Guncrazy USA

This is a matter of feelings. It always be. No human speculations, debates do not cover the true. One who feels will not be blinded.

God bless you children in America, I'll be praying you all to have the Light and mercy of the Highest. Let it be the peace and let be no merchants on our Temple - as the Earth is itself.

 

Yes, thanks for review. By the way. Did you read the today's news? I think that your country is one millimeter from the war with Russia. I thought that the war will begin in 2012. But probably it will be a little earlier: about 2010. Trust me. The machine started running and is to huge to be stopped, there is no even will for that. Look at your candidats. Every one know that he will be handling the biggest war ever. Maybe only Obama won't - he's simply too stupid.

 

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.

*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?

Is this the third or fourth time of asking - please quote or link to these discussions?

**

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?

*Once again your posts are very contradicting. In one post you say you cannot compare different countries because of differing cultural, social and economic factors as well as differing reporting techniques. The next you are asking why is it higher in one US state when compared to the UK.

Oh Pitt we’ve been through all this many times, direct comparisons may be difficult and should be explained as such but contrasting the difference is possible.

For example are you disputing that gun crime and gun related homicides are much greater per 100,000 of population in the US, to say that in the UK or Switzerland?

That is why I asked why you thought this difference was so stark, why does the US seem to have a so much more violent population that’s prone to gun use than other peoples, such as the British or the Swiss?

----------

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

*Because crime and murder rates are so high. Once again it does not matter the how the murder was committed.

Again we’ve been through this many times, and you still haven’t addressed the issues raised before.

You don’t seem to have thought about why the crime and murder rates are so high you just seem to accept they are and hope guns are a protection against it.

Your unconcern is so pronounced that you would rather down play the amount of guns used in murder and crime because you think that doesn’t suit your position, which is the defence and promotion of gun ownership.

Of course it matters how the murders were committed it tells you how they were committed what was used, and then it is a matter of asking why they were used.

I mean you do seem to accept that guns are the most efficient form of weapon to be used for threat or worse and that they are easily available in the US.

Again I ask – If Americans are more prone to violence or see guns as a means of solving problems then wouldn’t it be in their own best interests to try and do something about it rather than just accepting it?

You’ve said something should be done but don’t seem to have thought what, let alone ways to alleviate it, and instead push guns as a means of tackling it.

So how does this not back up my theories?

----------

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

*Because you saying I want criminals to have guns is plainly a stupid statement with no support whatsoever. I have never had anyone say such a thing and no one else in these discussions has made such an ignorant statement except you.

That’s not explaining why what I’ve said is untrue you’re just telling me it’s not.

I’ve explained a number of times why it seems to be correct and so far all you’ve replied with is a denial but no explanation.

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?

(missed post, feb 21) - So are you going to?

*

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?

*And how does your reluctance to discuss the effectiveness of such policies not show that you just want to implement them with disregard to any consequences so you can feel good.
In what way does this not back up my theories?

No reluctance on my part (I’d ask you to quote or link to it but you’d probably just ignore the request like all the other times) I’m very happy to discuss it and have tried but it’s difficult when you’re position these days seem to consist solely of you proclaiming you are right because you believe you’re right.

So are you going to do anything more than try and defend and promote gun ownership if not (as has been the case for well over a year now) then you seem to back up my theories.

*

 

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?

*I have given reason why I don’t think so, you have just ignored then once again.

Oh once again with the accusations for which proof never seems to materialise.

Ok once again (and probably ignored again) please quote or link to where you believe I’ve ignored you on this?

I’ve written at length why I think your arguments are not that overwhelming and seem based mainly on the inconvenience they might have for gun owners (and can quote from them).

So far all your counter argument consists of is you telling me I’m wrong, if you can actually give any more explanation I’d be happy to reply to it.

---------

*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.

(missing post Feb 21) So are you going to?

**

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.

*Your right its even more restrictive, it’s a ban and it has been useless in lowering the gun related violence there.

So are you saying that I’m right that all you seemed to have presented so far is your belief that it wouldn’t be effective without any explanation as to why you believe that?

I mean you said that you were basing it on the “similar and exact laws’ but when asked you don’t seem to explain what you mean.

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

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?

*This argument you present is completely stupid. Its like saying do away with speed laws because people continue to speed anyway. No one is asking to do away with any laws.

But that ‘stupidity’ was exactly what you were putting forward as an argument.

You seemed to be saying that there was no point in trying to restrict the mentally unstable or criminals from getting hold of guns legally because they could ‘just get an illegal one’.

Which is like saying that there is no point forbidding unlicensed or dangerous drivers from having a car, since they can get one illegally and drive it anyway.

As I’ve said your arguments opposing the proposals you thought were good are not that overwhelming or even though out, and seem more about defending gun owners from the inconvenience they may entail.

-----------

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

*Once again I am not going to go back through 160+ pages to find exact quotes and links just so you can delay and stall the discussion.

But this is the problem (as can be seen very clearly) you make claims or accusations but when asked to prove them, you are repeatedly unable to do so.

For example you claim to have explained something already (thereby getting out of explaining it when asked to) then when asked to show proof of this explanation, you ignore the request or make an excuse like the one you do here.

That is very much designed to stall the discussion.

And again I’m curious - Why was it important to you to claim that it had been posted before when it hadn’t?

-----------

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

*Lmao oh sure you would. I’m sure there are plenty of examples of you doing just such a thing in this thread alone.

I’ve argued for years that all such lobby groups and think tanks, of whatever persuasion, should be identified when reported in the media. It is well known in political circles and the more savvy media pundits that these groups have biases and agendas, the supposed ‘independence’ that some groups profess to is only there to fool the gullible.

Sometimes the BBC does it calling the Fabien society a ‘left of centre think tank’ or describing Civitas as a ‘right-wing think tank’ and the Adam Smith Institute as a free-market think tank, but many times it doesn’t. The worst offenders are the more biased areas of the media themselves such as the politically biased newspapers.

Always be very wary when a newspaper publishes the results of a ‘independent survey’ which just happens to support the political leans of that paper.

Anyway, I’ve never made any secret about being a left winger with socialist inspired ideas. I think I’ve described myself several times as a pragmatic socialist with green influences.
How would you describe yourself politically?

--------

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?

*Which just means you are like all anti-gunners who are never satisfied and continue to “just want more” until you get a complete ban, like you “inadvertently” suggested at the first of this discussion.

Again the question remains unanswered and instead we get another hissy fit.

Are you going to answer?

--------

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.

(Feb 21 Post ignored) so are you going to answer?

**

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’?

*Are you suggesting they continue to just ignore such concerns as has become the norm these days?

So you still don’t have an answer?

I’ll ask once more – to whom should these people 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.

*Yet where these types of programs have been implemented there has not been any harm reduction. Once again look at the UK. Complete bans and yet the number of GUN murders have not changed, the number instances of gun violence has not changed.

So do you think your stance apathetic or what?

I mean you seem to be implying once again that all gun regulation is useless.

As to the effectiveness or not of the UK handgun ban (not as you assert a complete ban, all this time and you are still getting it wrong) we are having that discussion elsewhere. All you seem to be doing here is trying to misdirect onto a different point to hide the fact you haven’t addressed this one.

Can you please address this one?

----------

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.

Once again I have shown that I care by supporting such things as the NICS improvement act. This indeed gives funding and procedures to aid in the enforcement of existing laws.

What has your reply to do your not seeming to know or care about why so many existing US gun laws were not being enforced?

---------

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?

*Once again you only look at it from one side (the gun ban side) while ignoring the other side. It’s a matter of balancing criminals while allowing law abiding the ability of self protection by gun should they choose to do so.

But what is the view from the other side which you seem to be championing – that these measures might reduce the number of guns getting into criminal hand but such regulations would be an inconvenience to gun owners.

In my view trying to keep gun out of criminal’s hands is more important than the minor inconveniences gun owners might feel.

---------

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.

You just completely ignored what was said and you even quoted it.

OH once more with the accusations, ok please point out exactly what you think I’ve ignored (quote or link, whatever) and then we can all see if your claim is true or not?

I suspect (as is happening increasingly) you will refuse to show any proof or just ignore my request to show any.

---------

“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?

(feb 21 - a few questions here you missed out)

**

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?

*There are no absolutes in these situations as you are implying. You are saying one or the other always has an advantage which is completely ignorant.

I agree but you are suggesting that having guns do give people an advantage. In all the scenarios you’ve ever presented the gun owner always wins out. I’m just trying to say it’s not so clean cut.

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

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

*Excellent idea!!!!! What the hell does this have to do with banning guns from law abiding people?

An excellent idea, which you seem to be almost completely ignoring?

So you are saying that you agreed to banning guns when you thought the proposals I’ve been championing were good?

---------

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

Well if you have to have an average percentage, just take the actual number of incidents involving a DGU and the number of successful DGU’s then divide it out.

Wouldn’t it be the number of people that had a gun in the house or on their person that where victims of a crime divided by the number of successful DGU’s in which the victim was not injured?

I mean you are disagreeing that it’s 50/50, so what is it?

----------

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 your friend who defended himself from a knife wielding attacker KNEW he would be successful?

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?

-----------

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).

Show me ONE place I have said EVERY encounter on either side of the argument. You are once again making shit up. You have to be one of the most dishonest people I have met here on HF

Every scenario you have presented has the gun owner winning and you have tried to present only successful gun outcomes (although in one the gun owner was nearly killed when his gun was taken off him and was only saved because the gun jammed and in the other a young man lost his life which you might see as a ‘success’ but I think was a tragic waste.)

---------

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?

*That does not answer the question now does it?

As you can see the question was addressed so are you going to address my own?


----------

Why is it the same in reverse?

*OMFG this is completely stupid. You will do anything to get out of answering a straight forward question.

You mean the question I’ve already answered?

*

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 asked me if “EVERY” encounter where the intended victim is armed turned out ok.
The reverse which is what I asked you is:
In “EVERY” encounter in which the intended victim is NOT armed turns out ok.

Actually to quote I asked – “But if they had both had a gun, and the attacker drew first (since he is the attacker) he would have the advantage and wouldn’t he more likely shot if the victim began to pull his own gun.

You replied “Once again I will refer you to the REAL life DGU stories listed on the web page I have linked you to numerous times before which you have obviously never looked at.

I replied – “Like the one you gave as an example where someone pulled a gun and then had it taken off him and would have been fatally shot if the gun hadn’t jammed? Are you saying that every encounter ends well?”

The point I was trying to make was that it is difficult to know what the outcome will be sometime the attacker gets the better of it other times the reverse.

You seem to have been implying in your statements that guns will protect the person carrying it. I’m saying that might not always be the case so wouldn’t it be better to try and lessen the likelihood of it happening from socio-economic reform rather than hoping guns will work?

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

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?

(missed post Feb 21) so are you going to produce the evidence or not?

**

 

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’.

*Then why is it you seem to be the only one confused?

So you can’t actually produce any evidence that you’ve explained this even once let alone the dozen or so times you claim?

So does it exist or not, if not why not take the time to explain it now?

---------

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.

*Choose one I have posted plenty.

But when asked you can’t produce even one?

I think you know that if you did it would only show that you claims and accusations are wrong.

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

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?

*Then once again explain the story posted above in post 1584?

The man didn’t have a chair.

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

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.

*That’s not what was said at all now was it?

Here is what was said by you – “These are continuing questions that can and should be worked on to answer”

But you have produced 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 while continuing to promote guns.

Again this is in line with my theories.

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

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.

*Again this does not answer the question now does it?

Your question was – “how limiting the victim’s access to a functional available firearm would have changed anything in that situation”

Would it have been limited in the proposals you thought were good and I’ve being supporting?

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. You have backed this up many time yourself by promoting guns as a way of tackling crime while being unable or unwilling to discuss wider 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.

Why is that?

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

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’?

(missed Feb 21) So are you able to show proof of your claim?

**

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.

A fluctuating figure that has stayed between X and X for 50 years. You enact a complete gun ban and the figures for the last 10 years are still between X and X. One can then deduce that there has been no effect. What makes you think you can show where there has been an effect?

Oh once again with the ‘complete gun ban’ is it a complete gun ban or just a handgun ban?

All I’m saying is it’s impossible to say, you can have an opinion you can have a guess but you can never use this as proof positive that this particular legislation 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”.

No I mean FUCKING GUN MURDER. Show me how the new recording standard changes how one someone murdered by a fucking gun has changed. The changes you are harping about is recording of other types of crime. GUN murder is GUN murder no matter how you look at it.

It’s difficult because when it suits you sometimes you talk of ‘gun crime’ and sometimes ‘gun murder’

I’d posted something on “overall” firearms offences and you come back shouting about gun murders.

But I have said that in a country with a rising population with a near static number of gun related murders would mean a drop relative to population.

And I’ve said many times that there is a big link between gun crime and the illegal drugs trade and that while gun regulation can help only when that is confronted will much of that crime drop.

Again it is about looking at the wider picture rather than just concentrating on one part because it is the only part you are interested in.

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

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?

(missed post feb 21) So can you back up your claims?

**

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?

Omfg. The correlation between gun availability and crime rates. There is no correlation thus leaving one to conclude the rise and fall of crime rates must lie somewhere beside gun availability.

Again you clearly haven’t been reading the posts.

You claim that there is ‘no correlation’ as far as I can tell is based is seems on belief and studies you seem unable to defend from criticism.

So it is only an opinion, not a fact.

So I’ll ask once again, why has the US so much more gun crime and gun related homicides compared with such places as Britain and Switzerland.

My theory is that this down to socio-economic pressures and a cultural landscape where guns are seen as a legitimate means of tackling problems.

For example one argument seems to be that since some areas with high levels of gun ownership have low levels of crime guns can’t be a factor in crime (an example often given is Switzerland).

But the Swiss are not Americans they haven’t the same cultural landscape and even in the US the cultural factors might be the same but there are huge differences in socio-economic pressures.

My idea is to try and treat the social, economic and cultural factors but at the same time it seems rational to try and reduce harm by bringing some mild gun regulations to try and limit the guns getting into the hands of those that might do harm with them.

You don’t seem interested in doing much about the societal factors and are vehemently against regulations that might reduce the harm from guns.


*

 

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.

*The figures are there to come to the conclusion I and many others have reached. If there is some hidden figures not included with the published ones you or they need to produce them. Otherwise they are just like you saying its really X because I said so.

So even though you admit you don’t know what the polices figure was based on you knew they were talking bull shit.

That is exactly what I mean – even without the evidence you come to the conclusions that suit your viewpoint.

---------

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?

*Again that does not answer the fucking question.

The one I’d already answered (reprinted below?)

So are you going to answer my question - Please explain why there isn’t a contradiction?

----------

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.

I’m not defending the existing balance I’m saying there HAS to be balance. If cutting CEO’s wages to something realistic helps maintain this I have no problem with it. You seem to be saying balance does not matter as long as worker wages continue to rise.

What I’ve been saying is a more balanced society would probably be a better society for most of the people in it.

---------

 

*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?

(missed post feb 21) – you said that this was ‘telling’ can you please explain why?

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

*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?

(missed post feb 21) – you said that this was ‘telling’ can you please explain why?

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

*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?

(missed post feb 21) – you said that this was ‘telling’ can you please explain why?

**

*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?

(missed post feb 21) – so 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?

(missed post feb 21) So are you going to answer


**

Can you actually show HOW any of your ideas are based on facts?

Well over a year ago I put forward a theory that it seemed to me that the problem with gun was that they seemed to be seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with the symptoms of societal problems and had therefore come to ignore those problems.

This theory had built up over years after many conversations and much reading. But since discussing it here many people have backed up this theory.

I have shown repeatedly that many don’t seem to have given much thought to wider social problems but they do seem to think strongly that guns are a way of tackling the symptoms arising from them.

In fact I don’t thing many have gone beyond telling me the theory is wrong in fact I think you might be the only one and your argument that you could talk about societal things but won’t and that you do think about wider societal issues but refuse to show any proof of it is not exactly strong.


*

Can you show how any of your ideas are going to effect criminal acts?

If you are talking about the gun regulation proposals you thought were good and I’ve being promoting why did you think them good? Even your criticisms of them haven’t been exactly serious being based for the most part on what you see as the inconvenience to the gun owners.
As to my wider social ideas you don’t actually seem that interested (see above)

*

Can you show me the effectiveness of these ideas?

You would need to be more specific which part of the holistic approach are you talking about?

I mean we have covered a lot of them and others you don’t seem interested in so what bit are you taking about.

**

 

Pitt

Look over these posts.

You repeatedly ignore my questions while shouting loudly that I haven’t, even when I have.

You again refuse to back up your claims and accusations with anything more than hot air.

With increasing frequency your only argument seems to be forthright but unexplained assertions that you are right and I’m wrong.

Is your position so weak that you can find nothing to defend it except dogmatic belief?

Should you be wondering why you seem unable to defend it?


**

 

Originally Posted by Balbus

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...
Jneil

So what are you saying that there is a non-American culture that people need guns to protect themselves against?

**

Here are some musings I’ve printed before that might be of interest.

“As I’ve said many Americans attitude toward guns is just one aspect of a more general attitude of intimidation in US society.

For example the US has the largest prison populations in the world (686 per 100,000) and has one of the highest execution rates in the world (in the company of such countries as China, Iran, Pakistan and now Iraq). It is also about zero tolerance and the three strike rules.

(Switzerland prison population is 83 per 100,000, England and Wales 148 per 100,000. Both countries do not have the death penalty)

To me this seems more about ruling through intimidation and the fear of violence (especially since US prisons are often described as extremely brutal especially compared with those in the UK and Switzerland, - Amnesty International).

But who is this intimidation been directed at?

**

Guns can also be a means of intimidation, the whole carrying of a concealed weapon movement is based on the premise that ‘criminals’ will be too afraid to act.

But while many pro-gunners talk about using guns to deter crime, what crimes can a gun deter or tackle?

Guns in the hands of ‘decent’ ordinary citizens are not much use in tackling white collar or computer crime neither is it against the mostly closed worlds of organised crime.
(Just a reminder here that “In 1998, more than four times as many women were murdered with a gun by their husbands or intimate partners than were killed by strangers' guns, knives or other weapons combined”… and “One study found that, in Atlanta, family and intimate assaults involving guns were 12 times more likely to result in death than family and intimate assaults not involving guns (L. Saltzman, et.al; Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults; 1992). ‘Guns and Domestic Violence’ by Beth Levy. These were crimes but ones were the gun supposed protective deterrence of outside forces caused internal tragedy)

**

So that leaves street crime, the deterrence being talked about is basically lower class crime the protection being sort is mainly against the lowest lever of criminal.

Could it be said that it is about keeping the economic lower orders in their place?

Well back to those other means of intimidation.

It might be interesting to note that Black households have traditionally had some of the lowest median incomes according to the US census and at the same time although black people only make up around 13 per cent of the US’s population they made up half the prison population in 1999 and in 2000 one in three young black men were either in prison or on probation or parole. Today in the US they make up 41.8% of those on death row.

Now while any group can become involved in criminal activity social, economic and educational backgrounds often have a way of determine the type of crime someone is going to undertake.

And those close to poverty are much more likely to become involved in street crime (which isn’t that profitable) than white collar or computer crime (which is)

**

So again who is this intimidation been directed at?”

**

Thing is, that I’m not talking of a racial group although racism might come into it what I’m talking about is a socio-economic group that happens in the US to have a racial element.

The thing is that in all societies the lowest socio-economic groups are usually the ones involved in ‘street crime’ like muggings and housebreaking, while white collar crime like fraud and deception is normally committed by higher socio-economic groups. This is the norm in nearly all societies I’ve heard about even ones that have been almost totally ethically the same.

**

 

To understand Astrolog’s post this is part of a review of ‘Weapon shops of Isher?’ I posted in reply to his PM requesting me to read the book.

"Van Vogt leaves little doubt where he stands on the gun issue with lines like, "He thought: The right to buy weapons - and his heart swelled into his throat; the tears came into his eyes." Yet the book doesn't get preachy. For one thing, van Vogt's point is much broader than the matter of guns. The weapon makers represent the libertarian spirit that refuses to submit to complete government control. Unfortunately, some of the impact of the fight for freedom is lost because the weapon makers are hardly valiant underdogs; rather, they are the ones with enormous technological and organizational advantages over the empire. The weapon shops are supposed to be an institution preventing any government from gaining too much power, but van Vogt doesn't explain what's to stop the weapon makers themselves from asserting absolute power over the entire world.
http://www.geocities.com/fantasticreviews/weapon_shops_of_isher.htm

I would say that it might be interesting to read this -

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

 

The young hip-hop bands in Poland are singing: 'Throw away gun if you keep it under your jacket. Having a gun is lowing down your HONOR, only winkers show the guns.'

 

Look who's talking...

 

Michael

I can talk, but the question is can you?

Because I keep asking you to give it a go but you seem unable to do anything more than wave those pom poms.

I mean only a few post ago you said something about 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?”

*

Is your position so weak that you can find nothing to defend it except dogmatic belief?


**

 

Now dear Balbus I fully understood what you mean. And I'm totally ok with it. You hit the point men.

 

The thing is very simple and easy to explain what is wrong with USA. You buy for example muffin for one dollar: 10 cents is going for new bullets (pentagon) and CIA which is finding targets. Like for example non-existing atomic missiles in Iran. In fact they just think in basic way. More you fight - more you work - more money is in the run. That's the fact that gun shops are only top of that nonstopable powerful war machine. Until there will be as Kissinger said - animals - paws - gunmeet - there will be people that are ready to use it. Simple. The awareness should be constantly changed from the lowest point. We should speak to those bat heads all over the world, use our time to them, hear them, educate them and so on.... Even Orangists and guys from RIRA are educative. Let the God bless them.

 

I don't own a gun. To me, it has always been symbolic of fear. Inner fear.

But they say opposites attract.

The proliferation of private weapons in the United States is the only thing that keeps our own government from sliding into a fascist police state. And it wants to REAL bad. They know we the people can march on Washington to restore order if we have to.

Some of you people in other counties no longer have that option.

You've either given it up on your own or had it taken from you. The danger in this is the clock is now ticking. You combine this with other nations who have disarmed their populations, and you have a stage set for rogue elements within these governments to make their move.

It will be worse than WWII. Far worse.

Don't think it hasn't begun already.



x

 

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.

*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?

Is this the third or fourth time of asking - please quote or link to these discussions?

(feb 25) And still you are not replying to this request so I presume you are unable to actually find any.

**

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?

*Once again your posts are very contradicting. In one post you say you cannot compare different countries because of differing cultural, social and economic factors as well as differing reporting techniques. The next you are asking why is it higher in one US state when compared to the UK.

Oh Pitt we’ve been through all this many times, direct comparisons may be difficult and should be explained as such but contrasting the difference is possible.

For example are you disputing that gun crime and gun related homicides are much greater per 100,000 of population in the US, to say that in the UK or Switzerland?

That is why I asked why you thought this difference was so stark, why does the US seem to have a so much more violent population that’s prone to gun use than other peoples, such as the British or the Swiss?

*And I have told you. It has nothing to do with gun availability as you seem to think. It has more to do with upbringing, lack of personal respect and personal responsibility, social ills, economic problems, etc.

So people are more prone to threatening or violent behaviour due to social, economic, cultural and environmental factors.

The most efficient and effective weapon to threaten with is a gun.

So if someone is prone to these tendencies they likely to want a gun.

Then it stands to reason that the ease of availability to guns becomes a factor in there use for threatening or violence.

My view is to try and reduce harm through gun regulation to try and limit gun abuse while bringing in other legislation and reforms to deal with the societal problems.

From talking to you it has become clear you don’t think about societal problems that much (if at all) and you don’t seem to care about guns being used abusively if that means inconveniencing gun owners even in the slightest.

---------

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

*Because crime and murder rates are so high. Once again it does not matter the how the murder was committed.

Again we’ve been through this many times, and you still haven’t addressed the issues raised before.

You don’t seem to have thought about why the crime and murder rates are so high you just seem to accept they are and hope guns are a protection against it.

Your unconcern is so pronounced that you would rather down play the amount of guns used in murder and crime because you think that doesn’t suit your position, which is the defence and promotion of gun ownership.

Of course it matters how the murders were committed it tells you how they were committed what was used, and then it is a matter of asking why they were used.

I mean you do seem to accept that guns are the most efficient form of weapon to be used for threat or worse and that they are easily available in the US.

Again I ask – If Americans are more prone to violence or see guns as a means of solving problems then wouldn’t it be in their own best interests to try and do something about it rather than just accepting it?

You’ve said something should be done but don’t seem to have thought what, let alone ways to alleviate it, and instead push guns as a means of tackling it.

So how does this not back up my theories?

*For investigative purposes that may be important. As to the causality of murder it means nothing.

So to you the fact that so many people use guns to kill each other far greater than places like Britain or Switzerland that means nothing to you its irrelevant?

*If EVERY American were more prone then sure however the VAST MAJORITY are law abiding and there is no reason to take something away from them because of a low percentage of criminals. If you want to let criminals tell YOU how to run your life that’s your prerogative, and the way you have chosen to live in the UK.

Thank you Pitt this is exactly in line with my theories.

You don’t really care what problems your society is suffering from as long as you and those that think like you can have guns, because you believe guns can deal with the symptoms of those problems.

To me criminality and types of criminality are symptoms of socio-economic problems. And again a law abiding person is such right up to the point when they stop been, someone isn’t born a criminal.

I would like to try and limit the amount of people becoming criminals you seem to think that is letting ‘criminals’ tell me how to run you’re my life, but were those people born criminals or human beings?

----------


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

*Because you saying I want criminals to have guns is plainly a stupid statement with no support whatsoever. I have never had anyone say such a thing and no one else in these discussions has made such an ignorant statement except you.

That’s not explaining why what I’ve said is untrue you’re just telling me it’s not.

I’ve explained a number of times why it seems to be correct and so far all you’ve replied with is a denial but no explanation.

Why is that?

(feb 26 still no response?) Are you going to address what’s been said?

**

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?

(missed post, feb 21) - So are you going to?

(missed again feb 25) – so you can’t link or quote then?

**

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?

*And how does your reluctance to discuss the effectiveness of such policies not show that you just want to implement them with disregard to any consequences so you can feel good.
In what way does this not back up my theories?

No reluctance on my part (I’d ask you to quote or link to it but you’d probably just ignore the request like all the other times) I’m very happy to discuss it and have tried but it’s difficult when you’re position these days seem to consist solely of you proclaiming you are right because you believe you’re right.

So are you going to do anything more than try and defend and promote gun ownership if not (as has been the case for well over a year now) then you seem to back up my theories.

*OMFG I have told you I am not going to go back through hundreds of pages to find one link you already know exist.

So again you ignore all the points raised and the questions asked to give yet another excuse why you will not answer anything?

**

 

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

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?

*I have given reason why I don’t think so, you have just ignored then once again.

Oh once again with the accusations for which proof never seems to materialise.

Ok once again (and probably ignored again) please quote or link to where you believe I’ve ignored you on this?

I’ve written at length why I think your arguments are not that overwhelming and seem based mainly on the inconvenience they might have for gun owners (and can quote from them).

So far all your counter argument consists of is you telling me I’m wrong, if you can actually give any more explanation I’d be happy to reply to it.

(feb 25) another request for you to prove an accusation ignored, anyone would think you were just making them up?

---------

*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.

(missing post Feb 21) So are you going to?

(missed again feb 25) so you don’t know if you addressed it or not?

**

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.

*Your right its even more restrictive, it’s a ban and it has been useless in lowering the gun related violence there.

So are you saying that I’m right that all you seemed to have presented so far is your belief that it wouldn’t be effective without any explanation as to why you believe that?

I mean you said that you were basing it on the “similar and exact laws’ but when asked you don’t seem to explain what you mean.

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

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?

*This argument you present is completely stupid. Its like saying do away with speed laws because people continue to speed anyway. No one is asking to do away with any laws.

But that ‘stupidity’ was exactly what you were putting forward as an argument.

You seemed to be saying that there was no point in trying to restrict the mentally unstable or criminals from getting hold of guns legally because they could ‘just get an illegal one’.

Which is like saying that there is no point forbidding unlicensed or dangerous drivers from having a car, since they can get one illegally and drive it anyway.

As I’ve said your arguments opposing the proposals you thought were good are not that overwhelming or even though out, and seem more about defending gun owners from the inconvenience they may entail.

*No that is another complete LIE.

Is it?

*And according to YOUR mentality and thought process. Since unlicensed and dangerous people continue to drive illegally, we should make new ways to restrict the sales of cars. In order for someone to own a car they must be psychologically examined in order to weed out potential road rage drivers. They must also have a fully secured and enclosed garage to prevent cars from falling into the hands of unlicensed and dangerous drivers. When the car is not in use one must disable the starting mechanism to prevent accidental startage.

But the car was not designed specifically to cause death or injury. Cars were designed as a means of transport they can cause injury and death but that usually isn’t intentional and although a car bomber might want to buy are car with the intention of killing people few other people would.

Often the selling point of cars is there safety features, for a gun the selling point is its ability to cause harm.

And another selling point of cars is their security features such as alarms and immobilisers.

Also my view is to discourage cars in built up and suburban areas through congestion charges and improved public transport, with traffic calming techniques being used to reduce harm where possible.

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

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

*Once again I am not going to go back through 160+ pages to find exact quotes and links just so you can delay and stall the discussion.

But this is the problem (as can be seen very clearly) you make claims or accusations but when asked to prove them, you are repeatedly unable to do so.

For example you claim to have explained something already (thereby getting out of explaining it when asked to) then when asked to show proof of this explanation, you ignore the request or make an excuse like the one you do here.

That is very much designed to stall the discussion.

And again I’m curious - Why was it important to you to claim that it had been posted before when it hadn’t?

(feb 26) I’m still curious why you would lie over such a minor thing?

-----------

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?

*Which just means you are like all anti-gunners who are never satisfied and continue to “just want more” until you get a complete ban, like you “inadvertently” suggested at the first of this discussion.

Again the question remains unanswered and instead we get another hissy fit.

Are you going to answer?

(feb 26) and the question remains ignored.

--------

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.

(Feb 21 Post ignored) so are you going to answer?

(feb 25) have you got an answer?

**

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’?

*Are you suggesting they continue to just ignore such concerns as has become the norm these days?

So you still don’t have an answer?

I’ll ask once more – to whom should these people report ‘suspect behaviour’ to and in what way are they meant to ‘counter it’?

(feb 25) so you don’t have an answer?

**

 

----------

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.

*Yet where these types of programs have been implemented there has not been any harm reduction. Once again look at the UK. Complete bans and yet the number of GUN murders have not changed, the number instances of gun violence has not changed.

So do you think your stance apathetic or what?

I mean you seem to be implying once again that all gun regulation is useless.

*No I have not implied that at all. I have asked you what you want to accomplish by these new regulations and you have been very vague about the intended goals of the regulations. Saying Improve the quality of life without stating how this would accomplish this is not an answer. Saying they will keep guns out of the hands of people “who do not need them” is not an answer if you do not explain how this would actually accomplish this.

LOL oh my giddy aunts – have you read nothing of what I’ve posted?

I’ve posted hundreds possibly thousands of times by now that the gun regulations I’ve been championing (that you thought were good) about trying to reduce harm, while other socio-economic measures would try and improve people quality of life.

As to how they will keep guns out of the hands of people who might misuse them we’ve been through that umpteenth beginning well over a year ago

I mean why do you have a gun safe, sorry vault?

-----------

As to the effectiveness or not of the UK handgun ban (not as you assert a complete ban, all this time and you are still getting it wrong) we are having that discussion elsewhere. All you seem to be doing here is trying to misdirect onto a different point to hide the fact you haven’t addressed this one.

*Following the incident, the government passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 which means that as of 1997 handguns have been almost completely banned for private ownership, although the official inquiry, known as the Cullen Inquiry, did not go so far as to recommend such action.[12] Exceptions to the ban include muzzle-loading "blackpowder" guns, pistols produced before 1917, pistols of historical interest (such as pistols used in notable crimes, rare prototypes, unusual serial numbers and so on), starting pistols, pistols that are of particular aesthetic interest (such as engraved or jewelled guns) and shot pistols for pest control. Under certain circumstances, individuals may be issued a PPW (Personal Protection Weapon) Licence. Even Britain's Olympic shooters fall under this ban; as a result of this law, the British pistol shooting team must train outside the country.

A hand gun ban as I said.

So are you going to address the point that was ignored – are you implying that all gun regulations are useless?

---------

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.

*Once again I have shown that I care by supporting such things as the NICS improvement act. This indeed gives funding and procedures to aid in the enforcement of existing laws.

What has your reply to do your not seeming to know or care about why so many existing US gun laws were not being enforced?

*Lack of funding, lack of workable procedure, lack of personnel etc etc.

So what is your answer to these problems because as I’ve said you didn’t seemed concerned then and you don’t seem concerned now.

You just seem to accept the situation with a shrug of the shoulders.

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

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.

*This does not explain HOW this would actually keep them from being stolen.

What?

Are you going back to that silly argument of yours that a gun in a shoe box is as secure as one in a safe?

As I said 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?

*Once again you only look at it from one side (the gun ban side) while ignoring the other side. It’s a matter of balancing criminals while allowing law abiding the ability of self protection by gun should they choose to do so.

But what is the view from the other side which you seem to be championing – that these measures might reduce the number of guns getting into criminal hand but such regulations would be an inconvenience to gun owners.

In my view trying to keep gun out of criminal’s hands is more important than the minor inconveniences gun owners might feel.

*Once again its about balance. A gun kept for personal protection but kept disabled or locked up in a safe is pretty much useless for protection now isn’t it?

OH PIT oh pitt – you’re not going to bring up this again?

We’ve gone through this, the gun only needs to be locked up if the person leaves it at home, it’s about reducing the number that are stolen from peoples homes.

I mean is this an overwhelming argument?

-----------

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.

*You just completely ignored what was said and you even quoted it.

OH once more with the accusations, ok please point out exactly what you think I’ve ignored (quote or link, whatever) and then we can all see if your claim is true or not?

I suspect (as is happening increasingly) you will refuse to show any proof or just ignore my request to show any.

*I just told you where to find it. I replied to one of your post and said the part you ignored was in your post and was a quote. I am not going back and copy/paste the exact same thing post after post. You only want this to delay the conversation.

And it is as I suspected another claim that you don’t seem able to prove in any shape or form and another excuse for not doing so.

Come on Pitt produce it or did it never exist?


-----------

“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?

(feb 21 - a few questions here you missed out)

(feb 26) and again this gets ignored.

And instead the only comment is a rather childish – “What does “might” mean? Get a dictionary if you don’t know.”

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?

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

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?

*There are no absolutes in these situations as you are implying. You are saying one or the other always has an advantage which is completely ignorant.

I agree but you are suggesting that having guns do give people an advantage. In all the scenarios you’ve ever presented the gun owner always wins out. I’m just trying to say it’s not so clean cut.

*Another lie balbus? In the last scenario I posted the CRIMINAL had a gun and had it out first and pointed at the victim.

OH pitt LOL and you tell me to get a dictionary?

A scenario is a work of fiction something made up. The events you are referring to were of an incident a reality. I’m talking about such things as your story with the old woman that got beaten to death in one story because she didn’t have a gun but when the story is retold and she was armed she was able to frighten off her attacker.

The thing is you show the good person winning and the bad person (armed or not) loosing because the good person has a gun.

Since the outcome is uncertain and may easily end up with one of the parties dead or injured wouldn’t it be better to try and reduce the number of people turning to crime?

Which lead on to…

**

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

*Excellent idea!!!!! What the hell does this have to do with banning guns from law abiding people?

An excellent idea, which you seem to be almost completely ignoring?

So you are saying that you agreed to banning guns when you thought the proposals I’ve been championing were good?

(feb 26) well are you?

**

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

*Well if you have to have an average percentage, just take the actual number of incidents involving a DGU and the number of successful DGU’s then divide it out.

Wouldn’t it be the number of people that had a gun in the house or on their person that where victims of a crime divided by the number of successful DGU’s in which the victim was not injured?

I mean you are disagreeing that it’s 50/50, so what is it?

Sure go ahead and figure it that way.

So you don’t now?

So 50/50 would seem reasonable then.

----------

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 your friend who defended himself from a knife wielding attacker KNEW he would be successful?

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?

(feb 26) so you’d recommend the chair or what?

**

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).

*Show me ONE place I have said EVERY encounter on either side of the argument. You are once again making shit up. You have to be one of the most dishonest people I have met here on HF

Every scenario you have presented has the gun owner winning and you have tried to present only successful gun outcomes (although in one the gun owner was nearly killed when his gun was taken off him and was only saved because the gun jammed and in the other a young man lost his life which you might see as a ‘success’ but I think was a tragic waste.)

*Oh I can also show Unsuccessful attempts. I have never denied this. As I have said each circumstance is different and one must decide which way to go. Its not Up to YOU to decide how they should react.

So what is the ratio?

And are you not seeming to recommend that people do have a go with a chair against a gun, when you are continually pushing the idea that the outcome will be ok?

The thing is that to me this doesn’t seem like a good way to try and tackle crime and it definitely not the way to understand the causes so they can be dealt with.

----------

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?

*That does not answer the question now does it?

As you can see the question was addressed so are you going to address my own?

*The question was NOT addressed it was danced around.

In what way? –

Q - Are you saying that in every encounter in which the victim is NOT armed at all ends well?

A - 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.

That is ‘any’ violent or threatening encounter.

So are you going to answer my question or not?

----------