David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:saues1$1jb5$1@gioia.aioe.org:

> On 2021-06-22 5:56 p.m., edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> David Johnston
>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be missing the point: the murder rates in NYC
>>>> went up and down REGARDLESS of the existing and draconian gun
>>>> control laws.
>>>
>>> Gun control laws that don't have any impact on the
>>> availability of guns don't have any bearing on whether guns
>>> are a problem.
>>
>> We continually hear the same thing from anti-gun fundies about
>> Chicago's outrageous murder rate, that the problem is criminals
>> acquiring guns in neighboring Indiana due to that state's
>> supposedly lax gun laws.
>>
>> Except the city of Chicago his more murders then the _entire
>> state of Indiana_ so once again you're trying to have your cake
>> and eat it too, because if guns are the problem then why
>> doesn't Indiana (which also has the most concealed pistol
>> license holders in the nation) have far more murders,
>> considering their laissez-faire attitude towards guns?
>
> It is always a mistake to think in terms of "the" problem when
> it comes to a social issue.
>
Indeed. A mistake gun grabbers make constantly. Or one they try to
get everyone else to make, at least.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"edstas...@gmail.com" <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote in
news:a6b26dfa-7131-4c72-a180-e56197376ff0n@googlegroups.com:

>> David Johnston
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > Except the city of Chicago his more murders then the _entire
>> > state of I
> ndiana_
>> > so once again you're trying to have your cake and eat it too,
>> > because i
> f guns
>> > are the problem then why doesn't Indiana (which also has the
>> > most conce
> aled
>> > pistol license holders in the nation) have far more murders,
>> > considerin
> g their
>> > laissez-faire attitude towards guns?
>>
>> It is always a mistake to think in terms of "the" problem when
>> it comes
>
>> to a social issue.
>
> What does that even mean? As far as I can translate it, it
> sounds like; "White racism is the problem, we should ignore
> generations of research on the issue and impose draconian gun
> control laws because… well, just because."
>
I took it to mean he agrees with you that gun control laws accomplish
nothing desirable, ever.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 07:45:47 -0700 (PDT), "edstas...@gmail.com"
<edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>> David Johnston
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > Except the city of Chicago his more murders then the _entire state of Indiana_
>> > so once again you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, because if guns
>> > are the problem then why doesn't Indiana (which also has the most concealed
>> > pistol license holders in the nation) have far more murders, considering their
>> > laissez-faire attitude towards guns?
>>
>> It is always a mistake to think in terms of "the" problem when it comes
>> to a social issue.
>
>What does that even mean? As far as I can translate it, it sounds like; "White racism
>is the problem, we should ignore generations of research on the issue and impose
>draconian gun control laws because… well, just because."

???

The meaning seems pretty clear. Social problems have multiple causes.

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in
news:nvl6dghu817lbg68c9jemrfttbf8hrgbkp@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 07:45:47 -0700 (PDT), "edstas...@gmail.com"
> <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> David Johnston
>>> > Ed Stasiak
>>> >
>>> > Except the city of Chicago his more murders then the _entire
>>> > state of Indiana_ so once again you're trying to have your
>>> > cake and eat it too, because if guns are the problem then
>>> > why doesn't Indiana (which also has the most concealed
>>> > pistol license holders in the nation) have far more murders,
>>> > considering their laissez-faire attitude towards guns?
>>>
>>> It is always a mistake to think in terms of "the" problem when
>>> it comes to a social issue.
>>
>>What does that even mean? As far as I can translate it, it
>>sounds like; "White racism is the problem, we should ignore
>>generations of research on the issue and impose draconian gun
>>control laws because… well, just because."
>
> ???
>
> The meaning seems pretty clear. Social problems have multiple
> causes.
>
Which is what 2nd Amendment advocates have been saying for decades.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:36:38 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:2t24dg5fgd39knk6tesgtmjr26nlsdpfk0@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:13:22 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote in
>>>news:sam281$c7m$1@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 6/19/2021 3:10 PM, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If the problem was economics, then why isn't Appalachia (the
>>>>> poorest region in the U.S.) not knee deep in blood?
>>>>>
>>>> Because all the clan *ahem* excuse me, gang warfare there
>>>> ended a hundred or so years ago when enough of the
>>>> clans^H^H^H^H^H gangs had been exterminated.
>>>>
>>>Bigot. I guess its still socially acceptable to hate poor white
>>>people for being poor. And white.
>>
>> What, you don't think the "po' white trash" aren't what
>> Republicans have in mind when the talk about people so used to
>> living better on enhance UE payments that they won't go back to
>> work?
>
>Well, no, they're referring to poor *not* white people, who are,
>after all, fit only to be servants (which is to say, work for
>starvation wages).

Fired domestic servants get UE? Their employers pay UE taxes?

I mean, it took Nannygate to get them to pay payroll taxes.

>But we're talking about the since of the left right now.

Uh ... maybe you could try that one again.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:37:09 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:b234dg9dku7e2crr704cp8pt4rruukkqb2@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:18:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>news:ibg1dgt4v786msr2t23ct739ueuphprl27@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 20:33:19 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 16:45:24 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 6/20/2021 2:50 PM, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler
>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you claiming that this "invisible uniform" (however
>>>>>>>>> you define that) is WORSE TODAY in the U.S. then it was
>>>>>>>>> when Black folks were subjected to open and
>>>>>>>>> institutionalized racism on a daily basis and trapped
>>>>>>>>> under an economic glass ceiling prior to the 1960s?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An openly "subjected" people will generally try to keep
>>>>>>>> their heads down to avoid triggering severe punishment for
>>>>>>>> petty slights.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A people that have been told officially that they are
>>>>>>>> treated equally and have the same opportunities as the
>>>>>>>> rest of the population but don't see that happening WILL
>>>>>>>> start "acting out" in frustration in a variety of ways.
>>>>>>>> More violence in general is one way. Rejection of the
>>>>>>>> larger culture is another. Killing "their own" who "sell
>>>>>>>> out" by succeeding in the larger culture is another.
>>>>>>>> Lashing out at the larger society for not doing as well
>>>>>>>> because one rejected it is another. Violent reaction to
>>>>>>>> being beaten down by people telling you they aren't
>>>>>>>> beating you down for being different is common. More
>>>>>>>> common than violent reaction to being beaten down by those
>>>>>>>> who openly subjugate you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Its not so much that their situation is worse today as the
>>>>>>>> unfulfilled promise that they are and will be treated as
>>>>>>>> equals makes them more willing to use violence to force
>>>>>>>> the promise to be fulfilled, INSTANTLY. (Which simply
>>>>>>>> isn't possible since there is at least a small portion of
>>>>>>>> meritocracy involved in advancing in our society. It takes
>>>>>>>> time to build the education, experience and social
>>>>>>>> connections to advance.) But by our nature as humans we
>>>>>>>> are not all that good as a species at specifically
>>>>>>>> targeted violence. General mayhem at targets of
>>>>>>>> opportunity is more our thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So back to the unsubstantiated standardized “it’s White
>>>>>>> people’s fault!” excuse, which can’t be countered as there
>>>>>>> is nothing concrete to address, one must simply accept it
>>>>>>> as fact or be labeled a racist. Got it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not what I said. It is much more complex than any simple
>>>>>>"Its THEIR fault!".
>>>>>
>>>>>This whole business of "fault" is part of the problem. I used
>>>>>to work for a little tiny company. Whenever anything went
>>>>>wrong, the boss wanted to know whose fault it was. Now I work
>>>>>for a great big company. Whenever anything goes wrong, the
>>>>>boss wants to know how we change the system so it doesn't
>>>>>happen again. (note that I've worked for great big companies
>>>>>where blame is the game too--where I work now is exceptional).
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>> Fixing the problem is better than placing the blame.
>>>>
>>>> But also less satisfying.
>>>>
>>>> And, besides, if the argument is about /who is at fault/, then
>>>> the discussion of /how to fix the problem/ can be ... shelved.
>>>
>>>If you *solve* the problem, you can no longer get wealthy
>>>leading teh charge against it.
>>
>> Or re-elected to continue your "efforts".
>
>You say that like there's a difference.

Depends on whether your wealth depends on your re-election or not.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 12:29:40 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:

[snip]

> Fired domestic servants get UE? Their employers pay UE taxes?
>

Those that work through an agency do. Mr & Ms Gotbucks pay the
agency. The agency pays the worker, files all the relevant paperwork,
sends deductions to the various tax extraction departments of local,
state and federal government, and cuts the cleaner/home health aide
their check (more likely a direct bank deposit or credit on a debit card,
nowadays.)

> I mean, it took Nannygate to get them to pay payroll taxes.
> >But we're talking about the since of the left right now.
> Uh ... maybe you could try that one again.
> --

"sins" for "since?"

There have been "scandals" with figures of both the US "right" and "left"
having paid household workers "off the books." It's bipartisan.

--
Kevin R

Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:1de5c10c-01d6-4cad-9b05-77bd4d8acf56n@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 12:29:40 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Fired domestic servants get UE? Their employers pay UE taxes?
>>
>
> Those that work through an agency do. Mr & Ms Gotbucks pay the
> agency. The agency pays the worker, files all the relevant
> paperwork, sends deductions to the various tax extraction
> departments of local, state and federal government, and cuts the
> cleaner/home health aide their check (more likely a direct bank
> deposit or credit on a debit card, nowadays.)
>
>> I mean, it took Nannygate to get them to pay payroll taxes.
>> >But we're talking about the since of the left right now.
>> Uh ... maybe you could try that one again.
>> --
>
> "sins" for "since?"

Yes. Clearly, Democrats are responsible for my inability to type.
>
> There have been "scandals" with figures of both the US "right"
> and "left" having paid household workers "off the books." It's
> bipartisan.
>
There are many sings among the rich and powerful of all types. It's
almost like it's being rich and powerful that's the cause, rather
than being liberal or conservative.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:abo6dgpg6df6090t0gvtn6bp4t5cokf8cr@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:37:09 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:b234dg9dku7e2crr704cp8pt4rruukkqb2@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:18:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>news:ibg1dgt4v786msr2t23ct739ueuphprl27@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 20:33:19 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 16:45:24 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>>><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 6/20/2021 2:50 PM, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler
>>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you claiming that this "invisible uniform" (however
>>>>>>>>>> you define that) is WORSE TODAY in the U.S. then it was
>>>>>>>>>> when Black folks were subjected to open and
>>>>>>>>>> institutionalized racism on a daily basis and trapped
>>>>>>>>>> under an economic glass ceiling prior to the 1960s?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An openly "subjected" people will generally try to keep
>>>>>>>>> their heads down to avoid triggering severe punishment
>>>>>>>>> for petty slights.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A people that have been told officially that they are
>>>>>>>>> treated equally and have the same opportunities as the
>>>>>>>>> rest of the population but don't see that happening WILL
>>>>>>>>> start "acting out" in frustration in a variety of ways.
>>>>>>>>> More violence in general is one way. Rejection of the
>>>>>>>>> larger culture is another. Killing "their own" who "sell
>>>>>>>>> out" by succeeding in the larger culture is another.
>>>>>>>>> Lashing out at the larger society for not doing as well
>>>>>>>>> because one rejected it is another. Violent reaction to
>>>>>>>>> being beaten down by people telling you they aren't
>>>>>>>>> beating you down for being different is common. More
>>>>>>>>> common than violent reaction to being beaten down by
>>>>>>>>> those who openly subjugate you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Its not so much that their situation is worse today as
>>>>>>>>> the unfulfilled promise that they are and will be
>>>>>>>>> treated as equals makes them more willing to use
>>>>>>>>> violence to force the promise to be fulfilled,
>>>>>>>>> INSTANTLY. (Which simply isn't possible since there is
>>>>>>>>> at least a small portion of meritocracy involved in
>>>>>>>>> advancing in our society. It takes time to build the
>>>>>>>>> education, experience and social connections to
>>>>>>>>> advance.) But by our nature as humans we are not all
>>>>>>>>> that good as a species at specifically targeted
>>>>>>>>> violence. General mayhem at targets of opportunity is
>>>>>>>>> more our thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So back to the unsubstantiated standardized �it�s White
>>>>>>>> people�s fault!� excuse, which can�t be countered as
>>>>>>>> there is nothing concrete to address, one must simply
>>>>>>>> accept it as fact or be labeled a racist. Got it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not what I said. It is much more complex than any simple
>>>>>>>"Its THEIR fault!".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This whole business of "fault" is part of the problem. I
>>>>>>used to work for a little tiny company. Whenever anything
>>>>>>went wrong, the boss wanted to know whose fault it was. Now
>>>>>>I work for a great big company. Whenever anything goes
>>>>>>wrong, the boss wants to know how we change the system so it
>>>>>>doesn't happen again. (note that I've worked for great big
>>>>>>companies where blame is the game too--where I work now is
>>>>>>exceptional).
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixing the problem is better than placing the blame.
>>>>>
>>>>> But also less satisfying.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, besides, if the argument is about /who is at fault/,
>>>>> then the discussion of /how to fix the problem/ can be ...
>>>>> shelved.
>>>>
>>>>If you *solve* the problem, you can no longer get wealthy
>>>>leading teh charge against it.
>>>
>>> Or re-elected to continue your "efforts".
>>
>>You say that like there's a difference.
>
> Depends on whether your wealth depends on your re-election or
> not.

Very few politicians at the state or national level do not end up
significantly wealthier at the end of their term than the
beginning. *Very* few. Democrats are especially skilled at this.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On 2021-06-23 8:45 a.m., edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>> David Johnston
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> Except the city of Chicago his more murders then the _entire state of Indiana_
>>> so once again you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, because if guns
>>> are the problem then why doesn't Indiana (which also has the most concealed
>>> pistol license holders in the nation) have far more murders, considering their
>>> laissez-faire attitude towards guns?
>>
>> It is always a mistake to think in terms of "the" problem when it comes
>> to a social issue.
>
> What does that even mean?

It means that that endemic social problems are never the product of a
single causative factor. Guns make murder attempts easier, more likely
to be successful. But obviously they aren't the only factor involved in
high murder rates.

David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:sb0gis$vib$1@gioia.aioe.org:

> Guns make murder attempts easier,

A lie from the gun grabbers

> more likely to be successful.

Also a lie from the gun grabbers.

Gary Kleck covered the peer reviewed research on both in Targeting
Guns. Over 20 years ago, which is why it's not longer a fallacy, but
a *lie*.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

> David Johnston
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > What does that even mean?
>
> It means that that endemic social problems are never the product
> of a single causative factor.

Sure, I agree with that. What I disagree with, is that banning guns
and/or imposing harsh regulations on ALL Americans will have any
effect on this.

> Guns make murder attempts easier, more likely to be successful.

But they also make self defense easier and more successful, anywhere
from 200,000 to 2 million incidents per year, which is FAR more then
the number of deaths via guns, (which includes suicides) in fact most
instance of defensive gun use the gun is never fired, as even the
dumbest criminal will flee when faced with an armed victim.

> But obviously they aren't the only factor involved in high murder rates.

Seeing as less than 1% of the 3-400,000,000+ guns in the U.S. are ever
used in a crime, it's a mostly irrelevant factor and once again, the U.S.
murder rate has been in decline since 1993 despite bazillions more guns
having been bought and 17+ million Americans legally walking around
with guns in their pockets and purses.

The anti-gun position is indefensible, there is nothing to support the
contention that gun control is of any value and everything suggests it
would in fact be disastrous for Americans and humanity in general.

You're being sold a bill of goods and willfully refuse to acknowledge
the mountain of evidence in front of you.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 10:16:35 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 12:29:40 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Fired domestic servants get UE? Their employers pay UE taxes?
>>
>
>Those that work through an agency do. Mr & Ms Gotbucks pay the
>agency. The agency pays the worker, files all the relevant paperwork,
>sends deductions to the various tax extraction departments of local,
>state and federal government, and cuts the cleaner/home health aide
>their check (more likely a direct bank deposit or credit on a debit card,
>nowadays.)

Indeed.

>> I mean, it took Nannygate to get them to pay payroll taxes.
>> >But we're talking about the since of the left right now.
>> Uh ... maybe you could try that one again.
>> --
>
>"sins" for "since?"
>
>There have been "scandals" with figures of both the US "right" and "left"
>having paid household workers "off the books." It's bipartisan.

Indeed.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 11:36:55 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in
>news:1de5c10c-01d6-4cad-9b05-77bd4d8acf56n@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 12:29:40 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Fired domestic servants get UE? Their employers pay UE taxes?
>>>
>>
>> Those that work through an agency do. Mr & Ms Gotbucks pay the
>> agency. The agency pays the worker, files all the relevant
>> paperwork, sends deductions to the various tax extraction
>> departments of local, state and federal government, and cuts the
>> cleaner/home health aide their check (more likely a direct bank
>> deposit or credit on a debit card, nowadays.)
>>
>>> I mean, it took Nannygate to get them to pay payroll taxes.
>>> >But we're talking about the since of the left right now.
>>> Uh ... maybe you could try that one again.
>>> --
>>
>> "sins" for "since?"
>
>Yes. Clearly, Democrats are responsible for my inability to type.
>>
>> There have been "scandals" with figures of both the US "right"
>> and "left" having paid household workers "off the books." It's
>> bipartisan.
>>
>There are many sings among the rich and powerful of all types. It's
>almost like it's being rich and powerful that's the cause, rather
>than being liberal or conservative.

Indeed.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 11:37:57 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:abo6dgpg6df6090t0gvtn6bp4t5cokf8cr@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:37:09 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>news:b234dg9dku7e2crr704cp8pt4rruukkqb2@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:18:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>news:ibg1dgt4v786msr2t23ct739ueuphprl27@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 20:33:19 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>>> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 16:45:24 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>>>><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 6/20/2021 2:50 PM, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler
>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you claiming that this "invisible uniform" (however
>>>>>>>>>>> you define that) is WORSE TODAY in the U.S. then it was
>>>>>>>>>>> when Black folks were subjected to open and
>>>>>>>>>>> institutionalized racism on a daily basis and trapped
>>>>>>>>>>> under an economic glass ceiling prior to the 1960s?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An openly "subjected" people will generally try to keep
>>>>>>>>>> their heads down to avoid triggering severe punishment
>>>>>>>>>> for petty slights.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A people that have been told officially that they are
>>>>>>>>>> treated equally and have the same opportunities as the
>>>>>>>>>> rest of the population but don't see that happening WILL
>>>>>>>>>> start "acting out" in frustration in a variety of ways.
>>>>>>>>>> More violence in general is one way. Rejection of the
>>>>>>>>>> larger culture is another. Killing "their own" who "sell
>>>>>>>>>> out" by succeeding in the larger culture is another.
>>>>>>>>>> Lashing out at the larger society for not doing as well
>>>>>>>>>> because one rejected it is another. Violent reaction to
>>>>>>>>>> being beaten down by people telling you they aren't
>>>>>>>>>> beating you down for being different is common. More
>>>>>>>>>> common than violent reaction to being beaten down by
>>>>>>>>>> those who openly subjugate you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Its not so much that their situation is worse today as
>>>>>>>>>> the unfulfilled promise that they are and will be
>>>>>>>>>> treated as equals makes them more willing to use
>>>>>>>>>> violence to force the promise to be fulfilled,
>>>>>>>>>> INSTANTLY. (Which simply isn't possible since there is
>>>>>>>>>> at least a small portion of meritocracy involved in
>>>>>>>>>> advancing in our society. It takes time to build the
>>>>>>>>>> education, experience and social connections to
>>>>>>>>>> advance.) But by our nature as humans we are not all
>>>>>>>>>> that good as a species at specifically targeted
>>>>>>>>>> violence. General mayhem at targets of opportunity is
>>>>>>>>>> more our thing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So back to the unsubstantiated standardized “it’s White
>>>>>>>>> people’s fault!” excuse, which can’t be countered as
>>>>>>>>> there is nothing concrete to address, one must simply
>>>>>>>>> accept it as fact or be labeled a racist. Got it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Not what I said. It is much more complex than any simple
>>>>>>>>"Its THEIR fault!".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This whole business of "fault" is part of the problem. I
>>>>>>>used to work for a little tiny company. Whenever anything
>>>>>>>went wrong, the boss wanted to know whose fault it was. Now
>>>>>>>I work for a great big company. Whenever anything goes
>>>>>>>wrong, the boss wants to know how we change the system so it
>>>>>>>doesn't happen again. (note that I've worked for great big
>>>>>>>companies where blame is the game too--where I work now is
>>>>>>>exceptional).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixing the problem is better than placing the blame.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But also less satisfying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, besides, if the argument is about /who is at fault/,
>>>>>> then the discussion of /how to fix the problem/ can be ...
>>>>>> shelved.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you *solve* the problem, you can no longer get wealthy
>>>>>leading teh charge against it.
>>>>
>>>> Or re-elected to continue your "efforts".
>>>
>>>You say that like there's a difference.
>>
>> Depends on whether your wealth depends on your re-election or
>> not.
>
>Very few politicians at the state or national level do not end up
>significantly wealthier at the end of their term than the
>beginning. *Very* few. Democrats are especially skilled at this.

That's not the same as their wealth /depending/ on being re-elected.

They may have made enough already to be set for life.

Even by billionaire standards.

Not to doubt your assertion, although trying to shade it politically
is dubious.

I mean, how could you tell? Short of doing a full forensic audit of
their finances from age 3 on up, that is?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:88b9dgp2i5u8mli0i11k08iu9qmdj90iiv@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 11:37:57 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:abo6dgpg6df6090t0gvtn6bp4t5cokf8cr@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:37:09 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>news:b234dg9dku7e2crr704cp8pt4rruukkqb2@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:18:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>news:ibg1dgt4v786msr2t23ct739ueuphprl27@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 20:33:19 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>>>> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 16:45:24 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>>>>><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 6/20/2021 2:50 PM, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you claiming that this "invisible uniform"
>>>>>>>>>>>> (however you define that) is WORSE TODAY in the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>> then it was when Black folks were subjected to open
>>>>>>>>>>>> and institutionalized racism on a daily basis and
>>>>>>>>>>>> trapped under an economic glass ceiling prior to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1960s?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An openly "subjected" people will generally try to
>>>>>>>>>>> keep their heads down to avoid triggering severe
>>>>>>>>>>> punishment for petty slights.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A people that have been told officially that they are
>>>>>>>>>>> treated equally and have the same opportunities as the
>>>>>>>>>>> rest of the population but don't see that happening
>>>>>>>>>>> WILL start "acting out" in frustration in a variety of
>>>>>>>>>>> ways. More violence in general is one way. Rejection
>>>>>>>>>>> of the larger culture is another. Killing "their own"
>>>>>>>>>>> who "sell out" by succeeding in the larger culture is
>>>>>>>>>>> another. Lashing out at the larger society for not
>>>>>>>>>>> doing as well because one rejected it is another.
>>>>>>>>>>> Violent reaction to being beaten down by people
>>>>>>>>>>> telling you they aren't beating you down for being
>>>>>>>>>>> different is common. More common than violent reaction
>>>>>>>>>>> to being beaten down by those who openly subjugate
>>>>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Its not so much that their situation is worse today as
>>>>>>>>>>> the unfulfilled promise that they are and will be
>>>>>>>>>>> treated as equals makes them more willing to use
>>>>>>>>>>> violence to force the promise to be fulfilled,
>>>>>>>>>>> INSTANTLY. (Which simply isn't possible since there is
>>>>>>>>>>> at least a small portion of meritocracy involved in
>>>>>>>>>>> advancing in our society. It takes time to build the
>>>>>>>>>>> education, experience and social connections to
>>>>>>>>>>> advance.) But by our nature as humans we are not all
>>>>>>>>>>> that good as a species at specifically targeted
>>>>>>>>>>> violence. General mayhem at targets of opportunity is
>>>>>>>>>>> more our thing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So back to the unsubstantiated standardized �it�s White
>>>>>>>>>> people�s fault!� excuse, which can�t be countered as
>>>>>>>>>> there is nothing concrete to address, one must simply
>>>>>>>>>> accept it as fact or be labeled a racist. Got it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Not what I said. It is much more complex than any simple
>>>>>>>>>"Its THEIR fault!".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This whole business of "fault" is part of the problem. I
>>>>>>>>used to work for a little tiny company. Whenever anything
>>>>>>>>went wrong, the boss wanted to know whose fault it was.
>>>>>>>>Now I work for a great big company. Whenever anything
>>>>>>>>goes wrong, the boss wants to know how we change the
>>>>>>>>system so it doesn't happen again. (note that I've worked
>>>>>>>>for great big companies where blame is the game too--where
>>>>>>>>I work now is exceptional).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fixing the problem is better than placing the blame.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But also less satisfying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, besides, if the argument is about /who is at fault/,
>>>>>>> then the discussion of /how to fix the problem/ can be ...
>>>>>>> shelved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you *solve* the problem, you can no longer get wealthy
>>>>>>leading teh charge against it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or re-elected to continue your "efforts".
>>>>
>>>>You say that like there's a difference.
>>>
>>> Depends on whether your wealth depends on your re-election or
>>> not.
>>
>>Very few politicians at the state or national level do not end
>>up significantly wealthier at the end of their term than the
>>beginning. *Very* few. Democrats are especially skilled at this.
>
> That's not the same as their wealth /depending/ on being
> re-elected.

Most people. once they're rich, want to be richer. *Increased*
wealth does, indeed, depend on being reelected.
>
> They may have made enough already to be set for life.

You've obviously never paid much attention to rich politicians.
>
> Even by billionaire standards.
>
> Not to doubt your assertion, although trying to shade it
> politically is dubious.

Those who go into politics often use money as a way to keep score.
The goal is power, of which money is but one form. And that depends
entirely on staying in office.
>
> I mean, how could you tell? Short of doing a full forensic audit
> of their finances from age 3 on up, that is?

By paying attention, rather than gobbling down the popaganda that
you like the flavor of.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"edstas...@gmail.com" <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0d088ccc-d225-4829-a049-52e62f4fc140n@googlegroups.com:

>> David Johnston
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > What does that even mean?
>>
>> It means that that endemic social problems are never the
>> product of a single causative factor.
>
> Sure, I agree with that. What I disagree with, is that banning
> guns and/or imposing harsh regulations on ALL Americans will
> have any effect on this.
>
>> Guns make murder attempts easier, more likely to be successful.
>
> But they also make self defense easier and more successful,
> anywhere from 200,000 to 2 million incidents per year, which is
> FAR more then the number of deaths via guns, (which includes
> suicides) in fact most instance of defensive gun use the gun is
> never fired, as even the dumbest criminal will flee when faced
> with an armed victim.

The peer reviewed research says that guns are used between 2 and 10
as often to prevent crime as to commit it, depending on the study
and the definitions involved. At least twice as often.

But this isn't news. This has been well established for 30 years.

It is no longer reasonable to believe that the gun grabbers are
unaware of this. Which leads to only two possibilities: Either they
are so disconnected from reality that they need to be
institutionalized for their own safety, or they *want* more crime.
(And don't discount that second option. Provoking the breakdown of
the rule of law is a critical step in fascist revultion. It's
*necessary* to frighten people into give up control to the junta.)
>
>> But obviously they aren't the only factor involved in high
>> murder rates.
>
> Seeing as less than 1% of the 3-400,000,000+ guns in the U.S.
> are ever used in a crime, it's a mostly irrelevant factor and
> once again, the U.S. murder rate has been in decline since 1993
> despite bazillions more guns having been bought and 17+ million
> Americans legally walking around with guns in their pockets and
> purses.
>
> The anti-gun position is indefensible, there is nothing to
> support the contention that gun control is of any value and
> everything suggests it would in fact be disastrous for Americans
> and humanity in general.
>
> You're being sold a bill of goods and willfully refuse to
> acknowledge the mountain of evidence in front of you.
>
You're assuming his goal is actually what he says it is. I no
longer assume that. The facts, indisputable results of peer
reviewed science, have been explained to *him* so many times he
can't possbily be unaware of them. Ergo, he *must* want *more*
violent crime. There's no other rational explanation, other than
mental illness.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On 25/06/21 3:27 am, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>> David Johnston
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> What does that even mean?
>>
>> It means that that endemic social problems are never the product
>> of a single causative factor.
>
> Sure, I agree with that. What I disagree with, is that banning guns
> and/or imposing harsh regulations on ALL Americans will have any
> effect on this.

I am not American and know little of your gun laws but don't you already
have a form of gun control in that you have to have a licence to carry
one in public? Isn't that a complete violation of your civil liberties
if not also, yet again, the possible end of the free world?

>> Guns make murder attempts easier, more likely to be successful.
>
> But they also make self defense easier and more successful, anywhere

Would you apply your belief of no control to the whole world, replacing
guns with nuclear weapons or do you favour the current UN position?

> from 200,000 to 2 million incidents per year, which is FAR more then
> the number of deaths via guns, (which includes suicides) in fact most
> instance of defensive gun use the gun is never fired, as even the
> dumbest criminal will flee when faced with an armed victim.

Would he run almost as fast if the victim was holding a loaded crossbow
or even a sword or bayonet? If so, do you think people should be allowed
to carry such items to the corner store just in case a dumb criminal is met?

snip
>
> The anti-gun position is indefensible, there is nothing to support the
> contention that gun control is of any value and everything suggests it
> would in fact be disastrous for Americans and humanity in general.

Would you argue that everybody should be allowed to carry a loaded gun?
Would you impose a lower age limit?
Is there any form of gun control that has value?

> You're being sold a bill of goods and willfully refuse to acknowledge
> the mountain of evidence in front of you.

(Be careful with that last rhetorical question; it might be the thin end.)

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 8:08:41 PM UTC-4, Titus G wrote:
> On 25/06/21 3:27 am, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> David Johnston
> >>> Ed Stasiak
> >>>
> >>> What does that even mean?
> >>
> >> It means that that endemic social problems are never the product
> >> of a single causative factor.
> >
> > Sure, I agree with that. What I disagree with, is that banning guns
> > and/or imposing harsh regulations on ALL Americans will have any
> > effect on this.
> I am not American and know little of your gun laws but don't you already
> have a form of gun control in that you have to have a licence to carry
> one in public? Isn't that a complete violation of your civil liberties
> if not also, yet again, the possible end of the free world?

Firearms laws in the US are mostly decided at the state level, with an
overlay of Federal regulation, and some county or city level regulations.
They also distinguish between carrying long guns, carrying a handgun
openly, or carrying concealed.

They vary greatly from place to place. In Hawaii or New York City, it's
extremely difficult to get a permit, while many states have 'Constitutional
Carry', where any adult who is not otherwise forbidden from possessing a firearm
(convicted felon, on parole, or under a restraining order), can legally carry
concealed without license or training.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry

There's been a lot of recent anti gun angst that Texas is moving to Constitutional
Carry, but there's little correlation between that and rates of gun violence; the state
with the lowest gun violence rate in the country, Vermont, has had CC for a very long
time.

Im in MA, a pretty seriously anti gun state, but have a concealed carry
permit, obtained with some hoop jumping. That included a safety course,
providing references, and an interview with the chief of police.

I think the safety course (which included training on the laws of using firearms
In MA) was extremely valuable.

Pt

> On 25/06/21 3:27 am, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> David Johnston
>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>
>>>> What does that even mean?
>>>
>>> It means that that endemic social problems are never the product
>>> of a single causative factor.
>>
>> Sure, I agree with that. What I disagree with, is that banning guns
>> and/or imposing harsh regulations on ALL Americans will have any
>> effect on this.
snip
>> The anti-gun position is indefensible, there is nothing to support the
>> contention that gun control is of any value and everything suggests it
>> would in fact be disastrous for Americans and humanity in general.

Do you not already have regulation or licensing regarding the type of
weapon you can own? Can anybody buy the latest automatic killing
machine? I don't know your laws but suspect that they can not; that
there is gun control to prevent this.
If this assumption is correct, do you think that carrying a concealed
handgun meets your definition of a well armed militia or whatever the
phrase is?
How is handgun owning Lynn Dimwire going to be able to defend himself
against marauding North Korean, Chinese and Russian paratroopers
carrying their latest technology after the next major EMP event if he is
so well bound by the Government control that denies him the freedom to
purchase the weapon of his choice, the Splurtzer 2021 which fires six
million rounds a second in all directions at once?

(The real question here is, "Who is the most stupid, me or Ed?". I have
an opinion on that but to avoid influencing anyone will keep it a secret
in the meantime.)

On 25/06/21 3:27 pm, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 8:08:41 PM UTC-4, Titus G wrote:
>> On 25/06/21 3:27 am, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> David Johnston
>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>
>>>>> What does that even mean?
>>>>
>>>> It means that that endemic social problems are never the product
>>>> of a single causative factor.
>>>
>>> Sure, I agree with that. What I disagree with, is that banning guns
>>> and/or imposing harsh regulations on ALL Americans will have any
>>> effect on this.
>> I am not American and know little of your gun laws but don't you already
>> have a form of gun control in that you have to have a licence to carry
>> one in public? Isn't that a complete violation of your civil liberties
>> if not also, yet again, the possible end of the free world?
>
> Firearms laws in the US are mostly decided at the state level, with an
> overlay of Federal regulation, and some county or city level regulations.
> They also distinguish between carrying long guns, carrying a handgun
> openly, or carrying concealed.
>
> They vary greatly from place to place. In Hawaii or New York City, it's
> extremely difficult to get a permit,

Great. I will advise my clients to invade Hawaii and New York City where
there will be a greater chance of success due to a lack of well armed
freedom loving local civilian militia with pop guns.

while many states have 'Constitutional
> Carry', where any adult who is not otherwise forbidden from possessing a firearm
> (convicted felon, on parole, or under a restraining order), can legally carry
> concealed without license or training.
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry
>
> There's been a lot of recent anti gun angst that Texas is moving to Constitutional
> Carry, but there's little correlation between that and rates of gun violence; the state
> with the lowest gun violence rate in the country, Vermont, has had CC for a very long
> time.
>
> Im in MA, a pretty seriously anti gun state, but have a concealed carry
> permit, obtained with some hoop jumping. That included a safety course,
> providing references, and an interview with the chief of police.
>
> I think the safety course (which included training on the laws of using firearms
> In MA) was extremely valuable.
>
> Pt
>

Thank you for your serious and informative answer which appears to
confirm that all Americans are currently subject to some form of gun
control. I am finding it difficult to take Ed seriously.

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 12:07:11 AM UTC-4, Titus G wrote:
> On 25/06/21 3:27 pm, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 8:08:41 PM UTC-4, Titus G wrote:
> >> On 25/06/21 3:27 am, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> David Johnston
> >>>>> Ed Stasiak
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What does that even mean?
> >>>>
> >>>> It means that that endemic social problems are never the product
> >>>> of a single causative factor.
> >>>
> >>> Sure, I agree with that. What I disagree with, is that banning guns
> >>> and/or imposing harsh regulations on ALL Americans will have any
> >>> effect on this.
> >> I am not American and know little of your gun laws but don't you already
> >> have a form of gun control in that you have to have a licence to carry
> >> one in public? Isn't that a complete violation of your civil liberties
> >> if not also, yet again, the possible end of the free world?
> >
> > Firearms laws in the US are mostly decided at the state level, with an
> > overlay of Federal regulation, and some county or city level regulations.
> > They also distinguish between carrying long guns, carrying a handgun
> > openly, or carrying concealed.
> >
> > They vary greatly from place to place. In Hawaii or New York City, it's
> > extremely difficult to get a permit,
> Great. I will advise my clients to invade Hawaii and New York City where
> there will be a greater chance of success due to a lack of well armed
> freedom loving local civilian militia with pop guns.
> while many states have 'Constitutional
> > Carry', where any adult who is not otherwise forbidden from possessing a firearm
> > (convicted felon, on parole, or under a restraining order), can legally carry
> > concealed without license or training.
> >
> > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry
> >
> > There's been a lot of recent anti gun angst that Texas is moving to Constitutional
> > Carry, but there's little correlation between that and rates of gun violence; the state
> > with the lowest gun violence rate in the country, Vermont, has had CC for a very long
> > time.
> >
> > Im in MA, a pretty seriously anti gun state, but have a concealed carry
> > permit, obtained with some hoop jumping. That included a safety course,
> > providing references, and an interview with the chief of police.
> >
> > I think the safety course (which included training on the laws of using firearms
> > In MA) was extremely valuable.
> >
> > Pt
> >
> Thank you for your serious and informative answer which appears to
> confirm that all Americans are currently subject to some form of gun
> control. I am finding it difficult to take Ed seriously.

I can't recall if your our Kiwi regular, but one other little wrinkle is that in NZ,
supressors (silencers) are uncontrolled, and their use considered good manners,
while in the US, they are illegal in some states, and subject to a $200 transfer
tax in others.

Pt

On 25/06/2021 01:27, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
[SNIP]
>
> The anti-gun position is indefensible, there is nothing to support the
> contention that gun control is of any value and everything suggests it
> would in fact be disastrous for Americans and humanity in general.
>
You are generalising from a position of weakness, gun-control works
perfectly well in civilised nations.

Gun-related deaths (and injuries) in Australia, both criminal and
self-inflicted, declined after the recent introduction of stricter
gun-control laws.

No sign of any bad stars here, and that was all the way back in 1996.

There has, however, been a noticed up-swing in the attempts to smuggle
gun parts that have come from production lines in the USA *before* they
get any identification marks on them. Could this be because the
US-based manufacturers are aiding-and-abetting such criminal acts???

Cheers,
Gary B-)

P.S. I was trained in gun safety when I was a teenager (on my cousin's
farm), and subsequently learnt to shoot various weapons as a member of a
gun club, but have never felt the need to keep one on my own property.
(And the only firearm I have owned - via the club - was a specialist
target weapon, anyway.)

--
Waiting for a new signature to suggest itself...

On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 5:55:08 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:sb0gis$vib$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> > Guns make murder attempts easier,

> A lie from the gun grabbers

> > more likely to be successful.

> Also a lie from the gun grabbers.

I'm surprised to hear that. I would have thought that
those are _obvious_ facts, so obvious as to require
little or no justification.

If I wanted to kill a specific adult male, and escape
unscathed, it would seem to me that a gun would
very definitely beat a knife, and would be superior to
my bare hands by an even greater margin.

There are fewer reasonable motives to murder,
say, a helpless infant or a small child. And it
would be difficult to set up an opportunity to
run over a specific target with a car.

In the United States, the only Federal "gun control"
measures being considered at present are highly
reasonable ones that prevent impulse purchases
of guns by mentally-unstable individuals.

In Canada, starting in 1968, we did get genuinely
unreasonable gun control measures that robbed
citizens of their legitimate right of self-defence.

But the reason for this is transparent.

At some point in the future, Quebec may secede
from Canada, and the independent Quebec that
province's government will attempt to create will
have the following characteristics:

French will be its language, and

its boundaries will be the same as that of the current
province of Quebec.

Non French-speaking minorities living in Quebec will
be anxious about their future.

While the Liberal Party of Canada is intensely concerned
about keeping Quebec happy so as to keep Quebec in
Canada, because without Quebec they wouldn't win
elections, they're not prepared to prevent Quebec from
seceding by military force. It would just be wrong - they're
a distinct ethnic group, and it's not as if they're seceding
in order to keep slaves or something evil like that.

I can't really argue with the basic premises behind that
sentiment. I wouldn't keep French Canada in Canada by
force either, but I would be willing to use armed force
to prevent it taking any English Canadians with it who
weren't enthused about the exciting new national project.

Thus, while Canada's gun control laws have the support
of Canada's police, who like it that domestic violence
calls are less dangerous for them (thus, opponents of
gun control are clearly sexist pigs who want a man's
home to be his castle, where he may beat his wife with
impunity)... the main reason for them is because nobody
would want to see a bloody civil war, more like the ones
in Africa than the one the United States experienced,
as it would break out from individual initiative, rage in
Quebec as the consequence of attempted separation.

I do *not* know how to repair or alter this problem with
the Canadian political system.

John Savard

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 9:28:02 PM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> Firearms laws in the US are mostly decided at the state level,

Indeed. And one state, with a gun law summed up by the billboard
slogan, "Use a gun, go to jail", violates the right of self-defence to
an even greater extent than Canada's gun control laws, unreasonable
and excessive though they are.

John Savard