Gun ownership is MAD?

OK here a few more replies -

“Once again - I agree with the restrictions…….”

Once again is there an answer to my question/challenge in there somewhere?

But come on man we have been through this time and again your question is ‘do restrictions limit crime’ and you have already admitted that they do.

**

“I’m not sure what you mean?”

OMG you claimed I said “X”. I never said such a thing and I asked you to show me that quote. Again you refused apparently. Why would this be?

What quote are you saying that I claimed you said?

I think the problem here is that you believe something has been said when, if you had actually read the post it actually hasn’t.

This again seems to be another point scoring exercise rather than a genuine question.

**

“But how do you investigate,”

That would depend on the situation now wouldn’t it?

But as I’ve pointed out this would still mean that the person is in some way evaluated, tested etc

What is the point your are trying to make here?

I was pointing out that you seemed to wish to investigate people that showed threatening behaviour with the intention of seeing if they could or could not own guns legally.

You reply seems more like that of a petulant teenager.

**

“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.”

So basically the same exact system we have now? Not sure how that would help as you didn’t change anything.

Are you saying that all the proposals I made (that you supported) are already in Federal law?

**

“Oh I remember you had trouble before with metaphors, they become separated from the original purpose and grew a life of their own,”

oh please, If you are going to use a metaphor at least pick one you have enough knowledge about so that it makes sense.

Why doesn’t it make sense?

I was saying that there is a process in building anything starting at the beginning and working in stages to the end. What is it about this that doesn’t make sense?

**

“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?”

what? Just the opposite in fact. All I said was that the terms you were using in your metaphor was being used incorrectly and out of order. Like I said if you are going to use metaphors at least pick a subject you have at least enough knowledge in to make sense.

As I’ve said you seem to be taking this metaphor way to seriously, are you honestly saying that your argument is with my terminology not the metaphor of a process? That seems incredibly pedantic, even petty.

**

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

family of course since this is a custom house. Friends why? This discussion is the conceptual stage.

Which as I’ve been saying is the first stage in the process.

The thing is that this argument seems to be something of a tangent and seems more about you trying to score points than having any real relevance.

***

“Then I’m confused what was your point in bringing it up in the first place?”
pathetic. Go read the referenced post.

Again this seems more like you just wish to say pathetic, than it is about you wanting to actually discuss things in a sensible, honest and open way.

To re-cap

You seemed to be suggesting that beer was very expensive and so cannabis would also be very expensive I was trying to point out that as far as I knew so called ‘expensive’ beer didn’t seem to be resulting in major crime.

What point are you trying to make?

**

“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.”

You must have some pretty good criminal addicts over there. I think I need some references to those figures. I find it highly doubtful that each drug user steals an average of 45,000/year.

Howard Roberts told an Association of Chief Police Officers' conference in Manchester the idea should be assessed. He said the treatment would cost £12,000 a year per addict but added that drug users steal property valued at an average of £45,000 a year
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/6172392.stm

I’ve also posted this twice

“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

**

“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.”

Again each post is referenced and quoted. It should not be that hard to follow for such a smart umm person as you.

LOL So you don’t know what questions you think have been answered and which not? I’m beginning to see why you keep going back to subjects that we have already covered.

I mean come on man if you want a question answered just ask the question, all this blindfolded pin the tail on the right question, seems more like a game, trick or tactic designed to derail the debate than a real desire for a question to be answered.

**

”But I expressly say that addictive drugs such as enhanced opiates would be available only through prescription.”

And paid for by the tax payer. I don’t see that as being a valid way to help these people.

What is your point, are you saying that the problem is with the tax (because you say later “people are willing to pay more”) or are you saying that it is just the matter of the prescriptions? If so what are your objections to a system that seems to have benefits, for society and the addicts themselves?

**

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

the same way they have taken over all highly profitable ventures. The question is how would you STOP them.

I’ve already said (in the same post as the one you get the quote from) that –

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

It is also be possible to limit the percentage any company can own of the particular industry.

**

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

Something’s ie some drugs should remain illegal. Giving people free access to addictive drugs does not help these people it only invites a wider spread use.

I know this is your opinion but why? Why in your opinion does this not help the addicts, why does this in your opinion spread use, and what would be your alternatives?

**

“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.”

But the thing is people are willing to pay more to help people get off addictive drugs where as they will be much more reluctant to just pay to support their habit.

Are people willing to pay more to help people get off addictive drugs? And if the present system is working so well why are things not a lot better than they seem to be at the moment?

**

“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.”

But that’s the point of my post. Again Ill ask: How many business owners do you know that wants to willingly hire a known active heroin addict?

As I’ve said many of the addicts on the programmes in Switzerland (and elsewhere) were employed.

**

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

So that’s why I never have anything to do with social programs? Oh please why such utter nonsense?

Oh I’m not saying that you are not whiling to prop up the present system what I’m pointing out is that you seem antagonistic toward anything new that might actually go a long way to dealing with these problems.

**

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

Audemus jura nostra defendere

“We Dare Defend Our Rights"

Well I’ve already been through the whole ‘rights’ thing before (a few times) and this doesn’t actually dispute or refute my opinion.

(I believe it is the state motto of Alabama, a state that was defeated in the civil war defending its right to own slaves)

**

 

So here is another example of you seeming to preferring to point score rather than have an open and honest debate.

“you accuse me of looking for “one root cause” and I have to explain (again) that I’m not.”

Yet back when we were going through this before you were never satisfied with an answer.
(me) are addicted because X
(you) but why are they X
(me) I don’t know maybe because of X
(you) but why are they X
(me) I don’t know maybe because of X
(you) but why are they X

Basically you seem to be saying that because I might ask question of the things you say you are not going to discuss anything that I might ask questions of.

**

First it must be noted that you are not tackling the issues raised in the post just trying to justify not tackling the issues raised in the post.

“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.

What is your view on this?
Can you see that although their might be many reasons for the depression the depression can be treated?

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.

Is that your position if not, can you say how you would help these people turning to drugs?


**

Also I had to laugh when I read your reply, you make out you are so reasonable by making it seem you were so accommodating (maybe because of X) while I was so uncompromising (but why).

The thing is that in reality you were never that forthcoming, that’s why this thread is so long.

When I believe you were first asked why people might be addicts

Your actual reply was “the WHY part of this question will vary from person to person”

And basically you have stuck to that reply.

I’ve explained several times that you don’t have to know every root cause to help people but you keep saying things like “the root causes will vary from person to person” (103) and you seem to be saying the same thing now “there are as many reasons as there are addicts”(461)

You haven’t really gone into the ‘maybe’ this or that of the subject, just kept repeating the same shrug like thing of there being many causes.

I’ve said many times that I agreed that their could be many causes but where I want to help you seem to see the ‘many causes’ idea as a way out, an excuse for doing nothing that might actually change things for the better.

As to the ‘one root cause’ idea that is totally yours, you keep accusing me of saying there is only one root cause and I keep having to explain that I don’t

Here is an example of a typical exchange from Post 178

(Ptit) I have given you my answer to the question, you have not responded yourself as to what this one root cause is”

I’ve said there are many causes, social, economic, environmental, to do with up-bringing and peer pressure, I’ve pointed out the effects of a consumerist and an unequal society. I’ve written often at length about them.
And I’ve even tried to explain some things that could be done.

But it doesn’t seem to matter how many times I say I don’t believe in ‘one root cause’ you just ignore what I say and accuse me again. Why?

**

 

Ridiculous balbus if you follow the post using the references and quotations you will find the exact thing that was being talked about

Ok here is the whole proposals sequence from -

Post 441

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.


**

Post 445

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

**

Post 448

“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.


**

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.


**

Post 452

“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?


**

Post 455

“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.

**

Post 464

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?

**

Post 468

“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.


**

 

Notes on the proposal sequence

If anyone reads it they can see how clear it is.

Post 441 - I point out that I wish to add the new restrictions that I’ve proposed.

Post 448 - I once again I make it clear I would add my proposals

Post 448 - You claim that what I want to add already exists

Post 452 – I ask which of my proposals already exist, and reprint them.

Post 455 – You say it was about “TWO particular proposals”, but don’t say which ones

Post 464 – I ask which proposals are you talking about.

Post 468 – You again don’t say which proposals and are still refusing to say.

**

You clearly say in post 448 “you want to add something that already exist”

Now as pointed out, if anything, Shane and Proud would remove laws, you although initially seeming to give support to my proposals seems to feel now that new laws don’t need to be added.

The only person here that actively wants to add restrictions and has repeatedly re-printed his proposals is, me.

So when you said, “you want to add something that already exist” what did you mean?

And anyway even if two of my proposals do exist that still means that six, the majority, don’t. I mean you don’t make any distinction, pointing out just one or two of my proposals that do exist you just say that what I want to add already exists. So if six of the eight don’t exist that still make your assertion that they do, wrong.

And what was your point in making the assertion anyway?

**

As you can see I’ve been having no problems in following this thread, actually it’s not that difficult.

It seems to me that your clearly are having problems and don’t seem to be reading or understanding the posts. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly it is obvious that you often haven’t read many of my posts and so falsely accuse me of not replying to some point or other of yours when I can clearly show that I have.

Please Pitt read the posts carefully and try and understand their meaning before replying, it would make following the thread a lot easier.

**

 

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

It is Very simple as shown above to back track using the references to the exact point being raised. It took me a whole 1.5 minutes to back track to the exact post referenced again above as to which TWO proposals I was speaking of.

Yes but it seems you didn’t actually read the posts the first time and don’t seem to have done the second time.

******************

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

I wait on pins and needles. Although your inept attitude of accusations and not answering post clearly referenced has become tiring and boring. Say something interesting and following a logical pattern and Ill respond. Otherwise maybe someone else can decipher you random post.
Mabe adding a little color to the differing sections of the post will help you understand. Red is my new post, green is a c/p from earlier post, and black is a c/p from the post referenced at the begining of this one.

Pitt please, this is again seems to be about point scoring and little to do with open and honest debate.

Again you seem to be trying to dictate what you will and will not talk about which is totally against the spirit of any honest debate.

Again you seem bent on name calling in some desperate attempt to ‘win’ points which to me seems silly.

As to saying something interesting I’ve repeatedly asked that we move the debate on but -

It is you that keep’s dragging us back onto subjects that we have already covered (often at length)

It is you that keep’s re-asking questions that have very clearly already been answered (as I’ve repeatedly demonstrated)

And

It is you that seems to be using tricks to try and derail the debate (such as trying to dictate what you will and will not answer).

**

 

“But come on man we have been through this time and again your question is ‘do restrictions limit crime’ and you have already admitted that they do.”

The two you say I agreed with was:
A. People already known and convicted of being involved in crime.
B. People who are mentally incapable of safely handling firearms.
Now as to B this does not really lower crime as much as it prevents accidents.

I asked show me where gun ban/restrictions on the law abiding ordinary citizen reduces crime.
Reference post 464:
Again my challenge is to show me where restricting/banning guns to the population in general reduces crime.

We have been through this over and over again.

First which of the proposals I’ve suggested do you think are so terrible?

And second people are law abiding until they act contrary to the regulations.

So it is the regulation that determines if the person is law abiding.

My point is that you believe that restrictions can reduce crime so do I, I just believe in more restrictions than you do (and those that I proposed you actually supported).

You seem to be saying that you believe restrictions work to reduce crime but you just don’t like my proposals, but then it seems to me that you have to say why the proposals that you thought were good you now think are bad?

**

[balbus] “What quote are you saying that I claimed you said?

I think the problem here is that you believe something has been said when, if you had actually read the post it actually hasn’t.

This again seems to be another point scoring exercise rather than a genuine question.”

[pitt] Your quote from post 448

[balbus] 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?).

[pitt] My response to this was in post 450 in which I Stated:

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”

So as can be plainly seen it is you that is either NOT READING, Not paying attention, not answering questions or in fact just trying to use confusion to avoid answering questions or having to admit you umm misspoke


So what quote of yours were you talking about? I don’t quote you in the piece you mention and never claimed to quote you as saying “they may kill people with them” only that that was what you seemed to be suggesting.

For example now lets us look at the very next piece in you posted -

[balbus] “I was pointing out that you seemed to wish to investigate people that showed threatening behaviour with the intention of seeing if they could or could not own guns legally.”

[pitt] Investigate people with continuing threatening behavior, and exactly where is the problem?

Don’t you see that this backs up what I was saying?

You seemed to be saying that you wished to investigate people that showed signs of threatening behaviour (who may never have been convicted of a crime) to see if they are mentally unstable and therefore should not be allowed access to legal guns. And from the examples you have given it is clear you wish to do this to stop them possibly using the guns to kill people.

Again what is your point in once more trying to go back to things that have already been covered and answered?

**

So as can be plainly seen it is you that is either NOT READING, Not paying attention, not answering questions or in fact just trying to use confusion to avoid answering questions or having to admit you umm misspoke

Again this seems to be about point scoring more than wishing to move this thread on

**

“Are you saying that all the proposals I made (that you supported) are already in Federal law?”

sigh again trying to manipulate things to fit your agenda. I said “the same exact system” in other words, basic federal regulations with differing state added regulations, with differing added county regulations, with differing added city regulations.

What is your point?

And please explain why you think this is manipulation?

I mean we have been through this before

It was suggested (by you) that the possible reason why existing gun control laws were not being enforced was that there were too many laws.

I therefore suggested that maybe the best thing to do would be to repeal the present laws and bring in clearer ones.

**

“I was saying that there is a process in building anything starting at the beginning and working in stages to the end. What is it about this that doesn’t make sense?”

Just because I know a few medical terms does not mean I can speak intelligently about heart surgery. The way you used the terminology was incorrect.

So it wasn’t the metaphor, it was just the terminology I was using that you had a problem with?

Sorry but that does seem petty and pedantic.

I mean you seem to be suggesting that only an intimate knowledge allows a person to us that example as a metaphor so that only a sailor could talk about the ‘ship of state’ or a dentist say that ‘it was like pulling teeth’.

As I’ve said before it seems to me that the only reason you took issue with this was it gave you an excuse to claim I was an idiot, and seems like another example of your dishonest approach to debate.

**

“As I’ve said you seem to be taking this metaphor way to seriously, are you honestly saying that your argument is with my terminology not the metaphor of a process? That seems incredibly pedantic, even petty.”

Kind of remind you of the “seat Belt” metaphor? Which you refused to understand because it didn’t fit your POV?

I understood it, the problem was that it just didn’t make any sense. You were trying to say that carrying a gun is like having a seat belt in your car, but I showed over and over again that they were not similar. It was the same when you tried to compare carrying a gun to having a condom in your wallet the supposed similarities just didn’t stand up under scrutiny.

It seems to me that once again you are just trying to dig up something that has been extensively covered already in this thread.

Also your comparison here doesn’t work either, I didn’t attack your metaphors because of some terminological technicality, I explain at length and in some detail my reasons for finding your metaphors (as metaphors) were unsound.

**

“Which as I’ve been saying is the first stage in the process”

Concept
Proposal
Refinement
Second proposal
Second refinement if necessary
Discussion
Vote
You have your concept but that is as far as you seem to want to take it.

As I say you seem to be taking this way too much to heart.

**

“Again this seems more like you just wish to say pathetic, than it is about you wanting to actually discuss things in a sensible, honest and open way.”

An honest man would look back at the referenced post and read it, think about it, then ANSWER the post. You on the other hand just wish to ignore it and as for repetition.

But I’m unsure what you want me to answer and I have the distinct feeling that nor do you?

As far as I know I believe I have replied to all you comments but if I have missed one and you wish to present it I would be very happy to discuss it.

**

“I’ve also posted this twice”

yes a very nice opinion news paper article citing NO references, no figures or anything else showing where this Sir Howard Roberts pulled these figures out of the air.

So you are saying that one of the UK top policemen was lying?

And the thing I had posted twice was not related to Howard Roberts?

**

“I mean come on man if you want a question answered just ask the question, all this blindfolded pin the tail on the right question, seems more like a game, trick or tactic designed to derail the debate than a real desire for a question to be answered.”

I have asked the questions as I have proven to you by repeated quotes and showing how one can easily follow the references posted at the beginning and throughout my post. So it appears that it is you that are employing games, tricks, and tactics designed to derail the debate than a real desire for a question to be answered.

The thing is that I get the impression that you don’t know what question have or haven’t been answered. It seems suspicious that you cannot just reproduce it. Remember you have got a reputation for saying I haven’t answered a question when I have, so how am I to know which one you are talking about?

But as I’ve said I believe I have replied to all you comments but if I have missed one and you wish to present it I would be very happy to discuss it.

**

“What is your point, are you saying that the problem is with the tax (because you say later “people are willing to pay more”) or are you saying that it is just the matter of the prescriptions? If so what are your objections to a system that seems to have benefits, for society and the addicts themselves?”

oh please again with your attempt at manipulation. Lets just put things back in context shall we?

Can you please explain what you mean by ‘manipulation’ here? All I’m doing is simply asking for clarification in what way can you construe that as ‘manipulation’?

It’s a pretty straight forward and your dishonest attempt to skew it is rather pitiful.

Again please explain why you think my simple questions are in some way ‘dishonest’ or how they ‘skew’ the subject.

People will have a problem being taxed to pay for a heroin addicts fix.
People will be more willing to pay for treatment to get the addict OFF drugs.

Which people? And are you claiming that you speak for this group of people?

I was simply asking you, your opinion on this subject.

Are you saying that you have a problem with opiate proscriptions?

If so why?

And as pointed out the goal of bringing in proscriptions is to try and get the addicts off drugs.

**

 

"It is also be possible to limit the percentage any company can own of the particular industry."

And what should this percentage be? I mean 1% of a 50,000,000,000.00 industry is still big business.

What is your point here? You seem to be saying that big corporation would take over the legalised drug trade are you saying that 1% is a controlling interest?


**

"I know this is your opinion but why? Why in your opinion does this not help the addicts, why does this in your opinion spread use, and what would be your alternatives?"

Look at it in reverse, lets just legalize and regulate everything. Including murder. You know lets bring back the high noon main street gentlemen’s duel.
Christ something’s should just remain illegal.

But you haven’t answered the questions just gone off on a rant about regulating murder, just saying that "something’s should just remain illegal" doesn’t actually answer anything.

Why in your opinion does this not help the addicts, why does this in your opinion spread use, and what would be your alternatives?

**

"Are people willing to pay more to help people get off addictive drugs? And if the present system is working so well why are things not a lot better than they seem to be at the moment?"

Yes I would be more inclined to pay for rehab than I would be to pay for some heroin addicts fix. How many times do I need to say this.

What reasons do you have for this view?


**

"But that’s the point of my post. Again Ill ask: How many business owners do you know that wants to willingly hire a known active heroin addict?

As I’ve said many of the addicts on the programmes in Switzerland (and elsewhere) were employed."

Im not seeing an answer to the question there:
How many business owners do you know that wants to willingly hire a known active heroin addict?

What! – you want me to name people I know or are you saying you want me to name the individual business owners that do now?

I mean if people have found work in the Swiss programme then presumably someone is employing them?

Also what is your point with this?

Even if the people are not employed the system still seems to have its attractions in that they are not out stealing enough to feed their habit?


**

"I’m pointing out is that you seem antagonistic toward anything new that might actually go a long way to dealing with these problems."


Haha nice try. If you would explain these new programs of yours instead of dodging the questions being asked maybe they would garner my support.

LOL Sometimes Pitt I think you haven’t read any of the posts in this thread properly, think about it you ask me to explain one of these new programmes but I’ve been trying to explained my ideas for an alternative drugs policy and you have been antagonistic toward it.

Or are you actually saying you haven’t been antagonistic toward it? (In which case I would have to say you aren’t even reading your own posts!)

**

"Well I’ve already been through the whole ‘rights’ thing before (a few times) and this doesn’t actually dispute or refute my opinion."

Nor does it confirm your opinion.

Also humorous since actually this reply does seem to confirm it, the fact that you are not disputing the opinion that you fit my theory seems to imply that you cannot dispute it, therefore confirming it more than dispelling it.

**


"Basically you seem to be saying that because I might ask question of the things you say you are not going to discuss anything that I might ask questions of."

Its just another tactic of yours. Ask a question that has multiple answers, so you can never be satisfied with the answer given.

We have been through this argument before.

I’ve pointed out several times that very few things in reality are absolutes (in other words there are few absolute ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers). In reality most subjects and issues are subjective and the viewpoint changes depending who is the viewer. For example some people believe in god, but they may not believe in the same god or about the way that the god should be worshipped and still others believe there is no god.

**

"Is that your position if not, can you say how you would help these people turning to drugs?"

As I have stated multiple times, Each addict will have their reasons for turning to addictive drugs. Each reason will have to have s program directed at these causes. How would I treat them? Get them into the appropriate program that will give them the best chance of recovery.
Does this answer satisfy you? Now we get to specific programs such as the one you proposed, so we discuss this one in depth, only its evident that you have no answers for these questions directed at your specific program. Thus your tactic is to try and mix in all programs together so that nothing gets done.


How have the programmes being designed, how do you know people are in the appropriate programmes?

And again the type of programme is going to be a subjective view, for example I support proscription as well as rehab, you will only accept rehab.

I would love to discuss my drug policy ideas, it has been me that has been trying to talk about such things all the way through this thread.

But it is you that keeps shying away from it by going back to subjects That we have already covered.

**

"And basically you have stuck to that reply."
Wrong I have stated some reasons, broken homes, joblessness, failed parenting, etc etc. Your tactic is to ask
why is the home broken?
Why are they without job?
Why were they not good parents?
Etc etc Thus leading to the conclusion you are looking for some deeper singular cause of these problems.

But I’ve never understood why you think such questions are wrong, I mean without asking those questions how are you to deal with the problem?

"Each reason will have to have s program directed at these causes. How would I treat them? Get them into the appropriate program that will give them the best chance of recovery"

So how do you have a programme tackling broken homes if you don’t ask why the homes are broken?

**

"But it doesn’t seem to matter how many times I say I don’t believe in ‘one root cause’ you just ignore what I say and accuse me again. Why?"

see reason above.

What reason above?

What reason justifies you blatantly ignoring an answers that has been given repeatedly.

**
Again Yes the restriction about convicted criminals I am sure prevent repeat crimes. This I have already stated. However I so none of the other restrictions you propose on the ordinary law abiding citizen as having any effect on crime. You refuse to listen.

So why did you say they were good?

**

"Post 464 – I ask which proposals are you talking about."

These were pointed out when you FIRST posted this list.

The first time I posted this list in Post 140 and you said they were good, you did say that some of the proposals were already existed but although asked I don’t believe you said exactly which were and which were not.

Can you say now?

And as to the proposal sequence you don’t make it clear that you were talking about only some, even when I gave you a chance to clear that up?

**

"Now as pointed out, if anything, Shane and Proud would remove laws, you although initially seeming to give support to my proposals seems to feel now that new laws don’t need to be added."

And also when I agreed in principal that some of them did not add extreme inconvenience to gun owners I also said there was no need to add new laws when the existing 20,000+ laws were not actively enforced.
Again you only hear and target what you want to hear and ignore the rest

This issue has not been ignored far from it we have covered it many, many, many times already.

If you really believe that it has been ignored then you are definitely not reading the posts in this thread.

You claim the laws are not being enforced but you also say that you don’t know why so far the best suggestion as to why is that there is too many laws, so I have suggested that we repeal the present laws and bring in clearer and simpler ones. I’ve even put forward some proposals as to what those laws should be.

How many more times to I have to repeat myself?

**

"So if six of the eight don’t exist that still make your assertion that they do, wrong."

Show me where I stated that all of your proposals existed? You cannot another deception aimed at discrediting any opinion other than yours.

You clearly say in post 448 "you want to add something that already exist"

Now as pointed out, if anything, Shane and Proud would remove laws, you although initially seeming to give support to my proposals seems to feel now that new laws don’t need to be added.

The only person here that actively wants to add restrictions and has repeatedly re-printed his proposals is, me.

So when you said, "you want to add something that already exist" what did you mean?

**

"And what was your point in making the assertion anyway?"

That your opinion on these laws is a knee jerk reaction and you evidently have limited knowledge as to what’s legal and what is not.

Well that is your opinion but why ‘knee jerk’ and what has knowledge of what is or is not legal so important we are discussing ideas on a web forum I don’t believe we are in government and as said I’d repeal the present laws anyway, so what is law now wouldn’t be an issue.

**

"Please Pitt read the posts carefully and try and understand their meaning before replying, it would make following the thread a lot easier."

Then show me the quote as I have asked for repeatedly that you have attributed to me. You cannot so you try and steer away from the DIRECT question with more of your nonsense

I’ve pointed out that what you thought was a ‘quote’ actually didn’t exist, you just thought it did and have become a little fixated on.

If you actually had read the post carefully you would realise your mistake.

**

"Yes but it seems you didn’t actually read the posts the first time and don’t seem to have done the second time."

OMG it is plain that it is you that do not read the post as evident by your refusal to admit that the post was plainly directed at TWO of your proposals as previously discussed.

Can you please explain how it is clear?

I mean you don’t say which of my proposals you are talking about or why you saying "you want to add something that already exist" is meant to imply only certain of my proposals?

**

"Pitt please, this is again seems to be about point scoring and little to do with open and honest debate."

Open and honest debate is when a question is asked and an answer is given. The simple latest example of this is when I asked you top show me the quote you attribute to me and you have done nothing but ignore that question.

But as I’ve pointed out the quote you seem to think exists doesn’t exist. I hadn’t ignored your question I was just finding it difficult to understand which quote you were referring to (which is not surprising since it didn’t exist).

**

"Again you seem to be trying to dictate what you will and will not talk about which is totally against the spirit of any honest debate."

Again if you are not going to answer direct questions what is the use of continuing with this?

You still seem unable to tell me exactly which questions I haven’t replied to?

**

"It is you that keep’s re-asking questions that have very clearly already been answered (as I’ve repeatedly demonstrated)

OMG such dishonesty:
Again I have just listed recent unanswered questions that have directed to you. One about the quote you attribute to me and another about hiring heroin addicts.


Show me direct answers to these direct questions or is this just another lie?

Actually as pointed out you don’t seem able to tell me exactly which questions I haven’t replied to?

As to the two questions you mention both have been addressed.

The quote doesn’t exist and the issue of hiring addicts you seem to be asking me for personal knowledge that seems unknowable or extremely hard to get and as pointed out is not of overwhelming significance.

**

"It is you that seems to be using tricks to try and derail the debate (such as trying to dictate what you will and will not answer)."

Again see above. If you will not answer simple direct questions there is no reason for this to continue

But as I’ve pointed out you seem unable to tell me exactly which questions I haven’t replied to? So far every time you actually do pick out something I’m supposed not to have addressed it has been a simple for me to show you I have.

But that is the problem I’m talking about you seem to be using tricks to derail the thread by constantly bringing up things that have already been covered.

**

 

As someone who has lived in the UK, I'd like to give my two cents.

Gun crime in the UK has gone up since the ban, but it was going up before the ban too. The ban may have had no impact either way, which is what I suspect. (See below - gun crime up 4x since 1980s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/yorkslincs/series5/gun_crime_replica_weapons.shtml

I don't know the value of anecdotes, but sure Pekham is a crap neighborhood and full of crime. People are scared there. What you can extrapolate from that is hard to say. I've lived in some bad neighborhoods here, but it was violent crime I was afraid of here, not gun crime. I've actually been the victim of attempted muggings in several countries including the UK, only the American mugger was armed with a gun (Colt .45, a personal favorite, but I wasn't going to compliment him on it). But as I say, its just an anecdote.

But the idea that gun crime is "devastating London" is ridiculous, it is pure media hysteria. The statistics simply do not support it. There is a great deal of media sensationalism about gun crime here, because it is so rare. As you admit, the hysteria contradicts the statistical trend.

I completely reject the idea of easy access to guns in the UK. It is possible, but not easy to get one. If it were so easy people wouldn't be robbing shops with fake guns, sawed off shotguns, converted replicas which can only fire a single shot, all kinds of crap - and that's what it often is. See my first link - it appears that half of gun crime involves fake guns. Nobody would be using this junk if decent guns were readily available.

 

I’ve explained my feelings many times, what I’ve said is that I do not feel so threatened by crime that I’m afraid enough that I would wish to own a gun to protect me from crime.

I’ve also pointed out that none of the people I know feel so threatened by crime that they are afraid enough that they would wish to own a gun to protect them from crime.

Also a poll linked to in the thread made it clear that most people in the UK didn’t feel so threatened by crime that they are afraid enough that they would wish to own a gun to protect them from crime. (I believe it was as low as 7% in London).

The question I asked was why it seemed that many Americans felt so threatened by crime that they felt afraid enough to wish to have a gun as a means of protection from it?

I haven’t actually had an answer – except the rather contradictory assertions from Pitt that he is at once both not afraid of crime but also so threatened by it that he wants to be armed.

**

There is something else that I have repeatedly said and that is that I do not hold up the UK as a paragon of perfection and light. In fact far from it, although UK governments have done some good things they have also done some very bad ones and in many cases things that could be done are ignored.

For example a lot of crime and gun related crime especially, is related to the illicit trade in drugs. As I’ve repeatedly said my view is one of harm reduction and is aimed at taking the trade out of the hands of criminals so it can be legitimised and properly regulated.

**

I’ve also made it very clear that I believe that guns are just one factor in a complex and interrelated problem that has it’s roots in social, economic and cultural influences that should be the focus of people attention (to me criminal gun use is a symptom not a cause).

As I’ve said over and over, to me one of the problems with too much emphasis on guns (especially guns as a means of deterrent) seems to be that it becomes a distraction from those other more important factors.

**

 

****

An Aside

It is interesting in view of my theory that while I have been trying to get the discussion onto those social, economic and cultural subjects I talk about above, Pitt has once more tried to drag us back to guns.

****

 

Balbus -- there are over four million surveillance cameras in London. Why don't you make a thread about how you feel about this.

 

Rat I already have

You have thrown the same question at me a couple of times

My opinion hasn’t changed since the last time you asked and the questions I put to you on the subject still remain unanswered.

**

I can recap for you if you wish?

I personally believe there are too many CCTV cameras, but I understand it is a complex problem.

The thing is that most of them are owned and run by private companies, are you in favour of regulating private companies? I have no problem with regulating private companies to limit their impact on the private sphere. Also are you going to tell corner shops that they cannot use such cameras?

The other thing is that those run by government and police have mostly been introduced as a way of cutting costs. Many buildings that used to have a human supervisor are now watched over by cameras (where one person vcan monitor several properties). I thought you were in favour of giving government as little money as possible this would presumably force them to use more, not less, cameras or are you saying that you are willing to pay for human supervisors? I’m actually in favour of hiring more government workers are you?

The security firms (private) and police (public) both use them as a way of crime prevention/detection. Taking them away would mean increasing the amount spent on human patrols (and they cannot record what happens all the time) this would mean that again this would be a huge hike in the amount needed to do the same job.

For example are CCTV’s at a child’s play area an intrusion or a deterrent to those that might try and prey on children?

 

Balbus - do you know what fascism is? It is the merger between corporation and state, as is the case in both the US and UK. You need to understand that the private corporations run the government and have bought and paid off all the politicians. The politicians all work for the corporations, which have in many ways become bigger than government itself.

You talk about these cameras being used to stop crime and protect children, which is exactly the excuses that are being used to sell this agenda to the public so they will buy it, naively believing it's for their own safety and well-being. Again, more nanny-state propaganda. Apparently, you're one of the people buying it. It has nothing to do with stopping crime or stopping anything. It has everything to do with making you a prisonser and a suspect in your own country.

Perhaps you should watch the movie '1984', which is based on the Orwell novel of the same title.

 

OK Pitt

back to your earlier comments and my replies.

**

“We have been through this over and over again.”

So again you refuse/cant answer/address the question.

Far from not answering I’ve given you my opinion several times. Did you not read below that line?

What do you think you gain from plainly lying like this?

[balbus] First which of the proposals I’ve suggested do you think are so terrible?

And second people are law abiding until they act contrary to the regulations.

So it is the regulation that determines if the person is law abiding.

My point is that you believe that restrictions can reduce crime so do I, I just believe in more restrictions than you do (and those that I proposed you actually supported).

You seem to be saying that you believe restrictions work to reduce crime but you just don’t like my proposals, but then it seems to me that you have to say why the proposals that you thought were good you now think are bad?

**

“So what quote of yours were you talking about? I don’t quote you in the piece you mention and never claimed to quote you as saying “they may kill people with them” only that that was what you seemed to be suggesting.”

OMG you are so full of crap it amazes me. This is just another tactic of yours to get out of having to admit something. You are attributing a statement to me that you very well know was never said and now that you cannot produce the evidence asked for you start making excuses.

But I haven’t attributed a statement to you (as is clear from the piece you reproduced).

I did say that you seemed to be suggesting something that you then confirmed – that is, that you do wish to investigate people to see if they should not be allowed to own guns legally because they might use them to kill people.

Again what do you think you will gain from lying?

**

“You seemed to be saying that you wished to investigate people that showed signs of threatening behaviour (who may never have been convicted of a crime) to see if they are mentally unstable and therefore should not be allowed access to legal guns.”

Hmmm lets see investigate someone who demonstrates continuing threatening behavior.
You seem to imply that I want the police to rush out and arrest them during this “investigation”. This again is utter BS. I have stated in the past SEVERAL times this investigation can be nothing more than a school counselor, neighbor, or co-worker speaking to the person in question to determine if that person is a real threat or blowing off hot steam.

I actually asked if it would be a police investigation or not and as far as I can remember you didn’t deny it?

You have mentioned the school councillor and they may have a little training and experience but are you really now saying that you think neighbours and work colleagues are best suited to make a psychological evaluation?

Also the councillor, neighbour or co worker will not have the authority to take action so presumably they pass on their concerns to the police, who presumably would still have to make their own investigation.

So really you are still talking about a police investigation?

Please explain why you felt warranted in saying that what I was saying was BS?

**

“And from the examples you have given it is clear you wish to do this to stop them possibly using the guns to kill people.”

Kill them, beat them up, rob them, destroy their property etc etc.

So you are saying that such people should not be allowed to own guns legally because they might use them to kill people?

Why earlier did you say that was not what you were suggesting?

**

So as can be plainly seen it is you that is either NOT READING, Not paying attention, not answering questions or in fact just trying to use confusion to avoid answering questions or having to admit you umm misspoke

“Again this seems to be about point scoring more than wishing to move this thread on”

Another section completely ignored.

But it was covered in the part just above.

Did you miss it or something if so here it is again -

So as can be plainly seen it is you that is either NOT READING, Not paying attention, not answering questions or in fact just trying to use confusion to avoid answering questions or having to admit you umm misspoke

So what quote of yours were you talking about? I don’t quote you in the piece you mention and never claimed to quote you as saying “they may kill people with them” only that that was what you seemed to be suggesting.

For example now lets us look at the very next piece in you posted -

[balbus] “I was pointing out that you seemed to wish to investigate people that showed threatening behaviour with the intention of seeing if they could or could not own guns legally.”

[pitt] Investigate people with continuing threatening behavior, and exactly where is the problem?

Don’t you see that this backs up what I was saying?

You seemed to be saying that you wished to investigate people that showed signs of threatening behaviour (who may never have been convicted of a crime) to see if they are mentally unstable and therefore should not be allowed access to legal guns. And from the examples you have given it is clear you wish to do this to stop them possibly using the guns to kill people.

Again what is your point in once more trying to go back to things that have already been covered and answered?

**

“And please explain why you think this is manipulation?”

You go from talking about the SYSTEM back to talking about INDIVIDUAL laws in an attempt to make your statement sound better and try to manipulate my statement about the SYSTEM seem to say something it did not.

You would have to explain what you mean?

Here is the section again -

“Are you saying that all the proposals I made (that you supported) are already in Federal law?”

sigh again trying to manipulate things to fit your agenda. I said “the same exact system” in other words, basic federal regulations with differing state added regulations, with differing added county regulations, with differing added city regulations.

What is your point?

And please explain why you think this is manipulation?

I mean we have been through this before

It was suggested (by you) that the possible reason why existing gun control laws were not being enforced was that there were too many laws.

I therefore suggested that maybe the best thing to do would be to repeal the present laws and bring in clearer ones.

Once again in what way is that manipulation?

**

“I therefore suggested that maybe the best thing to do would be to repeal the present laws and bring in clearer ones.”

True, however it will take more than just re-writing the laws in every jurisdiction, it needs to come under ONE jurisdiction a federal one for that to ever work.

I was basically thinking of an across the board repeal.

**

“As I’ve said before it seems to me that the only reason you took issue with this was it gave you an excuse to claim I was an idiot, and seems like another example of your dishonest approach to debate.”

I think I have shown I don’t any more reasons to claim you an idiot.
So you claim in a debate a words “true” meaning is not important. Oooook

Why do you think this gives you the right to say I’m an idiot (again)?

I’m just pointing out that you don’t seem to be saying the metaphor is incorrect but just that you don’t like my choice of words. As I’ve pointed out this seems a little silly and pointless.

**

“I understood it, the problem was that it just didn’t make any sense. You were trying to say that carrying a gun is like having a seat belt in your car, but I showed over and over again that they were not similar. It was the same when you tried to compare carrying a gun to having a condom in your wallet the supposed similarities just didn’t stand up under scrutiny.”

You were the only person that did not get it. So the only person on the planet it was not valid for was you. God your ego is unbelievable

Lets me see you say my ego is unbelievable yet you are the one claiming you speak for everyone else in the world in declaring that I’m the only person in it that thought your metaphor didn’t work?

LOL Isn’t that a tad egotistical?

Anyway as I’ve said I explained at length why I thought the metaphors of the seat belt and the condom didn’t work in relation to gun ownership, you were, and are, entitled to express your own opinion. As I remember you mainly just preferred to assert that they were right without explaining why.

**

“So you are saying that one of the UK top policemen was lying?”

Is that what I said or asked for? NO another attempt at manipulation of others words. I said there were NO REFERENCES in that article and he could have just pulled these numbers out of the air.

“Mr Roberts, who has the backing of other senior officers, said that the benefits of using heroin were supported by research including studies on heroin prescription in the Netherlands and Switzerland. The research found that there were significant reductions in illicit drug use among those receiving the treatment, and both the Swiss and Dutch reported a drop in crime committed by the addicts. In Switzerland most of the patients had no criminal convictions while in treatment”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article646418.ece

He cited figures showing addicts each commit on average 432 offences a year, "from burglary to robbery, to sometimes murder, to get the money to buy drugs". On average, each addict steals at least £45,000 worth of property a year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,1954749,00.html

 

**

“Can you please explain what you mean by ‘manipulation’ here? All I’m doing is simply asking for clarification in what way can you construe that as ‘manipulation’?”

Again what was originally said was very plain and to the point. You try and mix statements together that was not originally stated in that manner. What else would you call it.

Let us again look at the sequence -

[balbus] “What is your point, are you saying that the problem is with the tax (because you say later “people are willing to pay more”) or are you saying that it is just the matter of the prescriptions? If so what are your objections to a system that seems to have benefits, for society and the addicts themselves?”

[pitt relies] oh please again with your attempt at manipulation. Lets just put things back in context shall we?

[ balbus asks] Can you please explain what you mean by ‘manipulation’ here? All I’m doing is simply asking for clarification in what way can you construe that as ‘manipulation’?

I think I was being clear why again do you see this as manipulation?


**

“Which people? And are you claiming that you speak for this group of people?

I was simply asking you, your opinion on this subject.”

And I just gave it to you A G A I N.

I asked -

Are you saying that you have a problem with opiate proscriptions?

If so why?

**

“What is your point here? You seem to be saying that big corporation would take over the legalised drug trade are you saying that 1% is a controlling interest?”

No I believe I said BIG BUSINESS not a controlling interest.

What is your point?

You said 'taken over' now to take over something wouldn’t you need to have a controlling interest?

**

“Why in your opinion does this not help the addicts”

addicts need help to get OFF drugs not help buying them or getting them for free.

And I’ve said several times that the goal of the prescription methods is to get people off drugs so what is your problem?

**

“What reasons do you have for this view?”

Because I don’t believe buying a heroin addicts fix is helping them whereas rehab has a chance.

But what do you base that opinion on?

As I’ve said first you have to catch your addict (which usually means after they have committed crimes) then you have to convict them, then send them forcibly to a rehab, that has to try and keep them there, then since this is forced it seems to me that it is more likely to have the people going back to drugs later.

I don’t dismiss rehab and would still keep it as part of the system but would just add the proscription method for those that suite it.

**

“What! – you want me to name people I know or are you saying you want me to name the individual business owners that do now?”

Name names? Where in the hell did I ask for names? Again you are employing tactics to avoid answering a direct question.

Not tactics, you said - How many business owners do you know that wants to willingly hire a known active heroin addict?


**

“Or are you actually saying you haven’t been antagonistic toward it? (In which case I would have to say you aren’t even reading your own posts!)”

so asking direct questions on how you would handle certain specific aspects of you proposed program is antagonistic?

So are you honestly believe you are being objective and not antagonistic?

**

“Also humorous since actually this reply does seem to confirm it, the fact that you are not disputing the opinion that you fit my theory seems to imply that you cannot dispute it, therefore confirming it more than dispelling it.”

It also confirms my theory that your more into knee jerk reactions rather than being willing to think things through,

Please explain this statement it doesn’t seem to make much sense?

**

“But it is you that keeps shying away from it by going back to subjects That we have already covered.”

Discussion includes answering direct questions which you have refused to do.

You have made this claim repeatedly but so far have been unable to give any examples of anything I haven’t replied to or given my opinion on.

On the other hand I have shown several examples of where you have claimed I haven’t answered something that I have shown I have (sometimes repeatedly)

**

“So how do you have a programme tackling broken homes if you don’t ask why the homes are broken?”

Again there can be a multitude of answers to this question. If I choose one of those answers you will then again ask why is it X.

But why do you seem to find such examination so abhorrent? How do you think intellectual and scientific progress, is made by drawing some arbitrary line and saying ‘we’ll stop asking question after this’?

Your view that you don’t really want to think about such things seems to confirm my theory regarding you.

**

“What reason justifies you blatantly ignoring an answers that has been given repeatedly.”

Oh did you even read what was posted?

“But it doesn’t seem to matter how many times I say I don’t believe in ‘one root cause’ you just ignore what I say and accuse me again. Why?”

see reason above.

What reason above?

What reason justifies you blatantly ignoring an answers that has been given repeatedly.

No it isn’t clear?

**

“So why did you say they were good?”

again I said some of them did not impose undue hardships on gun owners.

No you said that they were “good” post 143, page 15

**

 

“The first time I posted this list in Post 140 and you said they were good, you did say that some of the proposals were already existed but although asked I don’t believe you said exactly which were and which were not.”

Oh god how many times have I got to repeat this
KIDS WITH GUNS
CONVICTED FELONS WITH GUNS.

But they are not in my list of proposals?

Here is my list of proposals with your comments in brackets –

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.

(Thats already LAW yet it is not enforced, which is what I have been saying is it not?)

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

(Ahhh so finally "get tough on crime" Bravo!!!)

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.

(Ahhh so finally "get tough on crime" Bravo!!!)

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

(Ahhh so finally "get tough on crime" Bravo!!!)

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)

(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)

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

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

(Hmmm depends on what "level" you are speaking of but this might not be a bad idea.)

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

(Might agree with initial evaluation, but more inclined to base it more along the lines of CCW where you are recertified on an annual basis.)

**

 

**

“You clearly say in post 448 "you want to add something that already exist"”

in reference to the ones that ALREADY EXIST not all. Fuck you do not pay attention except when it suits you.

Why to you think this justifies you saying ‘fuck you’ to me?

As I pointed out I was the only one that had put forward a set of proposals to add and you never specified which one or excluded any even when I asked?

And if you are talking about the ones above that you just mention they were not in my proposals.

**

“Well that is your opinion but why ‘knee jerk’ and what has knowledge of what is or is not legal so important we are discussing ideas on a web forum I don’t believe we are in government and as said I’d repeal the present laws anyway, so what is law now wouldn’t be an issue.”

Your posting suggestions of what should be law without knowing that some of your suggestions are ALREADY law and never acknowledging the fact shows a knee jerk reaction.

Why to you think this justifies you saying my statement is a knee jerk reaction?

But as pointed out the majority of my proposals are not laws.

**

“If you actually had read the post carefully you would realise your mistake.”

There is no mistake you say you think I mean something that was never said. Direct “quote” or not the meaning and reading is the same. When I stated that it was not and for you to show me where I said this you and you cannot the honorable thing would be to admit your mistake.

It wasn’t a quote

It was you that claimed it was a quote when it wasn’t

Now you are saying it doesn’t matter if it was or wasn’t a quote, if so why did you make such a big deal about it being a quote?

But at the same time you are reprimanding me for being unable to find a quote that you admit didn’t exist?

This is completely irrational

And anyway you have already admitted that the thing I suggested is and was true.


**

“I mean you don’t say which of my proposals you are talking about or why you saying "you want to add something that already exist" is meant to imply only certain of my proposals?”

which was pointed out when you first listed them.

That has been covered above.

It seems the things you thought were in my list of proposals were not there.

**

“But as I’ve pointed out the quote you seem to think exists doesn’t exist. I hadn’t ignored your question I was just finding it difficult to understand which quote you were referring to (which is not surprising since it didn’t exist).”

Omfg I even reposted it twice and you cant find it?

But as pointed out what you thought was a quote wasn’t a quote, never was a quote and so it was impossible to find as a quote.

**

“You still seem unable to tell me exactly which questions I haven’t replied to?”

I have told you repetedly.

Sorry you haven’t, you have accused me of not replying to your posts but so far you have been unable to give examples of my supposed malicious intent not to reply.

**

“The quote doesn’t exist and the issue of hiring addicts you seem to be asking me for personal knowledge that seems unknowable or extremely hard to get and as pointed out is not of overwhelming significance.”

Pathetic, just another way to get out of answering a direct question.

Again why do you feel that this justifies you saying I’m pathetic?

The supposed 'quote' actually doesn’t exist and you do seem to be implying I give names and that point isn’t that significant.

Please address the issues don't just call people names.

**

 

Pitt

"wouldsnt that money be better spent on finding out why people would prey on those children so that a cure can be found?"

I believe you said that you had kids – what are your thoughts?

I think that people that prey on children are sick and need help but at the same time I wouldn’t want my child to be vulnerable in any way.

I think I would want both.

 

Yes, Balbus, you want to government to watch over you and protect you from all the boogeymen.

 

Dirk,

Balbus always twists people's words around to fit his argument. He has done the same thing with me and others countless times. It's nothing new with him.