Guncrazy USA

Ok

For just as a bit of fun I went back over the post I sent today and counted how many times I’ve re-explained something or re-answered a question.

It was over 20 times.

I think in virtually all those cases you haven’t actually disputed the explanation or answers I first gave, just asked me to give the same explanation or answer again.

What is the reason for this constant blockage of any real debate?

I’ll let people make up their own mind, to me it just seems like you fear real debate because you feel that in a real, open and honest debate your ideas wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny.

But I live in hope that one day you will stop demanding I repeat myself enter into real debate and then we will actually see if your attitudes stand.


**

 

Pitt

Once again you demand repetition.

Why do you continually want to go backwards it’s not even as if you are tackling the points raised in your questioning, you just go back two steps and ask the exact same question or demand the exact same explanation.

Just read the following post and note that virtually all of it is stuff we’ve already covered (some many times) or is direct quotation that re-answers a question or re-explains a point.

**

I have stated things I would like to see come to fruition. Social programs, economic programs, youth programs etc etc. What more would you like me to say about these?

But even now you seem incapable of actually explaining how you think they will deal with the problems of your society or make it a better place.

I repeat –

“what policies would you support to make you society a better place?”

I’ve been trying to those things out and have a open and honest debate on them since last September in other words for about ten months.

What I’ve encountered in that time is a lot of tricks to get out of having such an open and honest debate.

And as I’ve pointed out many times that actually fits in with my theory which to repeat says that for -

“the problem with many American’s attitudes towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and also ignoring many of the social, economic and cultural problems within their society”

That still seems to remain valid, I mean you seem willing to spend a lot of time defending gun ownership but seem to have given very little thought to why you live in a society where many people feel they need to have a gun to protect themselves.

****

 

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

What am I making more suppressive, are you referring to my suggestion of stricter and harsher penalties for gun misuses? You yourself have suggested much the same thing.

Again please try to understand not just react – think about it – do you remember that thing about a holistic approach, how about that post I wrote about the carrot and the stick, do you remember that?

If you had actually tried to understand those posts rather than just ignoring them, as you seem to do with anything that doesn’t fit in with your viewpoint, then I wouldn’t have to be once again repeating myself

I repeat –

“My contention is that the attitude of threat and intimidation that seems strong in US society has developed the idea that these social and political tensions can be kept under control by suppression (tough laws, tough prisons, execution, guns etc).

I’ve given numerous examples from US history and from the comments of many here to back up my ideas that don’t seem disputed in most cases.

It is like the idea of the carrot and stick to get the mule moving in the right direction, the idea of threat coupled with benefit. The intimidation attitude leans a lot more toward the use of intimidation than to giving benefits and in some cases it can lead to the idea that, since they have threat, no benefits should be given and even benefits already given can be taken away.”

 

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.

Yet you offer nothing as proof that gun restrictions/bans actually minimize anything.

I repeat –

“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.”

For example I thought it a good idea that all guns had to be kept in a safe and that if people didn’t have such a safe they could own a gun, this was to try and cut down on guns getting into the wrong hands (e.g. curious children, or criminals stealing it in a burglary)

You thought this a good idea at the time but later though it a restriction (and now a repressive restriction) on people that couldn’t effort the safe (this after telling me how cheap they were).

But wouldn’t the benefits (in fewer accidents and fewer guns getting into criminal circulation) outweigh the drawbacks in expense?

Without this measure your argument for more gun ownership would only mean that more guns were likely to get into criminals hands and very probably more children having de facto access to firearms.


**

 

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’

Yet you only posted one line from the article, one line seemingly touting the success of the gun bans. This in itself makes it a biased post, using only the parts that fit in with your opinion.

To repeat -

“I was pointing out that what people believe can have an influence on how they see ‘evidence’ or what things they choose to highlight”
I gave an example from an article that showed differing viewpoints as you then commented (thinking it actually pointed toward supporting your view)
I wasn’t hiding anything and expected you would follow the link my own view was different I didn’t think it supported one side or the other.
To repeat and give the rest of the quote –
“For me as said it didn’t seem to come down on either side a bit of a ‘on the one hand and on the other’
What caught my eye and my interest was the bit about cultural differences playing a part in the issue.
About the communal as apposed 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 coming together to help their community”

**

 

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.

Yet you offer no countering evidence or opinion based on figures. You continue to dismiss offhandedly anything not in line with your opinion without thinking it through or trying to see the points being made.

You have once again ignored the fact I have challenged you to offer your own figures showing a positive effect from gun restrictions/bans. Not comparing two countries but instead comparing the same country, the same state, the same county, the same city or anything else you can think of yet you have not done so. Are you scared to try or are you finding it difficult to find such an example?

To repeat –

“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”
As to the figures you have presented they are very much tainted by your bias,
To repeat again –
“For example you claim that you opinion is based on ‘evidence’ but so far all I’ve seen is so called ‘evidence’ that backs up your opinion. In other words you have an opinion and you go out looking for stuff that you think backs it up, but as I’ve explained a lot of what you present is just statistical hocus pocus with so many variables involved that as stated they are often meaningless. 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 on 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 fudge these figures 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 disparage so huge that to use 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).”


**

Also I’ve pointed out many, many ,many ,many ,many…..times that the safer comparisons are of gun related murder and these point to the opposite of what you often argue.
To repeat –
“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 disparage so huge that to use 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)”


**

 

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.

If we cannot teach our young to help at a one on one basis how can you expect then to come together as a group?

So what policies would you have in place to assist parents and society in accomplishing this?

I’ve asked you this before and it’s come up many times since, children grow up in a society and they learn as much (if not more) from that society as they do from their parents. Unless you detach them completely from the society they live in (but they have to go out into it sometime) or you teach them to mistrust or even hate their society (which doesn’t seem healthy) or you teach them a myth of their society rather than a rational and honest view (which seems dishonest).

You talk of the ‘me’ thing but your own views seem rather self orientated, you want self protection because you don’t trust your society or many of the people in it. You wish for tougher punishment for criminals without seeming to think very much about the people involved, the society those crimes are committed in and if it has had a part in creating the conditions for criminality.

**

 

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.

Again in the context of guns you have to balance the bad with the good. If 1000 or 1,000,000 people are harmed and conversely 60,000 or 2,500,000 people are helped which way does the scale tip?

Oh the supposed Defensive Gun Use numbers - 60,000 or 2,500,000 – the problem I have with these is that they don’t seem to back up the idea that the US is becoming a better society.

As said in most area of crime the US and UK are and have been statistical virtually the same it is only in gun related murders that the discrepancy is so huge a hundred times great in the US compare with the UK.

Now gun ownership has not been very high in the UK I think only 1% of the population owned guns in the UK at the time of the ban (and most were shotguns that are mostly still legally held).

Yet to get the figures down to about the same level as the UK, Americans have had to use guns to stabilise the figures to those of the UK?

For example (using NationMaster.com) let us look at assault

US – 7.5 per 1000
UK – 7.4 per 1000

And as said with the many variables involved the difference here is to all intents and purposes meaningless.

But there were 2,238,480 assaults in the US and if a proportion of those involved DGU then the US needed guns to suppress the figures while the UK didn’t.

Meaning the US must be in a lot more of a problem state than the UK.

The same can be said of burglaries 2,099,700

This to me doesn’t seem like a triumph it seems like a failure and the higher the number of DGU’s the larger this problem.

That coupled with other suppressive indicators like having the highest prison population in the world and the continued use of execution do not to me indicate a US advancing toward a better society.

I mean the UK’s prison population is the highest in Europe at 148 per 100,000 but is not a patch on the US’s which has the highest prison population in the world at 715 per 100,000, does that sound like a success story or a failure, that even with these extraordinary figures you still have basically the same crime rates in most areas to the UK, the very telling area of gun related homicides that are a 100 times greater in the US.

But in the US many people still believe that execution is a deterrent to murder yet the US has vastly more murders to the UK where there isn’t capital punishment.

Is that a success or a failure?

Also

Presumably these people have guns because they feared for their lives and they had a gun because they though (at least in part) that their society was a threatening place were they could be attacked.

Is that a success or failure?

Again in the UK gun ownership has been low and I and many others don’t feel that threatened.

**

 

Pitt


As I’ve mentioned many times I don’t think the UK is perfect far from it I think successive governments have pursued many flawed and disastrous policies, which I work in my way to change.

But compared to the US my society seems in a lot better shape than that in the US.

Even with all these suppressive factors in place (high prison population, execution, widespread gun ownership etc) you can only achieve crime figures that are roughly the same as the UK’s.

Except in one important and tragic area – gun related murder which is a hundred times greater in the US.

**

Pitt to me you don’t seem to care much about your society becoming better place, from the pitifully small amount of thought you so obviously give to it I don’t think you care that much at all about the society you live in.

You have a personal and selfish interest in gun ownership and will do anything (like this constant trickery) to try and stifle any argument you see at being a threat to that selfish interest.

 

LOL

Pitt do you read your own posts, they can be incredibly funny

**

I say you demand me to answer questions or explain

You reply by saying you don't demand

Only then to demand with threat that I “answer the questions above and we will continue otherwise its pointless”

**

“You are posting nothing but useless drivel, continually repeating yourself, ignoring direct questions and sidestepping those same questions”

Oh good old predictable Pitt, again with the accusations that you never seem able to back up.

what is drivel?

which questions have i ignored?

Which questions have i sidestepped?

**

As to repeating myself you demand it over and over again, I would truly wish to move on in this debate why don’t you?

So we come to the questions you demand an answer to, they have been answered, you may not have liked the replies and therefore have ignored them (as you do often) but they have been replied to.

If you wish I can repeat the replies but they are just up the page you only have to read them.

If you dispute what I say why don’t you put forward countering arguments or alternative viewpoints rather than just getting me to repeat myself (again).


**

 

Pitt

You’re not exactly replying, more like sneering, these are not exactly the considered and rational replies of a reasonable person, they seem closer to a set of snide remarks, that don’t seem to be covering what I’ve said or the points I’ve raised.

I mean I posted at 1:13 and you begin replying three minutes later.

That doesn’t seem like you even read what was put to see if it had relevance to the things you raised let alone for time to considered if they had

**

991

Again please try to understand not just react – think about it – do you remember that thing about a holistic approach,

holistic approach, holistic approach, holistic approach,
shout it all you want the point is no matter how many other programs you use in conjunction with one another, if one of them does not provide the intended outcome it is worthless and only detracts from the rest.

You asked me a little time ago what my intended outcomes were, what were they?

Do you have an objection to those outcomes?

**

992

As I have said all along sensible restrictions that do not put undue Burdon on the legal law abiding citizen is ok. I have also said we need to enforce the laws we already have and fix the NICS.

So what is your reply to the points raised?

**

993

what a fucking joke. If you were trying to use the article in an unbiased way you would have quoted both sides of the argument. Yet you did not, you used it in a biased way.

I wasn’t trying to use it in an unbiased or biased way I was using it to make a point about the way different people will view the same information. Some would have read that article and thought it came down on one side others would see the opposite.

Do you dispute that argument, if so why?

**

994

well done balbus another example of ignoring the questions and points of the post and just copy/pasting/spamming with the same exact thing being called into question. You are a fucking class act.

So what did I say?

What were my arguments?

Why in your opinion were they irrelevant to the question?

Why in your opinion did I ignore the question?

Come on man what are the rational basis for these comments?

**

995

again congratulations you have once again tried to tale a “gun” related thread and turn it into something else so you will not have to answer the questions asked of you.

Why in your opinion are those points not relevant to this thread?

**

996

haha you bash me for trying to compare the US and the UK yet you continually to try and use these comparisons yourself. I have repeatedly asked you to do as you preach and show me the successes of gun bans from within the same country. You once again go back to the same old tired and useless copy/pasting/spamming.
Supposedly defensive gun uses? You have countering evidence/data/opinion pieces?

This reply gives me the impression that you don’t understand what’s been said.

Why did I take point with your comparisons and what is different about the ways we have presented them and what we conclude from them?

What is my arguement with the DGU issue?

If you object to my views what are your objections?

**

997
yes yes I know lets concentrate on gun related this, gun related that and ignore the rest.

Like I said answer the questions above and we will continue otherwise its pointless.

As pointed out I have, but maybe you missed it while concentrating on these rather pointless sneers.

**

It’s obvious you don’t like what I’m saying but it seems to me to be getting hard to understand what rational basis you have for this dislike, it seems to be increasingly about you disliking them because you dislike them.

It definitely coming to seem like you are not going to try and understand what’s said, it’s as if you believe that if it isn’t what you want then it isn’t worth the effort.

Please prove me wrong

If you can answer the questions I've asked in a rational and reasonable way we might be able to move this threat on.


**

 

I believe alot of people are confusing the meanings on here. Theory is a hypothesis that has had some research applied to it but yet has become fact. Hypothesis is simple an idea that has little or no merit.


Without research that is real not just a he said she said when I talked to them in a one certain forum board is nothing more than a hypothesis.

Now finding supportive statistics, verbal data from assorted sources both for and against, debate the outcomes of the data then it becomes a theory.

Theory supplies enough information to suggest a probable outcome that its worth going forward or dropping it all together.

Thus far Balbus all you keep comming back with is a hypothesis, you can not begin to slip further forward until you have data that supports you and that can be easily refuted due to not taking articles in full text.

Dirk Pitt thus far has provided sources of proof to support the hypothesis that your ideas wont work but there is room for it still to be disputed simply show facts not wishes, desires, poems, ect.

 

Pitt

blabus there is no moving forward with you. You continue to ignore anything not in line with your POV. You evade questions, sidestep challenges, and continue to copy/paste irrelevant information pertaining to the questions put to you. You do not want debate or conversation only conversion or confrontation.

And again Pitt you make accusations that you never seem able to back up.

Time and again you say such things and every time I ask you for proof and every time the proof you give doesn’t back you up or you just don’t give any.

I’ve pointed out to you more than once that this is basically lying, but it seems you don’t mind being a liar.

**

I will say this only one more time.
You can have a holistic approach to anything but if one of your many many solutions leading to a predetermined outcome is useless and unproductive toward its intended goal it only serves to detract from the intended goal of the whole.

But why is it useless and unproductive, why in your opinion would, for example having home safes for guns be useless and unproductive?

And I don’t think you understand what a holistic approach is or have read what I’ve said about it. To me it is about looking at the whole, trying to understand it and seeing what can be done, it is not dogmatic it can be flexible with success being followed up and failures examined and the policies changed accordingly.

Your mentality seems to be ridged, if something isn’t the why you want you do not seem to want to know, as pointed out this mentality is the same that props up failing ventures because it is unable to think of alternatives, again this is in line with the theories I’ve presented.

**

I have asked you and I have challenged you to show me any gun ban/restriction in which there was a positive outcome on the whole of what it was intended to do.

I’ve answered that – do I need to repeat myself again?

Have you read or understood what’s been said, if so I’m sure you can explain what I’ve been saying about biased outlooks and how they may view the same data?

**

You balked at comparing two different countries based on cultural differences so I revised it stating you can use any one country, any one state, any one county, any one city, any one of anything. Show a markedly difference from before the ban to after the ban.

Please explain what you believe my argument is?

If you can it will show me what parts I need to clarify, if you can’t it means you don’t actually know what I’ve said that when you say I haven’t answered what you mean is you don’t know if I have or haven’t

Or it’s just not the answer you want?

**

If you cannot show this then the proposal is useless and unproductive. If it were something that has not been tried in the past then you would have some basis to try it. However gun bans/restrictions have been tried many many times over so you have no excuse that it is something new and should just be given a chance.

It seems the only reason that you think it useless and unproductive is because you don’t like the ideas been presented, in your opinion it is wrong, I’ve tried to explain why I support it you don’t seem to be putting up any counter arguments just trying to dismiss the ideas out of hand.

Again is this because it isn’t the answers you want? That seems more like its just your personal prejudices speaking.

**

If something, some program is useless and unproductive a reasonable person would move past that and try to find something that will work. You seem to be stuck on restricting guns as a viable program when it has been prooven otherwise and you offer no countering evidence that it would be productive.

But you haven’t shown it is useless or unproductive you have given your opinion and I’ve countered those opinions showing that is just a matter of bias, you haven’t put up any argument against my views only dismissed them as wrong. But how do you know they are wrong if you cannot refute them?

**

I have countered all of your post before and I will not continue to repeate those counters and ask you the same questions over and over.

No you haven’t. You’ve repeatedly claim you have but when challenged you never seem able to actually given any evidence to back up your claims.

I’ve said many times that I’m happy to debate any of these supposed arguments of yours if you would just produce them.

But you refuse.

**

Show me the positive outcomes and we can move along. Until then you are doing nothing but spouting unsupported propaganda and useless suggestions.

I’ll ask again “I thought it a good idea that all guns had to be kept in a safe and that if people didn’t have such a safe they could own a gun, this was to try and cut down on guns getting into the wrong hands (e.g. curious children, or criminals stealing it in a burglary)

You thought this a good idea at the time but later though it a restriction (and now a repressive restriction) on people that couldn’t effort the safe (this after telling me how cheap they were).

But wouldn’t the benefits (in fewer accidents and fewer guns getting into criminal circulation) outweigh the drawbacks in expense?

Without this measure your argument for more gun ownership would only mean that more guns were likely to get into criminals hands and very probably more children having de facto access to firearms.”

**

 

Pitt

It seems to me that you might not understand my replies it is even likely you don’t care to understand my replies, it very well could be that if it isn’t the answer you want it isn’t an answer to you.

This is why you accuse me of not replying when I so clearly have

The two questions you asked were –

Explain the 60,000 - 2,500,000 DGU's reported?

Explain that although guns are heavily restricted in your own country the crime rate (even gun crime) is on the rise?

These have been covered at length but I’ll try and put forward the germane points

**

To you it seems the DGU’s are a good thing because it shows guns being used to tackle crime.

But the UK doesn’t have the high level of gun ownership but most crime figures in nearly all areas when statistical variables are taken into account are roughly the same.

(In the last few posts I’ve shown this in relation to rape, burglary and assault)

So guns don’t seem to be working as a deterrent and even with them, the figures are not that different.

Except in one area where there is a huge difference, gun related homicides.

Then this has to be seen in a societal context

Not only ares these attitudes of threat and suppression (that support gun ownership) linked to these figures it is also linked to others like the US having the highest prison population in the world and its continued use of execution as a deterrent.

To me this is not progress toward a better society.

I can understand why you would not like these replies, but my point is that you do not seem to be contending what I’m saying just dismissing it as wrong.

But why in your opinion are they wrong?

What arguments can you put forward to counter what I’ve said?

And if you have no countering arguments then shouldn’t you be re-accessing you viewpoint?

**

Now since you asked me to reply again why not reply to something I’ve asked you several times in the last few post (and before that).

What policies would you support that you thought might make your society a better place?

**

 

Hi Yank, nice to see you back

So are you going to give that apology for lying in the solutions thread?

How about addressing some of the points raised by your story of the house breaker, in this one?

**

Anyway nice try here Yank but I think I’m not the only one that notices this is another trick.

You claimed that my theories had been refuted but then found you couldn’t back up that claim (apology pending) so finding you cannot refute the theories you have gone for trying to downplay them.

So you call it a hypothesis rather than a theory

But hell man I’ve said it is just my point of view, I’ve called it my contention, a thesis, an argument, some ideas set out to discuss.

The important thing as I’ve often said is does it stand?

And so far it still stands after all these hundreds of posts, three threads and some ten months of debate the theory (or hypothesis if you wish) has not been seriously contended, as your very well know.

In fact thanks to people like you and Pitt the premise has grown stronger and expanded.

**

Yank if this is the level of your argument I must admit it is no wonder that you find yourself lying in an attempt to ‘get one over’.

You say that an “Hypothesis is simple an idea that has little or no merit”

But any argument’s merit can only be established by examination and if it stand up to scrutiny.

You’re haven’t exactly been forthcoming in any debate on my theories in fact many here like Pitt and you have been doing everything you can to get out of a debate about them.

Claiming that they have been refuted when they haven’t, trying to underplay their importance while not tackling what they say etc, etc.

As I’ve said before if my theories are so weak, why hasn’t anyone been able to bring them down.

**

Without research that is real not just a he said she said when I talked to them in a one certain forum board is nothing more than a hypothesis.

It’s clear from this that you haven’t done much research in your life (or if you have I dread to think of its quality). What is real research and what is false research?

For example you say genuine research is “verbal data from assorted sources both for and against” but false research is talking to assorted people who are both for and against the subject in question on these forums.

So you’re arguing that anything said here is useless but things said elsewhere are valid?

And your impartiality is clear when you imply that this is the only source for my ideas, have you asked me, I don’t think so, so was this an assumption, you are basing your ideas your theories on assumptions?

And I’ve actually said a few times that my ideas are not just based on things said here so you clearly haven’t done a very good job on researching my posts. If you had you may just have noted that I’ve brought up a lot more things than just what has been said on these particular threads.

**

You say that “finding supportive statistics” is genuine research; well most people that do genuine research would tell you that is terrible methodology.

You don’t have an idea then going looking for things to support it, you look into a subject, ask questions, set up some theories see if those theories stand then come to some tentative conclusions.

What you are suggesting is what creationists do, they have their belief then they go out and try and find anything that seems to support that view.

It is clear from such people as Pitt that he has gone out and found things that he believes support his view, but when the subject gets on to the place of guns in the wider context of US society he is lost.

Do you understand?

It seems to me that he hasn’t researched the subject he has just gone out and tried to find things that support his viewpoint, and that is why he seems unable to see beyond his blinkered view and gets confused and vague when asked to do so.

(and that fits in with my theories)

Then remember 'lies, damned lies and statistics' as pointed out it is often difficult to use these as positive proof of anything because of the variables involved, nearly all reputable statisticians will point this out

**

Then you talk of debate, but my problem here has been that people like you don’t seem willing to debate

For example you are not debating my theories here you are just trying to get out of debating them.

You say I need more information but why, so far you seem unable to refute what I have?

**

So we come to your view of Pitt and again a true researcher would chuckle over your objectivity. To you Pitt has provided ‘proof’ that my ‘ideas wont work’.

But explain to me what Pitt’s ‘proofs’ are and why they are in your opinion so solid because as I’ve tried to point out several times now, they don’t seem that concrete when actually examined. Neither you nor Pitt have contested that argument, just ignored its implications.

I’m happy to go over it again if you wish?

Also, I don’t know how it could have missed your attention but Pitt thought my ideas in the proposals I’ve stood by were good.

Why would he be working to discredit ideas he thought were good?

**

So Yank

Look I know you oppose my viewpoint and that’s fine, so be honest and oppose them don’t try to pull this kind of pseudo mumbo jumbo, you’re not very good at it.

If you have genuine arguments against my theories lets hear them please treat us like we have an ounce of intelligence and don’t try to hide your lack of any real argument behind crap like this.


**

 

Here is an alternative way you can use to defend yourselves without having to result in mass killings. It takes a bit of practice to get to the masterful state that this kid has achieved...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPPj6viIBmU

 

Pitt

And are you going to answer the question about what policies you would support or answer any of the other points I’ve brought up?

**

You claim to have read extensively and that is good, but as I’ve shown on many occasions you seem to look read with your general attitudes in place, this can cause a bias and since you seem unwilling to question those attitudes, means that your viewpoint is very likely to be biased.

If your attitude is that threat and intimidation work then you are more likely to see things that use threat and intimidation as good and things that don’t as ineffectual.

You are therefore more likely to agree with the idea that guns as a means of social control are good.

 

Let us look at the sources you linked to at the beginning of our conversations to see what you thought gave a clear and balanced view of your ideas.

Lets see if they fit in with you declaration – “I have pointed out biased verbage on both sides of the articles. I have pointed out both sides of individual stats for all to read. I have given my opinion based on the above”

**

Handgun crime 'up' despite ban
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

First notice the way up is presented.

The lead in this short news story is about some research commissioned by the leading pro-gun lobby in the UK undertaken by a conservative academic centre.
Not surprising the indications were that gun crime had risen since the ban, this is not the actual report just some conclusions so it is difficult to see how (if at all) they dealt with the variable involved.

Also the pro-gun lobby implications that this rise is a direct result of the ban are only an opinion.

**

Britain, Australia top U.S.
in violent crime
Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures
By Jon Dougherty
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902

This is by a right wing, pro-gun pundit writing for a right wing pro-gun opinion site.

It seemed mainly based on the “International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University”

This involved talking to 1000 to 2000 people from each country and basically asking them for their experiences of crime.

The people behind this survey admit this is not a comprehensive study with many contextual and comparative problems and should not be taken as a definitive study, it is not proof positive.

**
Gun crime claims 30 victims every day
By John Steele, Crime Correspondent, and George Joneshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/10/ngun10.xml
These are right wing pundits for a right wing newspaper and although a lot of figures are thrown around their actual source doesn’t seem to be cited, so they cannot be checked.
**
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cjusew96h.pdf
This is a link to a Department of Justice flyer, (I’ve been unable to find the full report so it can be checked)
It compares crime figures in the US with those in England and Wales.
It is a series of headlines and graphs that without the full report seem rather difficult to interpret since the methodology and the way they dealt with the variables involved is not just unclear it isn’t there.
A friend of mine that looked at it thought it strange that the authors slip between differing methods of describing comparisons. Some comparisons are described in percentages others in amounts (X amount of many times more than another) at other times their isn’t comparisons but crimes in one country are said for example to have risen or dropped.
We thought it seemed like a press release.
Again the full report and the ability to look at the figures are not presented, and of cause the justice department wants to show itself in the best light (as being successful in tackling crime)
**
The personal website of a pro-gunner
http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/US_murder.html
Not surprising that this has a very strong pro-gun bias
**
Civilian Gun Self-Defense Bloghttp://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
Another very overtly pro-gun site
**
Three Strikes and You're ... in Like Flint
By Hal G.P. Colebatch
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9641
Another right wing pundit in a right wing magazine.


**

As I said at the time in relation to the Colebatch piece

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

**

 

As anyone can see what you present as ‘proof’ is nothing of the sort, you have gone looking for things you think support your bias and presented them as ‘proof’ positive that your views are right.

But as I’ve pointed out to you several times now, if examined your ‘proof’ turns out to be less concrete as you like to claim.

Nearly all of it is the already bias opinion rapped up as objective opinion and sometimes not even that but openly bias opinion.

**

As I’ve being trying to explain you think gun bans or restrictions are ineffective (but favouring restrictions just some restrictions over others)

But you do not present this as an opinion but as fact.

You don’t say – ‘in my opinion these are ineffective’ – you asset such things – “have been shown to be ineffective”. You don’t say things ‘seem’ to be true, your mind is made up and such things are true.

That’s not being objective it is being biased and dogmatic.

It is not then surprising that anything you see points to you being right since you already know you are right.

But how do you know if the figures back up your conclusions?

Crime figures may or may not have gone up since the ban, but if it is an increase is that definite proof that the figures went up because of the gun ban?

Even pre-ban very few people in the UK were gun owners and the vast majority of those shotgun owners (and mostly they still have them).

The ban had very, very little or even no effect on over 99% of the UK’s population.

At the same time it is impossible to say if any rise in crime may not have happened anyway or have been worse.

Also as pointed out in nearly all areas of crime the difference between the US and UK isn’t that great and but in one area there is a huge difference and that is gun related homicide and the figures were not that high before the ban (bumped up by things like Dunblane)

Maybe this is down to gun restrictions or not, I presume you think not, you’ve cited Switzerland as a place where there isn’t a ban yet the gun related murder figures are much closer to those of the UK than the US.

So why in line with your opinion do Americans seem so much more murderous that the British or Swiss?

**

 

Pitt tell me what you do with someone that is so blind with bias that they do not listen to a word anyone that doesn’t agree with them says?

You ask -

Intimidation such as? Strict and meavy punishment for criminals using guns? The very same ideas you suggested some time ago?

But only a few days ago you asked -

What am I making more suppressive, are you referring to my suggestion of stricter and harsher penalties for gun misuses? You yourself have suggested much the same thing.

I replied to that so why ask the exact question again?

And you’ve basically asked that same question before that and I’ve basically gaven the same answer (since it was basically the same question).

I’ll probably give basically the same reply again tomorrow and you will probably just ignore it again.

Seriously do you have short term memory loss, I mean talking with you often seems like talking to a goldfish.

**

Anyway will be back it’s my birthday and I’m off to party.

**