Guncrazy USA

And once again even a holistic approach consisting of many programs working in unison toward a singular goal in mind must have all parts working effectively.
If one (or more) parts is ineffective in working toward the intended goal it does nothing but detract from that goal, interfere with and slow the process down.
This is what I have been asking you about for many months now and you refuse to answer even such simple questions about it.

Actually Pitt we have been through this before (more than once), again you don’t seem to be keeping track of what’s said, or are you simply ignoring it?

Not ever action works exactly the way you might wish it to even with the greatest of planning. Some policies work better than expected some do ok and some others can underperform.
Again you seem to have a rather ridged way of thinking, doctrinal.

As I’ve told you my thinking is more fluid and pragmatic adapting as needed. The gun regulation ideas that you supported are only a minor part of a much greater project that would include a number of measures of which I’m sure some will underperform but still other will do well or more.

-----------

And again you definition of refusing is unusual; I’ve been ‘refusing’ by explaining at length and in detail my ideas for well over a year now.

I will put this as simply and elementary as I can for you once again balbus. Take your “psychological testing” proposal. I have said this may not be a bad idea but would like to see it implemented if I were to be similar to the CCW laws.

To quote you directly (since you seemed to have forgotten what you said) “Might agree with initial evaluation, but more inclined to base it more along the lines of CCW where you are recertified on an annual basis”

And as said at the time I was willing to accept this.

*

The problem I have been trying to get you to look at is the fact that every new restriction and ban you put in place only strengthens the black market for guns.

According to this argument there is no point having any restriction whatsoever on guns.

*

If someone is psychologically disturbed they are already forbidden from buying a gun. The new NICS improvement in a way addresses this for legal gun purchases.

But if someone has no previous record of mental health problems, or might not even know of them?

*

If a untreated mentally disturbed person gets into a state of mind in which he wants to do great harm such as a school or mall shooting, if they cannot buy a gun legally they will just turn to the black market (just as convicted ex-felons do now) to purchase the weapon of choice. They will purchase from the black market which has been actually strengthened by the very restrictions we have put in place.

As pointed out according to this argument there is no point having any restriction.

It basically seems to be saying – ‘What’s the point in forbidding criminals from buying or owning a gun legally since they’ll get illegal ones anyway’.

So I ask you what is the point in having any laws, if some people are going to ignore them?

---------

The ones I dropped where made clear, again do you actually remember what was said, if not you only have to go back and read.

There are 1500+ post here you proposals were made early in the thread. You have periodically made statements about dropping one or another proposals. This refusal to list the proposals you still favor is nothing but childishness banter. It is very typical of your tactic to stall delay and derail the conversation. I am tired of chasing you around the playground about this and will not continue with this version of your childishness.

Once again Pitt you don’t seem to know what’s been going on, you don’t even seem to remember the proposals were not first made in this thread, they first appeared in the MAD thread before this thread was even started, if you don’t even have that elemental bit of knowledge it’s no wonder you can’t remember what proposals you choose to support.

You make accusations find you cannot back them up so you begin calling me childish, isn’t that…well…you know…rather childish, LOL

What you mean here is you realised you don’t know what you’re talking about so you hope that by stopping the discussion (and calling me names) no one will notice your ignorance of the issues.

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

Your idea of discussing these gun proposals seem to extend to you saying: If you don’t accept these proposals you must want criminals to have guns.

It’s a valid point, but not the only point,

Its not a valid point. Just because someone does not fall in line with your POV and disagrees about some of your “policies” does NOT mean they want criminals to get guns. That statement is utter bullshit and shows your extreme egotistical personality.

Not for the first time you show your lack of understand as to what debate means.

I’ve explained why I think it a valid point, you can put up a counter argument to try and refute my point, but you don’t, you just shout that I’m wrong.

However that doesn’t refute my point so I’m afraid it still stands.

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

And as I’ve said before, I’ve seen someone fight off someone armed with a knife with nothing but a chair, if the attacker had had a gun the chair would have been of no use.

And yet you have ignored the fact that id the victim had had a gun also, the attack might have never happened, and a high probability it would not have happened if the victim had also had a knife.

As I’ve pointed out the attacker was the one carrying a weapon (in this case a knife), so presumably in a world were guns were as plentiful and easy to obtain as knifes, then the attacker being the type to carry a weapon would be armed with a gun.
Your answer to this (as seemingly always) is that people should be armed with a gun themselves. But the attacker still has the advantage of pulling the gun first and is more likely to shot the other if he fears they are attempting to pull a gun.

As I say you solution is once again gun based (remember the victim chased off the knife wielder) and is likely to make a bad situation even worse.

----------

And the designers of guns have added that great little feature into nearly all modern handguns (that a knife lacks) of having multiple chances of hitting the target that is running away, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang etc.

Again your ignorance of firearms is very apparent. Your belief in Hollywood version is unbelievable. I suggest you give it a try. Oh I forgot you CANT give it a try.

But I have given it a try, remember all those rats I killed while working for the food store.
And not only can you shot from a distance but get off multiple shots, both things that make guns much more effective and efficient killers than knifes.

-----------

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

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

Like the one you gave as an example where someone pulled a gun and then had it taken off him and would have been fatally shot with it if the gun hadn’t jammed?

Are you saying that every encounter ends well?

Are you saying that since an attacker might be armed the best thing is to be armed as well?

And wouldn’t the advantage still be with the attacker?

And why was the attack taking place?

-----------

I’m not saying they are safe, I’m challenging you view that seems to be that knives are as efficient and effective weapons as guns.

Knives and swords are efficient weapons.

But not as efficient and effective weapons as guns.

--------

It is only your opinion that gun regulations in the UK haven’t made a difference you just believe it hasn’t and you are trying to peddle that opinion as solid fact and it isn’t.

Again its an opinion based on facts.

No your opinion is based on an interpretation of the data that can and has been viewed differently.

**

Your “opinion” that it did make a difference has evidently produced nothing. I am still after many months still waiting on you to provide data to support your opinion.

You don’t read what I say do you Pitt – I’m not saying that I believe it has made a difference all I’m saying its seem to me impossible to say given that we do not have the figures for a UK in which the regulations were not introduced.

Basically your opinion is based on a belief, a guess and a guess isn’t a fact.

----------

But it hasn’t become more violent in fact it seems to have become less violent.

Then logically explain how you have completely banned all handguns and most other guns, even replica guns. Yet the rate of GUN crime and GUN murder has not been affected.

(not me Pitt, a political party i don't even support)

It is only your opinion that it hasn’t been affected.

What I’m pointing out is that you seemed to claim that violent crime would go up in a country that ‘banned’ guns, but it hasn’t.

Now in my opinion I think the handgun ban had little to do with the drop in crime which I put down to social and economic factors but that’s my point, to you all these things go back to guns, while my thoughts range wider.

-----------

So this is the least of your concerns so you’re just going to shrug, so basically it’s not an overwhelming reason for being against.

And did you (as I suggested in your quote) Again I suggest reading a little on the Saturday night special laws and the reasons behind enacting it.

And your point is that I should make your argument for you?

Is this or isn’t it a concern and if it is, how much of a concern? If you don’t know, how the hell am I supposed to know?

----------

Is it overwhelmingly important who sets the standard?

So its not important enough to think about your proposal as long as you get it put in place.

Etc etc etc

But is this your overwhelming concern?

Are you saying you are in favour of mandatory gun safes but the only thing that’s stopping you from saying so is that you don’t know the model number of the safes to be used yet?

----------

Show what, you promoting guns by (for example) making up stories about little old ladies getting beaten to death because they didn’t have a gun?

Do I have to explain it to you all over again, why didn’t you just read it the first time?

I have been reading you and the only way you seem to have addressed this is to tell me I’m wrong because you think I’m wrong.

It’s less of an explanation and more of a command.

---------

It seems to me that what you want to believe become your reality and your truth.

Based on the figures presented and the KNOWN facts as they apply to the topic discussed there is NO logical way for the figure to jump from 0.1% to 10%. If you believe otherwise is just shows your gullibility to believe what you have been told as long as it fits within your POV.

I get it, the police figures using all their available resources and data are wrong and you after reading one short news item are right.

-------

you have in my opinion been promoting guns as a means of tackling crime since we began.

Yet it seems you are the ONLY one with that opinion. Once again.

An opinion that you seem unable to refute or explain away and to which the only counter argument you have so far presented seems to be to tell me I’m wrong because you think I’m wrong.

---------

I’m saying that many of the Americans I’ve talked to here seem to see guns as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

Again a LONELY opinion at best.

An opinion that you seem unable to refute or explain away and to which the only counter argument you have so far presented seems to be to tell me I’m wrong because you think I’m wrong.

-----------

 

And again you’re not giving me any hint that you’ve thought about anything on that list. Once more you are asking me for guidance, but what about you, have you given any of them any real thought?

So its apparent you have not thought about minimum wage increases as you either cannot or refuse to answer any of the questions above.

I’m just pointing out that this is exactly what you did with the subject of a drug policy – you kept asking me for guidance on my ideas, without talking much of your own.

**

In my opinion constant minimum wage raises will accomplish nothing for the people who are in need of raises. Industries will and will have to maintain a certain profit range. How do industries make a profit? Its COST + overhead x margin.
Point 1 is that if the minimum wage is increased enough the industries will have to increase the final product price to the public to not only cover say the initial pay increase per employee, but the increased payroll tax, fica taxes, workers comp, etc etc. In reality for each 1.00 increase paid to an employee the final cost to the employer is doubled to 2.00.
Point 2 is 90% of the workers already make more than minimum wage to begin with. Even the last MW increase effected very few.

The aim of my policy(s) as I’ve said many times is to bring about a better, securer society.

One of the ways would be to try and curb the effects of consumerist and exploitative forms of capitalism, and moving away from destructive forms of individualism by promoting a communal spirit, where people don’t see their fellow citizens as potential exploiters, as threats.

This is the reason why I’m in favour of a minimum wage.

The minimum wage should be set at an amount that not only allows a person or family to survive but allows them to prosper in a reasonable way (so they have money left over after essentials).

To me what it says about a society is that it cares for its citizens and is going to protect them from exploitation.

The view you seem to be championing gives the impression that exploitation is ok, that if you can get away with paying someone a wage that doesn’t even cover the essentials that is ok.

That people can be preyed on if you can get away with it.

For example Wal-Mart paying its workers so low that they were claiming food stamps and state benefits to survive.

(Try reading – Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (Paperback)
by Barbara Ehrenreich)

Think about it, you talked of the wealth gap, well the Walton family are some of the richest people in America (and the world) yet they pay some of the lowest wages (where they can get away with it).

Alice Walton who is worth around 18 billion bought a painting in 2006 for 35 million

As was pointed out - “the price of the painting equals what the state of Arkansas spends every two years providing for Wal-Mart's 3,971 employees on public assistance; or that the average Wal-Mart cashier makes $7.92 an hour and, since Wal Mart likes to keep people on less than full-time schedules, works only 29 hours a week for an annual income of $11,948--so a Wal-Mart cashier would have to work a little under 3,000 years to earn the price of the painting without taking any salary out for food, housing, or other expenses (and a few hundred more years to pay the taxes, if the state legislature didn't exempt our semi-immortal worker).http://www.alternet.org/workplace/32655/

This is what I mean about not seeming to have given these subjects much thought

You seem to be saying one thing but thinking another.

When it comes down to it you talk of caring for people but you’re thinking sides with the exploiter and the maximisation of profit. You don’t seem to have thought enough about it to reconcile your contradictions.

So I’m still asking, how do you attitudes not back up my theories?


**

 

Pitt sorry you’re busy but remember you don’t need to rush out a reply, it is ok to wait I’ll still be here when you get back.

**

 

Again you seem to have a rather ridged way of thinking, doctrinal.

And again you seem to be rather political in thinking. Take a policy that is good and begin to tack a bunch of useless nonsense to it that you cannot get passed on its own merit so that you get them passed anyway.

But what policy is good and why and what policies are ‘useless nonsense’ and why?

You’ve said some of my policies are good then gone on to say they are not many times seemingly without any explanation at all. You have supported some of my ideas then attacked them, again with seemingly little or no explanation. Often you views are contradictory and seemingly based totally on a belief that you are right and other wrong.

The only thing that you have being vehemently supported as ‘good’ is guns as a way of tackling societal problems (such as crime), why you seem to think this I’m still unsure about because you seem reluctant to examine it, with one moment seeming to claim they are needed because they have a deterrent effect and the next seemingly claiming they don’t, a contradiction you seem reluctant to address or debate.

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

According to this argument there is no point having any restriction whatsoever on guns.

Again you missed the logical point of the post.

No, I don’t believe I have, can you actually explain what I’ve missed here?

Your view was that …. “if they cannot buy a gun legally they will just turn to the black market (just as convicted ex-felons do now) to purchase the weapon of choice”

As I said - It basically seems to be saying – ‘What’s the point in forbidding psychologically unstable people or criminals from buying or owning guns legally since they’ll just get illegal ones anyway’.

So I ask you what is the point in having any laws, if as seem in you mind that they are useless if some people are going to ignore them?

-----------

But if someone has no previous record of mental health problems, or might not even know of them?

So should we psychologically evaluate every person regularly so if they indeed need mental help it would be provided?

You are not listening are you Pitt, you seem so rapped up in your single issue (guns) that you are unable and possibly unwilling to see the bigger picture of what I’m proposing.

We’ve covered this before (several times) and again you’ve seemingly just ignored what’s been said.

I’ve spoken of the treatment of mental health within the framework of my proposals for universal healthcare and of education programmes to educate and assist people and of counselling been given to those that need it. Changing the idea of having mental health problems being seen as a stigma, which needs to be hidden, into that of a common illness with no prejudice attached to it? Hopefully this will identify and treat those with problems.

But my view that you seemed to supported at the time was that since guns are dangerous in the wrong hands (much more than most other easy accessible weapons) then the psychologically evaluate of those wishing to have them was a good idea.

**

It basically seems to be saying – ‘What’s the point in forbidding criminals from buying or owning a gun legally since they’ll get illegal ones anyway’.

No again you are just spinning the post. It means concentrate more on the ILLEGAL gun trade, the BLACK MARKET.

No that not what you were saying to quote you “if they cannot buy a gun legally they will just turn to the black market (just as convicted ex-felons do now) to purchase the weapon of choice”

‘they will just turn’ – you point seeming to be that if someone cannot buy a gun legally well they will just get an illegal one, which implies that there seems little point in having laws forbidding people from having legal guns because they will just get an illegal one.

*

And the fact is that the proposals were aimed in trying to limit the black market by for example, making the stealing of guns much more difficult by bringing in mandatory gun safes.
At the moment you are opposing this which would seem to indicate you are the one not wanting to tackle the black market.

----------

What you mean here is you realised you don’t know what you’re talking about so you hope that by stopping the discussion (and calling me names) no one will notice your ignorance of the issues.

Lol ok whatever. If you are unwilling to define which ones you still support, that’s your right. Ill will still assume you still support the majority of them.

Lets see -

• You choose some ideas you thought were good out of a list of discussion ideas.

• I decided to accept the ideas you thought were good as the basis of something more than discussion, as proposals for some gun regulations, and publically dropped the others.

• I’ve reproduced the chosen proposals many times as the ones I support (as you did) and we have discussed them many times.

• You suddenly forget which ones you chose and just as suddenly you begin to claim I have been pushing the original discussion ideas.

As I’ve pointed out before when reality contradicts you, you just create a fiction and call it ‘reality’.

I’ll ask again do you honestly not know which ideas you chose as being good?

You only need to look to find out, are you incapable of going that?

It is where you said of the idea to psychological test people wanting to buy a gun -

“Might agree with initial evaluation, but more inclined to base it more along the lines of CCW where you are recertified on an annual basis”

(Wow Pitt, imagine that, I can quote at will from the list and you can’t even remember it)

----------

But the attacker still has the advantage of pulling the gun first and is more likely to shot the other if he fears they are attempting to pull a gun.

And yet again for the millionth time you are ignoring the real world scenarios of DGUs.

No I’m not; I’ve covered them many times you are just ignoring what I’ve said because it doesn’t suit you.

Again I’ll ask wouldn’t the attacker if he’d been armed with a gun rather than a knife had had a real advantage over the other person?
As it was he pulled a knife and the other saw him off with a chair, he wasn’t armed, he wasn’t armed with a bigger knife (remember Crocodile Dundee) all he did was pick up a chair and use it to hit the other man.

-----------

Are you saying that every encounter ends well?

Not at all, are you saying that in every encounter in which the victim is NOT armed at all ends well?

But I’m not the one arguing that guns are a good way of tackling crime as you seem to be.

I don’t think guns are a good way to tackle crime and think that a more secure society should be sort not through the threat of arms but through social, economic, cultural and political change and reform.

As I’ve been pointing out you don’t seem that interested in that route.

-------

Are you saying that since an attacker might be armed the best thing is to be armed as well?

Not at all, And I have addressed this hundreds of times. Its up to the individual to make that choice for themselves. Its not up to YOU to make that choice for THEM.

No you haven’t addressed the issue.

As pointed out there is a seeming contradiction between some things you say and the way you express your ideas.

So you can express the belief that guns are a good way of tackling crime and not having one can mean being beaten to death.

While at the same time claiming that guns are not a good way of tackling crime and you do not promote guns.

The thing is that when I explain this and asks you to explain why you do it you refuse.

--------

And wouldn’t the advantage still be with the attacker?

That really depends now doesn’t it? Oh I forgot you haven’t read but one or two of the REAL world DGU stories. As I have told you many times when confronted with an armed victim or one willing to fight back the criminal flees most of the time. Just like in your knife example.

So the real world gun related deaths of over 10,000 in the US are just…what… ‘the depends’ bits?

As I said - the attacker was the one carrying a weapon (in this case a knife), so presumably in a world were guns were as plentiful and easy to obtain as knifes, then the attacker being the type to carry a weapon would be armed with a gun.
Your answer to this (as seemingly always) is that people should be armed with a gun themselves. But the attacker still has the advantage of pulling the gun first and is more likely to shot the other if he fears they are attempting to pull a gun.

As I say you solution is once again gun based (remember the victim chased off the knife wielder) and is likely to make a bad situation even worse.

In this case the knife wielder ran away because he was being hit with a chair, if he’d had a gun it might of being different.

---------

And why was the attack taking place?

So what reasons is there that will make such an attack ok?

I’m not saying such an attack is ok I’m trying to point out that such attacks usually have a reason, and that they are likely to have a social, economic or cultural root that can be tackled in other way than at the point of a gun.

Time after time in those DGU reports, the understanding of the situation is missing, why the crime is taking place is not examined, just the DGU often seemingly celebrated.

This is what you seem to do you seem to be constantly pushing the virtue of being armed but don’t actually seem to be that interested in about the reasons behind why you think you need to be armed.

You see the gun as a way of dealing with crime so you don’t think much (if at all) about the societal problems that lead to crime.

**

No your opinion is based on an interpretation of the data that can and has been viewed differently.

So once again show us these studies that interpret the data differently?

Why are studies needed when so far you have been unable to defend your own studies from criticisms?

If you addressed those criticisms rather than ignoring them or erroneously claiming them invalid we could move on.

---------

You don’t read what I say do you Pitt – I’m not saying that I believe it has made a difference all I’m saying its seem to me impossible to say given that we do not have the figures for a UK in which the regulations were not introduced.

So in your opinion it does not matter what regulation the government puts in place is ok and should not be questioned because you can never have anything to compare it to. Wow talk about being a sheep.

This doesn’t make much sense Pitt.

I’m not saying laws or regulations cannot be criticized, I’m saying there needs to be some reasoning to the criticism.

Your argument against the hand gun ban seems to be that it has done no harm. And violent crime has not risen as you believed it would if hand guns were banned. There have been no more dunblane incidents and actually violent crime has dropped.

This doesn’t seem like a failed policy, at best you could argue it hasn’t achieved its full potential but then it is hampered by other policies that work against it.

Your only opposition seem to be that the very small number of people that legally owned hand guns before the ban can’t now.

--------

(not me Pitt, a political party i don't even support)

But you DO support the ban do you not? So what difference does the political party make?

I don’t think at this point the law needs changing if that is what you mean but the policies of the political part are very important as I’ve said many times I think they’ve got it wrong because although they have done some things right, they still are not tackling the illegal drugs trade for one thing or some other social problems.

Again all you concentrate on is guns not the wider picture.

-----

What I’m pointing out is that you seemed to claim that violent crime would go up in a country that ‘banned’ guns, but it hasn’t.

No I believe I have stated and pointed out studies showing there is NO CORRELATION between gun availability and crime. You have also admitted that there has been no effect on gun crime and gun murder in the UK since the numbers continue to go up and down in the same pattern and scale as always.

But you said and I quote “The UK violent crime has risen DRAMITICALLY since the gun ban as the criminals know that they are less likely to meet resistance”

You believed that violent crime had gone up because criminals knew that they wouldn’t meet armed resistance.

But violent crime has fallen since 1995.

And you have claimed several times that guns are a deterrent to crime in general by being a deterrent to criminal behaviour.

Now you seem to be claiming guns have no deterrent effect and no influence on criminal behaviour.

So the only thing the do influence is the huge number of gun related deaths in the US compared with some other countries, such as the UK.

Which would point to guns having a more detrimental effect on your society rather than a positive one?

So wouldn’t it be a good idea to think about alternatives?

----------

And your point is that I should make your argument for you?

So you admit you are just here to “argue” and not learn as you once suggested?

OH Pitt, is this the level of argument you are reduced to?

A debate is made up of arguments with all sides being able to argue their point of view, this can then be criticised and defended and this is how debate is such a good tool for learning.

It is not one person saying - I’m right you’re wrong - without putting up any argument in support for that view and ignoring any argument that gives an opposing view.

You have presented arguments and then been unable and unwilling to defend them against opposing view all you seem to do is re-present your argument without reference to the criticisms levelled at them and declare you are right and others wrong.

As I’ve pointed out to you before that is not a good why to learn things and not very honest.

-----------

Are you saying you are in favour of mandatory gun safes but the only thing that’s stopping you from saying so is that you don’t know the model number of the safes to be used yet?

No I have stated flatly that I do not favor MANDATORY gun safes, however I have demonstrated my willingness to explore the possibility yet you constantly block the discussion.

OH no, once again with the accusations that you never seem able to back up.

Ok so please quote or link to where I’ve supposedly ‘blocked the discussion’?

You have said flatly that you are against the idea of mandatory gun safes that’s my point, what you seem to be putting up as reasons for this stance don’t seem very overwhelming and rather petty, as I’ve said before if you can explain why they are not please do so?

----------

I have been reading you and the only way you seem to have addressed this is to tell me I’m wrong because you think I’m wrong.

Its very obvious you did NOT read it the first time nor the second time.

Then explain why you think that or will it be another accusation you refuse to back up?

---------

I get it, the police figures using all their available resources and data are wrong and you after reading one short news item are right.

Like I said you believe the published figures as long as it supports your POV and deny it when it does not.

I’m not saying I do or don’t, I’m saying I don’t know what the police are basing their figures on and since they don’t seem to say in that short news article I don’t think you do either.

Yet you know they are talking ‘bull shit’ without knowing, because that’s what you want and so to you it seemingly becomes instantly a ‘fact’.

--------

An opinion that you seem unable to refute or explain away and to which the only counter argument you have so far presented seems to be to tell me I’m wrong because you think I’m wrong.

So you alone can have an opinion and that makes it automatically right. You cannot prove a negative. Unless that is your St balbus.

Again Pitt, do you think before you post?

I’ve said over and over that I’m not claiming to be right; I’m just expressing an opinion or presenting theories that seem to fit in with what I’ve read and heard.

I’ve given lengthy explanation of why I have those opinion and theories, and of where you and others have seemingly backed them up. The problem is that you ignore what I say or dismiss it without addressing anything that’s said.

It is very easy to claim you are right if you just ignore anyone to the contrary.

For example I’ve asked you many times why your stance on guns does not back up my theories, all you tell me is that it doesn’t and I’m wrong without actually putting up any explanation as to why I’m wrong beyond repeating statements that already have unaddressed criticisms levelled at them that you are also ignoring.

----------

An opinion that you seem unable to refute or explain away and to which the only counter argument you have so far presented seems to be to tell me I’m wrong because you think I’m wrong.

And yet again an opinion you cannot back up.

As I’ve said if you ignore or dismiss without explanation anything you don’t like that opposes your way of thinking, you will always be right.

The only problem is that the opposing views still stand they don’t go away.

---------

 

I’m just pointing out that this is exactly what you did with the subject of a drug policy – you kept asking me for guidance on my ideas, without talking much of your own.

LMFAO so just another way to keep from having to defend your POV.



LOL- So are you admitting that is what you did?



And you only had to read on to find me…well defending my views.

---------

The view you seem to be championing gives the impression that exploitation is ok, that if you can get away with paying someone a wage that doesn’t even cover the essentials that is ok.
That people can be preyed on if you can get away with it.
For example Wal-Mart paying its workers so low that they were claiming food stamps and state benefits to survive.

Lol so tell me how many of these WalMart employees were affected by the last min wage increase? You speak of nothing but a feel good policy which accomplished nothing in reality.



To me the aim of my policy(s) as I’ve said many times is to bring about a better, securer society.



I said that one of the ways to make a better and securer society would be by trying to curb the effects of consumerist and exploitative forms of capitalism, and moving away from destructive forms of individualism by promoting a communal spirit, where people don’t see their fellow citizens as potential exploiters, as threats.



This is the reason why I’m in favour of a minimum wage.



The minimum wage should be set at an amount that not only allows a person or family to survive but allows them to prosper in a reasonable way (so they have money left over after essentials).



To me what it says about a society is that it cares for its citizens and is going to protect them from exploitation.



Do you reject that goal and if so why?



I mean in the view you seem to be championing gives the impression that exploitation is ok, that if you can get away with paying someone a wage that doesn’t even cover the essentials that is ok.



----------

This is what I mean about not seeming to have given these subjects much thought

And again you answered not a single one of the questions posed.



But I do.



What should the minimum wage be?
The minimum wage should be set at an amount that not only allows a person or family to survive but allows them to prosper in a reasonable way (so they have money left over after essentials).


Would it be the same in New York as it is in say rural MS?
The minimum wage should be set at an amount that not only allows a person or family to survive but allows them to prosper in a reasonable way (so they have money left over after essentials). That of course would be different in different places.


How do you balance the new minimum wage with production cost passed on to consumers? –
Your view seems to be that profits and executive wages should remain high and so any increases should not dip into those but be passed on to the consumer. I’m not so sure of that.


**



The thing is that your questions in these conversations seem to be about technical detail rather than asking why, what reason could there be for a MW or not.



I can see what you are doing it is a trick to try and catch me out so you can then shout HE HASN’T THOUGHT IT THROUGH.



But knowing or thinking up ways to implement something is not the same as thinking about the things being implemented and wondering if it is about making a better or worse society in your opinion.



Think about it - to you the question seems to be how not why, you don’t seem interested in why something would be good or bad for society to implement you’re gauging its worth on how efficient it might be or what the details are.



What type of safes would be used in a mandatory safe policy what would the minimum wage be actually set at in different areas.



How many train carriages would be needed to transport several million people across Europe?



Well not the third question, but the Nazi’s extermination of the Jews was efficient but was it a good or bad idea? Would you not wonder about the policy rather than just be asking if the person suggesting it had worked out how many train carriages would be needed, and if they had go along with it?



So shouldn’t you be wondering it mandatory gun safes and the minimum wage were good for your society rather than be asking what type and how much?



This is the thing, are you genuinely giving thought to the societal problems of your society or are you just trying to score points and ‘win’ the argument without giving them much thought?





**

 

Pitt sorry you’re busy but remember you don’t need to rush out a reply, it is ok to wait I’ll still be here when you get back.

Why the fuck would you “be sorry I’m busy”? Have I complained about being busy or did I simply just mention it? This post just illustrates how off the wall your posts have become as of late. You’re a very strange individual balbus.

Come on Pitt no need to blow your top, cool it man.

You said “I am only going top touch on a few highlights as I am extremely busy ATM”

To me there seemed to be a note of regret in that statement that you didn’t have the time to do a more thorough job because you were busy.

I was just trying to reassure you that there was no need to spend time here when there were more pressing things to do.

I’ve often remarked on your seeming rush to reply to anything I say, sometimes I barely seem to have hit the submit button before a reply has popped up.

Even now when you reply within…what 5 hour or so (for me it’s been two days or so and I’m not particularly busy at the moment).

I try to come here every day as a moderator but I post for pleasure and when I’m able, so that means that often I don’t post for several days, I just have other things to do, and you are not my first priority.

So I was just saying that there isn’t any need to rush to post.

I mean I try to be friendly and you reply with paranoid affront and you claim my post are off the wall?

**

 

I made a video just a few days ago about this very subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8FrqTTeldw

 

Today I read about another young boy who shoot to friends in school and then shot himself to death somwhere in the USA. I cannot imagine a Poland with guns allowed. I would be a craziness. How people can work in gun industry? They do not realize that they have boold on their hands? I think he does but they don't care.

STOP SELLING GUNS TO BURMA!!!!!!! I know that it is a profit.... but....

 

Lets let outlaws and the govt have all the guns, that seems like a grand idea!!

 

Wow, thanks for data. I didn't know that. Once the thieves directed gun toward me.

 

I love guns and think the restrictions on them are too stringent. Though I'm not the kind of person to say that there should be no restrictions at all on the sale of weapons. Not at all.

 

- Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. -
Thomas Jefferson

 

Thomas Jefferson obviously wasn't right. See the data. Those are very clear. I feel safety in Poland, Slovakia, UK. I would never go to USA, Columbia or South Africa. To be killed just the random situation? No way. Thank you.
Only guns that Poles have are those which stood from IIWW. There are no Chinese that sells us a guns and doing buisness like in Africa. See what is happening in Burma - who sold them guns? USA!!
There was a time when Russian were selling in our local market kałasznikows and bullets in the pockets. Some 'pseudomafia' was running for a while after that but they all gone to jail right now. 60% of accidents with guns in Poland are caused by Russians (they are also guncrazy).
When attacker have no gun I have a good chance to survive a fight. It depends only from my defense skills. But with gun even child can kill me. I hate guns and I don't want them in Poland.
There is now capitalizm in Poland (unfortunately) and there is fasion to have a gas gun or perrer gun - that should also be forbidden!
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO BUY A GUN IN POLAND. You can only find old granade in the forest. See data - Poland is much more save that USA.

 

.

 

Goverment has guns - but should have not! Sales to other counties is a legal crime. That's the right course to me. Lets start from ourselfs.
The people react random and emotionally when are nervous, many of them regret what they done in impulse. Poles are very, very impulsive as you probably know.

Firearm homicides/per 100.000 in Poland = 0.4 - only 7% of all
Firearm homicides/per 100.000 in England = 0.12 - 8% of all
But:
Firearm homicides/per 100.000 in USA= 2.97 - 40% of all

That's why you do not feel safe walking on the streets in the night in USA.

In my own town my sisters walk thru house in the night though all the city and do not afraid as nobody would hurt them. Would you do the same in Detroit?

From your notice I conclude that you have probably a gun with you. I would never buy it as well as my mother and grandmother. But we want to be safe anyway. Do you understand my point?

Last few week I saw very funny (but dramatic) picture from Masatchused (I cannot spell it) in USA where there was a flood in the whole area. Desperated men was talking to the camera: 'We were trying to save most important staff from our houses: blankets, guns.... That was very funny (but scarry) - he thought about a gun as about 'most important thing' - that means it is not safe there.

You need to catch my point of view, this law gives to European physical and psychical safety. We afraid to travel to such countries as America as there is too much of unstable, random situation that may happend without a warning. See UK values - there are 25x times better that in USA. Did you know that London is a safest city of that size in the world?

And whats more - you probably know that EU do not closes their borders from emigrants, we keep refuges from Africa who escapes from heat caused by global warming, we keep crazy Pakistani, Turks, Iranians, Russians and many others. What would happend if they would find possibility to buy a gun? How it would be ossible to educate them and learn a culture and all that stuff if they would have their dick extended with sharp bullets? Answer? We would start to be scared and probably started to hate them as USA already hates that poor south America guys (which are also gun-crazy)

And you have a gun lovers like Aesthete from Philadelphia ( sorry Aesthete but you're good example) that want to have a gun like a stamp-collector.
17 years old and you have trouble on the street in the dark corner.

 

I am fully trained on the maintance and useage of many different types of firearms. I have had many, many hours of gun safety training, as everyone who wishes to own a firearm should have. In the US if one wishes to collect firearms like some people collect coins or stamps, it is their right to do so.

 

Ok, there are gun and gunnies. What sort of guns you would allow and which not? What about a tank in the garden? Is it ok enough or too much? Or bazooka with rocket? I think here in Poland the name for it is Katiusza. I know many young children come to school and show guns to the friends, mostly stolen from father's desk, but somethimes bought by themselfes. What with heavy machine guns? Those which American children really like?
Napalm? Cyklon B? Or even C? I saw used cans with the concentration camps last year. Next to thousands of smelly shoues.

What about blowguns? Of course you think it should be legal. And it were in Poland, one year. Some firm made very good buisness on it. Children love to shoot. Until they killed 55 years old men who was shouting at them because they were shooting to wheels or something like that.
So it is illegal also in Poland - very good.

Dark Pitt - I read some of your posts and I have to agree with you. Banning a guns will not be good resolution for USA. Population already have too much of them to keep safe order after. All guns should be confiscated in huge police and militarry action checking houses one by one and looking for staff like that. Obviously it cannot be done in practise, so USA cannot do anything else than to live like that futher. I'm sorry but for now I see no hope... It is like a green mold, if house once was touched by it - it will never be purged.

Sorry....

I think there is nothing more that can be said in that matter. Lets close this topic by this sentence. Thank you all for your posts.

 

- All guns should be confiscated in huge police and militarry action checking houses one by one and looking for staff like that -


Wow! I have nothing left to say... for now.

 

What the fuck?

 

So...I havn't read all 158 pages of threads and can only hope this has not been stated by someone else.

First thing is to look at man. An inferior physical specimen, despite all of our grand qualities as humans, in the harsh elements, man is completley at a loss except of course for his wonderful mind. Man becomes aware of his perilous situation and eventually develpes tools to aid in the preservation and comfort of his life. One of the first tools must have been a weapon of some sort. Club, spear, sharpened rock, etc.
Whenever the man goes out of his shelter he has his weapon handy. After all he must live. He uses said weapon to stave off stronger, more agile, and over-all better killing instruments than he. Man has woman who has child. Man must protect what is his to protect. In the hot sun another man attempts to steal his freshly slaughtered fare. He must protect his claim. His foe wishes to kill him and steal his belongings, he also has a weapon.

The weapons get better and better and the enemies remain the same. The unmerciless fury of the wild, the unthinking beast in other men. So basically what I am saying here is weapons are a necessary part of man's existence on this planet. His right as a thinking creature to protect what is his. The only result of our blessed curse of thought.

So to modern times...life is and always has been wrought with peril for our species. In this advanced age, with history to look back upon, we realize that other dangers lurk. Government...which of course is the only natural progression from family to tribe to village to state to country. History is fat with tales of evil men in power.

A man in today's america uses money to stake his claim on land that he might prosper. And still he must protect his claim. He has a family (or not) a home, things which are his. He is still in peril. The wild has diminished, but in its place a new form of wild. Hundreds, thousands, millions of people crammed into a small area. The evil still lurking behind the eyes of men. We must watch our neighbors, our brothers. A sad state of affairs, no doubt, yet true. Now we must watch our government. This country was founded by men who saw that the role of government needn't extend into evry aspect of a man's life. That shit went out the fucking window. The point is that man will always be in danger and has the means to protect himself. It is his right. It is no ones duty nor obligation to decide for every man that his government is trustworthy. It IS every man's duty and obligation to use his own mind and to secure his own place in life.

I know it kinda rambles, but so do my thoughts.