Gun ownership is MAD?

not such a bad idea.

Though i hate anything to be mandated at all....

 

Pitt

Who said the “lets solve crime…” quote? I’ve asked once.

So who did say the quote then, and why do you seem unable to give an answer?

WHat then is the point of your continued repetition of stating that we need more/better social programs aimed at treating Why people do such and such if not to solve/minimize/eradicate crime?

So are you saying you just made the ‘quote’ up?

Why would you do such a dishonest thing?

Does this mean you have made up other things in this thread?

Do I have to be suspicious of everything you say?

**

For example you say quiet categorically that you refuted the claims that pro-gun lobbyists were using their influence to hold back the enforcement of gun laws.

You say – “I refuted with a story from ABC”

Well first up it seems once again you don’t seem to be paying attention because you don’t seem to use ABC to refute the claims, you paste something from CBS news just after the Brady thing, but it seems nothing from ABC, is that what you meant CBS?

I mean how the hell am I supposed to know if you don’t?

**

OK I presume that you mean the CBS stuff because that was in the post where you quote the claims –

<LI>Between 2000 and 2002, an estimated 420,000 guns were reported stolen to police. During that period, federal prosecutors brought only 524 stolen gun charges forward.

This is about stuff not being enforced not about why stuff isn’t being enforced.

<LI>In that same period, approximately 450,000 potential gun buyers illegally lied on their applications, but the feds brought only 1,594 charges against the people who lied on background checks.

This is about stuff not being enforced not about why stuff isn’t being enforced.

<LI>In the 1999-2000 school year alone, 2,837 students were caught with guns in school, yet from 2000 to 2002 the feds filed only 40 cases. Prosecutors in 38 states didn’t file a single charge of selling guns to a minor in these years, though under-17 youths committed an estimated 93,000 gun crimes.

This is about stuff not being enforced not about why stuff isn’t being enforced.

<LI>In 2000-2002, federal prosecutors made only 88 charges under the statutes that deal with illegal activities by gun stores. In 22 states with a total of 29,418 licensed gun stores, no cases were brought.

This is about stuff not being enforced not about why stuff isn’t being enforced.

Source CBS News


WOW guess what, nothing that refutes the claims that the pro-gun lobby are using their influence to hold back the enforcement of gun laws.

Is that you being dishonest or just not paying attention?

I mean you ask – “Countering the Brady Campaign's An Admitted anti-gun organization) stats by using independant news agancies findings is rejecting totally? or is it just who I find more credible?”

Credible?

You make things up and don’t even know who you paste from and claim you have refuted things when you clearly haven’t and your talking about credibility?

(Also why can you use the Brady Campaign website as a source (your post 135) but somehow I shouldn’t? I mean I was only doing it to try and help you out)

**

So are you’re honestly presenting as an argument that the laws are not being enforced because, well because what, because criminals will sue that they were caught so the police don't arrest them?

To me that just sound rather lame.

As to your example are you saying that kind of thing happens often.

Happens all the time

In the UK it would be laughed out of court, I mean the mugger would have to be rich enough to bring a civil action and would loose a lot of money and no ‘no win no fee’ lawyer would take such a case because they wouldn’t win.

This sounds like some right wing/conservative bogy story about the ‘liberal’ system to me.

pharmacist in Illinois who hit his alarm while being robbed. The robber then struck him in the head; breaking his jaw and causing severe injuries resulting in weeks in the hospital. When the robber turned to run out of the store, he tripped over a basket of soap and fell into a plate glass window. He sued the storeowner while in jail and won because the proper guards were not on the window and the basket of soap was in the isle.

Like I said it happens.

The only place I could find this quote was at - http://www.anjrpc.org/OpEd/RViden5-16-04.htm

The Association of New Jersy Rifle and Pistol Clubs – The offical NRA State Association. And was written by Robert L. Viden, ANJRPC regional vice president and NRA director.

And do you want to hear something strange?

The full sentence is –

“I remember hearing about a pharmacist in Illinois who hit his alarm while being robbed. The robber then struck him…..”

Isn’t it weird how “I remember hearing about..” kind of changes the view on what’s about to be said, like “I heard this from my brother’s best friend’s uncle, so it has just got to be true…”

Come on Pitt can you give me verifiable examples, nor hearsay?

**

I have tried to explain that crime is a complex question that will need a holistic approach to tackle, meaning that it would involve a wide rang of social and economic reforms and programmes.

I have presented a few of these ideas here some in more details than others but enough to give a general outline. But what I have found is that Pitt seems unwilling (or unable) to discuss these ideas. Worse he often seem to give replies that I can only say sound like a petulant and rather ill informed teen.

I’ve tried on more than one occasion to talk to him on his own idea of why crime takes place – greed – but even here he seem unwilling (or unable) to discuss the subject.

However everytime I give you an answer you say it is not good enough and to delve deeper into the criminal psychology.

But that’s the problem you don’t seem to know much and don’t seem to want to find out.


**

The articles I showed you concerning the subject specifically says "serious Crimes". I consider robbery a serious crime which was specifically mentioned in the article also.

You mean the article by the right wing pundit Hal Gibson Pateshall Colebatch in the right wing American Spectator magazine?

Is that what you call an unbiased source?

He was attacking New Labour policy because he is more right winger than they are.

I gave you the guidelines that state categorically that a Police Caution “is only given for minor or less serious offences”

Minor OR even less serious offences.

I told you that all back when you first quoted Hal Gibson Pateshall Colebatch, but maybe you were not paying attention?

**

I had pointed out several times that I didn’t think any policies could get rid of crime completely, but he seems to be ignoring that. I also point out that monnshiners don’t seem to be a big problem or be part of the confrontational type of crime (like muggings) that he seemed most afraid of.

you are failing to understand my position, as long as there is crime a person should have the right to protect themselves from said crime in whatever way they deem fit in accordance with law. You on the otherhand want to take away the right of protection by firearm.

You want to shot at moonshiners?

Lets see, there is a very small chance that you will be the victim of a crime, there is an even smaller chance that you will be the victim of a confrontational crime, there is an even remoter chance that this crime would result in a minor injury and an even remoter chance of something greater, and there is an even smaller chance that the conditions will be right for you to actually use your gun.

But even with all that you are so frightened that it just might happen that you want to have a gun for safety and wish to have the right to use it on anyone you think could threaten you?

I mean you claim that the UK has in certain areas more crime that the US but nobody I know feels they need a gun for protection, they just don’t feel that frightened.

So I ask you once again why do you think Americans are so much more frightened of crime than the british, could it be that Americans know that crime in the US is much more likely to be accompanied by a gun than in the UK?


**

Not brushed aside, if there is crime people have the right to protect themselves with a firearm. If you admit that crime will never be eradicated then there is no reason to take this right away from people. A simple fact you want to ignore.

I haven’t ignored it, we’ve talked about this before (hell, a lot of the debate is based around it, do you pay attention to nothing being said?) I’m saying that if crime was reduced and especially violent crime accompanied by guns. Then people will feel less afraid and less likely to feel they need guns. I think US society would be healthier for it.

**

Again you seem to be trying to attack the law of averages, this is complete BS and you know it in your heart. There is NO city where crime is absent, everyone lives, works, or visits in some city on a regular basis. Therefore the law of averages says there is a possibility of any one person becomming a victim. You cannot dispute this so you instead try to misdirect/cloud the issue hoping to make it suit your argument.

Now you’re frightened of cities?

I live in London (a big city) I’ve lived in many parts of it. In the many yers I’ve lived here I’ve never been the victim of a confrontational crime.

As I’ve pointed out before it is possible people could be injured or killed in many ways (hit by lightening struck down by a meteor) But the possibility of being killed by a gun is much, much higher in the US than the UK. Do you think that is why you seem so more frightened than people here?

**

Yet again any thoughts/ideas/actions i have put forth was ignored, minimized or rejected out of hand.

No they haven’t they have just being explained to you because you don’t seem to understand them yourself.

“it is NOT a solution to the problem but a PROTECTION from the symptom”

From talking to it is clear that you think the problem is being attacked by a criminal and you think the best way of dealing with that is to have a gun for protect.

**

Why do you think some areas have certain crime and others don’t?

Another question that just doesn’t seem to get answered?

Social economic situations along with police presence will impact they types and frequency of cartain crimes. Does this really have to be explained to you?

What social and economic situations?

**

WHO SAID CRIMINALS DONT WANT GUNS?

Are you saying criminals don’t want guns, so why are you always saying that guns should be taken out of the hands of criminals. Did those criminals get the guns as unwanted Xmas presents or something?

‘Oh mum you shouldn’t have a jumper with Rudolph on it and a gun’

**

You say we are more concerned about keeping our right to firearm ownership to the exclusion of trying to solve some of these social/economic problems. I have shown you where this is not always the case.

No you haven’t, as i keep pointing out, you have claimed you think about them but when questioned you seem to know little and don’t seem to care about finding out.

**

You say we live in constant fear if we own/carry a gun. I have shown you by example (the seatbelt thing) where this is an innacurate statement.

The seatbelt comparison didn’t work

Why do you think it does?

**


Although socio/economic problems can contribute to criminal activity,

What problems?








**

 

Proud


OK I see.

So you have found a way of choosing who your own parents are going to be?

Pretty neat trick.

 

Shane

Our freedoms are taken away with a smile and a reassuring pat on the back instead of national guard troops and blatent authoritarianism, but they are still taken away none the less.

But as I’ve said for many people seem to think that if they have a gun they are ok and don’t need to do anything else and others will just go along with things because it is what they want.

Imagine the case of two neighbors, each of whom at the outset owns the same amount of land, but one of whom is more powerful than the other. The powerful one demands a piece of the other's land.

The one being threatened get a restraining order against the bully.

**

But again you are giving an opinion not an answer.

**

Or, it could have nipped it in the bud....
It's a little more difficult to massacre a group of people who refuse to let you.

What, they were not a country all amassed in one place and if they had tried to co-ordinate it would have just confirmed to the German people that the ‘Jewish conspiracy’ existed.

i'm not sure what the total number of german police were, but i know it was less than 6 million.

Do you think Hitler was the kind of man that would have just shrugged and let it go?

 

"many people seem to think"
Again, not in this thread, i don't have anything to do with what you think many other people seem to think...

......

It was an analogy, guy.... about rights being take away one piece at a time through a series of compromises...

**

And?
Again, how could it have been much worse?
I'm either shot in the face while lined up with my family, or might (or might not) die defending my family and others.
I don't know about you, but if i'm being exterminated i'm not going to make it easy for the exterminators...

I think Hitler was 1 man.
not a genius, not a god, not invulnerable.
1 man with a hard core following.
Just as Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussien are only men.
An increasing amount of oppression or a fear of increasing amount of oppression should never be justification for giving in to oppression.

Why be fatalistic?
"They are going door to door in my neighborhood and shooting people, i don't want to shoot back because that gives them a reason to shoot me...."

How does that make any sense?
Do you have zero survival instinct? How about keeping you kid safe?
Believe it or not Balbus, when 75% of a population is batshit insane and wants you dead, trying to reason with them is not the only answer...

I have nothing against protesters, but there comes a point when it's just stupid not to have a plan for when they start shooting protesters.

if the avenues are not available to petition your government, if the majority of the populace couldn't care less what happens to you, if simply existing is cause for the police to seek your marginalization and death, it is only basic insticnt to try and defend yourself and you family/friends from a very real and immediate threat.

Like i said, i don't like guns, but the police, the armed forces, and people/armies of other nation still have them, how stupid would i be not to?

 

Are you irish?

 

Thought so, just had a feeling.

"Typical american Mutt"

lol!

So true, i got african, baltic, german in mine, my sons have some danish as well...

 

Shane

And?
Again, how could it have been much worse?
I'm either shot in the face while lined up with my family, or might (or might not) die defending my family and others.
I don't know about you, but if i'm being exterminated i'm not going to make it easy for the exterminators...

So should the Japanese Americans have fired at the police that came to inter them?

How did they know that they were not going to be exterminated many of the natives Americans were.

**

"They are going door to door in my neighborhood and shooting people, i don't want to shoot back because that gives them a reason to shoot me...."

But that’s the point they don’t come door to door shooting people. They come and say they just want a few words down at the station.

The first nazis concentration camps were ‘re-education’ camps and people came back from them, then people stayed longer and then they never came back at all.

**

How does that make any sense?
Do you have zero survival instinct? How about keeping you kid safe?
Believe it or not Balbus, when 75% of a population is batshit insane and wants you dead, trying to reason with them is not the only answer...

You think shooting at them is? Do you think that will win them over?

**

I have nothing against protesters, but there comes a point when it's just stupid not to have a plan for when they start shooting protesters.

They already can, do and have.

**

if the avenues are not available to petition your government, if the majority of the populace couldn't care less what happens to you, if simply existing is cause for the police to seek your marginalization and death, it is only basic insticnt to try and defend yourself and you family/friends from a very real and immediate threat.

So should the Japanese Americans have fired at the police that came to inter them?

The fact is that the Japanese Americans were to a large extent treated well, they ‘just’ lost their freedom. Many people caught up in the un-american activities witch hunts had their lives ruined. The US sponsored wars on drugs and terror are also killing thousands and ruining the lives of many, many more.

If the authorities come to your door and ask you to come along to the station do you begin by shooting at them?

If no, when?

 

Proud

Yes you are just as unable to choose where and to whom you are born as you can choose to be born as a bird.

But as a human where you are born and to what socio-economic group you are born to will have a huge impact on your opportunities and the choices open to you in life.

Or do you claim differently and if so why?

 

I have already told you I have no definate answer as to why they are not being enforced. Evidently you have no answer either. You say I act like a teen yet you are the one constantly asking but why, but why, but why.

But as I’ve pointed out

(1) you don’t seem to be trying to find out?
(2) you don’t seem able to counter the claim that the pro-gun lobby are stifling the possibility of true enforcement that is claimed by the Brady Campaign?

**

I asked when I pasted the article “is this possible”

You have not shown it is impossible you just don’t know and don’t seem willing to find out.

**

I used the Brady campaign as a source

And so did I, but some here have complained that I did but didn’t complain when you did, why?

I’m just pointing out that it seems a bit hypocritical that if a source seems to back you up it is ok to use, but if it doesn’t it isn’t.

**

But that’s the problem you don’t seem to know much and don’t seem to want to find out.

And yet YOU have no answers to your own questions.

OH FUCK, come on Pitt do you actually try and understand other peoples posts or do you just skim read and react?

OK AGAIN – I have tried to explain that crime is a complex question that will need a holistic approach to tackle, meaning that it would involve a wide rang of social and economic reforms and programmes.

I have presented a few of these ideas here some in more details than others but enough to give a general outline But what I have found is that Pitt seems unwilling (or unable) to discuss these ideas. Worse he often seem to give replies that I can only say sound like a petulant and rather ill informed teen.

**

You stated your version but never backed it up.

With what?

Those are the stated guidelines.

You gave an opinion piece published in a right wing magazine by a right wing pundit and I give the UK Crown Prosecution Services’ published guidelines.

**

haha keep spinning, you know why this was brought up and it has nothing to do with shooting anyone,

What is there to spin?

My point was that the reasons for a lot of violent crime (the confrontational crime) would be greatly reduced by alternative approaches to the drug ‘problem’ you agreed but said it would not get rid of all crimes associated with drugs, just as regulating alcohol didn’t stop alcohol related crime.

I asked for examples and you brought up Moonshiners

But as I’ve pointed out moonshining doesn’t seen very prevalent or confrontational.

So I was wondering what was your point in bringing them up?

**

So I ask you once again why do you think Americans are so much more frightened of crime than the british, could it be that Americans know that crime in the US is much more likely to be accompanied by a gun than in the UK?

Again I have answered this and have asked you why you feel this is so, what is your reasoning, what is your source other than your opinion. You refuse/cant answer.

Well as far as I can tell your argument why the British are not so afraid of crime is that they just ignore it.

I have pointed out that from the amount of time given to it by the UK media and politicians that seems a bit silly.

The reason why I think you (and others) are afraid is simple you tell me.

I asked what threat was so great that people felt they needed guns to protect themselves.

You replied that the threat, the thing that was threatening, in other words the thing that you were afraid of was crime.

You made it very clear that you thought the threat was immanent and could happen anytime anyplace, and that it could cause a person’s death. That to me sounded like you were afraid it might happen.

Only after I pointed out that most people in the UK don’t talk like that or think that way and so seemed to be less afraid of crime than you, did you suddenly begin to talk about how very unlikely was the threat. In fact it wasn’t such a threat at all and that somehow you could predict when it was likely you would be attacked and when not.

**

Now you’re frightened of cities?

OMG you really read whatever you want into any statement to make it try and fit your perspective.

My poor Pitt can you not take a joke, I was going to put in a smiley but forgot but I think anyone would see this as a bit of light hearted banter, come on man lighten up.

**

I live in London (a big city) I’ve lived in many parts of it. In the many yers I’ve lived here I’ve never been the victim of a confrontational crime.
So crime is OK as long as it is not confrontational? If someone waits until you leave you home and breaks in to steal all your stuff, its OK because you didnt have to confront the criminal.

No but a gun isn’t going to be much use, is it? And what is worse if the gun is at home and not secured then it is likely the robber will get the gun (you agree)

Your argument is that guns deter criminals but my point is that they can only really be used in only certain confrontational crimes and even then only if it happens in certain limited ways.

**

You already agree that the gun related murder rate is huge when compared to the UK (US =11,000: UK=70)

You agree that it is possible for people that are deranged or become deranged to obtain guns and use them (workplace, schoolplace killings etc)

It therefore stands to reason that compared to the UK, it is statistically much more likely to be shot in the US than in the UK.

And I’ve talked to people from the US on these forums whose houses have been shot at or they have heard gun shots at night etc.


**

Why do you think some areas have certain crime and others don’t?

Another question that just doesn’t seem to get answered?

Social economic situations along with police presence will impact they types and frequency of cartain crimes. Does this really have to be explained to you?

What social and economic situations?

See, answer, not good enough, answer, not good enough.

The problem is that you answer shows no proof that you actually know what you are talking about, I mean I’ve mentioned social and economic factors and given a few of them, but you didn’t respond.

How do I know you are not just parroting me, repeating something I’ve said without understanding what it means?

So I’m trying to find out, so far you don’t seem to know much beyond the ‘buzz words’, and every time I ask you for something more you seem to become defensive.


**

 

Pitt

So you make up quotes and suggest people said them?

You say it’s not a ‘direct quote’ in fact it isn’t a ‘quote’ at all,

You just made it up and put “Yeah ok I got ya” at the end of it as if I had said it.

When you knew I hadn’t said it, because you knew you had just made it up.

Do you think that is an honest way to act?

*

“My mistake, there is a difference betwqeen a mistake and a deliberate attempt to mislead”

I didn’t say you were deliberately trying to mislead, I’m saying that you don’t seem to be paying very much attention, as in you don’t seem to know what’s going on half the time.

I mean this seem to be a recurring problem you are not checking what you have said before making comments.

That is why I have to keep repeating myself or having to re-explain stuff, because you seemingly didn’t read it properly the first time and are too lazy to go back and check.

This is ABC/CBS thing is a perfect example

You claim you have refuted something, you don’t check to find out if you have or haven’t you just claim you have and hope that works.

If you had checked you would have –

One: found out it wasn’t ABC it was CBS

Two: you would have found you hadn’t refuted the claims you had just given information about laws not being enforced, not about why stuff isn’t being enforced.

*


“Try a little more research and you will find stories”

You make an assertion

I ask you if what you claim is common and if you have any proof that it is.

You reply by giving as an example a piece of unverified hearsay from a deeply biased pro-gun source.

I point this out and ask for something a bit more verifiable.

You reply by telling me to go and find the evidence myself.

*

You want me to back up an assertion you made because you can’t be bothered.

I mean do you honestly think this is a reasonable way to conduct a debate?

Think if the same methods were used in court of law?

DA – Judge, this man committed murder

Judge – what evidence have you for this assertion

DA – well I heard that he did it

Judge – have you any verifiable evidence?

DA – If you want evidence find it yourself.

Do you think the person would be convicted should he be convicted?

*

A mentality

I don’t need to find something out I know it is true, so why should I bother to find out if something is true when I already know it is true.

So it is that your views become a belief not based in reason but in faith.

**

And so I come to this.

You say I act like a teen yet you are the one constantly asking but why, but why, but why.

Yet another glimpse of that attitude.

To me on of the greatest things about having a thinking and reasoning mind, about being human, is the ability to ask, to be curious.

To be able to ask why and learn from the answers.

This inquiring spirit is what marks out humans from the other animals.

I would rather be ‘childish’ and have an open inquiring mind than to be an ‘adult’ and have a closed minded and to think that asking why is childish.

**

 

Yes, and some were.

Exactly.

One of many answers? yes, depending on the circumstances.

exactly

yes

without freedom there is nothing else, only slavery and servitude

exactly

Depends on the circumstances doesn't it?

If they come to my door to ask a question about a robbery down the block, maybe i just talk with them.

If they come in the middle of the night and start loading people into trucks, i shoot.

 

Proud

“If I may be so bold, what does all this have to do with the price of spice on Nal Hutta? Last time I looked, I was talking about the limitations of choice (and therefor limitations on freedom,) imposed by unjust legislation.”

No you weren’t.

You said that you wished to ‘set things right’ I asked you in general terms what was ‘right’ and you relied that what was ‘right’ was ‘where you have a choice’

I asked again in general terms if there were things a person couldn’t choose in life and you replied “In answer to that, no, I suppose not. I am "free" to do what I will”. (Note the ‘I’, not people ‘I’)

So what is ‘freedom’ to you, – “I'm sure you already know that the concept of freedom has many, many, facets. The one I've been focusing on, choice (perhaps better termed as free will,) refers to an individual's right to affect their own destiny or state of being to whatever degree they deem appropriate, so long as whatever actions they undertake do not infringe upon the rights of others”.

But you now say that if someone is born with fewer choices, then fuck them, that’s life.

So basically you are not fighting for what is right for everyone.

You are fighting for what is right for you and fuck everyone else.

That’s not the battle cry of a ‘freedom fighter’ that the snarl of a big selfish bastard.


**

To me this seems the same kind of attitude that fuels other US political ideas for example the neo-cons.

When they talked of ‘freedom’ and ‘setting things right’ in Iraq what they meant was getting what they wanted. It was selfish interests not the interests of the Iraqi people that was at the core of the action.
The Iraqi people would get the freedom to have a pro-US government and setting things right meant the US got strategic bases and a cut of the oil money.

But selfishness is not widely admired and often hated.

 

shane


Originally Posted by Balbus

Shane

And?
Again, how could it have been much worse?
I'm either shot in the face while lined up with my family, or might (or might not) die defending my family and others.
I don't know about you, but if i'm being exterminated i'm not going to make it easy for the exterminators...

So should the Japanese Americans have fired at the police that came to inter them?

How did they know that they were not going to be exterminated many of the natives Americans were.


Yes, and some were.

What does that tell you?

**

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
"They are going door to door in my neighborhood and shooting people, i don't want to shoot back because that gives them a reason to shoot me...."

But that’s the point they don’t come door to door shooting people. They come and say they just want a few words down at the station.

The first nazis concentration camps were ‘re-education’ camps and people came back from them, then people stayed longer and then they never came back at all.


Exactly.

So what relevance has this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
How does that make any sense?
Do you have zero survival instinct? How about keeping you kid safe?
Believe it or not Balbus, when 75% of a population is batshit insane and wants you dead, trying to reason with them is not the only answer...

You think shooting at them is? Do you think that will win them over?


One of many answers? yes, depending on the circumstances.

What circumstances?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
I have nothing against protesters, but there comes a point when it's just stupid not to have a plan for when they start shooting protesters.

They already can, do and have.

exactly

So what relevance has that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
if the avenues are not available to petition your government, if the majority of the populace couldn't care less what happens to you, if simply existing is cause for the police to seek your marginalization and death, it is only basic insticnt to try and defend yourself and you family/friends from a very real and immediate threat.

So should the Japanese Americans have fired at the police that came to inter them?


yes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
The fact is that the Japanese Americans were to a large extent treated well, they ‘just’ lost their freedom.

without freedom there is nothing else, only slavery and servitude

So are you saying that the Japanese Americans should have declared war on the US?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
Many people caught up in the un-american activities witch hunts had their lives ruined. The US sponsored wars on drugs and terror are also killing thousands and ruining the lives of many, many more.

Exactly

So what does that tell us?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
If the authorities come to your door and ask you to come along to the station do you begin by shooting at them?


Depends on the circumstances doesn't it?

If they come to my door to ask a question about a robbery down the block, maybe i just talk with them.

If they come in the middle of the night and start loading people into trucks, i shoot.


**

These are not answers they don’t even seem like complete thoughts, what are the meanings.

As I’ve said they will not start loading people into trucks that comes later when people have been isolated, what comes first is the polite invitation to came and answer some questioning ‘down at the station’.

You were right earlier such things are done in increments, but at what point do you start shooting.

It seems to me that many of the people that have come here in the past that have supported guns most strenuously have been people that would support ‘strong’ government and the ‘love it or leave it’ brigade.

I believe such people would be a hindrance to social change and are more likely to support national ‘tough love’.

 

Pitt

I asked when I pasted the article “is that possible” [edited from original the this to that: typo]

You have not shown it is impossible you just don’t know and don’t seem willing to find out.

which article are you referring to

You don’t know? Are you paying any attention to what’s being discussed or are you honestly saying you can’t remember?

If your short term memory loss is that bad I think you should go and see a doctor. I mean man at times it seems like I’m having a conversation with someone with the memory capacity of a goldfish -)

**

Wrong again, the difference is:
You used the Brady campaigh to try and proove an ANTIgun point.
I used the Brady Campaign (an anti gun organization) to PROOVE a PROgun point.
See the difference?

So you used it as a source of information and so did I, Remember I wasn’t trying to prove an anti gun point I was asking you if the theory that the gun lobby was stifling enforcement might be possible. You brought up the whole thing about the laws not being enforced and when I asked why you replied you didn’t know. I found this at the top of a google search on the subject and printed it to see if this might be why.

It is clear you disagree with the Brady viewpoint but so far you have not refuted it.

**

I have tried to explain that crime is a complex question that will need a holistic approach to tackle, meaning that it would involve a wide rang of social and economic reforms and programmes.

I have presented a few of these ideas here some in more details than others but enough to give a general outline But what I have found is that Pitt seems unwilling (or unable) to discuss these ideas. Worse he often seem to give replies that I can only say sound like a petulant and rather ill informed teen.

And like the child you are never satisfied with ANY answer, its why, why why.

I’m here to learn what your views are, why you seem so reluctant to talk about them is to me bizarre? You are the one that claimed you had thought about the subject(s) and had ideas on them, but when I ask what they are you get all riled up and moody, why?

**

You stated your version but never backed it up.

With what?

Those are the stated guidelines.

You gave an opinion piece published in a right wing magazine by a right wing pundit and I give the UK Crown Prosecution Services’ published guidelines.

ahh I see so you c/p from where exactly?

From the UK Crown Prosecution Services,

I said so just there in the sentence. Didn’t you read it?

**

 

Pitt

My point was that the reasons for a lot of violent crime (the confrontational crime) would be greatly reduced by alternative approaches to the drug ‘problem’ you agreed but said it would not get rid of all crimes associated with drugs, just as regulating alcohol didn’t stop alcohol related crime.

I asked for examples and you brought up Moonshiners

But as I’ve pointed out moonshining doesn’t seen very prevalent or confrontational.

So I was wondering what was your point in bringing them up?

That crime will not cease to exist just because you change the law.

But the type of crime you have highlighted is not the confrontational type that you say you carry a gun to counter.

That’s the point, you say that as long ask there is ‘crime’ then you need at gun to protect you from it, but are you saying that ‘moonshineing’ is a crime that you feel you need a gun to protect yourself against?

**

I asked what threat was so great that people felt they needed guns to protect themselves.

You replied that the threat, the thing that was threatening, in other words the thing that you were afraid of was crime.

You made it very clear that you thought the threat was immanent and could happen anytime anyplace, and that it could cause a person’s death. That to me sounded like you were afraid it might happen.

Only after I pointed out that most people in the UK don’t talk like that or think that way and so seemed to be less afraid of crime than you, did you suddenly begin to talk about how very unlikely was the threat. In fact it wasn’t such a threat at all and that somehow you could predict when it was likely you would be attacked and when not.

That is a reaching presumption on your part as pointed out by the seatbelt post. in other words total BS

You can call it BS if you wish but so far that’s all you’ve done.

What is your argument?

That a gun has the same function as a seatbelt?

In this country people wear seat belts whenever they are in a car (it is also the law) because an accident could happen anytime and anyplace and could cause serious injury or even death if they are not worn.

You have said that someone could be a victim of a crime anytime anyplace and it could cause serious injury or even death. So if a gun serves the same function as a seatbelt a person would have to have it out and ready everywhere and at all times.

But you have said that you do not have it out all the time and in every place, you even say that you don’t carry it or have it locked away on many or most occasions.

So what is your argument?

That people should know that serious injury or even death could result from not having on a seatbelt or having a gun to ready.

OR

Are you saying there is no need to be worried about an accident or crime so don’t bother to wear a seatbelt or carry a gun?

OR

Are you saying that a crime or an accident can happen anytime or anyplace but you can tell in advance where and when an accident or crime will take place and so know in advance when and where to put on a seatbelt or have the gun out?

**

 

Pitt

Now you’re frightened of cities?

OMG you really read whatever you want into any statement to make it try and fit your perspective.

My poor Pitt can you not take a joke, I was going to put in a smiley but forgot but I think anyone would see this as a bit of light hearted banter, come on man lighten up.

if it were meant as light hearted banter there would have indeed been a smiley

LOL, Oh dear Pitt you really don’t have a very well developed sense of humour do you?

**

I live in London (a big city) I’ve lived in many parts of it. In the many yers I’ve lived here I’ve never been the victim of a confrontational crime.
So crime is OK as long as it is not confrontational? If someone waits until you leave you home and breaks in to steal all your stuff, its OK because you didnt have to confront the criminal.

No but a gun isn’t going to be much use, is it?

Ok so what if you happened to forget your library card and went back home to get it? suddenly it becomes "confrontational"

WHAT? So you give an example, I point out that it doesn’t actually fit your argument so you add to it so it does.

Well if this is one line story telling (great kids game) then I can join in.

OK so you come back from the library see the door has been forced call the police and they come and arrest the thief.

(also if the gun is in the house and locked up, are you going to go into the house get to the safe get the gun out then confront the thief? Do you think that the thief might not notice?)

**

And what is worse if the gun is at home and not secured then it is likely the robber will get the gun (you agree)
I have already stated that a gun should be secured or in your possession at all times. so that is a mute point.

Yes and we went through this, don’t you remember?

Again are you saying you would back legislation making it the law that people who owned a gun had to keep it in a secure safe?

And that people that lost or had their guns stolen were subject to a heavy fine?

**

 

Pitt

You agree that it is possible for people that are deranged or become deranged to obtain guns and use them (workplace, schoolplace killings etc)

Sure I do all you have to do is read the papers. But what do you think might have happened if the boss or the tescher had been carrying a weapon of thier own? Very possible/likely the deranged person would have been stopped quicker than waiting on the police to drive 20 minutes across town.

So you’re saying that you want everyone whereever they are to be armed with a gun and have it out and ready to use?

I thought you had already rejected that idea?

Also with Castle Domain are you saying teachers should be able to shoot at students that reach into a desk or bag ‘just in case’?

Wouldn’t it be better if they could get access to the guns in the first place?

**

Your argument is that guns deter criminals but my point is that they can only really be used in only certain confrontational crimes and even then only if it happens in certain limited ways.

So you deny the studies and stats posted earlier about the admission of this very thing by convicted criminals attesting to having been deterred/scared off by a gun.

But as pointed out they don’t show if those criminals then went out and got guns themselves.


**

It therefore stands to reason that compared to the UK, it is statistically much more likely to be shot in the US than in the UK.

Shot yes already agreed on this. Being a VICTIM of crime, not according to stats.

Yes Pitt thank you that’s the point I’ve been making, you (and others) seem incredibly afraid of being a victim of crime while I and people here don’t feel so scared that they feel they need a gun to protect them.

**

And I’ve talked to people from the US on these forums whose houses have been shot at or they have heard gun shots at night etc.

Oh Im sure, the point being?

I don’t know anyone that has had there house shot at or heard gun shots at night.

**

 

Pitt

So you make up quotes and suggest people said them?

You say it’s not a ‘direct quote’ in fact it isn’t a ‘quote’ at all,

You just made it up and put “Yeah ok I got ya” at the end of it as if I had said it.

When you knew I hadn’t said it, because you knew you had just made it up.

Do you think that is an honest way to act?

I believe everyone understood again except for you

Yes it’s clear you made it up? You attributed to me words I had not spoken. When I asked where the quote came from you didn’t for the mistake you continued to seemingly claim by your silence that the quote was mine. When pushed you said it was not a ‘direct quote’ but that you had just put some words that were not mine and presented them as if they were a direct quote.

I ask again do you think that is honest?

**

*

 

Pitt

“My mistake, there is a difference betwqeen a mistake and a deliberate attempt to mislead”

I didn’t say you were deliberately trying to mislead, I’m saying that you don’t seem to be paying very much attention, as in you don’t seem to know what’s going on half the time.

I mean this seem to be a recurring problem you are not checking what you have said before making comments.

That is why I have to keep repeating myself or having to re-explain stuff, because you seemingly didn’t read it properly the first time and are too lazy to go back and check.

This is ABC/CBS thing is a perfect example

You claim you have refuted something, you don’t check to find out if you have or haven’t you just claim you have and hope that works.

If you had checked you would have –

One: found out it wasn’t ABC it was CBS

Two: you would have found you hadn’t refuted the claims you had just given information about laws not being enforced, not about why stuff isn’t being enforced.

Which was EXACTLY my calim in the first place.

So are you saying you didn’t refute the think you said earlier you had refuted?

You told me you didn’t know why the laws were not being enforced and said you had looked but there didn’t seem to be anything.
I Googled ‘gun laws not being enforced’ and got the Brady Campaign page that suggested a theory.

(The theory being that the NRA was stifling meaningful enforcement of the laws you say you wish were enforced)

I said that the you haven’t refuted that theory.

You replied

WHAT????? You made a post from one of the premiere anti-gun organizations in the US, I refuted with a story from ABC. So again this statement is complete BS.

You seem to categorically claim to have refuted the theory?

So are you saying that you now realise you hadn’t refuted the theory?

If so why say you did?

And if you haven’t then the theory remains un-refuted?

**