Guncrazy USA

he he he I am back Its gonna get good now. So first off we have Dirk Pitt who is just into making sure that as many people have the right to die by being gunned down as possible
then you have Zoomie who agrees with everyone and is infact a zombie. Then there is white scorpion who thinks that criminals might be polite enough to drop their guns so that someone can give them a biff on the jaw like Biggles would have done. and Shane the confused libertarian who thinks hes an anarchist but doesnt realise he is infact just crazy and behind it all he just wishes someone would give him loads of cash. Skerb has got an avatar that is infact one of those new hitech photos. you point a camera at someone and it takes a picture of their intellect rather than their body. Balbus is infact one of the pro killing lobby like Dirk Pitt or Shane, or someone. We can be shure its not White Scorpion, and finally yanknburn who should be made to undergo psychiatric tests to see if there is anyone home even though the lights are on.

hardly a forum of intellectual athletes is it?

 

Sorry I hadnt realised you exist

 

The 10 of us shall confirm we are home but light thru your ears is blinding and the air is cold too.

 

no human being(or collection of) should have the authority to tell another what they can and can not own.


How they use the thing that they possess might be another story, but not the possession itself.

 

1. not confused, just not so much into strict labels.
2. not crazy, just want to live free
3. as far as money, i would rather be able to spend my money the way i see fit than to have the state steal and misuse it...

 

Sorry, I don't agree with you, so that voids that statement.

And I'm not really a zombie, I just play one Sunday nights on Thames TV. Ass.

 

are you a Brit?

cause that would explain so much.

 

Shane, you know I live in MD... But I've visited. Twice. The first was enough.

 

Wait, were you hinting that I might be an Englander because I don't own guns and want to see them phased out? Cuz that's harsh, dude.

 

no, cause you watch Thames TV.

although your european socialist views toward firearms doesnt help.

 

Exactly.

 

Hee hee hee

Shane you really must have a good think about that political position you adopt. What libertarianism comes down to is that you reject society. Infact you reject it so much that you do nothing about what you hate most - government. Who are you to pull down a government if other people want that ??

PWAHHHRRRRRR HA HA ! ! some revolutionaries libertarians turn out to be and if you reject whats written above then you are not libertarian. So you see the absurdity that libertarians find themselves in. Trust Americans to find a lame excuse not to bring this liberal fascism to its knees !

Anarchism does not, thankfully, find itself in that situation since its claim is that we want to destroy this chaos to build society. Your claim is that you want to destroy society to build chaos

you are simply talk and no action - also libertarianism leads to fascism
Anything such as a gun that destroys society is good to YOU libertarians!
not even true libertarians are you - just confused.com
youre just paranoid and preparing for when society breaks down by stockpiling guns BSPTHRAASSSSSP MAWAHAHAHA !!!!!

next you'll be telling us the chinese are getting ready to invade ! SPTHRWUUUUUGHAHAHAHA

you americans really do make us Europeans laugh. Its no wonder your national symbol is macdonalds clown !

check this google search - stinks of capitalism dont it !!!!
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=libertarian&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=

Libertarian society = greedy capitalist society

 

Is the U.S. guncrazy? There's no doubt about it. But the problem is that simply outlawing guns or restricting their ownership is not going to solve the problem-it's only going to make it worse. Here's why:

Guns, for better or worse, have been part of American culture since the beginning. Settlers that bought land in the middle of nowhere had to own guns to hunt for food, fend off hostile Indians, and defend themselves in general. This was a frontier culture from the beginning. This need by the average citizen to own guns in a frontier society was just a basic necessity, was recognized by the Second Amendment, and has developed into the situation that exists today.

In a country that never had much of a proliferation of guns, controlling them would be relatively easy. Not so in the US. This country is now awash in illegal guns, mostly owned by criminal elements, and if a law is passed that completely outlaws guns, those people are going to retain theirs, and the normal citizens will have to give theirs up, relying totally on the police (who, in this country, absolutely have to carry guns, due to the heavily armed criminal element) for protection. If someone tries to break into my home, in Houston (where I used to live) I may have to wait for hours for the cops to show up. Home invasions by gangs are common, and if someone wants to break into my house in the middle of the night to hurt my gilfriend or barbecue my dog, they're going to be looking down the barrel of a semi-automatic rifle. I'm not going to wait until the cops get there, after the crooks are already gone and all the damage is done, to worry about my protection.

And I say that as a person that is bascially a pacifist. I neither like guns nor violence. But I have to face the facts that this is the kind of society that I live in. I would much rather live in a society where nobody owned guns, and the police didn't even carry them. But it isn't the way the US is.

 

So there is very little hope of the USA ever joining the civilised world. I will not take my family there until they sort tht out and hopefully we may be able to stop the USA exporting its violence across the world in the form of TV, movies, and war

 

Yank

Pitt has given his opinion that he thought crime a threat, that it was everywhere and that people without a gun could be killed by it?

I have given my opinions and theories.

But did you read the whole sequence? I mean it begins with post 156 but doesn’t stop there, it goes on in some way or other virtually to the end of the thread, if you haven’t read the lot you are still woefully uninformed.

But that is what I’ve been trying to explain, that issue (and many others Pitt keeps going back to ) was covered extensively and I don’t believe Pitt has ever actually explained why he is threatened by things that he claims he doesn’t fear in any way. So what was the point in bringing it up again here so he can still not answer?

Well it is a good derailing trick.

**

I don’t claim to have presented any ‘truths’ I have just presented some ideas and theories based in part on things said here.
If you can refute these theories go ahead that is why I posted them to see if they can stand up to scrutiny that is what people do with theories.
I mean why are you and Pitt seemingly doing anything else but discuss those ideas
**
For me debate it is not about winning since I don’t find viewpoints that change the way I have previously thought bad things but as exciting discoveries to be cherished.
Maybe you hold some of your view as ‘truths’ like dogmas in a religion, ideas that cannot change whatever is said or however irrational they may become, for me that is unhealthy.
To me US gun culture is just a symptom of an unhealthy attitude that if faced could change, but it seems you and others want to resist or ignore my theories about that.
So we get trick to get out of having an honest debate.
**

"I have yet to see all out lies but rather opinions."

Pitt has made some accusations and although asked on a number of occasions to back those up he has refused and has then repeated them. If he gave examples, backed up his claims then people could make up their own mind and I could defend myself.

But he doesn’t and I think that is because he can’t that seems very close to knowingly lying to me, what’s your opinion?

Is he going to back up what he says?

**

 

Pitt

"Your baseless accusations are tiresome and not worthy of response.

As to the seatbelt thing it has been explained dozens of times and everyone sees the connection but you."

I’ve given my opinion and the reasons for having it, you have made a lot of assertions but you don’t seem able to explain why you have them.

**

You made an illogical statement and I used the seatbelt example to show you the flawed logic behind such a ridiculous statement.

Again this is just assertion with nothing behind it.

Why was the statement illogical? I’ve given my reasons, you seem to think crime was a threat but you must in someway fear something to feel it a threat.

You rabbit on about it been a ‘statistical thing’ what the hell does that actually mean?

Are you really threatened but statistically not, or is the threat only statistical and not real?

**

So you will post all relevant sources except when you chose to lie and then you will not.

Very convenient.

**

 

Pitt I nearly fell off my chair with laughter

You truly amaze me with just how far you will go to get out of having an honest debate.

I know you are not dumb but you must think you are cleverer than you are if you thought I wouldn’t see this is just another of your tricks to derail honest debate.

You know as well as I do that the things you bring up have all been covered before in the same thread.

I mean come on man, you comment on post 156 when you already know we carried on talking until post 546, you know like some 400 posts later?

Anyway as I say I think you know this is just another derailing attempt but just in case you truly are that dumb and for others enlightenment I’ll explain.

**

Section 2 – “An answer is never good enough. But why but why but why”

The theory I was investigating at that time (this was October 2006) was that “that the problem with many American attitudes towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and also ignoring many of the social problems within their society” post 19 of the thread.

To test this idea I had and was probing Pitt on his ideas on social problems (at this point alcoholism and drug abuse) to see if they fitted in with the theory, if people follow the sequence they will see that they back up my theories well.

These questions had a point and a purpose that they actually served rather well.

**

I’ve covered the seatbelt thing

**

Section 6: another twist of something into something completely different from what was said into something to fit your POV.

This again is about looking at Pitts views and attitudes and seeing if they fit in with my theory.

And they do

As I say in the context of social and economic issues he doesn’t seem to have given it much thought or has much of a clue what to do, but he seems willing to put a lot of effort and thought into the defence of gun ownership and it’s role in tackling crime.

**

Section 7 A direct question with NO answer.

You asked me for some ideas I had given you some ideas and I gave more later on.

Please explain why you think that was not answering?

**

As to the (straight away) that was explained I put forward a number of proposals with your help I whittled them down to a few that I called the first phase. I pointed out that if those (in conjunction with other measures) had the desired effect then there would be no need for a second phase. It was honest but badly phrased.

**

I’m very happy to discuss my theories but for some reason you and others seem determined to ignore it or try and do everything to scupper any talk of it, why?

Why have my theories seemed to have gotten you so spooked?

If you don’t believe them give your arguments why if you do they should be used to seek new enlightenment about the situation and possible ways out.

 

Veg

“Home invasions by gangs are common”

So do you feel threatened by crime, feel that attacks are possible or likely?

**

“But I have to face the facts that this is the kind of society that I live in”

But why is that the kind of society you live in and have you no ideas on what could be done to make it better.

 

Quote:
The attitude of threat and intimidation lends itself very closely to bullying or the persecution of others (remember those injustices in US history I talked about). And this is often seen as acceptable behaviour.

The injustices in the world period.

Thanks Yank
Again someone is backing up what I’m saying. Yanks reaction seems to be more about acceptance than about change. He seems to be accepting the threat/intimidation attitude rather than thinking of ways to counter it.

**

And guns are seen as a means of ‘equalising’ the situation.

A quote "God made men short and God made men tall but Sam Colt made them equal!" If faced with overwheling odds then throughout history one located an equalizer.

The acceptance of the idea of the individual needing an ‘equaliser’ against a world that is threatening them and could attack or try and suppress them.

**

So Yank what are the ‘real issues’ in your viewpoint?

Everytime the topic drifts such as using schools ect that changes the view point. They are related but the issue changes too. You have to look at the big picture. What percentage of students has brought guns to school as apposed to what percentage has not?? What percentage of people have commited crimes with guns and what not?? Does this justify removal of guns?? And if removal is not the agenda that what measures are required to tackle the problems such as school shootings or armed robbery??

This seems to be suggesting a scale with death and crime on one side and the rest on the other.

To me this is not about seeing a problem and tackling it, it is seeing a problem and deciding you can live with it.

**

All these ideas fit in with my theories, as I’ve said thanks Yank.

**

 

My idea is a means to counter it. Ask yourself would you be more willing to take something from a place with security measures or without?? I would like to believe that a person would see me as a threat far more than I would like a person to see me as a target.

So far on gun control I have offered suggestions of change but still believe that any armed person is a greater foe.

Yes I do see guns as a means to simplify a situation. If a 90 year old man is faced with a 20 year old man who wishes to attack the 90 year old man in your world would you justify that a fist fight need take place?? If a man breaks into your home do you feel the need to allow him to steal what you have worked for?? Allow him to assualt your family??

These are issues in all countries that happen everyday and until these are corrected we shall have needs to defend against such actions. Same as driving a car, there is a chance of a wreck and since a seat belt has been known to save lives the law requires us to use them. Until they design a method of driving that is 100% accident proof we will be required to wear them. Perhaps until violent crime is 100% removed from society we should all be required to carry guns since they have been known to stop crimes?

Now this is where I get to be like you.

On another post earlier in this thread and others I clearly stated what I felt were collective ideas that needed to be addressed to correct the problems. Actually enforcing laws on the books in regards to violence and guns, changing a few laws, since hate crimes are against people then attacks by teens on other teens should be considered hate crimes, teachers who ignore the actions of popular liked kids and the pleas of the unpopular assualted kid then the teacher should be immediately terminated and loose the ability to teach sent to prison for child neglect and lastly be sued, no more 10+ years to execute a murderer, no more tolerance for repeat offenders of violent crimes not petty crimes.

SO I have actually offered ideas to change not accept, you need to read a little yourself please.

You do have theories thats for sure as to if your research you have done is understood by you is another to be thought of and readers of all this mess can plainly see for themselves and make thier own theory of the meanings of all these posts from all of us.

I shall say none of us are directly correct or incorrect thus far. This is still an opinion.

As near as I can see they have been refuted time and time again with supporting fact links as well as personal theories accumulated from other posts. It just seems when it is done instead of seeing them you choose to ignore them and instead say it was not done, perhaps Im wrong.

Oh how can I not hold onto the truth? Its far greater than beliefs or theories. I would rather trust a fact than somebodies belief. Fact is a firearm has the ability to stop a person this is the reason why law enforcement carry them. Is it rational to believe you could stop 2 men armed with an AK47 and body armor comming out of a bank in California with nothing but your hands?? Or is it more rational to believe you could stop those men if you had equal fire power. Now before you try to say "see your afraid" No its an example based on FACTS as it did happen.

It seems under your fear factor belief that no one can go to the doctor becuase they only go out of fear, that they cant take any medications becuase it would be done so out of fear, that they cant have religions becuase they have them out of fear, that they cant wear seat belts becuase they do so out of fear, that they cant go to work becuase they work out of fear.

You really need to understand that fear/ prevention/ belief/ and simple choice are sometimes closely related but that in the decision fear is not actually what the person is thinking. I am sure a woman does not go to the gynocologist out of fear but rather a need to prevent possible issues and detect issues. Do you believe they mount up them stirrups out of fear?? Not likely.

Anyway all this defending seems to really be only a grey area of attacks on each other and still our debate (still an aurgument that has structure) is not going further to actually see if there is a soluction that will cure the problems, infact its likely better a new thread be started with a more targeted goal and not so broad.