Guncrazy USA

Guncrazy?

Well in relation to pro-gunners a better term could be gun-delusional.

Many if not most of their arguments don’t seem to stand up under scrutiny but rather than ask themselves why they resort to bluster, rhetorical trickery and endless point scoring.

But to me the main problem still seem to be that they see guns as a means of social control which allows them to do little or nothing about dealing with the problems in their society.

They seem to shrug of the problems with their political system with a – ‘if the government tries anything I’ve got a gun’

They see crime and say ‘if a criminal tries anything I’ve got a gun’

As I’ve said to me the general attitude among many Americans is to accept threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

**

 

I agree, yet if you look at this a little deeper...

If people didn't have guns, I believe there would be fewer deaths. It's easy to kill someone will a gun, but I think it would be much harder (and require more work of the said killer) to kill someone with a knife or some other device. But then you get into bigger killing devices such as bombs, although rarely used, would they become more popular for those who truly want to kill?

Either way, I think it's fucked up that we're the only species on this planet that kill our own for personal gain. We should really be focusing on that...what makes us do such things? One could say this is against the "laws of nature" on the account that we are the only species that does such a thing.

 

Pitt

omfg Its also clear you will not answer the question posed to you.

What question?

**

Well in the case of the US this could possibly be the case because of the attitudes and mindset of many Americans.

So all the previous studies are wrong? Where is your supporting data?

As I’ve explained at length the studies you have alluded to don’t seem to cover the issues being raised here, if you do believe you know one that does take into account differing attitudes and mindsets please produce it, I’d actually be very interested to read it.

**

The question again – Is the higher gun ownership level a deterrent to crime in the US?

Again I have answered this, If one considers the numbers of DGU’s and the direct interviews with criminals it seems apparent that law abiding people having guns is somewhat of a deterrent.

But that doesn’t seem to fit in with the points I’ve raised, if gun ownership was such a deterrent to crime, the US’s crime figures should be very much lower than somewhere with low gun ownership.

But in reality they seem to be about roughly the same as a country with very low gun ownership except in one area –gun related crime – where it is actually the US which has very much higher figures.

Think about it.

As pointed out ask anyone if they prefer to tackle an armed or unarmed person and the rational answer is the unarmed one. But that isn’t saying arming people works because the rational thing for a criminal then to do is get armed themselves.

And the higher level of DGU’s just points to guns not being a deterrent - people are still committing the same level of crimes even when they know there is a high probability that people might be armed as to a high probability that they wouldn’t be armed.

**

 

can you address this or are you just going to continue to hid behind ‘studies’ that don’t seem to cover this point.

Again you are assuming a connection where the studies show none. So instead of having a real question you want a comment on a hypothetical situation because that’s all you have.

And again we have the studies, but still no answer.

Also what is hypothetical?

Just in case you forgot here it is again -

“it seem the US can only keep non gun crime down to the levels of a country with very little gun ownership by using guns, but pays for it heavily for it in terms of gun crime.

Again you are assuming a relationship between gun ownership and crime. Yet the hundreds of studies indicate NO SUCH RELATIONSHIP.

LOL, oh again with the studies?

But as you agree Americans are more likely to use guns for crimes and murder and there is an ease of access in the US system, can you address this or are you just going to continue to hid behind ‘studies’ that don’t seem to cover this point”

--------

Except the many statements of yourself, proud, yank, and many others, most recently fythe.

Show me where we said we live in fear of our society? I can point out hundreds of similar statements from people within the UK also. Does this mean you live in fear of your society?

Oh hell Pitt, you want me to repeat myself again?

We have been through this many times and every time it come down to your assertion that when people say they feel threatened by something, even when they say that they think the thing could kill them – what they are trying to say is that they do not in any way fear the thing threatening them.

But as I’ve said that doesn’t seem logical, rational or a reasonable assertion.


**

That is one study (again that you seem unable to produce) not studies.

It is studies and if its not so solid then show something to counter it.

I have and explained at length why in my opinion it doesn’t seem to back up your argument, I’m still waiting for you to address those criticisms.

**

so you want more guns to end up in criminal hands?

Where did I say that? Again you are making shit up as you go.

As stated many time the object with a gun safe law is to try and cut down on the number of guns stolen and getting into criminal hands.

I’m asking you here (please note it doesn’t have quotes it has a question mark) why if you wish to stop guns getting to criminals do you oppose such measures?

**

But as pointed out the straw purchasing law is very different from my proposal, they complement each other maybe but they are not the same.

Your proposal in which I referred to as being a straw purchase was exactly that a straw purchase. How is it any different?

But the two things are different – people would have to register they had a gun and report it stolen and the circumstances. If they did not report it stolen (and it later turned up) they would get a heavy fine and be banned from owning another if it was shown they passed the gun on willingly then they would be subject then to the straw gun law.
If they had not taken due care to secure the gun they could be subject to a fine.

**

If so, wouldn’t you agree that it just might be a good idea to try and limit them?

Limit DEFENSIVE gun uses? So to you it would be a good thing to leave these people defenseless?

Please Pitt - lol - if you just stopped trying to score points and actually took in what is said you would produce such utter rubbish.

You complain that I repeat myself and I really wish not to, but even when I’ve said something ten, twenty, a hundred times you still seem to forget it, forcing me to repeat myself once again.

So once again – my aim would be to try and bring about a better, healthier society, where Americans would feel so threatened that they would feel the need to own guns for protection.

I’m not saying that these people could own guns only that they wouldn’t be using them for defence.

I’ve explained this many times and at some length, do you pay attention to anything other people say?

**

 

And I’ll ask again are you putting the US system forward as an improvement on that in UK?

Not at all as I have told you dozens of times. Just pointing out the FACT that the UK system is in stark contrast and it has yielded no results so why are you pushing for the US to model itself after the UK?

OH pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease Pitt (sorry laughing so much have to stop writing for a minute)

Do you take any notice of what I’ve posted?

If after all of this time and all of these posts you think I want “the US to model itself after the UK” then you cannot have been paying any attention to anything that’s being said.

I’ve said countless times that I’m not a great supporter of what the UK governments have done and given explanations of alternative policies.

I think this may be the problem here I can recall what you say even quote it, but you don’t have a clue what people have said yesterday.

Or are you so much concentrating on scoring points you don’t actually care what other peoples actually views are, if they are not like yours they are the enemy.

But I’m not your enemy; I’m just another human being trying to seek understanding.

Come on man if you just stopped arguing with your prejudice and began thinking we could move this debate on.

**

 

lol once again you ignore what you do not like.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1105.pdf

Page 72 Shows the increase of crimes involving gun use other than air weapons from 98-06. You have been shown this before yet you continue to ignore it.

**

Not sure what you are laughing at Pitt?

I read the report you linked to and it doesn’t seem to have what you claim, are you sure you read it?

Violent Crime (Chapter Five) begins on page 71, page 72 doesn’t seem to have anything on crimes involving guns and is in fact involved in an explanation of recording methodology.

Page 71 does say violent crime has “fallen by 43 per cent since a peak in 1995, but that would not fit in with your argument that “I have read violent crime in the UK has risen dramatically since the famous "gun Ban" (based on a BBC news item on a pro-gun lobby group’s report)

Did you mean page 81 which shows a steady increase in gun crimes?

The problem is that that was the 04/05 report if you had actually looked at the 2006/07 report it says the “police recorded offences involving firearms fell by thirteen per cent between 2005/06 and 2006/07” and goes on to explain that “there was a significant increase in the number of firearm offences recorded between 1998/99 and 2001/02 (figure 3.7) though figures may have been partially influenced by some forces implementing the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard prior to its national introduction on 1 April 2002”

So the increases may just be down to differing recording methods.

**

LOL - Pitt if this is an indication of your ‘research’ methods it's not surprising you never seem able to defend your arguments.

**

 

didnt work

 

As pointed out ask anyone if they prefer to tackle an armed or unarmed person and the rational answer is the unarmed one. But that isn’t saying arming people works because the rational thing for a criminal then to do is get armed themselves.

Once again and for the last time If you would read the papers I have given links to you would have seen this very thing addressed.

I don’t believe they do, but I could be wrong and would like to see the argument, so please tell me where this is covered.

**

people are still committing the same level of crimes even when they know there is a high probability that people might be armed as to a high probability that they wouldn’t be armed

That is probably the most ignorant statement you have made. What reference do you have in relationship to DGU’s which states that the criminal thought the victims were considered to be a high probability of being armed?

But when I asked how would a thief know in advance if someone was armed or not?

You said and I quote – “That is the point of CCW is it not. The criminal does not know when he will run into an armed individual giving him one more reason to hesitate on the act in the first place”

In other words in your view a high level of gun ownership (as in the US) should make criminals more hesitant to commit a crime, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

What seems to be happening is that criminals are still committing the same level of crimes even when they know there is a high probability that people might be armed (40% of household in the US) as to a high probability that they wouldn’t be armed (1% of UK households).

**

Also what is hypothetical?

Omg look at your own post and read it carefully. The post contains an assumption of a relationship of gun ownership and crime levels. This is the very topic of the studies shown to you.

But the point being made was that if guns are a deterrent it seemed the US could only keep non gun crime down to the levels of a country with very little gun ownership by the use of guns as a suppressant.

But that the US seems to pay for this in terms of gun crime, because as you agree Americans seem more likely to use guns for crime.

Neither you nor the studies seem to cover this and as I’ve asked already if you know of some that do please produce them because I’d be very interested to seeing the argument.

**

But as I’ve said that doesn’t seem logical, rational or a reasonable assertion.

I can point out hundreds of similar statements from people within the UK also. Does this mean you live in fear of your society?

There are people everywhere that ‘fear’ their society but American pro-gunners seem more often than most to be using it as a justification for their ownership of guns.

**

I’m asking you here (please note it doesn’t have quotes it has a question mark) why if you wish to stop guns getting to criminals do you oppose such measures?

I have explained this so many fucking times it hilarious. Please read the damn post before repeating yourself.

Well your answer seem to be that you would prefer guns getting into criminals hands than supporting a law that might help do that, and the reason for that stance seems to be that you just don’t, that’s it you just don’t, you don’t seem to have a rational argument.

**

Yes you have made such statements before yet you continue to push for UK like gun regulations to be put in place in the US. This seems to be in contrast to your repeted statements.

Do I?

What UK like gun regulations are you talking about?

**

It shows exactly what I stated a steady increase in gun crime from the time the UK gun ban was introduced. Take from that what you will.

LOL - On page 72 it doesn’t.

And what do you say about the 06/07 report that notes a drop and explains that the sudden increase could be mainly down to recording methods?

If you just choose to look at the information that favours your argument and not at stuff that doesn’t then you will always think you are right.

I mean you’re not putting up a counter argument to these opposing views you’re just dismissing them out of hand.

This is something you have often accused me of (although you never seem able to back it up) but here you do it quite blatantly and for all to see.

And anyway it still isn’t the three-fold increase you talked about.

**

 

Dear Pitt

It seems to me that the only reason you think these debate redundant is because it is not going the way you want.

If you stopped thinking in terms of ‘winning’ and started thinking why your arguments don’t seem to be standing up to scrutiny you might start learning something.

I mean look at what you say

You claim I do not listen yet I’ve shown repeatedly that I am, that I do, I can quote your views so easily because I can often remember what you have said and where you said it. And I have read the things you have linked to and can remember most of them as well.

Actually what you seem to be saying here is not that I’m not listening but that I’m not accepting – I criticise, I give counter arguments and differing analysis and that’s the reason you think I’m not listening.

You seem to have had this belief that your arguments were so good that it was, is impossible to counter them and that therefore anyone that disagrees with them is not actually listening.

But I’m sorry Pitt but that isn’t the case I have listened and many of your arguments don’t stand because they don’t add up or are full of holes. And I think this underlining bitterness you seem to be displaying here possibly comes from the realisation of this truth.

You say that I draw unfounded conclusions but if they are unfounded why do you seem unable to refute them?

I have the feeling that you think they are unfounded because you don’t agree with them so they must be unfounded. The fact that you don’t seem able to refute them isn’t important to you because they must be wrong because they are not what you believe. It’s like a creationist saying evolutionists’ have drawn unfounded conclusions about the origin of species.

In the same way you claim that I have nothing to back up my theories when what you mean is that you do not accept what I’ve said in support of my theories so you are just going to ignore it. You don’t put up any rational or reasonable counter arguments you simply dismiss them as nothing. Just as a creationist might dismisses Darwinism as nothing of importance.

In your opinion my ideas would have little impact on the problems of society yet what you base that opinion on is unclear since you continually block debate into your society and any examination of its problems.

But at the same time you claim that you are interested in doing something about your societies problems, you have made that claim often, but that’s all it ever seems to be, a claim, when asked to discuss what could be done your interest seems short and you thoughts unfocused. This is in very stark opposition to your passion for defending gun ownership.

I hope you could learn from these threads but you need to open your mind a little and notice the discrepancies and prejudices in your own viewpoint first. I mean even the things you say you have learnt from these posts is coloured and twisted by your own bias, where even proposals that you seemed to think were good become in your mind extreme and restrictive because the person putting them forward hasn’t accept your viewpoint without question.

Yours in hope

Balbus

 

What many people seem to agree here is that the socio-economic and political systems of the US are a major factor in many seeing it as ‘gun crazy’.

In the course of this discussion several things have been put forward as being at fault, here are a few of them -

The ‘me’ thing, the destructive individualism that makes people put themselves before the community.

Hedonism

Materialism

Consumerism

The probation of drugs

Inequality

**

Now putting aside the issue of gun regulation for the moment, and let us come at the issue from the other direction what policies do other people believe can be introduced to tackle such issues?

 

dam thats alot of reading, my head hurts now

 

So Moto

Have you recovered enough to give a point or opinion?


**

 

**

To move the debate into a new area I’ve started another thread called -

Can guns save you from suppression?
http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253937

**

 

yeah here is an opinion for ya, guns are good, people suck at using guns. thats it

 

excellent summation there moto...that pretty much sums up the debate

Balbus...nothing personal...but damn dude how long are you going to :beatdeadh this redundency has gotten very old...yeah yeah we understand your personal dislike for fire-arms...but your disire for a gun free world will never be...my suggestion ...would be find a platform to pursue where you have an obtainable goal....put your abilities for research to work on something which you can obtain in this lifetime...cuz an anti-gun stance..isn't working for you...with the exception of a personal debate which is on going between you and Dirk_Pitt...which seems to have transcended to numerous threads...yes I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment..for many reasons...and I for one will never surrender my weapons...and that doesn't mean I will be out there taking human lives with my guns...unless the need arises to protect my family and my personal well being......cuz as I have told you before...if by chance you could rid the world of fire-arms....are you going to be on the front line of ridding the world of rocks???? since rocks and sticks were the first weapons used for taking human life........bottom line dude...use your stubbornness and talents to eradicate something which is obtainable...not pursueing a pipe dream

 

I have no love of guns.

The only reason I support gun ownership in the US is because it keeps the government in line. Superpowers need to be kept on a short leash.

You unarmed people in England and other places are sitting ducks for tyranny.


x

 

Moto

yeah here is an opinion for ya, guns are good, people suck at using guns. thats it

That’s it, not really an argument more a statement of belief, a bit like a creationist saying he believes a god created the world in six days some 6000 years ago.

Which is just what I’ve been saying - many pro-gunners don’t seem to have any rational or reasonable arguments for their viewpoint, just an unfounded belief system?

**

Fylth

excellent summation there moto...that pretty much sums up the debate

I agree, as I’ve said above it shows the pro-gunners don’t seem to have any arguments to present.


**

yeah yeah we understand your personal dislike for fire-arms...

What personal dislike for fire-arms? I’ve said they’re not my cup of tea and I don’t feel I need one for protection, and I think proper precautions should be in place for those owning them but how does that equate into a “personal dislike for fire-arms”?

I think this is the problem, you and others see things with personal bias so you think others see things in the same way.

You simply believe “guns are good” you don’t really seem to have any reason for believing that and so if someone opposes that view you simply think they must just believe ‘guns are bad’.

But I’m not saying guns good or bad, I’m wondering if guns are bad for American society. (If you cannot work out the difference between the two you really should think about the subject a bit more)

What I’ve been saying is that many pro-gunners seem to be putting their faith in guns to protect them from the political, social and economic problems within their society and are therefore ignoring those political, social and problems. This to me is bad for US society.

Please mate read the posts and if you have countering arguments to what I’ve said present them, but reading posts like this I have the feeling you don’t have any.

**

but your disire for a gun free world will never be...

Again a statement of belief not a rational argument.

As I’ve said many times I would wish for a US where people didn’t feel they needed a gun to protect themselves from the ills of their society.

Are you opposed to that viewpoint? If so what is your argument?

**

my suggestion ...would be find a platform to pursue where you have an obtainable goal....put your abilities for research to work on something which you can obtain in this lifetime...cuz an anti-gun stance..isn't working for you...

In what way is my stance not working for me?

I’ve put forward a number of theories and so far they haven’t been reasonable challenged let alone refuted.

As to what I wish to obtain – I’ve pointed out several times now (do you read my posts Fylth?) I’m only here to learn and I’m achieving that.

(PS – I find it strange that you suggest that people should only work for things obtainable in their own lifetimes. It seems incredibly selfish to me? Do you not think to the children or their children?)

**

yes I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment..for many reasons...

The problem is that you seem totally unable to defend those reasons, or are you once again going to fall back on the ridiculously simplistic ‘guns are good’.

**

cuz as I have told you before...if by chance you could rid the world of fire-arms....are you going to be on the front line of ridding the world of rocks???? since rocks and sticks were the first weapons used for taking human life........

Again this has been covered many, many times already, why not tackle the arguments set out against this simplistic viewpoint rather than just repeating it?

Or are you repeating it because you haven’t read the counter arguments because you haven’t actually being following the threads?

Do you want me to go through them again, and if I did would you bother to read them?

**

bottom line dude...use your stubbornness and talents to eradicate something which is obtainable...not pursueing a pipe dream

What pipe dream are you talking about as said I’m here to learn and I’ve leant a lot.

One thing I’ve learnt is that many pro-gunners don’t seem to have rational arguments for their views.

As you make clear here.

**

Xexon

The only reason I support gun ownership in the US is because it keeps the government in line.

I’ve covered this here - Can guns save you from suppression?
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253937


**

 

wait, so the UK does not fear crime? what about the fact the UK is blasted by terrorists regularly? do they not fear that?

 

Sorry Pitt but the link didn’t work for me.

I believe the poll below is the one you mean? I’ve reprinted what seems to be the relevant bits.

This YouGov survey of 1,382 people, aged 18 and above, was carried out on Thursday August 16 and Friday August 17 2007 throughout Britain.
Do you feel safe in the streets of your neigbourhood?
Yes, at all times - 43%
Yes, during day-time but not at night - 42%
No, I don't really feel safe at anytime -11%
Don't know - 3%
Not applicable - 1%

So let’s see 85% of people feel safe most of the time and if you add the 3% who are so unafraid they don’t even know if they are threaten or not that is 88%.

You then have to wonder the things that don’t seem to have been asked, like are those who say they are afraid still go out at night? And if so have they ever been attacked?

Now that is not being complacent I think something should be done to make those 42% feel better and I have suggested a few things.

**
How safe do you feel now compared to 10 years ago?
More safe - 5%
No change - 39%
Less safe - 50%
Not applicable - 6%

It is half of Britons, or rather around half of 1,382 Britons, but what does this mean? What are they afraid of?

**
Have you ever confronted youths in the street about their antisocial behaviour?
Yes - 33% No - 63% Can't recall - 4%
When you confronted the youths, what happened?
They moved away - 41%
They ignored me - 19%
They threatened me - 25%
They attacked me - 4%
Other - 10%
Can't recall - 1%

But the question not asked is ‘Have you ever had occasion to confront youths in the street about their antisocial behavior?” This could indicate that most people don’t meet antisocial youths.
Of those that had, in most cases nothing untoward seems to have happened to around 71% of them, 25% got threatened but were unmolested and only 4% did get attacked, what form those attacks took or how badly isn’t indicated.

**
Have you ever called the police about people behaving antisocially in your local area?
Yes - 36% No - 62% Can't recall - 2%

Again the ‘Have you ever had occasion’ question isn’t there. So it could be that some 64% of people have never felt the need.
And it doesn’t say what ‘antisocial’ behavior is being talked about; in my experience the most common compliant is load music at a party.

**
Both GMTV and The Mirror are at the tabloid end of the market and thrive of sensationalism I believe the Mirror went with the headline – ‘Too scared to leave our homes’ and talked
“Yob rule on our streets and estates is now so out of control Britain is a nation gripped by fear”
Because of the 42% of Britons being afraid to walk the streets at night.

But what about the headline ‘Most people unafraid of crime’ with talk of the 43% of people that thought the streets completely safe.

I don’t know if you understand newspapers but the thing is that – ‘Things are OK’ as a headline does not sell ‘Yob rule’ and ‘Britain out of control’ does.

What even the Mirror doesn’t talk about is the kind of threats talked up about by many pro-gunners here as reasons for carrying guns.

 

Pitt

As to the linked article it seems to me that nearly everything in it has already been covered by us at one time or other so I’m rather unsure why you have chosen to link to it?

Is there any particular section or detail that you believe counters the criticisms I’ve already expressed toward these views? If so could you please point to it?

**

I mean if you actually examine it this is in the end just an opinion piece, although it does try very hard to hide the fact. But for all the authors - at times- blatant bias and spinning in the end they are still unable to make a conclusive let alone overwhelming case.

Basically they seem to say that the prevalence of crime depends to a large extent on “social, economic and/or cultural factors” and in this I largely agree.

But they then go on to claim that the availability of guns is irrelevant, but admit that this is “subject to cavil” terminology that doesn’t hide the fact that they mean it is very open to criticism and so it is, as pointed out numerous times the data they are relying on has so many variables attached that it comes down to the viewpoint of the observer as to their meaning.

**

The whole piece is aimed squarely at defending gun ownership as are many such opinion pieces on the web but what I’ve been saying is if “social, economic and/or cultural factors” are so important in this debate why do so many pro-gunners seem so uninterested in examining those areas?

**

Also the authors here also seem to indicate the same threat/intimidation tendencies that I’ve noted as seemingly been prevalent among many pro-gunners by seeming to praise the US policies of high imprisonment and increased execution.

But as I’ve said to me these things don’t seem to be dealing with the social, economic and/or cultural problems it is just about suppress the symptoms of those problems.

It seems to me that they are ignoring the causes and putting there faith in intimidation (including guns) to keep the situation under control.

**