Who cares? You'll still get most, if not all of that tax money back at the end of the year and it's not like it was hard to pay it out of the $10k check you receive. Why complain about taxes?
Why would packaging quiet down once it's purchased? If it gets to that point, it will have some cheap sensor that determines how much is left and notify you that you need to go out and purchase more of the product. Hell, your house will have a built in computer that builds a shopping list for you and prints it out, or sends it to your mobile device so you can shop. Better yet, it will (upon your request) send it directly to the store, and someone will deliver the goods to your home.
I don't see that happening on packaging, though, but definitely can envision walls and other surfaces being used constantly as advertisement space. They already are, we'll just be able to change the advertisements more frequently, more easily.
Do you really want your condom to tell you you're not good at it too? I mean, being chastised by your partner is one thing, but the condom too? You must be a glutton for punishment.
Thank you for a very thoughtful conversation. I think it's important that you recognize your bias and express that, because it does bring a very different edge to your comments, and I appreciate that. I never thought of your comments as offensive, so much as lacking a certain perspective, which makes sense, given your upbringing.
I'd like to say that I have never advocated gun ownership (and never will) for the sake of "home safety" because I think that's a fallacy. More people are shot with guns in their own home than any other place, I believe. I consider them a tool for safety in environments where man is the weakest link (ie truly wild, harsh, natural environs), rather than in environments where man is the most dangerous predator (ie cities) . Guns are frightening and they should be. I don't think guns should be treated casually but they definitely don't have to be considered criminal objects, and are, as you say tools that are only good or bad depending upon their user.
I've taught my kids about sex since they were first able to ask any questions about it. For my daughter she asked me what and orgasm was when she was 6 or 7 years old. She got a valid answer, not a lie. When she was 8 she asked if one of my friends was gay, and knew that several of the women I had dated after getting divorced were bisexual. Sex doesn't have to be some sort of scary thing and I'd much prefer to see sex on tv than violence, to be honest.
Kids need to be treated with the respect they deserve, and taught to think for themselves, as early as possible, I think. Otherwise you have a society of mindless sheep. If they have the thought capacity to ask a question, they have the capacity to understand a real answer. It doesn't have to be a complete, in depth, answer, but it has to be a real answer.
I don't think it's necessary to give a child a gun to teach them about guns, and my children have never shot a gun, but have been around them and understand the implications they have for potential harm.
TV teaches kids the exact opposite of the truth about guns, at least as seen here in the USA. People routinely get shot on tv and act like it doesn't hurt much, or shot at, and things like drywall, car doors, and shipping crates stop the bullets. A 22 caliber rifle round can go through six 2x4 planks before it finally stops. A 1/2" piece of drywall simply won't stop them, and certainly not higher caliber bullets, which are more common for handguns.
I would sooner leave my children alone in central park than expect them to learn gun safety (or anything else) from television.
They already started traffic controls last year, according to my wife's cousin who lives in Beijing. Based on license plate numbers of your vehicle you can only drive certain days. It's made a significant difference already, according to her. Will it be good enough for the rest of the world to find Beijing acceptable? I don't know, but it's certainly better than it was 2 years ago. I won't be heading there until after the olympics, but I'm looking forward to the trip nonetheless.
My biggest question to people espouse your position is "why should the rest of the country foot the bill for New Orleans?"
Seriously, the city should never have been built in the first place, being below sea level, on the damn coast, is just a stupid place to settle. Pouring millions of dollars into a bad idea doesn't make it a better idea, it just makes it a more wasteful bad idea.
I'm all for helping people rebuild their lives. I think they should be paid whatever they lost, by the insurance companies, and then asked politely to move somewhere else. The government owes no responsibility to fix everything for every poor sucker that can't get over their "family history here" and bullshit like that. You've been given a reasonable amount (for most people-not all, certainly) of support for the last 2 years in order to make your life better. Staying where the economy is crap, and you're doomed to repeat the same problems within the next 10-20 years because we can't stop hurricanes, is no longer the rest of the tax-paying citizens' fault.
Yes the situation was handled badly, at many different levels. Yes, people continue to struggle, but I'm tired of hearing about people asking for continued handouts. If it sucks so bad, find some other place to make a better life for yourself, and don't complain about people not helping you enough. We have been helping, some of us directly, for two years, and we can't put everyone else on hold to continue supporting a lost cause. At some point you have to take responsibility for yourself.
Not unless it was some really "unusual" fruit like lychee or longrien (don't have an english name so that's a vaguely romanized spelling of the chinese pronunciation) or something like that. If it was the standard banana, kiwi, strawberry, or other it more likely came from central/south america, unless of course you live in europe. Then it still might have come from there, but probably other places in europe as well.
My post applies to my post as well. Some would call it humor. Obviously you wouldn't. I know nothing about what the post in question was thinking, I just read it as humorous. Obviously you didn't.
Yes, times change. That doesn't change the fact that being unnecessary and wrong/obscene aren't the same thing at all. You have an opinion, that was worded as a troll, whether you intended to word it that way or not. Growing vegetables is fine, and a great supplement to other options, but unless you're a vegetarian, with a lot of land, you won't feed your family on that.
As for necessary, for some people, it is necessary. See my post above about my brother who does need to hunt to supplement his food supplies. As a result, his children have learned to hunt as well. Is it necessary for them? Right now yes, hopefully not in the long run, when they're forced to fend for themselves. There are plenty of people in the US and I'd dare say in the UK who are poor enough to need to hunt for food or risk not eating. And, as I said in another post, it isn't always about hunt or don't eat, but sometimes it's "buy food or buy something else" and when you have the opportunity to hunt for your food, you can afford a better standard of living by doing so and using what little money you have to buy other necessities.
Your view, while wonderfully progressive, is unfortunately not realistic because it overlooks the fact that we're not all equally capable financially. Yes, a lot of people hold your opinion, but I'd be willing to bet most of those people have never gone hungry in their lives or had to make the choice between food and something else.
I am actually a proponent of limited gun control. IE no automatic weapons for citizens. Much more limited hand gun availability (they do have uses in some places) with licenses for anyone who owns them. Mandatory yearly training for anyone holding a license, that sort of thing. Owning a gun, in my opinion should be a right, but it should also be treated as a privelege/responsibility that you have to maintain through active participation. Of course, controlling that kind of thing is logistically very difficult if not impossible.
Guns have uses, and just because they are dangerous, we shouldn't overlook their uses. Are they necessary? Less now than ever before, but they are still necessary for some people.
I live in the United States. I live perfectly without guns because I have a good education, a good job, and I was given opportunities and made decisions that allow me to live without guns. My brother, on the other hand, still hunts for food because he dropped out of high school and never really got an education and works very hard for very little money. Sure, he can afford food, but it's not as good as the food he gets hunting, and doesn't last as long (a very small 60 pound dressed dear can feed a family for a long time on the cost of 1 bullet compared to buying meat every week) and if he buys his food he can't buy other things, like new shoes for his children or books to help them get an education that allows them a better life than he's providing for them now.
It's not all about "you have enough money for food if you have enough money for bullets", it's about making choices on how to spend your money. He reloads his bullets (actually usually shotgun shells) so the cost is almost zero compared to what he gains from being able to hunt for his food. Look at your grocery bill sometime and figure out how much you spend on meat every month. My brother can feed his family meat every day for 6 months for about 15 cents in bullets and another $50 in his gas and time spent hunting with his sons. I'm guessing you can't do that. Spending his money on things other than meat also allows his family to get a more balanced diet of meat and vegetables and not eat "popcorn for dinner" like he had to do for several years so his children could eat real food.
Yes, guns are always dangerous; that was the point of my post. Pretending they're not dangerous or "nonexistent" is far more dangerous to children than teaching them about the real dangers. Just because we don't all need them, however doesn't mean they're not needed, no matter how much you yell about it.
Get over yourself. Seriously, just because some people actually enjoy drinking and can get laid doesn't mean you should be bitter about it.
It takes some people a couple of years to figure out how to handle adulthood. Others can hack it and drop out. College is about learning, but not all that learning comes from professors and books. I'd dare say most of it comes from what goes on outside of class, ie learning time management, money management, social skills, and many other things.
Getting drunk on the weekends when your 18-24 doesn't detrimentally affect your ability to "contribute to the wider community" in the long term for most of the people who actually act that way in college. The few who don't grow out of it often still contribute to society, whether you like to think they do or not.
Well, it used to be called the United States of America, but I've just recently proposed we change the name to "Check your rights and your brain at the border- they'll be ready for you when you want to leave"
There is a significant difference between airsoft weapons, designed to look and feel like real weapons, and a nerfgun that is neon yellow and blue and looks nothing like a modern weapon. I'm sure you're right, that from a policing perspective it's easier to ban them all, but the cops should have used some common sense when they saw the nerf guns and told the kids to put them away, not cited them.
At University of Maryland this game was always played with bats and melee type weapons, no projectile weapons were allowed from what I saw during my time there. I never played, but it was hard to miss these people as they usually travelled in packs of 6-10 people and were clearly marked with bandanas, armbands, and ribbons that looked like flag football flags.
That whole "problem firing on other Americans" thing isn't supported by the history of our country. There was that little thing called the US Civil War; it lasted 4 years and killed more citizens than all other US wars combined, 600000-70000 depending upon source.
While I tend to think that things have changed, you'll find that soldiers under threat of punishment for treason for disobeying orders will indeed fire upon other Americans. Hell, they won't even need that much incentive if the civil rights movements of the 60s are anything to judge from. Just convince them that the other guy is trying to "take away your American rights" and most soldiers will willingly fire on the "enemy" populace.
I thought it was general slashdot knowledge that Bush doesn't give a shit about the constitution. Why is he here posting AC in favor of the constitution.
Actually most of the gun culture in America is exactly as yours was growing up. Sport shooting and hunting is far more common than any of the more mouthy types who want to prove how "manly" they are by carrying guns.
While I agree children prefer familiar things to new ones, I don't think the GP ever advocating not locking guns away. What the post did advocate was teaching children about guns if you have them in the house. I agree, I wouldn't choose to teach them exactly as the GP suggests, but having them fire weapons at a young age, even if it's at a watermelon (very effective example by the way) or tin can will most assuredly give them a much bigger fear of guns and better understanding of them than just telling them they're dangerous.
That's a ridiculous reach. Children have been shooting guns since there have been guns. They've been responsible for using them to get food, protect their family/land/what have you, and we as a society have gotten along just fine until the last 40 years or so. That's what, 400 years of "hand-held" guns and 40-50 years (being generous here) of a "problem" with accidents? Yeah, you can say there were accidents before, we just don't know about them. That's most likely true, but accidents happen with adults too.
To say that it's obscene to teach a child about guns, or let them fire them, is a real stretch though. Guns serve a purpose. Perhaps that purpose has eroded into something less than it once was, but it's still there at least in part. Many people still use guns to get their food. Some people legitimately use them for safety, not from other people, but from large animals. (If you've ever been to Alaska, you'll know most of the population there carry weapons for scaring off bears etc.)
I'm not a big gun proponent, I gave all of mine to my brother a few years after my first child was born because I simply wasn't shooting them enough to bother keeping them and her mom didn't want them around her. Not a big issue to me, but I still have access to every one of my weapons should I ever feel the need.
I grew up shooting guns. The first time I remember shooting, I was 5 years old and the gun was longer than I was tall. It was a 22 caliber rifle used for hunting rabbits and small game to have food. We're not all lucky enough to have enough money to buy all our food.
What would be obscene would be allowing your children to go hungry because you never taught them how to take care of themselves. What would be obscene is pretending that guns don't exist and being irresponsible enough not to teach your children about how to treat guns with respect and safety.
How about proximity, then. In order to kill with a knife or a baseball bat, I have to put myself in potential harm's way. With a gun I can kill you from a couple football fields away (though probably not with a handgun), or at least far enough where you can't retaliate unless you also have a gun.
I'm not particularly for or against gun control, but the comparison of guns to any other potential weapon is simply ridiculous.
Now? We've been that way for the last generation at least. It started with not letting children "fail" and given trophies to all teams/participants because we didn't want to ruin anyone's self esteem. We've just slowly graduated to the extreme of not letting adults play with children's toys because it might frighten others.
There will always be stupid people. We need to put a stop to letting them run everything.
Chapter 2 of the Japanese Constitution specifically states it will renounce war and never maintain a military force. There is no "implicit contract" between the US and Japan that we will keep Korea and Taiwan friendly in exchange for bases on Okinawa. While some older citizens of Korea and Taiwan still have a deep-seated hatred for Japan, most of the youth (and by youth I mean anyone in the late baby-boomer generation or later who don't remember Japanese occupation) don't really care.
Yes, Japan does have an "air defense force" that is basically a military, but it has a very limited fleet (~350 aircraft) and no long range combat aircraft.
As for Taiwan being "Cuba" to Japan, I think you're drastically overstating its importance to Japan. It's nearly 1000 miles away and while it may have significant impact on them if China and Taiwan go to war (or unify) it's not such a major issue in any sense other than economic.
Likely he wasn't Taiwanese. Every Taiwanese person I've ever met that was born after 1960 or so considered themself Taiwanese, not Chinese, and made a very clear distinction between the two.
There are "Taiwanese" people who are really Chinese but came through Taiwan and are actively spying for the Chinese government whenever and wherever they can. I've met some personally and know a whole bunch of other defense contractors and military members who've met them as well, both in the US and abroad. It's a little weird the first time you recognize it for what it is, but after that you're sort of tuned to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares? You'll still get most, if not all of that tax money back at the end of the year and it's not like it was hard to pay it out of the $10k check you receive. Why complain about taxes?
I neither believe you've ever had sex, nor do you have a "massive erection".
Why would packaging quiet down once it's purchased? If it gets to that point, it will have some cheap sensor that determines how much is left and notify you that you need to go out and purchase more of the product. Hell, your house will have a built in computer that builds a shopping list for you and prints it out, or sends it to your mobile device so you can shop. Better yet, it will (upon your request) send it directly to the store, and someone will deliver the goods to your home.
I don't see that happening on packaging, though, but definitely can envision walls and other surfaces being used constantly as advertisement space. They already are, we'll just be able to change the advertisements more frequently, more easily.
Do you really want your condom to tell you you're not good at it too? I mean, being chastised by your partner is one thing, but the condom too? You must be a glutton for punishment.
Thank you for a very thoughtful conversation. I think it's important that you recognize your bias and express that, because it does bring a very different edge to your comments, and I appreciate that. I never thought of your comments as offensive, so much as lacking a certain perspective, which makes sense, given your upbringing.
I'd like to say that I have never advocated gun ownership (and never will) for the sake of "home safety" because I think that's a fallacy. More people are shot with guns in their own home than any other place, I believe. I consider them a tool for safety in environments where man is the weakest link (ie truly wild, harsh, natural environs), rather than in environments where man is the most dangerous predator (ie cities)
.
Guns are frightening and they should be. I don't think guns should be treated casually but they definitely don't have to be considered criminal objects, and are, as you say tools that are only good or bad depending upon their user.
I've taught my kids about sex since they were first able to ask any questions about it. For my daughter she asked me what and orgasm was when she was 6 or 7 years old. She got a valid answer, not a lie. When she was 8 she asked if one of my friends was gay, and knew that several of the women I had dated after getting divorced were bisexual. Sex doesn't have to be some sort of scary thing and I'd much prefer to see sex on tv than violence, to be honest.
Kids need to be treated with the respect they deserve, and taught to think for themselves, as early as possible, I think. Otherwise you have a society of mindless sheep. If they have the thought capacity to ask a question, they have the capacity to understand a real answer. It doesn't have to be a complete, in depth, answer, but it has to be a real answer.
I don't think it's necessary to give a child a gun to teach them about guns, and my children have never shot a gun, but have been around them and understand the implications they have for potential harm.
TV teaches kids the exact opposite of the truth about guns, at least as seen here in the USA. People routinely get shot on tv and act like it doesn't hurt much, or shot at, and things like drywall, car doors, and shipping crates stop the bullets. A 22 caliber rifle round can go through six 2x4 planks before it finally stops. A 1/2" piece of drywall simply won't stop them, and certainly not higher caliber bullets, which are more common for handguns.
I would sooner leave my children alone in central park than expect them to learn gun safety (or anything else) from television.
They already started traffic controls last year, according to my wife's cousin who lives in Beijing. Based on license plate numbers of your vehicle you can only drive certain days. It's made a significant difference already, according to her. Will it be good enough for the rest of the world to find Beijing acceptable? I don't know, but it's certainly better than it was 2 years ago. I won't be heading there until after the olympics, but I'm looking forward to the trip nonetheless.
My biggest question to people espouse your position is "why should the rest of the country foot the bill for New Orleans?"
Seriously, the city should never have been built in the first place, being below sea level, on the damn coast, is just a stupid place to settle. Pouring millions of dollars into a bad idea doesn't make it a better idea, it just makes it a more wasteful bad idea.
I'm all for helping people rebuild their lives. I think they should be paid whatever they lost, by the insurance companies, and then asked politely to move somewhere else. The government owes no responsibility to fix everything for every poor sucker that can't get over their "family history here" and bullshit like that. You've been given a reasonable amount (for most people-not all, certainly) of support for the last 2 years in order to make your life better. Staying where the economy is crap, and you're doomed to repeat the same problems within the next 10-20 years because we can't stop hurricanes, is no longer the rest of the tax-paying citizens' fault.
Yes the situation was handled badly, at many different levels. Yes, people continue to struggle, but I'm tired of hearing about people asking for continued handouts. If it sucks so bad, find some other place to make a better life for yourself, and don't complain about people not helping you enough. We have been helping, some of us directly, for two years, and we can't put everyone else on hold to continue supporting a lost cause. At some point you have to take responsibility for yourself.
Not unless it was some really "unusual" fruit like lychee or longrien (don't have an english name so that's a vaguely romanized spelling of the chinese pronunciation) or something like that. If it was the standard banana, kiwi, strawberry, or other it more likely came from central/south america, unless of course you live in europe. Then it still might have come from there, but probably other places in europe as well.
You're supposed to eat them with other people. Eating them alone just gives you a headache and sore hands.
My post applies to my post as well. Some would call it humor. Obviously you wouldn't. I know nothing about what the post in question was thinking, I just read it as humorous. Obviously you didn't.
Yes, times change. That doesn't change the fact that being unnecessary and wrong/obscene aren't the same thing at all. You have an opinion, that was worded as a troll, whether you intended to word it that way or not. Growing vegetables is fine, and a great supplement to other options, but unless you're a vegetarian, with a lot of land, you won't feed your family on that.
As for necessary, for some people, it is necessary. See my post above about my brother who does need to hunt to supplement his food supplies. As a result, his children have learned to hunt as well. Is it necessary for them? Right now yes, hopefully not in the long run, when they're forced to fend for themselves. There are plenty of people in the US and I'd dare say in the UK who are poor enough to need to hunt for food or risk not eating. And, as I said in another post, it isn't always about hunt or don't eat, but sometimes it's "buy food or buy something else" and when you have the opportunity to hunt for your food, you can afford a better standard of living by doing so and using what little money you have to buy other necessities.
Your view, while wonderfully progressive, is unfortunately not realistic because it overlooks the fact that we're not all equally capable financially. Yes, a lot of people hold your opinion, but I'd be willing to bet most of those people have never gone hungry in their lives or had to make the choice between food and something else.
I am actually a proponent of limited gun control. IE no automatic weapons for citizens. Much more limited hand gun availability (they do have uses in some places) with licenses for anyone who owns them. Mandatory yearly training for anyone holding a license, that sort of thing. Owning a gun, in my opinion should be a right, but it should also be treated as a privelege/responsibility that you have to maintain through active participation. Of course, controlling that kind of thing is logistically very difficult if not impossible.
Guns have uses, and just because they are dangerous, we shouldn't overlook their uses. Are they necessary? Less now than ever before, but they are still necessary for some people.
I live in the United States. I live perfectly without guns because I have a good education, a good job, and I was given opportunities and made decisions that allow me to live without guns. My brother, on the other hand, still hunts for food because he dropped out of high school and never really got an education and works very hard for very little money. Sure, he can afford food, but it's not as good as the food he gets hunting, and doesn't last as long (a very small 60 pound dressed dear can feed a family for a long time on the cost of 1 bullet compared to buying meat every week) and if he buys his food he can't buy other things, like new shoes for his children or books to help them get an education that allows them a better life than he's providing for them now.
It's not all about "you have enough money for food if you have enough money for bullets", it's about making choices on how to spend your money. He reloads his bullets (actually usually shotgun shells) so the cost is almost zero compared to what he gains from being able to hunt for his food. Look at your grocery bill sometime and figure out how much you spend on meat every month. My brother can feed his family meat every day for 6 months for about 15 cents in bullets and another $50 in his gas and time spent hunting with his sons. I'm guessing you can't do that. Spending his money on things other than meat also allows his family to get a more balanced diet of meat and vegetables and not eat "popcorn for dinner" like he had to do for several years so his children could eat real food.
Yes, guns are always dangerous; that was the point of my post. Pretending they're not dangerous or "nonexistent" is far more dangerous to children than teaching them about the real dangers. Just because we don't all need them, however doesn't mean they're not needed, no matter how much you yell about it.
Get over yourself. Seriously, just because some people actually enjoy drinking and can get laid doesn't mean you should be bitter about it.
It takes some people a couple of years to figure out how to handle adulthood. Others can hack it and drop out. College is about learning, but not all that learning comes from professors and books. I'd dare say most of it comes from what goes on outside of class, ie learning time management, money management, social skills, and many other things.
Getting drunk on the weekends when your 18-24 doesn't detrimentally affect your ability to "contribute to the wider community" in the long term for most of the people who actually act that way in college. The few who don't grow out of it often still contribute to society, whether you like to think they do or not.
Get off your high horse and grow up.
Well, it used to be called the United States of America, but I've just recently proposed we change the name to "Check your rights and your brain at the border- they'll be ready for you when you want to leave"
There is a significant difference between airsoft weapons, designed to look and feel like real weapons, and a nerfgun that is neon yellow and blue and looks nothing like a modern weapon. I'm sure you're right, that from a policing perspective it's easier to ban them all, but the cops should have used some common sense when they saw the nerf guns and told the kids to put them away, not cited them.
At University of Maryland this game was always played with bats and melee type weapons, no projectile weapons were allowed from what I saw during my time there. I never played, but it was hard to miss these people as they usually travelled in packs of 6-10 people and were clearly marked with bandanas, armbands, and ribbons that looked like flag football flags.
That whole "problem firing on other Americans" thing isn't supported by the history of our country. There was that little thing called the US Civil War; it lasted 4 years and killed more citizens than all other US wars combined, 600000-70000 depending upon source.
While I tend to think that things have changed, you'll find that soldiers under threat of punishment for treason for disobeying orders will indeed fire upon other Americans. Hell, they won't even need that much incentive if the civil rights movements of the 60s are anything to judge from. Just convince them that the other guy is trying to "take away your American rights" and most soldiers will willingly fire on the "enemy" populace.
I thought it was general slashdot knowledge that Bush doesn't give a shit about the constitution. Why is he here posting AC in favor of the constitution.
Actually most of the gun culture in America is exactly as yours was growing up. Sport shooting and hunting is far more common than any of the more mouthy types who want to prove how "manly" they are by carrying guns.
While I agree children prefer familiar things to new ones, I don't think the GP ever advocating not locking guns away. What the post did advocate was teaching children about guns if you have them in the house. I agree, I wouldn't choose to teach them exactly as the GP suggests, but having them fire weapons at a young age, even if it's at a watermelon (very effective example by the way) or tin can will most assuredly give them a much bigger fear of guns and better understanding of them than just telling them they're dangerous.
That's a ridiculous reach. Children have been shooting guns since there have been guns. They've been responsible for using them to get food, protect their family/land/what have you, and we as a society have gotten along just fine until the last 40 years or so. That's what, 400 years of "hand-held" guns and 40-50 years (being generous here) of a "problem" with accidents? Yeah, you can say there were accidents before, we just don't know about them. That's most likely true, but accidents happen with adults too.
To say that it's obscene to teach a child about guns, or let them fire them, is a real stretch though. Guns serve a purpose. Perhaps that purpose has eroded into something less than it once was, but it's still there at least in part. Many people still use guns to get their food. Some people legitimately use them for safety, not from other people, but from large animals. (If you've ever been to Alaska, you'll know most of the population there carry weapons for scaring off bears etc.)
I'm not a big gun proponent, I gave all of mine to my brother a few years after my first child was born because I simply wasn't shooting them enough to bother keeping them and her mom didn't want them around her. Not a big issue to me, but I still have access to every one of my weapons should I ever feel the need.
I grew up shooting guns. The first time I remember shooting, I was 5 years old and the gun was longer than I was tall. It was a 22 caliber rifle used for hunting rabbits and small game to have food. We're not all lucky enough to have enough money to buy all our food.
What would be obscene would be allowing your children to go hungry because you never taught them how to take care of themselves. What would be obscene is pretending that guns don't exist and being irresponsible enough not to teach your children about how to treat guns with respect and safety.
How about proximity, then. In order to kill with a knife or a baseball bat, I have to put myself in potential harm's way. With a gun I can kill you from a couple football fields away (though probably not with a handgun), or at least far enough where you can't retaliate unless you also have a gun.
I'm not particularly for or against gun control, but the comparison of guns to any other potential weapon is simply ridiculous.
Now? We've been that way for the last generation at least. It started with not letting children "fail" and given trophies to all teams/participants because we didn't want to ruin anyone's self esteem. We've just slowly graduated to the extreme of not letting adults play with children's toys because it might frighten others.
There will always be stupid people. We need to put a stop to letting them run everything.
Chapter 2 of the Japanese Constitution specifically states it will renounce war and never maintain a military force. There is no "implicit contract" between the US and Japan that we will keep Korea and Taiwan friendly in exchange for bases on Okinawa. While some older citizens of Korea and Taiwan still have a deep-seated hatred for Japan, most of the youth (and by youth I mean anyone in the late baby-boomer generation or later who don't remember Japanese occupation) don't really care.
Yes, Japan does have an "air defense force" that is basically a military, but it has a very limited fleet (~350 aircraft) and no long range combat aircraft.
As for Taiwan being "Cuba" to Japan, I think you're drastically overstating its importance to Japan. It's nearly 1000 miles away and while it may have significant impact on them if China and Taiwan go to war (or unify) it's not such a major issue in any sense other than economic.
Likely he wasn't Taiwanese. Every Taiwanese person I've ever met that was born after 1960 or so considered themself Taiwanese, not Chinese, and made a very clear distinction between the two.
There are "Taiwanese" people who are really Chinese but came through Taiwan and are actively spying for the Chinese government whenever and wherever they can. I've met some personally and know a whole bunch of other defense contractors and military members who've met them as well, both in the US and abroad. It's a little weird the first time you recognize it for what it is, but after that you're sort of tuned to it.