Guncrazy USA

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?

*And this was addressed with the last TRUE story I posted. Showing this is not a given and the intended victim can and often does successfully take the advantage ending the situation.

Often does? You mean you’d recommend someone in that situation where a gun is pointed right at their chests to reach for their gun and hope things turn out ok?

---------

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?

(feb 26) so you are not going to produce any evidence, so did you just make it up?

**

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?

(feb 26) so it doesn’t exist and you can’t explain what you mean either?

**
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.

(feb 26) So again you ignore this request, strange how plenty becomes nil.

**

 

**

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.

(feb 26) so you think the two are the same?


**


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?

(feb 26) so 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?

(feb 26) so why do you think that is?

**


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?

(feb 26) and still you can’t show proof?

**

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?

(feb 26) so you can’t back it up then?

**

 

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?

*And this can be accomplished without removing the option of self protection by using a gun if one so chooses.

Again the point I’ve been making, explaining and backing up from the statement you and others have made is that many Americans don’t seem to care very much (if at all) about accomplishing anything societally constructive, they only seem interested in defending and promoting guns as a means of dealing with the societal problems.

---------

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?

*It has been explained dozens of times over. Like I have told you I am not going to go through hundreds of pages to link you to something you have refused to read before. Nor am I going to continue to copy/paste replies over and over.

You don’t seem able to show proof of very much do you pitt?

----------

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.

*They are already posted. See above.

The question isn’t if they were posted it is questioning your assertion that I’ve not addressed what said in them and shown they can be re-interpreted.

But once again you run away because I think you know that your assertions would be proved wrong.

Is this honesty? Is this your idea of knowing right from wrong?

**

 

-----------

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?

Convience store robber says he has a gun. Clerk runs him off with a broom.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qE94tR-xCC0

Clerk fights off armed robber with an ax.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GhZRf4GIw0w&feature=related

another clerk fights off armed robber
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aa-3gbOysdo

Should I go on?

So you recommend picking up a chair to defend yourself against a man with a gun, and hope it works out ok?

So the odds are in your opinion good?

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

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.

And you have shown multitudes of evidence that you care more about the criminal than the victim having the right to protect himself.

No I don’t think you can back that up either.

I’ve said multiple times that I’m not against someone defending themselves (and can quote them).

What I’m saying is that 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.

If you believe you have please link or quote the relevant sections?

-----------

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?

*

Does it?

Yes it does. You are the evidence yourself.

I’m the evidence for what Pitt?

Again with the commands rather than the explanations.

---------

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

Ok then look just only the “hand” Gun murder rates and show where they have decreased?

So you admit that it is a hand gun ban not a complete gun ban?

---------

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

Nothing difficult here the chart I referenced showed “GUN” murders.

And at other times you talk about ‘violent crime’ or ‘gun crime’ in the exact same context, of it either remaining the same or grown since the ‘gun ban’ then admitting it hadn’t then claiming again it has. It is difficult to keep track.

-----

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.

OK so what is the population increase in the last 10 years? Now compare that increase to the number of gun murders increased in the last 10 years.

This is a case in point one moment you are claiming that the gun murder figures have remained static the next you claim they have increased.

To quote you – “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.”

A figure that hasn’t really changed that much for 50 years.

Then a figure that has increased in the past 10.

-----------

What ‘exact correlation’ are you talking about?

*Can you not read?

Yes I can and nothing you have written seems to have explained what you mean (of course if you know differently please link or quote).

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.

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

So it is only an opinion, not a fact.

*Then once again show us how you can reach another conclusion?

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.


----------

You do nothing now days but copy/paste the same old drivel you have been posting for over a year. At least TRY to come up with something new or at least something based on something besides your opinion.

LOL – you force me to repeat stuff because of your continued refusal to address what’s said. If it really is ‘drivel’ you should be able to address it rather than repeatedly ignoring it or claiming that you have addressed it when you clearly haven’t.

**

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.

*So if one side presents facts to back up their conclusion and if the other side presents nothing to back up their claims you just choose whichever side more closely matches your POV.

I’ve told you repeatedly I haven’t chosen a side I’m not sure whose right because I don’t have all the information, my point is that neither do you, but you have come to the conclusion anyway that the police figure (however they came to them) are complete bull shit and you are completely right.

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

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 (that was reprinted)

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

(feb 26) any chance of a answer.

**

 

*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?

*It shows your true feelings toward guns and the reasons you wish to ban them from law abiding people.

But I haven’t been calling for the law abiding to be banned from owning guns, the proposals I’ve been championing are the ones you thought were good and they don’t mention a ban at all.

So can you really explain why it is telling?

**


*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?

*It shows your true feelings toward guns and the reasons you wish to ban them from law abiding people.

But I haven’t been calling for the law abiding to be banned from owning guns, the proposals I’ve been championing are the ones you thought were good and they don’t mention a ban at all.

So can you really explain why it is telling?


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

*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?

*It shows your true feelings toward guns and the reasons you wish to ban them from law abiding people.

But I haven’t been calling for the law abiding to be banned from owning guns, the proposals I’ve been championing are the ones you thought were good and they don’t mention a ban at all.

So can you really explain why it is telling?

**


*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?

(feb 26) anything?

**

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?

(feb 26) so are you?

**

 

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.

*So you have NO facts? Only your “interpretation” of other peoples statements.

The evidence I’ve presented has often entailed peoples stated views and comments. I’ve analysed this data and explained often in detail why I think it backs up my theories.

In opposition to this you and others have told me I’m wrong, because you think I’m wrong and I should just accepted what you are telling me and stop saying such things because I’m wrong, wrong, wrong…

As I’ve told you many times that isn’t really a very rational argument it is the dogmatic command of a seemingly closed mind.

--------


*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)

*So in other words, you can’t?

I can’t what Pitt?

You did think the proposals I’ve been promoting for over a year were good.

You have tried to attack them since but as I’ve shown and explained your arguments don’t seem very overwhelming and often verge on the silly.

And as to the wider social ideas you don’t seem that interested.

-----------

*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.

*So in other words, you can’t?

Again Pitt, what do you mean?

You’d need to be specific, we talked about my drugs policy and you kind of didn’t know and in the end couldn’t think of any real reasons for being against them other than a moral stance that you thought some of it wrong. I’ve tried to talk to you about educational policies but you didn’t seem willing to go beyond platitudes. I’ve tried to talk to you about curbing materialism and you didn’t even seem to know what you meant by it or why it existed. I could go on, the problem has always been that you don’t seem interested in such things and therefore have given them little or no thought.

**

 

Look above Pitt

Time and again you blatantly ignore questions asked of you, you make accusations that you are totally unable to substantiate and make claims that you’re unable to back up with an ounce of proof. You make loud announcements that you’ve answered or explained things but refuse to show where and then refuse to answer or explain them again.

Increasingly your arguments these days are as I said like mirages in the desert you point to them shimmering in the distance but on closer inspection they disappear or float further away.

But the thing is that as your arguments dissipate you keep backing up my theories.


**

 

Xenon you could try reading

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


**

 

people, banning guns wouldn't solve gun crimes. there's always the black market. people can still pick up a stick and beat someone to death with it. does this eman we should ban sticks? or beter yet, does this meaqn we should ban trees. which by the way are the source of sticks. as far as i'm concerned, only nazis and communists want guns banned.

 

you have hit the nail on the head as to what would happen if everyone were disarmed. tell me everyone, do you really want to be left unarmed against a government that is constantly passing laws to take away what few rights and priveledges we have left? take notice how these shootings most often seem to happen in locations where they don't want you to have guns. yet, it's always someone with a gun that stops the attacker.

 

they also didn't put up any roadblocks or tell any of the students this had happened. they let this nutjob run loose for two hours after he did what he did and didn't even send in the SWAT team or let anyone out of class. they were basicly sitting ducks. the thing is virginia has concealed carry laws, including the right to concealed carry on college and university campuses. but virginia tech being as liberal as it is. has a rule where students are not allowed to carry concealed firearms for their own protection. the mall shooter in omaha, nebraska was stopped dead because an off duty cop who happened to be there at the time broke the mall's rule about no firearms on the premises. they don't want us to have firearms for our own defense because they know that the meek inherit the earth in a coffin.

 

Pitt


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

*Go back and read the thread balbus. I have told you I am not going back through hundreds of pages to show you something you should have already read.

But that is the point I have read the threads and you haven’t discussed where you think the problems lay, you’ve made hints but in fact when asked to expand you have refused.

All you seem to be doing is claim something that you know to be a lie – is that honest?

--------

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, gun use or not its still true. The US is more violent.

And I’ve ask you to explain why and you claim you have discussed it but you haven’t (and can show no proof) and you claim you are willing to discuss but you are not – I ask again is that honest behaviour?

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

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

*For the 1000th time yes

And for the 1000th time, why and what can be done?

That is the question I’ve been asking for a year or so far and you are still refusing to enter into any serious discussion, why?

--------

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

*Sure, its also the most efficient and effective weapon for self protection.

And if people are more prone to threatening or violent behaviour due to social, economic, cultural and environmental factors then they are also likely to believe others are threatening and violent and want a gun to protect them.

--------

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

*Among many other law abiding reasons to own a gun.

And a criminal is only someone that was once law abiding.

----------

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

*Not according to the studies I have provided you links to.

Well no, none of those studies seem to show this idea to be wrong as I’ve pointed out at length before.

The seemingly peaceful and stable Swiss have access to guns but have low gun crime because they don’t use them in a threatening or violent way, but if the Swiss were volatile and prone to violence then having access to guns is likely to mean they’ll use them in threatening and violent ways.

The ease of access to guns in a violent and paranoid society will logically increase the likelihood of harm occurring.

The problem is that you claim a lot for these ‘studies’ but have never actually addressed the criticisms levelled at them and therefore never seem willing to link to them because that would reveal unanswered criticisms as well.

Again is that honest?

----

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.

In what way does your stance not back up my theories?

(feb 28) that is the question you continually refuse to answer with anything more that telling me I’m wrong, because I’m wrong. Can you please answer?

**

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.

And your concern to remove guns from everyone is so great you wish to downplay the number of gun uses in self defense.

Again with the unfounded mudslinging.

Once again you claim I’ve been arguing for the removal of all guns from everyone. But the regulations I’ve being championing for a year or so are the ones you thought were good and you know none of them involve a gun ban.

Is this honest behaviour or the desperation of someone with no honest arguments?

And I’ve not been playing down the tragically high number of times that someone seems to have to go though the dangers of having to defend themselves with a gun.

That is why I’ve been arguing that it shouldn’t be seen as a good way to tackle crime.

Again you know all this but you are willing to lie, why, what do you think you gain?

--------

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?

*When you banned handguns did the murder rate go down? If removing guns has little to no effect then yes its irrelevant.

I notice that once again you ignore the question and try and hide that by switching to another subject you know is being discussed elsewhere.

Again, is this honest.

----------

 

**

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?

If its not that “major” then why so much effort on it?

LOL – actually I’ve spent most of my time trying to get you to talk about anything but gun regulation.

Remember from the beginning I’ve been more interested in wondering why so many gun advocates seem so threatened by their society and how they seem to see guns as a way of dealing with those fears rather than think what may be the problems with society so they can fix it.

However as I say - in line with my theory that some don’t seem interested in find out what’s wrong and so are ignoring their society’s problems, you only seem interested in the gun part.

As to the posting in general it’s no effort because I enjoy it.

---------

 

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.

*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.

*Yet many more deaths are caused by car than guns. So which seems to be more dangerous?

I’ve given you some ideas for reducing the harm from cars, have you any?

This is again inline with by theory. You don’t seem to be interested in thinking about and trying to limit the deaths you just want to use it as an argument for supporting guns.

Is that why high performance vehicles are so popular?

And the question is why and that touches on the ‘status’ factor in materialism, I’ve tried to discuss this with you but you don’t seem willing. I’m happy to try again.

You shy away from the car scenario above. Why is that? It follows the same logic you use to ban guns.

In what way do I ‘shy away’ from the issues?

**

 

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?

*Oh hells bells balbus. I have told you before. Perfect example is cho, Had the NICS improvement act been in place he would have been prevented from legally purchasing a gun.

You’re not read the posts are you Pitt?

The NICS improvement act only goes so far, as I’ve told you more than once, it just seems to cover mental health adjudications or commitments. Not those without such records.

But you were saying that if work mates, friends or family had concerns they should do something and I’ve been asking several times now - to whom should these people report ‘suspect behaviour’ and in what way are they meant to ‘counter it’?

Can you please give an answer?

Or are you purposely ignoring so many questions because you don’t have answers?

**

 

---------

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?

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.

*Yet you have NEVER said how these would “reduce harm”.

LOL oh my pitt, only another few thousand times.

To repeat - 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

To quote you from a previous discussion – “I have a “vault” not a safe there is a difference. And I have explained my views on safes before. They are to keep guns that are not being used safe and out of easy access to children”

-------

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

*Many reasons, it keeps them safe in a properly humidity controlled environment. Protects them from damage, keeps visitors from being able to put fingerprints all over them etc.

So what is the priority, keeping them out of the hands of children and criminals or protecting them from rust, scratches and oily fingerprints?

Thing is that if the latter are you main reasons for having a vault then it is very much a sign of a materialist mentality, something you have put down as one of the things you believe is wrong with American culture (putting things before people).

In other words it indicates that you put the safety of your property before that of the welfare of your fellow citizens, very much a ‘me thing’ kind of mentality again something you claim to dislike.

However if it is the former – wanting to keep them away form children and criminals that might do harm by accident or design then you back up exactly what I’ve been saying.

Which is it?

----------

 

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?

*In the aftermath, the Conservative government passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. This confined semiautomatic and pump-action centrefire rifles; military weapons firing explosive ammunition; short shotguns that had magazines; and both elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles to the Prohibited category

Up to here this is from wiki? On the aftermath of the Hungerford Massacre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

You then go off adding to this -

any firearm which is so designed or adapted that two or more missiles can be successively discharged without repeated pressure on the trigger.

any self-loading or pump-action rifled gun other than one which is chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges.

any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30cm in length or is less than 60cm in length overall, other than an air weapon, a muzzle-loading gun or a firearm designed as signalling apparatus.

any self-loading or pump-action smooth bore gun which is not an air weapon or chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges and either has a barrel less than 24 inches in length or is less than 40 inches in length overall.

any smooth bore revolver gun other than one which is chambered for 9mm rim-fire cartridges or a muzzle-loading gun.

any air rifle, air gun or air pistol which uses, or is designed or adapted for use with, a self-contained gas cartridge system.

Is this from here?
http://www.durham.police.uk/info/firearms/firearms_info/prohibited_weapons.php

Or here
http://www.met.police.uk/firearms-enquiries/f_prohb1.htm

But it doesn’t seem to be from here
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880045_en_1

Which notes the 88 amendments

And I can’t see were your list is connected to the 88 act can you please supply it?

*It’s a little more than a “handgun” ban now isn’t it?

But the 1988 amendment isn’t the 1996 act, this makes me laugh – you make it clear we are talking about the hand gun ban of 1996 (you repeatedly refer to it) then all of a sudden you go back to the 1988 amendments.

What next the pistols act of 1903?

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.

*I have discussed some answers such as the NICS improvement act and you just ignore these. So why waste my effort on you?

OH NO, not another hissy fit?

Anyway the ‘NICS improvement act’ is new, your argument at the time (and I can quote you if you wish) was that new regulation was not needed, that the 20,000 gun laws already in existence should be enforced. Are you now saying that the way to go is new legislation?

As to the NICS improvement act we’ve talked about it and I’ve already said that it’s ok as far as it goes but I would prefer something more.

In other words I agree with it but want more and I’ve explained what I’d want more.

Anyway you are still not addressing what I said - Your major concern seems to be about not stepping on the toes gun owners, why is that?

----------

 

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?


*Did you actually READ the whole post? And no Im not going back to copy/paste it again for you.



Yes I did and as I’ve shown your as agreements don’t seem very overwhelming and at times silly.



So can you answer the questions?

 

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?

*It’s a REAL world event. You were shown the post, you were shown VIDEOS yet once again since it does not fit you POV you just ignore it. You’re a fucking joke balbus.

Another fucking lie balbus? I showed you videos of the criminal being armed and the victim having NOTHING except what they could get their hands on, and it was NOT a gun. Again ignore this all you want but its right there, its reality and its in your face.

This is the very point I was making you seem to agree that the outcome is uncertain that it could very easily end up with one or the other dead or injured. Yet you are always trying to give the impression that the outcome will be a good one, for the side you are promoting.

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?


**

 

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.

---------


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.

*Ok so in your view 50% of 60,000 – 2,500,000 is 30,000 – 1,250,000 and its still irrelevant to you?

You are hypothesizing of the supposed DGU’s that people had a 50/50 chance of a bad outcome of getting killed, injured or at least traumatized in such an encounter.

Well of course I don’t think 30,000 to 1,250,000 innocent people getting killed injured or traumatized a year is a good thing that is why I think it would be better to limit the amount of people turning to crime.

You however only seem to want to see the ‘good’ outcomes and ignore the bad.

----------

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?

*Read the fucking post. You even quoted the answer again and still claim its unanswered.

I’ve reprinted the sequence of posts and you don’t answer so are you recommending the chair or what?

----------

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?

*Another lie balbus? I have not recommended any such thing in fact I said it depends on the situation. It also depends of the people involved. And once again I have shown you REAL world events where this type of thing happened and you do nothing but ignore them.

You say it depends on the situation then go on to post about successful situations.

That is promoting the idea that it is ‘often’ possible, implying the recommendation to do it.

If you think you are not, you must be incredibly naive or stupid.

--------

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?

*And this was addressed with the last TRUE story I posted. Showing this is not a given and the intended victim can and often does successfully take the advantage ending the situation.

Often does? You mean you’d recommend someone in that situation where a gun is pointed right at their chests to reach for their gun and hope things turn out ok?

*Again read the fucking post. Read the fucking real world news stories. You speak in absolutes and in the real world there are very few absolutes. Again just continue to ignore the facts but they are still in your face.

I have read the posts, and my whole point is that there are no absolutes, things can and do go either way but you only present those events that go they way you want or try to make up scenarios that show what you want.

My point is - wouldn’t it be better to try and lessen the likelihood of it happening from socio-economic reform rather than just hoping that owning a gun will work?

**

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.

(feb 26) so you think the two are the same?

*Lmfao You talk about whoever has a gun drawn first has an advantage this shows you that is an incorrect statement. Do you deny the criminal had his gun out first? The criminal had his gun pointed at the victim first? Yet this so called absolute “advantage” you speak of did the criminal no good now did it?

Oh thank you pitt again you make my point, as I’ve been saying that there are no absolutes, things can and do go either way but you only present those events that go they way you wish to portray.

My point is - wouldn’t it be better to try and lessen the likelihood of it happening from socio-economic reform rather than just hoping that owning a gun will work?

*