(Continuation from yesterday)

The above incidents seems to share the following two points.

(1)Many people believe that the criminal person doesn't hesitated to happen the crime because of nothing to be lost in society.

(2)Many people believe that the criminal motivation is based on subjective private anger, and cannot be shared their sympathy or empathy objectively.

-----

According to the above (1), it is true that having family makes me hesitate to commit a criminal offense under the criminal law.

(However, I will start to study the ways not to violate criminal laws, or not to be exposed the public)

In the way, marriage is a valid system to restrict instinct anger.

In the same logic, having job is also a crime deterrent system.

Indeed, I now have "a lot" to lose socially.

-----

According to the above (2), I need to recognize a clear malicious intent with a specific target, not enough "the world does not need me" but "he/she persecutes me".

Of course, it does not matter whether it is an objective fact or a subjective assumption.

Because there is no "objective world".

The world is "the 'objective world' and the subjective world we believe in.

-----

If my children become independent and my wife dies before me, I cannot rule out the possibility that I will be -- or rather, "become" -- a "public enemy".

I am aware that I have a system that amplify "objective anger" in my body.

The system has already been activated since I was young.

After all, when I watched the movie "Star Wars" in my teenager, I though that "No wonder that the Dark side is superior to the Force" was natural.

-----

Society must not leave Ebata alone, who is likely to become a "public enemy.

Society should monitor, manage and coax Ebata and leads him to natural death.

Social security spending should be thought of as "domestic defense spending (= public safety spending)" to prevent such potential "public enemies" from being activated.