Guncrazy USA

Lets let the govt and criminals have all the guns and take the ones away from the law abiding people who do not commit the crimes. why didn't i think of that!!

That is what will happen when you have harsh gun laws. No place i want to live.

 

pitt

And we’ve covered that ‘why, why, why’ speech before its just a trick to get out of discussing the societal problems that you claim you are willing to discuss but refuse to do so.

Well lets see how many times did you ask me But why is X doing X. While explaining one simple program? Just another dance de balbus.

And we’ve covered that before and it’s still just a trick to get out of discussing the societal problems that you claim you are willing to discuss but refuse to do so.

----------

So they said when it happens when they really meant there is a very small possibility of it happening so small that it really is unlikely but there is still a very, very slim possibility and so if it ever does happen although that’s unlikely then you will be sorry for not having a gun that is very likely to be a little use anyway.

Puppet master balbus making other people speak, refusing to listen to them, twisting others words in such shameless fashion.

LOL Again with the unsubstantiated accusations and the pathetic attempts at point scoring.

You gave an opinion, I gave my reply and you don’t addressed what’s said you just get huffy presumably in an attempt to cover up the fact you haven’t addressed whats been said.

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

You have said DGU’s are a good thing.

Again another FLAT OUT LIE I said I would rather have the 60,000 DGU’s than to have an additional 60,000+ acts of violence and crime.
So since you see all DGU’s as bad you would rather have the additional 60,000+ acts of violence and crime. That would make you feel all warm and fuzzy wouldn’t it?

To quote you in discussion about DGU’s –

“Whatever stops 60,000 – 2,500,000 crimes cannot be all bad”

(In other words DGU’s must be good)

“you CANNOT admit anything good ever happened with a gun involved”

(In other words DGU’s are good )

“because there is a simple mathematical logic that shows that guns are used more for good things than the evil you attribute to a chunk of steel.”

( In other words DGU’s are good)

“cannot even admit that a single DGU out of the thousands of examples I have shown you can be a good thing”

(In other words you see DGU’s as a good thing)

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

So DGU’s in your opinion make for a healthier society.

Healthier? No. Less healthy? No. I would rather see a law abiding person involved in a DGU than the criminal act without interference. Again You have not answered the question you pasted above which I have asked you dozens of times. Would an additional 60,000+ acts of violence and crime make a better healthier society?

But my point is that you don’t seem to be thinking about ways of reducing DGU’s other than promoting guns as a way of tackling such social problems which is likely to increase the number of times a gun is used not lessen it.

As I’ve pointed out many, many times now, I’m not against people defending themselves in a reasonable way what I’m saying is that guns seem to be seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

Your seeming total refusal to discuss soco-economic issues beyond the banal while forcefully pointing to guns as a means of suppressing social problems only seems to back up my theory.

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

 

OH hell Pitt we’ve been through this at length is seems again that you are just ignoring anything answer you don’t like until you get one you like

You have not answered the question. It does not matter if I like you answer or not you still have to give one.

Again explain why you think what I’ve said isn’t a reply to your question because all you ever seem to do is dismiss or ignore what I’ve said, because it isn’t the answer you want.

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

You are against gun regulation so in your opinion the UK’s gun laws have been ineffective, but that’s an opinion that cannot be substantiated because you have nothing to compare it with.

My opinion on gun regulation has nothing to do with weather they have been effective or not. The numbers speak for themselves. You do have something to compare it with, the pre-ban numbers. The two possibilities I have listed show one conclusion if they were not effective and one if they were effective.

Again if something doesn’t fit in with what you want you ignore it or dismiss it as invalid.

I’ve shown time and again that you have a biased view that colours the way you think.

You believe that the gun laws are ineffective without having anything to compare it with

You seem to be implying that things would have been the same even if they were different, which is if you actually thought about it, irrational.

You are saying that things would have been exactly the same (or better) without the gun regulations in-between. All I’m asking is how do you know that?

---------

Violent crime has declined since 1995 and gun crime has had ups and downs within that period also clouded by the introduction of differing recording and methodological techniques.

Yes crime reporting methods have changed however the number of GUN MURDERS recorded has not changed. Death by gun is death by gun no matter how you look at it and death by gun has increased each year since the gun ban with the exception of ONE year. So was the gun ban ineffective or has the UK become that much more violent in the last 10 years?????

So you are saying reporting methods have had no effect on the statistics and are you saying that you know for a fact what the outcome would have been if no regulation had been in place?

All you seem to be saying is that your view is right because you believe it to be right.

Overall violent crime has dropped some 40-60% since 1995, gun related crime has gone up and down with firearms offences falling by 13% in 2006-07 to 9,608 incidents which is the lowest number in seven years. However having said that as pointed out by many analysts new recording methods that began to be rolled out from 2000 onward account for steep rises during that period (with the methods being introduced by some forces before the official date).

And to use the figures you presented earlier from the gun control network.

It is 1996 there were only 49 gun-related homicides but in 1995 there were 70 and in 1993, 74

In 1999 three years after the ban the figure is again 49

I believe new recording methods came in to effect around 02 and that year the count was 97 but fell to 81 in 03 and 68 in 04.

Hand gun murders in 02 - 54
Hand gun murders in 04 – 35

My point is that is isn’t as clear cut or black and white as you like to present it.

**

 

As I’ve said – “If you disagree explain why you disagree rather than just repeating statements that’s already seem to have been addressed”

I have see above and above and
above and
above and
above and
above

You’re not explaining, you’re just asserting I’m wrong seemingly because you don’t like what I’ve said.

----------

The only two possible explanations?
That’s what I’m talking about you will seemingly only accept the answers you want and ignore anything else as invalid.

Then GIVE A THIRD EXPLANATION which is what I have been asking you for. For the last several months.

My point was that by dictating what you will accept as a valid answer and dismissing anything that doesn’t fit in with what you want the only answer you will accept is your own.

To me that not only seem unfair it’s dishonest.

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


Oh more point scoring rather than clarity.

What fucking point scoring?

You were not addressing what was said you were trying to score a point

To repeat –

“you are trying to use fear as a means of promoting gun ownership – the violent killer criminal breaking in to do harm on your loved ones.

To repeat - It is a very, very rare occurrence in the UK, but you are trying to use the fear of it, however miniscule, as a means of pushing your gun agenda. This is the thing that strikes me about your attitude you are not wondering why these things are happening you’re just trying to push gun ownership as a means of tackling it.

And to not have widespread and easy access to guns to tackle this very slight possibility is delusional, because although it is very unlikely to happen and even having a gun does not guarantee it not happening since the attacker will be ready while the person in the house unless they go to the door with the gun cocked and ready for use is likely to be at a disadvantage etc.

So even though its very, very unlikely to happen and even having a gun might not help you anyway in your viewpoint the widespread and easy access to guns is the best way to tackle this very rare possibility?

Do you see what I mean about the pro-gun attitude is seem so concerned with pushing gun ownership that it seems to crowds out any other way of thinking.”

---------

Again you are trying to use fear as a means of promoting gun ownership – the violent killer criminal breaking in to do harm on your loved ones.

Do you need me to post links to the stories of this happening AGAIN???? To continue to deny this happens in today’s world is ignorant.

Again you ignore the issues raised

This is the thing that strikes me about your attitude you are not wondering why these things are happening you’re just trying to push gun ownership as a means of tackling it.

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

To repeat - It is a very, very rare occurrence in the UK, but you are trying to use the fear of it, however miniscule, as a means of pushing your gun agenda. This is the thing that strikes me about your attitude you are not wondering why these things are happening you’re just trying to push gun ownership as a means of tackling it.

So instead of admitting these incidents actually do happen and letting people decide for themselves how they wish to protect themselves, you wish to push your ideologies on everyone else.

This is the thing that strikes me about your attitude you are not wondering why these things are happening you’re just trying to push gun ownership as a means of tackling it.

-----------

And to not have widespread and easy access to guns to tackle this very slight possibility is delusional, because although it is very unlikely to happen and even having a gun does not guarantee it not happening since the attacker will be ready while the person in the house unless they go to the door with the gun cocked and ready for use is likely to be at a disadvantage etc.

Just read above for the answer to this very same exact copied and pasted nonsense.

Again you don’t seem to be addressing what’s said just ignoring it.

Read what above, you don’t seem to refute what I’ve said

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

So even though its very, very unlikely to happen and even having a gun might not help you anyway in your viewpoint the widespread and easy access to guns is the best way to tackle this very rare possibility?

How many times have I had to answer this very fucking question??? No one is saying it is the best or only way. Its just one way. Jesus learn to read.

Yes you keep saying it but the point I’m making is you refuse to explain any alternative ways (beyond simplistic homilies).

Anyone can assert anything and demand that others just accept it without question, but that doesn’t make what’s been asserted the ‘truth’.

This has been explained to you at length and in detail with many examples, but you just simply ignore what’s said and indignantly repeat the assertion as if nothing had been said.

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

Do you see what I mean about the pro-gun attitude is seem so concerned with pushing gun ownership that it seems to crowds out any other way of thinking.

Do you see what I mean about the anti-gun not listening to anything someone says after they know he/she owns a gun?

Oh the kindergarten trick of just repeating the argument back.

The only problem is that I can explain and show examples of what I say while you are just simply taunting because you don’t seem able to explain your views and have no examples to give.

My theory is that guns seem to be seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

This means that many of them refuse to discuss societal problems and alternative ideas of dealing with them but instead promote gun ownership as a way of suppressing such problems.

-----------

First according to the FBI most gun owners do just leave guns unsecured and you have defended that and believe gun safes should not be mandatory.

If the owner is at home and there are no kids running around what harm is a gun laying on the nightstand? Or are you saying that people leave their guns on the nightstand while away? Define the FBI’s version of unsecured? And yes I don’t think gun safes should me mandatory for ownership and I have explained why dozens of times.

Unsecured, as in not secured, not locked away or even on open display.

You’re argument for not wanting gun safes seems to be that it would inconvenience gun owners.

You haven’t really said much beyond that as I’ve shown above.

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

Again this doesn’t seem like a overwhelming reason for being against.

Lmfao it does not really answer the question but borders more on the silly than anything. Lets see now the size and weight of a bicycle chained to a rack vs a handgun if a biometric lockbox? I wonder which one is easier to carry and conceal?

When the gun safe is securely fixed to something solid (and preferably alarmed)? Many hotels and holiday homes have just such safes in there rooms.

Bicycles are not that heavy but if secured by chain or D-lock to something like a one tonne rail…

Again you seem more interested in point scoring than actually thinking about the subject.

----------

The thing is that your opinion is that gun safe’s are a good idea but shouldn’t be mandatory (so unlikely to be widely used).

Why unlikely to be used? And yes I believe use would be increased with todays technology, pricing and education.

It’s well known that if people don’t have to something they usually don’t.

----------

My opinion is that gun safes can deter criminals from stealing guns and increasing their availability to criminals.

Again how is that since many (actually most) handgun safes are easy enough to carry with you.

See above. Is your gun safe easy to run away with?

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

But there was never any confrontation with any thief. Having a gun was useless on every occasion. But you seem to be pushing guns as a way of tackling crime while seemingly ignoring alternative ideas.

Yep that right which is what I have said before. However had I made one different choice (to pull into the back lot rather than the front) there would have been a confrontation. Banning guns as you want to do is not an alternative idea. I see the proposals you have suggested as being ineffective, I have shown you the reasons They are ineffective. Yet you continue to support them without explanation or countering the data presented to you. You like many politicians want to wrap up gun control with other programs to push your view on everyone else.

In your view the proposals you thought good, would be ineffective, they are wrong even when you thought them good?

You have made some assertions based on a seemingly bias opinion, which you assert is ‘fact’ and ‘truth’ that cannot be denied. But you seem to be refusing to defend many of those ideas from criticism.

Thing is you only seem interested in defending and promoting gun ownership and seem virtually uninterested in understanding you societies problems.

Please explain why that attitude is not the one outlined in my theories?

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

Really Pitt do you think you are being honest when you claim you have in no way tried to promote gun ownership?

How many times have I said the likelihood of it happening to any one person is fairly low, yet the possibility is there. It is you that is being dishonest saying I am pushing for others to be armed with guns. I have done nothing but defend my right to own one.

Lets see if someone was trying to promote gun ownership what kind of advertisement could be used -

First scene written by Pitt -

“Criminal breaks into old ladies house, criminal finds old lady in bedroom and proceeds to beat her in order to find where she might have any valuables hidden. Old lady dies from severe beating”

Fade out

Caption ‘but if’

The same scene as first (this is also written by Pitt) but this time -

“criminal breaks into old ladies house, criminal finds old lady in bedroom, old lady draws a 9mm pistol, points pistol at criminal, criminal fearing he is about to be shot flees house empty handed”

Fear is a potent weapon in advertising and not just Pitt but many of the pro-gunners promotion is based on it. Are they really claiming that such ‘adverts’ are not promoting products?

In fact this type of advertising is being used by agencies, who employ people to come onto forums to push certain products or ideas.


**

 

You started out by arguing that all criminal activity was down to ‘greed’ before admitting that their might be other factors which you refused to discuss. I don’t think you’ve though very much about anything but protecting gun ownership I mean I’ve asked you to do so on a number of occasions and you’ve refused your still refusing now.

And I still say greed is probably one of the biggest issues having to do with crime. Yes there are different reasons and as I have said literally hundreds of times there is no one answer to all of societies problems and will take many programs to have any effect. Myself and hundreds of studies believe that gun control/bans is not one of those programs.

I know you defend and promote gun ownership as a means of suppressing societal problems but you are still refusing to discuss the social, economic, cultural and political problems and your ideas for dealing with them outside of the framework of the threat, intimidation attitude.

This fits in with my theory that guns seem to be seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.


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

Then please explain why not? It seems to be the thrust of your argument

I have said hundreds of times guns or gun availability will not solve any of society’s problems in general. I have also said there have been hundreds of studies showing that gun availability has NO effect on crime or any other issue you speak of. I have also challenged you to show where gun controls/bans have had an effect, yet you have refused to do so. You have also refused to show how they have an effect.

My theory is that guns seem to be seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

You claim you have thought about societal problems but you only seem willing to defend and promote guns as a means of tackling such problems.

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

Again you promote the idea that guns are therefore the best way of tackling crime (since you will not talk of others).

Show me one fucking place where I said guns WASTHE BEST way???? I believe I have said exactly the opposite many many many times.

You asserted that you believe policies beyond gun ownership are good but you continually refuse to discuss those other ideas preferring to defend and promote gun ownership as a means of tackling societal problems.

In the absence of alternative ideas and your vehemence in promoting gun ownership it would seem to indicate you see guns as the best way of tackling societal problems.

-----------

Oh no once again point scoring and once again ignoring stuff that doesn’t suit you.

You continue to copy/paste this same old tired crap without anything to back it up. You expect everyone to take your word as infallible truth. It’s not going to happen St balbus.

I gave a long explanation of why I think this fits in with the pro-gun attitude just go and read this again (if you ever have).
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3438947&postcount=9

--------

To repeat - It’s not like I haven’t been asking (them), how many times have I presented my theories to them asking for their comments so far I’m getting nothing but the pro-gun attitude of threat, intimidation and suppression.
(my brackets)

I have not seen you ask then which way they intended the post to be. All I have seen you do is state your opinion of their post as fact.

I’ve quoted them and explained my opinion I’m not stopping them from replying.

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

They can come by any time and defend their point of view, I’m not stopping them.

There is no defending anything to you balbus, you don’t listen to what people say unless someone was to bow down and claim all mighty balbus has spoken, so let it be written, so let it be done. (blatent reference to Cecil B DeMille’s The Ten Commandments)

Oh one again accusations you never seem able to back up and silly point scoring.

I’ve said over and over that anyone can come and comment or criticise my opinions or theories, but I will defend them. You just seem pissed off that your are unable to refute what I’ve said and are unable to defend you own ideas.

You could actually wonder why you cannot refute my ideas or defend your own but instead you prefer to spend your time playing silly trick.

Why not actually think about what others say?

**

 

And we’ve covered that ‘why, why, why’ speech before its just a trick to get out of discussing the societal problems that you claim you are willing to discuss but refuse to do so.

Well lets see how many times did you ask me But why is X doing X. While explaining one simple program? Just another dance de balbus.

And we’ve covered that before and it’s still just a trick to get out of discussing the societal problems that you claim you are willing to discuss but refuse to do so.

----------

So they said when it happens when they really meant there is a very small possibility of it happening so small that it really is unlikely but there is still a very, very slim possibility and so if it ever does happen although that’s unlikely then you will be sorry for not having a gun that is very likely to be a little use anyway.

Puppet master balbus making other people speak, refusing to listen to them, twisting others words in such shameless fashion.

LOL Again with the unsubstantiated accusations and the pathetic attempts at point scoring.

You gave an opinion, I gave my reply and you don’t addressed what’s said you just get huffy presumably in an attempt to cover up the fact you haven’t addressed whats been said.

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

You have said DGU’s are a good thing.

Again another FLAT OUT LIE I said I would rather have the 60,000 DGU’s than to have an additional 60,000+ acts of violence and crime.
So since you see all DGU’s as bad you would rather have the additional 60,000+ acts of violence and crime. That would make you feel all warm and fuzzy wouldn’t it?

To quote you in discussion about DGU’s –

“Whatever stops 60,000 – 2,500,000 crimes cannot be all bad”

(In other words DGU’s must be good)

“you CANNOT admit anything good ever happened with a gun involved”

(In other words DGU’s are good )

“because there is a simple mathematical logic that shows that guns are used more for good things than the evil you attribute to a chunk of steel.”

( In other words DGU’s are good)

“cannot even admit that a single DGU out of the thousands of examples I have shown you can be a good thing”

(In other words you see DGU’s as a good thing)

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

So DGU’s in your opinion make for a healthier society.

Healthier? No. Less healthy? No. I would rather see a law abiding person involved in a DGU than the criminal act without interference. Again You have not answered the question you pasted above which I have asked you dozens of times. Would an additional 60,000+ acts of violence and crime make a better healthier society?

But my point is that you don’t seem to be thinking about ways of reducing DGU’s other than promoting guns as a way of tackling such social problems which is likely to increase the number of times a gun is used not lessen it.

As I’ve pointed out many, many times now, I’m not against people defending themselves in a reasonable way what I’m saying is that guns seem to be seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

Your seeming total refusal to discuss soco-economic issues beyond the banal while forcefully pointing to guns as a means of suppressing social problems only seems to back up my theory.

**

 

We have discussed this at length and you still haven’t addressed my criticisms of your viewpoint.

I have and you have never ANSWERED THE FUCKING QUESTION.

Once again with the accusations and once again – can you back this up – or will you be making more excuses not to?

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

I’ve made it very clear that I’m not opposed to people defending themselves but for me DGU’s are not something to be celebrated. You on the other hand seem to think it is something to be celebrated; you seem to positively relish the idea of having to use your gun to defend yourself.

Ok example which is better?
1 criminal breaks into old ladies house, criminal finds old lady in bedroom and proceeds to beat her in order to find where she might have any valuables hidden. Old lady dies from severe beating.

2 criminal breaks into old ladies house, criminal finds old lady in bedroom, old lady draws a 9mm pistol, points pistol at criminal, criminal fearing he is about to be shot flees house empty handed.

Which is it balbus? I have not said either is to be “celebrated” just that I would rather have #2 over #1

Oh yes the advert for the promotion of guns as a means of tackling social problems.

To repeat - I’ve made it very clear that I’m not opposed to people defending themselves but for me DGU’s are not something to be celebrated. You on the other hand seem to think it is something to be celebrated; you seem to positively relish the idea of people using guns to defend themselves.

But every time someone pulls a gun there are consequences, some unseen, there is always the possibility of people getting injured or killed unnecessarily.

My view and my aim is to make people feel secure enough that they don’t even feel they need guns to protect them, thereby bring down the number of DGU’s taking place.

You seem to be promoting fear, by constantly and consistently going on about the possibilities of being attacked, in the hope it seems of making people feel less secure so they think they need guns to protect them, thereby most likely increasing the number of DGU’s taking place.

Re-read that bit at the bottom - You seem to be promoting fear, by constantly and consistently going on about the possibilities of being attacked, in the hope it seems of making people feel less secure so they think they need guns to protect them, thereby most likely increasing the number of DGU’s taking place.

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

My view and my aim is to make people feel secure enough that they don’t even feel they need guns to protect them, thereby bring down the number of DGU’s taking place.

And you intend to do this by forcing then to give up their guns. I say do it first and many will give up their guns voluntarily.

Again with the unfounded accusations and the point scoring (it’s getting tedious)

The gun regulations I’ve been promoting here (the ones you thought were good) are not about banning guns.

As I’ve pointed out numerous times from your position so far I don’t think you care very much about other ways of tackling crime, you just want to defend and promote guns as a way of tackling crime.

-----

And DGU’s seem to point toward gun ownership not being the best way of tackling crime but we have been through this and it doesn’t seem to matter what I say you just ignore it…”

And you ignore the consequences of not having any DGU’s.

Actually we’ve discussed it at length; my view is that not having DGU’s because people didn’t really need guns to defend themselves is a good thing. Your argument seems to be that DGU’s are a good thing, and you don’t seem to care why so many take place or think very much about alternative ways of reducing their number.

My point is that even with all the DGU’s you highlight constantly they still don’t seem to be a deterrent to criminals, in fact general crime in the US, where there is widespread gun ownership, is roughly at the same level as in the UK with very small amounts of gun ownership.

Oh except in one area, gun crime, which is much, much higher in the US.

-----------

And we’ve been over the effectiveness thing elsewhere.

Something you have refused to discuss except to say all those studies are nothing more than opinion based on data that can be interpreted other ways but balbus refuses to tell us what those other ways are or where anyone else has stated them.

Can you give examples of me refusing to explain my criticisms of the studies you’ve presented? Or will you once again make and excuse not to?

----------

“I’ve explained a length and in detail why supporting individual programmes doesn’t mean a person has thought very much about socio-economic and cultural problems or thought about policies to deal with those problems.

And I have answered in length that because someone owns a gun does not mean a person has NOT thought about socio-economic and cultural problems or thought about policies to deal with those problems.

Pitt you’re being disingenuous again.

You have made the assertion many times that gun owners think about socio-economic and cultural problems or thought about policies to deal with those problems. But you haven’t actually backed up those statements.

It remains just an assertion.

As pointed out you continually refuse to debate such issues so your assertions seem unfounded.

----------

What you seem to be claiming is that since the cuts and bruises are dealt with there is no need to think at all about why they are there and ways to stop them happening in future”

Again a flat out lie and anyone that has that has followed this thread can plainly see that.

Come on then link to where this can plainly be seen – or will you make another excuse not to?

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

Not my regulations and definitely not what I’ve been trying to talk about here.

LMFAO lots of your regulations are mirrored in the UK. So instead of answering the question about their effectiveness you just ignore it while continuing to push for these same regulations claiming they would be effective. This is classic anti-gun rhetoric.

So which ones are ‘mirrored’ then?

And we’ve been over the effectiveness thing elsewhere.

--------


I have answered that question before several times, why do you keep claiming (like so many other things) that I haven’t?

Ok lets settle this one here and now. Did your original proposals include a complete ban on guns or not?
It’s a very simple and direct question balbus, yes or no?

Again with the dictating.

To repeat – “Since the object of the thought experiment was to clear as many guns from the US as possible the answer would be yes”

LOL, come on man just reading the fucking posts.

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

That’s why I’m here to try and learn what people have thought about. What I’ve learnt so far is that many Americans seem to see guns as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

Lmfao when people tell you. you just ignore then and call them dishonest if they don’t fall in line with your POV.

Come on then link to where this can plainly be seen – or will you make another excuse not to?

--------

But as I make clear at the time – “The thing is that as I’ve been trying to point out, ideas are easy and even the drafting of laws is not that difficult,

And I have been pointing out its easy to come up with “ideas” so long as you don’t have to think about the outcome of implementing these ideas. Which you have proven once again and over and over.

Oh my poor Pitt once again you go for point scoring rather than thought.

The whole point of presenting ideas is so they can be discussed and debated. The only problem is that only through honest and open debate can clarity be found and as shown repeatedly (with many examples) you are not interested in honest and open debate.

I know you accuse me of the same thing but you never seem able (as I do) to back up your claims.

---------

the problem as I see it with regard to the US is that many Americans have a viewpoint that would oppose those ideas and refuse to vote for those laws.

Maybe its because they have thought about the ramifications and outcomes of such ideas and do not think they would be effective. So why is that so hard to understand?

That’s why I’m here to try and learn what people have thought about. What I’ve learnt so far is that many Americans seem to see guns as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.


-----------

Should I go on?

Oh please do, I guess in the UK “backtracking” means asking questions and thinking something through.

Could you please explain what you mean?

I was pointing out that this issue had been address a number of times but which you do not refute but just ignore.

You still seem to be ignoring.

--------

What? Again you seem to be going off at tangents but refusing to address the issues I’ve raised?

That was the fucking point being discussed. Again you have done nothing but dance around the question and not answered.

Again you seem to be just dictating what you accept as an answer.

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

To repeat – “you're unable to refute the validity of my claims so you are hoping that calling me mad will somehow make my claims seem wrong”

To repeat You are making claims by pulling shit out of thin air. Its delusional.

This is the problem - you don’t accept anything anyone says that isn’t what you want as valid and them you never have to deal with any criticisms.

You them just claim that they are made in the hope that will somehow make their claims seem wrong.

**

 

In other words if someone had thought about societal problems beyond just giving to individual programmes they should be able to discuss this – you have repeatedly refused to.

I have tried to discuss and you have refused to listen. Much like you refuse to listen to anything that runs counter to your desire to restrict/ban guns from the law abiding person.

Oh I think you step over the line here into out and out lying.

But let’s see – please link to where you tried to discuss these things in any meaningful way – or will you make excuse why you can’t, again.

And please point out where I’ve refused to reply to you posts. In fact it me alone between us that seem’s to actually know what you’ve said and am able to quote you and your posts.

I know your simplistic ideas on greed as the motivator (which you refused to discuss further) I know about your moral stance on drug reform (which you refused to discuss further) I know about for rather banal comments on ‘the me thing’ materialism and hedonism that you refuse to explain and I know that you think being nice to each other and teaching ‘our’ children right from wrong (laudable but laughable coming from someone who finds it so easy to lie) which again you will not expand on or defend from criticism.

-----------

One of the few things you have suggested for making a better society is teaching ‘our’ kids right from wrong. But you seem willing to be dishonest if you think it will score you a point in what is just an internet forum.

If you think knowing right from wrong is so important why do you act dishonestly, or do you believe that the end justifies the means. That wrong can be committed as long as you believe it is in a good cause.

So that wrong can be right if you say so.

I myself believe that is not a good lesson to learn if you want a good society.

Then you should really try being honest and stop rewriting other peoples post to try and make them fit into your POV.

Oh no here we go again – please back up you accusation or are you going to make another excuse why you won’t.

-----------

We’ve been through this all before man, why do you ignore so much of what’s said here?

I am ignoring what’s said???? This section shows that you are ignoring what has been said. You continue to misquote myself and others in effort to make things fit into your POV.

More unsubstantiated accusations can you actually back this up?

-----

And you seem to see this individual action as tackling general problems you claimed that individuals having guns deters criminals in other world you see it as a general policy, to quote you “The criminal does not know when he will run into an armed individual giving him one more reason to hesitate on the act in the first place”

Yes I have said that many times. The problem is (even after having it explained hundreds of times) you ignore the fact that no one is saying it will solve crime.

A way of tackling crime.

It seems to be the only policy you seem willing to promote as a way of tackling crime, you asset that you have thought of others outside of the threat/intimidation attitude but you just refuse to discuss them.

-----------

Both would benefit and both are claim the other would adversely effect the health of others.

Yet we can look at history and see the implications of the welfare programs. Just as we can look at history and see the implications and effectiveness of gun bans/restrictions.

So are you saying you still think the ‘me thing’ is simple or are you saying that you now realise that it isn’t? it seems to me that your reply has nothing to do with explaining what you mean by the ‘me thing’

And I’m still waiting for you to explain your definitions of materialism and hedonism.

Are you refusing to discuss them?

**

 

I don’t think you are interested in thinking about let alone debating social, economic, cultural or political problems. You have had plenty of opportunity to do so and I’ve asked you to do so on many occasions, we did briefly talk about the reasons for criminal activity which you began by claiming was all down to ‘greed’ before admitting that their might be other factors which you refused to discuss and then we had another brief discussion on drugs policy which you admitted to not thinking much or having many ideas about before refusing to go further.

And you refuse to discuss the implications and effectiveness of gun bans/restrictions in a thread about of all things GUNS.

Over a year ago when we first began discussing guns I set out my theory that the problem with guns was that many Americans seem to see them as a way of dealing with and therefore of ignoring many of the social, economic, cultural and political problems within their society.

Since then all you seem to have been interested in is the defence and promotion of gun ownership as a means of tackling societal problems.

Please explain why you think my theory incorrect?

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

But the regulations I’ve been pushing were thought by you to be good, you just don’t think they should be implemented.

And I have tried endlessly to get you to discuss these “regulations” and their implications and effectiveness however you have refused.

We’ve discussed them at length, over and over since I first put them up in a post over a year ago - if you actually go back to those post you’d see that at first it was you that actually seem reluctant to discuss them not me.

When I did get you to talk, you just ignored a lot of what I’d said and refused to address the issues raised.

----------

As to the rest of my holistic approach you don’t seem that interested.

How about sticking to the threads topic which is guns. Why should anyone delve into your “holistic” approach which includes gun bans/restrictions when you refuse to discuss this part of it? Why would anyone think you would be willing to discuss any other part should they have a different view than yours?

As I say you seem to be ignoring many of the social, economic, cultural and political problems within your society, in favour of pushing guns as a means of tackling or suppression societal problems.

---------

We’ve been through this many time to repeat from just above.

Yes we have and once again you are claiming to be some sort of god and when you speak we should take it as gospel. No matter how many times you have been corrected as to what other people meant by their OWN post.

You claim you do not promote guns as a way of dealing with societal problems, but as I’ve said many of your statements could be very easily turned into adverts aimed at promoting gun ownership as a means of tackling crime.

I mean, as pointed out earlier this method is even being used by advertisers these days, with agencies employ people to come on web forums praising certain products or films etc.

----------

But oh no you say, that’s not promoting guns that’s just pointing out what will happen ‘when’ the viscous killers come to get you.

Once again you are putting it as an inevitability when no one else has claimed anything but a possibility. This shows your dishonesty.

In your scenarios it is always inevitable – if you don’t have a gun you are brutally killed but only with a gun do you survive.

--------

Really Pitt do you think you are being honest when you claim you have in no way tried to promote gun ownership?”

Yes I do. Do you think you are being honest by claiming to know what other people mean by statements clearly not in line with your interpretation? Or rewriting other peoples post? Or claiming to speak for a whole country?

Oh dear once again with the accusations – come on then give us some examples.

--------

All you need to do is refute the validity of my claims.
You don’t.

I have and all you do with the countering evidence is claim it can be viewed differently, of cant be verified because you don’t have some kind of time machine, or any number of other lame excuses.

My theory is that the problem with guns is that many Americans seem to see them as a way of dealing with and therefore of ignoring many of the social, economic, cultural and political problems within their society.

I contend that you back up my theory by continually promoting guns as a way of tackling social problems while refusing to discuss any other ways except in the most banal way.

You’re still refusing to talk about anything but guns.


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

‘So the world was created by god in six days and no one has refuted this claim because i don’t think any other argument is valid so that makes me right’ said the creationist.

There are different theories about the worlds creation and have presented evidential facts to back up these theories. That is why they are indeed “THEORIES” you on the other hand have presented no evidentiary data in support of your opinions. That in itself is why it is not a “theory” but rather an “OPINION”

My theory, premise, suspicion, thesis, hypothesis, idea, conjecture, opinion… still remains standing and hasn’t been seriously challenged so far since it first appeared well over a year ago.

So my premise is that the problem with guns is that many Americans seem to see them as a way of dealing with and therefore of ignoring many of the social, economic, cultural and political problems within their society.

I contend that you back up my opinion by continually promoting guns as a way of tackling social problems while refusing to discuss any other ways except in the most banal way.

You’re still refusing to talk about anything but guns.

--------

You on the other hand have repeated claimed your opinions are facts and truth and that makes you right and me wrong. The only problem being that you sadly don’t seem willing or able to defend many of your views against criticism and instead repeat things over and over, ignoring any criticism of such statements seemingly because they question your belief system.

I have presented facts, statistics, studies, news stories, etc backing up my statements. You have presented nothing in support of yours.

You have presented opinions based on the interpretation of selected statistical data and claimed them as unassailable ‘truth’. At other times you have presented media reports as ‘fact’ when they to have often been opinion pieces from biased sources or based on biased sources.

I’ve very often shown how these things can be seen or interpreted differently if viewed from another angle.

Most of these criticisms of what you claim as ‘fact’ remain unaddressed or ignored.

-----------

You are doing it again you claim what you have presented is fact when actually as shown time after time it is really only opinion.

Ok opinion WITH SUPPORTING FACTS AND DATA. What have you fucking provided in support of your opinions? NOTHING.

What you have presented are opinions based on the interpretation of selected statistical data which you refuse to defend from criticism and repeat without acknowledging the outstanding criticisms.

I’ve presented a lot of things to back up my theories (just look above) it’s just that, as with the criticisms of you views, you ignore things that don’t suit you.

----------

In other words you fit in exactly with my theory.

There is that devil dog again.

I’ve explained why they do and I’ve asked you numerous times to explain why your conduct doesn’t fit in with my theories.

So far you refuse to do so your only answer to this these days is to claim I’m mad, insane to think such things.

It seems to me you are playing to form – you dismiss or ignore any argument that you are unable to refute.

I’ve been saying all along that it seemed to me that seem to be seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

This means that many of them refuse to discuss societal problems and alternative ideas of dealing with them but instead promote gun ownership as a way of suppressing such problems.

**

 

This is all very neat.

What you are saying is that everything I’m saying is invalid as far as you are concerned

This is because my arguments are invalid to you, because anything I’ve said is invalid to you and anything that I’ve presented to back them up is invalid to you, because you don’t recognise it as valid.

And since what I’m saying is invalid there is no need for you to address what’s said or deal with the issues raised by what I’ve say.

Very neat.

But not exactly rational or honest.

How am I meant to defend myself from unsubstantiated charges or my ideas from unfounded criticism when you dismiss as invalid anything I say in my and their defences without explanation?

And what is the point of me answering questions when you call my answers invalid without any explanation as to why except seemingly because they’re not the ones you want?


**

 

To recap

My theory is that the problem with guns is that many Americans seem to see them as a way of dealing with and therefore of ignoring many of the social, economic, cultural and political problems within their society.

You claim that I’m wrong; you claim that you do not overwhelmingly concentrate on guns as a means of tackling societal problems.

You claim that you give as much thought to societal problems and ways of dealing with them as you do in the defence and promotion of guns.

So your counter arguments to my theory seem to be –

(1) Supporting individual ‘social’ programmes proves I’m wrong

(2) You can discuss social problems

(3) You do not just concentrate on gun ownership

**

So let us look at (1)

I’ve pointed out that just supporting individual programmes is not proof of deeper thought so it can be like repeatedly treating the cuts and bruises of an abuse victim without ever thinking about ways to stop the abuse.
It is a good thing to treat the cuts and bruises (just as it is good to support individual programmes) but the abuse will just continue or likely increase if not dealt with.

Your reply was – “I have said repeatedly (to use your analogy) treat the cuts and bruises while at the same time look for ways to stop it from happening in the future”

This doesn’t actually address what’s being said because I’m not saying you shouldn’t treat the cuts and bruises I’m saying that you don’t seem to have given much thought to the deeper issues.

**

This brings us to (2).

You claim you do think about societal problems beyond the attitudes of threat and suppression.

To back up that claim you have set out what you think are the roots of your society’s problems.

These are - the me thing, materialism and hedonism.

And your ideas for tackling these things are – being nice and helping each other out and teaching our kids right from wrong.

Again these are not bad ideas but on there own without explanation are little more than ciphers. The reasons become just faceless bogymen and the answers banal homilies

The thing is that you have basically refused to discuss any of these things in anything but the shallowest terms; they are so un-fleshed out as to be skeletal.

You don’t seem willing let alone able to promote these ideas as a coherent alternative to social problems and are even less able at defending them from any form of analytical examination.

And whenever they’re brought up you seem to want to brush them away so you can apply yourself more fully to what you obviously see as the overwhelmingly important matter of defending and promoting gun ownership.

So it would seem you do concentrate on gun ownership to the detriment of a deeper understanding of your society’s problems.

**

 

Hear hear!

 

1. A gun owner who is involved in social programs shows an involvement in trying to help with social problems.

This is the problem if you are not going to read what others post or disregard it because it isn’t what you want to hear, you are not going to understand what people are saying.

We’ve covered this hundreds + times already.

Just giving to a particular social programme doesn’t necessarily mean that a person has given much thought to social problems, we have really been through this at length, but simply put - a person might give money to give food to the poor without wondering why people are poor.

If you talked to that person and they were willing and able to talk about societal problems and clearly had thought about them and pondered some solutions (beyond just giving short term relief) then they clearly have.

However if the person, like you, seemed unwilling and unable to talk about such things and clearly didn’t show much interested in such things, then it is very likely they haven’t given it much thought.

People do what they can or feel they can do. Just because it does not meet your expectations does not mean they have not thought about societal problem and how to address them.

It has nothing to do with my expectations, I’ve said many times that its good to give to such programmes but that still does not automatically mean that the giver has though very much about societal problems.

You claim that since they own a gun this will make them think they are somehow immune to society’s problems and I have not seen anyone make such a statement.

Many gun owners have come here and expressed the idea that if a criminal or government agent breaks into their home they have a gun and can deal with it, but try and talk to them about alternative ideas of tackling social and political ideas and they very often, like you, refuse.

You are the only one here I see making such claims while others besides myself have called you on this statement. Bottom line is you have made a claim now its time to show something in support of your claim. Put up or shut up in other words.

You haven’t ‘called me out’ you have repeatedly asserted that I’m wrong with very little or no explanation. That’s not ‘calling me out’ that’s running away and hiding from what I’ve said.

And you continually refuse to talk about your ideas on your society’s problems while defending and promoting guns as a way of tackling such problems.


2. Ok so I think it boils down to “the me thing, materialism and hedonism”. I can easily show examples of crime and violence based on these reasons.

But is that understanding why the ‘me thing’ exists, does it explain how materialism can be tackled or in what way hedonistic ideas can be curbed?

In fact I’m still not sure what you mean by any of them because you refuse to discuss or explain your ideas with me.

Again you need to read what I’ve been saying rather than ignoring it.

You claim its because of “the easy availability of guns” Where is your evidence? Where are your examples?

OH my dear Pitt, you really need to see what’s being said rather seeing what you think is being said. The very basis of my theory is that it isn’t just about guns.

This is a perfect example of what I’ve been saying, your thoughts and thinking are gun centric to you it’s all about guns while to me gun ownership and usage are just symptoms of certain social attitudes and beliefs.

You really should read my theory again (or just read it if you haven’t already) and this time try and understand what’s said rather than assuming you know what’s been said.

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3438947&postcount=9

You’d find I actually say at one point “But it doesn’t have to be a gun, this attitude is about having ‘equalizing’ power, the ability to threaten”

**

Bottom line again is you have claimed that restricting/banning guns will help solve societal problems.

That exactly what I haven’t been saying, you clearly haven’t been reading what I’ve been writing or you only see what you want to see, and all you seem to see is an attack on guns which you have to defend, you don’t seem interested in anything else, it seems to have really clouded your mind and blinked your outlook.

I don’t think that gun regulation alone could solve societal problems; I’ve made it clear time and again that it is only a minor part of a much larger holistic policy, as you say below. But you seem fixated on that one thing while seemingly uninterested in all the rest.

And anyway the regulations I have been pushing for are the ones you thought were good are more about reducing harm while other policies try to make a better and more secure society.

I have given you example after example where this tactic has been tried and the resulting data shown no impact on these problems.

No you haven’t, you have expressed opinions that are often based on the biased interpretation of selective data, which when criticised you seem unable to defend and just repeat endlessly as if the criticisms haven’t been made.

You claim this is only a small part of your “holistic approach”. I have asked you about this “holistic approach” many times yet you refused define what each (or any) of the parts of this “holistic approach” is supposed to accomplish.

WOW man, are you honestly saying you haven’t read the hundreds of posts of explanation I’ve written on varying aspects of the holistic approach, the thousands upon thousands of words of often detailed explanation?

No wonder you often seem completely ignorant of what’s been said many times over.

A) About your claim that gun owners see gun ownership as a way to ignore social programs, what is your evidence to support this claim? What must a gun owner do to fit in with your definition of having given thought to societal problems?

Hell Pitt I think I’ve been explaining this in about every other post for well over six months!

Just look above you’ll find many examples, in fact there is one in this very post, if you’ve missed every single one of them, what have you been doing here, because clearly you cannot have been reading my posts.

I know you are not dumb so I’m assuming this must be some type of dishonest trickery you are trying to pull.

I’ve being pointing out that many Americans that I’ve talked to on these forums and elsewhere seem a lot less interested (to the point of silence sometimes) in discussing their society’s problems as they are in defending and promoting guns as a way of tackling such problems.

This lead me to a theory that guns are seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of their society’s problems.

You are a case in point – although I’ve repeatedly asked you, you refuse to discuss your ideas beyond the simplistic although you have been vehement in your attempts to defend and promote gun ownership as a way to deal with some social problems.

B) You claim banning/restricting guns will improve societal problems. What evidence or examples of successful bans/restrictions can you provide in support of this claim?

I think a holistic approach aimed at improving socio-economic wellbeing and changing the cultural and political landscape would be good for your society.

The gun regulations I’ve been promoting are the ones you thought were good.

But once again you make my point for me – you don’t seem interested at all in the social, economic, cultural and political problems all you mind is concentrated on defending guns.

C) You claim its only a part of a “holistic approach”. If you put this holistic approach together then you must have thought about the implications of its many parts. I have challenged you by asking you this many times and you have not answered yet. If a part of your “holistic Approach” in not effective would not the time, effort and money be better spent on something that is effective?

Challenged me on what? You have told me I’m wrong and you’ve told me that everything I’ve said to support my ideas is invalid, but that is not challenging what I’ve said it’s just ignoring it.

As to the time, effort and money being better spent on something more effective, the thing is that so far you haven’t actually shown the gun regulations (that you thought were good ideas) wouldn’t be effective, you’ve expressed an opinion that it wouldn’t and I’ve given my reason for thinking that opinion is mistaken, so far you haven’t addressed what I’ve said, beyond just telling me I’m wrong without giving a reason why.

Anyway in such matters it is very hard to completely predict how effective any action might be or even what effects it might have, but even the examples you’ve being giving are not a simple as you wish to display them.

For example in England and Wales gun murders have gone up and down for years as I’ve pointed out in 1996 there were only 49 gun-related homicides but in 1995 there were 70 and in 1993, 74 by 1999 three years after the ban the figure is again 49. I believe new recording methods came in to effect around 02 and that year the count was 97 but fell to 81 in 03 and 68 in 04 rose again to 78 in 05 and then fell to 49 in 06 and risen again in 07 to 58.

But according to the home office overall, violent crime, has dropped significantly since 1995

Is this solely and purely down to gun regulation, I doubt it, I think a lot of social, economic and even political factors were involved but that’s been my point all along.

And the thing is that I’m very critical of many of the policies followed by governments in the Uk and believe that they could have done a lot more to make Britain a better and securer society.

The thing is all you seem interested in is in defending and promoting gun ownership.

**

You claim to have thought about all of these social programs/policies you wish to implement yet it is plainly obvious that you have only thought them up and not thought them through. It must mean that the anti-gun is only concerned about banning restricting guns not matter what the outcome is, no matter weather it has been tried before.

How is it plainly obvious that I’ve not thought my ideas through? I mean you haven’t been that interested in discussing them so how would you know? You even imply you haven’t read most of them so again I find it hard to believe you know what they are let alone how much thought has been given to them.

All you seem interested in is one minor part of my general idea, which is in turn actually based on ideas you thought were good.

**

You speak of analytical examination of ideas yet you refuse to look at your own ideas analytically.

Again how do you know you haven’t really put them to test. I’m very happy to discuss them.

But my major problem so far has been that if you don’t like something you prefer to ignore it rather than discuss it.

**

You claim that gun owners use guns so they wont have to think about societal problems however you are proving that the anti-gun use gun bans/restrictions so they do not have to think about societies real problems and the causes. All of your post back up this theory. YOU are backing up my theory.

This isn’t very clear.

Do you mean that what I’m trying to do is promoting gun regulations and are not really interested in discussing societal problems?

If so why am I always trying to get away from gun regulation and asking repeatedly to discuss societal problems?

Why am I always asking you to stop talking endlessly about guns and expand on you very sparse ideas of what you see as your society’s problems and you rather slim ideas on what to do about them?

Please, pretty please, pretty please with cherries on top, will you explain what you mean by ‘the me thing’, and what you see as constituting materialism and hedonism and can you go beyond homilies in saying how you would combat your society’s problems?

So far you have refused to do so and instead preferring to concentrate almost totally on guns and there role in tackling crime.

And that fits in with my theory.

**

 

As I have said before any gun ban/restriction seems to never be enough for the anti-gun people.

The only regulations I’ve actually been promoting are the ones you thought were good.
Anyway I found this post rather dishonest it seemed to be a lot more about point scoring than gaining any type of clarity.
Again you bring up something you know I dropped over a year ago and I don’t believe I’ve suggested since and isn’t even related to what the discussion has been about for many months.
Then you claim that making up a story about an old woman getting beaten to death because she didn’t have a gun to protect her, is exactly the same as pointing out that sometimes criminals in the UK because they are unable to get their hands on ‘real’ guns spend a lot of time and effort in bringing back to life ‘deactivated’ ones.
The claim being that they are both about ‘invoking fear’ but the two don’t seem comparable.
The quote that’s meant to instil fear according to you is “Deactivated guns are not capable of firing live ammunition, but criminals often alter them for re-use”
It doesn’t seem very frightening - on the other hand if it had gone on to say that ‘then the criminals uses the guns to shot dead little old ladies for the few coins in their pockets’ then yes, but actually it doesn’t,
Very unlike your story which went and I quote “criminal finds old lady in bedroom and proceeds to beat her in order to find where she might have any valuables hidden. Old lady dies from severe beating”
**
And the thing you say is in ‘bold type’ is in fact a headline, which usually are in bold.
You also make a thing of there only being 8 RECORDED uses of a reactivated gun without mentioning that in many case the type of gun is unidentified or unknown and the police think that 10% of gun crimes involve such a weapons.
**
And while you associate me with Jacqui Smith’s ideas in fact she is a spokeswoman for a political party I don’t support and don’t agree with on many things.
But there is something of interest here there is talk of tackling the "cultural and social acceptance of violence" and that there is a need for “a rigorous, long-term and holistic approach to the scourge of gun-crime” and that from our right wing political party.
This again makes my point this is something that is absent in my conversations with many Americans they don’t seem to be thinking about social problems but just in seeing guns as a way of dealing with them.

 

Hear hear!

LOL

Poor Michael, of course you are going to cheer, you’re a hanger on without it seems many ideas of your own, so like most lackeys or yes people you shout yes yes or hear hear at other peoples words even when it's very probable you don’t really understand anything that being said.

**

 

Pitt

We still have this problem of you choosing what you will and will not ignore.

And you’re basically ignoring anything I say that doesn’t suit you.

It’s very fortunate for you since you’re able to push your views without the hindrance of having to acknowledge any criticism.

But is honest?


**

 

you know, dirk, any time i wonder if you're still alive, i just check this thread.

 

your determination and persistence are legendary.

 

at least you haven't gone off and killed anyone yet.

 

amazing. we gun crazy americans aren't known for being all that smart.