Gun ownership is MAD?

Once again Proud you made me laugh.

What is it with you people and not thinking through your posts?

And I’m sure this ‘rights’ argument has already been covered.

Anyway remember the thing about life and liberty being unalienable rights, they are, unless that is you break the rules and then most people accept that liberty (and in some places even life) can be removed.

And Pitt seems to disagree with you, he would not allow you a gun if you were a convicted felon, someone convicted of domestic assault or abuse, if you had been dishonourably discharged from the military, deemed mentally ill, and a host of other things. The point being that to him there isn’t an automatic right to own a gun.

To him and many others it is a limited right governed by the laws of the state.

I mean Proud come on man haven’t you being reading your own posts, or do you not think about the things you say?

“Congratulations again, you're five years and at least $90 more free than residents of my state (Missouri)”

By saying this you are acknowledging that laws govern what can and cannot be done legally.

 

So it seem worthwhile to ask in advance if since this last discussion, he has given any more thought to what he would do in relation to drugs and what his drugs policy would entail?

**

Its not my policy, its your suggestion on how to reduce crime. My thoughts were expressed above in the form of questions about this suggestion of yours. The point of these questions is that I see problems arising from your scenario as far as criminal activity goes. Like I said I see several drawbacks, problems and unanswered questions. Yet instead of directly addressing these questions/points you go off on another of your egotistical lengthy tirades.

Oh I always intended to discuss the points raised in Pitt’s post, I love to debate, but I was just wondering if he had actually thought about the subject since the last time (when he clearly hadn’t).

And I think I have my answer, he hasn’t thought about it (in line with my theory) he doesn’t really seem to have any ideas of his own regarding social issues.

**

 

goddam..I guess I'm just a dumb redneck,but what I thought was gonna be a fairly simple thread turned into something you need a college degree to follow.I own guns,(even handguns & so-called assault rifles).I hunt to supplement my family's food supply,enjoy target shooting,& also take pride in having a nice "collection",some of which are family heirlooms.Other than an occasional dwi,I am a law abiding citizen,so you gonna try to tell me I cant own a gun?pry it from my cold dead hands then

 

But you agree there are restrictions that you already support, you don’t think children or the mentally unstable or those with some types of criminal record should have guns (Post 131). These are in part to reduce crime”

Again I have already posted regarding this. These are common sense regulations designed to keep guns out of proven criminal hands and those without the mentality to handle firearms in a safe manner.

But those are restrictions are they not? And do they in your opinion help reduce possible crimes taking place?

What you seem to imply is that restrictions do and don’t have an effect on possible crime.

You can have this contradictory viewpoint because in your opinion the restrictions you support are good restrictions.

But that is an opinion.

Shane’s opinion seems to be that there should be no restrictions, Proud seems to support only the barest minimum of restrictions, you want a few more and I would like to see a few more than that (ones that you even supported).

I actually agree with Proud that many people have different opinions on the subject.

**

The thing is that once again you bring the conversation back to what you see as unfounded restriction of gun ownership and again that fits in with my theory about the pro-gunners being a hell of a lot more willing to discuss and defend guns as an integral part of American culture and as a means to tackle crime than they are to talk about socio-economic factors.


**

“But you seem to admit that restrictions do have merit”

Your spin is having no effect. I have spent 44 pages posting the facts and figures stating that gun ban/restrictions have NO effect on crime.

But do you seem to agree that restrictions do work.

Again it seems to come down to your opinion. In your opinion some restrictions, the ones you like, do reduce the possibility of crime and therefore should be in place.

To shane as I understand it restriction, any restriction, are the cause of the problem that there removal, total removal, would end all the problems. Proud’s view seem to be that it doesn’t matter what gun crimes are committed the greater crime would be to restrict people’s ‘right’ to own a gun.

Only you and me seem to be in favour of having restrictions in place to try and reduce crime.

But to me the real challenge is to bring about better society and gun restrictions are just a part of that, whereas to you (beyond the restrictions you support) it seems to be virtually totally about defending gun ownership and hardly any thought is given to making a better society.

**

” As I keep pointing out I haven’t proposed a gun ban in the list we agreed to and I believe in your last post agreed this was right.”

“6. In light of the above you still want to ban guns as shown in post #134 where you state:
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)
You may say this is not a ban but consider the fact you call for stopping the sale of new guns, stop the importation of guns, and when guns become so old (you never did say at what age this would be) they would be made inoperable. This is in itself a ban on guns that would take place over time.”

Again you are ignoring post. A gun ban is in effect a way to prevent law abiding citizens from owning/possessing guns. Which is what #6 essentially tries to do, So saying you did not suggest a ban is stretching the truth.

And this wasn’t in the proposals, I took it out in the following post after you disagreed with it and I’ve just said that only a few posts back

Ok here it is Post 423
“If you had actually read on you would have found out that I was willing to drop that proposal because of your objections, as I’ve said I’m willing to be pragmatic and reasonable
Again do you actually read what is posted?”

I mean man that was only a few posts ago, do you read the posts?

**

 

Hi, my little one was two on Monday (how does the time fly) and so haven’t been able to give this much thought until today. Sorry for the delay but as I’ve said I prefer to give posts my full attention before replying.

**

The Drugs issue

[Balbus] - “Legalise or bring under regulation drugs, softer drugs would be put under licence and the more addictive types put under medical supervision.”

**

So we legalize drugs and regulate them. Who would be the regulatory authority on these?

Is that important (I mean it could be that something new is set up)? I suppose I would place cannabis with alcohol and tobacco so who regulates that? Other types would come under medical supervision (in the UK the NHS).

**

I would assume the FDA, as with any legal drug. Being under regulation would definitely increase the cost to the end user by a great deal. Just look at prescription drugs now, do you not think the regulations have anything to do with these cost?

But the thing is that these are recreational drugs like alcohol.

People might grow their own cannabis for a small fee they would have to pay a larger fee if they went commercial. The plant isn’t hard to grow.
Governments could buy opium and coca on the world market.
Other drugs would be sold under licence (just as beer is brewed under licence and place that sell alcohol have to have a licence).

**

What will the people do that cannot afford these new costs?

This is based on the unknowable premise that they will be expensive.

**

Do we just give it to them for free?

In the case of those addicted to certain drugs yes.

**

Won’t that make the ones who pay for them mad or worse a target for theft?

This has not happened in the places were such methods (proscription) have been used like Britain, Netherlands and Switzerland.

This is the first volume of the long awaited research report on a much discussed study on the prescription of heroin and other narcotics to chronic heroin addicts in Switzerland. Data were collected over a period of three years on a cohort of 1,035 chronic heroin addicts who had failed in drug-free or methadone substitution treatments and who were prescribed heroin, morphine or methadone inb the framework of a comprehensive care program. According to the findings of the study, heroin maintenance can be considered feasible and has a positive effect on both patients and their social environment due to an improvement in health and social status of the patients as well as significant decrease in drug-related delinquency
http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/bookstore/380556791x.cfm

There are strong reasons to support the practice of prescribing heroin to drug misusers, researchers claim.
A University of Amsterdam team says the treatment is cost-effective, even though it is expensive.
The British Medical Journal study found the cost to health services was offset by savings linked to crime reduction.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4607233.stm

**

Wouldn’t this lead to a great deal illicit trade such as we have now?

This doesn’t seem to be a significant factor in the places it has taken place.

**

Who gives out this license and who would qualify? Again if a person didn’t qualify and still wanted the drug wouldn’t this lead to more crime and illicit trade?

I’m unsure what you mean by qualify or licence in this context? In the case of cannabis how do micro brewer’s get a licence?

**

Same questions go for who gets put under medical supervision?

Again please explain your thinking? I would guess that some combination of the procedures used in other places.

**

Maybe we make pot like alcohol, restrict it to certain aged people and sell it in little stores. What about the underage people, will they just wait until they are of legal age like they do with alcohol? Oh wait that don’t work with alcohol now, does it?

So are you saying that it would therefore be a lot better if alcohol prohibition was brought back?

**

Again you stance here seems to support my theory, I mean while you seem very able to talk at length in defence of guns you don’t seem to have given much thought at all to how to tackle with the social, economic and cultural faults in US society that you seem to believe guns can defend you against.

Again what are your ideas in relation to the drugs issue?

**

 

Proud

As I’ve said I agree with you, the regulation thing is just a matter of people’s opinion.

And as to the circumstances of your ban, it was all down to you faking a quote, you made something up and tried to pass it off as the words of someone else.

On a forum such as this I see that as serious.

 

longhair

Actually I haven’t proposed taking guns away from law abiding people.

 

“But those are restrictions are they not? And do they in your opinion help reduce possible crimes taking place?”

These restrictions are already in place.

So they are restrictions, if they are in place or not seems to be irrelevant, Shane and Proud would I suspect remove them, you would keep them and I would add to them. Differing opinions.

**

Taking weapons out of proven convicted criminals hands does I’m sure reduce repeat crime.

And so you agree that restrictions can reduce crime

**

As far as children and mentally unstable I think its more about preventing accidents because of the inability to safely handle weapons and lack of understanding. Its doubtful this reduces crime in any way.

But you seem to have said that if you think people show signs of mentally unstable they should not be allowed access to legal guns as they may kill people with them (we talk about just recently do you want me to quote from those posts?).

**

Again you claim I am “supporting” something as if I would run out and vote to pass legislation to implement these.

So when you said ‘bravo’ or ‘good’ you meant ‘so so’ and ‘average’?

**

How many times do I have to say that adding more laws without enforcing the existing is useless.

But as I keep pointing out you don’t know why the present laws are not being enforced and don’t seem very bothered that they are not.

One idea was that there are too many laws in which case it would seem the existing legislation needs to be repealed and replaced with clearer and simpler laws. When I last suggested that you said it wouldn’t work because the new laws wouldn’t be enforced (why that would be you didn’t say)

Basically you seem to want to do nothing (except defend guns)


**

 

Post 442

“Is that important (I mean it could be that something new is set up)?”

(Pitt) Have you not thought this through? After all its your proposal?

“I would guess that some combination of the procedures used in other places.”

(Pitt) Do you not think about this proposal of yours?

“So are you saying that it would therefore be a lot better if alcohol prohibition was brought back?”

(Pitt) No it was a question about age limits etc. Since you didn’t answer I assume you haven’t thought through your proposal on this point.

**

These replies make me think you have never been involved in politics or haven’t had much experience in any organisation?

How can I try and explain this in a simple way you might understand.

You think about building a house – that is the proposal

You discuss the proposal with your family and friends – that is consultation/committee stage.

You then hire an architect to make the plans.

Your argument seems to be that since the person that made the proposal doesn’t know what colour the paint in the downstairs loo is going to be, the whole proposal hasn’t been thought through.

The thing is that there are in fact many opinions on how to bring in legalisation. For example some believe in an immediate switchover and others in a gradual process.

I’m not a dictator I can be pragmatic (as I was with you and the gun control proposals) and believe in hearing others peoples views.

So what are your views (and please no more cheap jibs)

**

“No it was a question about age limits etc”

No, your actual words were - “Maybe we make pot like alcohol, restrict it to certain aged people and sell it in little stores. What about the underage people, will they just wait until they are of legal age like they do with alcohol? Oh wait that don’t work with alcohol now, does it?”

“Oh wait that don’t work with alcohol now, does it?”

Come on man, this was just another of your jibs. You set up a straw man then knocked it down, a very old and very cheap trick

You are implying that because the restrictions on underage drinking are sometimes broken so my proposal just wouldn’t work.

My reply was making the point of what do you think is better, a few underage drinkers or the problems that full alcohol prohibition bought?

What I’m proposing is about harm reduction and taking the trade out of the corrupting influence of criminal control.

What are your ideas?

**

“But the thing is that these are recreational drugs like alcohol.

What will the people do that cannot afford these new costs?

This is based on the unknowable premise that they will be expensive”

Unknowable premise huh? Tax on alcohol is currently $13.5 per proof gallon with current debate of increasing it to $16.00 and some are pushing for even higher rate. How can you think the cost would not go up? Again in your utopian fantasy world maybe it will remain cheap.

So are you saying that people are unable to afford to get a beer in the US?

Imagine, in the case of cannabis anyone could grow his or her own plants and commercial production would hugely bring down the price. At the moment production has to be hidden, which is expensive and shipping has to be in small amounts not bulk which is also expensive. Also the risks to the distributors also has a tendency to hike up the price to the final customers.

**

“Do we just give it to them for free?

In the case of those addicted to certain drugs yes.”

So the good old tax payer pays for the addicts habit? I am sure this will win broad support.

Well many people argue that it actually pays for itself by reducing crime.

“There are strong reasons to support the practice of prescribing heroin to drug misusers, researchers claim.
A University of Amsterdam team says the treatment is cost-effective, even though it is expensive.
The British Medical Journal study found the cost to health services was offset by savings linked to crime reduction”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4607233.stm

According to the findings of the study, heroin maintenance can be considered feasible and has a positive effect on both patients and their social environment due to an improvement in health and social status of the patients as well as significant decrease in drug-related delinquency
http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/b.../380556791x.cfm

**

It is very interesting to me that through out all these pages of post your ego has yet to let you see your own duality about the subjects you speak about.
Begining in post 147 you state

“My own view is that ‘prohibition’ itself breeds more likelihood of crime and that the best way of dealing with it is to take it out of the hands of criminals so that it is regulated, taxed and controlled.”

You seem to prove this is indeed your way of thinking (I am not saying this is right or wrong) and your opinion, by references to removing/reducing prohibition on "recreational drugs".

Yet in your next breath you tout the virtues and sing praises of how the UK has enacted its own prohibition when it comes to firearms. Even to the point of wishing it on the US.

So just where do I sing the praises of how the UK has enacted its own prohibition when it comes to firearms?

I am sure (as its your MO) you will use this post to claim I am trying to turn the thread back to the topic of guns. However this is not what this is. This is an observation of your own duality. That it is you that may not think things through before you speak. The very thing you seem to claim of everyone else with such disdain

What duality?

(and yet again this is something we have been though before)

I believe the drugs trade should be taken out of the hands of criminals I also would like to take guns out of the hands of criminals, in both cases I thing regulation is the way.

**

 

Post 448

“So they are restrictions, if they are in place or not seems to be irrelevant, Shane and Proud would I suspect remove them, you would keep them and I would add to them. Differing opinions.”

Actually it appears according to this that Shane, proud and I have differing opinions. Your opinion on this particular point is meaningless as you want to add something that already exist.

So are you saying that all the proposals already exist?

Lets look at them again –

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.

Are there any that don’t already exist?

**

“And so you agree that restrictions can reduce crime”

Again this is a common sense thing. It’s like a person convicted of DUI multiple times has their driver’s license taken away from them as they are a high risk of repeating this same crime. However this restriction directly effects proven convicted felony criminals and does not apply in the least to the law abiding citizen. Again my challenge is to show me where restricting/banning guns to the population in general reduces crime.

I don’t think there are penalties for people that do not break the restrictions, which is in effect is the definition of a law abiding person.

If someone breaks the law then they become a criminal.

If the laws isn’t there they cannot break it.

So if it wasn’t the law that criminals be allowed to own guns then they could own guns legally.

The law is there so that possible future crimes could be averted

So let us then look at psychological evaluation before owning a gun.

Without it people that are mentally unstable could own guns legally.

If the law was in place it is possible that future crimes could be averted

**

(we talk about just recently do you want me to quote from those posts?).”

I believe I have said they did not have the mental or physical ability to safely handle firearms. Yes please show me where I said “they may kill people with them”

Talking about people that should be evaluated as to if they can own a gun you said “If someone says they want to go shoot up a school, that’s not a joke that’s a threat” and someone saying such a thing should be tested and if they fail be stripped of their right to own guns.

**

“But as I keep pointing out you don’t know why the present laws are not being enforced and don’t seem very bothered that they are not.”

Your right I do not know why. Maybe I should quit work sell by businesses and start a nationwide study to find out.

Nothing so drastic, but it seems to me that the question of why is important if you truly want to get guns out of the hands of criminals?

Locally its just apathy and not a high priority to search convicted felons cars and houses for weapons when they are caught again.

So to have an opinion you didn’t have to sell your business? So why the apathy and why is it such a low priority? To me there seems like there is something very wrong with your society if trying to stop gun crime is so unimportant.

**

“One idea was that there are too many laws in which case it would seem the existing legislation needs to be repealed and replaced with clearer and simpler laws.”

Sounds good, the only problem is there are only so many federal laws and then there are state laws, then there are county/municipality laws. I would love to scrap them all and set up one jurisdiction for the whole country. The problem there is places like CA, and DC would never go for the less restrictive states ideas and they in turn would not go for the more restrictive states ideas.

So what is the problem between CA, DC and the other states?

**

 

“You think about building a house – that is the proposal”

Actually that is the conception stage not the proposal.

LOL - So do you propose sex and having children to a woman before you try and conceive with her or after?

 

Post 449

“These replies make me think you have never been involved in politics or haven’t had much experience in any organisation?”

Figure out that I have never been a politician all by yourself? Your correct.

From this I can tell you have never been involved in business before. If you approach the company with a proposal and they ask you about certain details it is your responsibility to provide these details. You cannot just say you tell me.

So you put forward the proposal that the company you work for may need a new office building.

Someone asks you what colour the paint will be in the third floor west side toilet is going to be.

Would you think that was a good and pertinent question or rather irrelevant?

**

“You discuss the proposal with your family and friends – that is consultation/committee stage.”

It takes a committee to build a house in the UK?

It depends on the circumstances personally if I was thinking about something like that I would consult with my partner, family and friends (wouldn’t you?). But in a company or organisation such a proposal would normally involve the setting up of a committee(s).
How would you do it?

**

Built a lot of houses have ya? I have and am very familiar with the procedures.

So why do you seem so naïve about it all?

**

“Your argument seems to be that since the person that made the proposal doesn’t know what colour the paint in the downstairs loo is going to be, the whole proposal hasn’t been thought through.”

So in your scenario if someone asks you what color the downstairs bathroom is going to be most people would say either I don’t know or pink maybe blue. Your ego on the other hand does not allow for such a simple answer to a direct question or admission. Your attitude seems to be I thought of the idea now you figure out how to make it work and don’t bother asking me about details just tell me how to handle the details.

To me the question would seem unimportant at that time. But in fact you asked if it was to be the FDA and I replied that it might be the FDA or something new (the equivalent of saying that it might be pink or blue) which seems to be what you wanted. So there you are.

**

“Come on man, this was just another of your jibs. You set up a straw man then knocked it down, a very old and very cheap trick”

HAHA So because of the last 10 words you just ignore the other 38? Just answer the question.

But the question you asked you also answered.

**

“What I’m proposing is about harm reduction and taking the trade out of the corrupting influence of criminal control. “

And I have asked about the facets that will remain in criminal control. You have as of yet declined direct comment to these questions.

What facets that will remain in criminal control?

You put forward some objections and I addressed them you’re not ignoring my replies again are you?

**

What are your ideas?”

Again this is your proposal. I am the one asking for clarification of some points. This is called discussion, you make proposal, I ask questions about proposal, you answer questions, I voice concerns, you address concerns. You might want to try it sometimes.

But the questions have been discussed or are in the process of being discussed?

**

“So are you saying that people are unable to afford to get a beer in the US?”

If you want to get technical yes, many cannot afford it and many more do not need to afford it. I see many people complaining about how they cannot pay their credit card bill while at the checkout counter with 2 cases of beer and a fifth of whisky.

If you will do a little reading there are groups pushing for this even higher tax rate (that I already mentioned) for the express purpose of curtailing alcohol consumption by in effect raising the price.

So you are saying that people in the US commit crimes in order to pay for a beer?

**

“Imagine, in the case of cannabis anyone could grow his or her own plants and commercial production would hugely bring down the price. At the moment production has to be hidden, which is expensive and shipping has to be in small amounts not bulk which is also expensive. Also the risks to the distributors also has a tendency to hike up the price to the final customers.”

Oh yeah I often see the local crack dealer as he walks into his mansion. The end cost to the user would increase dramatically if brought under regulation.

Why are you talking about the local crack dealer walking into his mansion?

I’ve explained why I think the cost to the user would be lower what are your reasons for thinking them higher under regulation?

**

“Well many people argue that it actually pays for itself by reducing crime.”

So what you’re saying is that we pay for the heroin addict’s habit so we can reduce the cost of police by what reducing the number of patrolmen?

So where do I say I wish to reduce the number of patrolmen?

**

“What duality?

(and yet again this is something we have been though before)

I believe the drugs trade should be taken out of the hands of criminals I also would like to take guns out of the hands of criminals, in both cases I thing regulation is the way.”

You still cannot see it. Move away from prohibition on drugs while moving toward prohibition on guns.

But how many times do I have to tell you I don’t propose to ban guns, law abiding people would still be able to own guns.


**

 

I’m a couple of posts behind here as I’ve been spending my time doing my bit of “merciful and compassionate child care” like a good socialist as Proud would have it, my little one has a touch of flu and is teething.

Anyway got this for the moment.

Balbus

**

Pitt

“So what are your views”

Well I no longer do any type of drugs except for alcohol. I have nothing personally against anyone who wants to smoke MJ and other recreational drugs. The problem I see with your proposal is that you want to include the addictive and in my opinion dangerous drugs. You also want me to pay for some guys heroin who just cant afford it himself (probably because no one will hire a known heroin addict).

Like I said it’s your proposal, you tell me how you handle these details.

Now this seems to be confirmation of my theory.

There really doesn’t seem to have been much thought put into these views

As I’ve said my idea about a drugs policy are based on reducing harm and take the trade out of the corrupting hands of criminals.

They have a purpose.

You clearly haven’t got a purpose, oh you do when it comes to guns, then your purpose is to defend and promote their ownership, but when it comes to such a social issue as a drugs policy things all go a bit fuzzy and directionless.

This is the equivalent of a shrug of the shoulders a ‘I don’t know’.

You have nothing personally against anyone who wants to smoke MJ and other recreational drugs, but what does this mean? People do it at the moment are you saying that you wouldn’t change things? Are you saying that these drugs would be decriminalised (like in the Netherlands) or would those drugs be legalised?

And what would be your purpose in doing something? That you didn’t have anything personally against it!

And what about the wider context what do you think about drugs in your society. Who should get the profits from this billion(s) dollar industry?

In my view that money would be better off in the hands of law abiding citizens.

As to what you call more dangerous drugs, would they continue the same? I mean that is, in fact the greater problem, being the root of much more crime and deaths. Are you saying that you feel happy with the corrupting influence of drug money, of people getting killed because of the trade, of the lives ruined?

You have a problem with my proposals for addicts but many people say that it is better to give them a supply than let them steal money to get their own supply. And the thing is that with a clean guaranteed supply addicts can hold down jobs whereas if they have to hunt for their own supply they more often than not, don’t. It takes them out of the loop and away from the dealers.

The other thing is why are people taking such dangerous drugs have you thought about that? Again for me it is about harm reduction and a holistic approach and this would be something else to tackle so that people didn’t get hooked in the first place.

**

 

Proud

“Kids can worry a person ragged, even when there's nothing wrong with them”

Don’t I know it, the little one only has to cough and I’m having premonitions of pneumonia, but that is a parent’s lot (or thankfully most parents). We care, and if anything that’s my viewpoint, that caring shouldn’t end at your family it should extend to your society and even the world we live in (hell, doesn’t that sound so bloody hippy)

Anyway thanks for your words.

**

PS: The little one is much better not sure it was flu, more probably a cold mixed with the teething making her seem worse than she was.

 

Post 452

“So are you saying that all the proposals already exist?”

Oh god balbus more spin on your part. You know very well what was being talked about. It was about 2 TWO particular proposals that you reiterated. You accuse me of cheap jibs and right after you try and pull something like this.

Not spin if you read your posts you don’t actually seem to make any distinction. To suddenly get so huffy and angry because I haven’t somehow picked up what you mean telepathically seems a bit silly. Come on man, cool down and try and think straight, I’m not a mind reader so please explain which of the proposals, that I’ve posted more than once, do you object to?

**

“I don’t think there are penalties for people that do not break the restrictions, which is in effect is the definition of a law abiding person.”

Again your double speaks trying to confuse the point and turn it around to suit your purpose.
I will reiterate this once again.
Again my challenge is to show me where restricting/banning guns to the population in general reduces crime.

Once again - I agree with the restrictions that you support which you seem to believe do reduce crime and think some others in the same vain would help (which you seemed to support).

**

“Talking about people that should be evaluated as to if they can own a gun you said “If someone says they want to go shoot up a school, that’s not a joke that’s a threat” and someone saying such a thing should be tested and if they fail be stripped of their right to own guns.”

And what exactly has this to do with underage people of those adjudicated mentally incompetent?
I asked for you to show me where I said “they (underage or mentally deficient) may kill people with them”

I’m not sure what you mean?

You want to investigate people that say threatening things with the intention of removing their ‘right’ to own guns legally if they don’t pass muster or have I completely misunderstood you?

**

Besides that the actual quote from post 410 was:

Like I said one would not be under suspicion for an inappropriate joke. If someone says they want to go shoot up a school, that’s not a joke that’s a threat. And should be investigated as such. I think I have answered this very question a few times.

Large jump from (your statement) an individual being tested and (my statement) an incident being investigated.

You now seem to have resorted to well lets just say less than honest tactics.

But how do you investigate, I had presumably by questioning the person in some way.

Investigate, analyse, test, question, examine, probe, research, evaluate etc, however you say it you want to see if they should be allowed to own guns legally or not.

**

“So what is the problem between CA, DC and the other states?”

oh my if you do not know you should perhaps read a little more before getting involved with a gun ban debate.
CA = one of the most restrictive states in the country when it comes to firearms.
DC = completely bans handguns and also held the record for the highest murder rate per capita in the country.

So the question I pose if we do away with all existing gun laws then whose example should we follow? CA or FL? Or whichever states you wish to choose.

If it were possible I would probably propose that there be one set of straight forward and clear federal laws, (these would include the proposals we both support) then the states could have their own laws as long as they didn’t interfere with the federal ones.

**

 

Post 453

I am going to break protocol on this and call you an idiot.

I have a company that works in the construction industry. In construction you have differing proposal stages. Proposals from architect to owner and proposals from contractors..
Main Entry: pro•pos•al
Pronunciation: pr&-'pO-z&l
Function: noun
1 : an act of putting forward or stating something for consideration

You see thinking about building a house is not stating something for consideration. However in the case of an architect’s proposal top an owner he proposes to build a house of a certain size and style. A contractor proposal will state the type of materials and techniques he will use.

You have done nothing but show your ignorance in this subject.

Oh I remember you had trouble before with metaphors, they become separated from the original purpose and grew a life of their own, and you get so uppity and rude along the way.

OK I’ll try and get it back on track

The proposal in this instance is the beginning of the process, the very first suggestion, I thought I had made that clear but somehow you seem to have missed it.

For example you wouldn’t get the metal contractors to cut lengths of girder without knowing before hand what lengths you would want?

I mean you call me an idiot but do you actually realise how idiotic what you seem to be saying is?

You seem to be saying that all the differing proposal stages are in a sense the same.

That it doesn’t matter in what order within the process they come in?

So that even before you have the plans for the house you have the cement foundation laid or the glass for the windows cut, and you do all that even before asking the owner of the property if they want to sell it to you?

Come on man, this just seems like you are trying to start a fight just for the sake of it.

**

 

Post 454

“Would you think that was a good and pertinent question or rather irrelevant?”

On the initial meeting irrelevant, however when the proposer claims to have and continuously think about such things then that would not be an unacceptable question.

But that is my point we have only just started to discuss the proposal the first time I brought it up you were not interested in discussing it. This time you seem to be demanding for a great amount of detail without the general premise being discussed.

I mean by asking for details are you in fact accepting those proposals?

It seems clear from other posts that you don’t.

**

“How would you do it?”

Me personally the exact same way I did it 2 years ago. Discuss options we wanted in a custom house. I personally laid out the house. Drew a complete set plans. Plotted out a dozen copies of the plans. Decided which parts I would do myself, contacted contractors for the rest. Planned out a budget. Staked out the house on my property. And started.

Most people generally go directly to an architect or GC and let them handle all the details.

So did you discussed if first with your family and friends?

**

“So why do you seem so naïve about it all?”

Shall we compare house building experience? I have to assume you are in the business with such a bold statement.

When I was younger I helped build a few houses and a couple of skyscrapers. But no I’m not experienced in building a place from beginning to end although I know a few architects and could probably learn.

But in a way you make my point

I would propose the idea
Discuss if it is a good idea or not with my family and friends
Then pass over these ideas to someone more competent, like a architect, to make the plans.

So

I propose that drugs should be legalised
A discussion ensures of if this is a good idea etc.
And possibly sometime in the future it is decided to be acted on, I would be happy to hand over to someone more competent, like those architects of law, lawyers.

You asked if the new products would come under the FDA or something else, my answer was they could be either, whichever it was however would still be implementing the same policy.

**

“But the question you asked you also answered.”

I gave my opinion, and asked for yours. What’s the deal, You haven’t thought that far ahead?

You said - Maybe we make pot like alcohol, restrict it to certain aged people and sell it in little stores. What about the underage people, will they just wait until they are of legal age like they do with alcohol? Oh wait that don’t work with alcohol now, does it?

I’ve already said (several times) that in my opinion cannabis would be regulated in the same way as alcohol. Why ask me again?

Yes it would be age restricted like alcohol, I think I’ve said that before as well.

Yes it is likely that just as with alcohol some underage people will get hold of cannabis, in all the same way as they do drink, (raiding their parents supply, getting others to buy for them, etc).

But what I’m talking about is harm reduction (which I’ve said several times), do you think that because some underage people can get drink that all alcohol should be prohibited?

**

“What facets that will remain in criminal control?

You put forward some objections and I addressed them you’re not ignoring my replies again are you?”

The ones I stated and you did not address these.

So are you saying that you cannot tell me which ‘facets’ I’m supposed to not have addressed?

Again I’m not telepathic, if you don’t know how am I to know?

**

“So you are saying that people in the US commit crimes in order to pay for a beer?”

Jesus Christ where the hell did I say that? Your double speak is running rampant today.

Then I’m confused what was your point in bringing it up in the first place?

**

“I’ve explained why I think the cost to the user would be lower what are your reasons for thinking them higher under regulation?”

I have already stated the reasons and concerns to this specific point.

And I seem to have replied to them, if you have some points or believe something has not been covered why not make them clear rather than giving everyone the run around like this, I’m not telepathic and I don’t think anyone else is?

**

“So where do I say I wish to reduce the number of patrolmen?”

That was a question. Let me put this in elementary terms for you. You claim it is cheaper because of the reduction in crime.
Tax payers pay for drug habit.
Tax payers pay for police to combat crime.
Where is the savings come from?

Addicts commit a lot of crime to feed their habit, feed them and they stop committing those crimes therefore freeing up police time to deal with other crimes more effectively.

It has been calculated that in the UK such treatment costs £12,000 a year per addict while drug users steal property valued at an average of £45,000 a year.

This involves time, resources, insurance, people’s personal loss, etc.

And as I’ve said this is an integrated system, a lot of the price of the treatment will be offset by increases from revenue from the legal sale of other drugs.

**

“But how many times do I have to tell you I don’t propose to ban guns, law abiding people would still be able to own guns.”

Well firstly you did propose a ban. Now you say you have dropped it.
The problem with your statement is that you would decide who COULD own guns instead of deciding who COULD NOT own guns.

LOL so after telling you I had dropped it maybe a hundred plus times over the last 300 posts you eventually realise I dropped it. If that is the norm, and you only read (or understand) what I saying after multiple repetitions and hundreds of posts then this thread is going to really run.

Also think about it, deciding who could do something is the same as saying who could not do something.

If you decide that only adults can do something then you have also decide that what you term children cannot.

**

 

This is the equivalent of a shrug of the shoulders a ‘I don’t know’.”

Again is there a response to the questions I asked about your plan in there somewhere?

As I’ve said I’m a post or two behind here, I think I’ve covered your questions but if I haven’t just point them out and I’ll take a look.

But I’m saying that your idea’s on a policy for drugs are the equivalent of a shrug of the shoulders seems valid for the reasons I have given.

That is they seem fuzzy and lack a direction or purpose.

**

“You have nothing personally against anyone who wants to smoke MJ and other recreational drugs, but what does this mean?”

It means there are drugs that I see as no worse than alcohol (ie recreational drugs) and there are drugs I consider destructive/dangerous (ie Heroin). Decriminalizing these I have no problem with however you want to go further and decriminalize even the more dangerous ones like heroin.

I would legalise such drugs as cannabis (which would be sold and produced under licence like tobacco and alcohol). But I expressly say that addictive drugs such as enhanced opiates would be available only through prescription.

Once more you do not seem to be reading the posts.

**

“In my view that money would be better off in the hands of law abiding citizens.”

Sure at least until it gets taken over by big corporations. And the Law abiding citizen just gets stuck with the bill for the heroin addicts supply.

And why would you let it be taken over by big corporations?

Here is something I said right back in post 147 (you quoted from the same post just above, did you not read this bit?)

“The licences for the legal recreational drugs would go to independents or local community co-ops (not to big companies)”

**

“As to what you call more dangerous drugs, would they continue the same?”

Even if they were legalized and regulated do we just give them all they want without limitations? there is a reason an addict is an addict, if they get all the Dr will prescribe to them and they want more what do you think will happen?

Actually I was asking you what your ideas about dealing with what you call dangerous drugs would be?

As to my own ideas they would be conducted along the lines of past and present systems for example in the UK, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

**

“Are you saying that you feel happy with the corrupting influence of drug money, of people getting killed because of the trade, of the lives ruined?”

I don’t believe I have ever said that. I think a better approach is to get then in rehab for these highly addictive drugs rather than just giving them a free endless supply.

From what I’ve read I believe rehab would be a lot more expensive, first you have to catch your addict then have a court case to put them in rehab then make sure they stay there and that is all before the cost of the treatment.

If an addict is going to get a fix then they will willingly come along and remember that people given a clean source can actually stay in the community and so can work.

Also the point is to get people off the drugs with addicts getting counselling and treatments.

**

“And the thing is that with a clean guaranteed supply addicts can hold down jobs whereas if they have to hunt for their own supply they more often than not, don’t.”

How many business owners do you know that wants to willingly hire a known active heroin addict?

The thing is that many people do hire and employ addicts right now they just don’t know that the person they have hired or are employing is an addict.

From what I’ve heard many of those on the programme in Switzerland have jobs.

**

“The other thing is why are people taking such dangerous drugs have you thought about that?”

Again back to this, there are as many reasons as there are addicts. If you could whittle things down to one root cause it could be cured quickly. Different people will require differing tactics and programs.

As I keep telling you I don’t believe in one root cause but I have said that the only way to tackle some problems is to try and find out what the causes are. For example depression is often a reason why people turn to drink or drugs, now there might be many reasons or events that brought about that depression but if treated early many people that could become addicts can recover from a bout of depression without resorting to drink or drugs.

Once again we have been through this more than once in this thread. I suggest looking at why the problems have arisen, you accuse me of looking for “one root cause” and I have to explain (again) that I’m not.

As I’ve said before your argument (that every reason will be different for every person), seems to insinuate that nothing can be done by implying that we cannot treat everyone, therefore the task is impossible.

As I’ve said you seem to want to give up before you have even started.

**

“Again for me it is about harm reduction and a holistic approach and this would be something else to tackle so that people didn’t get hooked in the first place.”

That’s great where we differ is I do not think you should put the cart before the horse. Cure the criminal aspects of society then there would be no need for people to own firearms for the sole purpose of protection.

You say cure the criminal aspects of society, but that is what I’m proposing with this integrated and holistic approach.

What are your ideas?

So far your approach seems to be to do nothing (except promote guns), for example you not only seem adverse to thinking about alternatives to the present drugs policy but seem rather antagonistic toward suggested changes. The same with guns you openly say that you don’t know why the present laws are not being enforced except to guess it is all down to apathy?

It seems to me that if left up to you the main way you would suggest for dealing with the criminal aspects of your society would be threat and suppression.

Again my theory, in relation to you, seems to still hold.

**

 

“Come on man, cool down and try and think straight, I’m not a mind reader so please explain which of the proposals”

You have completely lost it balbus, you are no longer following the conversation in any logical order. I post references at the beginning of my post referring you to the proper place. You evidently do not read these references because your replies are gibberish. I think you do this on purpose to try and confuse the subject to meet your POV.

Pitt

Your posts seem to be descending into point scoring sessions or desperate attempts to derail this debate.

For example if we run through this proposal thing it goes like this -

You said “you want to add something that already exist”

I asked if all of the eight proposals existed since you seem to be suggesting that they were and I don’t believe they are.

You relied “It was about 2 TWO particular proposals”

But that doesn’t say if all the eight proposals existed or which two you are talking about?

So I asking which of the proposals you are talking about seems extremely valid, but I think you just wanted to ‘score’ a point by saying it was gibberish.

**

Here is another example

(Me) “Again I’m not telepathic, if you don’t know how am I to know?”

(you) pathetic. Go read the referenced post.

The thing is I do read the referenced posts, the problem seems to be that you don’t, if you had you would have realised that again I had a valid point.

The thing is that I don’t think you care, this for you was just another opportunity to try and ‘score’ a point by calling me pathetic.

(It is also an old debating derailing trick a variation on the one you are already using, of bringing up old subjects that have already been covered.)

Again let us examine the sequence of posts -

I said - “What I’m proposing is about harm reduction and taking the trade out of the corrupting influence of criminal control“

You replied – “And I have asked about the facets that will remain in criminal control. You have as of yet declined direct comment to these questions”

This confused me since we seemed to have already covered those points so I asked - “What facets that will remain in criminal control? You put forward some objections and I addressed them you’re not ignoring my replies again are you?”

Your reply was more cryptic than enlightening – “The ones I stated and you did not address these”

Still no wiser I asked – “So are you saying that you cannot tell me which ‘facets’ I’m supposed to not have addressed? Again I’m not telepathic, if you don’t know how am I to know?

And you reply by saying I’m pathetic.

Even using your references doesn’t help me (or anyone else) understand what you are talking about.

As far as I’m concerned I’ve already addressed your objections and concerns. Think about it if you are unable to point out which of your objections and concerns have not been addressed then really how do you know they haven’t been addressed?

**

I’ll answer more of your posts when i can.

**

 

Everyone should own multiple firearms.