Guncrazy USA

I don't care how "natural" it is, breathing the smoke of anything burning can't be healthy for you. But this thread is about guns, not my clean living. Please continue.

 

You're absolutely correct. I know few people here who don't own guns of one sort or another. Decent, law-abiding citizens who hunt, shoot target or skeet, or carry them for self-defense. Yet, in Baltimore, Annapolis, or PG County (bordering the entire east side of Washington DC) you can't wake up without a roadblock while a body full of bulletholes is investigated.

Controlling them doesn't seem to be the answer, but arming everyone isn't the answer either. So...?

License them, enforce it, build a lot of prisons, anyone with an illegal firearm gets 20 years. Anyone using an illegal firearm in the commission of ANY crime (even brandishing it) gets life. Period. Fuck a bunch of "cruel and unusual punishment".

I didn't always feel this way. I drove through a gunbattle in Anacostia (Southeast Washington DC) about 10 years ago. I had to wait until the cleanup crew hosed some kids brains off my van. After that I just lost my taste for guns.

 

WHHHHHOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAA !!!!! there ya go !!!!!!!
two posts previous to that you are ranting like someone who has just had a Greggs Dummy up his ass - about me being a twat because you are so anti gun - then ya go spoil it all by just making all your anti gun arguments obsolete - who's the real dick wad here ? I vote you as some kind of clown that thinks youre so funny and that we doint see through the fact you say one thing and really mean another !!!

hahaha zoomie? anti gun ??? my fucking ass !!!!

 

No, fuckwad. I'm defending the US in that OTHER thread. In this one I agree with you.

You're such an idiot...

 

LOL DP if you want to call me a King then you're welcome to it, but my Elvis impersonations are not that good.

Just because I treat you as an equal does NOT make me your enemy, no matter what your oppressive governments are scaring you with. So trying to evade the issue only serves to make you look like a cockend (which I am sure you ain't).

Let us not forget who started this thread. This thread was initiated as an anti-gun protest, and suddenly all the right wing maggots came out of the woodwork crying that their little LEGO (TM) guns might be taken away.

The whole fucking planet laughed their multi-colored arse off as redneck America started boo-hoo-hooing their snotty nose on our sleeve about their second ammendment and how their government is oppressive (yet they are afraid to protest down the road against them?!?!?!?!?!?!?!)

I ain't got to answer questions to the cast of Fraggle Rock!!!! I have initiated protests against your weapon wielding. If I am wrong, convince me by answering MY fucking questions (without your NRAKKK statistics). Else fuck off.

 

Oh come on, Pitt you cannot really think this lame excuse works do you?

I would have thought you being British would have a better understanding of the difference between "you" and "people". Those words are part of the English language i do believe.

So I ask again, why did you bring the subject up when you already knew that it had nothing to do with what we were discussing?

The only reason I can think of is it was misdirection, another trick.

**

The post was directed at me the only quote was my post why talk of a ban at all if it wasn’t directed at me?

Again one was directed at you the other was not. I cannot believe you do not know the difference between "you" and "People"

So I ask again, why did you bring the subject up when you already knew that it had nothing to do with what we were discussing?

I mean you’re still not answering the question the difference between "you" and "People" is an irrelevance its misdirection - the question is about the context in which they were placed.

To repeat

“The post was directed at me the only quote was my post why talk of a ban at all if it wasn’t directed at me?”

Try and understand, why talk of a ban at all in that post if it wasn’t directed at me and if it wasn’t directed at me why put it in a post directed at me?

**

I’m not one of these ‘people’ that is promoting a ban, so how can I speak for them?

Yet you live in a country that not only promoted but accepted a ban.

So what? I wasn’t actually involved in that decision and it didn’t really make much of an impression on me since it had little relevance to me or the people I knew at the time. As I keep telling you – I’ve never owned a gun, I never wanted to own a gun, and there is no one I know of at the moment that wants to own a gun.

Again how am I to speak for them?

**

Again this just seems like another misdirection trick and I had to laugh as I’m sure I’m not the only person to notice that once again you are using your famous fake ‘righteous indignation’ to get out of having an honest debate.

I dont even know what I was thinking, it is useless to try and talk with you. I shall go back to ignoring you.

But as I’ve pointed out it does come across as I trick since the context in which you bring up the banning of guns is irrelevant to what we (as in you and me) were talking about.

I’ll ask again why were you bringing something up that had no relevance to what we were talking about, to do so would have to mean you were really stupid (and as I’ve said I don’t think you are stupid) or it was some kind of trick?

**

 

And what direct question are you taking about?

And you say I dont read post. lol Just to point it out Ill paste it here. Not that I am going to get into this with you since I can see the required repetition I have experianced before is still continuing.

Would you not agree that the 500,000,000.00 spent purchasing guns from law abiding people willing to turn in guns to the government would have been better spent since this in itself had no major impact on what it was intended to do?


The reason I asked was to see if it was the one about Australia, because that is just another example of the problem with context and comparison that I’ve already mentioned and which we have discussed at length already

As I said “If you insist I’ll reply but I’d rather move forward than once again going back, it just seems like another trick to derail the thread”

But it seems again you insist on going back rather than forward (I’m beginning to think that is part of you mental makeup, an inability to think of new things or alternative viewpoints)

**

This is an edited version of something I posted a few months ago.

- The thing is that US culture and society is not going to be the same as in another country, basically Australia is not America. It hasn’t had the same history, laws or levels of gun ownership I mean I believe that the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback.

The thing is that trying to use figures from one country to support your argument for the US is making comparisons that just don’t hold up because the context is different and it is often impossible to make like for like comparisons.

Even without that, statistical comparisons are riff with hidden dangers and pot holes that make it difficult to call reasonable proof or even circumstantial evidence.

Also as pointed out laws change, reclassifying crimes plus the methods and means in which statistics are collected can change and the context of what they indicate understood.

Also these things don’t take into account local drives or crackdowns that may boost figures in certain years. Encouraging rape victims to come forward (with such methods as granting animosity) can lead to higher rape figures, but in fact there has not been an increase in the number of rapes just the number being reported.

At the same time economic factors can have an impact, higher unemployment leading to higher crime rates in those areas associated with financial gain, whereas high employment rates lead to more crimes related to drink - such as assault - as more people have the money to go out.

Demographics can have an effect as Susan Estrich says of the US “Eighteen years ago, the number of young men between the ages of 18 and 25 -- the prime crime years -- was set to decrease steadily for the next decade. Even if you did absolutely nothing, crime was likely to decrease because there would be fewer would-be criminals to engage in it”

The prevalence of insurance is another factor people are more likely to report criminal damage if that is what is needed to make a claim.

Even the perceived efficiency of the police can be a factor. Some crime rates can be low because people think the police are useless and don’t report the crime but if the police become better at the job people do report those types of crime (again the crime rate hasn’t gone up just the reporting). This means that higher figures can actually point to a healthy and working system and low figures to a sick and dysfunctional system.

Even the prevalence of CCTV cameras can have an effect on crime figures, fights in bars that at one time were not reported or led to no conviction because of lack of evidence are now being captured on camera and as pointed out to me several times the UK has many more CCTV cameras than the US.

However there is one area which is less controversial when it came to comparisons (although it still depended on the countries being compared) and that was murder. Homicides are very much more likely to be reported when discovered and there is far less leeway in definition.

“In selected cases, most notably homicide, country to country comparisons are safer, although may still be subject to the drawbacks outlined above. In the case of some categories of violent crime - such as rape or assault - country to country comparisons may simply be unreliable and misleading.”
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_surveys_3.html

And as you readily admit the figures for murder in the US are huge.

**


To try and put it simply –

You can have an opinion of what it means but that isn’t proof positive that what you believe to be true is in fact true.

It might be your opinion that the ‘buyback’ didn’t have a major impact but you don’t actually know or have the ability to prove it because you don’t have access to a parallel earth were there is an Australia that didn’t enact the buyback.

You are giving an opinion the thing is other people’s opinions might be different some people might argue that the statistics would have been worse so the money spent was worth it.

You are not comparing like to like, only projecting your own viewpoint onto the statistical information available.

Then you are trying to use that flawed methodology to support an argument about the a society and culture that is in no way the same.

And you admit is different.

So lets examine what seems different about US attitudes and viewpoints?

In other words let’s move the debate on rather than keep dragging it back as you have done so far.

 

OK Yank

This is difficult to put into a proper context due to the supposed personnel nature of the event but you must know that the scenario you present is incredibly rare.

I mean it is very, very, very rare here in the UK (if it is common in the US that again brings up questions about US society).

In the UK there were 846 attempted child abductions in 2002-3 of which only 68 were successful (and this in a population of about 61 million)

About half involved family members (custody problems after such things as divorces)

Very few of cases happened in peoples houses

So the likely hood of this scenario actually happening to me, my family or anyone else in the UK is millions to one against.

Yes it is a possibility but the probability is minuscule and there are a lot more things that I see as more important to worry about.

**

Then the story raises other issues.

Yank you say this person knew you, so it is very likely he knew you had guns in the house (I mean you don’t hide the fact) and although you say you were planning to be away, I’m presuming you would not have left your child alone, so an adult would be there in a house with access to guns. I believe you even say that your wife was there?

Yet this had no deterrent affect what so ever?

Now people like Pitt have stated that gun ownership deters criminals or would be attackers, this story seems to go against that theory.

Or are you saying that you take the guns with you when you travel to protect yourself while leaving your wife and children defenceless (and that this person knew that)?

**

You say that my way “might have worked too under ideal situations” but what idea situation are you talking about?

I mean let us look at the two approaches.

On knowing someone was in my house I would have called the police and then turn the lights on and loudly shout that the police were on their way

You rang the police but didn’t turn the light on or do anything else to alert the intruder to the fact that they had been discovered.

Wouldn’t that just emboldener the intruder into believing he was undetected and safe?

You’ve said that this man thought you were away, had waited until he thought you away, so if he had know you were there wouldn’t he have then fled?

I would have set off our alarm, I can switch it on from the landing. I would have then got my child (who would have woken with the alarm and need comforting), while my partner rang the neighbours or kept the police informed.

You chose to keep quiet and in the dark went looking for your gun. You admit that you never thought you would need a gun for any sort of defence, yet you were keeping a gun and ammunition readily available in your bedroom? I mean you say you just grabbed it, are you saying it was already loaded and ready for use? If it wasn’t, did you then get the ammunition, load the gun and prepare it for use – all in the dark?

As to the police been at least 15 minutes away I’ll repeat the intruder doesn’t know when they were called or how long the police are going to take to get there it could be half an hour but they don’t know that to them it could be any second.

But the intruder has to know that they have been rumbled and the police called your method let them believe they had been undetected and had plenty of time to get away with their crime.

**

So this is why I agree there needs to be policy and programs in place, education and requirements as well as other things for people and firearms.

What polices and programmes, what kind of education and what requirements?

As I’ve said, if these are based mainly on thread, intimidation or suppression they might just make the situation worse and some ideas only deal with the symptoms of problems not the cause.

Give me some ideas so we can mull them over.

 

Pitt

Come on man, I said lets move on and you once again drag us back to things we have already covered.

I think I’ve answered every one of your points and questions at least once and some many, many, many times already.

Others would be answered if you just tried to understand the theories I’ve printed many times (I’ll do it again right after this post).

If you insist I’ll answer them, again…but please let’s just move on instead?

**

 

To recap

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoidic outlook were everything and everyone is seen a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

For example many feel they need guns to ‘protect’ them from the government, but how realistic is that belief and what in essence does it mean?

If anyone looked at the history of the US they’d see clearly that gun ownership has never been a tried and tested method of escaping the actions of the government. From the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion to Ruby Ridge and Waco, in fact the use of weapons against authority has been seen as justification by many or most Americans for tough action (repression as a means of problem solving).

But have the armed citizens of America been a bulwark against injustice or have they more often than not helped perpetrate it? If people actually thought about the classic cases of injustice in US history they would see a pattern. More often than not guns in the hands of ‘decent people’ have been used as a means of suppression. From the subjugation of the ‘savage Indians’, the repression of ‘bestial negroes’ to the defence against ‘insidious pinkos’ the use or threat of force has been obvious and the gun the symbol of that power.

But it doesn’t have to be a gun, this attitude is about having ‘equalizing’ power, the ability to threaten and this is why the argument runs that if there were no guns then there would be swords and knives and in that case they would want also to have swords and knives.

It seems to me that when threat, intimidation and suppression come to be seen as the most important (or only) means of dealing with domestic social problems and the outside world, the mindset becomes blind to alternatives.

So in crime (as in many other areas) ‘toughness’ in other words repressive measures are praised while calls for understanding of the social context that leads to criminality is dismissed as soft and ‘giving in’ to the criminals.

Guns are just part of that repressive approach.

I feel that it could be this attitude that marks US culture out, of course not all Americans have this viewpoint and not everyone that does has it at the same intensity of feeling but I believe enough do to make the viewpoint prevalent.

It is my contention that if this attitude didn’t exist, many social and political problems would be dealt with in a lot more rational and realistic manner and the feeling that weapon ownership was so necessary and desirable would not be so widespread in the US.

 

“Many people including you think that simply banning guns will improve things”

LOL

For fuck sake man you crack me up, you really don’t read anything even your own posts do you.

We just had this big thing about you knowing that I’m not for an all out ban – to quote you - “I know you are not for an all out ban”

Then you say this.

**

As to dodging questions or answering you points I’m not, the questions and points you raise these days have already been answered (often many times).

For example – “You harp about not being able to compare the US with other countries yet use a comparison of murder rates between the US and the UK all the time”

But we have been through this before many times – “However there is one area which is less controversial when it came to comparisons (although it still depended on the countries being compared) and that was murder. Homicides are very much more likely to be reported when discovered and there is far less leeway in definition.

“In selected cases, most notably homicide, country to country comparisons are safer, although may still be subject to the drawbacks outlined above. In the case of some categories of violent crime - such as rape or assault - country to country comparisons may simply be unreliable and misleading.”
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_surveys_3.html”

**

I’ll repeat the answers I’ve give to the question’s you’ve already asked, again, if that makes you happy

But I really would like to move on –

**

“explore the basics”

What basics are you talking about?

**

 

"Words words words" - Hamlet and DP.

"Bricks bricks bricks" - WS and Ronnie.

Just got back from Germany. What did you do on your week-end, boys? Jerk off with your guns again?

 

“This is nothing but lip service. If you look at these proposals they are indeed a “BAN” that takes place over time. If you cannot mfg any guns, and you cannot import any guns and after they reach a certain age they are “made inoperable” that is a ban that takes place over time. So quit lying.”


Pitt

This is the problem, we have been through this thing - about the proposals - four or five times now. My reply hasn’t actually changed, in fact you haven’t really disputed the replies I’ve already given, all you do is seemingly ignore them and later when it suits you (e.g. when you wish to disrupt a thread) you once again make the same accusation to which I give the same reply, which you ignore, and make the same accusation again a few posts later, and so on and so on.

The thing is that I’ve repeated it so many times that you must have read it at some point someone would have to be incredibly stupid to not see the accusation you throw out don’t work (and you are not stupid) so I can only assume you know exactly what you are doing, that all this is just trickery.

**

Ok

I’ll give you the reply which I've basically given before that explains why your accusation isn’t legitimate.

To understand people have to look at the sequence

In post 134, I put forward some proposals, they were just ‘off the top of my head’ some ideas on gun regulation, open to discussion. If anyone wants to read them here is a link to the page I’m not trying to hide the fact that I put these proposals forward http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189921&page=14&pp=10

You gave your opinion, Some ideas you liked, others you thought needed amendments and some you disliked. (you can read them in his post 136 on the same page as linked)

To the proposals you have reprinted in this thread the replies were –

Stop the sale of all new guns within the US and ban the import of guns. People found selling new guns (ones without an official ‘history’) or found bring guns into the US would be given a mandatory 20 year sentence. (In time laws would be brought in making weapons of a certain age inoperable)

And this punished only the law abiding, sorry but I dont agree with this one.

(So this one I dropped)

**

Any handgun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure (and approved) safe. People that didn’t have an approved safe would not be allowed to own a gun (over time the security level of the approved safe would rise)

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

(and so this one I kept)

**

My reply to your comments (in post 140) was “Well this is wonderful Pitt really good, this is what can be so good about debate”

I had noted your objections and cut or amended the proposals to these -

Anyone in possession of an illegal gun or having a gun when they have been banned from having one would get a mandatory 10 year sentence.

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

Anyone that has a gun on them while committing anything but a low level crime (e.g. -minor traffic violation) would get a mandatory 30 year sentence.

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

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun. (If its shown they did not show due diligence for securing thier weapon)

Any handgun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure (and approved) safe. People that didn’t have an approved safe would not be allowed to own a gun (over time the security level of the approved safe would rise)

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

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

**

These were all things you seemed to find acceptable in theory at that time.

**

Your reply (post 143) was – “Yes this is good but you have failed to realize many of these lasw are ALREADY in effect, they are just not enforced. << this is THE problem which is what i have been saying. Enforce these existing laws and "gun crime" would go down, and probably not even a problem requiring anything else. Should we not try this First”

As I’ve said you accept in theory that these are good ideas you just have the opinion that the existing laws should be given a chance first.

(That is another discussion and if people wish to follow it they can. But fundamentally Pitt wants to enforce the laws but doesn’t seem to have much of an idea of why they are not being enforced (and that comes back to US society and it’s attitudes toward guns and my theories which Pitt has been using every trick he can to get out of debating in an honest or open way)

**

 

“If you don’t want to answer, fine. If you cannot answer, fine. If you are afraid to answer, fine. But you’re useless bantering and repetition is beyond me. I should have learned long ago you are not wanting to discuss this or are just afraid to discuss this..”

Oh my…..as I’ve pointed out already I’ve answered your questions sometimes many times and I’ll answer them again now since you insist, but this is what it is like trying to talk with you these days –

Pit – Question - what is your favourite colour

Balbus - Answer – red

Q – so what is your favourite colour

A – I told you red

Q - If you don’t want to answer, fine

A – but I have answered it’s red

Q - If you cannot answer, fine

A – But I can answer and have, it’s red

Q - If you are afraid to answer, fine

A – Its red

Q - So Balbus what’s your favourite colour?

You say you are sick of my repetition then the simply answer is to stop asking me to repeat myself.

I know you are not dumb and I know that while it often seems like it you must read at least some of my replies, so the only thing that makes any sense is that you are just trying to destroy any chance of their being an honest debate.

People have told me that this is the problem with any discussion about guns and the attitudes behind them in the US, the pro-gun lobby are just not interested in any form of honest and open debate, in fact their main objective at times seems to be to stifle any chance of open and honest debate on the issues.

**

OK

“What is the exact outcome you want to see with these restrictions?”

The restrictions that you thought were good?

Well I would hope for a better, healthier society but the restrictions I’ve proposed will not achieve that alone, as I’ve pointed out to you many, many times.

That is why I’ve talked of a holistic approach (with the gun issue being just a part of it).

Also as I’ve told you many times it’s not so much the guns but the American attitudes toward their gun culture that seem to be the problem.

For example I said at the beginning of September 2006 in post 19 of the MAD thread (nearly ten months ago) - “My thesis is 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. It also seems to me to led to a belief that threat and suppression is the best means of defence”

And here just yesterday “My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems”

You have never really been able to refute these views and you seem to be doing all you can to get out of discussing them.

I’d really like to know why?

(this is a question I’ve put to you many times now, are you ever going to reply?)

**

What is the reason you want to see this come about?

Sorry but this is unclear – do you mean why would I want the US to have a better, healthier society, that isn’t built on the attitudes of threat and intimidation?

Well as I’ve explained a few times now, I think this attitude colours not only personal viewpoints but influences domestic political issues which is bad enough but can also creep into the US foreign policy (for example the Iraqi adventure).

The thing is that such things have an impact not just on Americans but many others around the globe.

**

Is it to lower crime, lower murder or simply to eradicate guns because you yourself do not percieve a need for them?

Sorry Pitt but you’re beginning to sound a bit like a stroppy teen here man, like I’m trying to take away your playstation because I am an uncaring adult who just doesn’t understand what ‘Grand Thief Auto’ mean to you.

As I’ve said I would hope that a holistic approach would lower crime and murder, and I would hope that if US society became healthier it’s people wouldn’t feel so threatened that they felt the need for guns as a means of protection themselves.

**

Are you afraid of guns?

As pointed out before I seem to be a lot less afraid of them than you.

**

Are you afraid of you neighbor if he had a gun?

Do you mean ‘would you be afraid of your neighbour if he had a gun’ ?

I grow up in the countryside my neighbours did have guns, legal, licensed guns (mainly just shotguns), and no I wasn’t afraid of them.

And it didn’t make me feel I needed a gun to protect myself from them.

These people still have legal, licensed guns and I’m still not afraid of them.

**

Is it just you have no desire to own a gun and cannot understand why others may want one?

As I’ve said if people want to own a gun they can under the restrictions I proposed.

**

What outcome are you wanting to see?

A good one (this seems like a repetition of question one)

**

 

It seems to me that we have reached something of an impasse.

Some here (including me) see the US’s gun culture to be linked closely with US society and feel that to understand the Americans attitudes toward guns an examination of general American attitudes needs to be undertaken.

While the pro-gunners only seem interested in defending gun ownership in a rather dogmatic and ideological way and seem to be doing everything they can to disrupt any debate on US society and the attitudes that seem to underpin how guns are viewed in that society

The thing is that the defence they have presented only seems to highlight the need for such a discussion.

Why is it that they seem so reluctant, even afraid, to have an honest discussion on these important and relevant issues?

Could it be that they think that the theories presented here (like my own) are actually about right?

 

Pitt

"Well I would hope for a better, healthier society but the restrictions I’ve proposed will not achieve that alone, as I’ve pointed out to you many, many times."

But how would banning/restricting guns from law abiding people achieve this? The fact is it will not, it will not effect anything but the law abiding who already promote a healthier society.

Oh my, oh my, oh my, please Pitt read the fucking posts, how many times do I have to say the same thing before you get it?

LOL either you are really dumb or you are pretending to be stupid on purpose.

What have I said about the holistic approach?

I’ve explained it to you for over nine months and you still ignore it.

I mean I hope you read the very next line after the quote you re-print

What does it say?

That is why I’ve talked of a holistic approach (with the gun issue being just a part of it).

**

The point you completely continue to miss is Gun bans only effect the law abiding, the ones who misuse guns are not going to abide by any gun bans/restrictions.

I’m missing the point, I’ve talked at length on this very point, the trouble is you don’t like what I say so you ignore it.

Again go back and actually read what I’ve said about the holistic approach.

**

This is the problem, you only seem interested in defending gun ownership outside of that you seem to have little to no ideas at all.

**

We need to educate our young and teach them there is more than materialistic things in the world.

Yes but in what ways is the question, what policies would you follow, remember we have talked about this before and I gave you some of my own ideas but you didn’t seem to have many at all.

So I’ll ask again what would you do?

(Oh nd please not the Good Samaritan parable again, we’ve covered that).

**

As far as how to get guns away from the people who do not need them I have outlined my suggestions previously. If you want to read them look at the "are gun bans realistic?" thread. On this we seem to be in agreement toa point. Howerver there has been opposition to my suggestions for heavy punishments and strict enforcement for those who would misuse guns to promote violence and crime.

Oh my, oh my again what does a holistic approach mean?

If you only use suppression as the means to achieve what you want it is likely to make things worse.

I’ve tried to explain this time and again, maybe you should go back and read what I said?

**

There has never been a gun ban that has had a positive effect on the people that it is intended to impact (the criminal element). I have asked dozens of times for such an example and not a single person has given one. Why support something proven to not work?

In you opinion gun bans/regulations do not work, re-read what I wrote above about comparison and context, a few posts above.

**

I think it is less about the US attitude toward guns and more about the attitude toward the hedonistic materialistic society we have become.

So again I ask you what would you do?

**

The people today think its all about "ME". They pass by and will not become involved to help another person no matter what is going on, from the person being stabbed on the street corner to the old lady who's car has broken down on the side of the road.

LOL oh and here it is the fucking Good Samaritan parable again.

We have been through this before (more than once) in the MAD thread and in the Solutions thread and as I’ve said its all well and good wanting, or urging people to help but that’s not actually a policy with a history of success (as I’ve said unless you think you have more clout than Christ ().

So what actual policies would you have to make your society a better place?

**

 

Oh Pitt, come on!

Many issues were raised that could have moved this discussion on and what do you pick on to talk about a couple of things that have been extensively covered already.

All right here we go again.

**

In you opinion gun bans/regulations do not work, re-read what I wrote above about comparison and context, a few posts above.

fuck you are dense. Give me an example of where they have worked? Just one. I am not saying compare two different countries. Use just one country, one state, one county, one city, one anything, before and after, where is this bright shining example?

I’ll try and explain once again but I really don’t know how much more simply I can put it without coming across like you were a child rather than the adult you claim to be.
You have an opinion
That is you have a certain viewpoint
A belief.
And so you see things in a certain way.
In a biased way.
So you see certain things as ‘proof’ for your point of view when someone else with a differing point of view (there own bias) would see it as ‘proof’ for their belief.
You and others see the Australian gun laws as a failure while others see them as a success and both as far as I can tell are using the same statistics.
Also you cannot compare like with like, people can analysis an Australia with the gun laws it has at this time but they cannot compare it with an Australia without those laws in the same period.
So all you can have is an opinion as to what the statistics mean it isn’t proof positive that your views are the correct ones.
It is just the spin you want to put on them.

**

All this would have been clear to you if you had just taken the time to read the relevant post rather than just seemingly ignoring them in favour of your tricks.

**

 

Pitt

LOL oh and here it is the fucking Good Samaritan parable again.

parable? my fucking god look around you, look in the papers, for fuck sake look at youtube. There are many examples of what I am talking about. If helping your fellow man is just a worthless parable to you I truely feel sorry for those around you.

Give me the one true shining example and we will talk further. Yep a challenge, go find it boy.

**

We have been through this in the Solutions thread and if you had actually read those posts first you would have realised that your accusations are groundless but then I think you already know that and this is just the continuance of the same old trick to get out of an honest debate – you just endlessly make the same accusations or ask the same questions that you know have been dealt with before.

**

Here we go again

Small and large kindnesses go on all the time I see or read about them everyday, (I travel on public transport with a toddler in the London rush hour so I’m often the recipient of such small kindnesses) and I try to help others in a personal way as much as I can.

But I realise like most people do that such individual help is in no way a substitute for social, economic and political policies that can be used to make a better society.

Some things as individual are beyond us and only working together as a group or community can some things be achieved.

I might be able to take someone to a hospital but I’m very glad we here have a national health service that I and others can use and I don’t have to worry if I can afford the treatment.

In other words I’m glad that people lobbied to set up some institutions or got some types of laws passed.

This means that I don’t have heavily polluted air or contaminated food and water. I’m thankful slavery was abolished and children don’t get forced to work, I’m glad I got to go to school and a university, I’m glad for unemployment benefits and the job I have, I’m glad my partner got all the assistance she did before the birth of our child and for the paid maternity leave she got after, I’m glad our child not immunised and I’m glad she gets subsidised childcare etc, etc, etc.

There are many policies that have been lobbied for become political issues and voted into law. There are some policies I like and others I don’t and doing the right thing, helping out the people in my community means to me supporting some policies and fighting against other.

But how do I know what things to support and what not to?

By trying to understand the world around me, by asking questions and gaining knowledge, by looking at societies and trying to see if there are problems and trying to work out solutions.

And this is something you and many other Americans here don’t seem to be doing, I mean you blame things like hedonism and materialism but I’ve asked you many times to tell us what social, economic and political policies you believe would make your society a better place and so far you just repeat this ‘Good Samaritan’ philosophy of individuals helping out when they see something.

I helped out at a traffic accident, a young girl got hit by a car and sustained a head injury, as a first aider I put her in the recovery position and talked to her while checking her vital signs until the paramedics turned up, someone else rang for an ambulance, and another person found the girl’s mobile phone and rang the child’s mother while still others directed traffic around us.

That was a case of me as an individual helping out another individual, but I also support traffic calming policies (speed bumps, traffic lights etc) and policies that would cut down on car usage (the congestion charge, pedestrianisation, public transport etc) because I can’t as an individual just put down speed bumps or pedestrianise a roads as I feel like it, even if I had the time and money to do so.

Why do I support such policies and want them undertaken, because I would rather not have to help out a child like that, I would much rather that children were not hit in the first place.

Do you understand?

To me people should help out when they see something but helping out can also mean thinking about a problem (children been injured or killed on the road for example) and then thinking of ways (policies) that might improve things and make the world you live in a better place.

**

So I’ll ask again the question you have ignored, one that might move this debate on – what policies would you support to make you society a better place?

**

 

Pitt

Again I’m not sure if you just don’t read my post’s, read them but don’t even give them a second of thought or you do understand them but choose to play dumb.

Because I know you are not dumb, your misdirection and trickery is a wonder of cunning, the way you choose what to talk about and what you decide to ignore behind a screen of righteous indignation or crude humour is clever.

The only problem is that choosing to act dumb just makes you seem dumb.

**

The point I was making was that many of the things you present as ‘proof’ of your argument are in fact just opinion based on your interpretation of the data.

I’ve explained at length why I have this view and you don’t seem to dispute any of the points I’ve raised, you just don’t seem to like what they imply.

You are vehemently pro-gun ownership and react strongly to any suggestion of regulations that you believe attack or erode your ‘right’ to bear arms.

From that stand point it is not surprising that your view on places that have enacted gun regulations you dislike is mainly or wholly negative.

But others see the regulation passed in a more positive way - “Australia, which had been bloodied by 13 mass shootings in the 15 years that preceded the slaughter in Port Arthur, Tasmania, hasn’t seen one since”. – That is since legislation was passed to limit or stop such shootings.
http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2007/04/27/news/nation_and_world/doc46317fb71ff34452649678.txt

Do you understand?

Your viewpoint and attitudes are dictating how you view data on gun bans but as you readily admit I’m not calling for a gun ban and what proposals I have stood by you though were good at least in theory.

What interests me and what makes comparisons between such places as the UK and Australia with the US so very difficult is the differing cultural attitudes that those countries have.

It seems clear to me that from the arguments and the way that you have presented them, that you have certain attitudes and have then gone out to find ways of defending one manifestation of those attitudes a belief in gun ownership.

I think it could be possible that if you didn’t have those attitudes you wouldn’t be defending guns in the way you have or with the doctrinal doggedness that you have.

It therefore seems necessary to any understanding of US gun culture to examine those attitudes and to see if they stand up to scrutiny.

So we come to the interesting thing, not what you say but what you don’t say what you seem to be doing everything not to say.

I’ve been asking you basically the same question for over nine or ten months now most recently only yesterday.

Remember - “So I’ll ask again the question you have ignored, one that might move this debate on – what policies would you support to make you society a better place?”

 

Pitt

Look mate I’m once again happy to reply to your points if that’s what you insist but I think all of them have already been covered in other posts some of them several times. Will repeating them again serve any purpose if you are once again going to ignore what I say and just ask me to explain all over again?

For pity sake man let’s move on, I mean you complain about repetition but you’re always repeating the same questions or raising points already covered and then demanding I reply with things I’ve already said, why not reply to the points then raised so we can move on rather than always taking two steps back in the discussion?

**

As to the policies you talk about we have been through that several times already – the one’s you mention are just about the suppression of problems you are not trying to deal with the problems, it’s even unclear (because you refuse to discuss it) if you actually have an understand of what the problems are?

You say people should help each other – but will not discuss what you mean or if the policy is even realistic.

You talk of things been the fault of hedonism and materialism – but refuse to answer when I ask you to explain what you would do.

Then you talk of taking a system that is already suppressive and making it more suppressive.

I have at several times tried to have constructive discussions on a range of social and political issues that might be related to crime, and it is very clear you hadn’t given them much thought.

Which as I’ve said and explained to you many times fits in very well with my theory that the attitudes underpinning many Americans belief in guns, just helps them ignore in any real sense the social and political problems within their society.

**
Pitt
“you calim difficulties in comparing differing countries because of cultural differences, yet the very article you quote in fact does just this.”

And you just reacted rather than trying to think why?

That’s what I’ve been trying to say you need to think about what’s being said or you miss so much so you demand I explain again and so on.

I’ve said to you many times, to stop and think, take some time to try and understand what’s been posted, I believe you replied to this once saying you didn’t need to take any time understanding my posts that they were simple to reply to.

Well anything is simple if no thought is given to it, but that so often leads to the wrong answer or action being taken (sometimes with tragic results e.g. Iraq).

But as also pointed out on numerous occasions this mentality fits in well with my theories, the attitudes I talk about look for simplistic answers to problems (that usually involve suppression) without trying to understand why the problem exists.

What has also been repeated explained is I’ve not been championing a ban, you repeated come back to ‘the ban’ with me but even you admit I’m not asking for one.

As has been pointed out many times I do believe in regulation, but then so do you and as has been made clear often, the proposals that I’ve stood by, you thought were good.

But as also repeatedly said I wouldn’t be just looking at such gun related issues alone to deal with crime or the minimising of harm.

**

To me the article I linked to did not really come down on one side or the other and what was the point I was making in the post where I linked to it?

Did you think about that?

Remember I didn’t want to return to a subject that has been covered already but you demanded I explain yet again and because I’m a patient man I’ve once more complied (although it often seems my two year old picks things up quicker).

I was pointing out that what people believe can have an influence on how they see ‘evidence’ or what things they choose to highlight.
In this way the same thing can be seen by some as a success and others a failure.

For example to you the article ‘suggest that the strict gun laws made negligible if any difference’.

But I’m sure some would read the same piece and declare it suggested gun laws work.

For me, as said it didn’t seem to come down on either side a bit of a ‘on the one hand but on the other’

**

As I’ve said before lack of self awareness, the inability to question why you think in a certain way is all part of this difficulty in seeking understanding.

For example you claim that you opinion is based on ‘evidence’ but so far all I’ve seen is so called ‘evidence’ that you present which you claim backs up your opinion.

In other words the opinion seems to have come first.

You have formed an opinion and then you have gone out looking for stuff that you think backs it up, but as I’ve explained a lot of what you present is rather dubious (protection from government) contradictory (crime being everywhere but nowhere) or is just statistical hocus pocus with so many variables involved that as stated it is very hard to see them as proof positive only opinion.

I’ve explained (a few times) what these variables are and how they can upset comparisons and you don’t seem to dispute my explanations.

For example lets take three crimes – rape, burglary and gun related homicide and two countries UK and the US (using nationMaster.com)

For rape the UK 0.14 the US 0.34 now this small difference in the figures could be a lot to do with such things as methodology (with such things as statutory rape in the US and the very adversarial court system in the UK).

This is again a possibility with burglaries (UK 13.8 US 7.0) that is the figures could be influenced by how the crime is recorded or if it is recorded at all.

Then we come to gun related murder, as noted it is a lot harder to find varibles in these cases “homicides are very much more likely to be reported when discovered and there is far less leeway in definition”.

UK – 0.03
US – 3.6

So while the difference between the rape and burglary figures is relatively small and could be down to statistical variables the gun homicide figures are more reliable and the diffrenec so high to use the something as variable as the burglary figures for instance to praise the US system and to condemn the UK’s seems to me to be ridicules. That incredulity increases in me when I look at such things as the US’s huge prison population, the continued use of execution and the high level of anxiety that seems to be felt by many pro-gunners (the feeling of threat).


**

What caught my eye and my interest was the bit about cultural differences playing a part in the issue.

About the communal as opposed to the individualistic viewpoint and attitude (going by your question that seems to have been something you missed).

This is something that I’ve brought up a few times, and indicated by our differing viewpoints on how to make our societies better you talk of individuals helping other individuals while I talk of people not just helping other individuals but also coming together to help all the people in their community.

But I feel there is a certain amount of confusion on your side, you rile against such things as hedonism, materialism and the ‘me’ mentality but in my opinion those all seem part of the individualistic outlook, personal gratification and personal property over the communal good and the commonwealth.

In the context of guns think about Proud who doesn’t care if a 1000 or a 1,000,000 innocent lives were saved by regulations or a ban he would still feel it worth it for his individualistic right to have what guns he wanted and could afford.


**