Guncrazy USA

**

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?

(feb 28) no proof then?

**

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 admit they are indeed posted.

LOL – You sound shocked pitt, are you saying you don’t know if they were or not?

*However you refuse to now back up your claims they can be differently interpreted because I wont go back and point them out to you ONCE again?

The problem is you don’t seem to know them at all, I re-print my criticisms or explain them again and you just say that the studies are right and I’m wrong. The problem is that you never address the criticisms.

It’s clear you don’t actually know what’s been said or presented (even by yourself) all you do it make claim after claim that you never seem able to back up with actually solid proof.

In other words you are being dishonest.

Please prove me wrong and link.

**

 

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?

Did you even look at any of the security videos? Once again you can ignore the real world events but they are still in your face.

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

(see above)

----------

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?

(feb 28) anything?

**

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

See above in THIS VERY POST. It’s a little more then a “handgun” ban now isn’t it?

As pointed out all this time you have only being mentioning the 1996 act and suddenly you bring up the 1988 act

It’s another part of your dishonesty

---------

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

*In reference to the UK lets just look at GUN Murder then, how has it gone down since the 1997 gun ban?

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 in other words you CANT.

Can’t what pitt?

-------

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.

Wrong you are advocating the police’s statement of 10% even thought there is NO FUCKING way to reach any number even close to 10% with the available figures. The thing is there seems to be all the figures present to form a conclusion. What figure could possibly be missing to make it reach the 10% mark?

I don’t know and nor do you that’s the point you don’t have the information but still to you the police figure is bull shit and your own right.

**

 

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?

(feb 28) anything pitt?

**

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?

(feb 28) nothing then.

**

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?

(feb 28) no because you don’t have an answer beyond telling me I’m wrong because I’m wrong.

**

 

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.

(feb 28) so is it?

--------


*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.

(feb 28) I can’t what?

-----------

*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.

(feb 28) I couldn’t what?

*

 

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?

(feb 28) another ignored 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?

(feb 28) still waiting.

**

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

(feb 28) no comment or are you agreeing?

**

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

(feb 28) so you are just making them up?

**

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

(missed again feb 26) so you don’t know if you addressed it or not?

(feb 28) I don’t think you care if you had or hadn’t addressed it, you think as long as you say it someone might believe the lie.

**

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.

(feb 28) I don’t think you know or care what you mean it – it didn’t mean anything.

**


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?

(feb 28) Still curious.

--------

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

Are you going to answer?

(feb 25) and the question remains ignored.

(feb 28) and I suppose it is going to remain ignored.

**

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?

(feb 28) So you haven’t got an answer.

**

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?

(feb 28) So it doesn’t exist.

---------

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.

(feb 28) basically it’s becoming clear you are just not going to answer my questions

**

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?

(feb 28) do you have an answer?

**

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?

(feb 28) no you are not going to produce any evidence, because you don’t have any?

----------

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?

(feb 28) no evidence and no explanation.

**

*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.

(feb 28) and it seems remains nil.

**

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?

(feb 28) still wondering why?

**

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

Why is that?

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

(feb 28) so why not?

**

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?

(feb 28) possible because you don’t have any?

**

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?

(feb 28) so you can’t.

**

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

(feb 26) any chance of a answer.

(feb 28) guess not.

 

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.

*Your questions were never ignore it is only the answers that were ignored.

Look above (at the blue), time and again you either ignore posts or refuse to answer. Ironically one of the questions you won’t answer is my request to back up your claim that I don’t answer your questions.

So although you don’t seem to have any proof that I don’t answer your questions I have post after post of unanswered questions, which one of use seems to be telling the truth and can back it up?

*You continue to manipulate other peoples post, reinventing them to match your POV. You dodge and dance like a ballerina around anything shown to you. And you claim everyone else is the dishonest one.

We all know you make these claims, but as is very clear you never seem to produce any actual evidence, basically it’s mudslinging from someone that’s found their opinions don’t stand up as well as they thought, so is resorting to dishonesty to try and hide it.

*I have told you many times I will not go back through hundreds of pages to repost things posted before perhaps dozens of times.

Which is very convenient for you – it is then possible to make a state complete lies and never have to actually show any proof.

Which as far as I can see is exactly what you are doing.

*Your dishonesty and constant copy/pasting things over and over claiming they have not been answered is nothing more than a rather pathetic attempt to derail the discussion.

You have been ignoring questions for a long time and I’ve often ignored it for the sake of moving on the discussion. But the situation has become chronic and so I though I’ve show just how bad it has become.
The thing is how can the discussion between us move on if you refuse to answer certain questions or claim you’ve answered when you have not or claim to have given explanations that don’t seem to exist which you refuse to give again or to elaborate on.

*Once again you can ignore all the facts presented to you but there they are. They are real and they are in your face. But you go ahead and continue to ignore them.

But Pitt you haven’t presented any facts only opinions and I’ve not ignored those opinions in fact I’ve written reams on them, analysed them, criticised them and asked questions about them.

The problem is that you don’t seem to like your views being questioned, criticised or analysed.

You seem to just want them to be accepted without question.

The thing is that many of your ideas don’t seem to stand up well to scrutiny.

What you should be doing is asking yourself why but what you actually seem to be doing is desperately trying to hide their shortfalls behind some rather dishonest trickery.

**

 

Bravo...


How can one logically say that Pitt's analysis is somehow flawed (unless you're in denial)?

 

Very pretty color there balbus but the post consist of nothing more than asking me to go back and search through hundreds of post to link back to something you know already exist.

But I don’t think they do exist and I’ve looked.

And as I have told you plenty of times I’m not going to play this game with you.

It’s not a game; it is very serious I’m saying you are a liar whose statements cannot be trusted, because you claim things that don’t seem to exist.

Either come up with something new or at least answer the questions that you have been asked.

But how can I answer question that don’t seem to exist?

**

Look above balbus I don’t think I can explain it any further. I’m not going to continue to play this endless ‘go back and tell me again’ game with you.

Either answer the questions you have been asked or come up with something new.

What questions Pitt, I’ve told you if you can point out, link to or quote the questions you refer to then do so, just saying I’ve not answered something or other without actually ever saying what it is supposed to be is just a dishonest trick.

**

So let’s get this straight.

You are not going to answer questions or defend in any reasonable or sensible way what you say, and very often just lie instead?

How is that not trolling?

**

 

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.toomany.uk.html

According to chart #1 The UK population has risen probably what 2 to 2.5 million in the last 10 years? That’s an increase of 4%.

Now back to the chart posted before http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm
This chart shows the recorded crimes involving FIREARMS other than air weapons. The chart shows approximately 5000 in 98/99 and approximately 9500 in 06/07. That’s an increase of 90%.

As shown in the home office table you refer to: Table 2.01 at
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf

98/99 was a difficult year because of new recording rules for reporting crime on 1 April 1998. Also some police forces brought in the National Crime Recording Standard early before the official start in April 2002 so inflating some figures in 2001/02 and 2002/03. So direct comparisons between the 98/99 figures and those of 2006/07 are problematic but..

Total offences for 1998/99 were 16,946
Total offences for 2006/07 with the increases due to recording methodology were 18,489

Also I notice once again you are going back and forward between different things when it suits you, one moment violent crime, next gun crime the next gun related homicides.

**

The site you reference seems to imply that the population of the UK has risen by more than a fifth since 1950 (20%)

Yet according to you the gun related homicide figures have “stayed between X and X for fifty years”

So while the figures have roughly remained the same, according to you, during that period the population of the UK has risen by 20%?

So in your view with what you have presented the figure is actually falling in relation to the population.

**

*The same article states there were 59 firearms related homicides in 06/07.
Table 2.01 at
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf
Verifies this number as correct. In 1996 there were 49. This is an increase of 20%.

There were 59 firearms related homicides in 06/07 (roughly the same as in 1990 and 1997), so basically the figures rose then fell then rose then fell again. Just as we’ve noted before.

*The lowest number of firearm related homicides was in 1996 again listing them at 49. The highest was in 1997 at 97 offenses. A variance of 97%.

At first I thought Hell Pitt’s fucked up again, I mean as soon as I saw it I knew it was wrong because we’ve been through these figures seemingly hundreds of times, he should know them as well as I do, the actual figure been - 1996 - 49 and 1997 – 59

Then I though maybe it wasn’t a mistake (I mean he’d need the memory of a fish to forget them), maybe this is the same ploy he’s using with increasing frequency these days. If he blatantly lies he calculates there are enough gullible people, like Michael, that will accept what he says without checking. The same as if he ‘claims’ he’s answered a question or ‘claims’ he’s explained something when he hasn’t.

Here is the full run down from 90 to 2006 -7

1990 – 60
1991 – 55
1992 – 56
1993 – 74
1994 – 66
1995 – 70
1996 – 49
1997 – 59
1997/98 – 54
New recording methods – 1998/99 - 49
1999/00 – 62
2000/01 – 73
2001/02 – 97
2002/03 – 81
2003/04 – 68
2004/05 - 78
2005/06 – 50
2006/07 – 59

**

*So your explanation of the population increase and level numbers of homicides by gun very tenacious at best.

(OH and suddenly we get back to homicides instead of gun crime).

So the UK has a fluctuating figure in a period of increased population, in fact in the list only two figure stick out 2001/02 and 2002/03, so in 17 years only two figures seem abnormally high.

**

But what is this meant to achieve?

Your argument seems to be that it shows gun regulations don’t work, but you already seem to say that it does, you just don’t want the type we have in Britain.

OK, but I’ve not being suggesting the kind of regulations that exist in the UK.

But even having said that you seem to admit that you don’t think the UK regulations have done any harm, violent crime has fallen since a peek in 1995 and you agree anyway that few people in the UK had guns even before the 1996 handgun ban.

The thing is that in a country of 60 million plus we have fewer gun related deaths than most single US states of 3 or 4 million(remember the Connecticut thing?)

The calls for tougher gun regulation come about because of mass shootings like Hungerford and Dunblane yet you agree that the UK, unlike the US, hasn’t really had a problem with them and have had none since Dunblane and the 1996 act.

Finally you agree that for some reason Americans seem to be more prone to violence than the British so it might be likely that, like the Swiss, even if the British had easier access to guns they might not use them to kill and maim on the levels committed by Americans.

So because the people and societies are different with differing attitudes and outlooks a comparison is difficult.

The British have tough regulation but probably don’t need them that tight while the US hasn’t got as tough regulation but probably needs it more.

So the question is why are Americans so much more prone to feelings of threat and outbursts of violence and what can be done to limit the harm from these tendencies until such time that it can be reduced.

The problem as I see it is that you and many others don’t seem to think about such things and instead put your faith in guns.

**

 

Michael squeezes into the spangled boobtube and micro-skirt to pick up the pom poms once more for Pitt

What a wondrous sight he is doing a cartwheel while shouting out – “Bravo…How can one logically say that Pitt's analysis is somehow flawed (unless you're in denial)?”

The only problem is Michael, Pitt’s analysis does seem flawed and that could be because he can’t even read a data (that we’ve discussed hundreds of times) properly.

Thing is that he tries to mislead you and even lies and you’d actually know that if you where not so gullible as to just accept anything you hear that you want to hear.

Sorry man about the cheerleader jib but really, you should try and get out on your own, find your own way rather than hanging on someone else’s shirt tails.


**

 

I didn't think I was hanging on anyone else's shirt tails as you say. The truth of the matter here is obvious, and as much as you try to deny/obscure it with such tactics as blaming the "reporting policies" you can't get away from the reality of it.


Sorry to ride on his shirt tails, but Dirk did say something to the effect of: "If you do think the gun related assault/murder stats got higher because of a change in reporting practices, show us specifically how so."

And that's a good point, because I for one can't see how some bureaucratic change in the codes is going to make a gunshot murder be reported as anything but a gunshot murder...or any non-gunshot murder be reported as one. Can you?


Getting back to the cold hard reality of the situation, one needs only to look at this graph to see that even a COMPLETE BAN ON GUNS did nothing to stop the growing rate of gun crimes in your country:








Between 5,000 and 7,000 gun crimes in '98-'99...

Then that number balloons to more than DOUBLE that figure and remains that way or even grows from 2001 on: Over 10,000 gun assaults in 2001, over 10,000 in 2002, over 10,000 in 2003, over 11,000 in 2004 over 11,000 in 2005, and over 9,500 in 2006.


As for 2007 in beyond? Keep your fingers crossed, balbus.



Oh and by the way,there are four times more knife-related killings as firearms-related killings in the UK every year. I know it's been said on here before...if not a gun, the criminals will murder with something...ANYTHING else they can get their hands on. At least in MY country, I can defend myself with something other than a telephone and screams for help, should the need arise.

 

Pitt



Very pretty color there balbus but the post consist of nothing more than asking me to go back and search through hundreds of post to link back to something you know already exist.

But I don’t think they do exist and I’ve looked.

And as I have told you plenty of times I’m not going to play this game with you.

It’s not a game; it is very serious I’m saying you are a liar whose statements cannot be trusted, because you claim things that don’t seem to exist.

Either come up with something new or at least answer the questions that you have been asked.

But how can I answer question that don’t seem to exist?

**

Look above balbus I don’t think I can explain it any further. I’m not going to continue to play this endless ‘go back and tell me again’ game with you.

Either answer the questions you have been asked or come up with something new.

What questions Pitt, I’ve told you if you can point out, link to or quote the questions you refer to then do so, just saying I’ve not answered something or other without actually ever saying what it is supposed to be is just a dishonest trick.

**

You are still not going to answer the questions or defend in any reasonable or sensible way what you’ve said and will continue to lie instead?

I asked you how that could not be seen as trolling and you don’t seem to be able to refute the charge so I’m going to give you some time out to think about it and maybe you can use the time away to find some answers to the questions put to you, so that we can possible move on when and if you return.

Please remember that trying to return to the forum before the end of your time out may lead to a longer period or even a total ban.


**

 

Michael

Sorry to ride on his shirt tails, but Dirk did say something to the effect of: "If you do think the gun related assault/murder stats got higher because of a change in reporting practices, show us specifically how so."

And that's a good point, because I for one can't see how some bureaucratic change in the codes is going to make a gunshot murder be reported as anything but a gunshot murder...or any non-gunshot murder be reported as one. Can you?

My problem has been that there have been differing aspects of crime highlighted at differing times. So we have had violent crime, gun related crime and gun related homicides.

Anyway changes practices such as the way things are recorded can have an impact on the figures which do not relate to changes in the actual number of crimes.

Here is how the home office explains it -

General changes

Over the years, police recorded crime figures have been susceptible to:
• Changes in the public's willingness to report crime, and
• Variations in recording practices among police forces - an inconsistent approach meant that different forces might not record the same crime, or record crimes to differing degrees

To counter this, we made various changes to the Home Office Counting Rules in 1998 and in 2002:
• In 1998/99, we made general amendments to the Counting Rules (which is why all of the long-term recorded crime trend charts show a change of colour in 1998/99):
• In April 1998, in particular, many new offences were added to the overall list of recorded crime types defined by the Counting Rules - particularly in the categories of less serious violent crimes, frauds and drug offences (which is why some of the charts show an actual break in 1998/99).
• In April 2002, we again revised the Counting Rules to incorporate the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS), a new common standard for recording crime across all police forces. This last change has had a huge impact on police recorded crime figures.

There has also been a more general impetus over recent years, both from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and from the Home Office, to increase the recording of crimes reported to the police, which will also have an impact on the recorded crime figures, and will generally make them higher.
The National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS)
In April 2002, the National Crime Recording Standard was introduced across police forces in England & Wales. Its purpose is:
• To promote greater consistency in how police record crime
• To take a more victim-led approach in recording crime - by recording alleged offences, as well as evidence-based ones
Previously, the police may quite legitimately not have recorded an alleged offence if there was no evidence to support it had occurred.
The NCRS impact on police recorded crime figures
In many cases, the NCRS has led to an increase in police recorded crime figures, making it look like more crimes were committed, when that might not be the case.
For example, we estimate that the total figure for ALL CRIME in 2002/03 was 10% higher than it would have been under pre-NCRS recording, reflecting a change in recording practice, not a real increase in crime.
Not all crime types are equally affected. For example, in 2002/03:
• Burglary in a dwelling was inflated by an estimated 3%, whereas
• Violence against the person was inflated by an estimated 23% in 2002/03
The impact of these changes is discussed further in Chapter 3 of Crime in England and Wales 2002/03'.”

I hope that helps?

**

Getting back to the cold hard reality of the situation, one needs only to look at this graph to see that even a COMPLETE BAN ON GUNS did nothing to stop the growing rate of gun crimes in your country:

Between 5,000 and 7,000 gun crimes in '98-'99...

Then that number balloons to more than DOUBLE that figure and remains that way or even grows from 2001 on: Over 10,000 gun assaults in 2001, over 10,000 in 2002, over 10,000 in 2003, over 11,000 in 2004 over 11,000 in 2005, and over 9,500 in 2006.

OK here we go –

A) It is not a complete ban many people still do own shot guns and rifles.

B) You have swopped from gun related homicides to gun related instances

C) here are the total figures for each year and please note the footnotes

1997/98 12,805
1998/99(1) 13,874
1999/00 16,946
2000/01 17,698
2001/02(2) 22,401
2002/03(3) 24,070
2003/04 24,094
2004/05 22,894
2005/06 21,527
2006/07 18,489

1. There was a change in the counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998.
2. Figures for some crime categories may have been inflated by some police forces implementing the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard before 1
April 2002.
3. The National Crime Recording Standard was introduced on 1 April 2002. Figures for some crime categories may have been inflated by this.

Do you see the increases in the figure corresponding to changes in recording methods?

**

As for 2007 in beyond? Keep your fingers crossed, balbus.

The problem is that you seem to see this as incredibly important but to my argument it isn’t.

**

Oh and by the way,there are four times more knife-related killings as firearms-related killings in the UK every year. I know it's been said on here before...if not a gun, the criminals will murder with something...ANYTHING else they can get their hands on. At least in MY country, I can defend myself with something other than a telephone and screams for help, should the need arise.

17,034 persons murdered in 2006 up 1.8% from the previous year.

67.9% gun related
12.2% knife/cutting instrument

757 persons murdered in 06/07 down 2% from the previous year

34% knife/cutting instrument
8% gun related

So knives are used a lot more in the UK but still don’t match US levels of gun use, in fact about half. |

But the interesting thing for me is the levels of murder –

60 million people = 760 murders

120 million people would then be = 1520

240 million people would then be = 3040

480 million people would then be = 6080

So 300 million Americans seems to equal 17,000 murders

While 480 million Brits seems to equal only 6080.

So even if you inflate the population of Britain to way over that of the US we’d have far fewer murders?

So this would seem to indicate wider problems within US society. Now what I’ve been saying is that it seems to me that many Americans don’t seem interested in confronting these problems let alone trying to think of solutions but instead promote guns as a way of tackling or suppressing the symptoms of the problems.

**

 

WHAT? Dirk_Pitt got BANNED? I guess Balbus doesn't have any more reverence for our 1st amendment than he does our 2nd!

 

WHAT? Dirk_Pitt got BANNED? I guess Balbus doesn't have any more reverence for our 1st amendment than he does our 2nd!

**

Michael

Are you going to address what I said above or just let it hang?

**

Reverence?

The constitution is a political and legal document not Holy Scripture and the people that wrote it were not gods, not even saints, they were very human politicians. The constitution was all about political compromise, bias and back room dealing. My own view, often aired, is that it’s about time the US scrapped the one from over 200 years ago and wrote another more fitting for 21st century.

To take for example 2nd amendment - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now at the time the US didn’t have a standing army so well regulated militias with people in them that could shoot was a bit of a necessity in case of conflict (as it was virtually up to 1860) and with what was seen as hostile territory often adjoining the new country (e.g. British held Canada or the Indian territories).

Is a bit like the medieval laws of England encouraging people on the borders of Wales to practice with the longbow under the local lord or clergyman, just in case of invasion. It was a good idea at the time but things change.

I mean now the US has a huge standing army (to say nothing of its thousands of nuclear warheads) and frankly is Mexico or Canada going to invade it?

And are all gun owners part of ‘well regulated militias’ these days who own guns just in case someone invades the US?

**

What is free speech? Is it the right to say anything, anytime, without censor or consequences or has it got limits?

In time of war can someone give out information that helps the enemy? Is it ok to lie, can someone lie for example in court?

What is the goal of free speech in an online forum? Has it got the same validity if used to seek some type of truth as it would if used to disseminate lies or biased propaganda?

Does freedom of expression come with a responsibility to use it wisely?

I believe it does.

If someone is coming voluntarily to an online forum where obviously debate is going to take place, in which questions are going to be asked and explanations sort then that person has a certain duty to give answers, honestly and promptly or leave. Because if they are not why have they come to such a forum?

I mean people can easily have their own webpage to say virtually anything they want without ever being questioned, so why go to a place where they will be asked questions if they are not willing to answer them?

So if they openly refuse to answer questions and/or lie, claiming things that are untrue, then they are actively going against the whole spirit and function of the forum.

They are trolling.

I pointed out this to Pitt twice and he continued refusing to answer questions and seemed to be claiming things or making accusations for which he couldn’t produce any evidence.

I hope he has some answers when and if he returns.

**

Probably the most famous quote on the limitations to the first amendment is ‘shouting fire in a crowded theatre’

Actually it is a misquote and the thing is it wasn’t about public safety in theatres, it was all to do with the very suppression of political ideas that I’ve tried to highlight which you can be read about here - ‘Can guns save you from suppression?’ http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253937

I’ve mentioned it many times did you ever read it?

The supreme court ruling was aimed at the socialist opposition to the US draft during World War One.
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic... The question in every case is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." (Decision written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.) Wikipedia
So several left wingers including Eugene Debs went to prison for their political beliefs.

The thing is that Holmes Jr is cited by the NRA as one of the supreme court judges that thought gun ownership was a ‘individual right’

And that is one of the points I’ve been trying to make.

Many of the people that actively supported gun ownership were also those that supported the suppression of political ideas they didn’t like.

They may shout free speech when it suits them but they also seem happy to suppress it when that suits them.

**

 

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they stated the rights in the Constitution where not granted by the goverment. They are our natural rights that everyone is entitled to.

 

Jneil

“When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they stated the rights in the Constitution where not granted by the goverment. They are our natural rights that everyone is entitled to.”

So you get people like Thomas Jefferson being a slave owner, lets see what did he put his name to - how does it go? –

“We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

So people have an unalienable right to liberty unless they happen to be black and owned by such people as Jefferson, and they can have life and liberty if they don’t happen to be ‘savages’ on land the Euro-American colonists want?

I mean there had to be another amendment added just to make sure black people got the vote (1870) some hundred years after they were supposed to have it, and even then it wasn’t until 1964 (civil rights act) that they got many of the rights due to them, nearly two hundred years after the supposed revolution of liberty and happiness.

And while people might have been created equal in an inherently unequal capitalist society some by virtue of there birth are likely to be able to exercise there rights much more easily and have a lot more freedom of action than those born lower down the social strata.

Even equality before the law become moot when one person gets an overworked court appointed lawyer while another can afford a team of top draw and fully committed advocates.

Try reading - Locke’s Second treatise of government and Rousseau’s Social Contract

**

Anyway what I’ve been saying is that many Americans do not seem to think about their society or its problems but instead seem to see guns as a means of dealing with the symptoms of those problems.

Just as here you believe the myth of the constitution (that it protects rights) but seem to be ignoring the reality (that that protection can not always be forthcoming). To just put your faith in the constitution or a gun without looking at the wider picture seem to me to be blinding yourself to what is going on.

**

 

Proud

“twisted logic”

You call my explanation ‘twisted logic’ but I notice without explaining in any way, shape or form why it is supposed to be twisted logic?

Have you actually got an explanation?

*

“You know what the difference is between a flower and a weed? The choice of the gardener. Unfortunately, some just can't handle the responsibility of the pruning shears. . .”

LOL, Proud it’s clear you are no gardener, you don’t do weeding with pruning shears, you’d just get blunted, damaged or even broken shears.

One of the main reasons for pruning is to remove dead or diseased material, or when something has become overgrown and ugly.

Anyway I actually like a lot of plants that were once seen as weeds and have ‘wild’ areas in my garden for them.

*

“muzzle dissent (and you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that anything less has happened here.)”

But what is Pitts argument, what views am I supposedly muzzling, because that’s my problem, he was refusing to answer questions or give explanations, was making claims that he could not seem to back up and was making accusation for which he had no proof.

It was getting difficult to work out what he was arguing for or why he was arguing against something since he often wouldn’t say and often didn’t seem to know himself.

Thing is you often seem convinced of things for little reason that you can explain.

Just as you seemed convinced that your right to own a gun, with few if any restrictions, is more important than the brutal murder of a million American children a year, month, even day, to you their deaths would be a worthwhile sacrifice.

Why you think that, is still unclear, all you’ve said is that you would rather these millions dead than be slaves, although you don’t explain why the proposals I’ve championed would cause their enslavement or why gun ownership would necessarily protect them from it?

*

“I just got this little beauty today”

So you have another gun.

My theory is that for many Americans guns are seen as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring the socio-economic problems within their society.

How does this new gun help you to think about such problems, how does that gun find solutions to those problems?

**

 

I don't know what shit Americans get fed, but here in the U.K (where we have the world's strictest gun laws (not strict enough though imo) we have a much lower gun crime rate than in the US (and that is per capita, so not affected by size of country). You can't say it's defence, because you wouldn't have to defend yourselves if the guns weren't there in the first place. It would not take much to gradually get guns out of the system and if the governments would stop spending so much money nicking oil and cracking down on soft drugs then the criminal market could be wiped out too.

 

“On twisted logic: Balbus, old buddy old pal, you're notorious for this. Everything that is said always ends up supporting your point of view. You quote out of context, and will take the smallest most irrelevant scrap of a post and turn it into a full-blown debate, while paying little or no attention to the carefully planned arguments therein.”
Excuse me but just look at your post, a large chunk seems to back up what I’ve been saying. But the point is that I explain why I think that and give you the right to reply. That’s not twisted logic it’s called debate.
*

“You quote out of context”

If I quote something and someone wants to dispute the context they can, that’s what I do, I mean I’ve been misquoted or out of what I saw as the context, so I’ve tried to correct it and explain what was actually meant.
The thing is that some people ‘claim’ they have been quoted out of context but in fact what they’ve said was very much in context but they don’t like how it has come out, in other words they lie when it suits them to.
Again this isn’t a definition of twisted logic.

*

“take the smallest most irrelevant scrap of a post and turn it into a full-blown debate”

You would have to give an example of me taking what you see as the smallest most irrelevant scrap of a post and turning it into a full-blown debate. Often the smallest things can have a great relevance, that is why clarification may be sort and become part of the debate.
Again this isn’t about twisting logic it the very nature of a discussion or even a normal conversation. I’m sure you have friends, haven’t you noticed how an off hand mention can spark – ‘hey that reminds me of this time in Birmingham…’ – and suddenly the conversation goes onto something else?
It’s the same with a debate an off hand remark can spark – ‘did you mean by that that you thought…’ – and another aspect of the subject is discussed.

*

“while paying little or no attention to the carefully planned arguments therein”

If someone believes I’ve ignored something they just have to say and point it out, the problem is that some people accuse others of ignoring something but refuse to actually back those claims up with proof.
Again this isn’t anywhere close to twisted logic.
Basically what you seem to be calling ‘twisted logic’ is any questioning or criticisms made of views you like that might appear in the course of a normal debate

**

It doesn't matter how many jumps of "logic" you have to make, you're always "right". It's the main reason I dropped out of this thread months ago, and only drop by to see if anything new has been posted. As far as I can figure, there hasn't been.

But am I right?

That’s the question, because this is a common problem, many people come here with certain beliefs or viewpoints but seem unwilling or unable to defend them from criticism in any reasonable or even honest way.
I’ve pointed out many times that I’m not claiming I’m right, I’m just presenting some theories or opinions and the reason I’ve presented them is because I want them to be tested and scrutinised, only in that way can an ideas adapt and grow.
Many seem shocked when their ideas and opinions are criticised and finding they are unable to answer the criticisms or defend their ideas they run away (like you have).
But why can’t they defend their ideas?
Just dismissing criticism you don’t like as ‘twisted logic’ that you refuse to face doesn’t make that criticism disappear.

**