Gun ownership is MAD?

Pitt

The reason why it was misdirection was because I’ve already made it clear that until the attitude of those that like playing with guns changes it is unlikely that any type of gun control measures, be they detailed or simple, would be acceptable. This is clear from your own comments on the subject.

**

“Is it the gun they fear or the criminal?”

Yes, thank you Pitt, you hit the nail on the button, this is the point I was making.

Why is it that you and other Americans seem to be so afraid and worried about crime that you feel the necessity to have a gun to protect you, while I don’t.

As I pointed out -

“As we have seen the ‘protection’ argument is in fact pretty weak. It quickly became clear that the only reason that Americans feel they need a gun to protect them is that they believe they are more likely to get into a situation with someone else with a gun. And the only reason for that is that the US has more guns in circulation.

So you would think that the most sensible thing to do would be to lessen the amount of guns in circulation, but no to many Americans the way to deal with this situation is to increase the amount of guns in circulation.

It is like a drowning man asking for a glass of water”

Do you understand?

What they fear is the criminal with the gun, but it goes further than that, they fear everyone that might have a gun and for whatever reason might us it against them.

So the reason for the fear is knowing that the society you live in is awash with guns and it is very likely that if their were few guns, that fear would dissipate and people would not feel the necessity to own a gun themselves just for protection.

See symptom and cause.

The pro-gun lobby’s argument seems to be - other people have guns you need a gun to protect yourself against them.

This is using the symptom to make the symptom worse.

It is like those medieval doctors that used to bleed the sick and if they died it was because they had not been bled enough.

**

Then there is the anti-gun lobby that sees guns as the root cause of all problems, making statements like "get rid of guns and other problems will fade away and get better". not only misguided show me where this has taken place?

Interesting you don’t actually address the issue but once again decide on a misdirection.

**

“Again you want to deal with the disease but ignore the symptoms. I still say you can do both.”

But this is the problem I don’t think you are or even believe you can deal with the supposed cause.

I mean your comments have been contradictory but so far you have most strongly implied that to you the main (if only) reason for crime is the personal choice of individual acting criminally.

That a criminally minded person (bad person) will decide to act criminally and a non-criminally minded person (good person) will decide not to act criminally.

There are many examples of this viewpoint but here is one - “When you get right down to it, the individual has to choose which action to take. Situations will put pressure on you but do not MAKE you act.” (post 38)

And as I said -

“You seem to make it plain that to you it doesn’t really matter what a persons up-bring was like or what the environment they where brought up was like or the possible lessons they leant from it, in the end it comes down to their choice. So if they were ‘good’ they wouldn’t choose to commit a crime but if they were ‘bad’ they would.

The problem as I see it is that it could be very easy for someone that thought that way to come to the conclusion that it is all to do with the individual. That is doesn’t matter what lesson the person has learn from their up bringing or environment, that in the end people that are ‘criminally minded’ will always choose to be criminals wherever or whatever their up-bringing.

It is then only a short step to believing that social programmes wouldn’t work and that the only way to combat crime is to lock up offenders and carry a gun” (post 39)

I mean if, when you get right down to it, the cause of crime has nothing to do with outside influences but only an internal and absolute concept of right and wrong, of being a good person or bad person. Wouldn’t such a mindset believe that it would be very difficult to deal with the cause (a person just being bad) and so they would mostly concentrate on dealing with the symptoms (controlling the bad behaviour).

**

 

“Again you are misinterpeting my statements (intentionally or not)”

The problem is that there seems to be contradictions between some of your assertions and some of your statements, which can make interpretation of your real viewpoint rather difficult.

For example you assert you are not afraid but you then go on about violent crime being everywhere, that you need protection from violent people and crazed crackheads, who you seem to claim might break into your house at any time. I mean you think that it is so likely that you are going to be attacked that you think it just common sense to have a gun within reach at all times.

Which to me sounds like you are afraid.

I don’t feel like that, non of my friends or work colleagues feel they are so under threat that they need a gun, why do you feel you do, and why are you telling others that they need one too?

Because while you say that you are not advocating that more people should get a armed, seemingly at every turn you seem to be pushing it, not only by spreading fear of attack but by saying directly that if someone hasn’t got a gun they are defenceless against crime. If that is not trying to tell people to become armed I don’t now what is.

**

“You are advocating some gun control measures yet you refuse to to define them. Why? I asked your opinion of what gun control measure you wanted to see. There are many gun control measures in effect right now, Im not asking for any of these to be repealed”

I believe the US would be a less fearful society it there were far fewer guns in circulation, but I haven’t advocated any firm plans. The reason being that I don’t think any real measures will be introduced until the attitude of those that like playing with guns changes. As I’ve already said this is clear from your own comments on the subject.

I also don’t think you have grasped the need for a holistic approach to the US’s problems.

**

“What they fear is the criminal with the gun, but it goes further than that, they fear everyone that might have a gun and for whatever reason might us it against them”

“Wrong again, they fear the criminal not people with guns.”

The thing is that I (and many people I’ve talked to here) think that living in a society in which about anyone could pull a gun out on them would be rather worrying and are thankful we don’t live in such a society.

If you are saying that people in the US shouldn’t think like that why all the scary talk about needing a gun for protection?

**

“If a crackhead is so addicted that he feels he has no choice but to go out and mug people to get money to feed thier habbit, what do you purpose we do with this individual?”

This again highlights the seeming obsession with the symptom and not the cause, and the answer to the symptom being once more a gun.

Why this emphasis on the symptom?

Because I believe many think the cause isn’t something anytone can do much about, because the cause is the flawed character of the criminal – they’re just bad people.

‘he had a lot of problems’, ‘he didnt know what he was doing’ when he took crack, ‘lets slap him on the wrist and hope he learned a lesson’ these obviously sarcastic comments say it all. This is not about seeing what caused the person to take drugs or become a criminal, it is all about getting a gun to drive back the hoards.

This type of attitude doesn’t want to know or understand the problems the addict had, what caused him to take drugs. Because outside influences don’t cause people to commit crime, being a bad person causes someone to commit crime, being weak causes someone to commit crime, having no sense of right or wrong causes someone to commit crime.

I mean how do you deal with those causes?

It seems to me you can’t, the only way is to take such people out of circulation so they don’t interfere with good decent folk, you can only shot them or lock them up when they inevitably commit a crime.

I don’t know if this attitude came before the desire for a gun or after it, or because of it but is seems to me that they are linked.

As I said there seem to be contradictions between what you say you believe and the statements you express.

**

I think the problem is that without those qualifying assertions that contradict your statements it would just be too obvious how biased you were and how little interested you were in anything but your own interests.

 

So what do we have?

I said at the beginning that I thought guns could be used by people as a substitute for looking that the problems within there society.

So far I don’t think that viewpoint has been seriously challenged.

Shane snipes

H posts and runs

And Pitt seems to get more entangled in contradictions with every post.

What I have learned is that while many Americans see guns as a solution to their fears they are also one of the main causes of that fear.

 

Nice try Balbus, but you are wrong.

I haven't seriously gotten into this debate because Pitt is doing a very nice job of kicking your ass.

Your strategy? What it always is.

You ask a question, he answers that question, You ask the same damn question worded differently, he answers, you ask the same questions again and state that he still hasn't responded, he answers the questions again while posing a few of his own to you, you refuse to answer his questions and state that because he hasnt answered your's you have won.

Bullshit.

Nothing he has stated has been contradictory.

He stated that firearm ownership is not driven by fear of firearms but by fear of crime and those who commit crime, and that the answer is two pronged: address the root causes of crime(disease) while still being able to protect himself as an individual from those who commit the crime (symptoms).

He backs this statement with stats that show that increased firearm ownership decreases crime rates and decreased firearm ownership increases crime rates.

You are the one who can't answer a question straightforward.

 

Oh Shane, shane, shane

You really don’t understand the concept of debate do you?

I’ve noticed that it is common in American thinking that somehow, differing arguments are like opposing armies or gladiators, and if one person changes their views just slightly from the one they began with they are defeated and the other celebrates a victory, an arse kicking.

The thing is to me debate is about learning and seeking understanding, it is a glorious adventure. If some point reveals some new insight that changes they way I think, I don’t feel defeated, I feel exalted.

Now if you think Pitt is somehow kicking my arse and you are enjoying that feeling then I happy for you, enjoy it.

The thing is that I’m enjoying it not because I think my arse is being kicked but because I’m learning a lot and getting some great insights. I only fear however that they are probably not ones Pitt or you would understand, but for them I can only thank you and the other contributors to this thread.

**

Your strategy? What it always is.

You ask a question, he answers that question, You ask the same damn question worded differently, he answers, you ask the same questions again and state that he still hasn't responded, he answers the questions again while posing a few of his own to you, you refuse to answer his questions and state that because he hasnt answered your's you have won.

You’ve said this before when we have been in discussion and I had to explain by reproducing the sequence that your accusation was incorrect.

I believe it is incorrect in this case, unless you wish to show me otherwise?

**

Nothing he [Pitt] has stated has been contradictory.

This is you opinion I think differently and have stated why. You are entitled to your opinion but I could ask you why you have it?

Pitt might say he isn’t pushing gun use but with every mention of violent and armed criminals, every time he asks what people are to do when confronted by crazed crackheads and how not having a gun just leaves people defensless against crime. He is advocating people would be better off armed.

Think about those advertisements that pretend they’re information programmes (infomercials) they tells people how much they might need a product and what bad things might happen if people if they didn’t have a product without actually coming out and saying ‘Buy This’. The price is often mentioned in passing not as ‘this is only 9.99 in all good retailers’ but offhand for instance, saying their gun cost only $75 or saying in passing that AK-47’s are cheap.

I’m surprised that someone like you who I believe has warned others about corporate sell hasn’t seen this already, but then you already believe in the product and it is possible you mind is clouded by bias.

**

 

“Again you are misinterpeting my statements (intentionally or not)”

The problem is that there seems to be contradictions between some of your assertions and some of your statements, which can make interpretation of your real viewpoint rather difficult.

My position is very straight forward. Owning a gun is a personal choice, if one chooses to own a gun they should take that responsibility seriously. There are people that should not own guns and the law here provides for this. Enforce the existing laws and gun crime would go down. People use guns to protect themselves from crime every day, to deny them this right would make me feel complicient in thier death should this occure. Crime is out there and each person must deciode how far they need to carry thier right of self protection.

Yes but so is buying a brand of washing up liquid. That doesn’t mean people that support that brand don’t stop trying to advertise it. And one way this is done is to try to come across as the uninterested party, I think people are very familiar with the concept – ‘I don’t care if you buy this brand but personally I think it’s great’

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

“People use guns to protect themselves from crime every day, to deny them this right would make me feel complicient in thier death should this occure. Crime is out there and each person must deciode how far they need to carry thier right of self protection.”

It feels like a sales pitch.

**

For example you assert you are not afraid but you then go on about violent crime being everywhere, that you need protection from violent people and crazed crackheads, who you seem to claim might break into your house at any time. I mean you think that it is so likely that you are going to be attacked that you think it just common sense to have a gun within reach at all times.

Which to me sounds like you are afraid.

Chances of being mugged or burgled are remote for any individual, but it doesa happen and you cannot say who will be affected and who will not. If I were truely that afraid I would have a gun on me at all times (which I am liscensed to do) however that is not the case. So your claim holds no water.

So “how do you defend yourself or your family”?

This ties in with my earlier point about the ‘protection argument’ being rather weak and the contradictions that seem to arise between your statements.

I mean at one point you seem to argue that people need guns because “violent crime is everywhere” and that people have to have “protection from violent people (ie criminals, carjackers, gang bangers)”

The next you are saying you don’t need to have a gun that you don’t carry yours.

But you begin by implying anyone could be a victim of a mugging at any time.

Mixed messages or what?

The thing is if you really think that you could be attack anytime anyplace why are you not afraid? So why do you not keep your gun with at all times, un-holstered and ready for use? And if you don’t believe that you will be attacked why do you go on about needing a gun to protect you and your family?

**

I don’t feel like that, non of my friends or work colleagues feel they are so under threat that they need a gun, why do you feel you do, and why are you telling others that they need one too?

Again Where have I stated that I NEEDED a gun? Where did I say others NEEDED a gun? I have not so what you are saying is utter nonsense.

I refer you to the replies above

**

Because while you say that you are not advocating that more people should get a armed, seemingly at every turn you seem to be pushing it, not only by spreading fear of attack but by saying directly that if someone hasn’t got a gun they are defenceless against crime. If that is not trying to tell people to become armed I don’t now what is.

Where did I say this?

The quote was “doing away with guns will not do away with crime, It just leaves people more defensless against crime”

If you have a gun you can defend yourself against crime, therefore if you haven’t got a gun you are defenceless against crime

**

“You are advocating some gun control measures yet you refuse to to define them. Why? I asked your opinion of what gun control measure you wanted to see. There are many gun control measures in effect right now, Im not asking for any of these to be repealed”

I believe the US would be a less fearful society it there were far fewer guns in circulation, but I haven’t advocated any firm plans. The reason being that I don’t think any real measures will be introduced until the attitude of those that like playing with guns changes. As I’ve already said this is clear from your own comments on the subject.

So you refuse to try and reach terms which would result in what you want, which is to lessen the number of certain types of weapons you think should not be in the general publics hands. Sounds like you do not want to try and address what you see as a problem, just complain about it and hope others with your point of view takes care of it.

What terms would be acceptable was my question, your reply was not much.

As I’ve tried to explain it a matter of attitude, let us say that some supernatural force disappeared all the guns in the US held in private hands over night. I bet that the very next morning that those people with that attitude would be planning a trip to the gun shop to buy more guns. So I also bet that within a couple of years or so the US would be right back where it is today in levels of gun ownership and gun crime.

**

“What they fear is the criminal with the gun, but it goes further than that, they fear everyone that might have a gun and for whatever reason might us it against them”

“Wrong again, they fear the criminal not people with guns.”

The thing is that I (and many people I’ve talked to here) think that living in a society in which about anyone could pull a gun out on them would be rather worrying and are thankful we don’t live in such a society.

If you are saying that people in the US shouldn’t think like that why all the scary talk about needing a gun for protection?

I have never heard anyone express the thought that some random person would pull a gun on them. Why should anyone worry about a normal law abiding person suddinly attacking them with a gun?

Ok so you’re saying that there have been no instances of random shootings in the US, no school children shooting their fellow students, no work place killings no one taking people out indiscriminately?

I mean someone who came to these very forums said he had gone out and brought a new gun after talking to me, hinting that he would like to us it on me. (I had to tell him that it better have a long barrel since he was in the mid-west and I live in the UK)

**

“they worry about the criminal weather armed with a gun or something else”

But you said you where unafraid of being attacked to the extent that you don’t carry your gun? But now you are saying people (presumably including yourself) are afraid of being attacked.

**

“If a crackhead is so addicted that he feels he has no choice but to go out and mug people to get money to feed thier habbit, what do you purpose we do with this individual?”

This again highlights the seeming obsession with the symptom and not the cause, and the answer to the symptom being once more a gun.

Read further and I said help the person with thier addiction and thier root problem, so again I am advocating treating not only treating the cause but also protection from the symptoms. You seem to think this is an impossible task.

Yes you are right “help the person with thier addiction” that is the symptom, I would say the cause was why the person turned to drugs in the first place. Your view seems to be when the person commits the crime you then give him rehab and see what can be done. I think that by then the damage has been done, yes it would be sensible to treat him but what about seeing why he and others have taken that root and deal with that so hopefully the addiction and the crime never take place.

**

Why this emphasis on the symptom?

Because I believe many think the cause isn’t something anytone can do much about, because the cause is the flawed character of the criminal – they’re just bad people.

‘he had a lot of problems’, ‘he didnt know what he was doing’ when he took crack, ‘lets slap him on the wrist and hope he learned a lesson’ these obviously sarcastic comments say it all. This is not about seeing what caused the person to take drugs or become a criminal, it is all about getting a gun to drive back the hoards.

Again out of context and misrepresenting what I said. I was asking if this is what you think should be done as it seems to be what you are pushing for.

So you were not being sarcastic, this is how you think sensible questions are framed, oh please.

- OK lets see

‘he had a lot of problems’ – I thought you agreed that if those problems were the cause of someone turning to crime they should be looked at put right?

“he didnt know what he was doing’ when he took crack” – he may or may not have known, but is that relevant, something caused him to become an addict and I thought you agreed that if those things were the cause of someone becoming an addict they should be looked?

“lets slap him on the wrist and hope he learned a lesson’ (this isn’t sarcasm?) – Well I presume that you agree that different crimes deserve difference punishments so you have to define the ‘slap on the wrist’, be it community service or prison? I mean claim to advocate rehab and counciling for addicts is that a ‘slap on the wrist’ or a sensible course of action?

**

This type of attitude doesn’t want to know or understand the problems the addict had, what caused him to take drugs. Because outside influences don’t cause people to commit crime, being a bad person causes someone to commit crime, being weak causes someone to commit crime, having no sense of right or wrong causes someone to commit crime.

Again like I said the root causes will vary from person to person. Put 10 different criminals in a room and you will fimd 10 different root causes. There is no blanket cure, it will take many programs attacking problems on many different fronts, until that happens deal with the symptoms to protect yourself.

Until that happens?

As I’ve said it is the attitude. I’ve said that the many problems need a holistic approach, I’ve mentioned a few and you mostly agreed with them. But while there are many people pushing the whole gun as protection idea few of the same people are pushing the programmes and policies that would be needed to get at the causes.
As I’ve stated I think as long as it is thought that the gun can deal with the symptoms (or is thought to deal with the symptoms) then the attitude to dealing with the causes will not change.

**

I mean how do you deal with those causes?

You tell me?

Oh I don’t think you understood –

If someone thought that outside influences don’t cause people to commit crime, being a bad person causes someone to commit crime, being weak causes someone to commit crime, having no sense of right or wrong causes someone to commit crime.

Then how do you deal with those causes

Think about it –

If everyone is born with the same level of good/bad, right/wrong, strength/weakness etc. And then such things as their environment, up bringing etc (outside influences) changed those levels then there is a chance to change things for the better

But if people are born bad or good, and it doesn’t matter what their outside influences were they will still turn out bad or good then what can be done?

**

It seems to me you can’t, the only way is to take such people out of circulation so they don’t interfere with good decent folk, you can only shot them or lock them up when they inevitably commit a crime.

A miricle cure for crime does not exist, crime is and will happen, so what do you propose we do with said criminals?

So do you do anything, but react to the symptoms?

**

I don’t know if this attitude came before the desire for a gun or after it, or because of it but is seems to me that they are linked.
Being tough on crime and making criminals serve thier sentances has nothing to do with gun ownership, your making no sense.

But haven’t you noticed that the same attitudes often go together?

**

What I have learned is that while many Americans see guns as a solution to their fears they are also one of the main causes of that fear.

How do you back up this last statement?

It is in part based on your own comments, just go back through the thread.

**

 

Pitt

I think the problem is that I’m interested in the attitudes that underpin US gun culture while to you it is all about defending that gun culture.

I’ve been trying to explain to you what I see, this seems to make you feel that you must defend guns even more which gives me even more insights into the attitude which I then try to explain.

I must admit, I’m having a wonderful time because I’m learning so much.

I think the only reason you think the debate is stagnating is that you can’t seem to get beyond the gun defence argument and see why you are defending guns.

 

Yes, he is promoting his stated view that an armed individual is a better prepared individual, but what exact statements has he made that have contradicted each other?

 

Gun defense arguement?

The topic is about gun ownership, of course he is defending the owning of .... that's right, guns.

As far as the "why" of defending gun ownership, that has already been addressed as well.


You keep trying to link ownership of guns with an irrational fear of one's fellow men with no evidence to support, only a lot of "you seem to be saying" comments. It has already been established in this thread that the defense of gun ownership does not stem from a fear of guns or fellow man but from the reality of crime and the deterrent effect of gun ownership as it pertains to crime. Evidence has been submitted to you in support of that postion as well.

not only that, but it has already been stated in this thread that the root causes of crime are not being ignored by gun owners, nor is gun ownership used as a cure all for crime. What has been stated and has been consistenly supported by Pitt's comments is that one reason for gun ownership is the protection of the individual when the causes of crime are either not addressed have not worked or have not yet been identified.

Again, 2-pronged. Address the root causes of crime, while defending the means to protecting one's self and loved ones against said crime.

No contradiction.

 

The root reason for owning a gun is it makes you feel more powerful. That's why so many Americans want to own them, it's an extension of their feeling of power. Whether they use it wisely of not. And many don't they use it to supposedly prove their manhood in many instances. Young gang members gain prestige by killing others, without ever really putting themselves at any risk.

 

1.) How do you explain the growing number of females who choose to legally own firearms? Are they proving their manhood?

2.) Doesn't your point of young gang members (few of which are using registered legally owned firearms) using violence to gain prestige underline the very reason one should be able to have the means to protect oneself?

 

The article you cite is from the conservative magazine American Spectator, by the right wing pundit Hal Gibson Pateshall Colebatch.

Come on Pitt do you wish me to go out and find an article by some other political pundit who sees things differently? I mean I could there are almost as many anti-gun sites with lists of articles to cite out there as there are pro-gun sites with list of articles to cite, but don’t you think it would become a bit fucking tedious?

But in comparing New York and London, as far as I can see the gun related murder rate for New York City is running at about 500 a year while the gun related murder rate for the whole of the UK is about 70.

US city of 8 million = 500

Non-US country of 60 million = 70

 

Again it is all about the attitudes -

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

Think of gun crime as normal symptom of US society and so Pitts say “protect yourself from the symptoms” and reminds you that “Thousands and thousands of times a year the gun DOES deal with these symptoms.

But don’t be afraid Pitt’s not afraid and he isn’t trying to frighten anyone into getting a gun.
No.
He just believes that he could be attack at any moment and he believes you could be attacked at any moment, he even fears that your attacker could kill you at any moment.
It could happen, but don’t be afraid.

So anyway it’s your choice and Pitt isn’t trying to influence you in anyway he just believes if you have any common sense you’d arm yourself now before its too late.

**

Pitt

You don’t see this as scare mongering because to you it is just common sense, it is the reality. What I’m asking is why is that your ‘reality’. Why is it that your reality seems so more viscous and violent than my own?

I mean why should US people be more worried about being the victim of a crime than British people? Are US criminals so much more murderous and violent than those in the UK, who are therefore much more likely to want to injure or kill their victims?
If so why?
Could it be because Americans know the US is awash with guns and so anyone that might commit a crime could be armed with a gun? Or could it be that there is no greater risk than in the UK if so why does you reality seem so much more dangerous?

As I say there seems to be a certain outlooks that I just don’t understand.

**

“Basic attitude is that we have the RIGHT to own guns”

But isn’t that a patent a lie?

You’ve said many times that you think some people shouldn’t be able to own guns. I’m not sure who they are or why, but you have stated it.

So whom do you mean when you say ‘we’?

**

“You evidently didnt read the part that said "normal law abiding person”. In lots of cases there were signs before hand that could have and should have been acted on to prevent these incidents from happening.”

This throws up so many questions for example -

How do you find out?

How do you stop them?

I mean if someone is ‘law abiding’ right up to the point when they commit a crime, how do you distinguish them from any other person?

**

In your opinion how do criminals become rehabilitated?


**

In your opinion what is being ‘soft’ and what is being ‘hard’ on crime?

**

 

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

You were asking why would anyone want/need a gun, I gave you the reasons and backed up those reasons. Now you are accusing me of fear mongering, its not like I am out there advocating everyone to get a gun.

You really can’t see it can you, you really think you are being objective.

This is what I’m trying to say about the attitudes and viewpoints of the pro-gun lobby, it’s not about questioning its about reacting.

Why do you think you need a gun to protect you against crime, when I don’t?

**

I have answered your questions and have asked you questions in return yet you refuse to answer.

What questions have I refused to answer? You have asked me to somehow give you a detailed plan of the gun control measures I’d bring in the US, but I’ve explained that I don’t think that is worthwhile or possible until the attitudes of those that agree with, support, and defend the US gun culture has changed.

I can give you an aspiration - a US in which people, even the police, don’t feel they need or even want guns.

**

Your whole base of thought is less guns = less crime, yet you show no basis for this. You equate less Gun Crime to less Crime overall,

I’d read through my posts if I was you, because I haven’t argued that.

I have argued that in my opinion fewer guns means less gun deaths and few gun crimes.

I have argued that I believe that fewer guns would probably make the US a less fearful society

I have argued that the attitude of many Americans sees guns as a way of dealing with crime that might be better dealt with by other means (some of which I have stated and you have somewhat agreed to).

**

yet you show no basis for this.

Well since I haven’t said it…

I have shown the huge disparities in gun related homicides between the US and other countries (which you admit is true)

Your own posts claiming people could be a victim of crime at any moment, of the need for protection and that criminals have guns seems to point toward a society that is fearful.

I have seen this attitude in many threads over the years I’ve been here, and your own views that external forces have little impact on a person becoming a criminal and your constant pushing of guns as a deterrent seems to imply that to some extent you also have this attitude (but we are still exploring this).

**

You seem to think a law abiding person should have no reason to have a gun, all the while ignoring the thousands of times they in fact DID need/use one. You want to ignore the fact that criminals admit they have been deterred by a gun and the reason they prefer to burgle an empty house is because they fear the owner MIGHT be armed.

Again you equate not having a gun with not being protected and push the idea that guns are the best deterrent to being a victim of crime.

As I’ve pointed out and you agreed it needed to be known – how many of those criminals that were deterred or even captured by someone with a gun went out and got a gun themselves because of that?

As we have discussed a gun is of little use if the owner is not at home. In fact as discussed in such circumstances if the burglar finds the gun it is worse since the burglar is now armed or will sell it to someone else that might use it in a crime. (I mused that it might be a good idea for everyone with a legal gun to have, by law, a gunsafe, but you rejected that idea)

**

You believe we are living in in a constant state of fear of guns and crime, yet give othing to base this upon other than your opinion. While it seems you want to ignore crime in your own country so you wont have to be concerned about it.

Again you just don’t see it,

Why do you make statements that imply danger if you are not fearful? As I’ve pointed out a number of time the being armed theory of protection doesn’t seem to be that strong, only in a few very limited circumstances is it of any use.

So why should US people be more worried about being the victim of a crime than British people? Are US criminals so much more murderous and violent than those in the UK, who are therefore much more likely to want to injure or kill their victims?
If so why?
Could it be because Americans know the US is awash with guns and so anyone that might commit a crime could be armed with a gun? Or could it be that there is no greater risk than in the UK if so why does you reality seem so much more dangerous?

**

“Basic attitude is that we have the RIGHT to own guns”

A lie? not hardly. You are correct i do say there are people that should not have the right to own a gun, and our laws address this in specifics. Basically I agree with these laws.

So the basic attitude is that only some should have the right to own guns.

The thing is that that is my stance.

So the ‘we’ have the right to have a gun and the ‘they’ don’t have a right to have a gun.

So who are the ‘we’ and who are the ‘they’?

**

“You evidently didnt read the part that said "normal law abiding person”. In lots of cases there were signs before hand that could have and should have been acted on to prevent these incidents from happening.”

This throws up so many questions for example -

How do you find out?
You have got to be kidding me, do a little research on school/college shootings and you will see that many times that people commiting such tragedy's often speak about it beforehand, often commit acts to which friends and family later admit thinking was strange and disturbing.

Like what?

I mean here are some of the ‘warning signs’ according to the FBI -

Fascination with violence in films and TV
Angry outbursts
Inability to take criticism
Exaggerated sense of self-importance
Intolerance
Narcissism
Attention seeking
Nihilism
Mood swings
Inappropriate sense of humour

(As we’ve been joking here that sounds like the description of the average teenager boy)

**

How do you stop them?
Well counseling comes to mind.

Fine but who gets the counceling (every teen that shows one or more of the above ‘warning signs’) and who pays for it?

Do you think if would be worth cutting down their access to guns?

**

I mean if someone is ‘law abiding’ right up to the point when they commit a crime, how do you distinguish them from any other person?

You will not know 100% of the time and I dont think I ever said you would stop 100%. But there are many that could have/ should have been prevented.

How?

Do you want everyone that wants to have a gun to take some type of psychological evaluation?

**

In your opinion how do criminals become rehabilitated?
Again that will differ from criminal to criminal. I admit there is no cookie cutter answer to these type of questions, where as you seem to think there is.

Have you any ideas?

You’ve already mentioned counseling and rehab, but what about the problem of people going straight back into an a situation and environment that could lead them back into crime?

**

 

In your opinion what is being ‘soft’ and what is being ‘hard’ on crime?

Soft on crime =

Quote:

British police have now been told that instead of arresting a range of serious criminals, they can be let off with a caution.

The Home Office says offenses that may now be dealt with by a caution include burglary of a shop or office, threatening to kill, actual bodily harm, and possession of Class A drugs such as heroin or cocaine if police decide a caution would be the best approach.


Hard on crime =

No letting criminals commiting serious crimes off with a warning. Not letting a someone who just burgled your home of business of with a "caution". I would think Jail time and restitution would be a much better deterrent.


I guess this is another question you seem to find much to difficult to answer as you may offend some criminal.

**

So you are depending on a bias Australian to answer some of your own questions?

Ok, but his statement doesn’t say if the crimes mentioned are serious or not, in fact it goes against the guidelines for cautions for them to be handed out for serious offences -

“A Police Caution is a formal warning given by or on the instructions of a senior Police officer.

A Caution can be only given to an adult who has admitted guilt for an offence. The Police Caution is administered where that person could have been charged or prosecuted for the offence and is only given for minor or less serious offences.

The Police Caution is recorded on the Police National Computer and can be taken into consideration by the Court if that person is convicted and sentenced for a further offence”

The thing about cautions is that it is up to the discretion of the police. They decide if that is the course of action that seems to them the most appropriate.

**

burglary of a shop or office – this can mean anything from shoplifting and petty pilfering up to armed robbery.

**

threatening to kill – this can mean anything from drunken mates having an argument to a wife beater with a carving knife at his ex-wife’s throat.

**

actual bodily harm – this sounds unlikely – here are the guidelines for actual bodily harm

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Refer to (Archbold 19-190) for the law.

i. The offence is committed when a person assaults another, thereby causing actual bodily harm. Bodily harm has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim: such hurt need not be permanent, but must be more than transient and trifling: (R v Donovan 25 Cr. App. Rep. 1, CCA). It is an either way offence, which carries a maximum penalty on indictment of five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

ii. As stated in paragraph 1(vi) above, the factors in law that distinguish a charge under section 39 from a charge under section 47 are the degree of injury resulting and the sentencing powers available to the sentencing court. Refer to paragraphs 1(vii) and (viii) for instances where common assault will be the appropriate charge. Where the injuries exceed those that can suitably be reflected by a common assault a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm should normally be preferred. By way of example, the following injuries should normally be prosecuted under section 47:

 Loss or breaking of tooth or teeth;

 · Temporary loss of sensory functions, which may include loss of consciousness. T v Director of Public Prosecutions, [2003] Crim. L. R. 622

 Extensive or multiple bruising;

 displaced broken nose;

 minor fractures;

 minor, but not merely superficial, cuts of a sort probably requiring medical treatment (e.g. stitches);

 psychiatric injury that is more than mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic. In any case where psychiatric injury is relied upon, as the basis for an allegation of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and the matter is not admitted by the defence, then expert evidence must be called by the prosecution. (R v Chan-Fook, 99 Cr. App. R. 147, CA).

iii. A verdict of assault occasioning actual bodily harm may be returned on proof of an assault together with proof of the fact that actual bodily harm was occasioned by the assault.

iv. The test of recklessness is as per 'R v Cunningham' (Archbold 19-167).

v. This offence is capable of being racially aggravated under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Refer to Racially and Religiously Aggravated Crime, elsewhere in this guidance.


It is possible that where the police consider the injuries less or where the evidence is unlikely to lead to a successful prosecution they might opt for a caution (getting something rather than nothing)

**

possession of Class A drugs such as heroin or cocaine – this can depend on who and the amount. Is it an otherwise respectable individual that is found with a small amount and voluntarily enters rehab or the armed owner of a crack den.

**

Hal article is the kind of thing the UK right wing and conservative press pump out once and awhile but as far as I know known of them, even in their most hysterical, have advocated adopting a US style gun culture.

**

Are you saying that your idea of being hard on crime would be to tie up the courts convicting a shoplifter that has stolen a packet of sweets, people that have said something stupid while angry, drunken brawlers, or some wayward individual that isn’t any harm to anyone but themselves. Are you saying that such people should be sent to prison?

Sorry but to me that seems silly and pointless.

**

The thing is that any political pundit that wants to criticise the police or the judiciary can find instances where the law acts like an ass.

Are cautions a bad or good thing?

The fact is that it has been attacked by some on both the right and the left. The right attack it (as Hal and you have) for ‘letting off’ people. While some civil liberties groups have pointed out that many people opt for a caution and so get a criminal record when they would very likely be cleared if it went to court (and so have no criminal record).

**

 

Vehicles kill around 40.000 american each year "it took 10 years of vietnam to kill 78.000" and this guy is still entrench on the idea that guns are americans sole problem of death? what king of acid this guy do?.

 

Thats 40.000 dead ...= injured for life or disable is much higher than the death numbers.

 

that arguement doesn't work with antiguns.

They just state (accurately) that vehicles are not designed and made to kill, a gun is. A car kills someone it is the fault of the car or a driver, a gun kills someone that means it's working as it should.

 

Get used to it...

 

They ruin a lot stuff allready like = class 3 and only feel sorry for the new shooters who no longer can play . I ALLREADY shot enough full autos so i well go in my grave with a big smile .