Guncrazy USA

Are you serious? Are you SERIOUS? Jesus, you people make my ass twitch, and I am so damn sick of that absolutely pathetic mentality that wholly lacks any vision of possible future outcomes. If the future of America was left to people like you we'd be getting buttfucked by Russian Nazi's from Cuba

1) How about let's not be fucking stupid and nitpick at symantecs like a pre-pubescent attitude-laden teen. You know what gun control is, and you know exactly what I mean.

2) If I had the almighty power to disarm the entire globe I would but since BAD GUYS always USE GUNS why the hell would you expect people to use an inferior form of defense?

Bad people do what they want to who they want when and where they want with what they want. When someone breaks into your house and puts a gun to the head of you or your family, you can just try to tell him to sit down and have a conversation about the logistics and practicality of weapon useage. Or maybe he won't pause, he'll just pull the trigger and splatter your family tree all over the wall, and afterwards you can tell him that you're glad you didn't shoot him, cause guns are bad.

 

At 1443 posts and 145 pages, is this the longest thread on here?

 

Pitt

LOL

So the only way you can hold to your position is by ignoring anything that seems to contradict it.

It doesn’t matter how many times someone explains something, how many times they back up their views or how many times they answer your questions, if you just ignore what they say, you can claim your views are right and theirs wrong.

I don’t think there is one thing that you claim hasn’t been answered that hasn’t actually been answered and explained (often at great length and many times). But the answer are not the ones you want so you just ignore them.

Again it is the religious approach of people think creationists – if the answer is not an acceptable one, it doesn’t exist as a valid answer.

That way you never have to put your beliefs to any real test.


**

 

It has been claimed by some that my theories are not backed up, but in fact they seem to be continually backed up by virtually all the pro-gunner that make comments on these forums.

The latest are Roct and K7leetha

The posts clearly show a sense of threat that perfectly fits in with what I’ve been saying -
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3438947&postcount=9

“when the day comes where someone breaks into your house to cause you or your family harm”

“When someone breaks into your house and puts a gun to the head of you or your family”

To them it is not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’ an attack will come, as if it was an inevitability that someone armed and dangerous is going to invade peoples homes with the intention of causing them harm.

I live in a major urban area typically the most crime ridden, yet nobody I know fears what they (and many other pro-gunners) seems to feel is a very possible if not probable occurrence.

I’m not saying the UK doesn’t have it’s problems it does (in my opinion because the government is pursuing some flawed policies) but there is a lot more talk here about wondering why some types of crimes take place, a wish for understanding so that solutions can be found.

What I get from many Americans in reaction to crime is a kind of withdrawal, a hunkering down, of dealing with the symptoms rather than trying to understand the causes.

**

The argument has been put forward that it isn’t about a sense of threat it’s about being prepared, but that just doesn’t seem to wash.

Why are they prepared?

Well, because they fear their homes could be broken into at any moment by armed thugs (criminal or governmental) wanting to put a gun to their heads or to cause their family’s harm?

Time and again the same tactic is used to bolster the arguments of the pro-gunners their homes, their lives and the lives and freedoms of their families seem to be under constant threat from malicious outside forces.

Now this is where my attitudes and those of the pro-gunners seem to differ. Again they don’t seem to care very much about understanding why their society is like that they just seem to accept it and push guns as a means of keeping it under control.

But as I point out - “when threat, intimidation and suppression come to be seen as the most important (or only) means of dealing with domestic social problems and the outside world, the mindset becomes blind to alternatives
So in crime (as in many other areas) ‘toughness’ in other words repressive measures are praised while calls for understanding of the social context that leads to criminality is dismissed as soft and ‘giving in’ to the criminals.
Guns are just part of that repressive approach”

**

So the question then is why is this attitude of threat, intimidation and suppression so prevalent amongst so many Americans?


**

 

So the only way you can hold to your position is by ignoring anything that seems to contradict it.

It seems to me and many others that you are the one that ignores contradictory evidence to your POV. You completely ignore anything that runs counter to your belief. You refuse to explore the possible reasons for this contradictory evidence. When faced with facts showing that gun bans in your own country have done nothing to lower the gun crime and murder rates or violence you just ignore the fact. When shown the places in the US which has the strictest gun laws (ie Washington DC) have the highest instances of murder you just ignore the fact. You have been challenged on these facts and given the opportunity to give your explanations for the facts and you refuse.

Yawn! Oh again with the accusations and once again I’ll ask the same question that you always seem to ignore on these occasions - can you back them up with anything more than rhetoric or are you once again going to give an excuse why you’re not going to?

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

That way you never have to put your beliefs to any real test.

My views have essentially been put to the test by the very places where the gun bans have been in effect. They have shown they have made no difference.

If you are talking about the UK, no, you believe gun regulation has made no difference, it is your opinion and you of course are entitled to it, but it isn’t concrete evidence just supposition, a belief.

-----------

I live in a major urban area typically the most crime ridden, yet nobody I know fears what they (and many other pro-gunners) seems to feel is a very possible if not probable occurrence.

So you admit you live in a typically crime ridden area yet you feel that “you” will never become a victim. You are ignoring the everyday fact that many people do indeed become victims. Sounds to me like you still have your blinders on.

You should read the posts rather than just react; this reply is more about point scoring than seeking clarity.

Look at the differences. Here is the bit you missed – “I’m not saying the UK doesn’t have it’s problems it does (in my opinion because the government is pursuing some flawed policies) but there is a lot more talk in the UK wondering why some types of crimes take place, a wish for understanding so that solutions can be found.

But a willingness to seek understanding seems to be absent in our discussions.

And I have been the victim of crime a minor burglary while I was away from the house and two attempted muggings (while travelling outside of the UK). You on the other hand say you’ve never been the victim of any crime.

But I still don’t fear that armed criminals are at any moment going to invade my home and harm my family.

I fear the impact of global warming on the future of my child a lot more.

----------

Well, because they fear their homes could be broken into at any moment by armed thugs (criminal or governmental) wanting to put a gun to their heads or to cause their family’s harm?

Again do you deny this very thing does indeed occur? How many times have I showed you news stories where this very thing has happened?

Again shouldn’t you think before you post?

It doesn’t really occur that much in the UK, not enough for people to seem so fearful of it occurring any moment.

That’s the difference I highlight in my theories.

You should read them some day

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3438947&postcount=9

-----------

Time and again the same tactic is used to bolster the arguments of the pro-gunners their homes, their lives and the lives and freedoms of their families seem to be under constant threat from malicious outside forces.

Again no one is saying they are under “constant” threat. This has been discussed hundreds of times. Your continued proclamation does not change this from your own fabricated statements into fact.

To quote them again

“when the day comes where someone breaks into your house to cause you or your family harm”

“When someone breaks into your house and puts a gun to the head of you or your family”

And I could add a number of other very similar quotes from other pro-gunners.

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

Now this is where my attitudes and those of the pro-gunners seem to differ. Again they don’t seem to care very much about understanding why their society is like that they just seem to accept it and push guns as a means of keeping it under control.

Your attitude is that control guns and you control violence or gun violence. Yet you refuse to understand your own POV by looking at the facts of the places that have tried this very policy.

No I’m not saying that gun regulation will end violence, I’ve said this many times what I’m saying and the issue you are dodging here is that – many pro-gunners don’t seem to care very much about understanding why their society is like that they just seem to accept it and push guns as a means of keeping it under control.

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

But as I point out - “when threat, intimidation and suppression come to be seen as the most important (or only) means of dealing with domestic social problems and the outside world, the mindset becomes blind to alternatives

Again show me where anyone has stated that guns are the “most important (or only) means of dealing with domestic social problems”?

Have you gone into any detail on any other policies for dealing with domestic social problems besides the advocacy of gun ownership?

You have been very vocal and passionate about championing guns as a way of tackling such social issues as crime but even when asked repeatedly, when it comes to alternative routes you become laconic even brusque.

----------

So the question then is why is this attitude of threat, intimidation and suppression so prevalent amongst so many Americans?

Why is it that in the UK there is an attitude of ‘ban the gun and solve the problems’ when it has obviously not worked?

It was meant to be ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ and there still are a large number of people that believe the causes of crime have not been tackled to the extent they should have been.

As I’ve pointed out to you numerous times now I’m not the greatest fan of the UK governments policies in that area, I think that their should be greater efforts to solve the problems.

And also as I’ve said many times I have not been pushing here for a gun ban only greater regulation but then you continue to ignore what I say when it suits you.

As I’ve said yours is very much the creationist approach to debate.

**

It has been claimed by some that my theories are not backed up, but in fact they seem to be continually backed up by virtually all the pro-gunner that make comments on these forums.

The latest are Roct and K7leetha

Again another example of anyone not willing to conform to your POV gets labeled as a “pro-gun” nutcase that just “backs up” your theory. I have not seen anyone else agree with your statements concerning this.

LOL

I think there statements indicate they are pro-gun, but why do you think they are nutcases?

Anyway I’ve explain why their comments seem to fit in with my theories you don’t seem able to refute those explanations - you just seem to be rejecting my points and my theories out of hand without much reason beyond claiming I’m wrong, and the only way you can claim that, seems to be because you ignore anything that seems to contradict you.

**

 

Yawn! Oh again with the accusations and once again I’ll ask the same question that you always seem to ignore on these occasions - can you back them up with anything more than rhetoric or are you once again going to give an excuse why you’re not going to?

It is you that have ignored questions put to you for many months. A very simple and recent example is the mysterious third possible conclusion to the levels of gun crime/murder in the UK.

OH YES and once again Pitt makes excuses, you’re nothing but consistent there Pitt.

-----------

If you are talking about the UK, no, you believe gun regulation has made no difference, it is your opinion and you of course are entitled to it, but it isn’t concrete evidence just supposition, a belief.

In reference to the UK I have given TWO possible explanations for the increased numbers. I have asked you for this mysterious third possibility. You have refused to give one. As far as the US is concerned I have given you examples of where gun restrictions/bans are in place being the most violent and murder ridden places in the country. Again something you refuse to give a possible explanation for.

And your two explanations have been address at length – all you do is ignore what I say and repeat your ‘I have given two explanations’ speech.

Why not actually address what I’ve said rather than just ignoring it?

-----------

Look at the differences. Here is the bit you missed – “I’m not saying the UK doesn’t have it’s problems it does (in my opinion because the government is pursuing some flawed policies) but there is a lot more talk in the UK wondering why some types of crimes take place, a wish for understanding so that solutions can be found.

Yes there is also a lot of talk in the UK about why the gun problems have increased in spite of strict gun regulations. No one is saying to ignore the reasons for violence and crime. My problem is you want to pursue policies that have been shown to be ineffective.

Oh thank you Pitt you back my theory up yet again.

Now I know you’ll claim that it’s all in my head again but I’ll explain why you seem totally uninterested in wondering why some types of crimes take place, a wish for understanding so that solutions can be found you’re only interest is in protecting gun ownership.

----------

And I have been the victim of crime a minor burglary while I was away from the house and two attempted muggings (while travelling outside of the UK). You on the other hand say you’ve never been the victim of any crime.

I have never been a victim of a mugging or any other personal violent crime. I have however have been victim of thousands of dollars worth of property being stolen from me. Property which I rely on to make a living with and which I had to replace.

So this has happened in the last year I mean didn’t seem to mention this when I told you about my burglary?

So how did it happen?

---------

But I still don’t fear that armed criminals are at any moment going to invade my home and harm my family.

Nor do I live in fear of this as you suggest, I do however recognize the possibility of this happening.

You think your house could be invaded any moment by thugs armed with guns that will threaten or harm you family whereas I don’t.

---------

It doesn’t really occur that much in the UK, not enough for people to seem so fearful of it occurring any moment.

Again if YOU would read the post you would realize there is a difference between fearing an event and recognizing the possibility of an event happening.

But if the event is very, very unlikely, how unlikely would it have to be before some people stopped thinking of it as an inevitability?

And why are such people not interested in wondering why their society is like that and trying to think of ways of make it better rather than putting their faith in guns.

-----------

And I could add a number of other very similar quotes from other pro-gunners.

Again they are speaking of possibilities not immanent acts.

NO, they talk as if it will happen, that it could happen any time, of ‘when’ not if, and they don’t seem to be asking why they think it inevitable or why their society seems to be like that all they seem to be suggesting is that guns are needed to deal with it, which is exactly predicted by my theories.

--------

No I’m not saying that gun regulation will end violence, I’ve said this many times what I’m saying and the issue you are dodging here is that – many pro-gunners don’t seem to care very much about understanding why their society is like that they just seem to accept it and push guns as a means of keeping it under control.

And again I am saying that is your opinion and mine differs. I have shown you examples of pro-gun people acting for the betterment of society. I have challenged you to show something to back up your opinion and you have produced nothing.

You think that fellow citizens shooting at each other is to the betterment of society that it is a sign of a healthy society and stable civilisation?

Again you have to ignore thousands of words of explanation given in hundreds of posts over more than a year.

I’ve said that I’m not against people defending themselves in a reasonable manner but I’ve asking in what kind of society is it that they should need to do so with seemingly such frequency that many Americans are afraid that it is an inevitability that could happen to them at any moment.

I’m wondering why so many Americans don’t seem interested in wondering why some types of crimes are taking place so that solutions can be found preferring to put their faith in firepower.

--------

Have you gone into any detail on any other policies for dealing with domestic social problems besides the advocacy of gun ownership?

Actually I have spoken of different programs I believe would help and instead of discussing them you judgmentally dismiss then and say it just not enough.

We’ve been through this many times – here is just one example from just a few posts back –

[balbus]You only seem to concentrate on the gun as a means of influencing events and being a deterrent that can of tackling some of the symptoms of social economic and cultural problems.

[pitt] Again you have been proved wrong by posting the activities and programs I have been personally involved in. You thoughts were that none of them were effective or worth wild.

OH Pitt, we have been through this many times and your assertion has been addressed, but once again you are just denying it has been.

I’ve explained a length and in detail why supporting individual programmes doesn’t mean a person has thought very much about socio-economic and cultural problems or thought about policies to deal with those problems.

It is like repeatedly treating the cuts and bruises of an abuse victim without ever thinking about ways to stop the abuse.

It is a good thing to treat the cuts and bruises (just as it is good to support individual programmes) but the abuse will just continue or likely increase if not dealt with.

Now as shown time and again you just refuse to discuss socio-economic and cultural problems in any depth and refuse to debate possible ideas beyond the those of threat/intimidation/suppression in anything but the most basic and vague terms.

What you seem to be claiming is that since the cuts and bruises are dealt with there is no need to think at all about why they are there and ways to stop them happening in future.


----------

It was meant to be ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ and there still are a large number of people that believe the causes of crime have not been tackled to the extent they should have been.

How has it been tough on crime? If its so tough on crime how come gun crime/murder has increased? If something is not effective would not the money and resources be better off spent elsewhere?

But according to the home office many crimes (including violent crime) have fallen since 1995 by some 40-60%

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/crime0607summ.pdf


Again for you is about getting tough not seeking understanding.

----------

And also as I’ve said many times I have not been pushing here for a gun ban only greater regulation but then you continue to ignore what I say when it suits you.

Yet you proposed policies did include a complete gun ban which I have pointed out to you numerous times.

And which has been address a number of time but which you do not refute but just ignore.

This is from one post

“I put forward some ideas ‘off the top of my head’ and as that implies I didn’t do extensive research they were meant above all to stimulate debate. They were not meant to be seen as immutable laws, carved in stone, and I’ve made that very clear on numerous occasions since I first posted them.”

This is from another

“In post 134 I gave some ideas ‘off the top of my head’ on what could be done to reduce then clear US society of guns because there was an opinion that that was an impossible task and couldn’t be done. It was a thought experiment.

But as I make clear at the time – “The thing is that as I’ve been trying to point out, ideas are easy and even the drafting of laws is not that difficult, the problem as I see it with regard to the US is that many Americans have a viewpoint that would oppose those ideas and refuse to vote for those laws.
I’ve been trying to understand that attitude”

As it was you came out in favour of some of these ideas (the other pro-gunners in that discussion at the time rejected all of them out of hand) and I thought they could be the basis of some consensus, but you seem to have been back tracking on your favour ever since.”

Should I go on?

The UK has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. How great will the regulation have to be to get criminals to comply?

Oh hell Pitt we’ve been through this, do I have to cut and paste my anwers again (see above)

Why the fuck don’t you just deal with what’s said rather than ignore anything that doesn’t suit you?

----------

I think there statements indicate they are pro-gun, but why do you think they are nutcases?

You should really learn to read the English language. I do not think they are a nutcase nor did I call them a nutcase.

LOL well I didn’t so you must of since nutcase appears in your post – I mean is that what you think of them?

--------

Anyway I’ve explain why their comments seem to fit in with my theories you don’t seem able to refute those explanations - you just seem to be rejecting my points and my theories out of hand without much reason beyond claiming I’m wrong, and the only way you can claim that, seems to be because you ignore anything that seems to contradict you.

Yet no one else even seems to imply they are backing up your theories, why is that? You claim I take a “creationist” approach to this and I say someone that is so convinced they are right and that everyone else just backs them up when no one else see it that way is delusional.

But Pitt as I’ve said many times I’m not convinced I’m right, I’ve put forward some opinions and theories and don’t claim they are anything more than opinions or theories. I’ve tried to explain why I think them valid and have defended them from criticism, but I’ve never claimed they are the only ‘truth’.

You on the other hand have repeated claimed your opinions are facts and truth and that makes you right and me wrong. The only problem being that you sadly don’t seem willing or able to defend many of your views against criticism and instead repeat things over and over, ignoring any criticism of such statements seemingly because they question your belief system.

Anyway I’ve explain why their comments seem to fit in with my theories and you don’t seem able to refute those explanations - you just seem to be rejecting my points and my theories out of hand without much reason beyond claiming I’m wrong.

I don’t think that delusional I think it dishonest.


**

 

I argued over a year ago that it seems to me that guns were seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

I’ve shown instances of this many times from an number of pro-gunners and explained at length and in detail why many of their statements back up my theories.

Pitt’s main argument against those theories is that he, like many other gun owners, support individual social programmes.

But as pointed out many times (and which he hasn’t addressed so far) support of individual programmes does not necessarily mean that the person has thought much about social, economic or political problems.

People give for many reasons guilt or pity, political or religious affiliation or out of sympathy or empathy. It doesn’t just follow that they have given much thought to the system or society they live in or to the reason for its problems.

You might feel sorry for a poor person but not wonder why they are poor and so on.

Greater insight and clarity could be achieved through discussion of the problems but in this Pitt refuses, although repeatedly asked to do so.

He has mumbled about ‘materialism’, ‘hedonism’, and what he termed ‘the me thing’ as being at the root of the US’s societal problems but has refused to expand on his meaning.

And he is equally as unforthcoming when it comes to ways to deal with those things. He has muttered some homilies about being nice to each other and helping each other out or teaching kids right from wrong, but again that’s as far as he seems willing to go.

Now contrast his sheepishness and reluctance to talk about these things with the time, effort and remorselessness with which he pushes gun ownership as a means of dealing with social problems.

The contrast is stark and telling, it also backs up my theories.


**

 

OH YES and once again Pitt makes excuses, you’re nothing but consistent there Pitt.

And once again balbus dodges the questions.

You mean dodge the question I’ve already addressed a number of times already but which you’ve been ignoring? I mean anyone can claim something hasn’t been relied to if they just ignore any replies.

As I say it’s a very creationist way of arguing.

So I’ll ask you again – you made some accusations are you going to back them up or make more excuses?

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

Why not actually address what I’ve said rather than just ignoring it?

Lmfao You have given nothing but the excuse that you cannot change the past or see in the future. What is this mysterious third option? Are you ever going to answer this question?

What mysterious third option are you talking about Pitt, do you actually read what other peoples posts say or ignore what they do say if it doesn’t suit your?

Go back read what’s been said try and understand it then you might just be able to reply rather than just repeating something that’s already been covered.

If you disagree explain why you disagree rather than just repeating statements that’s already seem to have been addressed.

----------

Now I know you’ll claim that it’s all in my head again but I’ll explain why you seem totally uninterested in wondering why some types of crimes take place, a wish for understanding so that solutions can be found you’re only interest is in protecting gun ownership.

What? Jesus you cannot be truly this ignorant. Reread the statement and open your eyes so you can understand it. It has little to do with protecting gun ownership it has more to do with your fanatical pursuit of ineffective policies.

But time after time the only thing you seem interested in talking about or defending is gun ownership as a means of tackling social problems but even when asked to do so on numerous occasions you refuse to talk about possible other means of tackling these problems.

And you’re still refusing to discuss them – and that fit in exactly with my theories.

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

So this has happened in the last year I mean didn’t seem to mention this when I told you about my burglary?
So how did it happen?

When we were talking about it before the topic was about being personally mugged/burgled. As I have told you I own a business, the business has to have equipment to operate. I have had equipment and supplies stolen multiple times, the last time was about 6 months ago. I actually still have some security video footage from when one of my trucks was robbed in 05.

I was burgled because I left a window visibly open while away at work I’d done it before and nothing had happened but on that occasion an opportunist thief must have seen it, it was a silly thing to do and I learnt from my mistake.

But as I pointed out when I told you about this, a gun would have been of little use since I was away and if a gun had been at home and unsecured it would very likely have found its way into criminal hands. That is one of the reasons why I think that in America mandatory gun safes should be brought in.

So how did these robberies take place?

---------

You think your house could be invaded any moment by thugs armed with guns that will threaten or harm you family whereas I don’t.

No read again I realize it is a possibility whereas you don’t even think it’s a possibility at your house. I would again call that attitude of yours delusional.

It is a very, very rare occurrence in the UK, but you are trying to use the fear of it, however miniscule, as a means of pushing your gun agenda. This is the thing that strikes me about your attitude you are not wondering why these things are happening you’re just trying to push gun ownership as a means of tackling it.

And to not have widespread and easy access to guns to tackle this very slight possibility is delusional, because although it is very unlikely to happen and even having a gun does not guarantee it not happening since the attacker will be ready while the person in the house unless they go to the door with the gun cocked and ready for use is likely to be at a disadvantage etc.

So even though its very, very unlikely to happen and even having a gun might not help you anyway in your viewpoint the widespread and easy access to guns is the best way to tackle this very rare possibility?

Do you see what I mean about the pro-gun attitude is seem so concerned with pushing gun ownership that it seems to crowds out any other way of thinking.

----------

But if the event is very, very unlikely, how unlikely would it have to be before some people stopped thinking of it as an inevitability?

Again who said it was “inevitable”?

To quote them again

“when the day comes where someone breaks into your house to cause you or your family harm”

“When someone breaks into your house and puts a gun to the head of you or your family”

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

And why are such people not interested in wondering why their society is like that and trying to think of ways of make it better rather than putting their faith in guns.

And once again who is saying they are not interested in the reasons?

It’s not like I haven’t been asking, how many times have I presented my theories to them asking for their comments so far I’m getting nothing but the pro-gun attitude of threat, intimidation and suppression.

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

NO, they talk as if it will happen, that it could happen any time, of ‘when’ not if, and they don’t seem to be asking why they think it inevitable or why their society seems to be like that all they seem to be suggesting is that guns are needed to deal with it, which is exactly predicted by my theories.

Then why don’t you ASK them is they are talking about inevitabilities or possibilities instead of claiming you are psychic and know what they mean?

Hold up there Pitt – I have been asking that the reasons for my posts, the thing is you seem to be the only one willing to reply and you are the one claiming psychic powers by talking for them and so I’ve been giving you my replies to your assertions.

The forums public if they wish to reply to what I’ve said they can any time they want.

--------

You think that fellow citizens shooting at each other is to the betterment of society that it is a sign of a healthy society and stable civilisation?

Lmao classic twist on what was said but ummm no where close to what was said. Do you really think anyone here is foolish to fall for such a bull shit ridden post?

Not a twist you said and I quote – “I have shown you examples of pro-gun people acting for the betterment of society”

Well the examples you have been pushing more than any other in defence of gun ownership has been DGU’s and you have claimed those are a good thing your society, so I must admit I presumed that was what you were saying, if you are saying those were not the examples you were talking about, could you please link to the examples you are talking about?

---------

What you seem to be claiming is that since the cuts and bruises are dealt with there is no need to think at all about why they are there and ways to stop them happening in future.

Again you are way off base and anyone who has followed this thread from the beginning knows you are being purposefully evasive.

LOL, so writing thousands of words of detailed explanation is being evasive in your eyes?

I notice you don’t actually address the issues I’ve raised are you being evasive?

To repeat the thing I’d already repeated –

“I’ve explained a length and in detail why supporting individual programmes doesn’t mean a person has thought very much about socio-economic and cultural problems or thought about policies to deal with those problems.

It is like repeatedly treating the cuts and bruises of an abuse victim without ever thinking about ways to stop the abuse.

It is a good thing to treat the cuts and bruises (just as it is good to support individual programmes) but the abuse will just continue or likely increase if not dealt with.

Now as shown time and again you just refuse to discuss socio-economic and cultural problems in any depth and refuse to debate possible ideas beyond the those of threat/intimidation/suppression in anything but the most basic and vague terms.

What you seem to be claiming is that since the cuts and bruises are dealt with there is no need to think at all about why they are there and ways to stop them happening in future”

---------

But according to the home office many crimes (including violent crime) have fallen since 1995 by some 40-60%

Yet GUN violence and GUN crime have increased. So what fucking good has all your strict regulations done?

Not my regulations and definitely not what I’ve been trying to talk about here.

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

And which has been address a number of time but which you do not refute but just ignore.

Bla bla yes yes you revised your proposals but have refused to even admit you “inadvertently” proposed an all out ban. Are you so scared of being perceived as fallible you will not admit an obvious mistake on your part?

But I didn’t make an ‘obvious mistake’, you really should try and understand what others write rather than just going for cheap point scoring.

To repeat the things I’d already repeated “I put forward some ideas ‘off the top of my head’ and as that implies I didn’t do extensive research they were meant above all to stimulate debate. They were not meant to be seen as immutable laws, carved in stone, and I’ve made that very clear on numerous occasions since I first posted them.”

This is from another

“In post 134 I gave some ideas ‘off the top of my head’ on what could be done to reduce then clear US society of guns because there was an opinion that that was an impossible task and couldn’t be done. It was a thought experiment.

But as I make clear at the time – “The thing is that as I’ve been trying to point out, ideas are easy and even the drafting of laws is not that difficult, the problem as I see it with regard to the US is that many Americans have a viewpoint that would oppose those ideas and refuse to vote for those laws.
I’ve been trying to understand that attitude”

As it was you came out in favour of some of these ideas (the other pro-gunners in that discussion at the time rejected all of them out of hand) and I thought they could be the basis of some consensus, but you seem to have been back tracking on your favour ever since.”

Should I go on?

The UK has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. How great will the regulation have to be to get criminals to comply?

Oh hell Pitt we’ve been through this, do I have to cut and paste my answers again (as I had to again)

Why don’t you just deal with what’s said rather than ignore anything that doesn’t suit you?

-----------

Oh hell Pitt we’ve been through this, do I have to cut and paste my anwers again (see above)
Why the fuck don’t you just deal with what’s said rather than ignore anything that doesn’t suit you?

Then just answer the FUCKING question. If the criminals are not going to obey the regulations what good have you done? Has it proved to be more difficult for criminals to get a hold of guns in the UK?

But is doesn’t seem to matter if I answer a question if it isn’t the one you want you just ignore it and repeat the question over and over and over etc.

Look just above the last two replies, you ignored what I’ve said therefore forceing me to repeat again what I’d said.

Why don’t you just address what I say rather than repeatedly ignoring it because it isn’t what you want.

-----------

LOL well I didn’t so you must of since nutcase appears in your post – I mean is that what you think of them?

Lol ok you didn’t call them “nutcase” however you did say pro-gun and from your apparent attitude toward anyone pro-gun your type would consider them or me a nutcase.

LOL, so i didn't call them nutcases, you did, but I would of (even if i didn't) because that what 'my type' are like?

What type am I then?

**

Anyway I’ve explain why their comments seem to fit in with my theories and you don’t seem able to refute those explanations - you just seem to be rejecting my points and my theories out of hand without much reason beyond claiming I’m wrong.

Anyone that has voiced opposition to or questioned your “theories” or “opinions” has been labeled by YOU as supporting your theories. That is delusional.

So let’s see you're unable to refute the validity of my claims so you are hoping that calling me mad will somehow make my claims seem wrong.

It’s a cheap shot and doesn’t work.

It just means you still haven’t refuted the validity of my claims.

**

 

I’ve shown instances of this many times from an number of pro-gunners and explained at length and in detail why many of their statements back up my theories.

And it has been explained to you how your theories and statements are flawed which you tend to ignore.

The theory presented here at the moment is that it seems to me that guns were seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

The only argument you have put up against this has been your claim that if someone’s given support to an individual programme or two that makes my theory wrong.

But rather than ignore you counter arguement I’ve covered it at length and in detail (just look above and below and I can give many many other examples of it if you wish)

I cannot believe you’ve missed what I’ve said so are you ignoring it? Really to claim I’ve ignored your augments seems dishonest.

------

Pitt’s main argument against those theories is that he, like many other gun owners, support individual social programmes.

But as pointed out many times (and which he hasn’t addressed so far) support of individual programmes does not necessarily mean that the person has thought much about social, economic or political problems.

Nor does it follow that if a person owns a gun or is pro-gun that they have NOT thought about societal problems. So your saying that if you’re a pro-gun person and you support an program you have not thought about it you just do it on a whim or something? Sounds like utter nonsense to me.

(See below)

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

People give for many reasons guilt or pity, political or religious affiliation or out of sympathy or empathy. It doesn’t just follow that they have given much thought to the system or society they live in or to the reason for its problems.

And once again owning a gun does NOT mean they have not given it thought. Your claim that it does is ridiculous and almost racist in nature. Just because someone is “X” or owns “X” that automatically means they are “XYZ”.

Now a sensible person would read the post and think about it before answering and an honest person if they were writing replies while reading would have written these relies and then got to the next paragraph and realised they had been answered and would then have replied to that instead.

The next paragraph was - Greater insight and clarity could be achieved through discussion of the problems but in this Pitt refuses, although repeatedly asked to do so.

In other words if someone had thought about societal problems beyond just giving to individual programmes they should be able to discuss this – you have repeatedly refused to.

But you don’t seem to care about being honest (I really worry about your suitability to teach right from wrong when you think is ok to be dishonest in a debate just to try and score a cheap point).

--------


He has mumbled about ‘materialism’, ‘hedonism’, and what he termed ‘the me thing’ as being at the root of the US’s societal problems but has refused to expand on his meaning.

What is it about those terms that confuse you so much?

I don’t know what you interpretation of there meaning is. For example you talk of the ‘me thing’ which I presume is about individualism but many of the things you’ve said seem to imply support for individualism. Also at what level does wellbeing become materialism for you, peoples viewpoints on this differ as they do with hedonism one person's simple pleasures can be another person’s venal indulgences.

Thing is why are you so unwilling to discuss these things but so very, very willing to push gun ownership as a way of tackling them?

**

And he is equally as unforthcoming when it comes to ways to deal with those things. He has muttered some homilies about being nice to each other and helping each other out or teaching kids right from wrong, but again that’s as far as he seems willing to go.

Now contrast his sheepishness and reluctance to talk about these things with the time, effort and remorselessness with which he pushes gun ownership as a means of dealing with social problems.

As I haver asked you thousands of times if your proposed gun bans/restrictions are ineffective as they seem to be in the hundreds of places they have been tried would not the money and effort be better spent on useful programs such as parenting classes or something. I mean its very obvious when you hear about a 10 year old kid being shot in the local park or on the street at 2 AM there is a lot more that needs to be addressed than gun availability. I mean what the fuck was a 10 year old doing out at 2 AM?

But you only seem interested in the protection of gun ownership, that’s my point and the thing that back up the theory mentioned just above.

I’ve explained at length in detail and quite a number of times now that the gun regulation part of my holistic approach is relatively small compared with the rest. But your only concern seems to be with guns, the holistic approach is aimed at tackling a wide range of societal problems, but the only thing you seem to care about is guns.

As I’ve said to me guns seem to be seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

It is very clear here that you still don’t seem to have given your society’s problems very much thought and are refusing to talk about them but you are very, very willing to keep pushing guns as a way of dealing with those problems.

In other words you fit in exactly with my theory.

---------

The contrast is stark and telling, it also backs up my theories.

Backs up you theories again? Been talking to those devil dogs again?

Once again because you are unable to refute the validity of my claims you are hoping that calling me mad will somehow make my claims seem wrong.

It’s a cheap shot, dishonest and doesn’t work.

It just means you still haven’t refuted the validity of my claims or ideas.

So is that it?

If other peoples ideas run counter to your own but you are unable to refute them they must be the work of madness that can be dismissed without a second thought.

Is that the what you mean by education, is that the lesson you want to teach kids, is that the way they will learn right from wrong?

I think you plan for a better future is in deep trouble.

**

 

I think this is one of those situations where it's best to "agree to disagree".

 

I agree.

 

what does this have to do with the disscussion at this point?

 

I certainly haven't read all off the posts up to now, but I personally believe in a person's right to bear arms, regardless of how I feel about the issue myself. Guns are just tools, it's people that kill people. And the government shouldn't have the right to take them away from people (if not just because, if we don't have them, how would else the people protect themselves against the government if all else fails?), just as it shouldn't have the right to take ANYTHING else away from us, be it guns, drugs, privacy, etc.

 

So I’ll ask you again – you made some accusations are you going to back them up or make more excuses?

Lol Ok how about we just restate the latest dodge in a long list.
If the gun crime/murder rate has continued to rise in the UK since the Dunblane gun ban was put into effect, one can deduct two possible resulting scenarios.
1 The gun ban was ineffective, or
2 the UK has become a much more violent place in the last 10 years.
You claim there is another explanation, What is it?

OH hell Pitt we’ve been through this at length is seems again that you are just ignoring anything answer you don’t like until you get one you like, that’s not the same as not giving answers it’s just you not accepting them, which doesn’t back up you accusation.

You are setting limits to what answers can be given and declaring any other viewpoint invalid

You are against gun regulation so in your opinion the UK’s gun laws have been ineffective, but that’s an opinion that cannot be substantiated because you have nothing to compare it with.

Violent crime has declined since 1995 and gun crime has had ups and downs within that period also clouded by the introduction of differing recording and methodological techniques.

But I’ve never said I think the UK system is that great since it has not for example introduced a realistic drugs policy.

We’ve covered all this before it seems dishonest to keep repeating the same statements while ignoring everything I’ve said concerning them.

----------

What mysterious third option are you talking about Pitt, do you actually read what other peoples posts say or ignore what they do say if it doesn’t suit your?

See above.

-----------

Go back read what’s been said try and understand it then you might just be able to reply rather than just repeating something that’s already been covered.

Ditto

As I’ve said – “If you disagree explain why you disagree rather than just repeating statements that’s already seem to have been addressed”

Just repeating things that have already been covered or saying ditto – is not explaining why you disagree.


-----------

If you disagree explain why you disagree rather than just repeating statements that’s already seem to have been addressed.

Take your own advice. I have stated hundreds of times the ineffectiveness of the UK gun ban. I have listed the only two possible explanations for the resulting increased numbers of gun violence and gun murder in the UK. You obviously disagree, so explain why you disagree with the statement and give your mysterious third explanation.

The only two possible explanations?

That’s what I’m talking about you will seemingly only accept the answers you want and ignore anything else as invalid.


----------

But time after time the only thing you seem interested in talking about or defending is gun ownership as a means of tackling social problems but even when asked to do so on numerous occasions you refuse to talk about possible other means of tackling these problems.

You are again either not listening or flat out lying. I have said gun ownership in itself will not solve social problems in general however it can protect in individual situations. This has been shown to you dozens of times.

Again you repeat things that have already been covered many times – it is easy to say that you think about other was of dealing with social problems beyond the threat intimidation, suppression attitude but the thing is you just flat out refuse to discuss them all you do is push gun ownership as a means of tackling those societal problems.
Which as explain at length fits in with my theories.

---------

I was burgled because I left a window visibly open while away at work I’d done it before and nothing had happened but on that occasion an opportunist thief must have seen it, it was a silly thing to do and I learnt from my mistake.

And how did this “opportunist thief” know you were not home? How did he know no one else was in there? Had someone you love been in there are you willing to take the chance that the criminal is not violent and willing to attack on sight?

Oh more point scoring rather than clarity.

It was a flat and I was living alone at the time and the thief or thieves (the police thought it was kids from what was taken) only had to knock on the door to see if anyone was in or not.

Again you are trying to use fear as a means of promoting gun ownership – the violent killer criminal breaking in to do harm on your loved ones.

To repeat - It is a very, very rare occurrence in the UK, but you are trying to use the fear of it, however miniscule, as a means of pushing your gun agenda. This is the thing that strikes me about your attitude you are not wondering why these things are happening you’re just trying to push gun ownership as a means of tackling it.

And to not have widespread and easy access to guns to tackle this very slight possibility is delusional, because although it is very unlikely to happen and even having a gun does not guarantee it not happening since the attacker will be ready while the person in the house unless they go to the door with the gun cocked and ready for use is likely to be at a disadvantage etc.

So even though its very, very unlikely to happen and even having a gun might not help you anyway in your viewpoint the widespread and easy access to guns is the best way to tackle this very rare possibility?

Do you see what I mean about the pro-gun attitude is seem so concerned with pushing gun ownership that it seems to crowds out any other way of thinking.


----------

But as I pointed out when I told you about this, a gun would have been of little use since I was away and if a gun had been at home and unsecured it would very likely have found its way into criminal hands. That is one of the reasons why I think that in America mandatory gun safes should be brought in.

First an educated responsible gun owner would not have left the house leaving an unsecured firearm lying around. Secondly you have never commented on my statements concerning the thief simply taking the gun safe with him to open at his leisure. Will you now address this criticism?

First according to the FBI most gun owners do just leave guns unsecured and you have defended that and believe gun safes should not be mandatory.

(Are you now saying only educated and responsible people should be able to own a gun?)

Second I have addressed that point before (again you just ignore what doesn’t suit you), remember this exchange –

[pitt] Pitfall #4 If you are away from home an d your house is burglarized what keeps the criminal from taking the lockbox with him and opening later to retrieve the weapon

[balbus] Of course I’ve seen the light, halleluiah, I mean what is the point in having any safes what so ever, in fact what is the point of locking anything up – I mean if I lock my bike to a bicycle stand a thief could always take the stand along with the bike and take the lock off later, so really there is little point locking the bike up at all, it would be just as safe if I didn’t.

I’m sure I’ve told you how silly that is before haven’t I?

[pitt] So you think its appropriate to have your government tall you that if you do not have a bicycle lock you cannot own a bicycle? Oh and by the way we might tell you next year you will have to have a different kind of lock.

The point is that all a lock is to keep an honest man out. This also goes back to the point of what constitutes an “approved” safe. Instead of making sill statements why not address the real point?

[balbus] What real point – that you think that leaving a gun just hanging around is as safe as locking them up in a safe?

Again this doesn’t seem like a overwhelming reason for being against.

**

The thing is that your opinion is that gun safe’s are a good idea but shouldn’t be mandatory (so unlikely to be widely used). My opinion is that gun safes can deter criminals from stealing guns and increasing their availability to criminals.


-----------

So how did these robberies take place?

Which time? Mostly they happened at night where the thief has either cut the fence (with razor wire at the top) or cut the lock and then broken into trucks taking miscellaneous item (some of which cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars to replace. Some have taken place shortly after I have left the office and one of them actually happened as I was pulling into the office in the morning. Point being if I had pulled directly into the back lot there would have very possibly been a confrontation with the thief.

But there was never any confrontation with any thief. Having a gun was useless on every occasion. But you seem to be pushing guns as a way of tackling crime while seemingly ignoring alternative ideas.

----------

It is a very, very rare occurrence in the UK, but you are trying to use the fear of it, however miniscule, as a means of pushing your gun agenda.

Wrong How many times have I said its an individual choice? Although you say its “rare” in the UK the possibility is there is it not?

Again this is fundamentally dishonest you and other talk graphically of violent criminals invading peoples homes and hurting loved ones and saying that ‘when’ that happens without a gun you and your family will be unprotected.

But oh no you say, that’s not promoting guns that’s just pointing out what will happen ‘when’ the viscous killers come to get you.

Really Pitt do you think you are being honest when you claim you have in no way tried to promote gun ownership?

---------

 

This is the thing that strikes me about your attitude you are not wondering why these things are happening you’re just trying to push gun ownership as a means of tackling it.

Again wrong, I have wondered why people do the things they do, however this does not mean I should give up the means of protection I have chosen.



You started out by arguing that all criminal activity was down to ‘greed’ before admitting that their might be other factors which you refused to discuss. I don’t think you’ve though very much about anything but protecting gun ownership I mean I’ve asked you to do so on a number of occasions and you’ve refused your still refusing now.

---------

And to not have widespread and easy access to guns to tackle this very slight possibility is delusional, because although it is very unlikely to happen and even having a gun does not guarantee it not happening since the attacker will be ready while the person in the house unless they go to the door with the gun cocked and ready for use is likely to be at a disadvantage etc.

Again if you would read the post you would realize this statement is a complete fabrication.



Then please explain why not? It seems to be the thrust of your argument.

----------

So even though its very, very unlikely to happen and even having a gun might not help you anyway in your viewpoint the widespread and easy access to guns is the best way to tackle this very rare possibility?

Your right it might not help, in fact it does not help in EVERY situation. Yet there are thousands of times each year where it does in fact help. Remember the DGU discussion?



Again you promote the idea that guns are therefore the best way of tackling crime (since you will not talk of others).


----------

Do you see what I mean about the pro-gun attitude is seem so concerned with pushing gun ownership that it seems to crowds out any other way of thinking.

Do you see what I mean about the anti-gun way of thinking? If its been tried and had no effect (as shown by the studies I have shown you) why not instead of pushing the same old useless agenda, concentrate the money and effort on something that might help?



Oh no once again point scoring and once again ignoring stuff that doesn’t suit you.



I gave a long explanation of why I think this fits in with the pro-gun attitude just go and read my this again (if you ever have).

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3438947&postcount=9



You reply by making an unsubstantiated assertion and expressing an opinion of which you still haven’t addressed the criticisms.



---------

Again who said it was “inevitable”?

To quote them again

Again I say they are speaking of “possibilities” not inevitabilities as you claim. Why don’t you have the balls to ask them which way they are speaking?



Do you read anything pitt?



To repeat - It’s not like I haven’t been asking (them), how many times have I presented my theories to them asking for their comments so far I’m getting nothing but the pro-gun attitude of threat, intimidation and suppression.
(my brackets)



They can come by any time and defend their point of view, I’m not stopping them.



An honest person after reading on would have deleted or edited this post but them…


----------

 

It’s not like I haven’t been asking, how many times have I presented my theories to them asking for their comments so far I’m getting nothing but the pro-gun attitude of threat, intimidation and suppression.

Again I have answered your question and you have either dismissed them or like a child continued with the “why” “why” “why” “why” “why” “why” “why” seemingly in an attempt to find one singular cause of social problems. I have stated again and again I don’t think there is any ONE singular cause.

Again with the accusations you’ll never back up.

And we’ve covered that ‘why, why, why’ speech before its just a trick to get out of discussing the societal problems that you claim you are willing to discuss but refuse to do so.

And we’ve addressed this silly thing about the ‘ONE singular cause’ again it just something you do to refuse to talk it has no basis in reality since no ‘one’ cause has actually been suggested.


----------

Hold up there Pitt – I have been asking that the reasons for my posts, the thing is you seem to be the only one willing to reply and you are the one claiming psychic powers by talking for them and so I’ve been giving you my replies to your assertions.

No I said I see their post in a different light, that in my opinion they are speaking of “possibilities” not absolutes as you claim. It is very possible they are a paranoid delusional personality and do in fact believe its inevitable, however I do NOT think so.

So they said when it happens when they really meant there is a very small possibility of it happening so small that it really is unlikely but there is still a very, very slim possibility and so if it ever does happen although that’s unlikely then you will be sorry for not having a gun that is very likely to be a little use anyway.

**

Not a twist you said and I quote – “I have shown you examples of pro-gun people acting for the betterment of society”

And where exactly do I say the acts consist of “citizens shooting at each other is to the betterment of society”?????? Again just another twisting and dishonest post on your part.

You have said DGU’s are a good thing.

----------

Well the examples you have been pushing more than any other in defence of gun ownership has been DGU’s and you have claimed those are a good thing your society,

Oh once again you ignore what doesn’t suit you and repeat statements that still have outstanding criticisms against them that you refuse to address.

No I did NOT say DGU’s show a healthy society.

To quote you directly “If there were 60,000 fewer DGU’s does it not stand to reason there would be an additional 60,000 crimes committed? (Simple logic tells you this is true) Now if there were an additional 60,000 crimes would the US be a more or less healthy society?”

So DGU’s in your opinion make for a healthier society.

To repeat a reply (not the only one) -
You just don’t listen if what’s been said is something that you don’t like or shows you’re thinking to be flawed.

We have discussed this at length and you still haven’t addressed my criticisms of your viewpoint.

You just repeat this over but without reference to countering views.

I’ve made it very clear that I’m not opposed to people defending themselves but for me DGU’s are not something to be celebrated. You on the other hand seem to think it is something to be celebrated; you seem to positively relish the idea of having to use your gun to defend yourself.

But every time someone pulls a gun there are consequences, some unseen, there is always the possibility of people getting injured or killed unnecessarily.

My view and my aim is to make people feel secure enough that they don’t even feel they need guns to protect them, thereby bring down the number of DGU’s taking place.

You seem to be promoting fear, by constantly and consistently going on about the possibilities of being attacked, in the hope it seems of making people feel less secure so they think they need guns to protect them, thereby most likely increasing the number of DGU’s taking place.

And DGU’s seem to point toward gun ownership not being the best way of tackling crime but we have been through this and it doesn’t seem to matter what I say you just ignore it…”

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

“I’ve explained a length and in detail why supporting individual programmes doesn’t mean a person has thought very much about socio-economic and cultural problems or thought about policies to deal with those problems.

And I have answered in length that because someone owns a gun does not mean a person has NOT thought about socio-economic and cultural problems or thought about policies to deal with those problems.

Pitt you’re being disingenuous again.

You have made the assertion many times that gun owners have thought about socio-economic and cultural problems or thought about policies to deal with those problems. But you haven’t actually backed up those statements.

As pointed out you continually refuse to debate such issues so your assertions seem unfounded.

----------

What you seem to be claiming is that since the cuts and bruises are dealt with there is no need to think at all about why they are there and ways to stop them happening in future”

Again a flat out lie and anyone that has that has followed this thread can plainly see that.

Come on then link to where this can plainly be seen – or will you make another excuse not to?

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

Not my regulations and definitely not what I’ve been trying to talk about here.

LMFAO lots of your regulations are mirrored in the UK. So instead of answering the question about their effectiveness you just ignore it while continuing to push for these same regulations claiming they would be effective. This is classic anti-gun rhetoric.

So which ones are ‘mirrored’ then?

And we’ve been over the effectiveness thing elsewhere.

--------

To repeat the things I’d already repeated “I put forward some ideas ‘off the top of my head’ and as that implies I didn’t do extensive research they were meant above all to stimulate debate. They were not meant to be seen as immutable laws, carved in stone, and I’ve made that very clear on numerous occasions since I first posted them.”

And when it “stimulated” discussion and it was pointed out that your off the top of your head proposals did indeed include a complete ban, you refuse to even admit that. So I will ask you again very simply, Did your original proposals include a complete ban or not?
Will you now answer this question?

I have answered that question before several times, why do you keep claiming (like so many other things) that I haven’t?

All you ever seem to do these days is stall, bringing up old issues that have been addressed as if they hadn’t or repeating statements that have criticisms outstanding on them that you have ignored.

Since the object of the thought experiment was to clear as many guns from the US as possible the answer would be yes. But what is your point here since as I made clear at the time these were just some off the cuff remarks to simulate discussion they were not serious suggestions because I didn’t think any of the people in the discussion at that time would accept any of them.

In fact you are the only pro-gunner that has ever accepted any of them and since doing so have then turned and attacked many of them.

---------

But as I make clear at the time – “The thing is that as I’ve been trying to point out, ideas are easy and even the drafting of laws is not that difficult,

And I have been pointing out its easy to come up with “ideas” so long as you don’t have to think about the outcome of implementing these ideas. Which you have proven once again and over and over.

Oh my poor Pitt once again you go for point scoring rather than thought.

The whole point of presenting ideas is so they can be discussed and debated. The only problem is that only through honest and open debate can clarity be found and as shown repeatedly (with many examples) you are not interested in honest and open debate.

I know you accuse me of the same thing but you never seem able (as I do) to back up your claims.

---------

the problem as I see it with regard to the US is that many Americans have a viewpoint that would oppose those ideas and refuse to vote for those laws.

Maybe its because they have thought about the ramifications and outcomes of such ideas and do not think they would be effective. So why is that so hard to understand?

That’s why I’m here to try and learn what people have thought about. What I’ve learnt so far is that many Americans seem to see guns as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.


-----------

Should I go on?

Oh please do, I guess in the UK “backtracking” means asking questions and thinking something through.

Could you please explain what you mean?

I was pointing out that this issue had been address a number of times but which you do not refute but just ignore.

You still seem to be ignoring.

--------

Look just above the last two replies, you ignored what I’ve said therefore forceing me to repeat again what I’d said.

Where in there did you answer the question about how the UK laws has made it harder for criminals to get guns?

What? Again you seem to be going off at tangents but refusing to address the issues I’ve raised?

--------

What type am I then?

Complete anti-gun hoplopaphobe

OH again with the accusations that you never seem able to back up.

To repeat from a few posts above – “Why do you believe I have an ‘irrational’ fear of weapons?”

Then later – “You have never explained why I fit into the definition of hoplophobe, you have asserted it but never explained why and you have never commented on my explanation as to why it seems incorrect”

And later “you still haven’t explained why I fit into the definition of hoplophobe and you have never commented on my explanation as to why it seems incorrect.
You seem to be just making an assertion and repeating it without explanation, it’s a lot like your insanity smear you’re basically saying I am because you say I am.”

And guess what I’m still waiting for an explanation of your hoplophobe smear.

Again if this an indication of your honestly I’m unsure you know right from wrong let alone teaching it to others.

----------

So let’s see you're unable to refute the validity of my claims so you are hoping that calling me mad will somehow make my claims seem wrong.

You are making claims by pulling shit out of thin air. Its delusional.

To repeat – “you're unable to refute the validity of my claims so you are hoping that calling me mad will somehow make my claims seem wrong”

Again your don’t seem to care about honestly just point scoring and making snide unfounded assertions.

----------

It just means you still haven’t refuted the validity of my claims.

And you have yet to BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS

Again it is easy to say something isn’t backed up if you dismiss or ignore anything that you don’t like.

It’s the creationist’s way of arguing.

*

 

The theory presented here at the moment is that it seems to me that guns were seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

The only argument you have put up against this has been your claim that if someone’s given support to an individual programme or two that makes my theory wrong.

Again you have presented nothing in support of your claims. What exactly must a gun owner do to show he has thought about or not ignored “social, economic and political problems within their society.”? Go ahead and explain this to all of us and I am sure I can show you examples of thousands of individuals doing exactly that.

Pitt read the damned posts the answer to you question is right there all you had to do (if you were an honest person) is read the second half of the paragraph you quote it reads-

…. But rather than ignore this I’ve covered it at length and in detail (just look above and below and I can give many many other examples of it if you wish)

In other words you just needed to read on and you would have got to –

“Now a sensible person would read the post and think about it before answering and an honest person if they were writing replies while reading would have written these relies and then got to the next paragraph and realised they had been answered and would then have replied to that instead.

The next paragraph was - Greater insight and clarity could be achieved through discussion of the problems but in this Pitt refuses, although repeatedly asked to do so.

In other words if someone had thought about societal problems beyond just giving to individual programmes they should be able to discuss this – you have repeatedly refused to.

But you don’t seem to care about being honest (I really worry about your suitability to teach right from wrong when you think is ok to be dishonest in a debate just to try and score a cheap point).

But not being a very honest person you don’t mention that or address the implications.

---------

I cannot believe you’ve missed what I’ve said so are you ignoring it? Really to claim I’ve ignored your augments seems dishonest.

I have not “ignored” your arguments I am waiting on something of substance to back up your claims.

Just look above and you’ll see example after example of you ignoring what I’ve said.

What you are doing is stalling, pretending you can’t answer only because you’re ignoring anything that doesn’t suit you.

It’s the kind of dishonestly I’ve come to expect of you.

----------

But you don’t seem to care about being honest (I really worry about your suitability to teach right from wrong when you think is ok to be dishonest in a debate just to try and score a cheap point).

Are you really 46? All of this crap is utter childish nonsense.

One of the few things you have suggested for making a better society is teaching ‘our’ kids right from wrong. But you seem willing to be dishonest if you think it will score you a point in what is just an internet forum.

If you think knowing right from wrong is so important why do you act dishonestly, or do you believe that the end justifies the means. That wrong can be committed as long as you believe it is in a good cause.

So that wrong can be right if you say so.

I myself believe that is not a good lesson to learn if you want a good society.

---------

Thing is why are you so unwilling to discuss these things but so very, very willing to push gun ownership as a way of tackling them?

How many times do I have to state that gun ownership will not “solve” problems in general but are effective in individual instances? For you to continue to claim I say anything else is flat out lying.

We’ve been through this all before man, why do you ignore so much of what’s said here?

You don’t seem to go beyond the individual, the individual teaching their kids, the individual helping others, the individual tackling crime.

And you seem to see this individual action as tackling general problems you claimed that individuals having guns deters criminals in other world you see it as a general policy, to quote you “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”

**

As far as “the me thing” its seems fairly simple to me. Where people put themselves and their wants and wishes above the well being, safety and health of others.

It’s clear you haven’t thought about this much if you think it simple. Again it can come down to a person’s viewpoint and interpretation.

Some people believe welfare should be cut or completely stopped because they see it as breeding an unhealthy dependence and the money saved be given in tax cuts to them.

Others would claim that welfare is often the only thing keeping people from unhealthy poverty and its removal brings about unhealthy exploitation and they argue for an increase in taxes to improve the quality of life of people in society including them.

Both would benefit and both are claim the other would adversely effect the health of others.

-----------

But you only seem interested in the protection of gun ownership, that’s my point and the thing that back up the theory mentioned just above.

Again If you would honestly look at the effectiveness of the gun proposals YOU made and continue to support instead of endlessly reposting the same crap and refusing to answer pertinent questions, you (and I) could have spent the last year pushing for effective social programs.

I don’t think you are interested in thinking about let alone debating social, economic, cultural or political problems. You have had plenty of opportunity to do so and I’ve asked you to do so on many occasions, we did briefly talk about the reasons for criminal activity which you began by claiming was all down to ‘greed’ before admitting that their might be other factors which you refused to discuss and then we had another brief discussion on drugs policy which you admitted to not thinking much or having many ideas about before refusing to go further.

The only issue you have been vehement and remorseless about has been the defence of gun ownership, you still are.

---------

I’ve explained at length in detail and quite a number of times now that the gun regulation part of my holistic approach is relatively small compared with the rest. But your only concern seems to be with guns, the holistic approach is aimed at tackling a wide range of societal problems, but the only thing you seem to care about is guns.

And once again how many times must I ask you this question?
If a part of your “holistic” approach is ineffective would not the time, effort and money be better spent on something effective?
Will you now answer this simple question?

But the regulations I’ve been pushing were thought by you to be good, you just don’t think they should be implemented.

As to the rest of my holistic approach you don’t seem that interested.

-----------

It is very clear here that you still don’t seem to have given your society’s problems very much thought and are refusing to talk about them but you are very, very willing to keep pushing guns as a way of dealing with those problems.

Once again I am not “pushing guns as a way of dealing with those problems.
“. But I am defending my right to gun ownership.

We’ve been through this many time to repeat from just above.

- “You and other talk graphically of violent criminals invading peoples homes and hurting loved ones and saying that ‘when’ that happens without a gun you and your family will be unprotected.

But oh no you say, that’s not promoting guns that’s just pointing out what will happen ‘when’ the viscous killers come to get you.

Really Pitt do you think you are being honest when you claim you have in no way tried to promote gun ownership?”

----------

Once again because you are unable to refute the validity of my claims you are hoping that calling me mad will somehow make my claims seem wrong.

Once again you have presented nothing to back up your claims, yet you and you alone continue to claim everyone else is “backing up” your claims. Does that not sound a little “mad”?

All you need to do is refute the validity of my claims.

You don’t.

You just call me mad and hope no one realises that’s all you’ve done.

Next you’ll say I’ve not presented anything to refute.

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

If other peoples ideas run counter to your own but you are unable to refute them they must be the work of madness that can be dismissed without a second thought.

Not at all, in fact I rather enjoy listening to the facts that back other peoples Ideas. You have just not presented any.

OH YES, LOL

And here it is - I’ve not presented anything to refute, of course except for all the things I’ve presented that you are ignoring.

‘So the world was created by god in six days and no one has refuted this claim because i don’t think any other argument is valid so that makes me right’ said the creationist.

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

Is that the what you mean by education, is that the lesson you want to teach kids, is that the way they will learn right from wrong?

What is education? Its presenting the facts about a subject, discussing those facts, and making individual conclusions based on those facts. I’m still waiting on your facts.

You accused me just recently of being delusional because I was convinced I was right.

But I don’t think I’m right I’m just presenting some theories and opinions and seeing how they stand up, many have done remarkably well.

You on the other hand have repeated claimed your opinions are facts and truth and that makes you right and me wrong. The only problem being that you sadly don’t seem willing or able to defend many of your views against criticism and instead repeat things over and over, ignoring any criticism of such statements seemingly because they question your belief system.

You are doing it again you claim what you have presented is fact when actually as shown time after time it is really only opinion.

I’ve presented counter arguments to your opinions on a number of occasions but you dismiss or ignore what I say and repeat that your opinions are facts.


-----------

As I said you only seem interested in the protection of gun ownership and seem willing to be dishonest in its defence and that’s my point and the thing that back up the theory before.

I’ve explained at length in detail and quite a number of times now that the gun regulation part of my holistic approach is relatively small compared with the rest. But your only concern seems to be with guns, the holistic approach is aimed at tackling a wide range of societal problems, but the only thing you seem to care about is guns.

As I’ve said to me guns seem to be seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

It is very clear here that you still don’t seem to have given your society’s problems much thought and are refusing to talk about them but you are very, very willing to keep pushing guns as a way of dealing with those problems.

In other words you fit in exactly with my theory.


**

 

hahahaah

 

I think this thread stands as proof that debate, as great a mental exercise as it is, never really succeeds in changing people's views...especially over the internet. People have their beliefs, and they're basically locked into them for the most part.

 

It's weird you can't bring a sharp sword off your property in mass (legally), yet you can bring a loaded gun pretty much any where!
Peace