Are Gun Bans Realistic?

Oh Thank you fylth, thank you

Yet another pro-gunner that backs up my theories about threat and intimidation.

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3438947&postcount=9


**

cuz i refuse to live in a country where I do not trust my government...

Fears the government, feels threatened by it.

I refuse to lay in wait..unarmed...for the assinine tactics of governmental control to fully encompass the lives of the masses...

More evidence that the person feels threantened.

it is called self preservation...

Self preservation he fears for his very life.

**

DOCTORS KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN GUNS

Well I read this I had to laugh not because this was funny, it isn’t, it’s silly, irrelevant and a bit dumb witted, no I had to laugh because it seem to sum up the pro-gun argument so far.

So fylth are doctors designed specifically to injure or kill?

When a gun is fired at someone is it trying to cure that person or cause harm?

**

 

Why don't both of you arm yourselves and go off and fight the terrorist plague?

 

that is why I wasn't going to debate this issue..the redundancy of this topic....serves only for the heated expression of each's opinions with no valuable solution coming out of those opinions...that is I rely on humor .....cuz the improvision of gun bans only creates a whole new realm of problems to debate...cuz it has been proven over time,gun control does not work...it only turns citizens into slaves.....so any anti-gun people....I ask you to challenge the truth of my shirt below ....

 

Hi Pitt

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.

Lmao so you have looked at the home office site and don’t see any “facts” there?

I cannot find the ‘facts’ you are talking about, so once again can you please give me a source?

**

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?

Refer also to answer to 142.
I have backed up my statements with sources you only claim they are biased or flat out wrong but never provide anything to counter them except your own “opinion”.

But as pointed out the things that you produce that you claim ‘back up’ your opinions often do no such thing (and even run counter to it)

And the things I present that you cannot counter you refuse to discuss.

**


It wasn’t my ‘guess’ it was often quoted in the stuff I’d read on the subject,

So why is it so hard for you to provide sources with your statements as I have done.

But I have, repeatedly, you ask and I supply if I can, on the other hand I ask you and you don’t supply even when you claim you can.

**

in fact anyone with any interest in the subject should know about the Home Office sites.

If its so simple a thing to find on the Home Office website please show the link.

I did

LOL - This could be the reason you think I don’t provide sources, you haven’t read my posts so you don’t realise I have done.

**

146

Point to a study that compares the attitudes and mindset?

Attitude and mindset? That was not what was said now was it?
Point to one showing a relationship attitude, mindset and weapons. Where is your supporting evidence?

That was my point, you keep going on about the ‘studies’ but they are often not relevant to the points I’ve raised, as here.

You just seem to be hiding your inability to reply behind the ‘studies’ that don’t give the answer either.

If you know of a study that is relevant please produce it and I’d be happy to look at it.

**

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?

How many times have I stated the crime problem is related to attitudes and lifestyles? How many times have I shown you studies showing no relationship between guns and crime? How many times have I said extreme restrictions will only effect the law abiding?
You do not listen or comprehend.

LOL again with the bloody ‘studies’, all those points have been addressed

The studies don’t answer the points I’ve raised (if they did you would have produced them by now, I have asked several times for you to do so, as above)

Are gun safes ‘extreme restrictions’? You agree gun safes would be a way of cutting down the number of guns getting into criminal hands but you don’t want their benefits made more widespread.

**

There are many estimate on the web

Lol again Source?

Given

WOW once again you miss something in plain sight, are you just selectively word blind or something?

**

and from your very vehement defence of guns it is presumed you think them a very good way of tackling crime

so stopping 60,000 to 2,500,000 crimes is Not a good way?

But to quote you – “No one said that DGU’s were a “good sign”.”

I agree I don’t think they are a good sign of a healthy society and I would therefore work to limit them, something you seem reluctant to try.

**

Your argument seems to be that there isn’t a link between ease of access to guns and the use of guns in crime

As the hundreds of studies point out.

Once more hiding behind the ‘studies’.

As pointed out they do not address the pint raised and you don’t seem able to produce a study that does, if you think you can please do so.

**

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

More inclined to murder as the numbers show. As to crime in general you have even said yourself that the UK is on the same level in most all crimes as the US.

So are you going to tackle the point raised or what?

**

 

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.

So you just ignore the rest of the situation and also ignore all the other thousands of reports listed there.

What do you mean by ‘rest of the situation’?

The thing was you presented this example of DGU but as I point out it doesn’t seem so cut and dry, it has complications.

And this is the point – as soon as these complications appeared you became uninterested in it as an example and begin going on about the other reports – you seem totally uninterested about thinking about your society and how to mend it only about scoring a point in favour of gun ownership.

That is exactly what I said at the beginning of our debate - My thesis is that the problem with many American’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.

You are not looking at these tales as an insight to US society to you they are just things to use in defence of guns.

**

Stated but not proved,

And how would you like me to “prove” it? My involvement in local programs is not enough for you to show there is in fact an effort to change things.

See above, you just don’t seem interested. I’ve tried to talk with you on differing aspects of your society and the relationship to crime and you don’t seem to have thought about these things and don’t seem interested in doing so.

Just because someone contributes to one programme or another or a bunch, doesn’t mean that person has though about what could be done to actually improve their society.

I’ve tried to talk to you about some programmes you’ve mentioned but once again you seemed reluctant or had clearly given them like thought.

**

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.

Again you seem to imply one cannot do both, so nothing I can and have said will change your mind.

You have given me no reason to change my view, time and again you display you are just not interested in giving much time or effort to even thinking about (let alone dealing) with the problems within your society, it is clear you much prefer to spend your time and energy defending gun ownership.


**

 

hahaha rotflmfao Another example of your attitude that if someone does not agree with you they are automatically entered into your “pro-gunner who lives in constant fear and is always wrong” category.

But I’m sure I’m not the only one that notices that you are not refuting what I’ve said just complaining that I’ve said it.

Again refer back to answer 142
You are a complete waste of time like I have said before you do not want discussion but only converts.

And as I replied at the time, I’m not interested in gaining converts I’m just here to learn and if you stopped trying to score points and actually entered into an open and honest debate you might learn something as well.

**

 

Fythe

Nazi Germany
Soviet Russia
Communist China

All these countries had or have vast numbers of citizens under arms with conscription being enforced.

Go back and read the theory I linked to and read it.

The thing is that just because a large number of citizens are armed does not guarantee that repression will or can take place.

The terrible thing is that many Germans supported Hitler, many Russians supported Stalin and many Chinese supported Mao.

And the thing is that many Americans have supported there own government’s suppression when it has taken place.

**

“For example many feel they need guns to ‘protect’ them from the government, but how realistic is that belief and what in essence does it mean?

If anyone looked at the history of the US they’d see clearly that gun ownership has never been a tried and tested method of escaping the actions of the government. From the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion to Ruby Ridge and Waco, in fact the use of weapons against authority has been seen as justification by many or most Americans for tough action (repression as a means of problem solving).

But have the armed citizens of America been a bulwark against injustice or have they more often than not helped perpetrate it? If people actually thought about the classic cases of injustice in US history they would see a pattern. More often than not guns in the hands of ‘decent people’ have been used as a means of suppression. From the subjugation of the ‘savage Indians’, the repression of ‘bestial negroes’ to the defence against ‘insidious pinkos’ the use or threat of force has been obvious and the gun the symbol of that power”


**

 

Dear Pitt

I have given them to you yet once again.

If you mean the Home Office link over in the other thread once again it doesn’t seem to back up what you say (and you don't even seem to have the right page).

And still no ‘three fold increase’

------

you ask and I supply if I can

and if you cannot it just don’t matter because you are always right no matter the countering data.

Oh Pitt this is just petulant point scoring.

---

If you know of a study that is relevant please produce it and I’d be happy to look at it.

I have provided studies relevant to everything I have said. It is you that have not provided anything to back up your claims.

I don’t think you have, I don’t think any of the studies you have alluded to have examined attitudes and mindsets, if you know different I’d be very interested to read it.

------

You agree gun safes would be a way of cutting down the number of guns getting into criminal hands but you don’t want their benefits made more widespread.

Again show me where this is stated. I have stated repeatedly that I encourage gun safes. I just do not think it is necessary for the government to “mandate” such things.

But that is the point - why would you not want them mandated if you thought they reduced the number of guns getting into criminals hands?

-----

But to quote you – “No one said that DGU’s were a “good sign”.”

Lmfao you are again trying to misdirect things to your POV and yet once again you ignore the question put to you. Whatever stops 60,000 – 2,500,000 crimes cannot be all bad.

So let’s get this straight – DGU’s are not a good sign but they are still good? But wouldn’t it be better to think of alternative ways?

Anyway I’ve covered this in the other thread do you wish to repeat that here?

-----

Once more hiding behind the ‘studies’.

Lmaf then counter the fucking studies instead of ignoring them.

OH Pitt, do you take no notice of what’s been said?

I have presented my criticisms of the studies and as I say “they do not address the points raised and you don’t seem able to produce a study that does, if you think you can please do so.”

------

it has complications.

If you were in the same situation these “complications” would be less important at the time now wouldn’t it.

What are you going on about, please explain?

Again Pick any of the thousands of examples listed on this one site I gave you.

Are you going to address the points I raised?

The thing was you presented this example of DGU but as I point out it doesn’t seem so cut and dry, it has complications.

And this is the point – as soon as these complications appeared you became uninterested in it as an example and begin going on about the other reports – you seem totally uninterested about thinking about your society and how to mend it only about scoring a point in favour of gun ownership.

That is exactly what I said at the beginning of our debate - My thesis is that the problem with many American’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.

You are not looking at these tales as an insight to US society to you they are just things to use in defence of guns.


-----

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.

And you seem more interested in vilifying guns with no supporting facts which leads me to believe you are just afraid of them on a personal level.

That is not a well thought out refutation of my theories or idea it is just someone blowing of steam.

LOL, come on man, stop thinking with your bias and begin thinking with your brain.

I’m not vilifying guns they are not my cup of tea but I’m not trying to stop the law abiding having them.

All that has happened here is that you have presented arguments based on your opinion and I’ve put up counter arguments, don’t get up tight or angry, because you seem unale to defend your views.

And that is no excuse for using tricks or making snide remarks.

Look man if you cannot defend your viewpoint, the sensible thing is to ask yourself why, we might then be able to move on to a open and honest debate.

-----

You have given me no reason to change my view

So you admit in your “view” people cannot think about or work on societies problems IF they own a gun. This sums up your stance perfectly.

Oh dear Pitt you shouldn't try sums you always seem to end up with 2+2 = 7

As I’ve pointed out several times now, I’m not saying it cannot happen, I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, what I’m saying is that from what I’ve heard here (and elsewhere) there seem little evidence of it, so little that I think it significant and worthy of investigation.

-----

But I’m sure I’m not the only one that notices that you are not refuting what I’ve said just complaining that I’ve said it.

Because there is nothing to refute. It if nothing but baseless wild claims.

Again this doesn’t seem like a considered rational argument, because it isn’t, this just seems like the anguished cry of a child that isn’t getting its own way.

Come on Pitt, you are an adult and I know you are not an idiot, lets drop this kind of child play and have an open and honest debate.

**

 

They wont ban handguns because about 59.1 billion adults own a gun and thats prbly not including people who are in street gangs that own a gun who shouldnt. No matter what the law says people will still own guns. People have them in there homes for protection. So honestly i dont think they will ban them at all because no matter what, people will still get them and half the world already own guns. So yeah thats just not realistic at all.

 

It's hard to go down stairs, when the sun follows you back, gently gliding. Immortal.
Something rolls down the road, and you don't even listen.
Keep on walking, silence.
It's a long way down.
There must be,
Silence.
Then expolde and run, there is surely something to run after.
Long, long..
Silence.
Turning sun.
the clouds do gather around the bright of dawn. Something unsettling, call up Johny to the stable, there might be a war. Loaded soul, no amo.
Beating of the heart does mysetical thigs for the open eye.
There might be something, maybe a scream.
There it goes.
Hiding under rocks, spaceships, warm jets, and it's just another day on earth.

 

How many of you have actually been in a school shooting or been close to one? Virginia Tech happened half an hour drive from me. I wish this post was shorter so I could read it without taking an hour or two out of my life, but fuck people are crazy around here.

The DC area is a madhouse with people killing each other. Is the problem guns or crazy fuckin people?!? I guess poverty is behind it all, so instead of taking the gun, take the means, and put these people in an educational setting and teach them to do something else!!

 

exactly crystal....people focus on the gun...hell humans were killing each other long before the invention of firearms and gun powder for that matter...these pissers and moaners...should focus on an issue which has an obtainable goal..instead of whining about shit that will never come to be in the states.....ban the mentality not the means...I want to see the push to ban rocks...cuz life can be taken with a fucking rock....with out pulling a trigger...

 

there aren't even close to 59 billion people on earth, let alone adults with firearms..

 

Casie – Crystal

It’s about harm reduction while trying to get to the root of the problem.

To me with guns ease of access is the first thing to be tackled, if people are murderous do you give them easy access to a very efficient means of murder?

So first you try and reduce harm by trying limit guns to only those that are least likely to use them to harm others (through such things as mandatory gun safes and psychological testing).

But at the same time you tackle some of the underlining socio-economic problems.

Here are a few ideas -

Regulating drug laws making some legal (giving licences to small businesses) and others given through proscription while dealing with the addiction. The money taken in taxes been used to finance free rehab centres and realistic drug education programmes.

Prostitution would be legalised regulated and taxed, with the money raised being used in try and educate people about the sex industry, tackling STD’s and getting people out of the trade if they want to.

Trying to move away from the idea that a person’s social status is only (or mostly) based on material possessions.

Trying to replace a destructive individualism with more community based ideas.

Limiting consumerism.

Banning of all advertising aimed at children and making sure all children have access to child care and a nursery place (subsidised according to wealth)

Investing in infrastructural networks such as clinics, cheap public transport, low cost housing, schools, training centres, etc, and the people to run them.

A National Heath Service free at the point of service.

And I would also make changes to the political system as well.

**

 

But that is the point - why would you not want them mandated if you thought they reduced the number of guns getting into criminals hands?

I have explained this many times. There are many things I feel are good and should be done by everyone however it is not the duty of the government to mandate everything that is good.

So you prefer criminal’s having easier access to guns over making the possibility of your society a better place to live in?

I mean how far does this mentality go, do you think ‘government’ shouldn’t try and protect its citizens from anything? As pointed out before governments try and protect people from many things pollution, disease even invasion, why not this?

**

DGU’s are not a good sign but they are still good? But wouldn’t it be better to think of alternative ways?

Thinking of alternative ways and even acting with these alternative ways does not negate the fact that DGU’s stop crimes thousand upon thousands of times a year. Are you saying it would have been better had these crimes not been stopped?

But this is the thing – are many pro-gunners are you actually thinking of alternative ways (that is ones not tied up in the whole threat/intimidation mentality)?

I’m not saying people cannot defend themselves against attack, I’m asking is anything been learnt from that besides the ‘usefulness’ of gun ownership?

**

 

Dear Pitt

It seems to me that the only reason you think these debate redundant is because it is not going the way you want.

If you stopped thinking in terms of ‘winning’ and started thinking why your arguments don’t seem to be standing up to scrutiny you might start learning something.

I mean look at what you say

You claim I do not listen yet I’ve shown repeatedly that I am, that I do, I can quote your views so easily because I know what you have said and where you said it.

Actually what you seem to be saying here is not that I’m not listening but that I’m not accepting – I criticise, I give counter arguments and differing analysis and that’s the reason you think I’m not listening.

You seem to have had this belief that your arguments were so good that it was, is impossible to counter them and that therefore anyone that disagrees with them is not actually listening.

But I’m sorry Pitt but that isn’t the case so many of your arguments don’t stand because they don’t add up or are full of holes. And I think this underlining bitterness you seem to be displaying here possibly comes from the realisation of their deficiencies.

You say that I draw unfounded conclusions but if they are unfounded why do you seem unable to refute them?

I have the feeling that you think they are unfounded because you don’t agree with them so they must be unfounded. The fact that you don’t seem able to refute them isn’t important to you because they must be wrong because they are not what you believe. It’s like a creationist saying evolutionists’ have drawn unfounded conclusions about the origin of species.

In the same way you claim that I have nothing to back up my theories when what you mean is that you do not accept what I’ve said in support of my theories so you are just going to ignore it. You don’t put up any rational or reasonable counter arguments you simply dismiss them as nothing. Just as a creationist might dismisses Darwinism as nothing of importance.

In your opinion my ideas would have little impact on the problems of society yet what you base that opinion on is unclear since you continually block debate into your society and an understanding of its problems.

But at the same time you claim that you are interested in doing something about your societies problems, you make that claim often, but that’s all it ever seems to be, a claim, when asked to discuss what could be done your interest seems short and you thoughts unfocused. This is in very stark opposition to your passion for defending gun ownership.

I hope you could learn from these threads but you need to open your mind a little and notice the discrepancies and prejudices in your own viewpoint first. I mean even the things you say you have learnt from these posts is coloured and twisted by your own bias, where even proposals that you seemed to think were good become in your mind extreme and restrictive because the person putting them forward hasn’t accept your viewpoint without question.

Yours in hope

Balbus

 

wow if you are going to make novel length post instead of just copy/pasting it in both threads couldnt you just point to the other thread?

Pitt.

Oh dear, more point scoring

But I notice you don’t actually address any of the issues raised.

**

As to my last post it wasn’t a copy in fact there are differences between the two, not much, but they are not just simply cut and paste copies, but different drafts.

However your post, the one I was replying, which you posted in both threads, was exactly the same, why didn’t you follow your own advise and just post one and point to the other?

LOL, or is it another case of ‘do what I say not what I do’?

**

 

To me a gun ban could only become realistic if people wanted one and believed in it.

Now there are people in the US for which only evidence that was 101% would be acceptable and others for which no argument for one would be acceptable.

I’ve not been calling for a ban, all I’ve been wanting is regulation, yet my views have been called extremist and hard-line.

I’ve put my case and argued my view and put forward some theories and suggested some ideas but in the end these have been rejected often out of hand even when no rational argument has been presented against them.

I fear that what gun regulators are up against in the US is not rational or reasonable it is a belief system, a religion, and that doesn’t accept rational or reasonable argument, like so many religions it believes only in obedience or damnation, of good followers and evil unbelievers.

LOL - I get the feeling that they think I’m one of the damned.

 

I am not someone you need to convince.

 

Do you remember the post 953 from the other thread inb which I said to you

““This is nothing but lip service. If you look at these proposals they are indeed a “BAN” that takes place over time. If you cannot mfg any guns, and you cannot import any guns and after they reach a certain age they are “made inoperable” that is a ban that takes place over time. So quit lying.””

Pitt

I actually I do remember post 953 because it was my own post not yours and you didn’t say it there, I’m just quoting you. Here it is -
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3486266&postcount=953

You in fact I believe you said what you reprint in post 950 (again I worry about the level of your research)

Now if you had actually been more honest and copied over the whole of post 953, it would have included my reply which shows just how unfounded this accusation really is and shows it up for the trick it is.

**