Guncrazy USA

Pitt

The article did not divulge any statistical information directly so I don’t know where yours came from since you did not include a source.

It was the front page of the Mirror, you know the Mirror as in “according to a YouGov poll for the Mirror and GMTV” You didn’t even bother to go and find it?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2007/08/20/too-scared-to-leave-our-homes-89520-19660883/


**

Both GMTV and The Mirror are at the tabloid end of the market and thrive of sensationalism

I don’t believe I mentioned GMTV or The Mirror nor am I even for sure what they are.

And I don’t believe this, are you saying you never read the thing you quoted?

In the bit you quote it says very clearly “according to a YouGov poll for the Mirror and GMTV”

Yes you could have just missed it the first time but didn’t you even bother to go and have a look when it was pointed out?

**

As to the linked article it seems to me that nearly everything in it has already been covered by us at one time or other so I’m rather unsure why you have chosen to link to it?

The link was really directed toward you as I am sure you would not read it anyway. The reason it was posted was for the benefit of others who might be interested. It is just another example of a study showing the exact same thing I have stated over and over.

I presume you mean the link was NOT really directed at me?

Pity, if I’d known in advance I might not have read it -). Anyway the article that you linked to only really repeats the augments you’ve already presented that I’ve already criticised.

This just seems like a way of reiterating the same seemingly flawed arguments’ without having to addressing those criticisms.

Why is it you seem unwilling to address those criticisms is it because you are unable to address them, if so shouldn’t you be asking yourself why rather than just repeating arguments you seem unable to defend?

**

I mean if you actually examine it this is in the end just an opinion piece

An opinion based on facts.

An opinion based on the interpretation of some statistical information that could be interpreted differently.

We have been through this and you seemed to agree that an interpretation was not a fact it would be just an opinion.

Is your memory so selective?

**

Also the authors here also seem to indicate the same threat/intimidation tendencies that I’ve noted as seemingly been prevalent among many pro-gunners by seeming to praise the US policies of high imprisonment and increased execution.

They were not praising those facts they were mentioned as a possible factor in the decline of violent crime and murder during the time period.

Pages 13-14 they first talk about the huge increase in the prison population and soaring number of executions and in connection with this go on to say “Perhaps the United States is doing something right”

**

Again you condemn us for promoting strict adherence to existing laws and harsh punishments, saying its threat and intimidation. They you promote your own Ideas which INCLUDE harsh punishments. It doesn’t make sense until people see your real agenda.

As to the threat of punishments within your own and my philosophy we have been through that many of times already remember ‘carrot and stick’ and how the threat/intimidation mentality only seems to emphasis the stick not the carrot?

This is once again seems like the same ‘trick’ you are playing above of not addressing the criticisms but once again making the same flawed assertions.

**

 

Pitt

You didn’t even bother to go and find it?

Haha why should I or anyone have to go and “find” your sources? Are you afraid to post some of them?

Why ha ha?

We are talking about something you quoted? (see below)

**

And I don’t believe this, are you saying you never read the thing you quoted?

I gave the The source of the article and debate which was the BBC. The article like I said did not go into specifics of the “poll”.

You quoted something about the mirror/GMTV poll on a BBC site but you didn’t bother to go and see the poll itself?

How were you making an informed assessment without checking?

**

The point was the online debate following in which people in the UK gave their own opinions most of which run against your statements.
I have read it its you that obviously have not since you “said” you could not get the link to work. Which still seems strange since I have been able to access it every time from 6 different computers.

It seemed to be the computer I was on at the time, I've tried another and it worked.

I read the first page (i only had limited time) 15 posts none recommended guns as a good solution. One pointed out it was media hype, another pointing out crime was actually down, another believing that social and environmental problems needed solving. But one post in particular seemed interesting to me -

“The day Prescott gave up his G&F Mansion a young girl on an estate in London was interviewed about knife crime and the fear of prison She said that youngsters on her estate were NOT frightened of prison as it was a better option than living where they do as they get their own bed,food,NEITHER of the Opposition Parties picked up on this anomaly between Labour thinking they were doing great things via Prescott and the state of council estates in Britain today so NEITHER of them can say they care”
Brenda barclay, The Trossachs, United Kingdom

Many of the others are of the ‘lets just hit them’ crowd, wanting the return of the stocks, national service, corporal punishment etc.

**

Anyway the article that you linked to only really repeats the augments you’ve already presented that I’ve already criticized

But not countered.

What do you mean?

I’ve presented criticisms that seem to counter the assertions made, those criticisms still stand, so effectively the assertions remain countered.

Rather than just try and score points like this why don’t you address the criticisms so we can move this debate forward?

**

Then show a study that does this. Show a study by respected organizations or persons which “interprets” the data to your liking.

This is silly.

You mean you are not going to defend the arguments you present?

**

Pages 13-14 they first talk about the huge increase in the prison population and soaring number of executions and in connection with this go on to say “Perhaps the United States is doing something right”

Now read the whole thing in context and not just selective portions.

Again what do you mean?

Are you saying I’m incorrect?

If so please explain why?

----------

This is once again seems like the same ‘trick’ you are playing above of not addressing the criticisms but once again making the same flawed assertions.

Please explain to the world how its different when I call for strict punishments its threats and intimidation but when you call for lengthy prison sentences its not? Carrot and stick my ass, it’s the same fucking thing you just refuse to admit it.

LOL, hell Pitt, I’ve explained many times now, if you don’t understand what I’ve said please explain why you don’t understand don’t just ignore or dismiss what’s been said.

Alright once again I’ll post just one of the previous replies to this exact same question -

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

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

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

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

For example when I presented my ‘tough’ laws you cheered “Bravo!!!”, more moderate laws aimed at keeping gun out of the hands of criminals you seem less enthusiastic about (or are hostile) and when asked to present alternative ideas that are about dealing with problems rather than just suppressing them or dealing with the symptoms you seem to become vague and directionless.

I’ve presented a few ideas, they’re aimed at making peoples lives more attractive, comfortable and worthwhile, which is the carrot, while I still feel that for the time being we may still need a stick, tough laws, but I hope that in time they would not be so necessary.

You talk of getting tough and coming down hard, which is the stick, but what about the carrot, what social, economic or even political changes are you offering to alleviate the problems that can be behind the crimes?"

**

Pitt

You seem to have a problem - if things don’t suite your point of view, they just don’t seem to exist for you.

You don’t address your critics or counter arguments you just carry on as if nothing had been said.

Come on man, why are you doing that, think, why are you unable to have an open and honest debate and instead pump out this rubbish?

**

 

Dear Pitt

How were you making an informed assessment without checking?

As I said at the first its more about the fact that the majority of the debate post were polar opposites of your statements.

So it doesn’t matter what information it is based on as long as you think it backs you up?

I think that is the difference between us, I want to understand you just want to win.

--------

Many of the others are of the ‘lets just hit them’ crowd, wanting the return of the stocks, national service, corporal punishment etc.

In other words lets just ignore the majority of the post because you do not agree with them.

Are you saying you think the best way to tackle crime is to bring back the medieval practice of the stocks or to bring in enforced national conscription into the army?

**

I’ve presented criticisms that seem to counter the assertions made

“seem to counter”? only in your mind. Again all you do is make wild claims with nothing to back them up.

Yes they seem to counter the assertions or arguments that have been presented, that is how a debate works, someone, lets say person A, presents an argument (or theory, or assertion) others, if able, can then present criticises of that argument. Then person A defends their viewpoint.

You don’t seem to want to do that, you present an argument or make an assertion, I make criticisms of them and then you don’t defend your view you just start calling my criticisms ‘wild claims’.

This just means that (1) the debate stalls and (2) your arguments remain seemingly flawed.

**

Then show a study that does this. Show a study by respected organizations or persons which “interprets” the data to your liking.

This is silly.

In other words you cannot present anything, you have nothing to present, you have never read such a report interpreting the data differently and to your liking so you call it silly. This is the most telling post you have ever made.

Why is it telling man?

What are you going on about these days?

It’s silly because you just don’t seem willing to defend anything you present.

Again – you present something I put up countering argument, you don’t defend what you’ve presented you just ask me to present more criticisms.

Why not defend your argument against what has already been said?

**

Come on man, why are you doing that, think, why are you unable to have an open and honest debate and instead pump out this rubbish?

The rubbish being spread is from you my friend. Ignoring data, disregarding studies presented by well known and respected academics, labeling anyone who does not agree with you as a gun nut, when asked for supporting data you call it “silly”, even using “threats and intimidation” to try and suppress others from speaking their mind.

What data have I ignored?

And I haven’t disregarded studies, I’ve made criticisms and put up countering arguments, it is for you (as the presenter of the study) to defend it. I really wish that you would try as it would move the debate on, as it is you seem to prefer not to which means we are stalled.

**

Your true agenda becomes more and more apparent each and every post

LOL, what ‘true agenda’ Pitt what are you on about, ‘cause this mystery stuff is just plain dumb.

**

Pitt

Please man let it go, this is getting beyond silly, you’ve descended into bitching and sniping, all pretence that you come here for debate seems to have gone.

**

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070828/us_nm/world_firearms_dc

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

"There is roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. Without the United States, though, this drops to about one firearm per 10 people," it said.

India had the world's second-largest civilian gun arsenal, with an estimated 46 million firearms outside law enforcement and the military, though this represented just four guns per 100 people there. China, ranked third with 40 million privately held guns, had 3 firearms per 100 people.

Germany, France, Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil and Russia were next in the ranking of country's overall civilian gun arsenals.

On a per-capita basis, Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.

France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany were next, each with about 30 guns per 100 people, while many poorer countries often associated with violence ranked much lower. Nigeria, for instance, had just one gun per 100 people.

"Firearms are very unevenly distributed around the world. The image we have of certain regions such as Africa or Latin America being awash with weapons -- these images are certainly misleading," Small Arms Survey director Keith Krause said.

"Weapons ownership may be correlated with rising levels of wealth, and that means we need to think about future demand in parts of the world where economic growth is giving people larger disposable income," he told a Geneva news conference.

The report, which relied on government data, surveys and media reports to estimate the size of world arsenals, estimated there were 650 million civilian firearms worldwide, and 225 million held by law enforcement and military forces.

Five years ago, the Small Arms Survey had estimated there were a total of just 640 million firearms globally.

"Civilian holdings of weapons worldwide are much larger than we previously believed," Krause said, attributing the increase largely to better research and more data on weapon distribution networks.

Only about 12 percent of civilian weapons are thought to be registered with authorities.

.

 

dude, friend, listen... I hate to say this, and I'm not preaching... but the truth is, you already are enslaved by your government... You are not, and ever are not free... and your government (as well as those who control it) are not afraid of the guns you have at home. Don't get me wrong though, It is no different here in my country, as well as the rest of the world. Find me a place where people are free just to "be".... not to be robbed by taxing, not to be told which drugs you can take, which ones you cannot, they feed us propaganda on the TV, and those who see through it are outnumbered by those that follow blindly... its the perfect system for some.... ya know...

The guns in your home are not going to be used to protect you from the government... but they may end up killing someone (perhaps someone innocent, a family member)... Accidents happen all the time... your government storming your town with handguns... never....



peace
Socratez

 

Dear Pitt

So it doesn’t matter what information it is based on as long as you think it backs you up?

The information referenced in the “debate” on the BBC website was people’s opinion in relationship to a question posed. The hundreds of post were from people on an open site free to give whatever opinion they wanted.
It’s not a point of winning the point was and still is that the majority of those posts were polar opposite of your claims. A fact you once again seem to dismiss as “silly”.

But this is the thing according to the poll most people 85% of people feel safe most of the time and if you add the 3% who are so unafraid they don’t even know if they are threaten or not that is 88%.

You then have to wonder about the things that didn’t get asked, like are those who say they are afraid to go out at night still going out at night and if so have they ever been attacked?

Now that is not being complacent I think something should be done to make those 42% feel better and I have suggested a few things already.

**

Are you saying you think the best way to tackle crime is to bring back the medieval practice of the stocks or to bring in enforced national conscription into the army?

I don’t believe I said it was my opinion nor did I even suggest such. It was the majority opinion of the respondents in your own country calling for such.

But are you saying you think those are sensible ideas put forward by people that have actually thought about the subject or the gut reaction of people that haven’t thought through what they’ve said?

I’ve met many people that react to tales of crime with calls for locking people up, but very often when you actually discuss the subject they end up retracting such views and admit that crime is a far more complex subject and is not going to be tackled by threat and intimidation alone.

For example a poll by ‘The Guardian’ (August 28th 2007, page 4 and 29) found that many people seemed to think that often prison sentence can make crime worse.

“Only 40% think the government should aim to send more convicted criminals to prison, against 57% who want to see other, non-custodial forms of punishment”

“More people agree with the statement "prison doesn't work, it turns people into professional criminals who then commit more crime" than think "prison punishes crime, keeps criminals off the streets and deters others".”
“Only 42% of all voters, and 39% of women, think prisons are an effective punishment, against 49%, and 52% of women, who say they fail to work. Conservative voters are most likely to back prisons, Liberal Democrats most likely to oppose them. Among Labour voters, 52% do not want to see more prisons built and 46% do”
**

lets say person A, presents an argument (or theory, or assertion) others, if able, can then present criticises of that argument. Then person A defends their viewpoint.

But the second person has to have something to back up their criticisms other than opinion or just saying that it is “silly” or “biased”.

LOL so where have I only responded with ‘silly’ or ‘biased’?

I’ve put forward many lengthy explanations of why I disagree with some of your (and others) arguments, I have often had to repeat those explanations many, many times.

For example the ‘carrot and stick’ thing above, you still haven’t addressed what I’ve said, but I expect that sooner or later you will once again ask ‘why is it different for me…” and I will once again have to repeat the explanation.

Some things I do think of as silly or biased but I don’t believe I’ve ever based my whole argument on such ideas.

**

Why is it telling man?

Because you have NOTHING to back up your criticisms or arguments, if you did you would have presented it.

I’ve presented my counter arguments and criticisms, but rather than address them you either ignore them or dismiss them.

And then you just repeat the same arguments as if the counter arguments and criticisms didn’t exist.

So I repeat the same counter arguments and criticisms which you again ignore.

Just saying my criticisms and arguments are not backed up isn’t actually addressing those criticisms and arguments it’s just a trick to get out of addressing them.

If you are able to address my criticisms and arguments do so, the fact you don’t seems to me to indicate you can’t address them.

**

And I haven’t disregarded studies, I’ve made criticisms and put up countering arguments, it is for you (as the presenter of the study) to defend it.

Just saying they are “silly” or “biased” is not countering them. Present something valid and it can move on.

Again - where have I only responded with ‘silly’ or ‘biased’ alone?

I’ve put forward many lengthy explanations of why I disagree with some of your (and others) arguments, I have often had to repeat those explanations many, many times.

For example the ‘carrot and stick’ thing above, you still haven’t addressed what I’ve said.

Are you going to?

**

LOL, what ‘true agenda’ Pitt what are you on about, ‘cause this mystery stuff is just plain dumb.

Its plainly obvious you have no intention of listening or considering anything others have to say. Your only intent is to spew baseless nonsense in hopes someone will buy into it.

I have considered your assertions and your arguments and I have presented by criticisms and counter arguments, it is you that is refusing to address those criticisms and counter arguments.

Just saying they are baseless is not addressing my criticisms and arguments it is just a way (a trick) to dismiss them without having to address them.

**

 

So Pitt

Please man let it go, this is getting beyond silly, you’ve descended into bitching and sniping, all pretence that you come here for debate seems to have gone.

Your own predilection for ignoring the possibility of flaws in your opinions or proposals and ignoring anything that is not in line with your POV is what stalled the debate. Again I think you are far less interested in debating and more inclined to get converts.

Oh man LOL, if you see any flaws in my criticisms and counter arguments please, please present them, we can then discuss them, and that’s what I’ve been asking you to do for some time now.

For example

I put forward the theory of threat and intimidation in which I said -

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

You didn’t seem to agree with this and argued that since I proposed some punishments that meant you and I had the same outlook.

I put up a clarification as a counter argument -

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

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

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

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

For example when I presented my ‘tough’ laws you cheered “Bravo!!!”, more moderate laws aimed at keeping gun out of the hands of criminals you seem less enthusiastic about (or were hostile) and when asked to present alternative ideas that are about dealing with problems rather than just suppressing them or dealing with the symptoms you seem to become vague and directionless.

I’ve presented a few ideas, they’re aimed at making peoples lives more attractive, comfortable and worthwhile, which is the carrot, while I still feel that for the time being we may still need a stick, tough laws, but I hope that in time they would not be so necessary.

You talk of getting tough and coming down hard, which is the stick, but what about the carrot, what social, economic or even political changes are you offering to alleviate the problems that can be behind the crimes?

**

So there you have it – what flaws do you see in my countering arguemet, what is your reply?

Come on Pitt rather than just bitching and sniping actually join in the debate.

**

 

Dirk - What happend after Katrina? We don't watch the news, but from what we saw/head, no one just showed up.... and most people left on thier own (if they could)...

What do you mean by this.. what happend?

 

So the military did not try and attack New O. They confiscated everyones weapons.... or at least as many as they could. What I find sad about your country is that everyone has them in the first place. I live in a country where I don't know anyone who owns a gun... and I have nerver met someone who was the victom of a gun crime.... unfortuanly, in your country, I've talked to many who have been involved in crimes involving guns. Are try trying to get you guys to kill each other off? There really is no other reason that I can think of that americans would ever want to own one of these thing... your constituanal right was written during the days where you might have found a bear trying to get into your cabin... it should not apply today....

 

No Pitt, I'm definitely not getting into one of those internet rant/flames.... sorry dude, not my thing... but also, don't get me wrong... I completely respect you, and understand your opinion... and its cool... I just don't like guns... that’s my opinion.. so hey, lets see how things go.. maybe you'll join our side one day... (kidding)... but I think the everyone’s point addresses the need for less violence... thats all I care for in the end anyhow.

Peace man
Soc

 

Socratez

Well the supposed Katrina thing actually seems to backs up what I’ve already said in the thread

- Can guns save you from suppression? -
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3658951&postcount=1

**

As to why people want guns Pitt’s original list of reasons for owning guns in full was –

protection from violent people (ie criminals, carjackers, gang bangers)
Hunting (I eat what I hunt)
Target shooting (actually a stress reliever)
Competitive shooting (I shoot competitively twice a month)
Collecting (I have several antique firearms I have never fired)

But most of Pitt’s defence of gun ownership has relied on the ‘protection’ issue and he actually started our conversation by claiming that crime was the great threat for which people needed guns as protection.

Many others talk of having guns to protect them from ‘government’ suppression (see the linked thread above)

**

All along my theory has been that the problem with many American attitudes towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and/or also ignoring many of the social problems within their society. It seems to me to lead to a belief that threat and intimidation (of which guns are a part) are legitimate means of social control in other words they come to rely on suppression to deal with the symptoms of the problems rather than tackling the problems themselves.

For example some people, like Pitt, see guns as a means of protecting themselves from crackheads and gangbangers, but as I see it, this can lead to the mentality that there is therefore no need to deal with the societal problems that have led to drug addiction and social exclusion.

Other pro-gunners claim they have guns to protect them from the ‘government’ but to me this again seems like a way of ignoring the problems in their political system and hoping that their guns will be able to make sure the ‘government’ doesn’t go ‘too far’. I think this hope is false.

Even after nearly a year of discussion and many pro-gunner contributions this theory still stands and hasn’t even been seriously challenged.

**

What I’ve been suggesting is a holistic approach of which only a part would involve gun regulation.

The gun regulation element would be aimed at trying to reduce harm by trying to stop guns getting into the hands of people that might do damage with them. Such things as mandatory gun safes, so people’s guns would be less likely to be stolen or get into the hands of children and mandatory psychological testing to try and weed out those with emotional and mental problems.

But at the same time I would try and make peoples lives more attractive, comfortable and worthwhile so people have more to loose from transgressing and are not likely to experience the intensity of stress that might make them act in a destructive manner.

The thing is that people need to feel secure and only once they do will they stop feeling threatened and then they are likely to stop feeling they need guns for protection.

**

 

Say what you will everyone has the right to defend themselves with a gun.

The gov. as many here acknowledge is getting out of hand, and if ever there is an all out war the citizenry will need to be armed.

Minus the crazy shit hits the fan situation ^, it's just a good idea. Think of the lives you could save as a responsible gun owner. A bank robbery, random mugging, a robbery at a convenience store.

In fact I think it's irresponsible and selfish for those with the ability to not possess a CCW so that they can protect their fellow citizens.

 

Dear Pitt

LOL – oh here we go again –

Come on Pitt every one of these points has been covered numerous times.

This is the same old trick – you put forward an argument or make an assertion – I put forward counter arguments or make criticisms – you ignore what I say – then you make the exact same argument or assertion again as if criticisms had never been made.

As I’ve said this is silly and frankly rather childish.

Why not address the counter arguments and criticisms, so we can move on?

How about the ‘carrot and stick’ thing above, I set it all out for you and yet you seem to be ignoring it, why?

Shall we deal with that one first, maybe or do you prefer to be silly and childish?

**

 

Ok Pitt

but as I see it, this can lead to the mentality that there is therefore no need to deal with the societal problems that have led to drug addiction and social exclusion.

But of course he has nothing to link the two. In fact he did finally admit you can be involved in social/economic programs and own a gun at the same time.

As I’ve said many times (and repeated just above) when asked about alternative ideas that are about dealing with the social, economic and cultural problems and that do that doesn’t involve suppression or dealing with the symptoms you seem to become vague and directionless.

What was it you’ve said - ‘hedonism’ is at fault or the ‘me thing’ and what was your solution - that we should just help each other and teach our kids ‘right from wrong’.

Come on, these don’t exactly show any depth of thought on the subject do they?

**

What I’ve been suggesting is a holistic approach of which only a part would involve gun regulation.

For which I have asked dozens of times to show where this SINGULAR part of your “holistic” approach was effective when the studies clearly show that they are not.

The studies don’t clearly show this. All the ones you’ve presented can be shown to be about interpretation and opinion, we have been through it at length several times and you don’t seem able to counter what I say, so frankly once more you just seem to be ignoring it.

Why not address the criticisms and counter arguments rather than just ignoring them?

**

Such things as mandatory gun safes

Since you do see a gun as any kind of means of self protection this would make sense to you. But in effect it completely defeats the premise of a gun being kept for self defense.

OH hell Pitt do you take a note of what anyone says if they don’t agree with you?

We have gone through this time and again and I’ve explained it at length. We have talked of quick release biometric locks and the fact people can have the guns out when they are at home etc, yet you still return to spew out the same old garbage, that takes no account of what’s already been said.

**

The thing is that people need to feel secure and only once they do will they stop feeling threatened and then they are likely to stop feeling they need guns for protection.

Lol If you want people to stop feeling they need guns for protection. You had better work on lowering those DGU to an acceptable number. Remember 60,000 is the absolute lowest number out there, and from there it goes up to 2,500,000.

And once again with the DGU’s (imagine cartoon figure exaggeratingly hitting his forehead against a brick wall -) and once more taking no notice of what already been said on the subject.

Anyway as stated by me loudly and clearly many times, yes I would like to stop people feeling they need guns for protection and I’ve put forward some ideas.

**

LOL what is it with you are you just not able to think straight if someone even mentions the possibility of gun regulation, do you go blind and deaf with rage at their audacity, their presumptuousness.

Because I tell you man you seem to be acting totally irrationally or dishonestly.


**

 

Joe

The whole argument about guns as protection against ‘the government’ is explored here –

- Can guns save you from suppression? -
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3658951&postcount=1

Hope to see your comments there.

**

As to gun ownership somehow being a deterrent to crime the problem seems to be that it doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny.

There is of course the problem of possible escalation but also while some 40% of US household have guns of one type or another in the UK that figure is around 1%.

If guns were a deterrent it would be expected that the crime figures between the two countries would show a corresponding large difference in general crime rates.

But they don’t, in fact they seem to be roughly the same.

Except in one area gun related crime, that is much, much higher in the US.

Now I’m not presenting the UK as some perfect model to be followed, very far from it, I think successive British governments have followed some pretty bad policies, but the supposed deterrent effects don’t seem to hold up.

So even with harsher prison sentencing, more brutal prisons, executions, and wider spread gun ownership in the US, most crime figures are about the same, except in the area of gun related crime, which as I’ve pointed out is much, much higher.

However it has been suggested that the reason for the increase in gun related crime in the US is down to Americans being much more likely to use guns to commit crimes than others, for example the Swiss seem to have wider spread gun ownership but their don’t have the high levels of gun related crime.

And so we come to the issue of social, economic and cultural factors.

And I fear that many pro-gunners do not think much about these factors preferring to look to guns as a means of suppressing the problems rather than dealing with them.

 

Pitt

Are you going to go back to that ‘carrot and stick’ case or is this another case of your selective memory that allows you to ignore my counter arguments or criticisms?


**

Come on, these don’t exactly show any depth of thought on the subject do they?

Lol I have tried to get into this with you however you never take an answer. Your mantra is “but why” “but why” “but why” “but why” “but why” “but why” “but why” “but why” “but why” “but why” “but why” “but why” “but why” “but why” “but why”

Well first - no you haven’t tried to discuss these things with me in fact you Have refused to discuss these things with me.

And second – I thought you had given up that silly ‘but why’ taunt about six months ago? But I should remember that you prefer to be seen as silly and dumb than to have an honest debate.

The thing is that I also ask how, where, when and what.

That is the very essence of a debate, it is about asking questions, examining arguments, and of seeking clarification.

But that means that others should give answers and are willing to take note criticisms and address them in a rational manner, the problem is that you don’t seem to like honest debate, or addressing any thing that doesn’t conform to your views.

For example why are you not addressing the ‘carrot and stick’ thing?

You seem to want people to just accept what you say without question.

And the problem is if you believe your arguments and ideas will not stand up well to questioning you just ignore any questions asked of it.

An honest people reply to questioning, answer the criticism or counter arguments raised against their ideas and if they cannot would ask themselves why.

You don’t because you’re not an honest person.

**

All the ones you’ve presented can be shown to be about interpretation and opinion,

Then do as I have asked and present a study by a respected professional organization or academic which shows it to be interpreted differently. If the dozens I have presented are so wrong then surely you can present ONE that shows this.

But this is the problem we haven’t finished examining the arguments you have presented.

As I’ve pointed out this is just another trick to get out of an honest debate

You present an argument

I present counter arguments and criticisms

You refuse to defend your argument or address what I’ve said but demand I present more counter arguments and more criticisms.

But what is the point?

You haven’t addressed the counter arguments and criticisms I’ve already presented.

The honest thing to do would be to address what has already been presented.

**

We have talked of quick release biometric locks and the fact people can have the guns out when they are at home etc, yet you still return to spew out the same old garbage

Which is the exact fucking thing I said before. I am in favor of such things but see no reason to make it mandatory.

Another case of your dishonesty.

My answer wasn’t anything to do with them being mandatory or not look at what you said –

Since you do see a gun as any kind of means of self protection this would make sense to you. But in effect it completely defeats the premise of a gun being kept for self defense.

What has this got to do with them being mandatory or not, it was the old argument about getting hold of the gun quickly, which has already been addressed?

Again this is a trick.

**

And once again with the DGU’s

The only thing you have said is that since there is no EXACT number it cannot be trusted. You ignore the fact that DGU’s do happen and can be a good thing.

WHAT?

The only thing?

LOL - What is the point of me writing anything in reply to what you say if you are just going to ignore it?

I’ve written pages on DGU’s that had nothing to do with quibbling over the figures. Did you read any of it?

Oh hell once again this just shows how unwilling you are to be in any way honest.

**

LOL what is it with you are you just not able to think straight if someone even mentions the possibility of gun regulation, do you go blind and deaf with rage at their audacity, their presumptuousness.

LMFAO then again do as I have asked. Show me ONE single gun regulation that has made an positive impact on the intended outcome. Hell you cannot even tell me what the intended outcome of your proposals are.

Oh hell Pitt once again you bring up something that’s been covered over and over again.

Please what is the point in talking to you if you are going to be so dishonest?

**

Because I tell you man you seem to be acting totally irrationally or dishonestly.

And you kind of act like a moron, or actually more like catstevens did, you know you are always right and everyone else should just be ignored because only your POV exist.

Why not address the many counter arguments and criticisms of your ideas I’ve presented and show that I’m a moron and wrong.

The thing is – you seem unable to do so.

In fact the only thing you seem willing to do these days is to lie.

**

 

As to gun ownership somehow being a deterrent to crime the problem seems to be that it doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny.

Then explain the fucking stats that show in the US where gun laws are the most restrictive the violent crime rate including murder is the HIGHEST and where the gun laws are less restrictive the violent crime rate including murder is the LOWEST?

Another FACT you ignore

Which stats are you talking about? Let’s examine them, I think you have alluded to some but never given the statistic they were based on.

And we first went through something similar back in September 2006 and you’ve brought it up a few times since then and you still haven’t really addressed what I said way back do you remember the thing about Connecticut don’t you?

**

So even with harsher prison sentencing, more brutal prisons, executions, and wider spread gun ownership in the US, most crime figures are about the same, except in the area of gun related crime, which as I’ve pointed out is much, much higher.

Again then explain if there is a relationship between gun availability and crime why did the crime rate in the UK steadily rise AFTER the dunblane gun ban?

Yet Another FACT you ignore

Oh once again you make a statement without any mention of the counter arguments and criticisms that are already attached to the subject which you haven’t addressed?

Again this just stinks of your dishonesty.

**

And so we come to the issue of social, economic and cultural factors.

If this is you conclusion that it comes down to social, economic and cultural factors, why then are you so adamant about banning/restricting guns?

Once again we have covered this a thousand times already.

You must have read what I said about the attitude of threat and intimidation?

**

And I fear that many pro-gunners do not think much about these factors preferring to look to guns as a means of suppressing the problems rather than dealing with them.

Lol again you can think what you want but that does not make it so you have to show some supporting evidence.

Again the same old same old that has been covered a multitude of times before.

Pitt you smile while you lie and you just keep on doing it.

What is the point?

**

 

Pitt

And still after been asked several times you ignore the ‘carrot and stick’ argument?

Another example of you just refusing to enter into a civilised debate.

**

But this is the problem we haven’t finished examining the arguments you have presented.

OMFG, I almost pissed myself laughing so hard. You haven’t presented a study along your POV because you cannot find one.

Dear Pitt you may laugh like a hyena for all I care, it still doesn’t actually distract (as I’m sure you would want it to) from the problem – we haven’t finished examining the arguments you have presented.

For example the ‘carrot and stick’ thing above that you continue to ignore is a case in point, my reply points up the absurdity of you own view so rather than address it you ignore it.

You’ve been doing this ignoring of uncomfortable counter argument and criticisms for some time now.

Your replies show it again.

**

You refuse to defend your argument or address what I’ve said but demand I present more counter arguments and more criticisms.

Wrong again I have not demanded more arguments or criticisms, I have demanded FACTS to back up your criticisms. It seems you’re almost as afraid of looking for facts to back up your statements as you are of guns themselves.

Again to take the ‘carrot and stick’ thing as an example, in that argument and counter argument what are the ‘facts’?

In fact as pointed out this demanding for ‘facts’ is a red herring, a trick to try and hide your lack of replies to the counter arguments and criticism of you views already presented.

I’ve presented a few theories based in part on the your own and others statements and even quoted those ‘facts’, but you say those are irrelevant or you ignore them.

In fact you ignore or dismiss anything that doesn’t fit in with your view while at the very same time demanding very loudly for the very things you’re ignoring; in the hope no one will notice your dishonesty.

But even if I repeat a criticism or represent a counter argument (as I’ve done many time now) you just ignore them.

**

Also a lot of what we are talking about here is only differing interpretations of the same ‘facts’. It is about differing opinions.

You set forward your interpretation, your opinion

I’ve explain (often many times) why I think your opinion is wrong or the information seen differently.

The problem has been that rather than address these counter arguments you prefer to ignore them.

**


The honest thing to do would be to address what has already been presented.

The honest thing would to provide something to back up your conclusions not just make wild claims without even studying the pertinent facts.

Again you are trying to ignore or dismiss what has been said by saying it is ‘wild claims’ you’ve done this several times now but you never explain why you think them ‘wild’.

You demand that I should ‘back up’ my conclusions but even when I do you just ignore what I’ve said, it’s a trick to get out of giving any reasonable reply.

Why not address the counter arguments and criticisms I’ve presented rather than use tricks to get out of doing so?

**

 

Another case of your dishonesty.

WHAT???? How many times have I said I am a firm believer in gun safes? How many times Have I described my own gun vault to you?

This is instructive so lets examine it

I said [balbus] Such things as mandatory gun safes, so people’s guns would be less likely to be stolen or get into the hands of children

to which you replied [pitt] Since you do see a gun as any kind of means of self protection this would make sense to you. But in effect it completely defeats the premise of a gun being kept for self defense.

Now what has this to do with gun safes being mandatory? You are a firm believer in gun safes and have one so why do you believe they completely defeat “the premise of a gun being kept for self defense”?

You had brought up a similar argument before – you argued that having a gun in the safe meant it wouldn’t be there if needed for self protection, but we had been through that before as I explained -

[balbus] We have gone through this time and again and I’ve explained it at length. We have talked of quick release biometric locks and the fact people can have the guns out when they are at home etc, yet you still return to spew out the same old garbage, that takes no account of what’s already been said.

To which you replied -

[pitt] Which is the exact fucking thing I said before. I am in favor of such things but see no reason to make it mandatory.

What exactly is the ‘fucking thing’?

What had you said before? That gun safes that you support completely defeated “the premise of a gun being kept for self defense”?

I know you don’t want gun safes to be mandatory but what is you point here?

Why does it in your opinion undermine having a gun for self defence, it the person can have the gun out when they are at home?

**

My answer wasn’t anything to do with them being mandatory

Your fucking proposals include making it MANDATORY for guns to be kept locked up? Now who is being dishonest?

Sorry that is a typo and was meant to read “Your answer wasn’t… “. I think if you read the context it makes it clear since I follow it with a quote from you.

I would like to make gun safes mandatory and haven’t said otherwise and so it would be strange for me suddenly to say differently.

If you were less inclined toward point scoring rather than understanding you might have worked that out.

-------

 

The only thing?

Ohh well excuse the fuck out of me. Did I leave out that you think that it is a sign of an unhealthy society? Which again has not a fucking thing to do with the fact that they do happen and in great numbers. A fact you only want to dismiss.

Oh Pitt, again you just ignore what’s being said.

I haven’t dismissed DGU’s but I have pointed out that they point to a system that isn’t working and the higher the number the more shaky and unhealthy the system seems.

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

For example (and yet again I repeat myself) here is a reply (one of many on the subject) -

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?”

That last sentence is as true today as when first said nearly a year ago.

**

Oh hell Pitt once again you bring up something that’s been covered over and over again.

Oh please do show me where this has been answered. “it’s a matter of opinion” does not cut it. Each law is made with a certain positive outcome in mind weather it be to lower murder, crime, violence or whatever. Show me where it has been successful?

But Pitt it is only a ‘matter of opinion’ that some regulation don’t have a positive outcome.

Remember you thought the proposals I’ve repeatedly presented were good, so you must have thought they would have a positive outcome?

The difference between us is that I wish to make the benefits widespread so things could change and you don’t preferring the status quo.

**

Which stats are you talking about? Let’s examine them, I think you have alluded to some but never given the statistic they were based on.

Omfg they have been shown to you multiple times, they are all over the internet.

I don’t believe they have been shown to me multiple times I think they have been alluded to a lot, which isn’t the same thing and if they’re all over the net then you should have any problems producing one.

I’d be very happy to look at one.

But we have been through this you contend that widespread legal gun ownership is a deterrent to criminals but this just doesn’t seem the case.

To repeat myself once more

“Few people have guns in the UK that number is very much higher for the US.

So if gun ownership worked as a deterrent to crime then the US crime rates should be vastly different from those in the UK and they are not. As shown there isn’t that much of difference (if any) except in one area, that of gun crime.

So despite much larger levels of gun ownership, harsh sentencing, the highest prison population in the world and execution as a deterrent, the US is still at the same level of crime as the UK, except in one area – gun related crime.”

**

Oh once again you make a statement without any mention of the counter arguments and criticisms that are already attached to the subject which you haven’t addressed?

You can criticize the fucking statement all you want, now provide some fucking FACTS to back them up.

LOL, fuck, fucking, fucker why all the bad language Pitt?

To repeat (again) an earlier post on the subject –

[pitt] “Page 72 Shows the increase of crimes involving gun use other than air weapons from 98-06. You have been shown this before yet you continue to ignore it.

[Balbus] Not sure what you are laughing at Pitt?

I read the report you linked to and it doesn’t seem to have what you claim, are you sure you read it?

Violent Crime (Chapter Five) begins on page 71, page 72 doesn’t seem to have anything on crimes involving guns and is in fact involved in an explanation of recording methodology.

Page 71 does say violent crime has “fallen by 43 per cent since a peak in 1995, but that would not fit in with your argument that “I have read violent crime in the UK has risen dramatically since the famous "gun Ban" (based on a BBC news piece on a pro-gun lobby group’s report)

Did you mean page 81 which shows a steady increase in gun crimes?

The problem is that that was the 04/05 report if you had actually looked at the 2006/07 report it says the “police recorded offences involving firearms fell by thirteen per cent between 2005/06 and 2006/07” and goes on to explain that “there was a significant increase in the number of firearm offences recorded between 1998/99 and 2001/02 (figure 3.7) though figures may have been partially influenced by some forces implementing the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard prior to its national introduction on 1 April 2002”

So the increases may just be down to differing recording methods.”

**

Once again we have covered this a thousand times already.

Yes we have, don’t it make sense to keep guns away from the US citizens because they seem more inclined to use them -- yada yada yada

Yet you have never explained how this would actually realistically be accomplished nor how since there is no relationship between crime and gun availability, what fucking good your restrictions will do.

Again you show your complete and utter bias – “since there is no relationship between crime and gun availability” –

No what you mean is that in your opinion there is no relation, but as pointed out several times now - with arguments you will not address - that isn’t a solid fact just an interpretation.

As to what I would do I’ve written at length about it to reproduce just parts of it would take a page or two.

But I don’t think it would make any difference you still wouldn’t take of any notice of it.

**

Double speak, fact bending, misquoting might mean it has been “covered” in your mind but in fact the questions being asked of you have never been answered.

Again with the accusations you never ever seem able to show any proof of.

I fear that many pro-gunners do not think much about the social, economic and cultural factors preferring to look to guns as a means of suppressing the problems rather than dealing with them

You have never quietened that fear in fact you have made it stronger.

Although asked many times you refuse to discuss in any reasonable or rational way these factors. Look above all you do when asked to do so is refuse, saying that I’d have the audacity to ask questions of your views so you will not give them.

But as for guns and there supposed use in tackling crime, you seem very willing to lie and cheat to try and defend them.

That is very strong evidence that my statement is true - that many pro-gunners do not think much about the social, economic and cultural factors preferring to look to guns as a means of suppressing the problems rather than dealing with them.

**