Re: The John and Doug Gun Debate Thread.

Just reposting this for the third time, so you can say you haven't seen it
for the third time.


"Popeye" <Popeye@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message news:...
> "JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:raojp1ppotg9v18bgcea65sa2haodi8fos@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 14:31:06 -0500, "Popeye"
>> <Popeye@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I honestly don't understand the vacuity comment.
>>
>> Read your answers.
>
> va·cu·i·ty ( va-kyu ' i-te, v?- ) n. , pl. -ties . Total absence of
> matter;emptiness. An empty space; a vacuum.
>
> John, maybe you can re-read this with a little fat trimmed.
>
> I found one or two non-vacuous points that were either questions for you,
> or statements inviting comment.
>
> My answers:
>
> <snip -mutual- vacuity>
>
> "Popeye" <Popeye@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message news:...
>>
>>>>"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> Since I have possibly the most coherent understanding of the American
>>>> 'gun
>>>>problem' of all the people you know, or are likely to know, directly, or
>>>>indirectly, I have few if any questions to be answered.
>>>
>>> Conceded, as long as you keep that word American attached.
>>
>> I do not; I am an avid student of this problem worldwide, the model of
>> the
>> problem is generic.
>>
>> I do, and I claim without insult that you do not, understand this
>> problem
>> no matter where it is.
>>
>>>> Here's some talking points, however, to get you started:
>
> <snip article>
>
>>>> First, since all these guns are headed north to supply a demand, are
>>>> we
>>>> to
>>>>conclude, as you have of us, that Canadians have become "gun nuts" and
>>>>have
>>>>started some recent "love affair" with firearms?
>>>
>>> Evidently our criminal element has.
>>
>> So, in Canada, you differentiate between a criminal element and the law
>> abiding?
>>
>> That's new.
>
> 1) Nothing vacuous here.
>
>>> Here's a question. "Is this in
>>> response to some twisted kind of hero worship? Are these gangbangers
>>> and criminal types emulating their role models as seen in videos and
>>> movies from ... you guessed it?" Has it anything to do with the NRA
>>> now sending representatives to Canada to address political gatherings
>>> for the upcoming election? Why would they be addressing Canadians? You
>>> can bet they aren't here to warn us about the evils of guns.
>>
>> That's pretty far-fetched.
>>
>> Do you have any basis for that accusation?
>
> 2) Nothing vacuous here.
>
>> On the former or the latter, is Canadian society that simple minded and
>> malleable that they get some James Dean effect from movies, and the NRA
>> can
>> just walk in and hornswaggle the populace?
>>
>> Is the NRA some sort of dark force running terrorist training?
>>
>> What are you saying here?
>
> 3) Nothing vacuous here.
>
>>>> Second, what point, that I have been stressing about the American "gun
>>>>problem" not being a "gun problem", is referenced in this article in
>>>>relation to the Canadian "gun problem"?
>>>
>>> If your national circumstances lead to problems for our country, it
>>> becomes an American gun problem for us. That doesn't necessarily mean
>>> it's a problem for you. You Americans have a history, some very
>>> recent, of offering and even imposing your help when you see injustice
>>> happening. Here's a chance for you to collectively share in some blame
>>> and offer to take steps to help us, to cooperate.
>>
>> You miss the intent of my question.
>>
>> You don't have a gun problem, you have a gun symptom.
>>
>> What you have is a societal drug problem, like us, like the article
>> says.
>>
>> No amount of legislation, as you -could- learn from us, will stop that.
>>
>> Or the resulting demand for guns.
>
> 4) Nothing vacuous here,
>
>> I'm not paying any attention to the other argument going on about who's
>> fault what is, because it's ridiculous.
>
> 4a) Or here,
>
>> It's the law of supply and demand, whether it's 14 guns in a backpack,
>> 21
>> guns in a trunkwell, or a shipping container of AK-47s coming in from
>> Hong
>> Kong.
>>
>> As long as the demand continues, so will the supply.
>>
>> To spend a scintilla of thought or energy on where the guns are coming
>> from is a waste of time.
>
> 4b) Or there.
>
>>> Those of you here> laugh at that suggestion and tell us we're on our
>>> own,
>>> it's our problem pure and simple.
>>
>> Well, there are those that insist the problem is completely -our- fault,
>> so we get the RS tit for tat.
>>
>> And frankly, you -are- on your own.
>>
>> The gun situation in America will not change in our lifetimes, and even
>> if
>> guns were completely banned -today- in this country, the flow of guns
>> supplying the Canadian demand will not slow in our lifetimes, either.
>>
>> And what's happening is already illegal, so making it more illegal won't
>> help.
>>
>> So don't bother wasting any time on that.
>>
>> The very first lesson that you can choose to learn is that more laws
>> won't
>> help.
>
> 5) Nothing vacuous here.
>
>>> Gee. that doesn't sound at all like the same country whose complaints
>>> and accusations we heard about us being responsible for the terrorists
>>> crossing your borders out of Canada, or the unilateral
>>> reinterpretation and reneging that's gone on over softwood lumber
>>> imports. We should get right on helping you out with those little
>>> problems while you laugh at our little gun issues.
>>
>> If it was up to me, we'd seal the borders, and you guys would be
>> begging.
>>
>> But let's stick to guns.
>
> Equally vacuous here.
>
>>> Those things aren't
>>> really problems for us now, are they, so why would we help you out? Is
>>> that what cooperation is all about.
>>
>> Just what would you propose we do to help with -your- gun problem?
>
> 6) Simple, non-vacuous question.
>
>>>> Fourth, you and I have long debated the utility of defense carry.
>>>>
>>>> You've many times stated that it simply isn't necessary, as others
>>>> have
>>>> in
>>>>this very thread.
>>>
>>> It isn't necessary for me. I'm 60 years of living proof.
>>
>> My mother has never been in a car accident.
>>
>> By your example, she has no need for car insurance, or the use of a
>> safety
>> belt.
>>
>> She's living proof, 72 years.
>
> 7) Nothing vacuous here, -eagerly- awaiting your reply.
>
>>>> The except above mentions gangs, shooting sprees, home invasions,
>>>> heavily
>>>>armored cops, rapidly increasing gun crime, -and- "commonplace" gun
>>>>confiscations,
>>>>
>>>> And.
>>>>
>>>> Increased.
>>>>
>>>> Gun.
>>>>
>>>> Violence.
>>>>
>>>> In.
>>>>
>>>> Calgary...
>>>
>>> That's several thousand miles from me. NYC is closer to me
>>> geographically. The gang activity in the GTA is much closer to home
>>> and only slightly less surreal.
>>
>> Sorry, that was an "Ahoy!".
>
> Vacuous, with apology.
>
>>>> What randomly potential incidents do I face, that you feel you don't
>>>> as
>>>>well?
>>>
>>> You spend more time travelling the highways and byways of the United
>>> States than I do. That improves my odds.
>>
>> All forms of gun related violence are obviously on the rise in Canada.
>
> 8) Nothing vacuous here.
>
>>>> Fifth, the gun demand in Canada is -generally- facilitated at this
>>>> time
>>>> by
>>>>the U.S., why?
>>>
>>> That's the crux of it. The US, because of it's embracing of guns, is
>>> the obvious source for foreigners wanting weapons and needing to
>>> obtain them illegally. Our shared border with it's mutually trusting
>>> kind of arrangement makes it particularly handy for our bad guys to
>>> just walk 'em in..
>>
>> It's because we're the only country of mention that you share a border
>> with.
>>
>> If you guys were attached to eastern Europe anywhere, the shit would be
>> coming in in dumptrucks.
>>
>> Same with us.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with the "US Embracing", it has to do with
>> proximity.
>
> 9) Nothing vacuous here.
>
>>>> If guns were completely cut off from the U.S., how would that affect
>>>> the
>>>>continuing demand, and, the continuing supply?
>>>
>>> Tough to do but if the land access was totally eliminated it would
>>> certainly be tougher to bring guns in through customs and immigration.
>>
>> No it wouldn't.
>>
>> You can't stop it any more than you can stop drugs.
>
> 10) Nothing vacuous here.
>
>>> A lot of the folks who get them fairly easily now by simply carrying
>>> them across the border would probably be confounded just enough to
>>> stop them if they had to get through higher level security checks. Of
>>> course there'd still be those who would take the trouble but the
>>> numbers of illegal guns entering the country would drop, at least for
>>> a while. And by the time a better system had been developed for the
>>> smugglers we might have come up with better solutuions.
>
> 11) I missed this, but, no one has been able to stop smuggling, ever.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> You need to get a coherent grip on this, and drop your chicken little
>>>>routine.
>>>
>>> I think I do have a coherent grip. I realize that it's frustrating for
>>> gun owners in the States to hear arguments from other countries in
>>> favour of gun controls,
>>
>> I doubt you can add up any five other countries that have the gun
>> controls
>> we do.
>>
>> As Mitch pointed out, France is rife with personal firearms, but low on
>> violence.
>>
>> The violence is a societal problem with us.
>>
>> You blaming your gun problem on us is like us blaming our drug problem
>> on
>> Columbia.
>
> 12) Nothing vacuous here.
>
>>>because as the world gets smaller and smaller,
>>> the odds go up in favour of a worldwide agreement on things like the
>>> private ownership of guns,
>>
>> Never happen.
>>
>> Never.
>
> 13) Simple fact.
>
> And this is your clear and specific advocation of gun confiscation, in
> black and white.
>
> So much for your "that's a lie".
>
>>> and the right to carry concealed weapons. I
>>> suppose that's an argument in favour of the hardliners trying a little
>>> harder to get onside with the people who will be pushing for outright
>>> bans. These hard lines are simply responses in kind.
>>>
>>> Contrary to what gun owners are willing to admit, there will
>>> ultimately be a middle ground.
>>
>> Not here.
>
> 14) Nothing vacuous here.
>
>>>How close that comes to the current
>>> American position depends on how cooperative the gun hardliners appear
>>> to be. Resistance will beget resistance. Flexibility will be returned
>>> in kind. Perhaps it's the gun hardliners who need to drop the
>>> condescending "my way or the highway" routine.
>
> 14a) Indications of gun confiscation.
>
>>>> The above article is a neat and tidy snapshot of the American "gun
>>>>problem" printed on Canadian paper.
>>>
>>> George also included a lot of other quotes from a variety of folks
>>> with a variety of opinions. Those alone prove that the problem, or
>>> perception of a problem, does exist, and isn't going to be easily
>>> resolved.
>>
>> There were people there who had a clue, and some who didn't.
>>
>> We probably wouldn't agree on which was which.
>
> 15) Nothing vacuous here.
>
>>> We shouldn't pick only the cites that support our own contentions and
>>> ignore the rest as if they don't exist. If we're being honest we have
>>> to look at all sides, consider the points and facts weighting them for
>>> the credibility due the sources, and form conclusions. Geography,
>>> nationality, and tradition all come to play in this.
>>>
>>> I haven't used any cites to speak of because I'm speaking as a long
>>> time Canadian with more than average exposure to the real American
>>> lifestyle, not the tv variety. I've had a barber in Ohio show me his
>>> Glock stored in the drawer next to the barber chair as he explains
>>> that there's a serious racial problem in the neighbourhood. I've then
>>> gone through the connecting door to the adjacent office space and
>>> listened to the occupant tell me they have no need for guns, that
>>> there's no problem that they're aware of. Who's telling the truth,
>>> who's lying, who's deluded?
>>
>> We have the right to each make our own decision, which you would usurp.
>>
>> Maybe they're -both- right.
>
> 16) Nothing vacuous here.
>
>> This, whether you see it or not, is the gun confiscation advocation you
>> repeatedly deny:
>>
>> "How close that comes to the current American position depends on how
>> cooperative the gun hardliners appear to be. Resistance will beget
>> resistance.Flexibility will be returned in kind. Perhaps it's the gun
>> hardliners who need to drop the condescending "my way or the highway"
>> routine."
>
> 17) Nothing vacuous here.
>
>>>> "If the experience of Canada's border agents is anything to go by,
>>>>Miller is right. In the past five years, authorities have seized more
>>>>than 5,400 firearms coming into the country from the United States, a
>>>>figure believed to represent a fraction of the northward flow. The
>>>>lion's share of those weapons -- some 3,695 -- were handguns, which
>>>>tells you something about who was doing the buying. Pistols, after all,
>>>>are the tools of the urban street gang, and a threefold growth in
>>>>gang-related killings since the mid-1990s is the one glaring exception
>>>>to Canada's overall decline in violent crime. At the same time,
>>>>handguns have been steadily supplanting long-barrelled guns as weapons
>>>>of choice in gun homicides, reflecting what experts see as a critical
>>>>shift in the nature of violent crime in Canada. "Overall, there are
>>>>more gang and drug-related killings, and fewer family killings," says
>>>>Tom Gabor, a University of Ottawa criminologist. "Those involved in the
>>>>former seem to have a preference for handguns, many of which are
>>>>unregistered and likely smuggled into the country.""
>>>>
>>>> There ya go.
>>>
>>> The first thought that comes to mind is "How many of those are carried
>>> by tourists who simply don't realize or don't care that Canada has
>>> different laws? Are these gun smugglers or just individuals accustomed
>>> to carrying a gun who have no intention of commiting a crime?"
>>
>>>> Third, and somewhat separately, the figure of "5,400 guns seized at
>>>> border
>>>>crossings" was bandied.
>>>>
>>>> Canadian housewives everywhere give their heads a shake and say "oh,
>>>> my!"
>>>>at a figure like that.
>>>
>>> You'll be shocked to learn that very few Canadian housewives give a
>>> damn about gun seizures. That stuff is just background noise on the
>>> radio.
>>
>> I apologize for my mistake.
>
> My second imitation adult apology in -one- post!
>
>> Your ire is up about the housewife thing.
>>
>> I was trying to point out that the media issues purposeless inflammatory
>> comments that sound great but mean absolutely nothing to the uninitiated.
>
> 18) Nothing vacuous about that.
>
>> >> Tell me five things about that statement that seem incongruous to
>> you
>>>>given the education you've received in -hundreds- of previous gun
>>>>related
>>>>exchanges.
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> 1) How many were taken from Americans, vs Canadians?
>>
>> 2) How many were actual smuggling attempts?
>>
>> 3) How many northward crossings are there a year? Millions? Tens of
>> millions? I don't know. 5,400 guns is about what they pull out of school
>> lockers here yearly, a truly insignificant number. A molecule in a drop
>> in a
>> bucket.
>>
>> 4) How many of these weapons were poorly concealed personal defense
>> weapons unlikely to be used or left behind in Canada?
>>
>> 5) Weapons confiscated at the border, what roll does that type of
>> weapon,
>> i.e. individual personal defense pistol, play in the Canadian crime
>> situation?
>>
>> The point is, it's a pointless, inflammatory statistic, virtually
>> meaningless.
>>
>> The vast majority of the guns confiscated at the border would never have
>> had squat to do with the aforementioned violence problems.
>
> 19) Nothing vacuous there.
>
>>> 1: See above comment
>>>
>>> 2: Being somewhat attuned to the whole gun debate because of the
>>> caryings on here in rec.scuba, I'm surprised I haven't heard that on
>>> the news.
>>>
>>> 3: I'm surprised that you'd think that even if there were such a news
>>> report you would think that very many Canadian housewives would react
>>> to it. The possible exceptions at the moment might be some living in
>>> the Jane/Finch area of the GTA, and only now because of the recent
>>> spate of gang related shootings there.
>>>
>>> 4: Your notion that all that many people in Canada, housewives and
>>> others, really give much if any thought to guns. Those of us who spend
>>> time going round and round with you here are probably more attuned to
>>> the whole thing than the vast majority of Canadians. Were it not for
>>> TV and movies, many many Canadians would have never seen an
>>> unholstered handgun in their entire lives, and probably many who have
>>> seen 'em did it in a museum or somesuch. There's very little forefront
>>> consciousness of guns here.
>>>
>>> 5: I'm stuck for the fifth. Sorry.
>
> I dunno, John, seems to be a lot to chew on there.
>