Are Gun Bans Realistic?

Here is my reply from post 953 in full (I’m putting some additions in red)

Pitt

This is the problem, we have been through this thing - about the proposals - four or five times now (I thing we are now over 10 times). My reply hasn’t actually changed, (still hasn’t) in fact you haven’t really disputed the replies I’ve already given, (you still haven’t) all you do is seemingly ignore them and later when it suits you (e.g. when you wish to disrupt a thread) you once again make the same accusation (as you do again here) to which I give the same reply, which you ignore, and make the same accusation again a few posts later, and so on and so on.

(A few posts later? Wow does this mean I can predict the future or just count upon your continued dishonesty?)

The thing is that I’ve repeated it so many times that you must have read it at some point someone would have to be incredibly stupid to not see the accusation you throw out don’t work (and you are not stupid) so I can only assume you know exactly what you are doing, that all this is just trickery.

(Another trick or just the same trick?)

**

Ok

I’ll give you the reply which I've basically given before that explains why your accusation isn’t legitimate.

To understand people have to look at the sequence

In post 134, I put forward some proposals, they were just ‘off the top of my head’ some ideas on gun regulation, open to discussion. If anyone wants to read them here is a link to the page I’m not trying to hide the fact that I put these proposals forward http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189921&page=14&pp=10

You gave your opinion, Some ideas you liked, others you thought needed amendments and some you disliked. (you can read them in his post 136 on the same page as linked)

To the proposals you have reprinted in this thread the replies were –

Stop the sale of all new guns within the US and ban the import of guns. People found selling new guns (ones without an official ‘history’) or found bring guns into the US would be given a mandatory 20 year sentence. (In time laws would be brought in making weapons of a certain age inoperable)

And this punished only the law abiding, sorry but I dont agree with this one.

(So this one I dropped)

**

Any handgun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure (and approved) safe. People that didn’t have an approved safe would not be allowed to own a gun (over time the security level of the approved safe would rise)

Biometric lock boxes, I have already said that is a good thing.

(and this one I kept)

**

My reply to your comments (in post 140) was “Well this is wonderful Pitt really good, this is what can be so good about debate”

I had noted your objections and cut or amended the proposals to these -

Anyone in possession of an illegal gun or having a gun when they have been banned from having one would get a mandatory 10 year sentence.

Anyone who uses an illegal gun or uses one when they have been banned from having one would get a mandatory 20 year sentence.

Anyone that has a gun on them while committing anything but a low level crime (e.g. -minor traffic violation) would get a mandatory 30 year sentence.

Anyone that uses a gun with the intent to injure or kill another person would get a mandatory 50 year sentence.

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun. (If its shown they did not show due diligence for securing thier weapon)

Any handgun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure (and approved) safe. People that didn’t have an approved safe would not be allowed to own a gun (over time the security level of the approved safe would rise)

Anyone that doesn’t achieve a certain level (to be decided on) of academic attainment would be banned from owning a gun for life.

Anyone wanting to purchase a gun would first have to pass a psychological evaluation.

**

These were all things you seemed to find acceptable in theory at that time.

**

Your reply (post 143) was – “Yes this is good but you have failed to realize many of these lasw are ALREADY in effect, they are just not enforced. << this is THE problem which is what i have been saying. Enforce these existing laws and "gun crime" would go down, and probably not even a problem requiring anything else. Should we not try this First”

As I’ve said you accept in theory that these are good ideas you just have the opinion that the existing laws should be given a chance first.

(That is another discussion and if people wish to follow it they can. But fundamentally Pitt wants to enforce the laws but doesn’t seem to have much of an idea of why they are not being enforced (and that comes back to US society and it’s attitudes toward guns and my theories which Pitt has been using every trick he can to get out of debating in an honest or open way)

**

So Pitt, you went back to my post took from it the accusation and reprinted it but did you tackle what I said back then?

Well in fact you don’t seem to tackle or even oppose what it said back then, so are you going to now?

**

 

Pitt

This is exactly what I’ve been saying about pro-gunners not seem to want a genuine debate.

When your arguments don’t seem to stand up you don’t ask yourself why, you go on the attack, use tricks to try and muddy the water, make snide remarks and descend into point scoring.

But that is the reaction of a blind believer not an open, honest and rational mind.

A rational and honest person when looking at post 953 would have addressed what was said in the reply and either given a counter view or accepted its validity and changed their view accordingly.

Only a biased believer would completely ignore the reply and reprint the accusation again, because a believer only sees what they want to see.

Come on man, pull off the blinkers and let’s have an honest debate.

 

If you ban guns arn't their a variety of weapons to take their place?

 

Crystal

"If you ban guns arn't their a variety of weapons to take their place?"

**

Like what?

It seems to me a matter of efficiency and skill.

For range weapons the next things down are the bow and crossbow these are bulky and require a lot more skill to fire with any accuracy and do not have the rate of fire as most if not all modern handguns.

(An Aside – that was one of the reasons why even the wildly inaccurate early firearms took over so rapidly from stringed weapons, anyone could use one)

Below that it would mean melee weapons, clubs, spears, swords, knives. There effectiveness as killing weapons can come down to skill and opportunity and three of them, clubs, spears and swords are also harder to conceal than a handgun.

So the most obvious alternative to a gun is a knife and in fact that is the weapon most used as an alternative for guns for both protection and attack.

The thing is a knife isn’t a gun, I saw a man pull a knife on someone once, the other guy picked up a chair, the person with the knife took a couple of lunges found he was getting nowhere and fled. Imagine the likely outcome if the attacker had pulled a gun and used it?

**

But anyway I’ve already covered this point as part of the threat/intimidation attitude -

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoidic outlook were everything and everyone is seen a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

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.

But it doesn’t have to be a gun, this attitude is about having ‘equalizing’ power, the ability to threaten and this is why the argument runs that if there were no guns then there would be swords and knives and in that case they would want also to have swords and knives.

It seems to me that when threat, intimidation and suppression come to be seen as the most important (or only) means of dealing with domestic social problems and the outside world, the mindset becomes blind to alternatives.

So in crime (as in many other areas) ‘toughness’ in other words repressive measures are praised while calls for understanding of the social context that leads to criminality is dismissed as soft and ‘giving in’ to the criminals.

Guns are just part of that repressive approach.

I feel that it could be this attitude that marks US culture out, of course not all Americans have this viewpoint and not everyone that does has it at the same intensity of feeling but I believe enough do to make the viewpoint prevalent.

It is my contention that if this attitude didn’t exist, many social and political problems would be dealt with in a lot more rational and realistic manner and the feeling that weapon ownership was so necessary and desirable would not be so widespread in the US.

 

Dear Pitt

Yes balbus I know it was your post in which you were quoting me. This was done so that anyone wishing to look at the post could see not only my quote but also your reply.

Oh that would be it, that’s why you didn’t post the reply - only the accusation - didn’t give a link and didn’t address what was in the reply bit of the post or even mention that there was a reply to what you said.
Good glad that is cleared up

**

This does not negate the fact your proposal is in fact a "BAN". If you are saying it is not a ban then explain to the world how if you cannot make guns, cannot import guns, and you continually disable guns, in 10 years where will the guns be? Its no trick its your own words, lipservice that turns out to be nothing more than a ban hidden in a quagmire of retoric. Had this been an unintential mistake on your part, an honest person would have admitted so. You on the other hand did nothing but deny it and try to confuse/hide the fact.
You continue to claim dishonesty on the part of your opponants and here you are denying what you proposed was a ban

So you are not going to address anything in my original reply, to read this it would seem that you never even read it.

As I’ve said my opinion is that ease of access to guns is a contributing factor for the high levels of gun related crime in the US.

I therefore think it a good idea to try and limit that access, I put forward some proposals but I’m a pragmatist not a dogmatic believer and was quite happy to drop the ones you opposed and stand by the ones you seem to think were good.

So why are you trying to muddy the waters by bringing up something, I’ve dropped?

Is that because you are more of the dogmatic believer who doesn’t care about honesty, preferring instead to point score?

**

 

You continue quote your own post containing heavy punishments for violations of your proposals but when I say to get tough and enforce existing laws with no leniancy you acuse me of using "threat and Intimidation".

Oh my giddy aunts Pitt, you are shameless, LOL

Once again you drag up something we’ve covered a number of times already once more the same trick.

Make an accusation, ignore any reply that shows it is unfounded, then wait awhile and make the exact same accusation again.

Here are a few previous occasions when you have asked the same thing and yes they were all replied to at the time by basically the same answer

As I say it is a routine, accuse, ignore the reply, wait awhile, accuse again, ignore the reply again, wait again, accuse again, and so on, and so on and so on -

**

Pitt - “are you referring to my suggestion of stricter and harsher penalties for gun misuses? You yourself have suggested much the same thing”

**.

Pitt – “When I suggested tougher sentences and strict adherence to current laws you said it was “threat and Intimidation” Yet here you are once again promoting the exact same thing.”

**

Pitt – “I say tough laws and stiff punishment and you call it threat and intimidation. You call for: mandatory 10 year sentence, mandatory 20 year sentence, mandatory 30 year sentence, mandatory 50 year sentence, heavy fine and banned, banned from owning a gun for life And its somehow magically different”

**

The reply is roughly the same and just as typically ignore.

Do you remember this -

“It is like the idea of the carrot and stick to get the mule moving in the right direction, the idea of threat coupled with benefit. The intimidation attitude leans a lot more toward the use of intimidation than to giving benefits and in some cases it can lead to the idea that, since they have threat, no benefits should be given and even benefits already given can be taken away”

**

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

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

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

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

For example when I presented my ‘tough’ laws you cheered “Bravo!!!”, more moderate laws aimed at keeping gun out of the hands of criminals you seem less enthusiastic about (or are hostile) and when asked to present alternative ideas that are about dealing with problems rather than just suppressing them or dealing with the symptoms you seem to become vague and directionless.

I’ve presented a few ideas, they’re aimed at making peoples lives more attractive, comfortable and worthwhile, which is the carrot, while I still feel that for the time being we may still need a stick, tough laws, but I hope that in time they would not be so necessary.

You talk of getting tough and coming down hard, which is the stick, but what about the carrot, what social, economic or even political changes are you offering to alleviate the problems that can be behind the crimes?

**

Do you wish for genuine debate?

If so why do you resort to such trickery – why do you make the exact same accusations when you must know they have already been replied to?

If your views are solid and compelling why do you feel the need to indulge in such trickery?

Could it be that you feel that your own arguments are too flimsy and unconvincing to be aired and so all you have left is trickery?

If so why do you still hold on to them?

**

 

very nice point, but regardless of method people have always turmed to violence when emotionally distressed (some are better at not approaching this avenue than others, but I think we can all understand this without necessarily taking it to the extreme in our personal lives). The real problem then is that the gun makes it too damn easy to act out our inner demons in a very irrational manner. Before the handgun I'm sure people were more inclined to plan out a murder, not wanting to reep the consquences, thus allowing themselves more time to think it through, and if it was worth it. So that makes me against the pocession of hand guns. But at the same time I do not trust the government to protect myself or a family member when danger is present, and living outside of DC there is alot of danger here. So in that light I feel we have the right to protection and bearing arms for person perserverance. It's like a coin, two sides, one good and the other bad. So what do you do? Should guns be banned? maybe so. But is it realistic? Not in today's world. Perhaps our children will be better than us.

I wish this post wasn't already 10 pages long since I might not be adding anything new, but I'm interested now, so please excuse my ignorance.

 

If you were to ban firearms in the US, we would have no defence against an already creeping fascism here.

The government would no longer fear the people. And in a democracy, the government should ALWAYS fear the people.

If the people fear the government, then something has gone horribly wrong.



x

 

Crystal

Yes, that is basically what I’ve been arguing for.

People need to feel secure and only once they do will they stop feeling threatened and then they are likely to stop feeling they need guns for protection.

The question then is what can we do to make people feel secure?

As I’ve pointed out many times the situation needs a holistic approach of which only a part would involve gun regulation.

The gun regulation element would be aimed at trying to reduce harm by trying to stop guns getting into the hands of people that might do damage with them. Such things as mandatory gun safes, so people’s guns would be less likely to be stolen or get into the hands of children and mandatory psychological testing to try and weed out those with emotional and mental problems.

But at the same time as I’ve outlined above I would try and make peoples lives more attractive, comfortable and worthwhile so people have more to loose from transgressing and are not likely to experience the intensity of stress that might make them act in a destructive manner.


**

 

we agree then :0

The human consciouness is moving forward and as we continue to become aware of our higher thoughs and sense of morality, I believe more people will awaken to the truth of everlasting love and it's benefits. At this stage there will be little need for guns or any other primitive weapons of force used throughout the brutal eras of our growth, since our increasing intellects will be more inclined to solve problems for the greater good and not for selfish reasons. This will at last enable us to walk into a heaven we can see, on our Earth that can be shared by all. I hope. Otherwise we're looking at nuclear extermination, or just pure bullshit and scientific nothing. I like to be positive though

I know someone's gonna point out how new age I sound but thats okay... I know