Gun ownership is MAD?

#353

#355

#358

Yeah, we get it.
Not going your way, time to bail and blame it on the other guy...

It's all right Balbus, we don't need the Dog and Pony show, no one is going to think less of you, just quit already.

Later

-Shane

 

*Shane99X will be gone for an extended period of time starting 01/04/07*

I was confused at first you see 01/04/07 in the British system is the first of April 2007 (april fools day) then I realised it must be the US system so it meant the fourth of January 2007. But again I’m confused I mean I hardly noticed you were missing before you are back, do you really mean that to you eight days is an extended period of time? I mean Pitt has been away for 5 days and he didn’t make a big ho ha about it.

Anyway nice to have you back after been away for soooooo long maybe we can continue our discussion on you chosen brand of Social Darwinism? -)

**

“Not going your way”

Well no it isn’t, I want an open and honest debate and it seems Pitt is unable to give me one.

Do I blame him?

Yes I think I do, I mean he is the one that is refusing to answer questions. He is the one that is trying (and failing) to cover up that fact by going right back to the very beginning of this thread. He is the one that seems to be lying in an attempt to justify his unwillingness to debate.

 

Pitt

I believe I’ve already covered your second, third and fourth point in other posts (just above), but if you wish for clarification on any point please just ask.

So that gets us to Number Five

“5. In post 5 you state: “But why is violent crime supposedly everywhere? In the UK we are actually living in a rather peaceful and crime free time (compared to the past)” You were shown facts and figures from your own Gvt and others showing the opposite of your statement. Instead of acknowledging this fact you just change your tactic and yell that the UK has low “gun Crime”. I think we have all admitted this, it was even true before the UK banned guns.”

There have been a lot more violent times in British history than today. We have had periods of war and near anarchy compared with them today is peaceful and rather crime free.

To give a flavour of our history –

“Some 2,169 people, including 146 women, were hanged at Tyburn (London) between 1715 and 1783…(London had a population of 500,000 to 1 million at the time)…3,518 people (3,351 men and 167 women) were hanged in England and Wales between 1800 and 1899…(Britain’s population was 10 million in 1801) (A further 273 men and 17 women were hanged in Scotland over the same period, 14 in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man (including one woman there) and 36 men under the jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty, giving a total of 4,398 (including 185 women). The figures for Ireland are less reliable and can only be safely dated from 1827–1899, during which time 529 men and 26 women were hanged. Prior to that, the remaining information is very sketchy”
http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/hanging1.html

As far as I can tell the number of people murdered in the UK between March 2004 and March 2005 was 820 down from 853 the year before, in a population of some 60 million.

As to the US there seems to have been 16,912 (16,137) 775 more murders than 2004, in a population of 300 million

Five times 60 = 300, and five times 853 = 4265 if the UK had 300 million people it’s murder rate would be only 4265, not 16,9137

Also you are a lot more likely to be caught and convicted for murder these days than in the 18th or 19th century.

As for the 20th century, we had two world wars and the terrorism of the troubles.

Once more your example doesn’t seem to prove your point.

**

You also say I yelled about how low gun crime is in the UK, but if the post is re-print I think it that it becomes obvious that I’M NOT YELLING.

“Well that is very strange from the stats I have read violent crime in the UK has risen dramatically since the famous "gun Ban"

“dramatically”?

OK lets put gun related homicides for the UK and US in context

UK – 73 (2001, BBC)

USA - 11,348 (2001, University of Utah)

The UK has 60 million people compared with the USA’s of 250 –280 million so lets boost the UK’s figure

60 million – 70 deaths
120 million – 140 deaths
180 million – 210 deaths
240 million – 280 deaths
300 million – 350 deaths

In fact I believe to get to the USA’s levels of gun related homicides we would need to increase the UK’s population some 160 times to 9,600 million people, the worlds population at this time is only 6,500 million

Again this doesn’t prove I don’t reply to questions or refuse to join in debate.

**

Now you say that you acknowledge that gun related deaths and murder are so much lower than in the US. But one of the questions I would ask is why?

I mean I even asked in post 26 “So either Americans are a very murderous lot or …well can you think of any other explanations?”

You didn’t reply to that exactly you just seem to admit that murder and especially gun related murder was much more common in the US than the UK.

I would still like to now why in your opinion Americans seem to be so much more murderous than the British?

Now I now you say that if people didn’t have guns they would find some other way to commit murder but doesn’t the fact that guns are so good at killing possible have something to do with the disparity? Could it be that it isn’t that Americans are more murderous but just that they have a lot more access to a means of killing than do the British?

Just an idea.

 

On to six

6. “If you are determined and suspect that any owner has a weapon you get the bigger weapon you can and shoot first. If anything wider gun ownership leads to the potential for more injuries and death.” Again you were shown facts and figures showing this is just not true. In Interviews with convicted criminals they state that if they suspect a victim is armed or if the victim turns out to be armed the criminal turns and run or chooses another victim. Another FACT you refused to admit to or provide countering facts.

As you know we have been through that, and we don’t know if those criminals subsequently went and got a gun.

Also my point is that this doesn’t explain why those people wanted to commit the crime in the first place. If there was a typical reason (say drug addiction) I’m saying that maybe it would be better to deal with the problem rather than hope they will be deterred from acting criminally by the threat of guns.

Think about it

You premise is that a ‘criminal’ will not go after someone who has a gun but instead pick on someone without a gun.

Your solution to this seems to be that everyone that could be a victim should have a gun.

But if the reason for the criminal turning to crime is still there, so the criminal will still want to commit the crime, now if everyone is armed and given the relative ease of the availability of guns in the US don’t you think that the type of criminal that would attack someone is likely to also get a gun?

Just an idea.

 

Here comes seven

7. You then state: “It just sounds like Britain with its fewer guns is the safer place to live?” this statement was made even after showing you reports that in overall crime stats the UK ranks higher than New York. Oh yeah I forgot the UK has less “gun crime”. Lets just skip this and move on shall we? (sarcasm)

I don’t understand you wish to skip gun-crime? You say the UK ranks higher than New York but for what, not gun crime Oh sorry you want to skip that don’t you. LOL

In 2002 the number of gun related homicides in NY was 365, the number of murders in 2005 was 874 and that is in a city of only 19 million.

In 2005 the number of gun related homicides in the whole of England and Wales was 73, the total number of murders was only 853 and that is in a population of 55 million.

I’d be five times more likely to be killed by a gun in New York than anywhere in England, excuse me but it does sound safer.

By the way didn’t Mayor Bloomberg of New York say “I am against people carrying guns. Guns kill people. One of the great scourges we have in the city is that too many people are carrying guns.”
http://www.vdare.com/malkin/ny_guns.htm

You may also want to look at this article -
Rise in New York's murder rate reflects new US appetite for guns
By David Usborne
The steady decline in murder rates in America's biggest cities that began in the early 1990s and earned political points for urban leaders like New York's former mayor Rudolph Giuliani appears to be bottoming out, with signs of a sharp rise in urban violence this year.
With a few exceptions, notably in Los Angeles and San Francisco, police departments across the country are recording new increases in homicide rates for 2006. Officials blame gang turf wars, the ubiquity of guns, and a willingness among young people to shoot if they feel they have been shown disrespect.
The trend prompted the Mayor of Philadelphia, John Street, to make a televised address last summer appealing to young people to cease fire. "Lay down your weapons," he pleaded. "Do it now. Choose education over violence." The number of murders in his city will exceed 400 this year for the first time in a decade.
Oakland in California fared worst this year with its homicide rate expected to soar 57 per cent. Less shocking but still worrying upturns in murder numbers are also being reported by cities as diverse as Chicago, Cincinnati, New Haven and Houston. In Houston, officials are pointing to the huge influx of refugees from Hurricane Katrina at the end of 2005.
New York, which has restored its reputation worldwide as a tourist-friendly city partly on the basis of years of falling murder rates, is not immune from the new trend.
As of Christmas Eve, the city had seen 579 murders in its five boroughs, an increase over 2005 of about 10 per cent.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2110299.ece

 

And eight

8. You go on to say “So by that logic if we try to bring about such a society we may as well get rid of guns at the same time, it might ever be a good first step in that direction.” You were asked “OK so who gives up thier guns first, the law abiding citizen ot the violent criminal? Logical answer is the violent criminal of course. SO
How do we get the violent criminals to get rid of thier guns?” Of course you never answered these questions. I assume that it is because you have no answer since the UK has failed to accomplish this even with a gun ban.

Let us look at the whole thing

[Balbus] I would rather work toward having a society were no one would be so desperate for money or recognition that they felt they needed to use a gun.

[pitt] a society were no one would be so desperate for money or recognition. When we have this society, there would be no real need for a gun other than sport shooting. Then again in this society there would be no killing weather there were guns or not.

[balbus] So by that logic if we try to bring about such a society we may as well get rid of guns at the same time, it might ever be a good first step in that direction.

[pitt] “OK so who gives up thier guns first, the law abiding citizen ot the violent criminal? Logical answer is the violent criminal of course. SO
How do we get the violent criminals to get rid of thier guns?”

I may not have tackled this question directly at the time but it is something that has come up since and in fact I may have thought that the answer was already there.

Think about it.

If there were a society where no one felt so desperate for money or recognition that they felt they needed to use a gun to get it, they wouldn’t need a gun. The people wouldn’t have to give up their guns because they wouldn’t have them in the first place. So first we work toward trying to bring about such a society, I have tried to explain sometimes at length and in detail what I think could be steps in that direction (some of which you say you have agreed with). But at the same time we try to limit the number of guns in circulation within the US’s society by other measures I’ve talked about (many of which you supported).

The problem with any thread is that not all questions get tacked at once or in the same depth but usually get covered in some way or other along the way. If you had been keeping track of the thread as a whole you would have realised that the point had in fact been covered. But I suspect you knew that.

Otherwise it means you really haven’t been paying any attention to what’s been said and if that is the case you never intended to enter into debate you just wanted to make assertion that you are unwilling to discuss.

 

And here are my replies to your bullet points -)

I could go on and on Balbus but the simple fact is that there are basic principals in this discussion that has to be either acknowledged or countered for this to move much further. You have refused to do so.
I stand by my basic premise.

Crime is out there, the raw numbers of instances is staggeringly high even though any single individual is fairly safe from a percentage point of view.

Which means what? You have claimed in this thread that crime is everywhere, that crime is in some places more than others and that it is not everywhere. You’ve claimed people should be armed or they might die and you have said you don’t always carry a gun. Now you are saying crime is staggeringly high but the chances of being a victim are staggeringly low?

Once again there seems to be an element of contradiction here.

Also I’ve never said I don’t think crime exists in fact the debate is largely about what is the best way to tackle it.

**

Guns are a deterrent to criminals and until crime is eradicated it is still a valid defense to own a gun.

But I don’t see any indication that many of the pro-gunners are working toward tackling crime other than by suppression and threat. With that kind of attitude many crimes (or rather the problems that lead to crime) are unlikely to be dealt with.

It is your unwillingness to debate this issue that has lead to this impasse.

**

There are many reasons to own a firearm, defense, hunting, competition etc etc.

And the measures I talked about, which you supported, those activities wouldn’t be effected.

**

weather or not to own a gun is a personal decision, not a governmental one as long as you are a law abiding person.

Again this seems like a contradiction, or evidence of not thinking something through.

It is a personal decision not a government one

But the government brings in the laws and enforces them

So it is the government’s decision as to if you are or are not a law-abiding person

So a person might want a gun but it is the government that decides if they should have one or not.

**

 

Last night I was talking with someone who happens to be a statistician. Well, during the conversation this thread came up and this person pointed out something I hadn’t realised

They told me that it is in fact very difficult to compare the crime figures from two different countries because there are so many variables that are not represented in the plain figures.

I checked this out and it seems to be true, both the UN and the Bureau of Justice warn against such comparisons.

The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_survey_seventh.html

Different definitions for specific crime types in different countries: The category in which any incident of victimization is recorded relies on the legal definition of crime in any country. Should that definition be different, and indeed this is often the case, comparisons will not in fact be made of exactly the same crime type. This is particularly the case in crimes that require some discretion from a police officer or relevant authority when they are identified. For example, the definitional difference between serious or common assault in different legal jurisdictions may be different, and this will be reflected in the total number of incidents recorded.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_surveys_3.html

Note: BJS cannot validate any data obtained from non-BJS sources, nor does BJS encourage comparisons of national data due to differences in classifications of crimes and methodological differences.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ijs.htm

Definitions of offences vary between countries due to both legal differences and statistical recording methods. For example, the USA and Canada do not appear to include minor assaults, intimidation, and threats within their definition of violent crime. However, New Zealand does include these crimes in its definition, and these offences comprise approximately half of all violent crime in this country. Also, New Zealand does not include sexual offences in violent crime, whereas Australia, USA, Canada, England and Wales do.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-2.html

Additionally, the Home Office's July 2000 "Review of Criminal Statistics: A discussion document" indicates how difficult it is compare crime rates between their own forces, let alone conducting international comparisons, stating that amongst the England and Wales' Police:
"There is some confusion in what is counted as a recorded crime......(there are) two contrasting approaches to recording crimes that are currently in use by police forces. The first is a "prima facie" approach, by which the police accept all crime reports at face value and seek to include in their crime figures every apparent criminal event that comes to their attention. The second approach is the more traditional one, termed the "evidential", whereby the police sift and evaluate those events reported to them and only in those cases where they believe on the basis of the known facts that a crime has actually taken place do the police then record a crime. ......the lack of consistency makes it impossible to compare forces in a reliable fashion."
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-7.html

**

This friend and my own research have pointed to other issues with comparisons. For example such figures don’t take into account local drives or crackdowns that may boost figures in certain areas. Encouraging rape victims to come forward (with such methods as granting animosity) can lead to higher rape figures, but in fact there has not been an increase in the number of rapes just the number being reported.

I’ve been told economic factors have an impact, higher unemployment leading to higher crime rates in those areas associated with financial gain, whereas high employment rates lead to more crimes related to drink as more people have the money to go out.

Demographics can have an effect as Susan Estrich says of the US “Eighteen years ago, the number of young men between the ages of 18 and 25 -- the prime crime years -- was set to decrease steadily for the next decade. Even if you did absolutely nothing, crime was likely to decrease because there would be fewer would-be criminals to engage in it”

The prevalence of insurance is another factor people are more likely to report criminal damage if that is what is needed to make a claim (and we saw how few people had such insurance in New Orleans).

Even the perceived efficiency of the police can be a factor. Some crime rates can be low because people think the police are useless and don’t report the crime but if the police become better at the job people do report those types of crime (again the crime rate hasn’t gone up just the reporting). This means that higher figures can actually point to a healthy and working system and low figures to a sick and dysfunctional system.

Even the prevalence of CCTV cameras can have an effect on crime, fight in bars that at one time were not reported or led to no conviction because of lack of evidence are now being captured on camera and as pointed out to me several times the UK has many more CCTV cameras than the US.

However there was one area that my friend said was less controversial when it came to comparisons (although it still depended on the countries being compared) and that was murder. Homicides are very much more likely to be reported when discovered and there is far less leeway in definition.

“In selected cases, most notably homicide, country to country comparisons are safer, although may still be subject to the drawbacks outlined above. In the case of some categories of violent crime - such as rape or assault - country to country comparisons may simply be unreliable and misleading.”
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_surveys_3.html

**

What is that old saying “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics”

 

Sorry for the delay I have been to Gatlinburg, TN for a gig the last week or so.

Glad you’re back.

**

Ref post 361

Again you counter the total violent crime rate in the UK by citing one singular type of crime, gun homicide. Why do you refuse to acknowledge the rest of the violent crime taking place in the UK?

Over and over and over again I’ve had to point out that this doesn’t help your argument

You (and other Americans) seem to be so much more afraid of becoming the victim of crime than people in the UK and the British seem to have this attitude even when you contend that the crime rates are higher.

So you have to ask yourself why are some Americans so afraid?

Well there is one great difference between the US and the UK and that is the very high level of gun related homicides in the US and the high levels of gun ownership (both legal and not) that makes being shot such a greater possibility in the US.

This you admit.

I’ve pointed this out many times but all you can answer with is the rather fatuous and seemingly unfounded assertion that people in the UK ‘ignore’ crime.

You have also claimed that you are unafraid of crime, but you only stopped your seeming scare mongering about crime being deadly and everywhere, when I actually pointed out that you sounded scared. Suddenly then you started pointing out just how little you carried a gun and how little people had to be afraid of being a victim of crime. Which seems to undermine your argument that crime is such a clear and present threat that people need guns to defend themselves from it.

You say that guns are just a precaution, but that just brings up the same argument why do some Americans feel they need that precaution when most British don’t seem to feel the need.

(Of course now it seems your comments on UK/US crime rates might not be so solid as you once thought)

**

“Now you say that you acknowledge that gun related deaths and murder are so much lower than in the US. But one of the questions I would ask is why?”

Again, this has been true even before the gun ban in the UK. So obviously it has nothing to do with the availability of legal firearms now does it? So admittedly it must have to do with social and economic factors. Being that this is the case there is no reason associated with this to ban firearms.

Oh my, this again, look it is even in the post you quoted from, you only had to read on – “I would still like to now why in your opinion Americans seem to be so much more murderous than the British? Now I now you say that if people didn’t have guns they would find some other way to commit murder but doesn’t the fact that guns are so good at killing possible have something to do with the disparity? Could it be that it isn’t that Americans are more murderous but just that they have a lot more access to a means of killing than do the British?”

I mean you are several times more likely to be murdered in the US and most of those murders were committed with a gun.

(come on man just read the posts)

As to the social and economic factors you refuse to discuss them you’ve even tried to justify this stance by lying.

**

Ref post 362

“As you know we have been through that, and we don’t know if those criminals subsequently went and got a gun.”

Your right the study did not go into detail what the criminal did after the fact, which I already stated that it would be interesting to know this. However the study proves the point that I brought up, that weapons in the hands of law abiding people IS a DETERRENT. Something you seem unwilling to admit.

But as pointed out in the same post (please read them).

If all the possible victims are armed, but reason for the criminal turning to crime is still there, the criminal will still want to commit the crime. Now given the relative ease of the availability of guns in the US don’t you think that the type of criminal that would attack someone is likely to also get a gun?

“Your solution to this seems to be that everyone that could be a victim should have a gun.”

Please show me where I said everyone should have a gun. In fact I believe I stated the opposite that owning a gun is NOT for everyone.

Hell we have been through this sooooooooooooo many time, (and it is not everyone just everyone that could be a victim e.g. in your examples law abiding citizens) – let me think, I believe it started around post 100 but the seeds were there from the beginning.

You had made quite a few statements about violent crime being everywhere, given warnings about crazed crackheads and people needing protection against violent criminals’ etc and remember you have told people time and again that criminals will go after the people without guns.

A couple of your quotes to get the favour -

“‘I don’t care if you want to own a gun but crime is out there and each person must decide how far they need to carry their right of self protection since people could be killed if they don’t have guns”

“If I was responsible for taking someones protection away then (their gun) and they are killed because of this I would feel bad” (my brackets)

As I pointed out your attitude seemed to be -

People can choose to have a gun or not but if they don’t have a gun and they are a victim of crime they will not be able to defend themselves. It’s your choice, have a gun and possibly survive a crime or not have a gun and possibly die, your choice. You might never need a gun but it you don’t have one and something bad happens you might end up dead, that’s your choice

It doesn’t sound like much of a choice, you are basically saying have a gun or die.

I mean in the whole of this thread you have been pushing the idea that to be armed with a gun is to be safer and that having a gun reduces crime (except it seems for murder)

If that is not saying that your solution to crime seems to be that everyone that could be a victim should have a gun, what is it?

**

Ref post 363

“I don’t understand you wish to skip gun-crime? You say the UK ranks higher than New York but for what, not gun crime Oh sorry you want to skip that don’t you. LOL”

Maybe you should read a little closer. It is you that wish to ignore all BUT gun crime. I am not ignoring gun crime and have admitted repeatedly that there is much more gun crime in the US than there is in the UK. It is you that refuse to consider any other type of violent crime.

See you even repeat yourself in one post. The reply is the same as it was the many times before.

You (and other Americans) seem to be so much more afraid of becoming the victim of crime than people in the UK and the British have this attitude even when you contend that the crime rates are higher.

So you have to ask yourself why are some Americans so afraid?

Well there is one great difference between the US and the UK and that is the very high level of gun related homicides in the US and the high levels of gun ownership (both legal and not) that makes being shot such a greater possibility in the US.

I’ve pointed this out many times but all you can answer with is the rather fatuous and seemingly unfounded assertion that people in the UK ‘ignore’ crime.

You have also claimed that you are unafraid of crime, but you only stopped your seeming scare mongering about crime being deadly and everywhere, when I actually pointed out that you sounded scared. Suddenly then you started pointing out just how little you carried a gun and how little people had to be afraid of being a victim of crime. Which seems to undermine your argument that crime is such a clear and present threat that people need guns to defend themselves from it.

You say that guns are just a precaution, but that just brings up the same argument why do some Americans feel they need that precaution when most British don’t seem to feel the need.

Of course now it seems your comments on UK/US crime rates might not be so solid as you once thought

**

Ref post 364

You have missed the point entirely. To rid society of guns as you seem to want you would have to FIRST get them away from the violent criminals. Then all you have left is the law abiding people with guns, in this utopian fantasy world anyone that just had a gun for protection would of course get rid of them. However this would not effect the sport shooter or hunter. So again I ask How do we get the criminals to disarm FIRST. In other words how do we create this fantasy world of yours? Where will the extreme resources and a millennium of time come from?
Yes you had some good ideas, but not the total answer on how to accomplish this.

Wouldn’t it be easier to go back and just read what was said the first time rather than having us repeat the same things over again?

As I said the first time and several times since it would have to be a holistic approach, taking into account social, economic as well as legal measures. I’ve given lengthy and often detailed explanations of this right through the thread.

The fact that you are asking such questions seems to indicate that you never read them.

**
Ref post 365

“Once again there seems to be an element of contradiction here.”
Not at all, take your favorite type of crime to talk about gun homicides.
16, 000 murders = Staggeringly high number
300,000,000 people in the US
Using simple math divide 16,000 by 300,000,000
Answer 0.000053 = Fairly RARE percentage is it not?

Over and over and over again I’ve had to point out that this doesn’t help your argument

You (and other Americans) seem to be so much more afraid of becoming the victim of crime than people in the UK and the British have this attitude even when you contend that the crime rates are higher.

So you have to ask yourself why are some Americans so afraid?

Well there is one great difference between the US and the UK and that is the very high level of gun related homicides in the US and the high levels of gun ownership (both legal and not) that makes being shot such a greater possibility in the US. The figure above equates to something like 43 people being murdered a day not that many compared to the population but still significantly larger than the UK.

I’ve pointed this out many times but all you can answer with is the rather fatuous and seemingly unfounded assertion that people in the UK ‘ignore’ crime.

You have also claimed that you are unafraid of crime, but you only stopped your seeming scare mongering about crime being deadly and everywhere, when I actually pointed out that you sounded scared. Suddenly then you started pointing out just how little you carried a gun and how little people had to be afraid of being a victim of crime. Which seems to undermine your argument that crime is such a clear and present threat that people need guns to defend themselves from it.

You say that guns are just a precaution, but that just brings up the same argument why do some Americans feel they need that precaution when most British don’t seem to feel the need.

Of course now it seems your comments on UK/US crime rates might not be so solid as you once thought

**

“But I don’t see any indication that many of the pro-gunners are working toward tackling crime other than by suppression and threat.”
I am a gun owner ie pro-gun. I have stated what I do to try and help out with social programs. I have also stated that most if not almost all of the people I know from the gun range and competitions, also donate money and time to various social programs. You have produced no figures to back up your claim and with my statement above it seems to have proven your statement wrong.

I’ve tried to talk about this but whether or not you are interested in other approaches to crime is still in doubt because you refuse to discuss the issues. That is why we seem to be at this impasse.

**

“And the measures I talked about, which you supported, those activities wouldn’t be effected.”

Correct however you are leaving out the point that I stated we should enforce the existing 20,000+ existing laws before we find it necessary to add more.

And we have talked about this as well it began somewhere around the 170 posts and is still going on. You suggested the laws were not being enforced but asked why you said you don’t know why. I pushed but you didn’t seem that interested in finding out. I’ve kept pushing.

It is possible that there are too many laws (seeing as there are according to you 20,000). I suggested that maybe it would be a good idea to repeal the present laws and put in clearer, simpler ones, but you said that since the present laws were not being enforced they wouldn’t be also. You didn’t explain why you thought that or give any reasons. I’m still trying to find out, but with that kind of defeatist attitude it seemed you were just not that interested in doing anything worthwhile in that direction to get guns out of criminals hands or work toward a better safer environment. Except it seems for pushing for more people to become armed.

**

“Again this seems like a contradiction, or evidence of not thinking something through.”
Again there is no contradiction. In the US any citizen can own a gun as long as they are of age, are not mentally deficient, or a criminal. (a little simplified but I think you get the point)
When I say it’s a personal decision and not a governmental one I mean as long as you are not one of the above one can choose weather or not to own a gun. The government is not telling you that you can or cannot own a gun.
Society has decided children cannot own guns which is a good thing for obvious reasons.
Society has decided that mentally deficient people should not possess guns also for obvious reasons.
Criminals “gave up” the right to own guns by committing criminal acts.

In the UK you cannot own a gun no matter what kind of person you are.

See the difference?

In the UK and the US, the people that make up the society, through their elected representatives (the government) pass laws that decide what is permissible.

So there are laws that say children or others cannot own guns.

The US and the UK have different laws (as pointed out).

**

Ref post 358

“As I say we seem to be at an impasse, I want an open and honest discussion, you don’t.”

We are at an impasse because you do not want discussion you want people to accept your way of thinking and not consider facts presented to you that are contradictory to your previous statements ie the violent crime rate of the UK, ignore all but that which is in line with your way of thinking.

You blame guns, I blame people.

The only problem is that I’ve repeatedly shown I’m willing to engage in open and honest discussion about the issues raised.

You say I don’t want a discussion but remember it isn’t me that is refusing to discuss certain topics. It isn’t me that seems to be using misdirection. It isn’t me that doesn’t want to think sensibly about the issues (you think ‘I don’t know’ is an acceptable reply – why not find out or form an opinion) and above all else it’s not me that clearly doesn’t even bother to read other peoples posts.

**

 

Pitt

OH come on man, we have been through all this stuff before virtually word for bloody word, the only reason I can see for you dragging up arguments that have already been discussed is that you want to hid the fact that other things you refuse to discuss.

And the thing is that it isn’t even doing you any favours, it just makes it clear that not only do you not seem to have read many of my posts, but the ones you have read you don’t seem to have understood.

Now look I’m very willing to clarify any point you wish me to but for everyone’s sake please go back and read the posts in the thread so we don’t have to basically repeat every single post.

**

 

Which article? I’ve tried to read every one but it is possible I missed something.

It wasn’t in the article in the right wing Worldnetdaily or the article from the right wing Telegraph. The ojp publication hints at it but seems ambiguous and not very clear on the subject. It is mentioned in the opinion piece from the personal website of a pro-gunner called David Brundle but that was clearly biased and unsubstantiated.

 

Backtrack and find it, I showed it to you once and you ignored it. You say its biased and unsubstantiated, then provide countering data.

So you are just talking about the David Brundle site? Post 34, page 4

Discussion does not include just dismissing data out of hand. This has become extremely redundant and rediculous, not to mention insulting.

What data from this site are you talking about, it was an opinion piece, a personal interpretation of the the ojp info.

It is also only about murder rates (and gun related homicides) that you keep telling me to stop mentioning?

 

I’m off for the weekend so I’ll reply in full later, but just a cursory read of your post has shown me that we are still having the same problems.

Many of the things you raise have already been covered in the thread, some even in the same post as the one you quote from.

It seems to me that you are still trying to use misdirection.

The tactic seems to be to accuse me of not answering something.

Then when I show I have you move onto something else and say I haven’t replied to that.

When I show I have actually replied to that question or issue you move onto something else and accuse me of not answering that and so on and so on.

**

This all started when I pointed out that you seemed to be refusing to discuss the social issues involved in crime.

Now while I am able to give you answers to all the questions you ask me (often several times) you continue to refuse to talk about those things and as pointed out even seem willing to lie to justify that position.

 

hey you 2 how come you never talk to the other points posted - just go back and forth with each other
don't mean to intrude upon your relationship lol
And iffn you cannot take the humor as intended - well shame on you both - you take yourselfs too seriously.

Blessings

 

**

“So you have to ask yourself why are some Americans so afraid?”

Again you say afraid, I say practical. You have YET TO PROOVE anyone is afraid.

We’ve been through that, staring around the 170’s posts and onwards. (I did ask that you go back and have a look it would save us having to do this all over again)

Basically I pointed out that your comments seem to indicate a certain level of apprehension or fear in relation to crime. The way you thought it was everywhere the way you associated it with the possibility of being killed and your family being threatened all point toward a certain level of fear.

As to being practical or prudent we have covered that as well, several times.

Why don’t the Brits seem to feel the need to be ‘practical’?

**

“I’ve pointed this out many times but all you can answer with is the rather fatuous and seemingly unfounded assertion that people in the UK ‘ignore’ crime.”

As demonstrated by the simple fact that you refuse to admit to or even discuss any type of violent crime except for gun related homicide.

Why is it you keep going over the same ground?

You seem to imply that guns are a good way of ‘protecting’ someone from crime (any crime) but I and it seems most Brits don’t feel they need guns to protect them from crime.

I’ve pointed this out many times but all you can answer with is the rather fatuous and seemingly unfounded assertion that people in the UK ‘ignore’ crime.

**

“(Of course now it seems your comments on UK/US crime rates might not be so solid as you once thought)”

Why would they not be just as solid? I have shown you the rates, I have previously discussed the differences in reporting methodology. I have previously shown you articles stating that the violent crime rate in the UK might even be in fact higher due to under-reporting.
You on the other hand have shown nothing to the contrary.

Well no, so far we seem to have identified only one article that explicitly makes such a claim and it is just an opinion by a pro-gunner. So far we don’t seem to have identified any post of yours that cover in any detail the issues aired by me in post 367.

But it doesn’t effect the questions I’ve put to you several times now anyway.

You seem to imply that guns are a good way of ‘protecting’ you from crime but I and most Brits don’t seem to feel they need guns to protect them from crime.

If as you contend the crime rate is actually so much higher in the UK than the US then it just makes the differing viewpoint between us seem even starker.

Now you have implied that guns are not a factor but the difference may possibly be down to social, economic and cultural factors, the problem is that I’ve tried to discuss those issues with you but you continue to refuse to discuss them.

**

“now you say that if people didn’t have guns they would find some other way to commit murder but doesn’t the fact that guns are so good at killing possible have something to do with the disparity? Could it be that it isn’t that Americans are more murderous but just that they have a lot more access to a means of killing than do the British?”

Good Grief. What is your basis for this assertion.If you were to read closely I said this the difference in the murder rate between the UK and the US was still there before the UK gun ban. IN other words when the UK citizenship could still own guns there was still low amounts of murder there. So where is the relationship with the gun?
By your logic Switzerland should be drenched in blood yet it is not. In Switzerland the personal weapon of militia personnel is kept at home as part of the military obligations. This, in addition to liberal gun laws and strong shooting traditions, has led to a very high gun count per capita. [1]
This shows your assertions are completely false.

If you had actually read the post you would have noticed the question marks. These are not assertions they are questions, ideas to discuss. I have even wrote beneath on occasion ‘just an idea’ to explain that it was just an idea.

I’ll try and explain

If someone writes -

‘Love is all you need.’ (full stop)

Then they’re asserting that all you need is love.

However if someone writes –

‘Love is all you need?’ (question mark)

They are asking is love all you need.

**

Remember the UK has never had the same level of gun ownership as the United States of America.

As to Switzerland that is again another country with a differing legal system. But I have also said that my approach would be holistic in nature not just involving gun control measures but tackling social and economic factors.

Remember that Switzerland is a rich country and has “none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.stm

For example its drug policy the ProMeDro” system is “based on the concept of harm reduction. The objectives of the program were as follows:
 to decrease the number of new drug users and to prevent people from becoming drug dependent;
 to help users overcome their addiction (through therapy and social reintegration);
 to improve the living conditions and the health of drug users, to reduce harm and to maintain their social integration.

A 1997 evaluation of the trials concluded that:
 heroin assisted treatment for severely dependent heroin addicts improved their physical and/or psychic health, as well as their quality of life (in terms of housing, work and other areas);
 participants’ illegal use of heroin and cocaine decreased;
 the users involved in the program committed fewer crimes (the incidence of theft and property and drug trafficking offences fell sharply).
http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/switzerland/

This has included I believe giving out prescriptions for heroin (something i talked about).

But as I’ve pointed out several times the pro-gunners in the US, are very vocal about the supposed uses of guns in suppressing crime but seem to have little idea about possible other methods of reducing crime. I’ve tried to discuss these issues with you but you seem unwilling or unable to talk about them.

**

“If that is not saying that your solution to crime seems to be that everyone that could be a victim should have a gun, what is it?”

I have never claimed to have a solution.

Yes I know that is your assertion but it doesn’t answer the question put to you and it also seems to imply that you have put little thought into the issues of crime besides going on and on about the supposed benefits of guns.

**

I have stated repeatedly I did not think EVERY possible victim should own a gun.

We have been through this do I need to go through it again? You say that if people don’t have a gun they may end up dead, I mean most of your posts in this thread seem like adverts for gun ownership.

**

A gun is a deterrent, you have yet to prove or even hint at it not being one.

This has been covered early on in the thread, I pointed out that the protection theory seemed rather weak. Do you really want me to go over it again, why not read the original posts?

**

Again its like a condom, I (me personally) would rather have one and not need it, than not have one and need it.

But using a gun to protect you from crime is not like having a condom, what are you saying that a woman is going to ‘threaten’ you with sex and you are going to ‘deter’ her by waving a condom at her? Wouldn’t you want to use the condom but I presume that you would not want to use the gun?

The condom was invented as a means to gratify a desire for sex without (hopefully) suffering the consequences that may arise due to having sex.

The gun is what? Well primarily it was invented to kill people.

Also as we have covered in several places in the thread you admit that you don’t always carry a gun. So it is not a matter of having a gun at all times just in case it is needed but of somehow knowing in advance that you might need it.

Which seems to imply a foreknowledge of an attack.

**

Your answer to 363 is laughable.
“See you even repeat yourself in one post. The reply is the same as it was the many times before.”

Yet even after all the repetition you still have not answered the question, you skirt around it. You duck it. You run away from it. But you never ANSWER it. Perhapse you have no answer and that scares you.

363 - Maybe you should read a little closer. It is you that wish to ignore all BUT gun crime. I am not ignoring gun crime and have admitted repeatedly that there is much more gun crime in the US than there is in the UK. It is you that refuse to consider any other type of violent crime.

Is this the question you wish me to answer?

If so I think I have answered it -

You seem to imply that guns are a good way of ‘protecting’ you from crime but as I keep pointing out most Brits don’t seem to feel they need guns to protect them crime.

Why?

**

 

Pitt

Once more you accuse me of not answering and once more I show that I’m very willing to answer questions. The problem is that I’ve had to answer the same questions repeatedly, because seemingly you didn’t read them the first time (or the second or third and so on) I’m not even sure you are reading them now?

However I’m sure I’m not the only one that has the suspicion that this is just a tactic.

You are just bringing up one issue after another that has already been covered in an attempt to cover up the fact that you seem unwilling to discuss certain subjects in an open and honest manner.

 

Oldwolf

Actually there have been a few people involved in the discussion.

But the major contributors have been Shane, Proud, Pitt and myself. Shane I believe is off on holiday at the moment, Proud last posted at the beginning of Jan, and Pitt at the moment seems intent on bringing up old stuff that we have already dealt with seemingly in an attempt to derail the discussion.

So really I would love some new thoughts and ideas, from anyone.

I liked your last post but saw it more as a personal comment than something that was asking for or needed a reply. If you were actually asking something, I’m sorry but I missed it.

Anyway I’ll try and explain my thinking so far and see what you think -

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. It also seems to me to lead to a belief that threat and suppression is the best means of defence.

For example in relation to crime time and again when talking to pro-gunners it is obvious that they haven’t given much thought to other means of dealing with crime other than from a suppression stance.

Even Pitt who claimed to think about such things, seems very enthusiastic to talk at great length about the theory that guns are a deterrent to criminals but seems unable and unwilling to say much about other ways of tackling crime. Which makes me think that he hasn’t in fact thought that much about such things.

It also seems to me that guns spawn a certain mentality, belligerent and authoritarian (even bullying), which believes it can either control situations or alter things through the threat (or use) of violence. (Although I admit this could be a chicken and egg argument)

And I believe this mentality crosses political and social boundaries.

For example I believe many people accepted or supported the Bush admin.’s foreign policy because it fitted in with that mindset. The US was taking control through the threat or use of guns. It is the same mentality that leads many Americans to believe that Vietnam could have been won if only ‘their hands had not been tied by liberals’ if in other words the US could have been more threatening or more violent. It is the same mentality that sees capital punishment, brutal prison regimes and large prison populations as acceptable or even a good thing.

It is a mindset that does little or nothing to try and understand certain situations or people’s actions and dislikes questions and those that question it’s views. It seems to see things in simplistic terms, people committee crimes because they are bad people, if criminals are in prison they are not out committing crimes, if Saddam is removed Iraq will become a peaceful pro-American democracy, and so on.

But why do people turn to crime? Is locking someone up in a brutal prison system the best way of getting him or her out of crime? And given the nature of Iraq was the attitude of the Bush admin likely to make the situation better or worse?

And are guns the best way of tackling crime?

I believe that the US has many problems both social and political but they are complex and very often interrelated and I believe the only way they are going to be addressed is if people are willing to debate the issues in an open and honest way.

It just seems to me that many Americans find that difficult to do.

 

Pitt’s Post 381
“Balbus you do not answer a question with a question. You claim you have answered, yet skirting the question is not an answer, most people can see this except you.
Please pay close attention to post 378 particularly the last part.”

**

Once more Pitt you don’t seem to be reading the posts.

When you mention Post 378 do you mean the bit “The UK had low homicide rates before the gun ban, Switzerland has low homicide rates although they have an extremely high percentage of households with firearms
He has yet to address either of these FACTS.”

But if you had read post 379 you would have got -

“Remember the UK has never had the same level of gun ownership as the United States of America.

As to Switzerland that is again another country with a differing legal system. But I have also said that my approach would be holistic in nature not just involving gun control measures but tackling social and economic factors.

Remember that Switzerland is a rich country and has “none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.stm

For example its drug policy the ProMeDro” system is “based on the concept of harm reduction. The objectives of the program were as follows:
 to decrease the number of new drug users and to prevent people from becoming drug dependent;
 to help users overcome their addiction (through therapy and social reintegration);
 to improve the living conditions and the health of drug users, to reduce harm and to maintain their social integration.

A 1997 evaluation of the trials concluded that:
 heroin assisted treatment for severely dependent heroin addicts improved their physical and/or psychic health, as well as their quality of life (in terms of housing, work and other areas);
 participants’ illegal use of heroin and cocaine decreased;
 the users involved in the program committed fewer crimes (the incidence of theft and property and drug trafficking offences fell sharply).
http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/switzerland/

This has included I believe giving out prescriptions for heroin.

But as I’ve pointed out several times the pro-gunners in the US, are very vocal about the supposed uses of guns in suppressing crime but seem to have little idea about possible other methods of reducing crime. I’ve tried to discuss these issues with you but you seem unwilling or unable to talk about them.”

**

As to answering a question with a question, you will have to give me an example, there are many reasons in a debate where a question is answered with a question. I’d be happy to explain any of my posts but without knowing which one and the context it is impossible to say.

But you should realise that questioning is the nature of debate.

One person says something
Another questions the validity of that idea or claim
Or someone else asks for clarification
Which raises another question
And so on.

I often get the impression that many people here seem to think that debate is a simple Q&A session, the problem is that a question might have several opinions as to what is the right answer, that others might contend (and so on).

Life isn’t simple (however some would wish it to be) and debate about real world issues can be complex.

**

By the way Pitt, are you going to reply to any of the points raised in my resent posts I’m trying to reply to all yours (even the repeats) but you seem to be ignoring all of mine, is that fair?

Or are you just going to use trickery to get out of having a real debate?

“Although I will continue to read this thread and will respond to any intellegent comments I will no longer try to get blood out of a turnip, or answers out of balbus.”

This seems like just another tactic to try and derail the discussion.

The first was the unfounded accusations that I didn’t discuss issues to try and justify the fact you were refusing to discuss things.

The second was bringing up all the old issues that had already been covered in an attempt to misdirect peoples attention away from the fact that you seem reluctant to discuss some issues.

And know you are trying to dictate what you will talk about and what you will not.

These are all well know tactics people use to try and get out of having an open and honest debate.

I can guess why you are doing it, your arguments just don’t seem to be standing up as well as you thought and that would increasingly become clear in an open and honest debate. Also it would become increasingly obvious just how unwilling you are to talk about some subjects.

I presume therefore you feel it is better to try and derail the whole debate (and blame it on others) than it is to be honest.

**

 

Proud

LOL

Hey man didn’t you see that your argument only seems to be either a re-hashing of issues that have already been covered or you that you are actually backing up my argument?

Go and read my theory

You talk of simple solutions but as I’ve pointed out the problem is that simple solutions to complex problems more often than not backfire or fail, especially if they have not been thought through.

And you basically admit that you don’t have a clue what to do, could this be because it is clear you haven’t actually given it much thought.

However along with my thesis about pro-gunners you seemingly do believe that the threat of violence or its use is the best way of suppressing or controlling something.

Also in line with my thesis you seem to believe that people do bad things because they are bad people, which indicates an unwillingness to try and understand why situations occur or people might react in certain ways.

**

I’ve made it clear many times in this forum and I believe in this thread that I don’t hold up the British system as some perfect model. But comparisons were made between the UK and US and those issues needed to be addressed (which they still are being or hadn’t you noticed?)

As I’ve said many Americans seem to feel the need to have a gun as protection against crime but I (and many other Brits) don’t feel that need.

So you have to ask yourself why are some Americans seemingly so much more afraid of crime than those living in this country?

**

As I say the issues raised in your post all seem to have already been covered but if you wish for me to explain anything in particular please don’t hesitate to ask.

**

As to your comments about this thread - I’ll post some observations I’ve made before in these forums.

- In my time here I have got the impression that certain Americans treat their political views as if they were a religion.
They therefore approach someone with a differing viewpoint or opinion as a heretic to be smashed. As such they treat a debate as something to be ‘won’ and since they seem to feel their views as religious dogma they believe changing them is a sign of weakness that leads to damnation.
So if people see their views as a religion it makes it difficult for them to enter into a real open and honest debate it also means that if they cannot ‘win’ , they would rather run away than change their viewpoint.
For me debate is about learning and if what I learn changes the way I think I see that as good, healthy and productive. It is how people grow -

Think about it

“As much as I lust for a rightous "win" in this matter, I could have told you a long time ago that it wasn't going to happen”

A righteous win?

I’m not trying to win I’m here to find out about other peoples views and ideas and even finding out what people don’t want to discuss tells me a lot and opens up new avenues of thought and sparks new questions.

**

 

Pitt

Regarding your post on UK crime figures

Once again we come back to the problem with comparisons

As pointed out British levels of gun ownership were not very high even before the ban.

And as far as I can tell there have been several new crime bills since 1996 and these have I’m told resulted in changes in the way crimes are reported and what crimes are reported. The new rules it seems added offences that may not have been recorded before so seeming to increase the figures.

But whatever the relevance you seem to apply to these figures the thing is that this still doesn’t seem to help your argument

(so once again I ask)

You (and other Americans) seem to be so much more afraid of becoming the victim of crime than people in the UK and the British seem to have this attitude even when you contend that the crime rates high.

So you have to ask yourself why are some Americans so afraid?

Well there is one great difference between the US and the UK and that is the very high level of gun related homicides in the US and the high levels of gun ownership (both legal and not) that makes being shot such a greater possibility in the US.

I’ve pointed this out many times but all you can answer with is the rather fatuous and seemingly unfounded assertion that people in the UK ‘ignore’ crime.

You have also claimed that you are unafraid of crime, but you only stopped your seeming scare mongering about crime being deadly and everywhere, when I actually pointed out that you sounded scared. Suddenly then you started pointing out just how little you carried a gun and how little people had to be afraid of being a victim of crime. Which seems to undermine your argument that crime is such a clear and present threat that people need guns to defend themselves from it.

You say that guns are just a precaution, but that just brings up the same argument why do some Americans feel they need that precaution when most British don’t seem to feel the need.

**

You ask for facts and figures but as you see the question is still valid even if I accepted your figures.

Also my theory is based on the conversations I’ve had with you and others your very word and your present attempts not to talk about social issues etc seem to back my theory up.

And once again you seem to be using tricks and tactics to get out of the debate.