Guncrazy USA

Just joking. Hate borns hate. Enyone should out their guns by their own will.
Guns should not be confiscated but the industrial should stop producting them. Working in gun industry and gun production is worse even than to be a solder.

 

Hi sorry took so long to reply my child had an ear infection.

Anyway where were we.

*

You’ve said some of my policies are good then gone on to say they are not many times seemingly without any explanation at all. You have supported some of my ideas then attacked them, again with seemingly little or no explanation. Often you views are contradictory and seemingly based totally on a belief that you are right and other wrong.

Yes I have said some of your “ideas” seem good on the surface and deserve closer examination.

But this is what I’ve been saying when I try to examine things more closely you refuse to do so or block further debate or just ignore what I’m saying.

*

You take this to mean that it is fully supported which is a falsehood on your part.

I’ve never taken it to mean you whole heartily support anything only that you did give it tacit support once and then seemed to go against it with little explanation.

*

I have explained at length why I do not support the ones I have stated I would not support.

Like preferring criminals to get hold of stolen weapons because mandatory gun safes would be an inconvenience to gun owners?

It’s not exactly an overwhelming reason to be against compared with the alternative.

I’ve being trying to get you to discuss your viewpoint but (as can be seen above) you seem reluctant to do so.

*

I have asked questions and stated concerns about the ones which I have stated deserve closer examination.

And I’ve answered you questions and addressed you concerns (if you believe I haven’t please quote or link to where you believe I haven’t).

*

It has nothing to do with personal belief or bias but rather with the effectiveness of these proposals versus the reduction of personal rights and liberty. You on the other hand refuse to examine these proposals and instead exclaim that they were wholly supported and then attacked.

But the so call reductions in what you seem to be grandly calling ‘rights and liberties’ don’t seem that drastic they seem only like inconveniences to gun owners.

I’d be pleased to discuss this difference of opinion if you where only willing to do so.

Anyway the point is that the gun regulation part of my holistic approach are not that major when compared to the other sections.

But you in line with my theory only seem interested with this one small part.

Again in what way does this go against my theories?

-----------

The only thing that you have being vehemently supported as ‘good’ is guns as a way of tackling societal problems (such as crime), why you seem to think this I’m still unsure about because you seem reluctant to examine it, with one moment seeming to claim they are needed because they have a deterrent effect and the next seemingly claiming they don’t, a contradiction you seem reluctant to address or debate.

This is another complete lie. I have stated many times that guns will not tackle social problems.

No, this is something I’ve mentioned and explained several times that you do not address. You seem to say one thing then push something else. So far you have told me I’m wrong but you haven’t actually addressed what I’ve said.

*

If you are going to continue to exclaim such a falsehood no matter what has been said, it shows your unwillingness to even examine your own proposals. There is no contradiction and this has been explained to you hundreds of times and yet you once again refuse to listen and continue to spout your falsehoods.

Yes there does seem to be a contradiction as I’ve shown more than once, just saying there isn’t, doesn’t make my argument go away.

If you truly believe you have addressed this issue please link to it or quote it and prove me wrong, because I don’t believe you have put up any substantial argument so far and you’re defiantly not defending it from my criticisms.

-----------

Your view was that …. “if they cannot buy a gun legally they will just turn to the black market (just as convicted ex-felons do now) to purchase the weapon of choice”

Can you dispute this statement? How do you explain that in the UK handguns are completely illegal yet they are used often in crime there? The same in the US if a convicted felon is subsequently caught with a weapon then he has acquired it illegally on the black market as it is against the law to legally purchase one.

I’m sure I’m not the only one that would notice you haven’t answered the question – so what is the point of any laws?

As to disputing the statement, in the UK it is pretty hard even for criminals to get hold of a ‘real’ gun that is why so many replicas and ‘re-activated’ guns are used in the UK. Over here it is not just a matter of ‘just turning to the black market’.

--------

As I said - It basically seems to be saying – ‘What’s the point in forbidding psychologically unstable people or criminals from buying or owning guns legally since they’ll just get illegal ones anyway’.

That is not what was said at all. In fact I have supported the NICS improvement act many times which improves the probability of preventing these people from legally purchasing a gun. A policy which you have disregarded as insufficient and unimportant.

Again I’m sure I’m not the only one that would notice you haven’t answered the question – so what is the point of any laws?

And I didn’t just “disregard” the NICS policy or think it unimportant as you claim. I actually said when discussing before - and I quote - “I’m not against that law as I’ve already mentioned, I would just like something more”.

Once again you make some accusations that don’t turn out to hold up to scrutiny.

You position seems to be increasingly based in falsehoods, making claims that don’t stand up to scrutiny and accusations that have no foundation.

-----------

I’ve spoken of the treatment of mental health within the framework of my proposals for universal healthcare and of education programmes to educate and assist people and of counselling been given to those that need it. Changing the idea of having mental health problems being seen as a stigma, which needs to be hidden, into that of a common illness with no prejudice attached to it? Hopefully this will identify and treat those with problems.

All of which is good as I have said and can stand alone without being tied into guns. This very tie in with gun purchases is addressed with the NICS improvement act.

No not really, because it doesn’t cover those that may have problems but never formally diagnosed.

As you pointed out, when we discussed this before, many shooters had shown symptoms of mental instability before acting violently but never received the help they so obviously needed.

As far as I can tell you answer so far has been along the lines of people arming themselves in case of attacks, but you don’t seem to have thought about what ways to deal with things before an attack. That is besides a suggestion you mooted about work colleagues, friends and family reporting ‘unstable’ behaviour to the police so they can come and take them in for questioning, which as I pointed out at the time seemed a much greater infringement of a persons rights and liberties than anything I’d proposed.

-----------

‘they will just turn’ – you point seeming to be that if someone cannot buy a gun legally well they will just get an illegal one, which implies that there seems little point in having laws forbidding people from having legal guns because they will just get an illegal one.

Again this has been explained to you over and over.

I don’t think so, so please quote or link to where you claim you do.

*

I have said nothing about doing away with the existing gun laws and have even said to get more stringent enforcement of these laws. You once again continue to spin what is said to try and make something match up to your POV.

Again this is that problem between what you claim to be saying and what you actually say.

If your view is that any regulation prohibiting gun ownership is useless or ineffective at best because if someone wants a gun it is easy to just get one illegally then what is the point of any regulation?

To me it is about trying to reduce harm while trying to tackle the societal problems behind the symptoms.

Your major concern seems to be about not stepping on the toes gun owners.

Which do you think is the nobler cause?

-------

And the fact is that the proposals were aimed in trying to limit the black market by for example, making the stealing of guns much more difficult by bringing in mandatory gun safes.
At the moment you are opposing this which would seem to indicate you are the one not wanting to tackle the black market.

Another perfect example of your lying and spinning of other peoples post. What you are saying is if you are not with me you are against me and for the criminals. I have asked you questions and pointed out problems and concerns in regards to “mandatory” gun safes. I have questioned how effective this would be versus the right of personal protection and you have never addressed these concerns.

My point backed up with direct quotes from yourself was that your arguments opposing mandatory gun safes don’t seem that substantial, my aim is to try and limit the number of guns getting into the hands of criminals your only concerns seemed to be with the inconvenience the measure would have to gun owners.

I’ve brought up this point several times and so far you haven’t addressed it beyond just telling me I’m wrong.

**

 

“Might agree with initial evaluation, but more inclined to base it more along the lines of CCW where you are recertified on an annual basis”

Yes I remember that and as I have said you are portraying this as wholesale agreement when the operative word (in fact the very first word) is “MIGHT”. This implies further discussion is necessary.

So are you saying this meant a complete disagreement?

And are you saying that you are now willing to discuss it further without blocking the debate or ignoring what I say?

If you are, please go ahead.

--------

Again I’ll ask wouldn’t the attacker if he’d been armed with a gun rather than a knife had had a real advantage over the other person?

Again this very type of scenario has been reported on many times. Have you read any of these reports? Its evident you have not. Once again I will explain. A very high percentage of criminals even armed criminals when confronted by an intended armed victim will turn and flee, ending the conflict. So what is the real advantage?

So you are saying categorically that if someone has the gun out and pointed at another person, they actually do not have an advantage over that other person?

----------

As it was he pulled a knife and the other saw him off with a chair, he wasn’t armed, he wasn’t armed with a bigger knife (remember Crocodile Dundee) all he did was pick up a chair and use it to hit the other man.

In other words the intended victim armed himself with the best thing he could muster at the time and fought back causing an end to the conflict.

But could the man have defended himself with a chair against a man with a gun?

-------

But I’m not the one arguing that guns are a good way of tackling crime as you seem to be.

Nor am I making that claim. And you did NOT answer the question.

But actually you are, your statement was “are you saying that in every encounter in which the victim is NOT armed at all ends well” suggesting once again that it is better for people to be armed (with a gun).

---------

I don’t think guns are a good way to tackle crime and think that a more secure society should be sort not through the threat of arms but through social, economic, cultural and political change and reform.

Again I have reiterated many times guns will not tackle crime but can protect individuals in individual potential violent circumstances.

But you have gone on to explain (on many occasion) that because criminals know individuals might be armed it deters them from acting, in other words it is a way of tackling general crime through threat.

----------

No you haven’t addressed the issue.

I believe I have addressed it many times over you just refuse to listen.

If you believe you have addressed this please quote or link to the relevant section.

But to say again, there seems to be a contradiction between some things you claim you say and what you do say.

So you can express the belief that guns are a good way of tackling crime and not having one can mean being beaten to death.

While at the same time claiming that guns are not a good way of tackling crime and you do not promote guns.

The thing is that when I explain this and asks you to explain why you do it you refuse or simply ignore my questions.

-------

So you can express the belief that guns are a good way of tackling crime and not having one can mean being beaten to death.

In certain circumstances yes as you have been shown by the DGU stories.

As I’ve said you have many, many times expressed the idea that being armed is a way of tackling crime on a personal and general level. But you have also claimed you don’t.

Please explain this seeming contradiction?

--------

While at the same time claiming that guns are not a good way of tackling crime and you do not promote guns.

Again tackling crime refers to solving it on wholesale scales which has never been promoted.

Tackling and solving are two very different things –

Tackling is more about checking or barring while solving is about find solutions or coming to a conclusion.

You have seemingly being pushing the idea of checking criminal behaviour using the threat of arms as a deterrent while I’ve been trying to argue for understand so that some conclusions can be found for criminal behaviour, so that possible solution can be found for it.

---------

So the real world gun related deaths of over 10,000 in the US are just…what… ‘the depends’ bits?

You asked about who had the advantage. This would depend on the individual circumstance would it not?

I agree so in the situation described, the initial advantage was with the person pulling the knife, but he lost that advantage because the knife was not a range weapon and the other person just had to step back and pick up a chair, the attacker then lost the advantage because the knife couldn’t get passed or through the chair.

On the other hand if the man had had a gun, who would have had the advantage?

*

Once again you take one statement and try to rewrite it and spin it to fit your POV.

Not really I gave an explanation of my position

To repeat - the attacker was the one carrying a weapon (in this case a knife), so presumably in a world were guns were as plentiful and easy to obtain as knifes, then the attacker being the type to carry a weapon would be armed with a gun.
Your answer to this (as seemingly always) is that people should be armed with a gun themselves. But the attacker still has the advantage of pulling the gun first and is more likely to shot the other if he fears they are attempting to pull a gun.

As I say you solution is once again gun based (remember the victim chased off the knife wielder) and is likely to make a bad situation even worse.

In this case the knife wielder ran away because he was being hit with a chair, if he’d had a gun it might of being different.

--------

As I said - the attacker was the one carrying a weapon (in this case a knife), so presumably in a world were guns were as plentiful and easy to obtain as knifes, then the attacker being the type to carry a weapon would be armed with a gun.

How do you come to this conclusion? According to you in the US guns are plentiful and easy to acquire thus meaning there should be very little if any knife crime which is simply untrue.

What are you saying – that in America the attacker would have had a knife but the other a gun, why, because that is how you want it?

Anyway you have agreed that there is a lot more gun related crime in the US.

------

Your answer to this (as seemingly always) is that people should be armed with a gun themselves. But the attacker still has the advantage of pulling the gun first and is more likely to shot the other if he fears they are attempting to pull a gun.

Then once again explain all of the DGU’s in which the criminal is armed with a gun and the intended victim draws a gun after the fact and the criminal is thwarted, run off or detained for police to arrive at a later time?

So let’s get this straight – an attacker has drawn a gun and has it pointed at another person – are you arguing that the prudent course of action is to dismiss the threat of the gun pointing directly at their chest and casually pull out their own gun in the hope that the attacker will then run away?

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

In this case the knife wielder ran away because he was being hit with a chair, if he’d had a gun it might of being different.

You are using words such as “if” “maybe” showing this to be a supposition on your part. I have shown you real world reports based on facts which you routinely ignore because they don’t fit in with your POV.

LOL - oh hell Pitt, is this it, is this, the sum of your argument these days?

And so do you think it might have been different if the man had had a gun not a knife?

As to the DGU we’ve been through it many times why not address what I’ve said rather than just ignoring it?


-------

I’m not saying such an attack is ok I’m trying to point out that such attacks usually have a reason, and that they are likely to have a social, economic or cultural root that can be tackled in other way than at the point of a gun.

That is correct in essence yet in that very instant neither the criminal or the victim is interested in why it happened they only want it to end. As I have said hundreds of times if you solve those “social, economic or cultural root” problems the problem of gun murder and gun violence will solve themselves.

So why re you seemingly uninterested in thinking about those social, economic or cultural roots let alone wondering about ways to solve them?

-------

This is what you seem to do you seem to be constantly pushing the virtue of being armed but don’t actually seem to be that interested in about the reasons behind why you think you need to be armed.

And you constantly promote the idea that if one owns or carries a gun that means they are not interested in these reasons. This is completely untrue and you have been shown this.

No you haven’t shown my theory to be untrue, you have loudly claimed it is wrong but that seemed only based on you claim it is wrong.

My theory is that many Americans seem to see guns as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring societal problems.

This means they concentrate on gun ownership as a way of tackling such problems as crime while giving little thought to alternatives.

You seem to concentrate on the defence and promotion of guns as a way of tackling crime while seemingly giving little thought to your societies problems or how to deal with them.

----------

Why are studies needed when so far you have been unable to defend your own studies from criticisms?

So your unsupported opinion carries more weight than an academic study? Hail st balbus the omniscient.

So can you quote or link to an opinion you believe isn’t supported?

LOL and if you think academics are omnipotent you will be very disappointed if you meet any of them, as I’ve told you before they are just people.

I mean are you saying here that you are unable to think for yourself that you just accept without question what the last academic says to you?

You must have thought about why you support one set of views over another beyond that of just ‘believing’ it right?

------

I’m not saying laws or regulations cannot be criticized, I’m saying there needs to be some reasoning to the criticism.

I have given you the reasons to criticize it. It has made no difference in the rate of gun murder and gun crime in the UK. In other words “ineffective” as I have said many times over.

Did you read what came next Pitt? Maybe you should read it.

Your argument against the hand gun ban seems to be that it has done no harm. And violent crime has not risen as you believed it would if hand guns were banned. There have been no more dunblane incidents and actually violent crime has dropped.

This doesn’t seem like a failed policy, at best you could argue it hasn’t achieved its full potential but then it is hampered by other policies that work against it.

Your only opposition seem to be that the very small number of people that legally owned hand guns before the ban can’t now.

---------

Your argument against the hand gun ban seems to be that it has done no harm.

It has done no good either.

That’s your opinion not a fact since you don’t know if the law has you can only guess that it hasn’t.

------

And violent crime has not risen as you believed it would if hand guns were banned.

I have stated the studies show there is NO correlation between gun availability and crime rates.

No you have presented studies were the opinion of the authors was that the interpretation of the selected data pointed to there been no correlation a position that has been criticised and which criticisms have not yet been addressed by you.

And to quote you - “The UK violent crime has risen DRAMITICALLY since the gun ban as the criminals know that they are less likely to meet resistance”

You have recently claimed this correct that guns have a effect on crime rates but you are at the same time claiming that you believe guns do not have an effect on crime.

Which is it?

--------

There have been no more dunblane incidents and actually violent crime has dropped.

In the UK gun murder has always been rare. In the UK school shootings even more rare. You believe the gun ban has prevented any more school shootings.

I don’t know if the handgun ban has had an effect or not, I do know there haven’t been any.

*

Yet in your own words how can you be certain as you cannot compare this fact to a UK that had not implemented the gun ban.

I’m not certain but I do know there haven’t been any.

*

The fact is they were extremely rare to begin with and they are still extremely rare.

Yes but, what’s your point?

*

Also GUN crime and GUN murder has not dropped.

Has it or hasn’t it, the figures are hard to gauge going up and down, and with the changes in the recording methods having changed (more than once I believe) since the ban its even harder to say. It seems to have roughly stayed the same, while the population has raisen and demographical variations have changed.

But gun regulation alone is not going to affect some types of crime such as those associated with the drugs trade.

----------

I don’t think at this point the law needs changing if that is what you mean but the policies of the political part are very important as I’ve said many times I think they’ve got it wrong because although they have done some things right, they still are not tackling the illegal drugs trade for one thing or some other social problems.

That does not answer the question. The question is very clear. Let me phrase it as elementary as possible.

In 1996-1997 were you in support of the gun ban?

Can’t even remember it being enacted, as I’ve said it wasn’t a major concern.

Today are you still in support of the 1997 Dunblane gun ban?

As I’ve said I don’t think at this point the law needs changing.

What does your political party affiliation have to do with either of the above questions?

The policies of differing political party’s are very important as I’ve said many times I think successive governments have got it wrong because although they have done some things right, they still are not tackling the illegal drugs trade for one thing or some other social problems.

You see, you concentrate on guns and ignore the bigger picture in fact you seem uninterested in the bigger picture.

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

But you said and I quote “The UK violent crime has risen DRAMITICALLY since the gun ban as the criminals know that they are less likely to meet resistance”

Violent crime has indeed risen dramatically since 1997 surpassing the US.

The Home Office figures say it has fallen since 1995 can you please explain why you think them wrong?

*

Criminals have has a certain amount of fear taken away because they know they are unlikely to meet unarmed resistance.

This is what I mean, you CLAIM loudly that you don’t believe guns are a way of tackling crime them you SAY that you think guns are a way of tackling crime.

Can you please explain the seeming contradiction?

---------

So the only thing the do influence is the huge number of gun related deaths in the US compared with some other countries, such as the UK.

As I have pointed out to you many times over. The US has had historically many times more murders than the UK. This can be traced back over 200 years. Now there are a higher number of guns available than ever before and fewer than ever in the UK yet the gap has decreased somewhat.

Hell pitt we’ve been through this seemingly a million time.

In a nutshell -

I agree the UK and US societies are different, it seems Americans are much more likely to see the threat or use of violence (and so guns) as a means of solving problems so the availability of guns is going to have a greater impact within that society than in many others.

----------

You have presented arguments and then been unable and unwilling to defend them against opposing view all you seem to do is re-present your argument without reference to the criticisms levelled at them and declare you are right and others wrong.

But your criticisms are baseless. They are founded on nothing but your LONE opinion.

The question is not if it is one or a million the question is can you defend your ideas and address the criticisms levelled at them?

As to my criticisms being ‘baseless’ I’ve shown that this is just an excuse you use for not answering them. All you are doing is claim something invalid because you’ve ignored what’s been said.

As pointed out before it a neat trick but not honest.

So please quote or link to a criticism that you believe is baseless?

-------

Ok so please quote or link to where I’ve supposedly ‘blocked the discussion’?

I have given you reasons to not require “mandatory” gun safes. Your response to those reasons and concerns is:
They “don’t seem very overwhelming and rather petty”.
In other words you don’t care what others think you only want to push your agenda.

So you cannot link or quote to anywhere I’ve ‘blocked the discussion’ the only thing you do is selectively quote – but let us look at the full quote

“You have said flatly that you are against the idea of mandatory gun safes that’s my point, what you seem to be putting up as reasons for this stance don’t seem very overwhelming and rather petty, as I’ve said before if you can explain why they are not please do so?!”

So what’s that - if you can explain why they are not please do so?

In other words please let us carry on discussing this, how does that get changed to blocking discussion in you mind?

Once again an accusation seems to be more about malicious point scoring that a desire for genuine debate.

**

 

Yet you know they are talking ‘bull shit’ without knowing, because that’s what you want and so to you it seemingly becomes instantly a ‘fact’.

No I am saying that the numbers presented do not add up. The facts as presented do not jive out. The seemingly impossibility to get to 10% is very evident. You have the number of crimes, you have the number of crimes in which a “reactivated” weapon was used. You have the number of crimes with “unidentified” weapons. The probability that the “unknown” weapons were in fact “reactivated” weapons would have to be so great in comparison to the known ones it is very probably impossible to get the total number up to 10%.
You cannot show a flaw in this logic so instead you just deny it and run for cover.

I’m not denying it, I’m saying I don’t know what the police are basing their figures on and since they don’t seem to say in that short news article I don’t think you do either.

Yet you know they are talking ‘bull shit’ without knowing, because that’s what you want and so to you it seemingly becomes instantly a ‘fact’.


--------

I’ve said over and over that I’m not claiming to be right; I’m just expressing an opinion or presenting theories that seem to fit in with what I’ve read and heard.

Yet when you “expressed opinion” is challenged or criticized with known facts you just dismiss them offhandedly.

Where are these challenges and criticisms that you claim are based on known facts, please quote them or link to them?

You have presented arguments and opinions based on an interpretation of selective data, but we’ve been through such things and I’ve shown that such data can be interpreted differently and most of those criticisms are as yet unaddressed by you.

---------

Lol so tell me how many of these WalMart employees were affected by the last min wage increase? You speak of nothing but a feel good policy which accomplished nothing in reality.

To me the aim of my policy(s) as I’ve said many times is to bring about a better, securer society.

Is ther an answer to that question in there somewhere? I think NOT.

What question? How many Wal-Mart employees were affected by the last min wage increase? In what way was that relevant to what was said? It seems more like a way of derailing the debate by bringing up an irrelevance.

Did you actually read what I said or just the one line you quote?

To me the aim of my policy(s) as I’ve said many times is to bring about a better, securer society.

I said that one of the ways to make a better and securer society would be by trying to curb the effects of consumerist and exploitative forms of capitalism, and moving away from destructive forms of individualism by promoting a communal spirit, where people don’t see their fellow citizens as potential exploiters, as threats.

This is the reason why I’m in favour of a minimum wage.

The minimum wage should be set at an amount that not only allows a person or family to survive but allows them to prosper in a reasonable way (so they have money left over after essentials).

To me what it says about a society is that it cares for its citizens and is going to protect them from exploitation.

Do you reject that goal and if so why?

I mean in the view you seem to be championing gives the impression that exploitation is ok, that if you can get away with paying someone a wage that doesn’t even cover the essentials that is ok.

-------

What should the minimum wage be?
The minimum wage should be set at an amount that not only allows a person or family to survive but allows them to prosper in a reasonable way (so they have money left over after essentials).

So in other words you have no idea.

It should be set at an amount that not only allows a person or family to survive but allows them to prosper in a reasonable way (so they have money left over after essentials).

---------

Would it be the same in New York as it is in say rural MS?
The minimum wage should be set at an amount that not only allows a person or family to survive but allows them to prosper in a reasonable way (so they have money left over after essentials). That of course would be different in different places.

Well there ya go. We already have a federal minimum wage and many states already have minimum wages that are above the federal ones. So since you are suggesting the same thing we already have, you must have not thought much about it.

This is the problem Pitt, you want to score points rather than think about the subject under discussion.

To me the aim of my policy(s) as I’ve said many times is to bring about a better, securer society.

I said that one of the ways to make a better and securer society would be by trying to curb the effects of consumerist and exploitative forms of capitalism, and moving away from destructive forms of individualism by promoting a communal spirit, where people don’t see their fellow citizens as potential exploiters, as threats.

This is the reason why I’m in favour of a minimum wage.

The minimum wage should be set at an amount that not only allows a person or family to survive but allows them to prosper in a reasonable way (so they have money left over after essentials).

To me what it says about a society is that it cares for its citizens and is going to protect them from exploitation.

-----------

How do you balance the new minimum wage with production cost passed on to consumers? –
Your view seems to be that profits and executive wages should remain high and so any increases should not dip into those but be passed on to the consumer. I’m not so sure of that.

No I don’t say that at all. Your view seems to be that the owner of a factory (who takes all the risk to start up) should make no more than the starting factory worker.

I don’t actually say that but I do think that CEO’s pay shouldn’t be excessive.

For example according to The State of Working America, 2002/2003 By Lawrence Mishel, et al. In 1965 the CEO’s of major US companies earned 26.0 times more than an average worker but by the end of 2000 it had reached 310.0 times.

*

That each business should be non profit.

Again I haven’t said that but I do think that share and profit maximisation (as at Enron and during the dot com and housing booms) over giving a good and sustainable service or product is not good for consumers, companies, and a country and doesn’t produce a better society but only gorges the pockets of the wealthy elites.

*

Will the factory workers take a pay cut when the factory hits hard times? Will the people be willing to be paid wages based on the P&L sheets?

People often do take a pay cut or get laid off during hard times and it hits those with fewer assets much harder than those with greater.

-----------

But knowing or thinking up ways to implement something is not the same as thinking about the things being implemented and wondering if it is about making a better or worse society in your opinion.

Asking about the balance between MW and Production cost increases does in fact show thinking about weather or not it will make a better society or not.

Ok then please explain why in your opinion the balance between MW and Production cost increases does in fact show thinking about whether or not it will make a better society or not.

----------

Think about it - to you the question seems to be how not why, you don’t seem interested in why something would be good or bad for society to implement you’re gauging its worth on how efficient it might be or what the details are.

Well hell lets have the government pay everyone in the country the same amount each week. This will take away and fix the entire wealth gap problems that exist. A fine idea do you not think so? Who cares how to accomplish it? Who cares what consequences there may be? Right?

Wrong, again you don’t seem to think about what’s been said you seem more interested in make fatuous comments or point scoring.

Are you interested in why something would be good or bad for society?

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

So shouldn’t you be wondering it mandatory gun safes and the minimum wage were good for your society rather than be asking what type and how much?

So you believe as I just said one should think about solutions and damn the possible consequences, effectiveness, or how to implement these ideas. Seems rather limiting to me. Seems rather lie another “feel good” “knee jerk” policy making procedure to me. I guess this is really what you want. To feel good and damn the consequences and effects on others.

Again you are so quick to scream ‘I told you so’ that you miss the point being made.

I’ll try and explain again.

Imagine someone is opposed to another’s views but hasn’t thought why or have any reasonable alternatives so to try and scupper the ideas he goes for detail as a way of blocking or discrediting it.

As I was trying to point out I can think of better reasons for opposing the Nazis genocide plans than if they had enough cattle trucks to implement it.

The aim of my policy(s) as I’ve said many times is to bring about a better, securer society.

Are you opposing that goal or are you saying you have alternative ideas for achieving it and if so what are they?

------

 

And only last week we have another tragic shooting in the US, six more dead, in a city council meeting.

Now I remember a lot being said here about the last shooting and how an armed person being there stopped it and the implication that if people were armed and trained in firearms such things wouldn’t happen or be stopped before people died.

Well in this case of the six people killed two seem to have been armed and presumably trained police officers.



**

 

I'll be adding here news from shooting in shools:
Illinnois today: 16 dead.

Name Location Date/Year
University of Texas at Austin massacre Austin, Texas, United States August 1, 1966
Orangeburg Massacre Orangeburg, South Carolina, United States February 8, 1968
Kent State shootings Kent, Ohio, United States May 4, 1970
Jackson State killings Jackson, Mississippi, United States May 14-15, 1970
California State University, Fullerton Library Massacre Fullerton, California, United States July 12, 1976
Cleveland Elementary School shooting San Diego, California, United States January 29, 1979
Parkway South Junior High School shooting Saint Louis, Missouri, United States January 20, 1983
Stockton massacre Stockton, California, United States January 17, 1989
University of Iowa shooting Iowa City, Iowa, United States November 1, 1991
Simon's Rock College of Bard shooting Great Barrington, Massachusetts, United States December 14, 1992
Lindhurst High School shooting Marysville, California, United States May 1, 1992
East Carter High School shooting Grayson, Kentucky, United States January 18, 1993
Richland High School shooting Lynnville, Tennessee, United States November 15, 1995
Frontier Junior High shooting Moses Lake, Washington, United States February 2, 1996
Bethel High School shooting Bethel, Alaska, United States February 19, 1997
Pearl High School shooting Pearl, Mississippi, United States October 1, 1997
Heath High School shooting West Paducah, Kentucky United States December 1, 1997
Jonesboro massacre Jonesboro, Arkansas, United States March 24, 1998
Parker Middle School Shooting Edinboro, Pennsylvania April 24, 1998
Thurston High School shooting Springfield, Oregon, United States May 21, 1998
Columbine High School massacre Littleton, Colorado, United States April 20, 1999
Heritage High School shooting Conyers, Georgia, United States May 20, 1999
Buell Elementary School shooting Mount Morris Township, Michigan, United States February 29, 2000
Santana High School shooting Santee, California, United States March 5, 2001
Granite Hills High School shooting El Cajon, California March 22, 2001
Appalachian School of Law shooting Grundy, Virginia, United States January 16, 2002
John McDonogh High School Shooting New Orleans, LA, United States April 14, 2003
Red Lion Area Junior High School shootings Red Lion, Pennsylvania, United States April 24, 2003
Rocori High School shootings Cold Spring, Minnesota, United States September 24, 2003
Red Lake High School massacre Red Lake, Minnesota, United States March 21, 2005
Campbell County High School shooting Jacksboro, Tennessee November 8, 2005
Pine Middle School shooting Reno, Nevada, United States March 14, 2006
Platte Canyon High School shooting Bailey, Colorado, United States September 27, 2006
Weston High School shooting Cazenovia, Wisconsin September 29, 2006
Amish school shooting Nickel Mines, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, United States October 2, 2006
Virginia Tech massacre Blacksburg, Virginia, United States April 16, 2007
Delaware State University shooting Dover, Delaware, United States September 21, 2007
SuccessTech Academy shooting Cleveland, Ohio, United States October 10, 2007
Notre Dame Elementary shooting Portsmouth, Ohio, United States February 7, 2008
Louisiana Technical College shooting Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States February 8, 2008
Mitchell High School shooting Memphis, Tennessee, United States February 11, 2008
E.O. Green Junior High School shooting Oxnard, California, United States February 12, 2008
McNair High School shooting Atlanta, Georgia, United States February 12, 2008
Northern Illinois University shooting DeKalb, Illinois, United States February 14, 2008

 

Now Illinois

And yet another tragedy, five more people murdered, 16 others injured (some critically) and another gunman’s suicide.

And in today’s paper reporting the incident it said this was the four such incident within a week?

So let’s see how many multiple shootings does that make since I began this particular conversation?

There were the Amish killings in October 2006, 5 dead, the Salt Lake City Mall shootings, 5 dead, the Virginia Tech of course with 32 murdered, the 4 dead in the Colorado church shootings, the Missouri city hall shootings that cost 6 lives and now these Illinois lecture hall murders. (Is that all of them?)

That’s what, 58 gun related murders, just from gunman like shootings in 16 months and of course the domestic and financially motivated shootings go on with what is it about 27 people being killed every day?

Now according to the home office the total number of gun related murders in the UK for the whole of the year 2005/2006 was 50.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

There were no gunman type murders like those mentioned, that happened in the US, most of the UK murders were crime related and the majority of them are connected to one thing the illegal drugs trade.

**

As I’ve pointed out before this seems to point towards differing attitudes toward guns within differing societies and cultures. In the UK people reacted against guns after Dunblane, basically saying never again. Even in Switzerland I believe the killings by Gerold Stadler brought public outcry and heralded stricter gun regulation. But in the US even after many such murders many Americans believe that if only more gun were in circulation things would be better.

Some seem to imply that the British people should have had a different attitude toward Dunblane that they should have shrugged and waited to see if it happened again a few times before deciding what to do (or just got more tooled up).

Now maybe another Dunblane type killing wouldn’t have taken place or maybe it would, and maybe gun regulation stopped it from happening again or maybe it hasn’t that’s difficult to know.

But to me the interesting thing is the differing attitudes, and of course my theories about the prevalence of an attitude of threat and intimidation with American culture, that seems to see guns as a way of solving problems.
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3438947&postcount=9

These theories still have not been seriously contested.


**

 

Ever notice that no one goes on shooting sprees at gun shows or in biker bars.

 

^ hahahahaha

 

Thanks Pitt

As I’ve pointed out before this seems to point towards differing attitudes toward guns within differing societies and cultures. In the UK people reacted against guns after Dunblane, basically saying never again. Even in Switzerland I believe the killings by Gerold Stadler brought public outcry and heralded stricter gun regulation. But in the US even after many such murders many Americans believe that if only more gun were in circulation things would be better.

It fits in with my theories about concentrating on guns as a means of tackling such things rather than the wider societal issues and of course my theories about the prevalence of an attitude of threat and intimidation within American culture, that seems to see guns as a way of solving problems.
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/sho...947&postcount=9

More guns will solve the problem so what’s the point of thinking about alternatives.

As I say cheers for backing up my theories once again.

**

PS: "Are you going to answer this post?"


Oh yes, i'll reply to the lot but when I get around to it (it is long), anyway as I've told you before, you’re not a priority.

 

Pitt

I have discussed where I think the problem here lies and it has nothing whatsoever to do with gun availability.

Please quote or link to these supposed discussions, do you mean your mumbled remarks on hedonism, materialism and the ‘me thing’ but as far as I can tell you don’t seem willing to discuss them even when I expressly ask you do.

And so far you have put up no serious challenge to my theories so I’m unsure what you mean.

So again please quote or link to these discussions.


**

interesting that the Brady Campaign list IL as having the 9th best gun laws in the country. The only states ranking higher was
Californis
Conneticut
Hawaii
Maryland
Mass
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island

We’ve discussed this several times don’t you remember me asking -

Can you tell me the state with the lowest number of gun related homicides? And what is it?

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

And I pointed out -

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

Population of Connecticut is 3. 5 million

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

Population of the UK 60 million”


**

 

Like preferring criminals to get hold of stolen weapons because mandatory gun safes would be an inconvenience to gun owners?

It’s not exactly an overwhelming reason to be against compared with the alternative.

I’ve being trying to get you to discuss your viewpoint but (as can be seen above) you seem reluctant to do so.

Lol just another lie and twisting of statements there balbus?

And again with those assertions, which so far have all turned out to be unsubstantiated or down right false.

And I notice you don’t actually explain why I’m wrong, can you?

So answer that, plus why you think this is a lie and a twisting of the statement?

-----------

I have asked questions and stated concerns about the ones which I have stated deserve closer examination.

And I’ve answered you questions and addressed you concerns (if you believe I haven’t please quote or link to where you believe I haven’t).

(You missed this out – so can you please quote or link to where you believe I haven’t?)

**

But the so call reductions in what you seem to be grandly calling ‘rights and liberties’ don’t seem that drastic they seem only like inconveniences to gun owners.

I’d be pleased to discuss this difference of opinion if you where only willing to do so.

Anyway the point is that the gun regulation part of my holistic approach are not that major when compared to the other sections.

But you in line with my theory only seem interested with this one small part.

Again in what way does this go against my theories?

*

In other words so long as it does not inconvenience you its ok right?

So are you admitting that your argument is based on inconvenience? So you’d prefer criminals to get hold of stolen weapons because mandatory gun safes would be an inconvenience to gun owners?

And can you please answer the question?

---------

But you in line with my theory only seem interested with this one small part.
Again in what way does this go against my theories?

Again I question the EFFECTIVENESS of this part.

No, you claim that it wouldn’t be effective based on what…so far all you seemed to have presented is your belief that it wouldn’t be effective and you don’t seem able to explain why you have that belief.

---------

No, this is something I’ve mentioned and explained several times that you do not address. You seem to say one thing then push something else. So far you have told me I’m wrong but you haven’t actually addressed what I’ve said.

Once again show me where I or anyone else has said that guns will “tackle social problems”?

Like those people who talk of the effectiveness of torture but never call it torture so they can claim they have never said they support torture.

It can be promoted but as long as it’s not actually said, it’s not being promoted.

You promote the idea that guns are a way of tackling crime but as long as you don’t actually say the words you think that allows you to claim you are not promoting that idea.

I’ve given many examples of such promotion and explained why they are basically adverts for gun ownership.

You don’t explain why they are not you just proclaim loudly they are not.

Once more it is the fundamentalist approach to debate – you are right because you are right and so anyone that thinks differently is wrong – I mean who need to explain anything if they know they’re right.

--------

If you are going to continue to exclaim such a falsehood no matter what has been said, it shows your unwillingness to even examine your own proposals. There is no contradiction and this has been explained to you hundreds of times and yet you once again refuse to listen and continue to spout your falsehoods.

Yes there does seem to be a contradiction as I’ve shown more than once, just saying there isn’t, doesn’t make my argument go away.

If you truly believe you have addressed this issue please link to it or quote it and prove me wrong, because I don’t believe you have put up any substantial argument so far and you’re defiantly not defending it from my criticisms.

(you missed this out as well – so please link to it or quote it and prove me wrong, because I don’t believe you have put up any substantial argument so far and you’re defiantly not defending it from my criticisms?)

**

I’m sure I’m not the only one that would notice you haven’t answered the question – so what is the point of any laws?

It’s very evident the purpose of laws. It helps keep guns from people that are not eligible to own them; however it does not PREVENT it.

You mean trying to reduce the harm.

And my idea for psychological testing is about trying to keep guns out of the hands of those not eligible to own them.

You argument so far seems to be that there isn’t any point because people will just get them on the black market.

But that argument is why have laws forbidding actions if they are going to be broken.

So I’ll ask once again – are you saying laws are useless?

-------

 

As to disputing the statement, in the UK it is pretty hard even for criminals to get hold of a ‘real’ gun that is why so many replicas and ‘re-activated’ guns are used in the UK. Over here it is not just a matter of ‘just turning to the black market’.

Really then why don’t you address this article I have shown you before?

Please show where you have linked to this article before? Because I don’t think you have.

*

They also say that nearly a fifth of men (18%) who answered the online survey claimed they knew how to get hold of an illegal firearm.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6988205.stm

So if 1/5 admits they know how to get an illegal gun, how many don’t admit they know? And where do you suppose these “Illegal guns” come from?

The Policy Exchange is a right wing think tank which like all political lobby groups has its own agenda, the survey was of 2,156 supposed ‘adults’ in a online survey, (I say supposed because online surveys are notorious for attracting bored teenagers). I believe YouGov also give money and prizes for being in such surveys. For me it doesn't seem that scientific.

Anyway here is the data - http://www.yougov.com/uk/archives/pdf/Gun%20Crime.pdf

So to the question – Do you know of anyone who has or has had an illegal firearm?

Yes – 8%
No – 89%
Prefer not to say (which in most surveys would be don’t know) – 3%

Now the question – If you wanted to, would you be able to acquire an illegal firearm?

Yes – 12%
No – 84%
Prefer not to say (which in most surveys would be don’t know) – 4%

So 89% (and probably 92%) didn’t know of anyone who had ever had a illegal gun yet 12% claim they could suddenly get hold of one? There seems to be some conflict there.

Policy Exchange have hyped the 18% figure of just males who imagine they could get hold of a gun but even then only 12% said they knew of someone who’d ever had one. For example I knew people that had guns when I grew up (shotguns rifles) and if I had to I imagine I could get hold of one by stealing it, but that’s not to say I could and a far way off from claiming I could ‘just’ buy one on the black market.

So basically what this says is that about 90% and probably more of people in the UK don’t believe they could ‘just turn to the black market’ to get a gun.

Which seems to back up what I said.

**

 

As I said - It basically seems to be saying – ‘What’s the point in forbidding psychologically unstable people or criminals from buying or owning guns legally since they’ll just get illegal ones anyway’.

That is not what was said at all. In fact I have supported the NICS improvement act many times which improves the probability of preventing these people from legally purchasing a gun. A policy which you have disregarded as insufficient and unimportant.

Again you haven’t answered the question – so what is the point of any laws?

And I didn’t just “disregard” the NICS policy or think it unimportant as you claim. I actually said when discussing before - and I quote - “I’m not against that law as I’ve already mentioned, I would just like something more”.

Once again you make some accusations that don’t turn out to hold up to scrutiny.

You position seems to be increasingly based in falsehoods, making claims that don’t stand up to scrutiny and accusations that have no foundation.

**

I’ve spoken of the treatment of mental health within the framework of my proposals for universal healthcare and of education programmes to educate and assist people and of counselling been given to those that need it. Changing the idea of having mental health problems being seen as a stigma, which needs to be hidden, into that of a common illness with no prejudice attached to it? Hopefully this will identify and treat those with problems.

All of which is good as I have said and can stand alone without being tied into guns. This very tie in with gun purchases is addressed with the NICS improvement act.

No not really, because it still doesn’t cover those that may have problems but have never been formally diagnosed.

As you pointed out, when we discussed this before, many shooters had shown symptoms of mental instability before acting violently but never received the help they so obviously needed.

As far as I can tell your answer so far has been along the lines of people arming themselves in case of attacks, but you don’t seem to have thought about what ways to deal with things before an attack. That is, besides a suggestion you mooted about work colleagues, friends and family reporting ‘unstable’ behaviour to the police so they can come and take them in for questioning, which as I pointed out at the time seemed a much greater infringement of a persons rights and liberties than anything I’d proposed.

And the only way for 100% of these people to be diagnosed is to have mandatory psychological testing for 100% of the population.

Again with the point scoring, while giving little though to the post or the subject.

Its about harm reduction about trying to keep guns away from those that might do harm with them and so I’d have testing of those wanting to have a gun.

We’ve been through this many times, why not stop with the fatuous comments and actually debate in an honest way?

**


As you pointed out, when we discussed this before, many shooters had shown symptoms of mental instability before acting violently but never received the help they so obviously needed.

I also went further and expressed that people did notice these problems well before the incident took place but did nothing to try and counter it. This comes back to my point about people getting involved.

Oh hell Pitt we went through this at length.

You did say people should have ‘countered it’ and I asked who were they to report to, what were they to do to ‘counter it’?

To which you didn’t seem to have an answers. Can you give them now?

--------

‘they will just turn’ – you point seeming to be that if someone cannot buy a gun legally well they will just get an illegal one, which implies that there seems little point in having laws forbidding people from having legal guns because they will just get an illegal one.

Again this has been explained to you over and over.

I don’t think so, so please quote or link to where you claim you do.

Just look above.

Again with the vague wave of the hand – ‘oh over there’ – well no sorry I don’t see anything – over there – that explains it, so please do so?

--------

I have said nothing about doing away with the existing gun laws and have even said to get more stringent enforcement of these laws. You once again continue to spin what is said to try and make something match up to your POV.

Again this is that problem between what you claim to be saying and what you actually say.

If your view is that any regulation prohibiting gun ownership is useless or ineffective at best because if someone wants a gun it is easy to just get one illegally then what is the point of any regulation?

To me it is about trying to reduce harm while trying to tackle the societal problems behind the symptoms.

Your major concern seems to be about not stepping on the toes gun owners.

Which do you think is the nobler cause?

I have explained this.

I don’t believe you have, can you please link or quote where you believe you have?

And which do you think is the nobler cause?

----------

And the fact is that the proposals were aimed in trying to limit the black market by for example, making the stealing of guns much more difficult by bringing in mandatory gun safes.
At the moment you are opposing this which would seem to indicate you are the one not wanting to tackle the black market.

Another perfect example of your lying and spinning of other peoples post. What you are saying is if you are not with me you are against me and for the criminals. I have asked you questions and pointed out problems and concerns in regards to “mandatory” gun safes. I have questioned how effective this would be versus the right of personal protection and you have never addressed these concerns.

My point backed up with direct quotes from yourself was that your arguments opposing mandatory gun safes don’t seem that substantial, my aim is to try and limit the number of guns getting into the hands of criminals your only concerns seemed to be with the inconvenience the measure would have to gun owners.

I’ve brought up this point several times and so far you haven’t addressed it beyond just telling me I’m wrong.

And I have asked you how this “mandatory” thing would actually be effective and you have refused to answer.

LOL – oh boy, again your definition of haven’t answered is strange to say the least as in having written reams on it being not having answered.

What I think you mean is you didn’t read it or ignored it because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear.

Ok basically (once again) a large number of guns are stolen from legal gun owners and so end up in criminal hands.

Anything that would reduce that number would bring about a reduction in harm.

Your view seems to be that since this would involve a bit of inconvenience to gun owners this isn’t worth doing.

**

“Might agree with initial evaluation, but more inclined to base it more along the lines of CCW where you are recertified on an annual basis”

Yes I remember that and as I have said you are portraying this as wholesale agreement when the operative word (in fact the very first word) is “MIGHT”. This implies further discussion is necessary.

So are you saying this meant a complete disagreement?

Do you actually read what is posted?

Yes I do read your posts – so you said might which implies a level of agreement but since then you have spend virtually all your time arguing against it. So did ‘might’ in this case mean complete disagreement?

(And you missed out - And are you saying that you are now willing to discuss it further without blocking the debate or ignoring what I say?
If you are please go ahead.)

So please go ahead?

-------

Again I’ll ask wouldn’t the attacker if he’d been armed with a gun rather than a knife had had a real advantage over the other person?

Again this very type of scenario has been reported on many times. Have you read any of these reports? Its evident you have not. Once again I will explain. A very high percentage of criminals even armed criminals when confronted by an intended armed victim will turn and flee, ending the conflict. So what is the real advantage?

So you are saying categorically that if someone has the gun out and pointed at another person, they actually do not have an advantage over that other person?

Categorically? No. Are you saying the victim in these scenarios if they are unarmed are categorically safe from harm?

So they do have an advantage? But you also imply below they don’t?

So in some case they do and some they don’t so how do you know in advance when it would be safe to pull your own gun and when not? A 50/50 chance? So you have a 50% chance of being shot or shooting the attacker.

And to you this seems like a good way of tackling crime?

Why not try and reduce the number of people turning to crime?

Again you seem to be so concentrated on defending and promoting gun use you don’t see the wider picture.

Again in line with my theories.

--------

But could the man have defended himself with a chair against a man with a gun?

Happened before hasn’t it? I have shown you real world scenarios illustrating this type of thing which you refuse to acknowledge.

So you are saying that the best course of action when facing someone who’s pointing a gun at you is to hold up a chair to defend yourself?

This is what you would recommend to someone?

----------


Are you saying that every encounter ends well?

Not at all, are you saying that in every encounter in which the victim is NOT armed at all ends well?

But I’m not the one arguing that guns are a good way of tackling crime as you seem to be.

Nor am I making that claim. And you did NOT answer the question.

But actually you are, your statement was “are you saying that in every encounter in which the victim is NOT armed at all ends well” suggesting once again that it is better for people to be armed (with a gun).

No it’s a question about YOUR statement.

I don’t think guns are a good way to tackle crime and think that a more secure society should be sort, not through the threat of arms but through social, economic, cultural and political change and reform.

As I’ve been pointing out you don’t seem that interested in that route.

As to the question it’s silly – I’m not saying that any violent or threatening encounter ends well, I’m saying why not work toward reducing the number of such encounters and as I’ve said you only seem to be worried about defending or promoting guns not in lessening such encounters.

I’ll ask again why?

*

 

No you haven’t addressed the issue.

I believe I have addressed it many times over you just refuse to listen.

If you believe you have addressed this please quote or link to the relevant section.

(you missed this - please do so)

*

But to say again, there seems to be a contradiction between some things you claim you say and what you do say.

So you can expressed the belief that guns are a good way of tackling crime and not having one can mean being beaten to death.

Not crime in general as I have states thousands of times. In individual instances they can prevent crime which has been shown to you hundreds of times.

To repeat – ‘But you have gone on to explain (on more than one occasion) that because criminals know individuals might be armed it deters them from acting, in other words it is a way of tackling general crime through threat.’

As I’ve said there seems to be this contradiction between what you say and what you claim to say.

Can you explain it?

---------

While at the same time claiming that guns are not a good way of tackling crime and you do not promote guns.

And the studies I have shown you that state that gun availability has no correlation to crime rates means what? Nothing to you evidently.

You have present studies written by people who have given an opinions based on the interpretation of selected data that I have criticised.

You don’t seem able or willing to defend these studies but just invoke them like a creationist waving the book of genesis without mentioning the criticisms levelled at it let alone actually addressing them.

If you think you have addressed my criticisms please quote or link to where you believe you have.

--------

So the real world gun related deaths of over 10,000 in the US are just…what… ‘the depends’ bits?

You asked about who had the advantage. This would depend on the individual circumstance would it not?

I agree so in the situation described, the initial advantage was with the person pulling the knife, but he lost that advantage because the knife was not a range weapon and the other person just had to step back and pick up a chair, the attacker then lost the advantage because the knife couldn’t get passed or through the chair.

On the other hand if the man had had a gun, who would have had the advantage?

Again that depends on the intended victims actions. This is amply illustrated by the DGU stories I have shown you hundreds of times.

So in the situation described what action would you recommend?

A man is pointing a gun directly at another who at that moment is unarmed what should the unarmed man do?

----------

 

A teenager robber was shot and killed in Watts Saturday morning.
According to a police spokesperson, 17-year-old Joe Beck was hiding behind a pole in the 1200 block of East 140th Street, waiting to hold-up his intended victim.
Moments after approaching the victim, who was in his vehicle, Beck produced a gun and demanded money.
The victim--also armed--produced a weapon and shot the suspect in the chest. Beck later died at an area hospital.

Well lets see, the criminal first pulled a gun, so according to you the had the “advantage” right? It didn’t seem this advantage did him much good now did it? As I have said there are literally thousands of reports illustrating this very fact.
---------

So let’s get this straight you are celebrating the death of a fellow citizen? You think the best way for society to tackle crime is by shooting criminals dead?

And I’m not saying the victim shouldn’t have defended themselves I asking why they ever needed to.

This again seems to be the difference in our attitudes – seemingly to you this just another criminal who got what you presumably believed they deserved, to you this story is just another DGU to be used to defend and promote gun ownership.

I see a dead human being.

And I begin asking questions that you don’t seem to even care about.

Why was this kid so desperate?

Why did he turn to crime?

In another report he’s connected to other robberies in the area, why wasn’t he caught earlier?

What could have been done to save him from this fate?

How did a seventeen year old get hold of a gun?

Where did he get the gun?

Etc, etc on and on. I not thinking as you seem to – ‘see guns can tackle crime’ – I’m asking what can be done to limit such crimes.

---------

So let’s get this straight – an attacker has drawn a gun and has it pointed at another person – are you arguing that the prudent course of action is to dismiss the threat of the gun pointing directly at their chest and casually pull out their own gun in the hope that the attacker will then run away?

Prudent action depends on the actual situation now doesn’t it? Anyway see above.

*

And so do you think it might have been different if the man had had a gun not a knife?

Again see above.

What does the ‘above’ prove that on this occasion it worked but on another it might not have? I’ve already pointed that out and pointed out it doesn’t seem a very good way to think of tackling crime.

In the case you highlight a young man, little more than a kid, was killed, if things had gone different maybe the person in the car would have been killed instead.

----------

I’m not saying such an attack is ok I’m trying to point out that such attacks usually have a reason, and that they are likely to have a social, economic or cultural root that can be tackled in other way than at the point of a gun.

That is correct in essence yet in that very instant neither the criminal or the victim is interested in why it happened they only want it to end. As I have said hundreds of times if you solve those “social, economic or cultural root” problems the problem of gun murder and gun violence will solve themselves.

So why are you seemingly uninterested in thinking about those social, economic or cultural roots let alone wondering about ways to solve them?

I know you claim to be but when I try to discuss them you block or just refuse.

Why?

**

This is what you seem to do you seem to be constantly pushing the virtue of being armed but don’t actually seem to be that interested in about the reasons behind why you think you need to be armed.

And you constantly promote the idea that if one owns or carries a gun that means they are not interested in these reasons. This is completely untrue and you have been shown this.

No you haven’t shown my theory to be untrue; you have loudly claimed it is wrong because you think it wrong.

*

My theory is that many Americans seem to see guns as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring societal problems.

And my theory is that Britons seem to see guns as a cause of crime and violence and use bans as a way of dealing with social problems. When this fails they just push for more bans.

Oh hell Pitt you do make me laugh, isn’t this the fifth or sixth asinine ‘theory’ you’ve presented in the hope of hiding the fact you still seem unable to refute my own.

Thing is that I believe that far too many people believe that guns as a cause of crime and violence and see bans as a way of dealing with it. And this is fuelled by a media that is often contradictory in its approach to the subject.

But having said that I think that although many Britain’s see bans as a way of dealing with these social problems, they do see it as only one way not the only way. There has been a lot of talk about such regulation being only a stop gap that only dealing with the reasons behind the violence will it be reduced.

This is a debate I don’t get from many people like you.

----------

My theory is that many Americans seem to see guns as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring societal problems.

No I mean that academic studies present FACTS to support their conclusions and you produce NOTHING.

Again you really do not seem to understand how such reports are produced (have you never written one)?

Data is collected and interpreted and then an opinion is presented.

Some reports try to be unbiased but in many cases the reporter can have a bias or even an agenda meaning that they can put emphasis on certain things or use selective material.

Many times facts (let alone FACTS) aren’t presented just an opinion as to what the reporter sees as facts.

Such reports can be criticised as I have the ones you’ve presented, the thing then is to defend them, but you don’t seem willing or able to do so, you just claim loudly that they are FACTS and don’t mention or address the criticisms levelled at them.

If you believe you have presented some overwhelming ‘fact’ that I haven’t addressed please link or quote it.

-----------

That’s your opinion not a fact since you don’t know if the law has you can only guess that it hasn’t.

And its your opinion that it has worked not a fact since you don’t know if the law has you can only guess that it hasn’t.

I think this is about the seventh or eighth time in the last few pages that I’ve had to remind you that it isn’t my opinion that it has been effective, I’ve said time and again that I don’t know if it has or hasn’t I don’t think it can be claimed because we don’t know of a parallel Britain where the laws were not enacted.

Hell I even say it in next.

----------


There have been no more dunblane incidents and actually violent crime has dropped.

In the UK gun murder has always been rare. In the UK school shootings even more rare. You believe the gun ban has prevented any more school shootings.

I don’t know if the handgun ban has had an effect or not, I do know there haven’t been any.

Again I have asked you to examine the UK history on these kind of incidents and you refuse but claim the reason for the gun ban was to prevent these incidents. when I question if it was effective you at times seem to claim it was then at others you claim not to know.

I don’t think I’ve said it was effective (please quote or link if you know differently). All I’m saying is that I don’t know and neither do you.

But while you have made this dubious claim one of the central planks of your argument, to mine it makes no difference.

-------

Has it or hasn’t it, the figures are hard to gauge going up and down, and with the changes in the recording methods having changed (more than once I believe) since the ban its even harder to say. It seems to have roughly stayed the same, while the population has raisen and demographical variations have changed.

You have 10+ years of data since the ban and hundreds of years before the ban you can compare. If guns have been removed from the picture and gun murder has remained constant you can come to the conclusion that it has had little to no effect.

Hundreds of years?

Sir Robert Peel didn’t set up the beginnings of a police force I think until 1830 or so. Less than two hundred years and it was many year until they began accurate record keeping then years more until national figure were produced. Then there were two world wars so you’re really only talking about the 1950 onward so say 50 years or so.

But think in a country with a rising population with a near static number of gun related murders would mean the numbers were dropping.

But let’s take murder in England and Wales - 1995 14.5 – 2008 13.7

And according to the Home office http://www.gnn.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=349099&NewsAreaID=2
There was an “overall fall in firearms offences of 14 percent, from 21,527 in 2005/06 to 18,489 2006/07, includes a fall in offences involving handguns (down 11 per cent) and a fall in offences involving imitation weapons (down 23 per cent), which together were used in more than two-thirds of all non-air weapon firearm offences.”

**

 

The Home Office figures say it has fallen since 1995 can you please explain why you think them wrong?

OMG I have given you data to support this hundreds of times. I have shown you articles from the BBC stating such. As far as being higher than the US when this was first reported the UK immediately roared in its collective indignatious voice that that was impossible only to later have to admit it to be true.

So you’re saying you don’t have anything, just a claim, that you have?

So the home office is wrong because…well…because you say it is. LOL

Overall violent crime also remains stable according to the BCS, having fallen by 43 per cent since 1995 and police recorded violent crime fell by one per cent compared to the same quarter last year. Recorded violent crime resulting in an injury is down seven per cent.
http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/crime

--------

I agree the UK and US societies are different, it seems Americans are much more likely to see the threat or use of violence (and so guns) as a means of solving problems so the availability of guns is going to have a greater impact within that society than in many others.

Yet the studies delving into this very subject has NEVER been able to show this correlation you claim is there. Nor have you.

What correlation, the studies you presented don’t compare differing societies and the possible social, economic or cultural attitudes. (if you know different please link or quote).

Are you saying you can tell me why Americans seem so more violent?

Or are you just once again claiming my idea is invalid without any explanation because it doesn’t suit you?

**

Yet you know they are talking ‘bull shit’ without knowing, because that’s what you want and so to you it seemingly becomes instantly a ‘fact’.

I didn’t say it’s a proven fact. You are ignoring the simple mathematical logic in order to preserve your position.

I don’t have a position on this I’ve already told you I didn’t know what the police were basing their figures on and pointed out the news piece didn’t say.

All I’m pointing out is that you decided without this information that the police were talking ‘bull shit’ and you knew better.

I was pointing out your attitude.

-----------

To me the aim of my policy(s) as I’ve said many times is to bring about a better, securer society.

So how did the last MW increase accomplish this?

Oh you think I nipped over to the US got myself voted into office, presented legislation and then got it passed?

The US minimum wage has nothing to do with me I’m talking of my holistic policy of theoretical ideas. A decent and coherent minimum wage policy would be just one part of it because as I’ve said to me what it says about a society is that it cares for its citizens and is going to protect them from exploitation.

Your viewpoint on the minimum wages seems to give the impression that exploitation is ok, that if you can get away with paying someone a wage that doesn’t even cover the essentials that is ok.

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

Ok then please explain why in your opinion the balance between MW and Production cost increases does in fact show thinking about whether or not it will make a better society or not.

If balance is not maintained between MW and PC the effect is increased cost to the end user or consumer. If this happens it lowers the quality of life for that consumer or society in general.
In your opinion how will NOT maintaining this balance improve the quality of life?

Again with the contradictions, you have claimed to be against materialism and wish people would think less about what they can buy and instead look to spiritual or intellectual pursuits.

Yet here you are championing the materialist outlook, in that your major argument against the idea of a minimum wage is based on the fear that it might push up the cot of materialist goods.

I said that your view seemed to be that profits and executive wages should remain high and so any increases should not dip into those but be passed on to the consumer. I’m not so sure of that.

Your reply was - No I don’t say that at all. Your view seems to be that the owner of a factory (who takes all the risk to start up) should make no more than the starting factory worker.

I said I do think that CEO’s pay shouldn’t be excessive.

And pointed out that in 1965 the CEO’s of major US companies earned 26.0 times more than an average worker but by the end of 2000 it had reached 310.0 times.

And that I think share and profit maximisation shouldn’t take president over producing good and sustainable services or products and such attitudes are not good for consumers, companies, or a country and doesn’t produce a better society but only gorges the pockets of the wealthy elites.

You say nothing on these subjects but instead go back to the idea that any increases in peoples quality of life should be passed on to the consumer and not involve a redistribution within the commercial sector. And of course that quality of life would be also enhanced by a certain amount of redistribution within the society as a whole.

---------

 

Ok balbus I am really interested in hearing you comment on the last part of this. Please no double talk or spin or dodging. Simple direct answers as you did on the first part would be appreciated.

OK but as long as you answer my questions.

And are you ever going back up your spurious accusations with links or quotes?

*

In 1996-1997 were you in support of the gun ban?

Can’t even remember it being enacted, as I’ve said it wasn’t a major concern.

Such sweeping legislation coming about because of such a major tragic event and you cannot even remember it? If your post sidebar is real you were 35 years old at the time. This seems strange since you are so vehemently against gun ownership now. But I guess that answers the question.

You seem to have this problem, you’re so fixated in trying to score points you don’t pay attention to what’s said.

I’m not that vehemently against gun ownership, my view has been repeated many times – it seems to me that many Americans see guns as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring societal problems.

You have numerous times now backed up this theory by your concentration on the defence and promotion of guns as a means of tackling crime while seemingly ignoring to a great extend the societal problems that are its main causes.

As to it being ‘sweeping legislation’ this is your slanted opinion, to you guns are of such importance to your world view that you see such a thing in grand terms, its write large for you.

But as I’ve told you time and again it had little effect on the majority of people in the UK (the roughly 99.9% of them that didn’t own a handgun), the ones that had shotguns and rifles virtually all kept their guns (and the number of owners have I believe even gone up) to repeat there was really only a very small number of people that had legally held handguns at the time.

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

Today are you still in support of the 1997 Dunblane gun ban?

As I’ve said I don’t think at this point the law needs changing.

Ok you still support it. Good.

It doesn’t seem to have done any harm and may have done some good.

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

What does your political party affiliation have to do with either of the above questions?

The policies of differing political party’s are very important as I’ve said many times I think successive governments have got it wrong because although they have done some things right, they still are not tackling the illegal drugs trade for one thing or some other social problems.

You see, you concentrate on guns and ignore the bigger picture in fact you seem uninterested in the bigger picture.

I am not ignoring the bigger picture I am asking your OPINION about a certain event and legislation.

Yes you are concentrating virtually solely on the defence and promotion of guns and basically ignoring any other societal subject.

Which is exactly why you fit in with my theories, if you don’t believe you do please explain why not?

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

Now one final question. Again this is asking for your opinion and thought.

Since you feel such things as “mandatory gun safes” and “mandatory psychological testing” would be effective legislation, If there was a push in the UK to modify the Dunblane gun ban to include these items would you oppose a change to the law?

Just so there is no confusion about what I’m asking. If people agree to have to apply for a handgun permit. Show that they have purchased and installed whatever gun safe you deem fit and agreed to yearly psychological evaluations. Would you oppose a change to the gun ban laws and allow these people to once again purchase and own a handgun?

Yes, but it would involve all firearms (that is shotguns and rifles) and the other measures I’ve talked about would also need to be introduced for example the present UK drugs policy would need to be scrapped and the legalisation/regulation policy I’ve outlined elsewhere be introduced. The National Health Service would need to be reformed along with the present policies on education and welfare, etc, basically the introduction of the holistic approach I’ve talked about.

*

You seemed desperate for me to answer these questions and I’m curious to understand why, any reading of my posts so far would have answered them anyway.

Thing is that once again it seems to reveal a fixation and concentration on the defence and promotion of guns over any thought of a wider social nature.

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.

And what would be the outward manifestations of such an attitude?

A) An inability and unwillingness to discuss general societal problems
B) The defence and promotion of guns as a means of tackling social problems.

You seem unable and are definitely unwilling to discuss societal problems.

You are very vocal in you defence and in the promotion of guns as a means of tackling social problems such as crime.

So in what way do you not back up my theory?

I answered you questions so now will you answer mine?

**

 

Pitt

I have discussed where I think the problem here lies and it has nothing whatsoever to do with gun availability.

Please quote or link to these supposed discussions, do you mean your mumbled remarks on hedonism, materialism and the ‘me thing’ but as far as I can tell you don’t seem willing to discuss them even when I expressly ask you do.

And so far you have put up no serious challenge to my theories so I’m unsure what you mean.

So again please quote or link to these discussions.


**

interesting that the Brady Campaign list IL as having the 9th best gun laws in the country. The only states ranking higher was
Californis
Conneticut
Hawaii
Maryland
Mass
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island

We’ve discussed this several times don’t you remember me asking -

Can you tell me the state with the lowest number of gun related homicides? And what is it?

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

And I pointed out -

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

Population of Connecticut is 3. 5 million

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

Population of the UK 60 million”

**

 

SOME people in this thread keep on bringing up the recent school shootings and other such acts of violence AS IF THEY WERE A RESULT OR SYMPTOM OF GUNS BEING IN THIS COUNTRY.

This is such BULLSHIT.


I know someone else has mentioned this before me, but between 20-30 years ago in the United States when gun laws were practically non-existent, anybody could go to the flea market and buy as many handguns, shotguns, and ASSAULT RIFLES as they wanted no questions asked, and with ZERO waiting period and NO BACKGROUND CHECKS WHATSOEVER. And guess what? These school shootings and massacres never happened!

Now think about that.

If the availability of guns used to be MUCH MUCH HIGHER than it is now, and the gun crime rates were MUCH MUCH LOWER, how on EARTH can anyone (anyone with a working brain, that is) suggest that guns are the problem in any way, shape, or form?