Are Gun Bans Realistic?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Motion, Apr 19, 2007.

  1. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    when opposing forms of stupidity beat their heads against each other, the great misfortune is that sooner or later one of them often wins. which then leads to it being falsely attributed great wisedom.

    at any rate, banning the PRODUCTION of ballistic projectile fire arms, would be highly effective in reducing the consiquences of their availability, whatever else may or may not be.

    that no one is willing to honestly consider this option demonstrates the questionableness of the relivance of the entire discussion.

    =^^=
    .../\...
     
  2. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Your theory is about attitudes, banning/restricting guns will do nothing to change this attitude.



    Pitt as I’ve said, to me to find solutions to crime we would first have to understand what the problems are, and in my opinion a big obstacle to that are attitudes that refuses to try and understand what the problems are.



    Until those attitudes are confronted any true solutions will remain out of reach.



    Your vociferous defence of gun ownership but total lack of seemingly any wish to seek understanding about crime or frankly anything else about for society seems to back up perfectly my theories about many pro-gunners not being part of the solution but part of the problem.





    **
     
  3. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Your theory is about attitudes, banning/restricting guns will do nothing to change this attitude.

    Pitt as I’ve said, to me to find solutions to crime we would first have to understand what the problems are, and in my opinion a big obstacle to that are attitudes that refuses to try and understand what the problems are.

    You think banning/restricting guns will help you understand the "problems"?


    Again Pitt you need to read my posts rather than jumping down my throat all the time.
    You thought the proposals I’ve stood by were good, they were meant to try and keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn’t have them, children criminals and the mentally unstable.
    It was a matter of trying to reduce harm while trying to treat what I see as the possible source of some problems, the attitudes I’ve talked about.

    **

    Until those attitudes are confronted any true solutions will remain out of reach.

    And another of those attitudes is that some peoples continue to think that a ban/restriction of guns will solve something when it has been shown to be ineffective. This also tends to have them concentrate on little else.

    Again this is an indication of your bias, it is your opinion that ban/restrictions are ineffective and as I’ve shown what you base this opinion on when examined doesn’t seem as concrete as you like to present it.
    What seems interesting to me is the lengths you seem to be going to get out of any debate on the attitudes I’ve talked about.
    It’s been ten months and hundreds of post and still you are reluctant confront what I’ve said.

    **


    Your vociferous defence of gun ownership but total lack of seemingly any wish to seek understanding about crime or frankly anything else about for society seems to back up perfectly my theories about many pro-gunners not being part of the solution but part of the problem.


    Perhapse if you were to show us some positive impact stemming from a gun ban there would be something to talk about. Instead people are left having to defend against something clearly shown to be inneffective.

    Again it hasn’t been ‘clearly shown to be inneffective’ it is just that in your opinion it is ineffective.

    Also I’m not championing a gun ban, I believe in regulation as you seem to, we just have differing opinions on what regulations to bring in.

    And your reply just highlights what I’ve been saying, once more back to banging away at the supposed ineffectiveness of gun bans, but what about all the things I’ve brought up? Can you have a debate about the attitudes of threat and suppression?

    **
     
  4. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Interesting, except for the simple fact that when I talk about the legislation for reforming the NICS which addresses this (keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn’t have them, children criminals and the mentally unstable) precisely you call it insubstantial. So which is it?

    As said, in my opinion the legislation doesn’t seem that substantial, I mean it doesn’t seem much for example when compared with many of the ideas people have presented on the forums or even those proposals of mine you thought were good.

    **

    Lmao how many times have I asked you to show me where they have been effective with their intent? I have shown you dozens of article and stats showing they are ineffective, what have you shown? Nada.

    No you haven’t shown that certain measures have been ineffective.
    You have stated an opinion that some things are effective and others not but as pointed out what you base those opinion on do not seem as concrete as you like to present them when they are examined.

    Also as said several times the bias that has led to you opinions seems to be built upon attitudes that you continually refuse to discuss.

    **

    Again you want to leave the intent of the thread which is about “Are Gun Bans Realistic?” Since you cannot bring anything to the discussion concerning this you instead want to derail it onto another subject.

    I’ve stated clearly that it is about perceptions, bias and outlook, if you have an attitude that believes in threat and intimidation as a means of social control then you are very much less likely to see gun control legislation as a good thing.

    To me only with a change in those attitudes would gun control be seen as realistic.

    So it seems to me that we need an examination of those attitudes and you seem to be doing all you can to disrupt any such discussion.

    **

    yet when I suggest basically the same thing you call it “threat and suppression”. Again make up your mind.

    As already said you can only come to that conclusion if you ignore what things have been said that seem to contradict it.

    I’ll try and explain.

    Remember the carrot and stick?

    To come to your conclusion you must disregard everything about the carrot and concentrate exclusively on the stick.

    I’ve never said I’m opposed to the rule of law (as long as those laws benefit society) and many laws it is true to say are sticks.

    I hope that one day people might not need laws but I don’t think that is going to happen any time soon so I see them basically as necessary evils.

    I don’t cheer when I see such laws, I’m sad that they seem necessary, and then I try to work out why they seem necessary in the hope that the things that seem to make them necessary can be alleviated and the tough laws lessened (even removed).

    This is the difference I see between my own views and those of an attitude of threat and intimidation as outlined in my theories.

    For example when I presented my ‘tough’ laws you cheered “Bravo!!!” and when asked to present alternative ideas that are about dealing with problems rather than just suppressing them or dealing with the symptoms you seem to become vague and directionless.

    **
     
  5. Pepik

    Pepik Banned

    Well since this is off topic already, if someone could prove that guns did increase crime and violence, would you be in favor of gun control? After all, the constitution still says guns are legal. And even if they due harm, well so would drug legalisation, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

    The reason I ask is that I have a lot of doubt about the studies put out by the gun lobby, but I think the civil liberties argument is quite strong.
     
  6. Pepik

    Pepik Banned

    Of course it isn't the only factor in crime.

    The question was hypothetical - if guns could be proven to increase crime and violence, would you still support them from a civil liberties perspective? Or would you change your mind and start supporting more gun control?
     
  7. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    You are being very wishy washy. It addresses the exact point brought up by you in the past of keeping guns out of the hands of people that are not supposed to have them in the first place. It seems your stated agenda has nor changed.

    In what way wishy washy, I’m stating very clearly that I don’t think the legislation goes as far as many of the things that have been proposed here by me and others.
    And you don’t seem to be denying that, so in what way is that wishy washy?

    **

    Yet you promote “gun Control” as a part of the plan to change peoples “attitude”. Again how will this change peoples attitude?

    Again you do not seem to be listening or reading things that go against your beliefs.
    This has been explained many times now and you don’t seem to argue against it you just seem to ignore it.
    So once again – There seems to be a feeling of threat in US society (exemplified by many of the comments of pro-gunners) one reason for this seems to be connected to the vast numbers of guns in their society. It therefore fits that one way of lessening that fear to a point where people’s viewpoints and attitudes might change would be to reduce the number of guns in their society.
    But as said this has to be done in conjunction with other measures.

    **

    The carrot and stick works on the promise of reward (the carrot) I have never called for any reward so the analogy is completely void. What reward is there when it comes to gun ownership or gun bans?

    Sometimes you amaze me Pitt, did you actually think about what you were saying before you said it?

    I’ve said that the attitude of threat, intimidation and suppression seems to be characterised by to much emphasis on the stick and not much on the carrot and you come out and say that you don’t basically think much about the carrot.

    I’ve said that to me the problem with many American’s attitudes towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of ignoring many of the social, economic and cultural problems within their society, and you seem to come out and say that you don’t think much beyond gun ownership.

    **
     
  8. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Then show countering data and evidence. Your sole opinion that it is not accurate is not enough. Where is your countering data?

    But I have given a countering argument, the problem seems to be that you just don’t see or hear things that don’t fit in with your beliefs.
    You argued that your ‘evidence’ was solid proof and showed conclusively that your argument was right.
    I’ve shown that isn’t the case that you were just interpreting the data in a way that fitted in with your belief.
    There were in fact contextual and comparative problems with the data you were presenting that made them unsafe or useless as definitive proof of your case.
    For example the statistic for the US and UK were, in virtually every case, so close that the possible variables made them virtually indistinguishable from each other.
    Except in one very particular area – gun related homicides – which was vastly higher in the US.
    But I’ve also pointed out that there are other marked differences between the US and UK the much greater prison population and the use of execution. Plus gun ownership is much higher in the US, only about 1% of the population owned guns before the ban in the UK (and the figure isn’t that much different now) whereas it is thought that about 40% of American households have a gun.
    So has the greater gun ownership made the US a safer place? It depends on who you talk to but as shown it doesn’t seem to have had a significant result on most crimes although there is still the vast difference in gun related homicides.
    So has greater gun ownership contributed to the huge difference in gun related homicides? Again it depends who you talk to, you and some other pro-gunners point to places like Switzerland as a place with gun ownership (I believe around 20% of households) and with a gun related homicide rate closer to that of the UK.
    So the question to me is, why is the US so more murderous than the UK (with ban) or Switzerland (without ban) and why is it that so many pro-gunners seem (you included) seem to shy away from that question?
    You have suggested more than once that there could be other factors – cultural difference and/or socio-economic reasons, and I have suggested a difference in attitudes.
    So to me these other factors need to be explored if the subject is to be understood.
    What seems very puzzling is the pro-gunners refusal to enter into such a debate, in fact you and others seem to be doing all you can to disrupt such a debate taking place.

    Why is that?
     
  9. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Pepik

    Good question

    I’ll let Pitt answer for himself but you might be interested with what Proud said -

    Certainly, peace is a good thing. However, freedom is far better. If I must abandon peace in order to live as a free being, so be it. If it could be proven that so-called "reasonable gun control" would save 1,000 lives per year, I would still not advocate or condone such control. Same story with 10,000 lives per year. Or a million. If the lives in question were those of the sweetest, most innocent rosy-cheeked children imaginable, I would not sway in my position. Those children would be better off dead than slaves.
    Post 179
    http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189921&page=18&pp=10

    **
     
  10. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Pitt

    In a way I’ve answered this question many times the last time just above

    “I hope that one day people might not need laws but I don’t think that is going to happen any time soon so I see them basically as necessary evils
    I don’t cheer when I see such laws, I’m sad that they seem necessary, and then I try to work out why they seem necessary in the hope that the things that seem to make them necessary can be alleviated and the tough laws lessened (even removed)”

    I hope that one day people wouldn’t commit crimes of any sort, and then there would be no need for laws or controls or regulations.

    To me as a society improves it shouldn’t need so many laws, ultimately a society would have few needs for prisons or punishments as deterrents and its people would feel so unthreatened that they wouldn’t feel the need to have guns as a means of protection.

    The thing is that If guns were not used in crime then there wouldn’t be a need for controls on them.

    But this is about societies improving about being better places. The problem comes in how that is defined, if such a society is achieved through the locking up or execution of many people, then to me it is not an improved society only a suppressive one.

    The thing is if nothing else, the US has huge levels of gun related homicide which I believe is still a crime so there still seems to be a case for some laws, regulations or controls attached to guns.

    **
     
  11. Pepik

    Pepik Banned

    I'm asking you to set aside that and look at it from a civil liberties perspective. Is the civil liberties argument alone sufficient to justify limited or no gun control or do you need to prove it saves lives and reduces crime?
    So you're not sure you would support it on a civil liberties perspective, only on a crime reduction perspective?
     
  12. Pepik

    Pepik Banned

    I am asking if the civil liberties argument is sufficient, if it would trump the crime/violence argument. Sorry to keep asking but I don't think you are getting my question.
     
  13. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Pitt

    I don’t think you’ve read my post, or maybe you just don’t understand what I’ve said.

    “If someone could prove that guns did NOT increase crime and violence”

    Well if gun crime was still taking place then there would still seem to be a problem and so it is very probable that some regulations somewhere would still be needed.

    Or are you saying that in your view there is an acceptable level of gun related crime?

    Also I’ve never argued that gun regulation alone would be enough.

    **

    I mean if it was proved beyond all doubt that the high level of guns in US society had no effect what-so-ever on the level of gun crime then the question still remains why is there still gun crime?

    Which goes back to the theories I’ve presented, if gun crime has nothing to do with guns as some pro-gunners seem to be arguing, what is causing the gun crime in the US and why are so many pro-gunners seemingly uninterested in finding out.

    I mean if they said the gun crime was definitely the result of certain problems and had policies (social, economic, cultural and political) for tackling those things. I’d have a lot more respect for their way of thinking

    But as I’ve said many times it seems to me that the problem with such people’s attitudes towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and also ignoring many of the social, economic and cultural problems within their society.

    **

    Now if guns had no connection with crime then no crime would be committed with a gun and so no regulations would be needed to tackle gun crime.


    **
     
  14. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    LOL

    Oh Pitt

    Do you read your posts?

    If guns “magically disappeared” there wouldn’t be a point in having any regulations associated with guns.

    But that doesn’t mean that regulations associated with tackling crime wouldn’t be needed.

    The thing is that as long as people are using guns for crimes then it seems sensible to have regulations associated with guns.

    **

    Not only is there not an acceptable level of "gun related crime" there is no acceptable level of CRIME.

    I agree but the point is how to deal with crime, you don’t seem to have given it much thought outside of threat and intimidation (which includes guns)

    **

    But you have also never supplied any data showing a total positive effect of gun control.

    But we both in some way or other support some types of gun regulation, so why do you support gun regulation if you don’t think it has no effect?

    **

    Again why differientate "gun crime" from "crime"? I have stated many many times its the result of social, economic and cultural problems.

    But I haven’t separated gun crime from general crime, in fact most of my argument for the last ten months is that the reasons for crime need to be explored so that solutions can be worked out (all of it, including gun related crime)

    Your argument has been that guns are good for tackling crime (which isn’t that certain) and so gun ownership has to be protected.

    I’ve tried to get you involved in a discussion on the social, economic and cultural aspects of crime but you have been either very vague then refused to go on or actively tried to scupper such a discussion.

    I’ve asked you why several times but that also you refuse to answer.

    To me this backs up my theory that you don’t give your society much thought, while devoting a lot of time, effort and thought toward defending gun ownership.

    **
     
  15. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Pitt

    That was not the question was it? Are you afraid to give a straight answer to the question?

    Just because the answer is not the answer you want, you just don’t accept it, but you do not dispute what I’ve said?
    Do you think that is a reasonable let alone a rational response?

    **

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Balbus

    Not only is there not an acceptable level of "gun related crime" there is no acceptable level of CRIME.

    I agree but the point is how to deal with crime, you don’t seem to have given it much thought outside of threat and intimidation (which includes guns)





    How am I threatening anyone? I have guns, I Have the all locked up at all times except for 2 at the most (unless I am using them for competitions), I dont brandish them around, When I carry one it is hidden from public view, I am completely legal in all respects for carrying a gun.


    At times you clearly understand what I’ve said, but when it suits you, you pretend not to?

    We have been through this and I’ve given you the reasons before, why not reply to them rather than saying the same thing again that you know (or should know) has been covered before?

    **

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Balbus

    But you have also never supplied any data showing a total positive effect of gun control.

    But we both in some way or other support some types of gun regulation, so why do you support gun regulation if you don’t think it has no effect?





    I support gun regulations that keeps them out of the hands of prooven criminals, children and the mentally incompetent.


    On the other hand you support regulations that effect the common law abiding person. There is a difference and it is very plain to see. So dont pretend its the same thing. I have said all along I believe in this to you it is not enough though.

    LOL

    We have been through this so many times already I cannot believe you have forgotten; I mean for fuck sake we are still discussing it in another thread at this very moment.

    And since you are replying in both you must know this?

    Remember this -

    “I’ve explained numerous times just why I would introduce the type of regulations I’ve proposed and you do not seem to be disputing those explanations”



    I mean I brought up the gun safe thing and you seem to agree with me on it.



    **


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Balbus

    Again why differientate "gun crime" from "crime"? I have stated many many times its the result of social, economic and cultural problems.

    But I haven’t separated gun crime from general crime, in fact most of my argument for the last ten months is that the reasons for crime need to be explored so that solutions can be worked out (all of it, including gun related crime)






    Yet you continue to make statements that if there were no guns there would be no "GUN CRIME" Again you use the restrictive argument to try and make a point about the braoder theme.

    You disagree with the statement that if there were no guns in existence there would be no gun crime?

    Why do you think we don’t have laws concerning T-Rex’s?

    And anyway mate, you were the one that brought it up with your magically disappeared” guns.

    Are you disputing that I’ve tried to talk about the socio-economic issues involved in crime?

    **

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Balbus

    Your argument has been that guns are good for tackling crime (which isn’t that certain) and so gun ownership has to be protected.




    So all the studies where they asked the convicted criminals about ordinary people with guns stopping them from committing a crime, Or the fact they say they are more afraid of the victem being armed than they are of law enforcement, or the studies showing between 60,000 and 2,500,000 DGU's each year are what? bogus? immaterial? fiction? just dont matter?



    I’ve given you my counter arguments to these things at least once sometimes more than once.

    Why not give us your opinion of those counter arguments rather than once again just pretending I haven’t given them?

    **
     
  16. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    You are a joke balbus. Come up with something new this is just to tiresome from the repetition.

    You seem unable to refute what I’ve said so far so you just endlessly ask me to restate it, demand for more ‘facts’, but what is the point, if you’re unable to refute what I’ve said already, why do I need to make my arguments stronger?

    And why would repeating the same arguements you could not refute the first time be of any use?

    Come on man, if you can refute my views and theories do so, if you can’t what does that say about your own views and ideas?


    **
     
  17. Pepik

    Pepik Banned

    Got it.

    As for your latest point, you probably mean conscience.
     
  18. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Pitt

    classic balbus take an simple question and you refuse to answer. Instead you go on some rant saying its just not the answer you want to hear. Its very plain that you have not answered the question directly only side stepped it because the answer does not fit in with your POV.

    Oh dear Pitt here we go again with the accusations, the accusation you can’t back up, the accusation you’ve not backed up before – ok so why have I not answered it in a way you would like?

    **

    This copy/paste is from the other thread seems to be applicable in this one to.

    The most telling thing you have said.

    I’m not interested in conversion

    You said (and I quote) “Like I have said many times in the past you do not want discussion you only want converts”

    To which I replied “I’m not interested in conversion I’m just here to learn”

    Meaning I’m not here to convert, I’m here to learn.

    I have a question, you have accused me many times of twisting things (although you never seem be able to back it up), but if you do it is that ok?

    As I’ve said before I think this is because you just want to win (victory over the non-believer, you could say) so you are willing to lie, cheat, play tricks, misdirect and twist (and I can and have backed up all those claims).

    I’m here to learn so there is no advantage for me in lying or cheating since that would get in the way of understanding.

    Come on man, drop the dogma and let’s have a decent, open and honest debate, you might actually learn something?


    **
     
  19. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    There is one simple fact you tend to ignore that I have repeatedly tried to get you to address.

    You continue to say you want a “holistic” approach to solving the crime problem. That’s all fine and dandy. In this “holistic” approach each and every one of your programs must have some kind of positive outcome toward its intended goal or its nothing but fluff, a feel good knee jerk reaction that only detracts from the whole.


    LOL

    Oh man I’ve covered that many times.

    Why are you continually going back to things that you dropped earlier because you seemingly didn’t have a countering argument at the time?

    And if you have now come up with countering arguments to what I said on those other occasions lets hear them.

    For example - Post 1004 in the Guncrazy thread from just a couple of weeks ago -

    [Pitt] You can have a holistic approach to anything but if one of your many many solutions leading to a predetermined outcome is useless and unproductive toward its intended goal it only serves to detract from the intended goal of the whole.

    [Me] But why is it useless and unproductive, why in your opinion would, for example having home safes for guns be useless and unproductive?

    And I don’t think you understand what a holistic approach is or haven’t read what I’ve said about it. To me it is about looking at the whole, trying to understand it and seeing what can be done, it is not dogmatic it can be flexible with success being followed up and failures examined and the policies changed accordingly.

    Your mentality seems to be ridged, if something isn’t the why you want you do not seem to want to know, as pointed out this mentality is the same that props up failing ventures because it is unable to think of alternatives, again this is in line with the theories I’ve presented.

    As far as I can tell you didn’t give a countering argument to my reply although you seem to agree with me on the gun safe (case) thing.

    But once again you bring it up, why?

    **

    The thing is I think there is a difference between how we approach each others posts.

    I get great pleasure out of reading what you (and others) post because I’m interested in what’s said. I think about it, mull it over, try and work it out, I cherish them.

    But it seems to me that you see them as the enemies, things to be swatted down by any means, you read them only to react, not to seek understanding, if it is not what you want, you ignore it, like a predator you are looking for what you believe are weaknesses and if you cannot find any you make them up.

    This is why you often seem like you don’t know what’s going on or what’s been said and so you repeat yourself all the time.

    If you stopped just trying to win and actually entered into honest debate you might learn something.

    **
     
  20. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    I have repeatedly tried to get you to define the intended goal of your gun restriction ideas. You have refused to do this.

    Sorry have to laugh again.

    We’ve covered it at length; didn’t you read any of it?

    You must remember all the stuff about wanting a healthier society where people didn’t feel so threatened?

    Does that not ring any bells?

    **

    I then proceeded basing the discussion on the premise that the intended goal is to lower crime and violence. I have shown you dozens of sources showing this is ineffectual. Your only response is to claim they are biased sources or that you can interpret the data differently. Yet you never offer any countering data or studies nor do you ever really define your differing interpretations.

    You have shown sources that you claim back up your claims but as I’ve explained several times they are not as solid or as positive as you present them.

    They are just interpretations of data that can be viewed differently.

    I’ve given long and detailed reasons for my views and you don’t seem to be putting up countering arguments you just seem to be ignoring them.

    If you have now come up with countering arguments to what I’ve said I would really like to hear them.

    **

    You also make wild accusations such as people must live in fear just because they own guns. I have shown you the folly of this flawed logic behind argument. You simply act ignorant and claim the metaphors are not applicable when everyone else understands the implications perfectly.

    Why ‘wild accusations’ I’ve just pointed out (and I can give many examples) of were pro-gunners have expressed feelings of being threatened. If they don’t fear in some degree these things why do they feel threatened by them?

    (PS: are you still pissed at the condom and the gun metaphor, come on man drop it, it just didn’t work, and the seatbelt thing we’ve done to death and you still haven’t made it work)

    **
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice