Are Gun Bans Realistic?

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

  1. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    You also claim gun owners tend to ignore social economic problems. I have asked you to provide something to back up this claim and again you have refused to do so, only claiming your “theory” as fact. I have countered this through my own experiences with gun owners and the fact that almost all of them I speak to are involved with or donate to such programs on a regular basis.

    WOW, man you really only see things the way you want to don’t you?

    I’ve never refused to back up my theory I’ve given hundreds of examples of things that seem to back it up, they are littered through these discussions but just because they don’t fit in with what you want you seem to be dismissing them or ignoring them, but you never seem to face them.

    I’ve asked you repeatedly to debate the theories but you refuse and to me that refusal seems telling.

    If it is a weak as you seem to claim it should be easy to demolish, so why have you not demolished it?

    But rather than entering into debate you seem to be doing everything you can to get out of discussing them?

    Why is that?

    **

    I have never claimed my theory is ‘fact’ far from it I have made it very clear on numerous occasions that it is just an opinion.

    Do you actually read the posts in the threads you are in?

    Here is a reply to a post from Yank on this subject - “You claimed that my theories had been refuted but then found you couldn’t back up that claim (apology pending) so finding you cannot refute the theories you have gone for trying to downplay them.

    So you call it a hypothesis rather than a theory

    But hell man I’ve said it is just my point of view, I’ve called it my contention, a thesis, an argument, some ideas set out to discuss.

    The important thing as I’ve often said is does it stand?”

    And so far it still stands.

    **

    AS for donations to social programmes, we have covered that in some detail also, again you seem to have conveniently forgotten. (it began I think around the 100’s in the MAD thread and continued, I can go and find some examples if you want)

    Just because someone gives money to something that doesn’t mean they have given it much thought.

    For example just because someone gives to a ‘just say no’ drugs programme that doesn’t mean they have given much thought to why people might become involved in substance abuse or to understanding the problems involved.

    I’m still unsure (although I’ve asked) what drugs policy you want and why?

    **
     
  2. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    I have said all along you are not interested in discussion but only wish to find converts, now you have all but admitted it.

    In what way have I admitted it?

    I say clearly - “I’m not interested in conversion I’m just here to learn”

    I’m not here to convert only learn.

    As I’ve said you seem only to be seeing what you want to see.

    **

    You can claim I am using dishonest tactics, you can even go back to the personal attacks and bashing, but we both know the truth.
    To quote Jon Bon Jovi “your conscienceis all you can take to your grave” and my conscience is clear.

    What truth?

    You have accused me of many things, I’ve asked you to back them up.

    Please tell me, can you point to somewhere were you did actually back up your accusation?

    You say I twist things but you cannot explain where or when, while I can.

    You say I’ve not answered questions, when I can show I have.

    You made up things (like the theories are facts jib) which I can show are untrue.

    I could go on and on and on, it’s all you seem to do these days, that and asking me to repeat myself.

    You say you have a conscience, prove it and apologies and let us go on and have an open and honest debate like I’ve always wanted.

    **
     
  3. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Pitt

    All you seem to do these days is make unsubstantiated accusations or are involved in point scoring that invariably backfires.

    Please mate can we not just have a reasonable and rational debate, without all of this silly stuff?

    You say your conscience is clear but the conscience of true believers is often clear, the torturers and murders of the Inquisition went to bed their consciences clear in the utter belief that they had done their gods work.

    A dogmatic belief that you are right and others wrong can often lead to the idea that any means justifies the end.

    And you often come across as dogmatic, for instance you have often seemed to claim that your ‘evidence’ is fact, as if it were proof positive that you are right, but that is just not true.

    It is an opinion based on an interpretation.

    And you do seem to think that any means justifies the ends.

    Time and again you make accusations you cannot back up, time and again you claim questions have not been answered when they have, time and again you say arguments have been refuted when they clearly haven’t.

    I think it is time you dropped the dogma and began looking at you views, to examine them to see if they truly stand up to scrutiny.

    Yours in hope

    Balbus
     
  4. madlizard

    madlizard Senior Member

    Fuck. A gun ban would piss me off.. I do not want the government to control our guns, do you?
     
  5. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    You say you have a conscience, prove it and apologies and let us go on and have an open and honest debate like I’ve always wanted.

    Apologize? I don’t think so. I have nothing to apologize for.
    I have seen you run around here asking for apologies from different people none of whom had anything to apologize for except maybe in your mind. To me this is just another pathetic tactic of yours. The eternal victim.
    You have exposed yourself for what you truly are. I have said this before and I guess I will just have to bite my tongue and ignore your childish rants and wait on someone to post something intelligent to reply to. I am done with you.

    LOL

    I know you don’t feel like you have anything to apologise for, because as said you seem to have an almost religious belief that you are right. Catholic, Protestant, Stalinist and Nazi torturers didn’t feel they needed to apologise either, true believers don’t.

    I’ve apologised for mistakenly here on several occasions like associating a idea to someone, which it wasn’t, or misunderstanding a posts meaning and I’d do it again if I made such a mistake.

    But that is the thing they were mistakes, they do happen and when it is pointed out it is easy (and polite) to say sorry, I mean it wasn’t meant with malicious intent.

    You have made false statements about me, and have attributed to me stuff that isn’t true; I’ve pointed this out and given examples.

    You haven’t apologised so far and often you have just came back with more accusations that you again do not back up, I’ve asked you several times to either back up these accusations or stop making them.

    Will you?

    But be warned my patience is not unlimited and such behaviour is trolling.

    **

    I think it is time you dropped the dogma and began looking at you views, to examine them to see if they truly stand up to scrutiny.
    You ask me to take off my blinkers and try and understand others viewpoints but that is exactly what I’ve been doing and I have come up with some theories as to why many pro-gunners think the way they do.

    Take your blinders off balbus. Try to understand others POV and reasons for them. I would say to you: Look at your tactics as well as your views and see if they truly stand up to scrutiny.

    What tactics of mine do you mean?

    Do you mean patiently answering the same question many, many times only to have it asked again?

    Do you mean explaining something over and over, and then still having it ignored?

    Do you mean putting up with accusations that are never backed up?

    (Oh and I can give examples of all three of these things)

    **
     
  6. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    The 20/20 thing

    This is something by John F. Stossel, the well known pro-gun, right wing libertarian? The man I believe who was suspended for lying (and apologized)?

    It is not exactly an objective viewpoint.

    And from what I can tell it brings up many of the arguments that have already been shown not to be so solid at they are presented by many pro-gunners.

    He talks about the crime rate in England but as I’ve shown that is basically running at the same rate as the US’s, except in one area – gun related crime – which is much, much greater in the US.

    The reports that are mentioned, as far as I can tell, don’t actually say that gun regulation isn’t effective in tackling crime they say that the evidence for or against is inconclusive, because there are so many variables that it is difficult to use such statistical evidence etc as proof positive.

    This is what I’ve been saying.

    But in one area the US figures are far greater than in such places as the UK (with ban) and Switzerland (without ban) and that is – gun related crime. Hell you don’t dispute that.

    The supposed fear of convicts for armed citizens has also been covered by us extensively the problem as we both realised was what would criminals then do, wouldn’t they feel more like being armed themselves to ‘equalise’ the position and wouldn’t they be much more likely to react if they felt threatened? (And if this is urging more people to get guns without such things as gun safe regulation it is likely to mean more guns getting into criminal hands through being stolen).

    An opposing viewpoint is mentioned (the Economist) only to have Stossel admit he doesn’t know it or had seen but then to say it is wrong anyway, not exactly an objective approach is it?

    **

    You talk about me being blinkered but after all the discussions we’ve had on these very points you just didn’t think about them when you saw this?

    If someone says thinks you like you think they are right, but if someone say things you dislike (even when you have no countering argument) they must be wrong.

    Blinkered or what?
     
  7. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    lmao every person, organization, academic who post something not in line wioth you POV is a right-wing, pro gun, bias spreading flake.
    I guess the interviewed convicts are biased also.
    And the national Academy of science is also biased and didnt even look at those hundreds of studies.
    Very easy way out instead of supplying countering data.


    You don’t seem to be arguing with what I’ve said only that I’ve said it.

    You are not saying that Stossel isn’t pro-gun or a right wing libertarian only that I’ve said he is.

    You are not saying that the points and arguments I raised were not raised and you certainly aren’t addressing those points and arguments.

    **

    "you seem to have an almost religious belief that you are right. Catholic, Protestant, Stalinist and Nazi torturers didn’t feel they needed to apologise either, true believers don’t."

    lol back to your name calling I see.

    Not name calling, I really do think you are a ‘true believer’ and therefore do not feel the need to apologise. I think if you were not a true believer you probably would apologise for lying or more likely you wouldn’t have lied in the first place.

    And again you are not arguing with what I’ve said only that I’ve said it.

    **

    "But be warned my patience is not unlimited and such behaviour is trolling."

    Be warned? I will not be bullied into pour POV. This is the exact thing I posted about in the other thread. People have PMed me about not wanting to get banned by you for speaking about your tactics.

    I have nothing to apologize for nor will I be bullied because of your forum status. You should really check your ego. Calling for everyone to apologize to you that has a different POV is rather pathetic.

    LOL the warning is about making accusations that you cannot back up.

    The question here is not about a person’s views but if that person is making malicious accusations that they know to be untrue.

    If they haven’t made false accusations they would be able to back up what they say when asked.

    I think if they cannot it is only polite to apologise, if they can it is something worthy of discussion, but it they are repeatedly asked and refuse to do so that seems like slander.

    **

    People have PMed me about not wanting to get banned by you for speaking about your tactics.

    If they have a complaint they can send a PM to Skip, but be warned he doesn’t like time wasters so people should make very damned sure that they can be backed up what they say.

    **

    I’m not trying to bully you into anything, as I’ve said many times I’m here to learn, the only thing that I suppose I could be accused of is in trying to get others to learn as well.

    But that is best achieved in open and honest debates were differing ideas are explored.

    As I’ve pointed out you seem to stop wanting an open or honest debate as soon as you realise your views are been shown not to be as solid or as beneficial as you would like to present them, you then spend a lot of time and effort in trying to scrubber or derail what’s been said.

    It seems to me that if your arguments were truly that good, honest and solid they would be able to easily stand up to scrutiny in open debate.

    The problem seems to be that they don’t and you seem to be finding that rather hard to stomach.

    **
     
  8. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    You are not saying that the points and arguments I raised were not raised and you certainly aren’t addressing those points and arguments.

    Nor do you provide anything to counter the points raised in the video except to say it’s biased.

    Not true, I point out that the piece seems to me slanted as it is presented by a right wing libertarian who has praised the second amendment, but I then point out that most of what was brought up has already been covered by us.

    As far as I can tell you just seem to be ignoring that, do you want me to repeat them?

    **

    Not name calling,

    Comparing me to Catholic, Protestant, Stalinist and Nazi torturers is not name calling? Ok whatever. Its just the internet so it really means nothing to me IRL.

    You really need to read stuff, rather than just reacting without thinking.

    The point I was making was that it seems to me that people that have faith in what they stand for being right can do things (even terrible things) and feel no remorse.

    This was in reply to your assertion that you conscience was clear.

    I’m not saying you are a Catholic inquisitor but I am saying that the mentality of the ‘true believer’ seems similar.

    **

    I think if they cannot it is only polite to apologise, if they can it is something worthy of discussion, but it they are repeatedly asked and refuse to do so that seems like slander.

    It is also polite to apologize when you loose your cool and call people names or verbally attack them as you have done on several occasions yet I have not seen anything from you either. Nor have I tried to demand one.

    Again you are not answering the question - if they are repeatedly asked and refuse is that slander?

    As to loosing our cool, everyone does it at some point or other, but as it implies it is a moment of heat, of passion, frustration or even anger, I mean we are human.

    But it is not the same as cold bloodily making accusations that are known to be untrue, that is calculated, it is doing something not on the spur but by design.

    But if you want to point out an example of my supposed name calling we can discuss it, I mean what you call name calling above was nothing more than explanation.

    **

    I’m not trying to bully you into anything

    So statements such as
    "But be warned my patience is not unlimited and such behaviour is trolling."

    If I were a troll I doubt I would have lasted 20 months on the forum nor would I have donated to be a site supporter. Its not like I really use any of the extra supporter features. So lets look a little closer to the statements and definitions.

    Time on site or even donations does not mean that people don’t or haven’t broken the forum rules.

    Do you think that would work in a court of law?

    ‘Yes your honour, I was caught drink driving but I’ve lived in this town ten years and have given to charity so I think I should be let off’

    The question is not one of a persons views or anything else – the question is have you made accusations against someone that you have not backed up when asked to do so?

    **
     
  9. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Not true, I point out that the piece seems to me slanted as it is presented by a right wing libertarian who has praised the second amendment

    The operative words in this are: “seems to me”. Again you expect others to just take your word for it to accept your opinion without supporting data. Your implication is if its not from anti-gun sources it should not be given and credibility.

    Yes it seems to me because it is my viewpoint, I’m not claiming I talk for others and I’m not going to say this is ‘truth’ or demand others should see it as ‘the truth’. It is an opinion and if people wish to oppose that opinion they can, in fact that is the essence of debate.

    You are not putting up any argument that opposes my viewpoint you are just saying it is wrong, and you also dismiss anything I’ve put to support my view, again without putting up anything that opposes it.

    Please put up an argument(s) that oppose what I’ve said and we can move on if you cannot oppose what I say then accept it, don’t just bitch about it.

    **

    I’m not saying you are a Catholic inquisitor but I am saying that the mentality of the ‘true believer’ seems similar.

    Well that’s good; I’m not even catholic although I have a business acquaintance that is catholic. (Sarcasm) (I didn’t forget to let you know it was sarcastic this time)
    And My conscience is clear.

    But I’m sure I’m not the only one that noticed you haven’t actually denied that you lied.

    Someone can lie and do it with a clear conscience and believe that they have nothing to apologise for, because they see their belief as just.

    As I’ve said true believers can do anything for their belief and see it as right, even great crimes like torture, but does that make torture or lying right?

    **


    if they are repeatedly asked and refuse is that slander?

    Lmfao, repeating something over and over does not make it anything more that what it originally was. You perceive something one way and others do not.

    And what was it originally?

    And again you are not denying that you have lied.

    You have made accusations I’ve asked you to back them up you have refused; it is as simple as that.

    **

    But if you want to point out an example of my supposed name calling we can discuss

    It has been pointed out several times especially in the mad thread where it was completely ignored and dismissed. But then again I pointed it out once and move on unlike you who want to continually to try and use forum status to pressure others into apologies.

    So you cannot give an example?

    **

    Time on site or even donations does not mean that people don’t or haven’t broken the forum rules.

    Your right it does not. The point is you are the only one ever to imply I have broken site rules out of all this time. And especially an accusation of trolling, trolls are usually very active in their trolling and usually do not last long on a site.

    You still haven’t answered – have you made accusations that you have not backed up even when asked to do so?

    What I’m saying is as simple as ‘Put up or shut up’ that’s all.

    **

    Do you think that would work in a court of law?

    Lol I don’t know maybe I should as my lawyer. Is this now a court of law? And are you the Judge, Jury and executioner?

    So what is your answer – would you think it would work, your answer seems to be no.

    **
     
  10. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    In the opinion of many pro-gunners there is no relationship between the number of guns and the amount of crime and violence.

    The crime figures for countries like the UK (with very low gun ownership) and Switzerland (a country with supposedly high gun ownership) don’t have wildly differing crime rates from the US except in one area – gun related crime.

    So the question becomes - why are Americans’ figures for gun related homicides so vast different?

    Why do Americans seem to use guns so much more as a weapon to kill?

    To me it is possibly about attitudes toward the world around them and to guns within that world view.

    I’ve mentioned the attitude of threat/intimidation/suppression

    Many pro-gunners mention threats, crime and the government being the main two.

    This attitude does not seem to be as widespread amongst the Swiss or British as it is among Americans.

    Also many Americans see guns as an ‘equaliser’, if they are attack they have something to defend themselves with, but the Swiss also have guns to defend themselves, but the level of gun related homicide in the Switzerland is much closer to that of the UK than the US.

    So again Americans seem to be different place with differing attitudes.

    **

    Now if someone feels threatened, feels they are likely to be attacked it seems to me that they are much more likely to attack first and if people believe that threat and violence work they are likely to convince others to believe they are likely to come under attack and therefore attack first.

    Which means they are more likely to reach for and use a weapon than those that feel less threatened and that accounts for the greater death toll, but if that is the case, the availability of weapons that can easily kill would in would not help the situation?

    So it would seem right to also look at this attitude of threat and see if it can be curbed along with greater gun regulation.

    Another suggestion put forward seems to imply that ‘bad’ people have little or no regard for there fellow citizens, that they are driven by self gratification and a materialistic mindset, they see others as prey and that the only way ‘good’ people can defend themselves is by having guns.

    To me this just seems like the continuation of the threat mentality but if it has validity then this ‘hedonism’ and materialism would need examination.

    **

    Few people have guns in the UK that number is very much higher for the US.

    So if gun ownership worked as a deterrent to crime then the US crime rates should be vastly different from those in the UK and they are not. As shown there isn’t that much of difference (if any) except in one area, that of gun crime.

    So despite much larger levels of gun ownership, harsh sentencing, the highest prison population in the world and execution as a deterrent, the US is still at the same level of crime as the UK, except in one area – gun related crime.

    That situation to me implies something isn’t working and that US society is not moving in a good direction.

    **

    So what is to be done?

    Well why are so many more Americans getting murdered with guns? Is it because Americans are more murderous than others?

    If so, as I’ve said, then having easy access to guns wouldn’t seem like a good idea.

    If not, what is the problem and why do few Americans seem that interested in finding out (especially the pro-gunners?)

    But it must be remembered that many pro-gunners wouldn’t care if a clear relationship between high levels of gun ownership and high levels of gun related homicides was clearly and conclusively proved. They would still defend gun ownership.

    They wouldn’t care if it was proved that Americans are more likely to murder than others.

    There view is that it doesn’t matter how many die (one claimed he wouldn’t care if a million a year died) their right to own guns is paramount.

    And that again opens up the question of American attitudes toward guns and must be tackled before any talk of regulation or bans.


    **
     
  11. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Please put up an argument(s) that oppose what I’ve said and we can move on if you cannot oppose what I say then accept it, don’t just bitch about it.

    Omg this is ridiculous you do not provide anything countering to what was presented, the facts pointed out or the studies conducted you only object to the person reporting it.

    LOL For fuck sake Pitt you really do have to ignore a lot of stuff to keep on going don’t you?

    – to repeat –

    “from what I can tell it brings up many of the arguments that have already been shown not to be so solid at they are presented by many pro-gunners.

    He talks about the crime rate in England but as I’ve shown that is basically running at the same rate as the US’s, except in one area – gun related crime – which is much, much greater in the US.

    The reports that are mentioned, as far as I can tell, don’t actually say that gun regulation isn’t effective in tackling crime they say that the evidence for or against is inconclusive, because there are so many variables that it is difficult to use such statistical evidence etc as proof positive.

    This is what I’ve been saying.

    But in one area the US figures are far greater than in such places as the UK (with ban) and Switzerland (without ban) and that is – gun related crime. Hell you don’t dispute that.

    The supposed fear of convicts for armed citizens has also been covered by us extensively the problem as we both realised was what would criminals then do, wouldn’t they feel more like being armed themselves to ‘equalise’ the position and wouldn’t they be much more likely to react if they felt threatened? (And if this is urging more people to get guns without such things as gun safe regulation it is likely to mean more guns getting into criminal hands through being stolen).

    **

    All stuff we have been through sometimes many times.
     
  12. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    As I’ve said true believers can do anything for their belief and see it as right, even great crimes like torture, but does that make torture or lying right?

    Haha still looking for an apology for your perceived wrong. Its not going to happen.

    No, I asked for an apology, I wasn’t expecting one.

    As I’ve said if you were a more honest person you would probably apologise or more likely would not have lied in the first place.

    **
     
  13. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Now if someone feels threatened, feels they are likely to be attacked it seems to me that they are much more likely to attack first and if people believe that threat and violence work they are likely to convince others to believe they are likely to come under attack and therefore attack first.

    This statement is in direct contradiction to the studies of DGU’s. I have pointed this out many times and you have provided no opposing data.

    So why are the gun related homicide figures so large?

    As to the DGU’s I’ve given my argument as to why I think them far from a positive sign. If you have countering arguments please give them.

    **

    Another suggestion put forward seems to imply that ‘bad’ people have little or no regard for there fellow citizens, that they are driven by self gratification and a materialistic mindset, they see others as prey and that the only way ‘good’ people can defend themselves is by having guns.

    Who made this statement? Who has said this? Who has promoted this thinking? No one again its just something you made up with no justification of supporting data.

    What are you talking about? How would you interpret the view that Americans are more murderous because of ‘hedonism’ and ‘materialism’ and that decent law abiding people may need a gun to protect themselves from such violent individuals?

    Please I’d really like to see your argument.

    **

    That situation to me implies something isn’t working and that US society is not moving in a good direction.

    Again this is in direct contradiction to the data provided to you. In the US violent crime has been decreasing where in the UK it has been on the rise. This is especially true in the case of violent crime and home invasion. Which you have continually refused to address except to say I cannot use the comparisons between the US and UK. Yet you continue to do so.

    But as explained at length the figures for most crimes are roughly the same between the US and UK and taking into account the variables involved the differences are basically meaningless.

    The only major difference is gun related crime, which is much, much larger in the US.

    You have already said you accept this.

    ---------

    If not, what is the problem and why do few Americans seem that interested in finding out (especially the pro-gunners?)

    So why is it I have studied this very subject intensively?

    You claim you have studied it, so why are you so seemingly unwilling to talk about it?

    So lets try that again -

    So what is to be done?
    Well why are so many more Americans getting murdered with guns? Is it because Americans are more murderous than others?
    If so, as I’ve said, then having easy access to guns wouldn’t seem like a good idea.

    If you have studied this very subject intensively you can give some answers?

    **
     
  14. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    So again Americans seem to be different place with differing attitudes.

    And yet another copy/paste/spam to which you have never after all this time made any correlation to tying the availability of guns to people attitudes.

    I think this is covered in the other thread as well –

    The point was why is there this vast difference in just one area – gun crime, especially gun related homicides?

    The Swiss, according to you, have the guns but they haven’t chosen to use their weapons to murder on such as large scale as in the US.

    Why is that?

    Could it be that the attitudes and mentality are different in the two places with the Americans for some reason being more willing to kill than the Swiss?

    And if that is the case, then easy availability in the US will cause more murders were it wouldn’t in Switzerland?

    And if that is the case it seems an examination of Americans attitude and mentality should be a priority.

    Which, is what I’ve been saying?

    The problem has been that pro-gunners do not seem to want such a debate or like you are trying to stifle such a debate.

    And I ask again

    Why?

    **
     
  15. cutelildeadbear

    cutelildeadbear Hip Forums Gym Rat

    To answer the original question, no I do not think prohibition is realistic. Personally, I think it will do more harm than good. But those are just my thoughts, and I don't have time to back it up with non sense debates. :)

    and no, I don't own a gun yet personally.
     
  16. gardener

    gardener Realistic Humanist

    The men with little dicks will always find a need to own a gun.
     
  17. cutelildeadbear

    cutelildeadbear Hip Forums Gym Rat

    I think Chris Rock had the right idea. Let everyone who wants a gun have one, but make the bullets cost like $10,000. Then you would think twice about wasting a bullet on someone. ;)

    Perhaps gun humor doesn't go over so well on these boards anymore.
     
  18. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    “from what I can tell it brings up many of the arguments that have already been shown not to be so solid at they are presented by many pro-gunners.

    Yes you continue to repeat this yet you provide nothing to counter the arguments made except your baseless opinion.

    LOL oh my poor Pitt, let’s just take the first example I give -

    “He talks about the crime rate in England but as I’ve shown that is basically running at the same rate as the US’s, except in one area – gun related crime – which is much, much greater in the US”

    I’ve presented my arguments for this view you don’t seem to be putting up countering arguments; you just seem to be ignoring them.

    But when pushed you seem to agree with me, admitting that yes, gun related crime is much, greater in the US.

    And again if my opinions are so baseless and weak why is it you don’t seem able to bring them crashing down at my feet?

    **

    The reports that are mentioned, as far as I can tell, don’t actually say that gun regulation isn’t effective in tackling crime they say that the evidence for or against is inconclusive, because there are so many variables that it is difficult to use such statistical evidence etc as proof positive.

    This is what I’ve been saying.

    It is also what I have said dozens of times. There is no evidence linking the availability of guns to crime rates. Yet you continue to push the idea that further restricting guns will somehow have an effect on crime.

    No that is not what you have been saying.

    You’ve said a number of times that such studies ‘prove’ your argument when they don’t, you don’t state them as opinion but ‘fact’.

    You even do it here – you read “the evidence for or against is inconclusive” and you see “There is no evidence linking the availability of guns to crime rates”

    **

    The supposed fear of convicts for armed citizens has also been covered by us extensively the problem as we both realised was what would criminals then do,

    Again this has been studied. The interviews with convicted criminals show their predilection to having to confront armed victims. Interviews which you completely ignore because you say the person reporting thon the interviews is biased even though they are not the one who conducted the studies shown to you months ago.

    Oh my, oh my

    We went through this (as I’ve said) before

    I’m not contending that if asked – ‘would you prefer to rob someone that is armed or someone that is not?’ – a criminal is going to reply – ‘the unarmed one’.

    Really, it a no brainer.

    But this is simplistic.

    First up what kind of robbery is this? If it were a burglary while the house is empty the owner having a gun would mean little (and if at home unsecured may even fall into their hands).

    So it has to be something were there would be the possibility of confrontation like a mugging.

    But how does the robber know in advance if the person is armed or not?

    And if the robber knows in advance that they are likely to meet someone that is armed (but still wish to commit the robbery) are they then more likely to go armed?

    **

    So why are the gun related homicide figures so large?

    Lol If you had looked at the DGU studies you would have seen that an extreme percentage of DGU’s the weapons is never even fired, and if fired no one is hit, and if they are hit they are not killed. It’s a low instance of DGU’s where the criminal is killed. So how do DGU’s relate to homicide.

    You say the reasons for the gun related homicide figures being so large is – “due to socio/economic situations, the life style differences etc etc”, you have also mentioned ‘hedonism’ and ‘materialism’ (but this remain no more than a srug until you explain what you mean)

    But if those are the reasons then until they are tackled, is it really a good idea to have a society with relatively easy access to guns?

    I mean if Americans were less prone to murder, say like the Swiss seem to be, having guns around might be ok, but that isn’t the case, as you agree, so maybe in the case of Americans tougher gun regulation might be a good idea until they tackle their mentality and attitudes?

    As to the DGU’s I’ve given my argument as to why I think them far from a positive sign. If you have countering arguments please give them.

    **

    The only major difference is gun related crime, which is much, much larger in the US.

    Again ignoring the fact that the Gap between the US and the UK is changing due to the FACT that the crime rate in the UK is rising while the crime rates in the US have fallen.

    LOL – oh Pitt please – I explained my view on this at length, I even just reprint it for you, and the only way you seem able to cope (since you don’t seem to have a countering argument) is simply to ignore it (it is there just above)

    If you have countering arguments why are you so unwilling to give them?

    **

    You claim you have studied it

    I am the one that can at a moments notice provide data backing up the statements I have made while you cannot. You only provide your opinion. This in itself shows which one of us has studies this topic more.

    The problem is as shown time after time your ‘data’ when looked doesn’t seem as solid as you like to present it or doesn’t actually back up your argument.

    The problem is that when this is pointed out you don’t counter what I say you just ignore it and again present the same ‘data’ as ‘proof’ you are right.

    **
     
  19. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Simply put the availability of guns do not in itself promote violence or crime. If so Switzerland would be running red with blood. If it is the guns why is this not happening?

    Please Pitt read the posts

    I said – “The Swiss, according to you, have the guns but they haven’t chosen to use their weapons to murder on such as large scale as in the US.

    Why is that?

    Could it be that the attitudes and mentality are different in the two places with the Americans for some reason being more willing to kill than the Swiss?

    And if that is the case, then easy availability of guns in the US would cause more murders than it would in Switzerland?

    And if that is the case it seems an examination of Americans attitude and mentality should be a priority.

    You have said that in your opinion the reasons for the much higher level gun related homicide in the US is - “due to socio/economic situations, the life style differences etc etc”.

    Basically you are saying that the attitudes and mentality of Americans is much more murderous.

    But if that is the case then it is much more likely that Americans need gun regulations (even possibly a ban) than would the Swiss?

    **
     
  20. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Dear Pitt

    This is proving to be nothing more than an exercise in futility.

    I think that is because we view this ‘exercise’ differently. I’m here to learn and I have learnt a great deal from you, Proud, Yank and the others.
    You I fear think of this much more as a contest that you want to ‘win’.

    The problem for you I think is that it is becoming increasingly obvious that you don’t have that many good arguments so you don’t feel you are ‘winning’ and so you think it is futile, since the prospect of a ‘win’ seems increasingly remote.

    You could say I ‘win’ whatever the outcome because my goal is only knowledge and I’m getting that.

    Come on Pitt, chill, if you actually got into open and honest debate instead of didn’t try to dictate what can and cannot be discussed you might actually enjoy yourself as much as I am.

    **

    Anyway back to the debate

    And again if my opinions are so baseless and weak why is it you don’t seem able to bring them crashing down at my feet?

    Point #1
    The crime rate in the UK is on the rise while its on the decline in the US. This also applies to “Gun Crime”

    I’ve been through this; statistically speaking (taking into account the numerous variables) the UK and US have basically the same crime figures except in one area – gun crime.
    Those variables make it very hard to gauge if UK or US figures are rising or falling in real terms when compared with each other but one thing is clear the US has a much higher gun crime rate than the UK. (I gave an explanation of this that you haven’t yet countered). For instance the only way that the UK could raise to US levels of gun related homicide was if it entered into a civil war.

    **

    Point #2
    Gun Crime is on the rise in the UK although guns have been effectively banned there.
    Gun Crime has declined in the US although certain gun restrictions have been lifted (i.e. Clinton Assault Weapons Ban) and the fact that more and more states have passed CCW laws.

    But you admit that the US has much more gun crime.

    As we have discussed at length the UK had a very small amount of gun ownership before the ban (and really the figures haven’t changed that much since the ban since most were shotguns and those are still legally held). Whereas the US has had much larger gun ownership (I think it is about 1% to 40%), so if gun ownership tackled crime the crime figures should be much greater, but they are not – except in one area – gun related crime – which is much higher in the US.

    **

    These points you ignore completely, why is that?

    But I haven’t ignored them at all we have discussed them at length, many of the posts I’ve written have been on these very subjects – LOL are you saying you never read them?


    **
     

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