Guncrazy USA

The very simple reply is -

I want with a holistic approach to produce a healthier society where people don’t feel so threatened?

That is not an answer to the question balbus. The question is in regards to ONE particular aspect of your “holistic approach”. The question is very specific and direct. One can only assume your refusal to address this question means you either have no answer (haven’t thought about it) or you are afraid your answer will hold no water.

So you haven’t got to the bit specific to guns?

-----------

But why don’t you actually counter what has already been said rather than just hoping if you repeat a question enough times you’ll get the reply you want?

Again you have not answered the question. Saying that its just part of your “holistic approach” is not answering anything only sidestepping the question. I don’t particularly care if its “the reply I want” as long as there is an answer.

So you still haven’t got to the bit specific to guns?

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

The regulatory ideas aimed at guns is to try and reduce harm by keeping guns out of the hands of those that probably shouldn’t have access to them.

Ok define who should not have them. And we will see if your proposals would effect more than those people.

Oh at last you got to it, so your first two replies are meaningless, so why didn’t you delete them?

We’ve talked about this before, have you just forgotten or are you wilfully trying to ignore what was said?

The people that could have them would be the law abiding as I’ve already said and so by definition those that didn’t obeyed the laws couldn’t.

**

But it seems to me that I seem more interested in keeping guns of criminal’s hands than you do.

How will forcing a retired couple with no children in the house to keep the firearm they own for protection from criminals that break into their house, locked up in a safe where they cannot access it when they need it, keep guns out of criminal hands?
It seems to me because of your fear of guns you wish to disarm the law abiding person and render us totally reliant on the police who would take at least 25 minutes to arrive at my house using sirens and lights.

Again the only way you seem able to reply is by just forgetting anything said before.

Most burglaries take place when the house/home/building is empty (or that is the case in the UK) and I believe a large number of guns used by criminals are stolen.

I don’t think you dispute that.

As to the other things they were covered in my lengthy replies to the scenario given by Yank above which I don’t think you or Yank have disputed.

**

What has been shown to fail, if you are talking about gun regulation, you are to some a believer in it.

Again they have no effect on crime or violence.

Again with the assertions, that you don’t seem able to back up.

You believe they have no effect on crime or violence.

In your opinion they have no effect on crime or violence.

You have not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that they have and there is reasonable doubt and that reasonable doubt isn’t being countered by you just ignored.

**

I mean you don’t even seem to dispute that many of the pro-gunners coming here talk about feeling threatened.

They are talking about taking a proactive stance on their own protection. It has nothing to do with feeling threatened.

Just think of the things that have been mentioned as reasons for gun ownership by pro-gunners, fear of government suppression, home invasion by one person a gang or the government, of family members been attacked, raped or killed, of carjackers, gang bangers and robbers with AK 45’s, its all about them been the target of wilful and malicious attacks.

Again the only way for you to seemingly be able to reply is to ignore what’s been said before.

**

As I say you agree they feel under threat.

Where the fuck did I agree with you? I said:
They are talking about taking a proactive stance on their own protection. It has nothing to do with feeling threatened.

No you have only just said that, before you said -

[Pitt] “And I have explained what you perceive as fear is nothing more than a realistic view of the world we live in. They are doing nothing more than being prepared if something were to happen.”

So you think that, fear of government suppression, home invasion by one person a gang or the government, of family members been attacked, raped or killed, of carjackers, gang bangers and robbers with AK 45’s, is just a realistic portrayal of everyday life in America?

As I’ve said it doesn’t sound like a healthy society it sounds like one where people feel threatened.

**

I’ve written pages on this stuff and you don’t seem to be disputing it only ignoring it.

Again you fall back on comparing different countries when you constantly tell me I cannot do that. Everything else you have written to dispute the data I have provided was nothing but your opinion.

Again you would need to ignore what’s been said to give such an answer.

I have pointing out that it is very, very difficult to compare figures from two different states or nations because of the many variables that need to be taken into account. Therefore as I have explained at length (and which you don’t seem to dispute) small difference between differing places can be meaningless.

“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).”

I’m not saying countries cannot be compared but such things need to be qualified by a big warning as to the problems (as do such places as the US Department of Justice and all honest statisticians).

For example the headline in the Wonderland Argos reads ‘Apple stealing goes up by 100% in one year’.

The report the story was based on read ‘last year one person was caught stealing apples this year it was two, but the year before that four were caught but that was the year the orchard guard retired and a new has only just been appointed at has already caught this quarter three thieves’

So headline is not wrong, but actually a one person increase is not that great, a 100% seems a lot more dramatic, but then there are other variables, was the drop from four to one, on account of a real drop or the retirement of the guard?

In reality there are very more possibilities and variables to account for as pointed out before.

**

Also if anyone else disagrees with my criticism of that comparison why haven’t they given them?

Well from some of the PMs I have received there is a certain level of exasperation trying to explain anything to you and there is also the threat of banning due to your forum status. If others agree with your criticisms why have they not voiced that?

They cannot be very sure of their viewpoints if they are afraid to express them? I mean how do they know they are right or correct if they never test them?

As to banning you can believe me or not but I’ve defended more people than I’ve banned and people I have ‘banned’ are strangely still active on the forums.

I’m not a great fan of banning but sometimes people do overstep the mark.

**

So Pitt what do these have to do with the subject at hand?

Yes what does drug policies and the reasons people turn to drugs or crime have to do with the rights of law abiding citizens to posses guns?

Pitt Oh Pitt

You would have needed to ignore and dismiss everything we have talked about since September to give that reply.

And if proof were needed to confirm the theory I presented back then this is it.

**

But rather than refute what I’ve said or even try and refute what I’ve said you are asking me to make my theories stronger.

Lmfao its your theory and you are here trying to promote it and prove it. To do so you must provide supportive data backing up your theory. You have not or cannot.
Anyone can come up with a “theory” but with nothing to back it up it is nothing more than a joke. For instance I can say the Queen of England is really an alien lizard. This is my theory now you have the task of proving it wrong or else everyone must believe its true.

The evidence for it is there just above you.

[Me]“My thesis is that 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. It also seems to me to lead to a belief that threat and suppression is the best means of defence”

[You] “what does drug policies and the reasons people turn to drugs or crime have to do with the rights of law abiding citizens to posses guns?”

**

If you have counter arguments present them if you haven't got any why not ask yourself why?

Ditto

But I have given my arguments, countering and otherwise, and I can repeat them (as you have asked me to do several times) I can quote them (as I’ve had done several times) I can explain and clarify them (as I have done at your insistence).

I still am waiting for most of your own counter arguments even when I’ve asked several times.

All I seem to get these days is the sorry excuse for not answering that can be seen above.

As can be seen the only way you seem able to reply these days is by ignoring everything I have said.

All you have left is a mantra, and you continue in shouting it even when it has been shown to be not that solid and may even be holding back your society from becoming a better place.

Guncrazy?

Well it seem insanity to me if people are so rapped up in the gun culture that they don’t seem to care about understanding or helping the society they live in.


**

 

Pitt

The people that could have them would be the law abiding as I’ve already said and so by definition those that didn’t obeyed the laws couldn’t.

That is not defining who cannot own guns. If you go by this statement, it is already law. Again you are dancing around the question.

In what way is this ‘dancing around the question’?

You seem to be only saying that because the answer isn’t the one you want?

**

Most burglaries take place when the house/home/building is empty (or that is the case in the UK) and I believe a large number of guns used by criminals are stolen.

Ok so you are saying the guns should be locked up in a safe when the house is empty. But if the owner was home its ok for the gun to be accessible?

Yes but I would still keep the situation under review. I mean I’ve made this clear several times, but remember the other proposal - If a person looses or has their gun stolen, they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun. (Your comment - If its shown they did not show due diligence for securing thier weapon)

**

In your opinion they have no effect on crime or violence.

In my opinion and backed up by hundreds of studies. By not accepting these as a valid point you must provide countering studies which you have not.

You still don’t seem to understand, the studies do not seem to stand up to scrutiny as proof absolute for your argument being right.

The thing is that I’ve set out my reasons for having that view; you don’t seem to be disputing what I’ve said only that I’ve expressed it. If my opinion is so weak then why not bring it down?

Please at least try.

**

home invasion by one person a gang or the government, of family members been attacked, raped or killed, of carjackers, gang bangers and robbers with AK 45’s, its all about them been the target of wilful and malicious attacks.

I think you mean AK 47’s. If so I have stated the use of these type of weapons are extremely rare in the commission of a crime. I have also showed the figures backing this up. So I don’t see anyone worrying about this scenario happening.

I think it was Yank’s tale not mine.

So you dispute the AK 47’s thing, but you do think all the other things are part of your ever day existence in America?

Are you implying these types of things do not happen? Or that people do not have the right to be prepared for these types of things if they were to happen to them?

Oh hell, once again you wish to drag us back to things that have been covered before!

Remember -

These things happen at about the same rate per population as in the UK, yet I and everyone I know don’t seem so frightened that we feel the need for guns as protection.

Having a gun is not that useful in many occasions, so not only would the need for one be rare on top of that the times when it would be possible to use one is rarer.

On top of that using a gun in a situation is very possible to make a tense situation worse.

And compared against the UK (a country with a ban) and Switerland ( a country without) the crime rate is roughly the same except in one area, where there is a huge difference – gun related homicides. So why do American seem so murderous?

**

As I’ve said it doesn’t sound like a healthy society it sounds like one where people feel threatened.

Each and every one of those scenarios (except for the AK) happens in the US everyday multiple times, as well as in the UK and every other country. Do you deny this?

See above

Plus why is it that most of your thought, time and effort are directed to defending gun ownership rather than toward making your society a better place.

**

Again you would need to ignore what’s been said to give such an answer.

Again I have challenged you multiple times to do the comparisons with one country, one state, one county, one city before and after gun restrictions have been implemented. This does away with the most of the variables you are concerned with such as culture, reporting etc etc. Why do you refuse to look at it this way?

So you don’t dispute what I’m saying? You accept what I’ve said about UK (with ban), Switzerland (without ban) and the US show only one area where there crime figures are really very different - gun related homicides?

So what is it about Americans that make them so much more murderous?

You have said ‘hedonism’ and ‘materialism’ but you seem to have given these little or no thought compared with defending guns.

Another example, that seems to back up my theory.

**

 

In what way is this ‘dancing around the question’?

You seem to be only saying that because the answer isn’t the one you want?

So what you are saying is that criminals shouldn’t be able to own guns. That is ALREADY law. The question is who specifically would you add to this list.

Add to what list?

You still don’t seem to be even trying to understand.

It seems to me that you simply don’t like what I say so you oppose it, you don’t think about it or try and understand it, it seems that your attitude is that it must be wrong because you don’t like it.

If there is a regulation in place anyone not complying with that regulation is breaking that regulation. But regulations change, sometimes they are removed sometimes they are added. So thing that were not allowed once are allowed and things that were allowed are not.

So what once constitutes ‘law abiding’ can change.

I’ve suggested some things that could be added to the existing regulations and if for example they were adopted there would be new regulations to comply with.

You honestly cannot be asking me to repeat those proposals can you? You must have read them by now.

**

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

Ok so if a person is away from their home, their weapons are locked in a vault and a criminal breaks into their home and steals their guns among other things you would want them banned from ever owning another gun?

Do you read the posts?

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

Remember I accepted you comment and approve of it.

**

You still don’t seem to understand, the studies do not seem to stand up to scrutiny as proof absolute for your argument being right.

The studies and conclusions show there is NO relationship to the number of guns owned and the amount of crime and violence. You are implying there is a relationship where is your supporting data to show this?

In your opinion there is no relationship between the number of guns and the amount of crime and violence.

Remember the crime figures for countries like the UK (a country with very low gun ownership) and Switzerland (a country with supposedly high gun ownership) don’t have wildly differing crime rates from the US except in one area – gun related crime.

You seem to accept this – “Not only have I stated this is true I have also stated it has ALWAYS been true for not only “gun related Homicides” but also “homicide”.

So the question is why has the US this vast difference?

Why do Americans seem to use guns so much more as a weapon to kill?

To me it is possibly about attitudes, but if that is so the availability of weapons that can easily kill would in my opinion not help the situation.

To me the thing then to be addressed is those attitudes.

**

These things happen at about the same rate per population as in the UK, yet I and everyone I know don’t seem so frightened that we feel the need for guns as protection.

And I have repeatedly pointed out that in the UK you do NOT have a choice. Here you do have a choice and some people choose to take a pro-active stance for their own protection. In the UK how many guns were turned in after Dunblane and the other gun amnesties since? You assume these guns were owned for every reason except personal protection.

But in Switzerland, according to you, they also have the choice but they haven’t chosen to use there weapons to murder on such as large scale as in the US.

Why is that?

**

 

Having a gun is not that useful in many occasions, so not only would the need for one be rare on top of that the times when it would be possible to use one is rarer.

Again this statement is contrary to the many studies about DGU’s. You can say this as often as you want but you really need something to back it up or at least refute the DGU studies. Remember they range from the extreme conservative 60,000 times per year to 2,500,000 times per year just in the US.

This has been covered already here are just two examples -

To repeat –

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.

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


**

I repeat -

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?

**

 

Plus why is it that most of your thought, time and effort are directed to defending gun ownership rather than toward making your society a better place.

Again if people didn’t have to spend so much time defending against something proven to have little to no impact they could then concentrate on other things.

You think it is more important to defend American gun ownership (that doesn’t seem that under threat) than to give some thought toward making your society a better place?

You are giving you priority, you feel much more need to defend guns than to giving a thought to other things.

This backs up my theory.

 

One thought that has been nagging at me for a while now that I have yet to mention because it is really off topic of guns and the effectiveness of gun laws. But as this thread has been off topic many times I will go ahead and throw it out there.

We’ve actually touched on the subject of CCTV as one of the variables involved in crime statistics.

Don’t you remember?

**

Reference again post 1056:
“As I’ve said it doesn’t sound like a healthy society it sounds like one where people feel threatened.”

You have made this type of statement dozens of times in which I have asked for supporting data, and I have tried to explain the flawed logic for you to reach this conclusion.

No, not true, I can quote many examples of pro-gunners expressing feelings of threat (data), from those saying they wanted a gun because violent crime was everywhere to others saying they feared their government.

As far as I know you don’t dispute those comments.

What is you argument, that when such people expressed such feeling of threat they were not in fact feeling threatened?

**

It seems to me that one could follow this same logic to make the statement that the people of the UK feel so threatened they are willing to give up their right to privacy by allowing the government to install so many CCTV cameras in effort to stem the growth of crime. In London it is reported that everyone is caught on camera at minimum of 8 times a day and as many as 300 times a day.

So does this flow of logic seem right to you? Are Londoners so afraid of crime they are willing to give up their privacy?

Anyway I did have to laugh.

This rather pathetic jib gets thrown at me about once a month (or it seems like it) and I’ve covered it as many times. It’s usually some right wing libertarian that throws it out (are you a rwl?) if they actually thought about it they wouldn’t.

Your’s is an interesting twist on the argument but the answer is the same.

OK here I go again –

As I’ve explained before the explosion in the use of CCTV’s by ‘government’ came about for economic reasons.

Under the Thatcher government the local authorities were starved of funds in an effort to limit there power (many were her political enemies). Those authorities had to cut staff. They found that they could replace expensive human workers with relatively cheap CCTV systems. Where once there were human wardens there were now cameras.

CCTV’s became a growth industry with sales departments that went out seeking new markets. The saving’s that could be made in replacing personnel wooed the larger private sector companies, to the police the case was made for ‘freeing’ up police officers for other more important jobs and of cause being ‘cost effective’. Even corner shops were targeted by the CCTV salesmen and the insurance companies thought up a way of making a bit more money by charging business without cameras a higher premium (made a few bob before the business got cameras).

Soon the damned things were everywhere.

In fact most of the CCTV cameras in operation are privately owned and people are more likely to be caught on those cameras. For example, buying the paper at the privately owned corner shop, on the privately owned bus, at the privately owned cash dispenser, at the entrance to the privately owned company that you work for, by the cameras on all the other entrances to privately owned companies along that street, at the privately owned sandwich bar where you buy your lunch, in the supermarket, the cinema and so on and so on.

There are police cameras covering some areas (city centres, traffic hot spots) but it is easy to get caught on 50 private CCTV system for every public one. That is why when there is a big crime or terrorist action the police request footage from such private cameras.

To me most of the ‘government’ cameras are run by local authorities (sometimes in conjunction with the police and courts) as revenue raising machines. It was quickly worked out that a traffic warden or police officer, could only catch people (and fine them) for traffic violations (like speeding) if they were there at the time. But a camera is always there, fines for speeding have gone up a thousand folded since speed cameras were introduced, meaning the number of fines have gone up. A nice little earner, that goes toward financing the police and courts.

I don’t like the cameras not because of my supposed privacy (everywhere they seem to be, other people are there anyway) but because I remember a time when there were such things as park attendants, real humans, that not only watched over the park, but also gave directions or helped fish your hat out of the pond. Now they have been replaced with cameras or as also happened with nothing at all.

Although I have to admit I support the congestion zone which I don’t think would be possible without such cameras.

Anyway the thing about CCTV’s is that they are not really about threat or control it is about money.

**

 

Pitt

You honestly cannot be asking me to repeat those proposals can you? You must have read them by now.

So in other words you have no real answer only that disallowing as many people as possible from owning guns.

What ‘real answer’ are you talking about mate? The proposals (remember the ones that you thought were good) set out clearly what the law would be, how is that not a ‘real answer’?

You seem to have simply stopped engaging here.

If you have an argument please present it, stop this silly point scoring.

**

Remember I accepted you comment and approve of it.

Ok so now you are at the point to setting up a set of rules to define “due Diligence”

The term “due diligence” was your own words, so I’m unsure what you mean here?

You must have had some idea what you meant when you said them?

**

So the question is why has the US this vast difference?

Lol you miss the point entirely of these studies. They do not compare different countries but instead study the relationship between firearm ownership and the levels of crime. This is something you have refused to understand because it does not fit in with your POV.

But you haven’t answered the question - why has the US this vast difference in just one area – gun crime?

As to not covering the point you raise, we have been through it before why do you want us to go through it again?

**

To me it is possibly about attitudes, but if that is so the availability of weapons that can easily kill would in my opinion not help the situation.

But the studies show no correlation between the availability of guns and the homicide rates. So you can say that it would not help the situation but one can also say it would not exaggerate the situation either.

No, your interpretation of the data is that there is no correlation, it is just an opinion.

But again this goes back to the question - why has the US this vast difference in just one area – gun crime especially gun related homicide?


**

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.

Supposed numbers? If you doubt them show us countering data? The numbers have been admitted to by the Brady Campaign one of the biggest anti-gun organizations there is. If such an organization with much more funding and resources than you admit the validity of these numbers why cant you?
Logically following that if these numbers are true if the victims did not have the guns they used in these DGU’s there would have more than likely been that much more crime. Would this have made the US a better society?

Again you are just reacting negatively not actually thinking about what has been said.

Supposed numbers simply because these are not firm concrete numbers these are estimates based on surveys, that is why there is such a gap between the numbers. Come on man, think don’t just react.

As to the DGU’s I’ve covered that and you don’t seem to be bring up any counter arguments just ignoring what I’ve said, did you actually read it?

**

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

Again with the same old copy/paste/spam again the challenge has been to use comparisons not between countries (like you continue to tell me is impossible) but to show the drop in crime after a gun ban in any one country. In the UK even “GUN CRIME” has risen since the ban even to the point of the govt wanting another amnesty.

What do you mean “same old copy/paste/spam again”, that isn’t a countering argument to what I’ve said, it just mean we have been through this many, many times and you still don’t seem to be able to refute what I’ve said.

How can I compare one country? I would need a parallel universe.

‘Here is what happened when the UK brought in such and such regulation

And here is the parallel UK where that regulation wasn’t brought in’

Again are you claiming that you have proof positive that the UK crime figures would have been better/the same/worse if the ‘gun ban’ had not been brought in?

If so where did you get this proof?

**

Anyway the thing about CCTV’s is that they are not really about threat or control it is about money.

Nice answer but I still think Londoners are so afraid of crime they accept the cameras and accept the loss of privacy. It’s a very simple and logical conclusion.

Ok interesting idea, so what is your argument? If it is simple and logical I’m sure you can explain it.

**

 

What is you argument, that when such people expressed such feeling of threat they were not in fact feeling threatened?

I have explained this many times its just taking a realistic look at the world we live in. These things can and do happen. To claim I feel threatened because I have accepted this fact is quite a leap.
If I say that there are many people who shouldn’t be driving cars because the are a danger and cause wrecks everyday. Does this mean I feel threatened by then or am I just stating a fact of life?

Just think of the things that have been mentioned as reasons for gun ownership by pro-gunners, fear of government suppression, home invasion by one person a gang or the government, of family members been attacked, raped or killed, of carjackers, gang bangers and robbers with AK 47’s.

Your argument seems to be that these have been mentioned because they are everyday occurrences in the lives of these people? That they think they could happen to them any time?

As I say these things are all about them been the target of wilful and malicious attacks, it seems a lot different to the possibility of a car accident.

I’m a political activist but I don’t think the government is going to come and arrest me, I don’t think my house is going to be invaded by a burglary, or a gang of murdering rapists, etc etc. And if I thought there was a very distinct possibility it would happen today I think I or any sane person would feel threatened and frightened, you would have to be a moron not to be.



**

 

Why is that?

Again if there was such a relationship to the availability of guns and homicide rates why is not Switzerland running red with blood?

Please Pitt get beyond just reacting negatively to everything I say and actually read it and try and understand it.

The point was why is there this vast difference in just one area – gun crime, especially gun related homicides?

The Swiss, according to you, have the guns but they haven’t chosen to use their weapons to murder on such as large scale as in the US.

Why is that?

Could it be that the attitudes and mentality are different in the two places with the Americans for some reason being more willing to kill than the Swiss?

And if that is the case, then easy availability in the US will cause more murders were it wouldn’t in Switzerland?

And if that is the case it seems an examination of Americans attitude and mentality should be a priority.

Which, is what I’ve been saying?

The problem has been that pro-gunners do not seem to want such a debate or like you are trying to stifle such a debate.

And I ask again

Why?

**

 

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.

Yet the figures have shown a continuing decline in the US with a continuing rise in the UK.

Again you can only give this reply by ignoring anything said before.

It is a trick, you raise something, after a time you concede the point, and then later on you just bring up the same issue as if nothing had been said.

I think I need to show clearly just how this trick works -

We have gone through this back in September of last year (and at other times) –

Post 24, Gun ownership is MAD?, Page 3, September 5th –
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189921&page=3


[Balbus]

“UK – 73 (2001)

USA - 11,348 (2001)

The UK has 60 million people compared with the USA’s of 250 –280 million so lets boost the UK’s figure

60 million – 70 deaths
120 million – 140 deaths
180 million – 210 deaths
240 million – 280 deaths
300 million – 350 deaths

In fact I believe to get to the USA’s levels of gun related homicides we would need to increase the UK’s population some 160 times to 9,600 million people, the worlds population at this time is only 6,500 million

Once more think about it, to get the UK’s levels of gun related homicides up to the US’s you would have to increase the British citizenry not only to the present WORLDS population but would need to add 3 BILLION more on top.

Levelling up the population of the UK to 300 million would give total gun deaths at 835 while the US with some 280 million people has 29,573.”

**

Your reply was basically the same as the one you repeat now, ten months later –

[Pitt]

The US gun related homicieds have been on the Decreasesince the mid 90's, Yet in the UK there have been RISES in gun related crimes

**

My reply [Balbus] –

The gun crime rate has increasing at 6% on last year but to get to the 2500 or so homicides that the UK would have to have to compare with the America rate of deaths would mean that their would have to be an increase of 3500% on the UK figure of 70 deaths.

To get that to happen would need a war to break out in the UK, even then it would have to be a pretty bloody one (remember only 250 British soldiers died in the Falklands war and it took a couple of years for the death toll of US soldiers to top 2000 in Iraq)

**

And agian [Pitt] - “There is still the fact Homicide is on the decline in the US and on the rise in the UK.”

**

[Balbus]

OK once more I’ll put your ‘fact’ in context.

The UK has 60 million people compared with the USA’s of 250 –280 million so lets boost the UK’s figure to US levels while at the same time boosting the homicide figure at the same rate.

At 60 million people it has 70 deaths

So for 300 million people it would be around 350 deaths

US homicide rates are falling

In 1984 there were 18,690 murders

And in 2004 it had fallen to 16,137 murders

So in twenty years the murder rate had dropped by 2553

So if that trend continued by 2024 it would be only 13584 murders

By 2044 = 11031

By 2064 = 8478

By 2084 = 5925

By 3004 = 3372

By 3024 = 819

Remember we were looking for a drop to 350 deaths, so at present levels of fall even after more than a HUNDRED YEARS the US could not achieve UK levels.

**

[Pitt]

Its great you are so fixated on the fact we have more murder than you. And I have admitted this. Yet you refuse to address the FACT that ALL VIOLENT CRIME in the UK is on the RISE and in MANY types of VIOLENT CRIME the UK has SURPASSED THE US.

**

Well as I’ve shown (at some length) actually in nearly all respects UK and US crime figures are roughly the same except in one area - gun crime.

**

As I keep pointing out you don’t learn or understand you just want to ‘win’ score points, and since you don’t seem to have any decent arguments you just constantly bring up old issues, that you often could not defend the first time.

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

And your reply was “ditto”

But I actually have arguments you don’t seem to have any.

**

 

Just adding my 2cents, don't want to get in between balbus or pitt or anything. maybe someone mentioned this before, but I didn't read absolutely all of the posts in the thread:

While I completely disagree with some of the reasons people give to excuse the widespread and usually ill-informed sale of guns, gun control, in most forms, goes against the Constitution. It's not a perfect document, I'm just saying the gun control issue will always be a difficult dilemma because of it; even if we weren't to actively change the Constitution, it would still be a matter of interpretation, and everyone knows how contentious that can be.

Largely, I agree with some of the other posters here that the root of the problem is society. We live in a world of high stress where a hard day of work can combine dangerously with a household arguement and end in someone being severely hurt or even killed. And, going back to the Virginia Tech shootings, in the case of social outcasts like the one at Vtech, it is frustrating to think that there may not be anything to prevent something like that happening but to be tolerant to everyone. For anyone who has ever tried to make a new start with their outlook on life and be more tolerant of others, they know it's not easy.

I don't have a solution, it's just something I've thought a lot about.

 

Pitt

What ‘real answer’ are you talking about mate?

Real answers:
Convicted criminals
Mentally incompetent
Children under the age of 18
Etc
These are real answers.

This doesn’t seem to make any sense Pitt, what are you talking about?

*

Let’s follow the sequence -

You asked me – “who specifically would you add to this list”

I replied that those covered under the new laws set out many times in the proposals we have talked about at length.

Your reply to this was – “So in other words you have no real answer only that disallowing as many people as possible from owning guns”

To which I said - What ‘real answer’ are you talking about mate? The proposals (remember the ones that you thought were good) set out clearly what the law would be, how is that not a ‘real answer’?

To this you say -

Real answers:
Convicted criminals
Mentally incompetent
Children under the age of 18
Etc
These are real answers.

But these people would be covered anyway so what are you talking about? What is it you are objecting to?

**

You must have had some idea what you meant when you said them?

Yes I do. Anyone that has actively shown they take reasonable actions to protect and properly store their weapons to prevent theft.

Now was that so hard?

Again I’m unsure what your point is here – again the sequence

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

[pitt] Ok so if a person is away from their home, their weapons are locked in a vault and a criminal breaks into their home and steals their guns among other things you would want them banned from ever owning another gun?

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun. (Your comment - If its shown they did not show due diligence for securing thier weapon)
Remember I accepted you comment and approve of it.

“Ok so now you are at the point to setting up a set of rules to define “due Diligence””

The term “due diligence” was your own words, so I’m unsure what you mean here?
You must have had some idea what you meant when you said them?

Yes I do. Anyone that has actively shown they take reasonable actions to protect and properly store their weapons to prevent theft.

Now was that so hard?

Why would it be so hard?

What is your point?

**

Frankly to me these two posts seem more about juvenile point scoring than anything to do with real issues.

**

 

But you haven’t answered the question

I have answered it many times, the problem is you do not want to accept my answer has nothing to do with the availability of guns.

You have touched on it but you haven’t exactly explained it even when I’ve asked you to. For example you say the reasons why the American seem to be so much more murderous is “due to socio/economic situations, the life style differences etc etc”, you have also mentioned ‘hedonism’ and ‘materialism’.

But what do you mean?

I do accept you reply it’s only that you will not discuss them, and their implications, so you are not actually answering the question.

Think about it – you are saying that Americans are much more likely to kill, that is why the murder figures are so high, but isn’t it then logical that if such people have easy access to such efficient weapons as guns then the result would be even more likelihood of murder taking place?

And doesn’t that seem to fit what is happening?

It also begs the question of why you seem so uninterested in understanding or finding solutions to these social, economic and cultural problems.

**

No, your interpretation of the data is that there is no correlation, it is just an opinion.

Again you prove you do not read the links I have provided you. “Hundreds” of studies show there is no correlation. I have presented you links to many of these studies. You have not provided ONE SINGLE link to a study showing there is a correlation. So again you just IGNORE what you want claiming its opinion.

You supply studies but you seem unable to defend them.

I’ve shown that such studies when examined don’t seem to be as solid as evidence for your argument as you would like to present them.

But you do not seem to dispute my criticisms, you just seem to ignore them and repeat the contested ‘evidence’ as if it were undisputed.

For example your DGU argument you reproduce it without reference to my criticisms.

**

Supposed numbers simply because these are not firm concrete numbers these are estimates based on surveys, that is why there is such a gap between the numbers. Come on man, think don’t just react.

No you think for once. Pro-gun organizations will strive to make these numbers as high as possible. Anti-gun organizations will strive to make these numbers as LOW as possible. This is why there is such a gap in the numbers. I have stated many times due to this fact the TRUE number must lie somewhere in between.

“Somewhere in between” – you mean an estimated amount, not concrete numbers – come on man, this reply is silly, telling me to “think for once’” – then repeating what I’ve just said.

Again this is just point scoring, why not get involved in the debate rather than continually stooping to such silliness.

**

How can I compare one country? I would need a parallel universe.

You compare data from before and after bans. You analyze this data and make an informed judgment. Or you can do something simple like study the effect of differing gun laws in the different regions of the same country.

“Informed judgement” – a decision made after you have made an interpretation of the data - in other words an opinion.

But if someone already has an opinion, that is going to colour that judgement?

The problem is that it seems to me that you have formed an opinion then gone out to get the ‘evidence’ to back that view up, you see the ‘data’ the way you want to see it.

For example when you see something like “the evidence for or against is inconclusive” you see “There is no evidence linking the availability of guns to crime rates” – you turn inconclusive into a solid ‘fact’ that backs you up.

As I say you are not presenting proof backing up your argument just opinions based on an often biased interpretation.

**

 

Ok interesting idea, so what is your argument? If it is simple and logical I’m sure you can explain it.

Londeners accept the govt/police installing cameras everywhere.
The intent is to combat crime
The very fact these cameras are everywhere insures a loss of privacy from the govt/police.
The people must be afraid of crime to accept such a thing.

Again this doesn’t take into account that most of the cameras in London are private not ‘government’, and they’re the ones mainly installed to combat regular crime (shoplifting, theft from workplaces, burglary etc). Most police cameras are traffic related (speed cameras, traffic hotspots, etc) although they do have city centre cameras to tackle street crime (drug dealing, affray, bag snatching etc) and local authority cameras are mostly related to security of property (vandalism, gate checking etc).

Anyway this will probably spread to the US as well and probably for the same reasons, money.

For example –

“The financially stretched MPD accepted the gift, which will include at least 30 cameras and is worth approximately $250,000. Inspector Rob Allen, who is serving as the MPD's point person on the project, says the goal is to curb nuisance crimes in the area, such as pickpocketing, drug peddling, public drunkenness, and panhandling. The all-weather security cameras will be posted on strategically chosen street corners (most likely atop streetlights) and the images will be broadcast at downtown's First Precinct”
http://citypages.com/databank/24/1176/article11318.asp


Also there doesn’t seem to be a popular lobby group extolling the cameras role in tackling crime in the UK, like the RNA does in the US and there doesn’t seem to be normal people willing to spend time and effort in pushing cameras, saying that without them they fear being murdered by crackheads and gangbangers.

In fact I did a quick ask around and the people (if pushed, as most didn’t have a strong view one way or the other) seemed to think there are too many cameras.

Sorry your argument still seems weak if you are trying to compare it with the threats that pro-gunners keep bringing up.

**

 

Your argument seems to be that these have been mentioned because they are everyday occurrences in the lives of these people? That they think they could happen to them any time?

Again you simply want to ignore the statistical chance of this happening. Put it simply. If you live in a city with a population of 100,000 and there is 10 burglaries a day. The statistical chance of you being a victim of burglary is 1 in 10,000.

And in the UK very, very few burglaries take place while someone is in the house. But if a person is not there a gun would be of absolutely no use to the victim and if the gun is left at home and unsecured it is likely to get stolen and add to the number of guns in criminal hands.

If there is one rape your chance of being a victim of rape is 1 in 100,000.

But most rapes are committed by people known to the victim often it is the partner or a date, again unless the person has prior knowledge that something is going to happen and has the gun close and ready it isn’t going to be much use. It could also make the situation worse if the person is strong enough and close enough for rape the gun is likely to be taken away from the victim, and used for coercion or worse.

If there is 2 assaults you chance of being a victim of assault is 1 in 50,000.

But as pointed out there is very little difference between UK and US figures on assault so guns do not seem to be working as a deterrent, and if they are a deterrent they are only keeping US figures to those of the UK. It is the same with burglary and rape the figures for the UK are roughly the same for the US.
This is with widespread gun ownership the worlds highest prison population and using of execution as a deterrent. But with all that you are still much more likely to get murdered with a gun in the US than the UK.

Considering the limited figures above your chance of becoming a victim of one of the above crimes is 1 in 7,692. The question here is this an acceptable number for you or not.

No

But what I’m saying is that guns might not be the best way of tackling crime.

But if it seems to me that if people concentrate on guns they are likely not to see the alternatives.

**

 

The problem has been that pro-gunners do not seem to want such a debate or like you are trying to stifle such a debate.

You must first accept the fact the availability of guns is not the cause of these problems.

This seems to indicate you have a completely different viewpoint of what constitutes an open and honest debate than me.

I am very happy to present my opinion and theories so that they can be debated, I am happy to have people attack them or attempt to bring them down, I will of cause defend them to the best of my ability, but some arguments fall by the wayside or get changed. It has happened to me many times.

I present my case and if people choose to accept it or not is up to them.

What you seem to be saying is that, you are only willing to debate if your viewpoint is accepted unconditionally and without question, (and presumably even if some possible future evidence might disprove it)?

These are not the words of an open or rational mind this is closed and dogmatic.

Also to demand like this that - I MUST accept as FACT - what you think, seem to me incredibly arrogant.


**

 

Pitt

The relationship of guns and crime has been shown to be nonexistant.

I think that is still under debate, as I’ve pointed out if the American mentality and attitudes toward the use of guns is different from the Swiss it can mean that they are much more likely to use a gun in a crime than the Swiss.

So it is possible that there is - in the US - a relationship between guns and crime.

**

You have shown nothing to counter the data presented.

It depends on what data you are talking about, we have covered a lot of ground?

If it is the relationship to me the data points to there possibly being a link (see above).

**

All you are left with is opinion based on nothing.

I agree it is an opinion, I’ve never said anything else and I’ve made it very clear (with some long explanation) just why I have come to those opinions. If you have any counter arguments to those explanations please give them, I really would be very happy to hear them.

**

If you are unwilling to accept something you have been shown that you cannot counter there is no debate or discussion that will follow only blind attempts to sway people stance through continual repeting and twisting of statements.
So either accept the facts presented or show countering data other than your opinion.

My criticisms of your opinions are clear to see and if you wish I can repeat them (again) but I think you now that.

If you wish to counter those criticisms please do so, I really, would be very happy if you actually did, we could then move on.

**

 

But these people would be covered anyway so what are you talking about? What is it you are objecting to?

They are ALREADY covered. The question is who You want added to this list.

So you want me - once again - to reprint the proposals.

I’ll print the ones you thought were good, I’ll leave out the ones you said ‘bravo’ to.

**

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

Anyone that doesn’t achieve a certain level (to be decided on) of academic attainment would be banned from owning a gun for life. (Hmmm depends on what "level" you are speaking of but this might not be a bad idea.)

Anyone wanting to purchase a gun would first have to pass a psychological evaluation.
(Might agree with initial evaluation, but more inclined to base it more along the lines of CCW where you are recertified on an annual basis.)

**

OK we have been through this all before - as you know – but again I’ll explain my reasoning behind a couple of these ideas (short versions).

For example the gun safe idea we have been through just recently – you agree with what I’ve said (that it keeps guns out of the hands of criminals) – you just don’t think it should be mandatory, while I do.

In other words it seems to me that my priority is to get the number of guns in criminal circulation down while you want to save gun owners a small amount of money.

**

Many guns get into criminal hands because people do not take due diligence in securing their weapons (for instance leaving them in unlocked cars). It is also known that people sell guns on to criminals and claim them stolen. So to curb this I proposed that if someone had their gun stolen, they could be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun.

Again my idea is to try and limit the number of guns ending up in criminal hands.

What is you objection?

**

Do you wish me to go on?

**

 

What is your point?

The point is you refuse to answer simple questions.

But you are not making sense, I have.

OK, so in what way do you think I haven’t answered your question?

Honestly this seems much more like you are just saying I’m refusing because you don’t like my reply.

**

but isn’t it then logical that if such people have easy access to such efficient weapons as guns then the result would be even more likelihood of murder taking place?

Once more look at who you are effectively banning weapons from. The law abiding person who would be included in the DGU studies would more than likely comply while the criminal willing to use a gun in a crime or murder would NOT.

LOL oh hells bells Pitt, we have been through this over and over, why not actually address the criticisms of these ideas rather than just saying the same thing over and over like a mantra.

**

You supply studies but you seem unable to defend them.

Defend them from what? You have provided nothing countering them except your opinion.

Oh my, oh my

You have presented opinions, I bring up points criticising those opinions, now normally a person would then defend the ideas they have presented.

You don’t. You just spew out nonsense like this.

**

For example your DGU argument you reproduce it without reference to my criticisms.

Your criticisms consist of one singular statement to the effect of – all the dgu’s didn’t make society a better place and you wouldn’t want to live there. I have asked you if there were no DGU’s would that be a better or worse place and you have never answered.

So do they back up the idea that the US is becoming a better society?

Why are you seemingly not replying to that point?

You asked me what I hoped to achieve with the ideas I’ve presented (some of which deal with gun regulation) and I’ve replied that I wish for a better, healthier society.

The issue I’ve raised (repeatedly) and which you still don’t seem able to address is do DGU’s point to a society trying to improving itself or one that is holding on?

Is it trying to find solutions to its socio-economic problems (that you admit it has) or hoping to suppress them?

The question is why do DGU’s seem needed at all?

The UK and US crime figures are roughly the same yet you need DGU’s to achieve them while the UK doesn’t.

But US gun crime is vastly more than the UK and you agree.


**

You seem to have missed this bit Pitt -

You say the reasons for the gun related homicide figures being so large is – “due to socio/economic situations, the life style differences etc etc”, you have also mentioned ‘hedonism’ and ‘materialism’ (but this remain no more than a srug until you explain what you mean)

But if those are the reasons then until they are tackled, is it really a good idea to have a society with relatively easy access to guns?

I mean if Americans were less prone to murder, say like the Swiss seem to be, having guns around might be ok, but that isn’t the case, as you agree, so maybe in the case of Americans tougher gun regulation might be a good idea until they tackle their mentality and attitudes?

- Are you going to reply to the points raised?

**