Guncrazy USA

this is just creaming up each others dirt box now isnt it?

 

I brought in the Star Wars Kid in as a sort of classic. We'll look back on it with some kind of fondness one day. Hopefully by then we will be suffering from senility and won't remember anything we've said and done.

 

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?


I have spoken about policies I support. One of the major ones concerning guns is the current legislation in congress to make state reporting to the NICS mandatory. It also provides federal funds to impliment this. This laegislation is supported by major players on both sides of the gun control issues such as Brady campaigh on one side and the NRA on the other side.
I have spoken about easier access to and more mental health facilities. I have spoken about strice enforcement to existing laws and heavy punishments for violators of these laws. Spoken of firearms safety traing for people wanting to own a gun. More training for young people on what to do when they see or find a gun. etc etc.

The legislation that you talk about isn’t really a gun control bill as explained by the NRA’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre –
"There’s been a lot of confusion and questions surrounding NRA’s position on a NICS improvement bill that’s being written in Congress. Part of the confusion comes from the fact that the anti-gun media is portraying this as a “gun-control” bill. Let me make it clear: It’s not…Here’s the simple truth: If this bill turns into a piece of gun-control legislation, the NRA will withdraw its support. We won’t stand idly by while the bill is amended by the anti-gunners in the House or Senate. This is a bill that’s designed to improve the reporting by states to the NICS system, as well as provide an opportunity for people to clear their names once they’ve completed treatment for an illness, and that’s it. The addition of any anti-gun provisions will turn this piece of legislation into a poison pill, and the NRA will actively oppose its passage.”

It is possibly a step in the right direction but it isn’t exactly substantial.

**

You have mentioned easier access to mental health facilities and other things but that’s about it you haven’t really explained these views and when you do it often comes out as part of the threat and intimidation attitude.
For example you’ve talked about rehab but your main ideas was that you would force people that committed crimes and were addicts to go to them where they would be forced to come off drugs, which is more threat and intimidation.
And you have talked about gun training even about training children to shoot but that is again based in the idea of threat and intimidation (feeling threatened so having a gun to become threatening).
I think most if not everything you’ve mentioned is not aimed at treating problems but dealing with the symptoms and even with these your ideas seem vague and not very well thought through.
I’ve tried to talk about these attitudes and what social, economic and political policies you would want followed, but you refuse.
**

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.

Why is my attitude biased when I read and quote from both sides of the fence concerning gun issues? I admit the bad along with the good and on many oiccasions have made statements such as "ownership being a personal choice" and "you need to look at both sides and and make an informed decision by balancing the good and the bad".
Where you only have looked at one side and will not aknowledge anything on the other side. You either completely dismiss it offhand or say you cannot use that information without ever giving a reason why.
So who appears more biased?

Well the links I analysed above were just the first few in the MAD thread and most were very biased do you want me to continue?

I mean you don’t seem to be denying what I’ve said about those linked sites?
So I presume you accepted what I’ve said, that they are using information that isn’t clear in an often biased way to imply things that the figures don’t really support.
I’ve been trying to work out the mentality behind the belief in guns, why so many people feel threatened and so feel the need to be armed as a response to that threat. And how that feeling of been threatened seems to lead many to the belief that threat and intimidation is a good method of social control.
Many of the things said in these threads seem to support my views, but it is only a theory, if you want to refute it go ahead, the problem it seems to me is that you are unable to do so.


**

 

So one can only assume your answer to the direct question is "tough laws and prisons." Which was the very fucking same thing you had previously suggested. So if I suggest it its Threat and Intimidation and when you suggest it its logical and common sense?

Your a fucking joke balbus.

jebus you claim one thing then turn around and claim another. You twist post, quote out of context, never supply anything to back up your statements, metaphors only make sense if you are the one posting them. All you have is your floundering biased opinion and are unwilling to consider anything else. Everyone is wrong except lord balbus. come up with something new or some facts and maby someone will respond.


WOW, You’re admitting you can’t understand the whole idea of carrot and stick? I think I’d be embarrassed to say that or at the very leased go off and find out what it meant.

But seriously I’m sure you do understand, but it just doesn’t suit you to do so since you would mean having to admit you were wrong and for some reason that is so hard for you that you would rather act as if you were really stupid rather than concede a point. I find that rather sad although often very funny.

**

The attitude of threat and intimidation outlined in my theories is not based on one idea or programme but on several ideas and concepts expressed by many pro-gunners here and elsewhere. It is a set of values, beliefs and attitudes.

This is why wider social, economic and political viewpoints are so important and why, and I thing that knowing this you refuse to talk about them.

All this is explained in a lot of my posts, but of course it doesn’t suit you to admit you already know that and already understand it’s implications. You would much rather say my ideas are floundering than admit you have not and can not refute them.

**

 

One of the things I saw as a problem with the US is it seems awash with guns (and that in part contributes to the sense of threat seen in many pro-gunners), to deal with this I put forward a set of proposals with the intention of limiting gun numbers (some of which you supported) but I made it very clear that these were to be only a part of a wide ranging policy to improve US society.

I put forward these ideas in post 134 of the MAD thread

In relation to guns the idea was to regulate the legal gun users (to reduce harm and keep guns out of the hands of those not entitled to have them) and try and bring down the number of legal and illegally guns in US society.

I said that none of the proposals would be brought in a once or at the same level of strength (and later admitted that they may not all be needed). The full set of proposals were -

“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.

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 bringing 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)

Only handguns* would be allowed to be held at a persons home or place of work (barring businesses that involve guns). All other types of privately owned gun would have to be held a secure facility (police armoury) were they would have to be signed out if required (the reason would need to be approved).

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun.

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 injures themselves with their own legally owned gun would be banned for life from owning one, if they injure themselves with someone else’s legally owned firearm both they and the owner would be banned from owning a gun for life.

Anyone wanting to purchase a gun would first have to pass a psychological evaluation, that evaluation would have to be retaken every year, failure to have an up to date evaluation would result in the confiscation of the gun and a heavy fine (the evaluation time would drop to every six months then every three months).

I would begin with the exclusions from gun ownership you listed above but over time tighten them up so that eventually anyone charged with any crime would be banned from owning a gun for life. Anyone that showed any type of mental illness (including mild depression) would be banned from owning a gun. Anyone one that didn’t achieve a certain level of academic attainment at school would be banned from owning a gun for life.

* A firearm designed to be held in one hand, aka pistol.

**

I would couple these types of laws with the other measures that I mentioned earlier in Post 37 (some of which you agreed with). Here they are again –

“Here are just a few musings in no particular order that I’ve mentioned here over the years -

Legalise or bring under regulation drugs, softer drugs would be put under licence and the more addictive types put under medical supervision.

Prostitution would be legalised regulated and taxed.

The banning of all advertising aimed at children.

Trying to move away from the idea that a person’s social status is only (or mostly) based on material possessions.

Equalising the societal quality of life.”

**

 

OK Pitt

In the post above did you notice the bit at the end, the measures that would be also be bought in?

Since then I’ve mention a few more social measures and have given often detailed explanations of what I mean.

But fundamentally it is ‘carrot and stick’

It’s the idea of a social contract, society will help and nurture you (give you carrots) and in return you don’t attack that society or the people in it (and if you do you get the stick).

Now, many pro-gunner views seem more about the stick than the carrot and some dismiss many if not all of the views or ideas based on the giving of carrots.

An US society seems more about threat, intimidation and suppression (guns, high prison populations use of executions etc)

**

Anyway the important one is – “Equalising the societal quality of life”

This would involve improving people’s quality of life, welfare, healthcare, decent housing and access to amenities and a top quality infrastructure.

You seemed to dismiss this idea when I first mentioned it and the views you’ve often expressed here are nearly all based on the stick approach in other words involve threat and intimidation as means of social control with the intention of suppression.

I’ve tried a few times to discuss these attitudes more thoroughly with you but you continue to refuse.


**

 

Pitt

Isn’t substantial? Its going to improve the system to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn’t have them in the first place such as Seung-Hui Cho. How is that insubstantial?

Well that’s my opinion I mean it doesn’t seem much when compared with many of the ideas people have presented here or even those proposals of mine you thought were good.

**

Im not talking about teaching children to shoot you moron. I am talking about more programs such as Eddie Eagle and the such. Again you are manipulating and misquoting.

Interesting, so you think there should be an age limit on being taught to fire a gun?
Say military age (17-18) or drinking age (21) with no one below that age being allowed to handle or own a gun?

**

No I am not denying some of them are pro gun sites, I have also posted others from anti gun sites which you conviently leave out. Again dishonest tactics to spin things to your POV.

I don’t believe I conveniently left out any of the links. All I did was open the MAD thread and begin at page one with the results above as I’ve said I can continue.

I believe the next was -

**

I’d asked which state had the lowest number of gun related homicides. You replied -

“As far as the One state I am not sure however the New England region has the lowest homicide rate in the US. This region consist of:Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermonthttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/region.htm
Of these states Conneticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Umm all of them.http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=ccwstate”

The Brady link is I believe the first time you use a gun control site (as opposed to a ‘neutral’ or pro-gun site) but it is only to answer what states have the lowest number of gun related homicides it’s not about there viewpoint, and as I pointed out at the time-

“As far as I can tell there were 147 gun related death in Connecticut in 2002

Population of Connecticut is 3. 5 million

The number of gun related deaths for the whole UK in 2002 was 81

Population of the UK 60 million”

**
NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176notes.html#10

A right wing and pro gun site

**

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/22/opinion/meyer/main555151.shtml
CBS article about gun laws not being enforced.

**

Then we got this a quote from a site you didn’t link to -

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

You gave this story as proof that a criminal sued a victim of his crime

I traced it back to-

http://www.anjrpc.org/OpEd/RViden5-16-04.htm

The Association of New Jersy Rifle and Pistol Clubs – The official NRA State Association. To an article written by Robert L. Viden, ANJRPC regional vice president and NRA director.

And as I said at the time -

“The full sentence is –

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

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

Not only were you quoting from a pro-gun site (which you didn’t link to) you used it such as way as to change the meaning.

**

So so far there has been only one actual refrence to a pro gun control site and that wasn't exactly about that arguement.

Shall I go on?

**

 

And yet again you have nothing to back up your "theory" except unsubstantiated suposition.

As said if my theory is supposedly so weak why are you unable to bring it down.

**

There is a difference between supression and protection.

Yes in the same way as the US Department of War turned into the US Department of Defence.
It still conducted wars they just called them something else like the ‘police action’ in Vietnam and they even undertook pre-emptive wars of aggression like in Iraq.

War can be associated with suppression and defence with protection but often it comes down to what goes on and the attitudes associated with it.



**

Nice dodge but I think everyone sees the exact point I made. You proposed the exact same thing but when the other side agrees you then call it threatening and intimidation.

But nothing was dodged.

I mean this just sound’s like another of your accusations that you never seem able to back you

So please can you actually explain what you think has been ‘dodged’?

**

Like I said many of your ideas seem to hold merit and others do not after closer examination. You refuse to examine these ideas of yours to see if they have a chance of succeeding.

I’ve asked you several times in the last few posts to discuss the gun safe idea and you haven’t, so it doesn’t seem to me who is refusing to examine the ideas proposed now is it?

**

Again I have stated some of your ideas seem to have merit and others do not. The ones that have shown to be ineffective will only serve to detract from the others effectiveness. You are like a child clinging to a broken toy. It’s broken and should be discarded to make room for something better.

But you haven’t shown anything to be effective or ineffective you have stated your opinion that some things are effective and others not but as pointed out several times this bias seems to be based on attitudes that you continually refuse to discuss.

**

 

When I suggested tougher sentences and strict adherence to current laws you said it was “threat and Intimidation” Yet here you are once again promoting the exact same thing. Thank you for proving my point.

LOL

Oh Pitt is this your big gambit, to try and convince people that you and me share the same attitudes and outlook that our views on social matters, economics and politics are exactly the same?

Somehow I think most people would think that as funny as I do.

**

Seriously

It is only your opinion that your point is proved and once again you could only come to that conclusion if you ignored what things have been said that seem to contradict it.

I’ll try and explain.

Remember the carrot and stick?

To come to your conclusion you must disregard everything about the carrot and concentrate exclusively on the stick.

I’ve never said I’m opposed to the rule of law (as long as those laws benefit society) and many laws it is true to say are sticks.

I hope that one day people might not need laws but I don’t think that is going to happen any time soon so I see them basically as necessary evils.

I don’t cheer when I see such laws, I’m sad that they seem necessary, and then I try to work out why they seem necessary in the hope that the things that seem to make them necessary can be alleviated and the tough laws lessened (even removed).

This is the difference I see between my own views and those of an attitude of threat and intimidation as outlined in my theories.

For example when I presented my ‘tough’ laws you cheered “Bravo!!!” and when asked to present alternative ideas that are about dealing with problems rather than just suppressing them or dealing with the symptoms you seem to become vague and directionless.

**

 

Interesting, so you think there should be an age limit on being taught to fire a gun?
Say military age (17-18) or drinking age (21) with no one below that age being allowed to handle or own a gun?

Where did I say that? For the first thing there is already an age limit on owning a gun, there is already an age limit on possessing a gun without adult supervision.

You have no clue as to what an Eddie Eagle type program is about do you?
Where did you say what?

I was asking a question, seeking your opinion, I wasn’t accusing you of anything, please Pitt you need to calm down, you seem to be getting tense and nervy.
So what is this age limit, I mean I had been lead to believe that some state didn’t have a minimum age limit or they were as low as 12 for rifles or shotguns? So even with the actual ownership set at 18 or 21 that still doesn’t stop parents giving their children guns to shoot from any age.

Are you saying that as long as a adult is supervising you wouldn't have an age limit?

As to the Eddie Eagle programme I went and looked it up when you mentioned it, to me it seems like a ‘just say no’ programme, telling kids to reject their curiosity and go and tell someone in a position of authority. (They do have an animated instructional video which got me thinking Simpson’s - "Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You may remember me from such educational videos as "Lead Paint: Delicious but Deadly," and "Here Comes the Metric System”)
It is worthy but I still think mandatory gun safes would be a lot better and you seemed to agree when I proposed it.

-------------

The Brady link is I believe the first time you use a gun control site (as opposed to a ‘neutral’ or pro-gun site)

So now not only are you complaining about a “pro-gun” site referencing data supplied by colleges and universities as being biased. You now say we cannot use a “neutral” site. So in other words in your opinion the only valid place to get information is an anti-gun site? Your true colors are shining brightly today.

I wasn’t complaining about you using pro-gun sites, you are pro-gun and therefore you are likely to go to those sites but you did seem to implying in post 1007 that you were being even and unbiased and seem to be saying this could be seen by what you had linked to.

I was just point out what you had actually linked with to see if it was biased or not, and so far in that thread it was more pro-gun biased.

You have also implied that the things you linked with set forward evidence that you thought ‘proved’ your argument, but as seen this isn’t actually the case.

**

Now you go back to comparing the US to the UK which you continually say I cannot do?

Again you need to read the post more carefully, what I’ve been pointing out is the difficulties in such comparisons and the problem of not taking into account the many variables involved. You haven’t actually disputed that.

The problem was that you didn’t acknowledge these problems and seemed to be trying to present them as definitive proof that your argument was right.

When in fact it wasn’t ‘proof’ just a viewpoint based on figures that could be challenged.

**

But you haven’t shown anything to be effective or ineffective you have stated your opinion that some things are effective and others not but as pointed out several times this bias seems to be based on attitudes that you continually refuse to discuss.

I am the one who has provided references to what I have posted, you have not.

Just because you provide a link doesn’t mean what you link to is incontestable truth as I’ve show time and again.

Also you seem to forget that I have cited many things including your own words.

The thing is that I have often challenged what you have linked to and many of those challenges you don’t seem to dispute.

**

This is a complete useless waste of time with you balbus. Come up with something original or intellegent and we can continue. I am tired of your manupulative spin tactics.

Oh once more with the ‘righteous indignation’ as a way of getting out of answering future questions or giving future explanations, which is a well known trick that you have used several times.


**

 

LOL

Oh my oh my oh my

Pitt once again proof that you never read what others say

If you had read them you might have remembered such things as -

“First as I keep repeating I do not hold up the UK as some type of perfect state, very far from it I am and have been very vocal about the faults I see in the British system and many of their attitudes”

Yes I have to keep repeating it because you seem to have the memory capacity of a brain damaged goldfish.

Or is it just that you don’t take any notice of what others say?

Ok how about this do you remember -

“The prison population in England and Wales is the highest in Europe at 148 per 100,000 but that of the US is the highest in the world at 738 per 100,000”

Wow imagine that me actually pointing out to you that we have the highest prison population in Europe?

So why did you think you had to tell me?

Was it because you’re more scatterbrained than a demented and senile parrot or because you hadn’t noticed I already knew?

**

I’m not proud of many things in my country as you would know if you read my posts, but you don’t seem to.

Come on Pitt rather than just pumping out such pathetic point scoring why not actually read the posts and enter into open and honest debate.

PS: But thanks for the laugh.

**

 

I was asking a question

Age limits and other factors can be found here. A brady campaign website (ie pro-gun) so that you can consider it ok to use. http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/reportcards/2005/

OK so I went to the first state in the list, Alabama, and it seemed to say that there kids could have access or even possession of guns, is that right?

So what is your view, do you think kids should be allowed to handle or even shoot guns?

**

You have also implied that the things you linked with set forward evidence that you thought ‘proved’ your argument, but as seen this isn’t actually the case.

And yet you provide nothing to counter the evidence except your opinion.

You put forward an argument I put forward a counter argument, you don’t then dispute what I say, you just call it an opinion or ignore it.

For example you give statistics that crime has gone up in the UK compared with the US since the gun ban, I point out that –

(1) These differences are not that great and could easily be accounted for by variables, you have just interpreted the figures in a certain way.

You do not seem to be disputing that.

(2) Even if there is an increase it is only an opinion that this has a direct correlation with the gun ban

You do not seem to be disputing that.

(3) The gun related homicide rate in the US is huge compared to the UK.

You do not dispute that.

In fact you don’t seem to dispute most of what I’ve say you just seem to object to the fact that I’ve said it, because it is not the reply you want.

So you seem to just ask the same things over and over in the hope that one day I’ll give the answer you want or go away.

**

When in fact it wasn’t ‘proof’ just a viewpoint based on figures that could be challenged.

Then at least challenge them with something other than your opinion.

So like most debates it is a matter of one set of opinions against another set of opinions.

The thing is that you gave your opinion and I challenged that view, but you don’t seem able to counter what I’ve said so you seem to be trying to disrupt the thread with tricks and cheap point scoring.

If you dispute what I say, put up an argument and let’s move on don’t just say it isn’t the reply you want.

**

Just because you provide a link doesn’t mean what you link to is incontestable truth as I’ve show time and again.

Your right it is not incontestable truth but then neither is your baseless, uncorroborated, unreferenced opinion.

But if my views are so baseless why do you seem unable to counter them? As I’ve said before I first set forward an early version of my theory some ten months ago and even after hundreds of post you still haven’t been able to refute it.

In fact most of the time you seem to be doing everything you can not to enter into an open and honest debate, why?


**

which is a well known trick that you have used several times.

Yep that’s me the old trickster. But then its easy with such a simple mind as yours.

Oh, so are you admitting to trolling?

**

 

So what is your view, do you think kids should be allowed to handle or even shoot guns?

In my personal view they should only be allowed to handle or shoot guns under adult supervision until the age of 18.

OK pitt do you remember saying “Im not talking about teaching children to shoot you moron”

Well now you seem to be saying that you are talking about teaching children to shoot, as long as they have adult supervision?

Is that right?

**

For example you give statistics that crime has gone up in the UK compared with the US since the gun ban, I point out that –

They were NOT compared with the US they are compared to the UK from before and after the gun ban. Please pay attention. The only other point was the fact that crime has dropped in the US during the same period of time. Again comparing the US with the US not the UK.

Well actually you have both compared raw statistical data from before and after the ban and also compared the UK figures with those of the US.

In fact you are describing the same thing here, you look at the UK figures and say they have gone up since the ban, then you say but in the US (which hasn’t a ban) they have gone down in the same period.

You are making comparisons and drawing conclusions from those comparisons.
And the problems of context and comparability still exists that make that very suspect methodology and you still don’t seem to be disputing that.

**

(2) Even if there is an increase it is only an opinion that this has a direct correlation with the gun ban

You do not seem to be disputing that.

Again you are not paying attention. I am not saying the higher rates of crime are a direct result of the gun ban, only that the figures do not support any kind of conclusion that the gun ban made any difference on the crime rate.

As I’ve said you are basing an opinion on something you can never know, how do you know what the figures would have been without the ban? From you bias position the result to you show that the gun ban made no difference to the crime rate. But someone else from their bias might say that it could have been worse.

Both are speculation based on a point of view.

**

Not only that but gun crime has increased after the gun ban again countering the claim that gun availability promotes crime.

Again an increase doesn’t mean that the ban isn’t working because no one can say what would have happened without the ban.

So again it is only an opinion.

**

 

Quote:
So like most debates it is a matter of one set of opinions against another set of opinions.

Yet only one side is providing supporting data. Opinion WITH data is more valid than opinion WITHOUT data.

Quote:
But if my views are so baseless why do you seem unable to counter them?

Lol I have countered them with facts and figures which you ignore completely or just say its from a biased site. If your views are so correct where is your data to back them up?


No you haven’t, (again with the claims you never seem able to back up) you have presented data what you like to call ‘facts and figures’ but as I’ve shown these are not concrete as evidence for your arguments as you like to present them.
I’ve explained this to you several times and you don’t seem to dispute it but unless those issues are addressed to ask me for ‘countering’ data is pointless, if you don’t understand why, you need to go back and read the relevant posts.
But I’ll try and explain again –
You don’t seem to dispute that there are variables involved it statistics.
Those variables are present with one state (urban, rural, unemployment levels etc, etc) and become even more pronounced between states (differing definitions of crime, differing judicial systems and policing methods)
You don’t seem to dispute this.
Your view is that gun bans do not work
So you have presented as evidence the supposed ‘dramatic’ increase in the UK crime rate in the UK in comparison with the US that didn’t bring in a gun ban.
But
Let’s take assault, rape, burglary and gun related homicide (using NationMaster.com)

Assault
US – 7.5 per 1000
UK – 7.4 per 1000

Now taking into account the many variables involved the difference here is to all intents and purposes meaningless.

**
The same with -
Rape
UK 0.14
US 0.34

Again a small difference in the figures that 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).

**

The same with –

Burglaries

UK 13.8
US 7.0

Once again a small difference that could be down to how the crime is recorded in each country or if it is recorded at all.

**

But then we come to gun related murder, as noted it is a lot harder to find variables with these figures homicides are very much more likely to be reported than many other crimes when discovered and there is far less leeway in definition.

UK – 0.03
US – 3.6

So while the difference between the assault, rape and burglary figures is relatively small and could be down to statistical variables the gun homicide figures are more reliable and the difference 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).

**

Think about it you seem to be putting a huge significance on ‘facts and figures’ that are in fact not that great, that are so small as to be meaningless in statistical terms because of the variables involved.

But you seem to underplay or dismiss the gun related homicide figures that are less prone to errors and so pronounced.

**

But there is another significant figure, in the UK only about 1% of people owned guns (mostly shotguns) while in the US the figures is supposedly closer to 40%.

If gun ownership did have a significant effect on crime then the UK figures should be relatively and significantly higher.

But they are not.

The US figures are so close as to be statistically meaningless.

Except in one area – gun related homicides.

**

So the ‘facts and figures’ you have used so far in relation to the UK and US would seem to indicate that greater gun ownership doesn’t have that much of a significant effect on most crime rates but does mean a much greater possibility of being murdered with a gun.

**

 

Again the facts point to gun availability not being a factor in the number of homicides. This has been shown all throughout history. A fact you readily wish to ignore.

So the huge difference in the US gun related homicide rate compared with the UK or Switzerland to due to what?

Why do American seem so much more murderous?

**

 

Sometimes it is difficult to understands that we need to have guns. If they were not needed then why were they invented? There is good and bad and that is what you need to decide what is more important. People should have to go through big training to get permit to carry a gun. In Russia anybody can carry guns. Even the animals.



but that is not a good thing. It should be for house use. If a burger comes up to robe your house you need this protection. I think it is justifiable then but not for school use.

 

thats true. taking guns away wont lower our violence, if anything we'll just start carrying around knives and swords and shit like that. the mjority of the time guns arent even used, just you fists. violence will never go away so long as the earth is still alive, even animals are violent(though in a totally different way). besides without violence, peace wouldnt seem as sweet.

 

Pitt

Simply taking away guns from ordinary people will not change anything.

As pointed out for what seems like a the thousandth time, I’m not talking about taking away the legal right to own guns and I’m not just talking about gun regulation but wide ranging policies aimed a making US society a better place.

And I’ve explained numerous times just why I would introduce the type of regulations I’ve proposed and you do not seem to be disputing those explanations.

**

Again this has been shown throughout history and all across the globe.

Again, no it hasn’t.

In your opinion it has, but your views are not incontestable.

**

 

Pitt

because we are?

This is where your theory sort of comes into play.

Yes it does seem to, doesn’t it?

(And this seeming shrug of an answer “because we are?” also seems to back up my theories. Although I’m unsure of the question mark, are you making a statement or asking a question? It seems like a statement since it is hard to see as a question.)

**

I think its the hedonistic attitude and materialistic lifestyle we have come to accept.

And that’s the problem you say such things but then seem unable to explain what you mean or what you would want done.

What do you mean by ‘hedonistic attitude’?

You live in a society that’s economy is based to a large extent on that form of capitalism called consumerism.

This economic model actively encourages materialistic forms of thinking and promotes self gratification.

(For example virtually all advertisements for goods or services)

Consumerism is about creating ‘wants’ and making such things into symbols of status.

So that wealth and material possessions becomes associated with worth, and lack of wealth and material possessions is associated with worthlessness, of low status and standing in society.


And this right wing, market led, neo-liberal economic philosophy is the preferred model of the US political establishment.

So what economic model would you put in its place and how would you achieve that end?

**

This coupled with our total lack of respect and caring for our fellow man leads to a violent society.

Again I’ve tried to talk to you about this before without success.

Many American’s out look is individualistic in nature, (you on several occasions have shown such tendencies).

And individualism can have a detrimental effect on people and society.

While some talk up its supposed virtues like self-reliance and personal independence many have pointed out the reality comes closer to selfishness as de Tocqueville put it someone can easily become “shut up in the solitude of his own heart”

People can come to see their needs and want’s taking precedence over those of their community or society.

And if someone only sees things in terms of their own immediate self interest they are likely to only show respect or ‘help’ those that they see as furthering that immediate self interest.

Many seen the result of this in the US’s absence of a universal health care system or other welfare programmes aimed at helping the less fortunate, ideas which many here have attacked as socialist or communist and therefore anti-American.

It is a viewpoint often expressed on these forums in statements like ‘if people are not – or have not - helped themselves why should they help them out’

And individualists that oppose the interference of the society often end up downplaying or ignoring the influence of socio-economic factors in their own or others lives.

For example people have argued here that a person born into deepest poverty have the equal opportunity to someone born into great wealth.

This can lead to the view that those less fortunate or those that find themselves in difficulty have only themselves to blame for that situation.

In fact you have basically said the same thing on a few occasions.

So what policies would you like to bring in, to tackle this way of thinking?

**

This is what must change to lower murder rates aas well as other violent crime.

And time and again I’ve asked you to explain what concrete ideas you have to change those things.

The problem is that every time I do you seem to do everything you can to stop such a discussion taking place.


**

 

Your right and I have never disputed the fact you want a wide range of programs. I dispute the effectiveness of ONE of those programs and I have backed my reasoning for this. If you have countering data present it if not then you have no leg to stand on.

But to repeat once again –

“I’ve explained numerous times just why I would introduce the type of regulations I’ve proposed and you do not seem to be disputing those explanations”

For example you still haven’t answered my questions about the gun safe idea.

I’ve also given my countering arguments to you opinion that gun regulation is ineffective and you don’t seem to dispute those arguments either.

The problem seems to be that if a reply or countering argument is given that you don’t like you just ignore it.

**

Its my view backed up by facts, figures and studies. Again where is your countering data?

Once again the problem seems to be that if a reply or countering argument isn’t to your liking you just ignore it.

I’ve given my view of your supposed facts and figures above and you haven’t given any arguments opposing those views, you’re just ignoring them.

**

And time and again I’ve asked you to explain what concrete ideas you have to change those things.

I have answered this many times and you always go back to how this related to guns.

Pitt honestly I nearly fell of my chair with laughter, I couldn’t type, I had to walk around the room for a minute.

Since last September I’ve been trying to have a discussion about general crime and the reasons it takes place it’s you that keeps telling me we should be taking only about gun control.

**