Guncrazy USA

Guns aren't the problem, it's society. There, I just saved you all 160+ pages of reading and debating

 

Yeah after alll of these posts, I've gotta ask everyone still reading...

Has anybody that's read or posted on this thread so far actually learned something, and maybe changed their points of view at all after reading both sides of the argument?

*
*
*

 

You hit the point men, that goats not learned anything, just become more stubborn.

I just want to add the sentence that makes me crazy and this is a sentence that made more evil all over the world than any other ever told:

That not the guns killing people, that the people with guns are killing people.

Beloved words of any ignorant, gun trader, politican, gun collectors, cowards and other motherfuckers who trade with violence and doing themself good on pain of others.

If you want to do money on others blood - speak like that and you'll be fine.

 

For some reason I'm not all broken up and crying about some thug that gets himself killed by a victim defending themself. The reason they do this sort of thing is because of the culture their brought up in, if you want something just take it. Committing crimes is cool, studying and getting good grades isn't.

 

Unless you can go back in time and not invent guns, they will always be here. Legal guns are not responsible for most crimes. I have read, debated, and studied this subject and i don't think there is any amount of evidence, at least thus far, that will convince me that guns should be taken out of the hands of the majority, the law abiding citizens, who use them.

Taking their guns will leave the govt and criminals with guns. The illegal guns that are already purchased off the black market will still be available, just creating a more violent market.

I do not want to even get into the millions of hunters who will no longer be able to hunt, leading to anger and rising deer populations which will kill more people in car wrecks.

 

In governments power is to ban gun market over the world. The agreement might be made any time. The majority of industries is controlled. I don't say that the military forces should be dismissed.

 

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.

You don’t remember any discussions in relation to gun availability? Tisk tisk you should really pay attention.

So you can’t actually produce any evidence of your claims.

And if you actually read what’s said this isn’t the discussion on gun availability but “where I think the problem here lies”, the reasons for the US high levels of gun crime and gun related murder.

As I’ve said you have mentioned 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 to.

So once again - please quote or link to these discussions?

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

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”

This is in relation to the IL shooting. The point being according to Brady IL has some of the best/most restrictive gun laws in the country. What in the world has this to do with the gun homicide rate in the UK?

Pointing out that even the place you had put forward as having the lowest gun related homicides (possibly linked to having tougher laws) when compared with the UK was still huge.

So the question crops up again – why is the level of gun crime and gun related murder so high in the US?

--------

 

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?

You make a presumptuous and twisted statement saying that I “preferring criminals to get hold of stolen weapons because mandatory gun safes would be an inconvenience to gun owners?” Again it’s like you are saying if someone disagrees with you or questions the effectiveness of your proposals they are against you and for the criminals. Its utter hogwash.

But is it utter hogwash?

Because I notice you still haven’t explained why I’m wrong, you are still just telling me I’m wrong.

If it truly was hogwash shouldn’t you be able to easily explain the claim away?

However you are not explaining it away, why is that?

-----------

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).

How can someone post a link to something you haven’t addressed?

Again I have to ask you, do think before you post?

How can I put it more simply – link or quote to where you believe I haven’t addressed one of your points?

--------

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?

**

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?

No. And once again it’s a question of effectiveness.

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.

So please explain why your argument isn’t seemingly just based on inconvenience, that’s what I’ve been asking you to do and you still seem to be stalling?

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


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.

**

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.

Based on examination of other similar and exact laws already in existence. How do you support your assumption of their effectiveness?

What examination of “similar and exact laws” (are they just similar or exactly the same?) You have talked a lot about the UK handgun ban but that is not even similar let alone exactly like the proposals you thought were good and I’ve been promoting.

-----------

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?

Do you even read what’s posted?

Yes I read what’s posted and that’s why I’m asking because so far you have dodged answering.

So I’ll ask once again – are you saying laws are useless if they are going to be ignored by criminals?

---------

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

Oh please has this discussion become to ling for you to remember such simple things or are you just denying the fact to evade the questions?

So once again you cannot back up a claim, I didn’t think I’d seen it before.

Why was it important to you to claim that it had been posted before when it seemingly hadn’t?

---------

The Policy Exchange is a right wing think tank which like all political lobby groups has its own agenda,

So once again we see an example of anyone or any entity that does not conform to your POV being labeled as biased.

Virtually everyone is biased in one way or another but a right wing lobby group have a clear bias that colours the way they are going to present information and therefore how it should be looked at.

Isn’t that obvious?

If it had come from a leftwing think tank I’d point that out as well.

*

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 give money and prizes for such surveys.

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.

That question was answered in the post above. Please at least read what’s posted.

Oh again with that vague – it’s over there somewhere – well I don’t think it was so can you please quote the relevant section or link to it?

If not can you please answer the question?

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

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?

Which the NICS improvements act goes a long way to addressing such incidents.

So it covers those that have never been diagnosed? As far as I can tell it just mentions mental health adjudications or commitments.

---------

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?

Once again if you would look at what the NICS improvements act does, its already being addressed.

So you still don’t have an answer?

The act as I’ve said just seems to cover those that have had assessments not those that haven’t; your view was that if work mates, friends or family had concerns they should do something.

So I’ll ask again who should these people to report ‘suspect behaviour’ to and in what way are they meant to ‘counter it’?

---------

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.

What a complete lie. How many pages did we go through while discussing the more than 20,000 gun laws and weather they are enforced or not?

Thing is that it was clear from those discussions that you didn’t seem to know or care why those laws were not being enforced.

What were your ideas, that it was police apathy and lazy DA’s.

Now you are seemingly arguing 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.

That also sounds like apathy.

----------

And which do you think is the nobler cause?

Again its about your wish to take guns away from LAW ABIDING people while trying to impose regulations on the criminals. Who do you think will conform to these regulations?

So you agreed to taking away guns from law abiding citizens when you thought the proposals I’ve being pushing for were good?

Or are you shouting about take guns away from the law abiding because you don’t have any decent or reasoned arguments and think this sloganizing might distract from the weakness of you position?

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

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.

Again you are only interested in getting rid of guns without trying to think about the real world implications to the lawful gun owners.

So you would prefer guns to be stolen at the rate they are at the moment rather than do anything about it because it might inconvenience gun owners?

-----------

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

Once again its not about “inconvenience” its about balancing the need to stop thieves and the right of the law abiding having a gun for protection from these thieves is that is their choosing.

As pointed out your opposition to gun safes don’t seem overwhelming and seem to be based on the inconvenience they might cause gun owners, if you think differently please explain yourself rather than just telling me your right and 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?

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.)

I have made a statement that I would prefer to see it more along the lines of a CCW recertification. What part of this do you not understand?

It is difficult to understand because you seem to flip flop. So are you saying this is agreement or not agreement or a willingness to discuss it?

If agreement what are you agreeing to?

If not agreement why not?

And if you are willing to discuss it, why do you stall or refuse so often?

--------

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

Again how many times have I said it entirely depends on the individual circumstance? You are just trying to manipulate the statements to fit your POV.

I’m just trying to understand your rather jumbled point of view, you’ve said people do have an advantage over others if they have the gun out and pointed at someone but at the same time they might not, but it’s unsure when they might not or might do until the event is over and one or the other is injured or dead?

---------

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.

OMFG would you at least pretend you have looked at the supplied real world stories?

So you disagree so what do you think the chances are 40/60, 30/70 what?

--------

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?

Once again IT DEPENDS ON THE INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCE. Why do you insist on turning this statement into one of absolutes? Is it because you have no other answer that matches your POV?

So you’d recommending they go for the chair and hope the circumstances work out or are you saying you have some way of knowing the circumstances are in in their favour when they pick up the chair and when not?

---------

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?

Lol it’s a question balbus. In fact it’s the exact same question you asked me in reverse. Yet it is a valid question when you ask it and invalid if I ask it.

Why is it the same in reverse?

My point is about reducing encounters because the result can be unpredictable, you idea seems to be that it doesn’t matter what the outcome might be as long as the possible victim is armed.


---------

 

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.

(you missed this - please do so)

Please read the fucking thread before asking the same question over and over.

So are you going to answer or actually produce the evidence to support your claim?

----------

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?

It has been explained dozens of times throughout this thread. If you haven’t read it by now why should anyone think you would now read it?

I’ll read it if it exists but I’m not sure it does so you can easily settle it by quoting or link to the relevant ‘explanation’.

If you can’t then maybe you didn’t?

-----------

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.

All you say about the studies or data is “that it can be interpreted differently” but you never show how this is accomplished. Nor do you show anywhere these different interpretations are scrutinized.

Easily sorted – you point out a study you have presented here and we can go through 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?

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?

An unarmed man would be able to do nothing. Even your story illustrates this. He instead chose to arm himself with the best thing he could and fight back.

So you are saying that in this case you would recommend the man to pick up a chair to defend himself against a man with a gun?

**

 

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?

LMFAO Once again you attempt so spin post to fit your POV. This REAL story illustrates that fact that just because the criminal pulls a gun FIRST does not mean he has any advantage in every situation as you claim there is.

And - what does it 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.

Your right and no one has claimed it a good way to “tackle crime” however in this situation how would limiting the victim’s access to a functional available firearm would have changed anything in that situation?

So you think what I said was right - but at the same time I’m attempting to spin?

Which is it?

----------

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?

Which of these questions would have made a difference at the time this was happening? These are continuing questions that can and should be worked on to answer. However once again at the time they make no difference in the situation.

But this is it; you show little evidence of wanting to work on these ‘continuing questions’ in fact you don’t seem to have given them much serious thought at all.

You do however defend and promote guns as a way of tackling crime such as this attempted robbery where a young man lost his life.

----------

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 explain how limiting the victim’s access to a functional available firearm would have changed anything in that situation?

I’ve said time and again I’m not against the principal that people can defend themselves I’m just pointing out that many Americans seem to see this as the best or only method of dealing with societal problems and therefore give little thought to alternatives.

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?

-----------

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.

Yet it has as much basis as your own theory doesn’t it?

Does it?

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

Your ‘theory’ was “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”.

But the 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.

Yet when asked to back up your criticisms you present us with ‘because I said so’

So you are unable to present some overwhelming ‘fact’ that I haven’t addressed?

And can you quote or link to these supposed places I say ‘because I said so’?

--------

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.

One can say for a FACT that the number of gun murders in the UK has not risen nor decreased on the average in many years no matter which time period you look at in recent history. Timeline charts show this true, yet you only claim it’s irrelevant.

So lets get this straight – a fluctuating figure that goes up and down is proof positive that the handgun law had no effect although you don’t actually know what the figures would have been in a Britain that had not enacted the legislation.

Again this isn’t a concrete ‘fact’ it is an opinion based on the belief that if hasn’t had an effect.

----------

And according to the Home office http://www.gnn.gov.uk/Content/Detai...99&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.”

So what was the number of offenses in 04/05? 03/04? 02/03? 01/02? 00/01? All the way back to 97? Why do you insist on not looking at these other years? Is it perhaps because they show a steady increase up until the 06/07 year? Come on balbus I have posted links to these figures many times.

You mean the spike in the statistical records that coincided with the introduction of the new National Crime Recording Standard which according to the home office statisticians had the effect of boosting the recorded figures “over and above that attributable to a real increase in crime”.

**

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

So are you going to back up your claims or what?

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

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?

It’s the exact correlation I spoke of. The correlation of gun availability and crime rates. What the hell could you conclude by comparing the crime rates of say the UK with the Gun availability rates of the US? You have to look at the same country weather it’s the US or the UK.

What ‘exact correlation’ are you talking about?

Again it’s clear you haven’t been reading my posts.

-----------

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.

The news piece did say they police estimated it at 10%. I still say the figures are nearly impossible to jive out to this 10% figure. For one to reach this 10% figure the numbers presented would have to be incorrect.

But the news item didn’t say what the Police were basing their figures on so you and I don’t know what those figures are yet you claim to know the police are talking bull shit.

You know because you know.

-----------

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.

So in other words you have no answer to the question so instead you will make stupid remarks.

So are you saying the US minimum wage was my work or that it has nothing to do with the holistic approach we were discussing?

This is the problem you just don’t seem interested in engaging in a discussion on wider issues, which as I’ve said backs up my theories.

----------

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.

There is no contradiction

So once more you tell me there is no contradiction although there clearly seems to be one.

Please explain then why there isn’t a contradiction?

*

DIDN’T ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.

The question you are talking about is I presume – ‘In your opinion how will NOT maintaining this balance improve the quality of life?’

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.

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.

Pitt, do you take any time to think before posting hissy fits?

Look – you are defending the present balance you think the important thing is “maintaining this balance” but I’m pointing out that I think there isn’t an equitable or reasonable balance, it has become tipped in the elites favour, and that has had a detrimental effect on the lower group’s quality of life.

*

 

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.

So what’s ‘telling’ about this?

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

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.

So what’s ‘telling’ about this?


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

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?

What’s telling about this?

**

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 answered “yes” So even thought you believe in the effectiveness of your own proposals you would not support using these very proposals?

Or did you mean “no” you would not oppose the change? If this is the case why would it have to be tied to any other proposal? Is it because you believe them ineffective and the real effectiveness would come from the drug policies?


OH hell Pitt LOL

Don’t blame me for your tortured sentencing – you asked

“Would you oppose a change to the gun ban laws and allow these people to once again purchase and own a handgun?”

No I wouldn’t oppose a change to the handgun ban laws and yes I would allow these people to once again purchase and own a handgun”

But only as a part of the holistic approach.

“If this is the case why would it have to be tied to any other proposal? Is it because you believe them ineffective and the real effectiveness would come from the drug policies?”

Have you just not being reading or just not paying any attention, it’s a holistic approach.

As I have to point out time and again my aim is a better society, while your aim seems to be the defence and promotion of guns.

You don’t seem to be able to see beyond guns for any great distance, you don’t seem that interested in any of the other measures (and when you have you have invariably been negative) but you seem willing to put great effort into trying to scupper any idea of gun regulation.

I hope the gun regulation measures would be effective at reducing harm and keeping guns out of the way of those that might do harm with them and I’d hope the drugs policies would be effective in taking the drugs trade out of the hands of criminals so it can be effectively regulated and policed?

The thing is what are your ideas beyond the defence and promotion of gun ownership?

**

 

1606
Is this not an exact copy/paste of post 1598?

So are you going to answer it this time or just once more tell me I’m wrong because I’m wrong?


**

 

Pitt

You make accusations you don’t seem to be able to back up, even when asked to, repeatedly.

You claim to have done things that you can show no proof of, even when repeatedly asked to do so

And you point to explanations that don’t seem to be there and which you can’t produce even when repeatedly asked to do so.

I’m getting the impression that you haven’t got any arguments these days’ only mirages.

It’s all become incredibly vague your arguments seem always – over there – but never seem to take the solid form of a quote or link, even when ones asked for.

Now as entertaining as all this smoke and mirrors are can you actually tell me if you have any counter arguments to my theories because I’m finding it increasingly difficult to find anything solid.


**

 

Oh Michael

There were many cases of farmers shooting there whole families in the 1920-30 and what about Charles Whitman back in 1966.

**

As to learning and changing minds

I’ve pointed out numerous times, I not here to change minds but to learn and I’ve learnt a lot.

You could also learn a lot if you just made the effort to engage and stopped being a pom pom waving cheerleader for other people’s ideas.

Why not try and thinking for yourself and you just might find it expands your viewpoint.

Lets try here - some time ago you said my theory was wrong, but you have not actually explained in your own words why you think it wrong.

Why not try?

To help you this was from the original post – “Very simply the theory is - 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 that ‘people’ are not doing enough of the right things but what are the ‘right things’ all you have promoted so far is guns as a means of tackling crime what other ideas have you?

Now the outward manifestations of my theory would be people that were unable and unwilling to discuss general societal problems while defending and promoting guns as a means of tackling such social problems.

You seem unable and unwilling to discuss societal problems but at the same time you seem very vocal in the promotion of guns as a means of tackling social problems such as crime.

So in what way is my theory wrong?”

**

 

Memo

Guns aren't the problem, it's society. There, I just saved you all 160+ pages of reading and debating

Oh memo you should have read the thread you just might have learnt something.

The point I’ve been making is that the problem does seem to be with US society.

It seems to me that many Americans see gun as a way of dealing with their societies problems and therefore often seem to be ignoring them.

They are not thinking why their society is the way it is or thinking of ways to improve it they just to one degree or another think that having a gun will mean they can deal with the symptoms or suppress them.

The society has the problems but those problems are not being dealt with or even thought about because many seem to be putting their faith in guns instead.

 

Spread

Your just seem to be another person coming here pushing comments that are little more than slogans and like so many others you don’t seem to be questioning them.

*

The hunters

There has been much talk of the UK gun ban and how it is one of the toughest and comprehensive in the world, but that is just a handgun ban people can and do own shotguns and rifles.

*

The government

Try reading – ‘Can guns save you from suppression?’ http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253937


*

Legal guns are not responsible for most crimes

A gun is a legal gun right up to the point when it is discovered to have been used for an illegal act.

Thousands of guns are bought completely legitimately then sold on or traded into criminal hands; thousands of more quite legitimately held guns are stolen and find themselves into criminal hands.

Wouldn’t it be silly to say you wanted criminals to get hold of such guns so what would you want to be done? Or is it just someone else’s problem that you have given little thought to and don’t wish to think about, all you are interested in is defending your ‘right’ to own guns so that you can imagine yourself countering criminals and the government?

*

I don’t think anyone is disputing that the US has huge levels of gun crime and a tragically high number of gun related homicides.

Why do you think that would be?

*

 

Jneil

Same thing goes for you as memo you should’ve read a bit of what’s been said and thought about it and you might have understood a bit more.

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 political and cultural problems within their society.

In other words they don’t think why their society is the way it is but seem instead to put their faith in the belief that guns can deal with the symptoms.

But guns are I think just one aspect of a wider belief in the use of threat as a means of suppression.
(outlined here - http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3438947&postcount=9)

So such people don’t ask what is it is that has turned people to crime and how that can we lessened and they don’t care if criminals get killed or are brutalised in the prison system because they see it as necessary. That’s what’s needed to suppress such people and force them not to do ‘bad things’.

But what about the social, economic, political and cultural factors that are involved do you ever think about those?

That’s my question.

I mean you say it is the fault of “the culture their brought up in” but that culture is your culture it is part of your society blaming it is blaming yourself for not doing anything about it.

 

If we try to change such a culture we get labled racist, hate mongers, intolerant, bigots, rich white conservatives, etc...

 

After reading THE WEAPON SHOP written by A.E. van Vogt one understands how do the evil manifest itself and how human nature defends from it.