Gun ownership is MAD?

Ok one last time Ill respond as you seem compelled to direct comments to me directly.

Oh and one more time the you seem to want to dictate what you will and will not talk about?

**

“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?”

The two that are already in place which has been discussed a multitude of times, I have no problem with. Of these two one is a regulation not on law abiding citizens but on convicted criminals. The other is regulating children and those without the mental capacity to safely handle firearms. In this case when a child becomes old enough they can then purchase and own firearms.
Neither of these really effect the law abiding citizen now does it?

THIS HAS BEEN COVERED MANY, MANY TIMES ALREADY.

The things you are talking about (the current regulations against convicted criminals, children and the mentally unstable) were not in my list of proposals that I’ve reproduced many times.
The other thing is that you have suggested that people should be investigated if thought mentally unstable (although they may not yet have committed an offence) with the intention of removing there ability to own legal guns because they may use them to kill people with them.

**

As far as some of the others goes I believe I have stated many many times some of then do not put undue burden on gun owners so I have no MAJOR problems with them. I have also clarified this by saying I don’t think adding any new laws will be effective as long as the majority of the ones we have now are pretty much not enforced.
This should explain my position very clearly hopefully.

THIS HAS BEEN COVERED MANY, MANY TIMES ALREADY

Here are just a few examples of my reply from the last few pages –

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

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

**

We have established already that you don’t know why the laws are not being enforced.

And you don’t seem that bothered in finding out.

**

But you also admit you don’t know why the present restrictions are not being enforced (and don’t seem that interested in finding out).

We have been though this several times.

**

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)

**

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.

**

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?

**

Yes, I’ll ask again how many times do I have to repeat myself?


**

 

“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?”

OMG balbus you have once again twisted things around to fit your purpose. The original statement I took exception to was your claim in essence that I said children and mentally incompetent should not own guns because they might KILL people. When in fact I said this was common sense law and was aimed more at preventing accidents rather to combat crime or murder.

This is very clear from all the quoted that I have posted with references so people can go back and look for themselves it is you that are lying.

THIS HAS BEEN COVERED MANY, MANY TIMES ALREADY.

So i'm happy if people want to go back and look

As explained a few times now you are suggesting that people that may have shown signs of mental instability (although they may have committed no crime) should be investigated to see if they should be allowed to own guns legally in case they use them to kill people.
You are therefore saying that you wish to actively seeking out the mentally unstable not to prevent accidents to themselves but because you think it might prevent crime or murder.

**

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

All of this refers back to what I have said multiple times its about people getting involved. If its warranted then by all means have the police investigate. Not like the article I posted earlier which talks about stating that out of 150 separate shootings only ONE witness came forward.
As far as the neighbor, counselor coworker thing since you seem to disagree with this it must be your belief that individuals have no responsibility and it must all fall on the police.

WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO PRESENT?

This seems again like just another point scoring exercise?

I haven’t suggested that people shouldn’t get involved but just that they are not in the best position to make a proper investigation, so that they would have to pass on their views to the police.

But we have been through some of this before

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?

**

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

again you are purposely confusing two separate things to make it fir your POV.
Keep them out of criminals hands to keep then from being used to commit more crime.
Out of kids hands to prevent accidents.

What do you hope to prove by purposely lying and twisting other peoples statements?

WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO PRESENT?

The question has not been over the criminals or the children but the subject you miss out, the mentally unstable. What was your point in missing out the very subject of this sequence?

Why earlier did you say that you didn’t wished to investigate people to see if they might be mentally unstable enough to kill when that is exactly what you now claim to be suggesting?

**
.
“Once again in what way is that manipulation?”

you purposely interchange individual laws talked about with the whole system again to try and make it fit your POV. That is manipulation.

THIS HAS BEEN COVERED MANY, MANY TIMES ALREADY.

Let us re-cap on this particular sequence.

You demanded I give some proposals
You seemed to support some
But then you said that “many of these lasw are ALREADY in effect”
I asked which were and which were not
So far you have not clarified that

You said they were not enforced
I asked why
You said you didn’t know etc
One idea was that there could be too many and complex laws
I suggested we repeal the present laws and bring in simpler ones etc

Now if that doesn’t work then it might be a good idea to look at the whole system itself.


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


“I was basically thinking of an across the board repeal.”

You stated repeal laws make a federal law then let that be added to by states and local gvt. That is the exact type of system we have now.

This has been covered

But the laws would be clearer and straight forward.

As we have discussed many times the problems with the system might be that there are too many laws that make things too complex. Therefore maybe a way of dealing with that problem would be to repeal the old complex laws with new more straight forward ones.

If that didn’t work maybe the system itself might have to be changed.

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

“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.”

Not your choice of words but using them incorrectly and changing their meaning at your will.

WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO PRESENT?

Incorrect and changing there meaning?

You objected to me saying that a process begins with a ‘proposal’, seeming to demand that I use the word ‘conception’.

You haven’t actually objected to the substance of the metaphor itself, just to that.

Why is this such a big deal to you?

And how do you thing this contributes to the discussion?

**

“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”

See you still have not gotten it. The metaphor was about your claim of if someone owns a gun they must live in fear. This has been explained to you time after time. You either just don’t want to admit it has merit, cannot explain why it does not have merit, or its just another lie because you don’t want to have to admit it.

THIS HAS BEEN COVERED MANY, MANY TIMES ALREADY.

You say that you are threatened by crime and believe it could kill you yet you also claim that you have no fear of crime (and presumably of being killed). One reason that you carry a gun is because you feel threatened by crime but you also say that you don’t carry your gun very often.

To me a sensible person wears a seatbelt whenever they get into a car because no-one can see into the future and predict when an accident may occur.
You seem to be suggesting (deciding when and when not to carry) that you could predict when and where you would need a gun or seatbelt.

Also a seatbelt needs to be deployed and in place for it to be effective. You rejected the idea that you went with the gun out and held up for use so what you seemed to be saying is that you would in some way be able to have time to put you seatbelt on while in the middle of a crash.

The other thing is that people should be complacent while in a car they should be aware that accidents can happen and can be fatal, and that is the reason for wearing a seatbelt but for the reasons above a gun is not a seatbelt.

**

“He cited figures”

Again where are these studies he cited figures from? What are the studies called? Where can one view these studies? Again where are his references anyone can pull numbers out of the air such as:

In the dirks pitt study, 1000 people were polled and the results found that:
999 people thought balbus was a pompous ass
1 person stated he was a highly intelligent plain spoken individual.

It is believed that balbus himself took part in the poll.
See its not that hard if you do not have to show your sources or at least explain where they came from.

WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO PRESENT?

Again this just seems like a point scoring exercise.

The idea that these police officers are making up figure as they go along in public and on the record seems absurd from what I can tell the figure are based on Home Office reports

“Home Office research has found heroin addicts commit on average 432 crimes a year, costing a total of £45,000” each.http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/display.var.1204544.0.mp_backs_call_to_give_heroin_to_addicts_to_help_cut_crime.php

I have also presented other article and research that make similar claims (that it reduces crime)

In the meantime another top policeman has come out in favour of the programmes

Ken Jones, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article2284051.ece
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2007/02/19/taking_the_crime_out_of_heroin_addiction.html
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0600uk/tm_headline=police-chief-s-heroin-plea-on-crime&method=full&objectid=18644771&siteid=50082-name_page.html
http://itn.co.uk/news/66acb41bf708779c4e882e50fc89aaf8.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/19/ndrugs119.xml
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2283951.ece

**

 

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

this has all been explained before. If something is explained, ignored, and continue to misquote that is manipulation.

WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO PRESENT?

AND WE HAVE ALREADY COVERED THIS

I will reproduce the sequence again please indicate where exactly you have been misquoted?

[BALBUS]“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’?”

[PITT]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.

[BALBUS] 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?

I ask again, why do you see this as manipulation?

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

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

If so why?”

JFC how many times do I have to explain this? I don’t think giving an addict free access to the drug they are addicted to is HELPING.

So this is just a ‘moral’ or ‘belief’ thing, not based on anything rational that can be explained?

**

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

so you are saying that as long as someone does not have 51% of a national market it cannot be big business?

WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE?

This again seems like you are just trying to point score, but it doesn’t seem to make sense.

You seemed to be saying that big business would take over the legalised drug trade, I suggested some ways that there influence could be checked (one way was to limited the amount they could hold).

They might make a lot of money from 1 -10 percent stake of the business but that doesn’t seem to involve taking over the whole business?


**

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

So you get people off drugs by giving the drug to them for free?

“The introduction of heroin-injecting centres in Switzerland has reportedly led to an 82 percent decrease in its use since 1990.”
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2283930.ece

**

“But what do you base that opinion on?”

Common sense

Whose common sense?

One person’s view of what makes sense can differ wildly from another’s it is subjective and based on that persons personal viewpoint.

Very often it is used by people to try and pass off views that they cannot explain rationally.

**

 

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

exactly what was said, OPERATIVE WORDS “how many” where the fuck does it say anything about NAMES?

Here is what you said with your bold your emphisis

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

You emphasise the “you Know”

What other way can it be taken other than you are asking for people I know?

Also what is your point in this line of questioning?

I’ve already said that it was just a minor point; I was saying that addicts could work while on such programmes from what I had read and heard some addicts at least that were on such programmes in Switzerland had jobs.

But even if they were not employed they were still not on the streets trying to raise money for their next fix.

**

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

how is asking specific questions on how to handle certain aspects of your proposed program equate to being antagonistic?

OK here is an example of your supposed ‘objective’ questioning

“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?”

A straw man argument, setting something up so that it can be knocked down easily, it is a trick, not something usually encountered in ‘objective’ questioning.

And anyway thing was that that issue had been covered anyway.

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

“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)”

Read two sections above here in this very post. This has been asked multiple times you have never answered.

(About the addicts working) I’ve been unsure of what you meant by it and have also asked why you think it is such a crucial point whether these addicts work or not?

**

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

Again under normal circumstances this is not a problem however YOU use this to create an unending cycle of questions leading nowhere as it pertains to the discussion at hand.

Can you explain what you mean?

How are you meant to discuss any idea or viewpoint if you don’t ask question, seek clarification and examine what is said?

And how do you know a path leads nowhere if you refuse to go down it?

I mean it is you that is refusing to debate, continually dragging us back to subject already covered or seemingly putting conditions on what you will or will not talk about.

**

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

Yes I did didn’t I, what pray tell was the quote I was responding to? A list of proposals to which the majority of the items were already law and dealt directly with criminal uses of guns. Now for all to see the complete quote of what I said:


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

Is this not what I have said repeatedly?

THIS HAS BEEN COVERED MANY, MANY TIMES ALREADY.

You demanded I give some proposals
You seemed to support some
But then you said that “many of these lasw are ALREADY in effect”
I asked which were and which were not
So far you have not clarified that

You said they were not enforced
I asked why
You said you didn’t know etc
One idea was that they could be too many and complex laws
I suggested we repeal the present laws and bring in simpler ones etc

**

 

omg very few of THAT list are even restrictions. The ones on THAT list I agreed to were PUNISHMENTS for crimes. The new added restrictions you can plainly see have not been agreed to or even called good the closest thing is where I say

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

Again you purposely call any list you want “restrictions”. Again trying to change the meaning of the word to make it fit you POV at that time.

WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE?

You said they were good as I’ve pointed that out

One moment you say “The new added restrictions”

The next you say “Again you purposely call any list you want “restrictions”. Again trying to change the meaning of the word to make it fit you POV at that time”

It doesn’t seem to make any sense?

You call them restrictions then seem to accuse me of manipulation because I call them restrictions?

**

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

And again you have yet to show how in the real world these restrictions on ordinary law abiding people would have any effect at all.

Well one of them is very similar to what you seem to be asking for e.g. the psychological evaluation of people to make sure if they can or cannot own guns legally.

Another on keeping a gun kept at home in a secure safe is meant to cut down on stolen guns getting into criminal hands.

**

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

I will repeate this one more time

I DID NOT SAY NOR DO I THINK THAT THE REASON TO RESTRICT/BAN GUNS FROM CHILDREN AND MENTALLY INCOMPETENT PEOPLE IS TO PREVENT THEM FROM KILLING PEOPLE. IT IS MAINLY TO PREVENT ACCIDENTS.

No matter how many times balbus claims I think, state, or imply the other.

THIS HAS BEEN COVERED MANY, MANY TIMES ALREADY.

As explained a few times now you are suggesting that people that may show signs of mental instability (although they may have committed no crime) should be investigated to see if they should be allowed to own guns legally in case they use them to kill people.
You are therefore saying that you wish to actively seeking out the mentally unstable not to prevent accidents but because you think it might prevent crime or murder.

**

“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.”

So I can say without any qualms
Apparently balbus wants to be soft on crime and legalize drugs so he can give them out on the street corner to anyone who wants them and have that paid for through a government tax.

You see I can construe several of your statements to mean this exact thing. Just because I can do this does not mean it is right or even honorable.

So are you admitting that all that fuss you made and all those accusations you made were over something that actually wasn’t a quote but a misreading on your part?

You have accused me of wanting to be soft on crime, we have covered that already.

I do wish to legalise drugs (some sold over the counter other given by prescription) we have covered that.

I have never said that I want to give them out on the street corner to anyone who wants them.

I do believe that such things as the prescription opiate would be paid for by the state but I believe that that expense would be offset by the amount raised on taxation on the new over the counter sales. We have covered that.

I’m happy to discuss things you seem more interested in throwing around accusations and point scoring.


**

 

Pitt

Yet more repetition and aimless attempts at point scoring.

You even drag up the very same subject several times even when my reply hasn’t really changed much since the first time.

A lot of the other stuff seems more about trying to make cheap shots than seeking some clarity, just nit picking and jibs, that don’t seem to be making any clear point.

When give the opportunity to say something new and explain your thinking to seem to prefer to resort to no-answers for example declaring something ‘common sense’ which seems to indicate that not only are you unwilling to enter into debate you are unable to either.

Come on man, stop messing around and let’s debate like adults.

Regards

Balbus

 

Pitt

As I’ve highlighted before you keep repeating the same accusations - that I’m not replying to your posts or that I’m not entering in to debate - but you have repeatedly been unable to actually give examples of this or the examples you have given have fallen down when it was shown that they actually were answered (sometimes repeatedly).

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – I’m very happy to give you a reply to any post or comment you believe hasn’t been given one.

As I’ve also said before these consent unsubstantiated accusation just seems like a cheap tricks to get out of entering into a real open and honest debate.

**

For example let us examine your supposed ‘complaints’ –

“As was pointed out you speak about changing/adding a law but leave the system exactly as is. The point being the system has to be changed which has NOT BEEN COVERED.”

As I’ve said - “One idea was that there could be too many and complex laws”

That means that it was suggested that the system isn’t working (e.g. the laws not being enforced) because there were too many (and complex) laws already in existence.

“I suggested we repeal the present laws and bring in simpler ones etc”

If too many and complex laws were the reason the system wasn’t working then a solution could be to repeal the present laws and put in clearer and more straight forward ones.

“Now if that doesn’t work then it might be a good idea to look at the whole system itself.”

**

“You make statements inferring that I said something that was not said. I clarified this multiple times and you have yet to acknowledge this fact.”

I said that you seemed to be suggesting something that you admit you were suggesting. That is that you would wish to investigate people that were suspected of mental instability to determine if they should be allowed to own guns legally.

**

“You do not investigate children, criminals, or the mentally incompetent to see if they can own guns as you try to imply that I suggest”

We I have not being talking about investigating children or criminals in this context. But you have said - numerous times - that you would investigate people that were suspected of mental instability to determine if they should be allowed to own guns legally.

**

“This is already law they cannot own guns period end of story.”

I don’t believe investigating people that are suspected of mental instability (although they may have committed no crime and may own guns already) is a law in the US, is it?

**

“The investigation is directed toward people who show a continuing outward signs of aggressive behavior or continuing threats toward specific people or groups.”

But such behaviour is though of as symptoms of mental instability.

But as I’ve also pointed out if would be difficult to make such assessments against people unwilling to come forward, without resorting to force.

And as also pointed out what level of behaviour is acceptable and what not, what would trigger a full investigation and why?

You say that the say so of a neighbour or co-worker is enough, but how much proof would they have to have to get the person checked out by the police?

And if the burden is on such people what happens to them if they don’t spot someone?

As I’ve said it is easy in hindsight for many people to see something wrong but much harder at the time.

I’ve tried to talk to you about such issues but you seem unwilling to enter into debate.

**

The problem as I see it is that you don’t seem to wish to tackle the issues raised by the replies you just want to complain that the replies are not the ones you wanted.

Which is not debate.

**

 

Also why do you seem to think these points are so critical (you’ve spent a lot of time on them so I presume you think they are)?

To me they don’t seem this overwhelmingly important and if only you were willing to discuss them rationally then I’m sure we could reach an understanding or compromise.

For example you want to investigate people that show signs of mental instability, well the thing is that to a large extent I agree with you.

I would try to do it more through education and free counselling and treatment rather than taking the police investigation route, but the ideas are similar, yours is just more authoritarian.

For me education would be to teach people that a mental problem is a treatable illness not something to be covered up or have a social stigma attached to. To hopefully get people to voluntarily come forward.

Free counselling and treatment would be in place so that no matter what their socio-economic position anyone could be assessed and treated.

I even put in something in my proposals about only allowing gun licences to people that had passed a psychological evaluation (I wanted it to be annual since situations change but I believe I took that out because of your opposition).

That would be another route to spot people at risk and free services would be given to people that failed the gun evaluation.

I don’t rule out using the police but that would only be thought about as a final resort.

(also this would be just another part of the holistic approach I have talked about)

**

As to the system vs the laws argument, I’m unsure why you see the two things (system and laws) to be so mutually exclusive and not in fact interrelated?

For example we still seem unsure why, according to you, the present laws are not being enforced.

And you also seem to be saying that the present system isn’t working because those laws are not being enforced.

So it seems to me that the starting point is the laws, then if that fails to correct the system (federal and state) then we move on to the system and see if it also needs to be changed.

And anyway changing the system without changing the laws first seems like a far more complex way of going about things?

**

 

Pitt

Once again I try to engage you in sensible debate and you refuse, and just once more resort to point scoring

**

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
Also why do you seem to think these points are so critical (you’ve spent a lot of time on them so I presume you think they are)?

To me they don’t seem this overwhelmingly important and if only you were willing to discuss them rationally then I’m sure we could reach an understanding or compromise.

Maybe if you took time to listen to the points instead of cutting them off and ignoring them you would be enlightened to their relevance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
For example you want to investigate people that show signs of mental instability, well the thing is that to a large extent I agree with you.

I would try to do it more through education and free counselling and treatment rather than taking the police investigation route, but the ideas are similar, yours is just more authoritarian.

For me education would be to teach people that a mental problem is a treatable illness not something to be covered up or have a social stigma attached to. To hopefully get people to voluntarily come forward.

Free counselling and treatment would be in place so that no matter what their socio-economic position anyone could be assessed and treated.

I even put in something in my proposals about only allowing gun licences to people that had passed a psychological evaluation (I wanted it to be annual since situations change but I believe I took that out because of your opposition).

That would be another route to spot people at risk and free services would be given to people that failed the gun evaluation.

I don’t rule out using the police but that would only be thought about as a final resort.

(also this would be just another part of the holistic approach I have talked about)

so now investigation is not a bad thing in your opinion? haha

**
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
As to the system vs the laws argument, I’m unsure why you see the two things (system and laws) to be so mutually exclusive and not in fact interrelated?

For example we still seem unsure why, according to you, the present laws are not being enforced.

And you also seem to be saying that the present system isn’t working because those laws are not being enforced.

So it seems to me that the starting point is the laws, then if that fails to correct the system (federal and state) then we move on to the system and see if it also needs to be changed.

And anyway changing the system without changing the laws first seems like a far more complex way of going about things?

**

I believe I said you must change the system as well as the laws for it to work. IE both at the same time not just one of then as you suggested.

**

Come on man this is just lame.

**

 

“Now if that doesn’t work then it might be a good idea to look at the whole system itself.”

As I have said both must be changed for it to have any kind of chance to succeed. Why that is so hard for you to understand I am not sure.

Well if that is your opinion OK, as I say my own is different.

So how would this new system look?

**

“I don’t believe investigating people that are suspected of mental instability (although they may have committed no crime and may own guns already) is a law in the US, is it?”

no it is not. Nor was that what I said. Either you did not read or this is another attempt at manipulation on your part.

You say you would want to investigate people that are suspected of mental instability (although they may have committed no crime and may own guns already) to see if they should be allowed to own guns or not.

You have suggested this many times, why are you now saying that is not what you have suggested?

***********

I said that you seemed to be suggesting something that you admit you were suggesting. That is that you would wish to investigate people that were suspected of mental instability to determine if they should be allowed to own guns legally.”

Clearly you are still not reading. My objection once again is that you imply that the reasons for child laws and mentally deficient laws are to prevent them from getting a gun and KILLING. I have clarified this many times and AGAIN you refuse to see the light as it does not fit your POV.

I’ve not mentioned children but presumably people who have mental problems need to be diagnosed as such so they would have been investigated, evaluated, tested.

But by saying that you would want to investigate anyone that shows signs of mental instability, so as to stop them possibly committing a crime or murder seems to be increasing the scope of the laws concerning the mentally ill into an area that is not law yet.

**

 

“So how would this new system look?”

my god man I have already said ONE federal system period not multiple levels, as is the present system based on geographic location.

Wow man why the aggression!
As I’ve said these are just differing viewpoints on the same subject.


I can give you my thoughts –

My view was to have one set of clear and straight forward federal law but allow the States to make local laws, as long as they did not conflict with the federal ones.

To give an example the Federal law might state that anyone wanting a gun would have to be psychologically evaluated. A State might say that this had to be done not just before a licence was granted but annually after, but it could not drop the evaluation being mandatory at least once before a licence was granted.

As you point out “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”

This is even more pertinent with your suggestion of only one set of laws covering the whole country from unpopulated rural areas to high population urban ones.

Also this seems to be limiting democracy taking away power from more local areas.

**

“You have suggested this many times, why are you now saying that is not what you have suggested?”

lol what manipulation, I never retracted my stance on that point nor did I ever state it was present law. What I said was:

You make statements inferring that I said something that was not said. I clarified this multiple times and you have yet to acknowledge this fact. You do not investigate children, criminals, or the mentally incompetent to see if they can own guns as you try to imply that I suggest. This is already law they cannot own guns period end of story. The investigation is directed toward people who show a continuing outward signs of aggressive behavior or continuing threats toward specific people or groups.

Why is it you seem to be the only one having such a hard time understanding this?

Please go through what I’ve said already about your reply since you seemed NOT to have addressed or understood anything I brought up.

“You make statements inferring that I said something that was not said. I clarified this multiple times and you have yet to acknowledge this fact.”

I said that you seemed to be suggesting something that you admit you were suggesting. That is that you would wish to investigate people that were suspected of mental instability to determine if they should be allowed to own guns legally.

**

“You do not investigate children, criminals, or the mentally incompetent to see if they can own guns as you try to imply that I suggest”

We I have not being talking about investigating children or criminals in this context. But you have said - numerous times - that you would investigate people that were suspected of mental instability to determine if they should be allowed to own guns legally.

**

“This is already law they cannot own guns period end of story.”

I don’t believe investigating people that are suspected of mental instability (although they may have committed no crime and may own guns already) is a law in the US, is it?

**

“The investigation is directed toward people who show a continuing outward signs of aggressive behavior or continuing threats toward specific people or groups.”

But such behaviour is though of as symptoms of mental instability.

But as I’ve also pointed out it would be difficult to make such assessments against people unwilling to come forward, without resorting to force.

And as also pointed out what level of behaviour is acceptable and what not, what would trigger a full investigation and why?

You say that the say so of a neighbour or co-worker is enough, but how much proof would they have to have to get the person checked out by the police?

As I’ve said it is easy in hindsight for many people to see something wrong but much harder at the time.

I’ve tried to talk to you about such issues but you seem unwilling to enter into debate.


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

“Clearly you are still not reading. My objection once again is that you imply that the reasons for child laws and mentally deficient laws are to prevent them from getting a gun and KILLING. I have clarified this many times and AGAIN you refuse to see the light as it does not fit your POV.

I’ve not mentioned children but presumably people who have mental problems need to be diagnosed as such so they would have been investigated, evaluated, tested.”

Again this part has nothing to do with investigation rather the fact you attribute an idea to me about the reasons we have laws in regards to mentally deficient and children owning guns.

Again I addressed this when I said – “But by saying that you would want to investigate anyone that show signs of mental instability, so as to stop them possibly committing a crime or murder seems to be increasing the scope of the laws concerning the mentally ill into an area that is not law yet.”

I think that is clear but let me see if I can put it more simply.

You talk of the existing laws covering people that are considered too mentally ill to be given or hold a gun licence.

What you are suggesting is that the present laws of who is considered too mentally ill to be given or hold a gun licence be extended.

You wish to do this by actively seeking out people that are suspected of having mental illness even though these people have in the past been able to get hold of guns legally and may not have been convicted of committing any crime.

**

What I’m pointing out is that your suggestions seem to change the nature of the existing laws concerning mental illness.

(PS: Once again why is this rather minor point such a big deal for you?)

**

 

Once more Pitt seems to have just abandoned all discussion of socio-economic issues such as alternatives to the present failed drugs policy and dragged us back to issues related to guns (and even then his points seem more like nit picking rather than being of any real substance).

This seems in line with my theory.

In post 19, page 3 of this thread I put forward a theory. Basically what I was trying to say is that it seemed to me that some people seem to see guns as a way of dealing with or ignoring the social, economic, cultural and political problems facing there society.

In other words I though gun ownership made some people think less or even not at all about such issues and how to actually tackle there causes.

So how would such a viewpoint manifest itself?

A strong desire to promote and defend gun ownership.

An attachment to gun related issues over those of a socio-economic bent.

A total, or limited, ability to talk about ways of dealing with social issues other than from a symptoms rather than a causal viewpoint.

**

Well it seems to me that 500 plus posts later my theory at least as it relates to Pitt still seems to stand.

**

 

“My view was to have one set of clear and straight forward federal law but allow the States to make local laws, as long as they did not conflict with the federal ones.”

Which (as I have said multiple times) is the same system we have now. Federal law, state law, county law, city law.
What’s wrong with ONE federal set of laws governing the whole country?

You have addressed none of the points I’ve raised.

**

“Also this seems to be limiting democracy taking away power from more local areas.”

Why don’t we just leave it up to the individual that owns each parcel of land? Make your own firearm laws anyway you want as long as you do not make them less restrictive than the federal ones.

Is this another example of what you believe is sarcasm? I ask because again it doesn’t seem to be humorous or cutting, just bitter and pointless.

**

” I said that you seemed to be suggesting something that you admit you were suggesting.”

Wrong again the part I took exception to was the statement about the reasons for children and mentally challenged laws was to prevent then from KILLING people. Again this is more common sense law that mainly prevents accidents NOT KILLING OR MURDER.

“Please go through what I’ve said already about your reply since you seemed NOT to have addressed or understood anything I brought up.”

DITTO

You still don’t seem to have addressed any of the points I’ve raised, while I’d already explained my own views on yours.

**

“But you have said - numerous times - that you would investigate people that were suspected of mental instability to determine if they should be allowed to own guns legally.”
From 523
“For example you want to investigate people that show signs of mental instability, well the thing is that to a large extent I agree with you.

I would try to do it more through education and free counselling and treatment rather than taking the police investigation route, but the ideas are similar, yours is just more authoritarian.”

You seem to make such a big deal that I suggest certain people be investigated, yet you agree with the principal just want what nicer tactics? Whatever it is still getting done.

Yes that was my whole point.

I was trying to explain how close we were and work out why you continually seem to be dragging this up as some major and crucial issue, when it seems minor.

As I’ve said you seem to be nit picking so you don’t have to debate openly and honestly.

**

““This is already law they cannot own guns period end of story.”

I don’t believe investigating people that are suspected of mental instability (although they may have committed no crime and may own guns already) is a law in the US, is it?”

damn balbus what part of this did you not understand? Read the whole paragraph before you formulate a question based on one sentence.
Child and mentally incompetent laws are already in place. No there is no formal investigation law in place.

I’m just pointing out that you seem to be suggesting something new something that is not in law yet.

That is all I’m pointing out

I ask again why is this such an important and major issue to you?

Why the nit picking?

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

“But such behaviour is though of as symptoms of mental instability.”

Or emotional outburst, anger, jealously

Your point being?

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

“But as I’ve also pointed out it would be difficult to make such assessments against people unwilling to come forward, without resorting to force.”

So force is NEVER justified?

I’ve already explained my think on this subject you even quote me above –

“I would try to do it more through education and free counselling and treatment rather than taking the police investigation route, but the ideas are similar, yours is just more authoritarian.”

But I do say that if all options are spent then the police could be used.

Again you seem to what to blow something minor into a big issue.

**

“And as also pointed out what level of behaviour is acceptable and what not, what would trigger a full investigation and why?”

I don’t think there is any way to LEGALLY define such a point. However most people know the difference between a kid playing cowboys and Indians VS Eric Harris keeping a website showing continuing anger against society and posting death threats.

But that as i've pointed out seems to be the problem a lot of info comes to light after someone has done something it is a lot harder to work out before hand.

**

“You say that the say so of a neighbour or co-worker is enough, but how much proof would they have to have to get the person checked out by the police?”

A simple phone call to police describing the behavior you find suspicious does not automatically launch a full scale investigation. The police would decide when that becomes necessary.

So basically you are now saying that you are not suggesting anything new, just keeping the same as now, which doesn’t seem to work very well?

**

“As I’ve said it is easy in hindsight for many people to see something wrong but much harder at the time.”

I have responded to this. The problem is most people do not want to get involved, its not my problem, or if he did it to me he will do it to someone else so let them handle it. This attitude is pervasive today and is one of the main problems.
I saw a video of a man getting mugged and stabbed on a busy New York street corner while people just looked over and walked on by.

The thing is people have been urged to get involved before so what new thing(s) are you suggesting?

**

“I’ve not mentioned children”

Since I called you on your incorrect presentation of MY statements. Nor have you EVER acknowledged your misleading statement.

What do you mean? Are you saying I have mentioned children in this context?

As to my supposed incorrect presentation of what you seemed to be suggesting you have since explained that what I said was what you were suggesting.

So how was I being misleading?

Again why is this of such great importance to you and so crucial an issue that you go on and on about it while leaving things that could move the debate on, alone?

**

“What you are suggesting is that the present laws of who is considered too mentally ill to be given or hold a gun licence be extended.”

Why extend it? Its already there in plain English. If you have been adjudicated mentally defective you cannot own a firearm.

So nothing would change or are you saying you have some type of plan to improve things?

**

“What I’m pointing out is that your suggestions seem to change the nature of the existing laws concerning mental illness.”

Lmfao I never suggested changing anything I have always said this is existing the only difference is to get the people involved in policing themselves and stop walking on by when the guy is laying on the street corner getting robbed and stabbed.

So all this, and now you are saying you wouldn’t change anything?

As I’ve said you don’t seem to have any ideas on how to improve things.


**

 

lmfao

Typical anti-gun.
Get rid of or heavily restrict (heavily restrict = ban over time) guns so we can try and tackle social programs.

Typical Pro-gun
Get on with these social programs so the people that only have guns for protection will eventually have no need for them.

Quit wining about the law abiding people owning guns and lets do something about crime.

Oh dear Pitt, this is just sad (although I get the feeling you think it funny).

Silly, juvenile and worthless point scoring that just makes it clear that you haven’t read any of this thread and have complete contempt for anyone else but yourself.

I’m really beginning to feel that while claiming to be some adult you are in fact just a teen with social issues.

Please prove me wrong and start acting like an adult.

**

“Well it seems to me that 500 plus posts later my theory at least as it relates to Pitt still seems to stand.”

Again LMFAO
You refused to answer some of the simplest direct questions about your social program proposal. So the inability to discuss being laid at my feet seems rather dubious.

Again the same accusation, again unsubstantiated.

As I’ve said patiently many times, if you believe I have not replied to something you have asked or some comment you have made I would be very happy to give you a reply.


**

 

“You have addressed none of the points I’ve raised.”

Huh? The point is you have done nothing with your proposal to address the flaws of the system. The system you are suggesting is exactly the same as the existing one. And like this one yours will become a quagmire of numerous laws and restrictions governed by nothing but geography.

It is you that have failed to address this point.

What point are you talking about?

The thing is that we wouldn’t know until something is tried. I wish to take it in steps and keep local democracy in place, you seem to wish to dump the whole legal system as it stands and remove local democracy.

And you still haven’t addressed the points I made.

**

“Is this another example of what you believe is sarcasm? I ask because again it doesn’t seem to be humorous or cutting, just bitter and pointless.”

Slightly sarcastic yes however Again the point is that by keeping the same system:
It will become a quagmire of numerous laws and restrictions governed by nothing but geography.

The thing is that we wouldn’t know until something is tried as I’ve said above.

**

“You still don’t seem to have addressed any of the points I’ve raised, while I’d already explained my own views on yours.”

You should read more carefully, you seem to be a bit confused. You claim you didn’t say something then when it is pointed out to you with references you ignore it.

What did I claim not to have said?

What have I supposedly ignored?

You need to explain yourself or you don’t seem to make any sense.

**

“As I’ve said you seem to be nit picking so you don’t have to debate openly and honestly.”

I am the one nit picking? It is you that at first seems to claim that investigating people who continually act in a threatening way is a bad thing, then suddenly you claim that you agree in principal but want to modify the details on how to accomplish this.

I highlighted the problems I saw with the way you seemed to be suggesting and put forward some things that I thought would be better.

We have also covered this in the past and my proposal to have people psychologically evaluated before being allowed a licence was one of the things that came out of it.

That is why I think this isn’t a major issue just two different opinions on what how to go about things.

However you seem now to be implying that you wouldn’t actually do anything just hope that people might act differently, which isn’t a policy it is just wishful thinking.


**

“I ask again why is this such an important and major issue to you?”

Because I have seen tragedy up close and personal and have seen how ignoring obvious signs by people that just didn’t want to get involved leads to such events. If you do not believe me just look at my location and review the history of the area and maybe you will understand.

I’m sorry but I’m unsure of what insistence you are referring to or what point you are trying to make?

**

“Your point being?”

There are many reasons that may lead people to look at someone closely not all actually mean that they will progress to something harmful.

Yes but as I’ve pointed out it is very difficult to know at what point you call in the police to take someone into questioning as someone that is potentially mentally ill and dangerous?

If someone is withdrawn and subject to mood swings due to depression it might be seen by someone (neighbour or co-worker) rightly as a sign of mental illness but getting them vetted by the police is likely to make their condition worse.

I’ve suggested some ideas but you seem reluctant to discuss them.

**

“But I do say that if all options are spent then the police could be used.”

Again I have said the same thing. Suspicion does not automatically lead to police investigation.
So what is your problem with my stance? It seems that we are more in agreement as to the procedure in whole despite the minor differences.

As I’ve said many times to me neighbours and co-workers might not be the best people to make a judgement on such things.

My suggestion was about education, plus free counselling and treatment rather than taking the police investigation route, which you called just wanting to have nicer tactics.

But the point I’m making is that harsher tactics might make peoples live worse rather than better as well as exacerbating the problem.

Think about it if someone is having problems if they think this could cause them to be investigated by the police (and presumably a police record) then they are less likely to seek help and treatment.

Also the idea that any of your neighbours or co workers could have you investigated if you act ‘inappropriately’ is likely to increase the paranoia and stress of anyone but especially those with mental problems.

I thought you ideas on how to tackle this problem seem authoritarian and based in suppression and threat so once again backing up my theory.

**

“But that as i've pointed out seems to be the problem a lot of info comes to light after someone has done something it is a lot harder to work out before hand.”

Didn’t come to light for the general public. The person/persons reporting afterward knew when it happened there was something to it, they just didn’t want to get involved. Which is what I have been saying.

Again this is easy to say in hindsight, it is very easy to blame people for not doing something but that isn’t a policy it is just a blame game.

The thing is people for whatever reason don’t come forward so rather than complain about that why not think of other ways to tackle the problem?

Just blame people and telling them they ‘should do something’ is basically ignoring the problem by passing the buck.

Again this backs up my theory.

**

“So basically you are now saying that you are not suggesting anything new, just keeping the same as now, which doesn’t seem to work very well?”

The system does not work because people are to scared or don’t care enough to get involved.
How many times must I say this?

And how many times do I have to point out this isn’t a way of dealing with a problem it is just a way of getting out of actually having to think up a way to deal with a problem.

Again your viewpoint backs up my theory.


**

“I saw a video of a man getting mugged and stabbed on a busy New York street corner while people just looked over and walked on by.

The thing is people have been urged to get involved before so what new thing(s) are you suggesting?”

If I get involved, you get involved people will eventually see that it is not a bad thing and that their involvement can lead to good things. Have you ever seen an out of control situation where one individual gets involved and then more follow? Will you be the leader of the follower?

This is basically saying you haven’t a clue how to actually deal with these problems.

I point out that people have been urging others to get involved for years (centuries) yet there are still many problems I ask what things you would do to actually make a difference and what do you do - you urge me and others to get involved.

As I’ve pointed out this is just a fancy way of ignoring the problems while trying to fool people that you are not.

Again you back up my theory.


**

“What do you mean? Are you saying I have mentioned children in this context?”

In the context I have stated repeatedly yes.

“So how was I being misleading?”

You misrepresent my statements and it has to be explained how this is misleading?

What did I misrepresent?

Again you throw out accusations but seem unable to back them up.

“Again why is this of such great importance to you and so crucial an issue that you go on and on about it while leaving things that could move the debate on, alone?”

It reminds me and others of your dishonest tactics.

What dishonest tactics?

Again you throw out accusations but seem unable to back them up.

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

“So nothing would change or are you saying you have some type of plan to improve things?”

again PEOPLE GET INVOLVED.

Even if you SHOUT it this basically means that you haven’t got any real ideas on what to do and as has been shown in this thread you seem antagonistic to new ideas preferring it seems to let things carry on the way they are.

Things can change if people get involved in supporting policies that might actually bring about a better society.

But you don’t seem interested in those types of policies or even in thinking about them.

Again you back up my theory.

**

 

Pitt

Sorry mate but nearly everything you say these days seems to just make my theory fit you even more.

Anyway I’m off for a week or two we can talk when I get back if you want to.

Regards

Balbus

 

Maybe this thread will fall down below the fold during that time. You two are only arguing amongst yourselves anyway.

 

Nuff said!

Good post proud!

 

Gardener

As amusing as it is, I’d be quite happy to let this thread go.

I mean it seems to me that my theory still stand and only seems to get stronger the longer this tread goes on anyway.

And also, rather sadly, the only opponents of it seem to have stopped actually debating and have fallen back on rather pathetic and unfounded accusations that they are unable to back up or bitter rhetoric masquerading as satirical humour.


**

 

Opinions like theories are not fact, but opinions or theories that are not contested or which fail to be refuted stand as been possibly correct.

Also one person’s idea of what constitutes a ‘fact’ can be seen by another as a theory and by others as a fiction.

That is why open and honest debate is so important.

This has been explained many times in this thread and it is surprising that some people still haven’t understood.

I put forward a theory on page three of this thread and it still seems to stand.

I’m quite happy to leave the thread at that, since nobody who opposed it seems to wish to enter into open or honest debate preferring juvenile ‘point scoring’ or the throwing around of accusations that they never seem able to back up.


**