sorry that I
had not heard of the men at the castle until just last week.

You are correct. This is my current focus, and my only current focus. But you
bringing up other worthy issues which need to be addressed and giving up, is
simply a common and convenient excuse for many people to do NOTHING at all.

BTW, it seems the government takes much better care of those other issues than the
homeless issue, at least in this area. The poor have welfare and unemployment, and
kids have almost free public schooling and free schoolbooks and maybe free lunch.
Orphaned children have institutions and foster care is growing in popularity. The
terminally ill have national health care. Hansen's patients also have national
health care and institutions.

What does a man lying on the ground with no futon and no food anywhere in sight
have, and why should I not attend to such a man first, when I have the time and
the means?

> >We understand that you are sheltered, and I believe numerous people have said
> >so.
>
> Again with the royal "we" although it was Michael the last time. Also,
> pardon me, but every single person in here can agree on something and
> it does not necessarily make it so. I am very much aware that I'm on
> my own in here.

It is you admitting to your own ignorance, not just me calling you ignorant or in
denial, with no attempt at insult. Ignorant means "don't know", not stupid.

> >> I've got evidence to the contrary in the form of very kind and caring
> >> Japanese
> >> people all around me.
>
> >How would you know, when you do explicitly say you not ask, and do not see the
> >problem? Would you be foolish enough to claim, for example, that the reason
> >there are no visible homeless in your area, is because there are enough good
> >paying jobs for all, that government support is sufficient, or that people
> >take in the poor themselves?
>
> If there are no homeless does that mean there is no problem?

If there are no homeless, I guess that means there is no homeless "problem".
Either that, or the people who would be homeless were somehow motivated to move
elsewhere, perhaps through unkind government policy to prevent them from settling
in visible areas, just as Mike has visually demonstrated, and has also been
described numerous times in national media. I have been in the old homeless city
of hundreds, in the Shinjuku underground. Devilishly clever how the government got
them out into the cold. Also devilishly clever how the government keeps the
Imperial couple on tour from encountering homeless in public.

What do you think no visible homeless means?

> Is that it?? Because I want to get to the bottom of this already.

Simply keep on admitting you don't know how much of the rest (perhaps 98%) of
Japan is, and we could be done. I know that my experience in my small corner of
Japan with only the few thousand Japanese I have ever met, nevertheless
corresponds in some degree (sometimes very well as in problems in the Middle East)
to much of the rest of Japan and Japanese.

> >> Japan is my home too and has been for the past 10 good years.
>
> >Rural Shikoku is your home, and life there does not seem characteristic of
> >Japan, in the same way rural Hawaii is not like the rest of America. Fukuyama,
> >however, does share a number of features with larger urban areas, though on a
> >smaller scale.
>
> Thanks for clearing me up on Fukuyama.

Again, no insult meant regarding where you live. It's just smaller and different.

> Now that you mention it I also
> passed through your city recently on my way back from Shimonoseki ( I
> took a short ferry trip to Pusan). I didn't get off the train but the
> city did indeed look quite large.

Only 400,000, soon to be about 500,000 after the merger of three towns and cities,
and about 10 km wide. Almost all I need is within 1.5 km of the station, which is
also a Shinkansen station. It's a good size for the people who choose to be here.
A lot of young people, and people who may have to move here for work, particularly
wives of company workers from Tokyo or Yokohama, can't wait to get out.

> It's definitely bigger than this town.