Guncrazy USA

“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.

Yes an estimated figure between 60,000 and 2,500,000, that’s a big fucking number. You cannot show anything from a source other than opinion saying it is less than the minimum number I have provided. So instead you just ignore the numbers as if they don’t exist.
So once and for all do you accept there are DGU’s or not? If so how many DGU’s do you estimate occur each year based on the different studies of DGU’s?

“Yes an estimated figure”

You don’t follow the posts do you Pitt.

The reason for this sequence was that you took umbrage with me because I said these figures were estimates and after several posts you then agree with me that they are estimates.

LOL What the hell was that sequence of post for then?

This again highlights what I see as a fault in you approach to this debate you though you could score a point so you attacked me without thinking, if you had given some thought you would have realised that the figures were estimates and agreed, saving us all this whole sequence.

In other words if you stopped just trying to ‘win’ and actually read the posts and tried to understand them then we could cut down on a lot of this silliness.

**

Also I’ve not said that I think Americans don’t use guns, what I’ve been saying is that even when they are used to defend themselves this doesn’t point to a healthy society.

**

 

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

So in other words no matter what is presented you think people should not change or modify their opinion.

Sorry, this had me hooting with laughter – don’t you see just how much of a corruption of what I’ve said your reply is?

To repeat - I am very happy to present my opinions 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 course 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 and with that my stance and opinion can change.

But it works both ways I began with a vague theory with your help that theory had expanded and become a lot firmer and still stands up well today.

The problem is not that you have an opinion but that you seem unwilling to defend that opinion when it is criticised, all you seem to do is deny it can be criticised.

**

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.

Yet I have explained how and why I started researching this very topic. These reasons in themselves show that statement as false.

No actually they don’t. I don’t think I knew you before last September, by then your views were firm, even it might say aggressive and from the beginning you used mostly biased sources (as shown at length before) so it seems to me that you hadn’t come here with an open mind, you had come to defend gun ownership.

The only way you know seem able to continue here is by ignoring any criticism of your position.

**

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.

LOL
I am of the mind that if there is no evidence anything positive will come out of prohibiting something then there is no reason to prohibit that thing.
You on the other hand seem to be of the mind even though there is no evidence showing something will make a positive change through out history you should go ahead and enact prohibition for an item with the reason you “think” it will make a difference. And no data to the contrary or other opinion matters.

You are on record as saying that it is evident that the attitudes and mentality of Americans is more willing to kill than, say, the Swiss (they also have guns but don’t use them to murder so many people as the Americans)?

But if that is evident then wouldn’t it also be evident that the availability of very dangerous weapons makes it more likely that murder took place?

If the availability of such weapons could be limited only to those that would use them sensibly, do you think that would have a positive or negative effect?

**

 

CCTV

so you are confirming their intent is as I said it was. Thanks.

Please continue to prove my point they are to protect against crime.

Please continue to prove my point they are to protect against crime.

If they think there are too many cameras why do they accept them? It must be because they are so afraid of crime they are willing to give up their privacy.

You have done nothing but reinforce this statement or the logic behind it.

**

LOL, I see, this is a kind of tit for tat kind of thing, you have hit on it as some type of clever wheeze, a point scoring exercise.

Come on Pitt, what are you, a child?

Oh well since you have brought it up, I’ll try and act as if it were a sensible argument.

**

The only problem here is that you are not actually answering the questions put to you or addressing the points raised.

Lets go through a few -

I pointed out that the explosion in the use of CCTV’s by the UK ‘government’ came about mainly for economic reasons not because of popular demand.

In the light of your theory what is your reply?

**

I pointed out this is not just a UK problem it happens in the US (and for the same reason money)

What is you reply?

**

You said – “the govt/police installing cameras everywhere”

I pointed out that – “most of the cameras in London are private not ‘government’”

What is you reply?

**

I said - “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” with guns.

What is your reply?

**

I pointed out 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.

What is your reply?

**

I’ve pointed out this wasn’t a hot topic in the UK like guns are in the US

What is your reply?

**

I commented that if pushed on the subject if anything people thought there were too many cameras, this would not be the reply if as you contend British people felt so threatened by crime they wanted cameras.

Wouldn’t they want more, not less if that were true?

What is your reply?

**

You say - If they think there are too many cameras why do they accept them?

But as pointed out most people don’t seem to have much of an opinion they don’t really seem to care much about our supposed invasion of privacy, the thing is that most cameras are in places that other people are around anyway.

You say “It must be because they are so afraid of crime they are willing to give up their privacy”

But what do you base that on?

And please man, take the subject seriously, actually take the time to think about it?

**

 

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.

Well firstly this is a fictional scenario to illustrate a point.
Even though
Of these “few” home invasions burglaries these people have no right to be able to defend themselves in the most efficient was possible to them.

But I haven’t said they couldn’t, have I?

If they were complying with the laws they could own a gun.

How many times do I have to say this, as I’ve said man, you have a very bad case of short term memory loss problem, have you smoke a lot of weed?

But you didn’t answer –

“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.”

- is that right?

**

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.

Again this is a fictional scenario to illustrate a point.
However you again ignore the very fact that there are a very large number of rapes in the DGU studies. I guess to you these potential victims would have been better off if they had nothing to use as a defense at that time.

“Very large numbers of rapes in the DGU studies” – yet the rape figures for the US and UK (taking note of variables) are about the same, but the British have very low gun ownership and the US has very high gun ownership, so shouldn’t the US figures be very much lower?

And again you do not answer to the points raised

**

But as pointed out there is very little difference between UK and US figures on assault

Again this is a fictional scenario to illustrate a point.

Do you understand the terms “fictional scenario”?

Yes but do you understand that you are presenting then to ‘illustrate a point’, so addressing that point is a valid way to answer.

Again you are trying to point score, you are not replying to the points raised.

**

The question here is this an acceptable number for you or not.

No

Stop the presses a straight simple yes no question answered without sidestepping the whole thing.

LOL

**

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

And who has said they were the “best” way to tackle crime? I have repeatedly stated they were only “one” way to address crime on a individual basis, to be determined by that individual if they feel its an appropriate approach for themselves.

Yet you seem reluctant to speak of alternatives that don’t fit in with my theories on threat and intimidation (which guns are just one part of).

**

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

Again I have repeatedly advocated for gun owners to be involved in other programs addressing not only crime but other socioeconomic problems.

We’ve been through this many times now Pitt

You seem to be advocating programmes that deal with the effects of socio-economic problems; you have not actually talked at any length or depth about ways of addressing such problems.

There is a big difference.

When I have tried to talk with you about those problems you seem to have given them little thought.

If you wish to prove me wrong, I’m as happy as I’ve always been to discuss the issues.

**

 

Dear Pitt

Ok as can be seen in these last posts but also in much of our conversation over the past ten months, you seem to be using tricks to get out of real debate.

You ignore criticisms of your views, while claiming you haven’t.

You claim you have answered points when you haven’t.

You claim I haven’t answered points when I have.

Come on Pitt lets ditch the point scoring and continual evasion and let’s get down to some open and honest debate.

Regards

Balbus

 

You guys will never tire of this argument will you?

 

Made some comments early on, decided it was futile, sometimes you just have to cut your losses and go on with your life, and let other idiots continue with their own.

 

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.

But never give an inkling how these will actually move toward accomplishing this.

OH Pitt, I once again nearly fell of my chair with laughter, I don’t know how much I’ve written on this very subject but hell did you not read any of it?

**

Are you going to reply to the points raised?

Om my fucking god. All of these were replied to the first time and also the last time you made the statements.

No I don’t think so, your response has mainly just being that, “according to the studies on this there is no provable relationship”

Which isn’t a reply, just a catch all get out, since you haven’t addressed the criticisms levelled against virtually all of the studies you’ve presented?


**

you turn inconclusive into a solid ‘fact’ that backs you up.

How so? My statements were that there is no evidence showing that the availability of guns has an effect on the amount of crime.

And no evidence to say, it didn’t, but the US’s gun related crime rates are huge compared with Switzerland or the UK and you agree.

In other words there is no evidence to show it increases or declines. The logical conclusion would be that banning guns will not lower crime.

But regulation might have an effect on curbing the availability of gun in criminal hands, which is what I’ve been proposing.

Never said it was “solid Fact” it’s a conclusion based on the results of hundreds of studies. Yet you continue to claim that if we ban guns there would be less crime and murder. The studies do not support this. My claim is in line with the studies yours is in contradiction.

But as I’ve pointed out (and seem to have to do so every day) I’m not calling for a ‘ban’ I’m calling for regulation.

And the thing is that gun crime is still very prevalent in the US.

**

But if that is evident then wouldn’t it also be evident that the availability of very dangerous weapons makes it more likely that murder took place?

The studies say NO. You evidently disagree with these studies but have nothing supportive of your opinion.

Once again you fall back on ‘the studies’ rather than your own thought, the problem is however you haven’t addressed the criticisms I’ve raised about those studies.

-----

If the availability of such weapons could be limited only to those that would use them sensibly, do you think that would have a positive or negative effect?

But this limitation is an impossibility.

You give up without even trying?

This has been shown to you numerous times.

And still the US has that huge amount of gun related crime.

Even in your own country you have banned handguns, this should have limited the availability of guns yet the figures from your own govt shows that “gun Crime” is on the rise.

Yet gun crime in the US is huge compared with the small number in the UK, which you accept is true.

It also doesn’t take into account I don’t think the UK government is tackling this issue in the right way.

**

 

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

I asked who in addition to my list of ineligible people you wish to add. You “answered” by C/Ping you proposed restrictions. Again who specifically are these aimed at That are not already on the list?

Again I’m not sure what more I can say, the proposals are clear, you even find them mainly acceptable so what’s your problem?

I’m not aiming it at any particular ‘people’ my intention as I’ve said numerous times is to limit the guns going into the wrong hands.

You seem to accept that, so what is your point?

----------

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.

Fuck I replied to this over and over. I presented interviews where the criminal said any additional laws would make no FUCKING difference to them and only the law abiding person would comply. Your criticism has been addressed you just wish to ignore it.

What?

I haven’t ignored it, in fact this reply doesn’t make sense in relation to whats being said – my proposals are aimed at limiting the number of guns that could end up in criminal hands, you seem to agree – so what are you talking about here?

As discussed other measures would be aimed at criminals themselves.

**

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

As far as what? As far as criminals being stopped between 60,000 and 2,500,000 times a year yes I think that is better than having between 60,000 and 2,500,000 more crimes a year.

So you think that it is a good thing for someone to feels so threatened that they feel the need to pull a gun and point it at another human being, knowing they may need to seriously injure or kill that other human being?

You really think that is something to be celebrated about the society you live in?

I say again - my view is that DGU’s point to a system that isn’t healthy, if Americans believe their society can only survive by using guns as a means of socio-economic control it isn’t to me a good sign.

**

Why are you seemingly not replying to that point?

How would not having these prevented make the US a better place?

You mean if fewer people had to go through that trauma?

----------

 

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

Again most of them were:
A. already law
B. acceptable and not an unreasonable burden on the law abiding person
C. unacceptable

So which are already law – which are acceptable and which are unacceptable?

--------

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.

I suggest you read up on the “Saturday Night Special” law history. This explains a lot of my objections to this which has been explained before.

So what is your reply?

Are you saying you are against gun safes, if so why?

**

Many guns get into criminal hands because people do not take due diligence in securing their weapons (for instance leaving them in unlocked cars).

First I agree this scenario is very stupid. However instead of wanting to punish the criminal who illegally entered the car, you wish to punish the owner who might have had a one time slip and forgot to lock the car. Have you ever forgotten to lock something?

But that again is the point of the ‘due diligence’ idea – if this was a first time offence and is clearly a momentary lapse of judgement, the fine could be small, and the person is unlikely to forget to lock up next time.

**

It is also known that people sell guns on to criminals and claim them stolen.

Makes no sense, what are they supposed to accomplish claiming them to be stolen? In fact this if this did occur then it would be fraud and is already illegal.

I’d think it was easy enough to understand; someone with a clean record buys a gun and gives it to a criminal that has a dirty record (the criminal pays the person to do it or the clean person sells it to the criminal)

If it is then used in a crime and retrieved the clean person only has to claim it was stolen or lost (and have it returned to them).

**

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

What is you objection?

I have no objection to that. My objections are your methods, and the fact that so much of your ideas are already law. I would suggest the better option if to insure the passage of the NICS improvement law. More enforcement toward illegal straw purchases etc.

I’m not against that law as I’ve already mentioned, I would just like something more.

So which of the suggestions are already law.

**

 

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

According to the studies on this there is no provable relationship. If you believe otherwise where is your supporting data? Show me the data, show me the study and Ill happily agree with you otherwise you just claiming there is a relationship is meaningless no matter how many times you make this claim.

**

I agree it is an opinion,

And as I have stated dozens of times opinion supported by facts, figures and studies carries more weight than that of opinion alone.

---------

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.

Again your criticisms are in stark contradiction to the facts, figures and studies. These alone counter your criticisms.

**

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

Again I have presented opinion based on facts and studies. You have done nothing to counter these reasoning’s. It is you that is spouting nonsense based on nothing.

**

The problem is not that you have an opinion but that you seem unwilling to defend that opinion when it is criticised, all you seem to do is deny it can be criticised.

Lmfao I have defended my opinion with facts and studies and countered your with facts and studies. The problem is Your “theory” is based on nothing supportive.

**

But if that is evident then wouldn’t it also be evident that the availability of very dangerous weapons makes it more likely that murder took place?

The studies say NO. You evidently disagree with these studies but have nothing supportive of your opinion.

**

Dear Pitt

The only way you can keep give these replies is to ignore a fair chunk of what has been posted in the last ten months.

I see what it is; it’s another of your cunning wheezes

You don’t address the criticisms you just ignore them, and you seem to think that if you say they don’t exist often and loudly some people might believe you.

The problem is that I (and you) know that the criticisms have been raised and you haven’t addressed them.

Yours with Regards

Balbus.

See you when i get back

 

Guns are to gun crime as McDonald's is to obesity. Yeah these things make it easier for the problem to persist, but they aren't the cause. They are enablers. Eliminating them would probably help to alleviate these conflicts, but the root, the cause, of any problem should always be the focal point of any attempt to cure it. Cure the disease, not the symptoms.

So what is the root for violence? Anxiety. Why is there so much anxiety in our world? Because humanity has distanced itself too far from nature. The cure is simple but for many misguided people difficult: we need to all do our part to personally strengthen our bond with each other, and with nature, if we hope to prosper spiritually.

The spiritual side that has been neglected so often in these debates is the key to solving these problems. The same can be said when discussing issues like hunger, deforestation, and pollution. The root issue is always lack of spiritual connection with the planet. A distorted set of priorities where the individual is valued about humankind. It shouldn't be perceived as a chore to live a life in tune with nature. In fact, it is painful not to.

Some may scoff at what I have to say but I urge you all to smoke a bowl and go hiking alone. If you don't live near woods, go to the desert or the prairie or the park. Whatever area that's been least touched by human hands as you can find. If you need to take a bus, do so. The marijuana is crucial though, for most of you. Otherwise your eyes might miss "all the heavenly glory" as Bruce Lee said.

Instead of sitting there and thinking I'm crazy, follow my advice and you'll soon understand what this thing called life is all about.

 

Governments kill millions of their unarmend subjects. I would much rather deal with a crazy now and then who can only kill a few people than I would a government that had all the guns. A crazy can get control of a government and kill millions not a mere 33.

Hey conspiricy guys 33 victims.! The illuminanti must be behind it.

 

Dear Pitt

Once again only got a quick chance to pop by here are a few more comments –

**

If you addressed this point it must have been on another forum.

Come on man are you honestly saying you picked up none of it?

You didn’t read it or you forgot it or something?

LOL, sorry man but sometimes people do really amaze me.

As you know I can repeat it if that’s required but is there any point if you are just going to ignore it or forget it because you don’t have any arguments to actually counter it?

**

And the thing is that gun crime is still very prevalent in the US.

And it is on the RISE in the UK three fold and you have some of the most “regulated” gun laws in the world.

Where do you get this ‘three fold” increase from? What statistics is it based on?

**

Once again you fall back on ‘the studies’ rather than your own thought, the problem is however you haven’t addressed the criticisms I’ve raised about those studies.

And once again you totally ignore these studies. So your opinion or my opinion holds more substance than all the studies and interviews with criminals? If you want to know how the criminal thinks you ask a criminal not joe blow off the street.

But the studies you have presented don’t seem very solid foundations for your arguments, I’ve pointed this out and given my criticisms of them, you don’t seem able to actually defend them so you totally ignore what I say, again.

**

 

Oh here we go, a viable idea, but one that although I’ve asked many times I still not sure you position on.

I asked - Are you saying you are against gun safes, if so why?

Omg Prime example of you NOT reading what is presented to you and the implications being completely ignored. How many times have I said I am a firm believer in gun safes? How many times have I described my own vault to you? Would I have built a vault such as this if I were against gun safes?

I asked because you have come out against it being made mandatory, there seem to be some type of contradiction in your stance.

You firmly see the benefits of gun safes.

You are firmly against those befits being felt.

**

I haven’t ignored it, in fact this reply doesn’t make sense in relation to whats being said – my proposals are aimed at limiting the number of guns that could end up in criminal hands, you seem to agree – so what are you talking about here?

And how has this worked out in the UK so far? Three fold the number of “GUN CRIME”

Again with this ‘three fold’ thing which doesn’t actually address what’s been said, it’s just a mantra that doesn’t really signify any content.

**

if Americans believe their society can only survive by using guns as a means of socio-economic control it isn’t to me a good sign.

Again who is saying that gun usage is the ONLY means? You keep repeating this BS and you cannot show me anyone who said this except for yourself.

Yes I’ve repeated it but if it was Bull Shit wouldn’t you have been able to refute it my now, rather than just ignoring what I’ve said?

**

So which are already law – which are acceptable and which are unacceptable?

Identified as such when you first posted.

But the problem is that you often seem contradictory and evasive when I ask you about this (as you are now).

For example you the whole gun safe thing, would you see mandatory safes as acceptable?

You say you support them but you haven’t said you support having them made mandatory.

**

someone with a clean record buys a gun and gives it to a criminal that has a dirty record

That’s called straw purchasing and is already a federal offense.

So then you wouldn’t mind this bit of strengthening of that system then, since it is still going on?

----------

I’m not against that law as I’ve already mentioned, I would just like something more.

So you are willing to poison a straight forward bill by adding fluff to it? This is why so many good ideas get shot down.

LOL, poison what Pitt?

Please man, just calm down and put your head on straight, these are just some ideas posted on a forum, I haven’t the ability to tag them to the present bill and it hasn’r even been suggested.

So what the fuck are you going on about?

--------

So which of the suggestions are already law.

See above for example.

The straw purchasing laws are not the same as the measures I’ve proposed.

**

 

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?

Your response so far has mainly just being that, “according to the studies on this there is no provable relationship”

Which isn’t a reply, just a catch all get out, since you haven’t addressed the criticisms levelled against virtually all of the studies you’ve presented?

What criticisms? All you say is it didn’t make it a better society. I answered that it didn’t make it a Worse society. Tit for tat its nonsense.

My criticisms of your studies have mainly being on their seeming inability to back up your arguments. The DGU argument has been covered a few times and will be again (below) but it isn’t a reply to the points made above (is this misdirection?)

Thing is that you already seem to agree that American attitudes and mindsets lead them to be more prone to commit crimes and murder so is it a good idea to allow them easy access to deadly weapons?


**

 

The only way you can keep give these replies is to ignore a fair chunk of what has been posted in the last ten months.

Lol the criticisms have nothing to do with the content of the studies. They have nothing to do with the conclusions of the studies. They have nothing to do with my opinions based on the studies.

Take for example your “criticisms” of the DGU studies.
“my view is that DGU’s point to a system that isn’t healthy,”

No one said it was “healthy” What is it you want me to address on this statement?
I replied to this by saying if there wasn’t between 60,000 and 2,500,000 DGU’s per year would that make it a “healthier” system? Address this.

Oh my dear Pitt, do you know what a criticism is?

As I’ve pointed out your opinion is that DGU’s are a good sign to me they don’t come across as such, I’ve given my reasons and your reply is…

Well it seems to be that you are not going to address my criticisms.

**

To recap the DGU argument

You seem to believe guns are a means of tackling crime and you point to DGU’s as an indication of this.

Yet a country like Britain that has a very small level of gun ownership compared with the US doesn’t have a very large difference in the levels of crime it experience.

(except in one area gun crime which is much higher in the country with the much more gun ownership)

One this seems to indicate that higher guns ownership doesn’t seem a very good deterrent.

Two it seem the US can only keep non gun crime down to the levels of a country with very little gun ownership by using guns, but pays for it heavily for it in terms of gun crime.

And three this means that people must feel threatened by the very society they live in which to me isn’t healthy.

**

 

Shit you guys will bugger this thing out to the death. Neither of you will ever give in, so it's a draw in my viewpoint.

Wish you could both solve it at ten paces.

 

Hi Pitt

Where do you get this ‘three fold” increase from? What statistics is it based on?

Based on the BBC and government reports I showed you before.

So you still cannot actually say what statistics it is based on? I cannot find any Home Office reports talking of a “three fold” increase.

This again is indicative of your whole attitude you make statements you ‘claim’ are based on something but you seldom seem able to produce that something when asked to do so.

**

But the studies you have presented don’t seem very solid foundations for your arguments,

How the hell do you figure? I stated that a criminal would get a gun no matter what laws were enacted. The interviews with CRIMINALS show them making the exact type of statements. So how the fuck is that not solid?

That is one study (again that you seem unable to produce) not studies. And that one doesn’t seem to make much sense seeing that you seem to oppose measures that limit the number of guns getting into criminal hands (see below).

**

I asked because you have come out against it being made mandatory,

There are many things I am a firm believer in that I do not wish to be made law and regulated by the government as I am sure you do. I believe everyone should eat healthy meals every day does that mean I want the government to mandate this?

So you wouldn’t want the gun safe proposals brought in, so you want more guns to end up in criminal hands?

**

An Aside –

By mandating that school meals are free and healthy it is possible for a government to give a healthy meal to most children within the educational system.

And in another way governments already do make sure the food is ‘healthy’ by mandating that food and drink has to be fit for human consumption for example by trying to keep out poisons, unhealthy bacteria and contaminants out of the food chain.

Before such laws many food and drink were unhealthy (even dangerous) so you could say that the ‘government’ is already trying to make sure the food sold in shops is to some degree ‘healthy’ (although I admit it could do better). And there is talk in the UK of regulating to limit the levels of salt and sugar allowed in processed food.

**

 

Again with this ‘three fold’ thing which doesn’t actually address what’s been said, it’s just a mantra that doesn’t really signify any content.

Lol another example of you not being able to come up with an answer so you just want to dismiss it.

LOL - I’m not dismissing it my dear Pitt, I’m trying to understand what you are trying to say because as I’ve said, you reply doesn’t seem to make sense in relation to the point that was raised and this ‘‘three fold’ thing doesn’t either (and you don’t seem able to say what it is based on anyway).

To go back to the original question - isn’t it logical that if people that are more prone to crime and murder have easy access to such efficient weapons as guns then the result would be even more likelihood of murder taking place?

**

You say you support them but you haven’t said you support having them made mandatory.

Again already explained over and over.

Only just – your position is that you do not want to make gun safes mandatory thereby making it easier for criminals to get access to guns.

As I said before, for all your rhetoric about not wanting criminals to have guns, the reality it seems is very different.

**

So then you wouldn’t mind this bit of strengthening of that system then, since it is still going on?

Its already fucking illegal, how are you going to make it more illegal? I have stated from the beginning I support strict enforcement of the existing laws. I have stated I strongly support the strengthening of the NICS system. All facts you want to down play.

But as pointed out the straw purchasing law is very different from my proposal, they complement each other maybe but they are not the same.

As to you wanting the strict enforcement of the existing laws the problem is that you don’t seem to know or care why they are not being enforced?

If you really did want the laws enforced wouldn’t you want to find out why they don’t seem to be?

**

So what the fuck are you going on about?

There have already been attempts to fluff this bill and poision the intent of it. The bill addresses a specific system. It will only strengthen the system. But like you some anti-gun politicians want to add little extras into the law that has nothing to do with the NICS before they will support it. If they want these extras let them propose them individually without corrupting something else.

LOL, corrupting what for fuck sake?

As said this is a discussion on a politic forum not the floor of the senate, I do not want to add or have the ability to add to the bill you talk about.

And if you think I could you must be loosing your grip on reality.

**

Each one of your “measures” that were already law were identified when you made them.

Not strictly true, if people want to go and look for themselves they can – post 136 in the Gun ownership is MAD? thread
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189921&page=14&pp=10

You actually say that only “some of the things you suggested are ALREADY law” you then say in post 143 that “many of these lasw are ALREADY in effect”

Since then I’ve asked you several times to say which are and which are not and you never seem to do so.

Can you please do it now?

**

Well it seems to be that you are not going to address my criticisms.

No one said that DGU’s were a “good sign”. I just said that if there were no DGU’s there would be at least that many more crimes each year. It’s a very simple concept yet for some reason you want to ignore it.

So you agree that they are not a good sign?

If so, wouldn’t you agree that it just might be a good idea to try and limit them?

Which is what I’ve been saying since you brought them up and exactly the point you seemed to take exception to?

**

To recap the DGU argument
You seem to believe guns are a means of tackling crime and you point to DGU’s as an indication of this.

A means yes, not the only or even the best means. You seem to believe they are not a means and have yet to explain this one simple thing. Answer the specific question. Considering the great numbers of DGU’s each year are guns a means of personal defense against crime or not? I didn’t ask if it was the best or only means nor are you being asked if its any kind of indication of anything else.

It is clear again that you still haven’t bothered to read my theories. It is my thesis that to many Americans guns are seen as a way of dealing with and also ignoring the social problems etc that they have in their society.

Have you not noticed that the only means you seem to talk about is guns, which is my point you don’t seem to give much thought to alternative means of tackling crime, but on the other hand you do seem to give a lot of thought, effort and time to defending gun ownership and its role in tackling crime?

Even ideas like gun safes that you support you are unwilling to bring into force because it would inconvenience gun owners.

**

Yet a country like Britain that has a very small level of gun ownership compared with the US doesn’t have a very large difference in the levels of crime it experience.

Again you are saying there is a relationship between gun availability and crime levels.

Well in the case of the US this could possibly be the case because of the attitudes and mindset of many Americans.

Do you think that if the UK reversed all its gun laws and the levels of gun ownership rose to the levels of the US that crime would in the UK would spiral upward exponentially?

It is possible that an increase in gun ownership could lead to an increase in crime, but most Britain’s didn’t seem that interested in owning guns even before the ban.

But as pointed out it seems that this is something to do with American attitudes and mindsets that seem to make them more willing to murder than other people.

**

(except in one area gun crime which is much higher in the country with the much more gun ownership)

Again it has been pointed out to you numerous times. Gun crime is on the rise rapidly in the UK despite of the bans while it has been declining in the US. And specifically if you are referring to homicide the UK has always had much lower homicide rates then the US even before the gun bans.

And I’ll ask again are you putting the US system forward as an improvement on that in UK?

To me the UK system is not that great but in comparison to that in the US it seems a lot better.

**

One this seems to indicate that higher guns ownership doesn’t seem a very good deterrent.

And in the UK limiting the numbers of guns owned by law abiding people doesn’t seem a very good deterrent against gun crime now does it?

So what Pitt, that’s not a reply that’s point scoring.

The question again – Is the higher gun ownership level a deterrent to crime in the US?

Remembering that, the US has about the same level of ‘normal’ crime as the UK?

It seems to me that the only thing the US’s easier access to guns has brought about is higher levels of gun crime, because as you agree Americans are more likely to use guns for crimes and murder.

**

Two it seem the US can only keep non gun crime down to the levels of a country with very little gun ownership by using guns, but pays for it heavily for it in terms of gun crime.

Again you are assuming a relationship between gun ownership and crime. Yet the hundreds of studies indicate NO SUCH RELATIONSHIP.

LOL, oh again with the studies?

But as you agree Americans are more likely to use guns for crimes and murder and there is an ease of access in the US system, can you address this or are you just going to continue to hid behind ‘studies’ that don’t seem to cover this point.

**

And three this means that people must feel threatened by the very society they live in which to me isn’t healthy.

Another generalized statement with nothing to back it up.

Except the many statements of yourself, proud, yank, and many others, most recently fythe.

All of you have made specific statements recounting your feelings of threat. I mean you yourself admit to believing that Americans, your fellow citizens are a murderous bunch that are a lot more willing than others to use guns to kill each other.

**