Are Gun Bans Realistic?

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

  1. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    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’.

    In fact I have stated this on several occasions. You accuse me of not reading post yet again you prove you are the one not reading.

    So you admit that your views are only an opinion based on interpretation?

    Fair enough.

    **

    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.

    If its not solid and flimsy why are you having such a hard time finding data to counter it? All you have is your opinion and nothing to back it up.

    You have your opinions (as you seem to be admitting), I bring up points criticising those opinions, now normally a person would then defend the ideas they had presented.

    You don’t seem to be doing this, you just ignore the criticisms or claim they are nor worth addressing or have been (when they clearly haven’t) or you use some other tricks to get out of having debating the subject in a normal fashion.

    Why not just address the criticisms I have raised rather than play silly games?

    **

    This statement is directly related to the studies concerning crime rates and levels of gun ownership and directly supports my statements.

    No your have an opinion based on the interpretation of the data. You even seem to admit this.

    Where you say banning/restricting levels of gun ownership will lower crime, the studies show there is no evidence for this statement which is what I have said several times.

    No, again the studies when examined don’t seem to be as solid or conclusive as you like to present them, it is an opinion, based on an interpretation of the data.

    The thing is that as you admit the US has a much larger gun crime problem that seems to me to be needing explaination.

    **
     
  2. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    First up what kind of robbery is this?

    Again look at the sources I have provided you. DGU’s occur on a regular basis a point you just deny without any contradictory evidence.

    But the point is that if it were a burglary while the house is empty owning a gun would have little meaning (and if the gun is at home and unsecured it will very probably fall into their hands of criminals).

    So (once again) I ask, what is your reply?

    **

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

    That is the point of CCW is it not. The criminal does not know when he will run into an armed individual giving him one more reason to hesitate on the act in the first place.

    Which as I said before backs up my point, the whole thing about choosing an unarmed person over an armed one is irrelevant, if the social and economic pressures are still in place the criminal takes a chance or gets armed themselves?


    **

    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?

    Again that is the point of CCW. Also if you would have read the interviews you would have seen this questioned answered. The prevalent attitude is if they knew the person were armed they would not commit the crime against that victim, but move onto an easier less risky mark.

    So you agree they are then likely to get a gun themselves? (oh hell don’t you remember we went through all this months ago?)

    So the advantage is with the robber, if they suspect the victim is armed they have the gun out and ready or they attack from behind, then disarm the victim (and then they have two guns).

    You say “the prevalent attitude is if they knew the person were armed they would not commit the crime against that victim, but move onto an easier less risky mark”, but you have just said that the whole reason for CCW was that the “criminal does not know when he will run into an armed individual”.

    So the robber wouldn’t know who the “easier mark” is and therefore the better option for the robber is to go armed themselves.

    **
     
  3. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    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?

    Again what would you hope to accomplish by disarming or making it more difficult for the law abiding person?

    LOL Not this line again Pitt, do you never get tired of asking the same questions over and over?

    OK here we go again (the short version)

    I wish for a better, healthier society where people do not feel so threatened that they want to have guns to protect themselves.

    One of the ways to bring this about (but not the only one) is to try and limit the harm of guns in US society, by bring in measures to try and keep guns out of the way of people (such as criminals or the mentally unstable) that may use them harmfully.

    The reason you seem to oppose such measures is that you prefer the guns falling into the wrong hands than having gun owners inconvenienced.

    Which, in my opinion, doesn’t seem like a very good argument?

    *

    so maybe in the case of Americans tougher gun regulation might be a good idea until they tackle their mentality and attitudes?

    Again only the law abiding person would be disarmed. The criminal who is willing to use a gun against his victims would not disarm. This has also been shown in the interviews of the criminals. This also has been shown to be true in the UK.

    But as I’ve shown repeatedly and explained numerous times – I have put forward some ideas to try and keep guns out of the hand of people that may use them to commit harm.

    You seem to oppose those ideas.

    **

    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.

    Yet you have failed to explain how not having any DGU’s will improve anything. You have also never told us what you tell those people that have had personal DGU experiences they can no longer protect themselves in this manner.

    Are you saying that DGU’s are a good thing?

    Are you saying it is good that someone feels so threatened that they feel the need to pull a gun and point it at another human being, knowing they may need to seriously injure or kill that other human being?

    You think that is something to be celebrated?

    My view is that DGU’s point to a system that isn’t healthy, if Americans believe their society can only survive by using guns as a means of socio-economic control it isn’t to me a good sign.

    Why do you seemingly think it is?

    **

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

    I have given my counter. Look at how many times I have talked about the trends of crime rates. You just ignore this and go back to the one point you have. You cannot explain the trends or their relationship to gun ownership in either country so instead you ignore this very important point.

    Man, really man, sometimes you can be a laugh a minute.

    I haven’t ignored it we have talked reams on the subject (do you honestly not remember or are you just tactically ‘forgetting’?).

    The problem as I’ve showed with the supposed ‘trends’ is that the US gun crime rate is so, so much bigger than the UK’s that to point to it as a sign that the US system is somehow better than that in the UK seems perverse.

    On a personal note it also doesn’t take into account the fact (often mentioned) that I don’t even think UK governments have been approaching crime in the right way.

    As to the “relationship to gun ownership” I’m not sure what you mean, is it about the much lower levels of gun ownership in the UK even before the ban? If so that (as said before) that doesn’t support your argument.

    **

    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.

    If its not solid and flimsy why are you having such a hard time finding data to counter it? All you have is your opinion and nothing to back it up.

    LOL oh jolly old Pitt, just because I point something out (such as ‘if my argument is so weak…’) that doesn’t mean it works for you.

    The thing is that you have to be able to show that I haven’t put up counter arguments and the thing is I have.

    You have given me your opinions; I have brought up numerous points that criticise those opinions, (if you wish me to I can repeat them, again) now normally a person would then defend the ideas they had presented. You don’t, you just ignore the criticisms or claim they are not worth addressing or have been addressed (when they haven’t) or you use other tricks to get out of having a normal, honest and open debate.

    This is just another of those tricks.

    If you truly have answers to my criticisms give them, don’t play silly buggers.

    **
     
  4. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    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?

    **

    So would it?

    Come on man, speak for yourself?

    You say it is evidently the case that the attitudes and mentality of Americans for some reason is more willing to kill than the Swiss?

    But if that is evident then wouldn’t it also be evident that the easy availability of weapons makes it more likely that murder took place?

    I don’t think you have presented any study that has framed the question in those terms (if you know of one I’d like to see it)

    So what is your reply?

    **

    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?

    So you think simply banning guns will change the mentality of the criminally minded individual willing to murder? Even after all the discussions about studies showing no relationship exist between gun availability and crime.

    Again Pitt we’ve been through this before, if you actually took attention of what’s said rather than just trying to score points you would save yourself (and me) a lot of typing.

    OK once again.

    I believe in regulating guns and I as I’ve explained those regulations are not aimed at changing the mentality of America toward guns (it is not just the criminal as I’ve pointed out).

    I pointed this out to you more than once, don’t you not honestly remember?

    Ok as I say explicitly above, to me the sensible thing to do would be to tackle the mentality but at the same time try and lessen the harm that could very likely be connected to the easy availability of guns.

    In my opinion it would be worth the try.

    I get the feeling you are not that bothered about aiming for a better, healthier society?

    **
     
  5. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    I’m here to learn

    To learn you must be willing to modify your thoughts and stances. You have proven unwilling to do this. So how can you say you have “learned” anything.

    But as I’ve said it has modified my stance – “I began with a vague theory with your help that theory had expanded and become a lot firmer and still stands up well today”

    And as to having an open mind read on…

    **

    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.

    I have actually enjoyed it because you have enticed me to do more research and revisit informative sites and studies not read in a while.

    This seems to highlight another difference between us I’ve been interested in what your arguments are and in trying to understand them, while for you it was about revisiting sites and studies that you’d seen before.

    But this point’s to you not looking to learning something new just going aback and re-enforcing the viewpoint you had, it doesn’t point to an open mind but a closed one.

    It also seem to indicate someone that finds it difficult to think for themselves.

    **

    However other than this it has become rather redundant and repetitive.

    For example – you say that “other than that” you have found what’s been said redundant, what people have said in these forums is redundant most of the things you found that were not redundant were the sites and studies that back up what you say.

    In other words if it says things you like it is useful if it says things you don’t like it is redundant.

    **

    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

    Damn are you that ignorant? Who the fuck asked you to compare the trends with anything?

    LOL are you saying I need your permission before bringing up an argument because you might not like it?

    **

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

    But that is not what was being said in that post was it? It refers to the effectiveness of banning guns in relationship of crime even “gun crime”

    Again another example of you trying to spin things to your direction.

    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.

    But the levels of gun ownership were low before the ban – you acknowledge this.

    They have historically been much larger in the US – you acknowledge this.

    Gun crime rates in the UK compared to the US were very low before the ban and are still very low compared with the US today – you acknowledge this.

    The difference between the UK gun crime and US gun crime is huge – you acknowledge this

    At the present rate of rise in the UK it would take a 100 years to reach US levels – you seem to acknowledge this.

    Yet after seemingly acknowledging all this you think the UK system wrong and that of the US right?

    Why?

    **

    So you admit that your views are only an opinion based on interpretation?

    Fuck that is what I have been saying for months and months. Both of us have opinions. The difference is I have presented my opinions backed up with facts, sources and studies. You on the other hand presented your opinion only backed up by nothing.

    No not true I’ve presented my opinion and what I’ve based it on, what seems to be happening here is that you seem unable to answer my criticisms so you just deny what I’m saying.

    **

    I bring up points criticising those opinions, now normally a person would then defend the ideas they had presented.

    Again my opinions backed up with facts, sources and studies. Which gives the basis for the formulation of these opinions and making these statements.

    But most of you’re supposed ‘facts’ are opinion, based on your interpretation of sources and studies often posted by people with an already biased viewpoint.

    I’ve catalogued a lot of this and repeated it many times and you still ignore what’s said in favour of bluster and the hope that people will not notice you haven’t addressed the criticisms raised.

    Now a normal person trying to counter these would present where the logic is flawed in drawing these conclusions based on the facts, sources and studies its derived from, or show where the facts, sources and studies is wrong by providing countering data sources and studies.
    You have yet to do this.

    I’ve made many criticism if you just answered them we could move on, what you seem to be saying is that because you don’t like what I’m saying and the way I say it you are just going to ignore it.

    **
     
  6. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Are you saying that DGU’s are a good thing?

    Lets see.
    An intruder broke into a house near East 18th Street and Belleview Avenue around 8:30 p.m. Sunday, police said.

    The home invader stabbed someone in the house, according to authorities, and the victim then grabbed a gun and shot the intruder.

    Both were taken to the hospital, one with critical injuries.

    None of the names of those involved have been released.

    Yep I would say it’s a good thing the victim had access to a gun otherwise this would have turned out very differently.

    **

    But let’s look at this further –

    First up it seems the “two men were romantically involved with relatives of the victim’s girlfriend, police said”.

    I wonder what that means.

    Well the police have reported that “Lewis and Johnson knew the victim and were angry with him because of a dispute over a child”

    Again I wonder what that means.

    The victim opened the door to them?

    They didn’t seem interested in robbing more with the victim they ‘slashed at him’ but from what I can tell the victim’s injuries don’t seem very serious.

    The victim then shot several times at these people before being disarmed by them?

    These men then took the gun away from the victim and allegedly pointed at the man and pulled the trigger but by chance or design the gun didn’t go off.

    They then ran away or the man retrieved his gun and they ran away.

    **

    What was the girlfriend’s position in all this or the child’s involvement?

    This to me doesn’t sound like the heroic actions of a homeowner fighting off bandits attacking his home it seem more like a domestic dispute that got out of hand.

    **

    I believe in regulating guns and I as I’ve explained those regulations are not aimed at changing the mentality of America toward guns (it is not just the criminal as I’ve pointed out).

    So it’s the mentality of the US that need changing in your opinion (and I have agreed). You are in favor of regulating guns (which already are regulated in the US). But these regulations are NOT meant to change the mentality of the US.
    So what are they aimed at?

    Do you read any of my posts Pitt LOL

    To quote (again) “Ok as I say explicitly above, to me the sensible thing to do would be to tackle the mentality but at the same time try and lessen the harm that could very likely be connected to the easy availability of guns”

    **

    I have given you my opinion based on facts, sources and studies. You cannot counter the supporting data so instead you attack the conclusion again without supporting basis.
    *
    Your criticisms are in stark contrast to the facts, sources and studies presented to you.

    I have countered the data and presented my criticisms you just ignore them. I can keep re-printing them (have done) but if you insist on ignoring them what’s the point?

    **
     
  7. evsride

    evsride are you irie?

    Wow Dirk you are on persistent MOFO...props. I read that according to good estimates there are 11,628 gun related deaths in the US in 2004, versus a conservative estimate of 100,000 crimes thwarted by gun owners.
     
  8. gardener

    gardener Realistic Humanist

    Yeah I would say it's hard to say how many crimes are actually thwarted by gun owners, it's like trying to measure how many crimes are thwarted by baseball bat owners, anyone have those stats?
     
  9. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Hi Pitt just popped in and have very limited time but will be back when I can.

    Here are a few quick comments to be going on with.

    **

    But as I’ve said it has modified my stance – “I began with a vague theory with your help that theory had expanded and become a lot firmer and still stands up well today”

    You are only willing to modify stances that follow in line with your pov but when presented with facts that are in opposition to your statements you refuse to modify your stance or even provide countering data.

    I’ve pointed out why your statements have backed up my theories and I’ve explained them (often many times on your insistence).

    If your statements had been different the outcome would have been different that is the nature of learning.

    Again here you say you have presented ‘facts’ that back up your viewpoint and oppose mine when you’ve done no such thing, and this statement even contradicts what you’ve said earlier about you knowing that what you have presented was not solid fact but just opinion.

    ----

    But this point’s to you not looking to learning something new just going aback and re-enforcing the viewpoint you had,

    You have not presented anything “new” that I have not heard and researched before.

    Great, so you have heard of the threat/intimidation attitude theory before, please tell me where? It would be interesting to compare notes with them.

    ---------

    In other words if it says things you like it is useful if it says things you don’t like it is redundant.

    Redundant: c : characterized by similarity or repetition

    It has nothing to do with weather I like it or not. Its the 10 months of repetition.

    But Pitt my friend, you have been the one that has asked me to repeat myself, I don’t want to repeat myself, but you are constantly ignoring or denying things I’ve posted often demanding me to repeat it, frankly I wish you’d stop so we could move on and have an open and honest debate.

    ----------
     
  10. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Gun crime rates in the UK compared to the US were very low before the ban and are still very low compared with the US today – you acknowledge this.

    Yes I also acknowledge the fact that the levels of crime although low are still the same or even higher after the ban than they were before the ban. A fact you refuse to acknowledge. This is a prime example of you not willing to modify your thinking if it does not fit your original POV.

    What is your point?

    The ban had little effect?

    But very few people had guns before the ban and very few have guns now.

    That the amount of gun crime was low before the ban and it is low now.

    In the US the amount of gun crime is very high, has always been higher.

    My point is why is that?



    ---------

    No not true I’ve presented my opinion and what I’ve based it on, what seems to be happening here is that you seem unable to answer my criticisms so you just deny what I’m saying.

    Oh but it is true. What you have based your opinion on is your opinion, your supposition, your theory not facts or studies.

    Oh my dear old Pitt, you know we’ve been through this a thousand times, I have backed up what I’ve said you just don’t accept it or ignore it.

    And the reason why seems to be your lack of answers.

    I mean if you could counter my criticisms I think you would, but you don’t.

    -------

    To quote (again) “Ok as I say explicitly above, to me the sensible thing to do would be to tackle the mentality but at the same time try and lessen the harm that could very likely be connected to the easy availability of guns”

    Again you “claim” there is a connection between the availability of guns and “harm”/crime. Yet out of all the hundreds of studies into this very subject NONE have shown any connection.

    But as pointed out to you, the ‘data’ and the ‘studies’ don’t explain why Americans seem so much more willing to use guns and murder with them.

    ---------

    But most of you’re supposed ‘facts’ are opinion, based on your interpretation of sources and studies often posted by people with an already biased viewpoint.

    Lol So when I post the trends on gun crime in the UK as published by your government with sources linked to your own governments website. These are my opinion based on someone’s opinion? Your statement holds no water.

    Great, please tell me where you did that?

    --------

    I’ve made many criticism if you just answered them we could move on,

    You criticize with nothing to back up your statements, nothing to counter the data I provided.

    But I have countered the ‘data’ you have presented; you’re just ignoring what I’ve said.

    Please Pitt, I’m very happy to do it again, just say what ‘data’ you want me to look at and why.

    I can’t be fairer than that.

    **
     
  11. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    The alleged ‘DGU’

    This again points up the difference between our viewpoints (and backs up my theories on guns coming before understanding).

    To you things are simple; you don’t seek, or even seem to desire, understanding so improvements can be made and solutions found.

    The thing is that these people don’t seem to have broken in, according to the report they pounded on the door. Well I don’t know about you but if someone pounded on my door they are not going to get in unless they go get a battering ram. And in the meantime the police would have been called and the neighbourhood alerted.

    According to the report the man let them in.

    This may have been because they knew each other, but why let these obviously angry people in?

    The following events are not clear, it is alleged that one of the men came in ‘slashing’ with a knife but didn’t the other have a gun and these people had been pounding on his door in considerable agitation?

    It doesn’t seem to add up.

    Then I wonder what it was about and why weren’t the police involved before this took place?

    What role has the child and girlfriend got to play in all this?

    As I’ve said before passing judgement I’d really like to know more.

    **

    To you this is a plain and simple case of defensive gun use, to me it sounds like something in that family group was badly amiss and lessons might be learnt if we knew more details.

    But this very much fits in with my theory about using guns as a way of ignoring potential social, economic and cultural problems.

    To you the gun saved the day, end of story, you don’t seem to want to understand why this happened.

    You attitude seems to illustrate perfectly what I’ve been suggesting, many Americans seem to think that as long as they have guns they don’t need to think deeper or seek understanding.
     
  12. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    I have countered the data and presented my criticisms you just ignore them. I can keep re-printing them (have done) but if you insist on ignoring them what’s the point?

    You have countered nothing. Like above you continuing to claim a relationship between guns availability and crime levels when all the studies say there is none. Just because you claim it does not make it so. You have presented NOTHING to back up your claim.

    Again you continually make this claim so I decided to look into it a little closer.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Balbus

    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).
    According to the BBC there was over 160,000 guns turned in after Dunblane. This as you say does not include shotguns. It would also not include legally permitted guns or illegally held weapons.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Balbus
    Whereas the US has had much larger gun ownership (I think it is about 1% to 40%),
    I think the 40% US estimate is about correct maby a little higher since it is extremely difficult to determine how there actually since all guns do not have to be "registered".
    Now according to the BBC in Scottland alone in 1999 there were 30,536 firearms certificates and 62,919 shotgun certificates for a total of 93,455 certified weapons. This is a record low and of course a couple of years after the dunblane amnesty and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997.

    Now according to wikipedia scotland has a population of 5,116,900 (2005) and the population of the UK in whole is approximately 60,000,000. So Scotland has about 1/12th the population of the UK in whole.

    So if we extrapolate using the above figures (yes I know its not accurate) you can make an estimate of the number of guns in the UK by taking the number of guns in scotland and multiplying them by a factor of 12.

    93,455 x 12 = 1,121,460
    I think that averages about 2% rather than 1% owned now. Impressive guess you had there.

    Now estimates at the time of the Dunblane amnesty for illegally held guns was 250,000 and the latest estimates by the home office is 3,000,000.
    Add all this up and you get:
    1,121,460 + 3,000,000 = 4,121,460 or approximately 7%.
    Granted 7% is much much lower than the 40% in the US. However it is also much greater than the 1% you estimated and this is within an area with the most restrictive gun laws in the world.

    **
    So what is your point you begin by saying “you continuing to claim a relationship between guns availability and crime levels” and go on to say that “you continually make this claim so I decided to look into it a little closer”

    You then do a bit of very haphazard guesswork based on bbc reports (when you could have gone to the actual numbers) but in the end what was the point?

    I’ve already said that there has to be two things (and possibly more) the attitude and mindset that is criminal and murderous coupled with the ease of access to a weapon which facilitates those attitudes.

    So, for example the Swiss can have ease of access to guns but because they are not that criminal or murderous they do not us them for that purpose.

    But it seems that Americans do have that attitude (and you seem to agree) so they do use the ease of access to guns to commit crimes and murder people.

    So it seem to me that - in their case - it just might be a good idea to limit the ease of access to guns while the criminal and murderous attitudes are attended to.

    **
     
  13. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Balbus
    But the levels of gun ownership were low before the ban – you acknowledge this.
    **

    Yep Ill acknowledge this as compared to the US. Will you acknowledge that there is a very high probability there are many many more guns than you are estimating?

    **

    But my dear Pitt

    As you noted it is difficult to know how many guns are in circulation in the US, legal or illegal; the estimates run from around 200,000,000 to nearer 3 million. Roughly one for every person in the US, with seemingly some extra 6 million guns being introduced to the US domestic market per year through manufacture and importation.

    If we used your rather haphazard way of calculation in which one gun denoted one owner we would be saying that about 60 to a 100% of Americans were gun owners.

    But of course that isn’t the case.

    As commented on here people often own more than one gun, the figures for household ownership in the US is thought to be around 40% but with many of them holding multiple weapons.

    **

    However for the figures for England and Wales it is much easier to calculate due to the issuing of gun licences (with records available on the web).

    According to the Home Office 127,920 firearm certificates were on issue in England and Wales on 31/3/06 up from 126,402 on 31/03/05, they covered 368,658 arms.

    There were 563,588 shotgun certificates covering 1,360,770 guns.

    That is a household ownership of around 691,508 in a population of about 53 million which I believe is slightly over one percent of the population (1.3%).

    Now according to the Home Office 141,900 firearm certificates were on issue in England and Wales on 31/3/1996 up from 1995, they covered 418,300 arms.

    There were 638,000 shotgun certificates covering 1,335,000 guns.

    That is a household ownership of around 779,900 which is slightly over one percent (1.4%)

    Basically there has been a drop of only 88,392 certificates.

    Now also there would be a lot of crossover with firearms and shotgun certificates been held by the same people, so the household figure would be very likely be much lower (1%).

    But as can be seen statistically there has been little change between 1996 and 2006

    **

    Now it is very hard to calculate the number of illegally held guns in the UK and the US, but all authorities acknowledge the problem is much greater in the US, where the Bureau of Justice Statistics says some 341,000 guns are stolen per year and where it is so much easier to buy a gun.
    Now you claim that the Home Office calculated there are some 3,000,000 illegal guns in the UK but I cannot find this claim reproduced anywhere could you please point to it (I mean it would be vastly more than the amount of legal guns)? As far as I can tell the Home Office finds it hard to put a figure on it but believes it is very low, basing that on police recovery numbers.

    **

    So Pitt will I acknowledge that there is a very high probability there are many, many more guns than I’d previously been informed? Well on this evidence there doesn’t seem to be a need.

    But I’m quiet happy to debate the point if you so wish.

    **
     
  14. fylthevoyd

    fylthevoyd Super Moderator

    being one who believes a "hippie" can also be a gun owner...cuz i refuse to live in a country where I do not trust my government...I refuse to lay in wait..unarmed...for the assinine tactics of governmental control to fully encompass the lives of the masses...it is called self preservation...and I will live by the addage....of..."pried from my cold dead fingers"....I will not debate this issue..but interject some food for thought...that cannot be ignored....think on this pertaining to guns ...be it humorous....but the nay sayers can't dispute it if viewed logically:)

    DOCTORS KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN GUNS

    Allow me to present a few facts.

    The number of physicians in the U.S.----700,000

    The number of accidental deaths caused by physicians per year--120,000

    The accidental deaths per physician----0.171

    The number of gun onwers in the U.S.---80,000,000

    The number of accidental gun deaths per year(all age groups)--1,500

    The number of accidental deaths per gun owner--0.0000188

    Staistically,doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.Not every body has a gun,but every body has at least one doctor.Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.We must ban doctors,as soon as possible,before this gets out of hand!!!!!!

    As a public health measure,I withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical aid.

    condemn if you must...oh well...but I am armed and will remain that why until the end is at hand....bang bang....and remember this fact....."if you run from a sniper...you only die tired"....and my opinion is only expressed here ..... in a humorous tone....in light of this endless arguement which will never be settled
     
  15. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    “This break has shown me really how old and redundant this thread has become. I am really finding it harder and harder to respond to your nonsense. I will probably not be as active in this thread for the obvious reasons.”


    Dear Pitt

    Yes I can see why you would choose such a course, as I’ve noted before your objective has always seemed to be to ‘win’ the argument (rather than learn) but it has become increasingly clear that if you do enter into open and honest debate that objective becomes less likely.

    Since this first began to dawn on you, you have been trying to use tricks to misdirect or scupper the debate and recently your only recourse has been to just ignore or reject anything that doesn’t fit in with your own views.

    Really Pitt, I’d wish you would reconsider and enter into a real examination of the issues as this is an important subject and one that seems to give a certain window into many Americans attitudes and worldview.

    If you did you might just learn something, I mean I’ve learnt a lot, and would really like to learn some more.

    Yours in hope

    Balbus.

    OK on with the show!

    **
     
  16. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Great, please tell me where you did that?

    OMG I have given you links to BBC articles, links to the crime reports from the Home Office, and charts from the Home office. Again this only proves you do not look at what’s presented to you.

    I must admit I’ve looked at those sites and I don’t see the ‘facts’ you talk about so once again could you please give me the source you are talking about.

    **

    Please Pitt, I’m very happy to do it again, just say what ‘data’ you want me to look at and why.

    OMG I have shown you so many and Ill not repeat all of them again. For example I have shown you the trend of rising crime and even gun crime in the UK while the trend in the US is declining and you do not counter or even admit it, it you only dismiss it with the comment that the UK is still less than the US.

    Once again I ask polity for the data you say backs you up and once again you flatly refuse.
    If as you have claimed many times you have done an in-depth study of this subject why do you find it so difficult to back up your claims?

    **
     
  17. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    As I’ve said before passing judgement I’d really like to know more.

    Lol Choose any of the thousands and thousands of DGU stories on that site.

    But you presented this one, which was my point, to you the gun saved the day, end of story, you don’t seem to want to understand why this happened.

    **

    You attitude seems to illustrate perfectly what I’ve been suggesting, many Americans seem to think that as long as they have guns they don’t need to think deeper or seek understanding.

    Yet I have repeatedly stated the opposite.

    Stated but not proved, anyone can state anything, that doesn’t mean they mean it.
    I’ve tried several times to examine your stance and it has become clear you hadn’t really thought about these things or you refused to talk about them.

    I’m still very happy to discuss these things, in fact I’ve been asking you to do so all along, but it is you that refuses.

    Which lead me to believe you are more interested in defending gun ownership than you are in dealing with the problems within your society that are some of the reasons you people believing they may need guns.

    **
     
  18. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    So what is your point you begin by saying “you continuing to claim a relationship between guns availability and crime levels” and go on to say that “you continually make this claim so I decided to look into it a little closer”

    The claim I was looking at was you “guess” of 1% gun ownership not the relationship to crime.

    It wasn’t my ‘guess’ it was often quoted in the stuff I’d read on the subject, that gun ownership was roughly 1% in the UK where it had been cited the figure was said to be based on Home Office figures, which as show seem correct.

    ------

    You then do a bit of very haphazard guesswork based on bbc reports (when you could have gone to the actual numbers)

    I was unable to find actual numbers for all of the UK

    But it is very easy to look up the figure for England and Wales, in fact anyone with any interest in the subject should know about the Home Office sites.

    You have claimed many times you have studied this subject thoroughly yet you used BBC reports to guess figures, not exactly in-depth research, or objectivity when you see what you came up with.

    Again this seems to indicate that you haven’t actually studied this subject you have just gone out and found things that back up your belief and as you have done repeatedly here, ignored anything that runs counter to your opinion.

    --------

    but in the end what was the point?

    The point being that fact that you continually make statements such as 1% without any supporting data and within short order I have shown this to be false.

    As I say this is very much about your approach to the subject and to the debate. You don’t seem actually interested in learning or honest debate you want to score points, discredit what you see as the ‘enemy’; you wish to ‘win’.

    If you have gone looking in an objective way you would have found that I was basically correct, but you didn’t you just wanted to “within short order” score a point, and once again you have turned out to be incorrect.

    **
     
  19. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    coupled with the ease of access to a weapon which facilitates those attitudes.

    Again the studies show there IS NO CORRELATION yet you continue to claim there is. So prove it.

    Point to a study that compares the attitudes and mindset?

    --------

    it just might be a good idea to limit the ease of access to guns while the criminal and murderous attitudes are attended to.

    Again show something that supports this theory of yours.

    So you agree that American attitudes and mindset are criminal and murderous but you wish for these people to have easy access to very deadly weapons?

    **

    the estimates run from around 200,000,000 to nearer 3 million.

    Source?

    There are many estimate on the web nearly all put the figure over 2 million, do you dispute that? (For example the Bureau of Justice Statistics puts it at 223 million)
    However the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva has put the figure of the number of guns owned by civilians in the United States at between 238 million to 276 million.
    ----------

    But as can be seen statistically there has been little change between 1996 and 2006

    Source? You leave out the estimates of illegal guns. Little change between 96 and 06? With all the gun amnesties and weapons turned in?

    The source is the Home Office which publishes yearly records http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0907.pdf
    As to illegal guns I’ve pointed out that this is hard to gauge but as far as I can tell the Home Office believes it is not great, basing that on police recovery numbers and customs finds.

    If you have evidence to the contrary I’d be happy to look at it, oh and I can still find no mention of the supposed 3 million that you mention can you please give the source for it?

    **

    To me this once again seems to show our differing approach to this subject and debate.

    You don’t seem to have actually gone and looked at the statistics you just jump in with point scoring.

    If you just stopped trying to ‘win’ and actually opened your mind and tried to learn this debate might just move on.

    **
     
  20. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    To recap –

    Your argument seems to be that guns are a means of tackling crime and you point to defensive gun use as an indication of this (and from your very vehement defence of guns it is presumed you think them a very good way of tackling crime).

    Yet a country like Britain that has a very small level of gun ownership compared with the US doesn’t have a very large difference in the levels of crime it experience.

    EXCEPT in one area gun crime which is much higher in the country with the much more gun ownership.

    And non of the studies you’ve mention seem able to explain this.

    If you wish to present one that you think does I’d be happy to discuss it.

    **

    Your argument seems to be that there isn’t a link between ease of access to guns and the use of guns in crime and you point to some places that have ease of access to guns but do not have the US’s problems with them being used for crime.

    Yet you admit that American attitudes and mindset seem to make them much more inclined toward using guns as weapons to commit crimes.

    Which seem to indicate that in the case of Americans ease of access to guns is going to lead to more crime.

    Now you say the studies don’t make a connection but non of the studies seem to be taking into account the differing American attitudes and mindset.

    If you wish to present one that you think does I’d be happy to discuss it.

    **
     

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