Gun ownership is MAD?

I said near the beginning of this thread that my thesis was that the problem with many American’s attitudes towards guns was that they seemed to see them as a way of dealing with and also ignoring many of the social, economic and cultural problems within their society.

Now we seem to have come to an impasse because the pro-gunners on the forum seem unable to discuss the possible social, economic and cultural difference in US society that seem to make it so much more murderous and seemingly fearful when compared to places like the UK and Switzerland?

They have spent a lot of time and energy trying to prove that guns are a way of dealing with those social, economic and cultural problems but seem totally unable to say what those problems are (let alone thing of ways to alleviate them) because they basically haven’t thought about them

Pitt who seems able to talk endlessly about the idea that guns are useful in tackling crime seems unable and unwilling to think or talk about alternative ideas, the little he has mentioned only showed up how little he had thought about them.

They don’t even seem to have thought through the things they do say. For example Proud seem to imply that more people are murdered in the US because people in the US are more evil than others, does he really want to say that the US as a society, as a country, is much more evil than others?

So why is it that the pro-gunners here don’t seem to have thought about these things very much if at all?

I don’t know.

But it doesn’t come as a surprise, in the many conversation I’ve had with pro-gunners many of them have show the same ignorance and the same seeming unwillingness to discuss it. It was because of those encounters that I formed the theory that I mention above.

It is clear from the conversations I’ve had here that the theory still seems to stand.


**

 

Sorry Proud but I do laugh out load at many of your posts.

I mean by there tone it seems clear you oppose my ideas but what you say actually seems to back up my views.

It’s like some comic contradiction like a man dressed up as Hitler in full Nazi regalia giving a speech on the virtues of multiculturalism and the benefits of inter-racial marriages.

Delicious mixed messages.

**

As to the ignore idea, Pitt’s already had it and the amount of UK media space given over to crime issues doesn’t seem to back up the claim.

 

“You blame guns I blame people. Take the tragedy that sparked your own gun ban. The perpetrator Thomas Hamilton had been investigated 5 years earlier. During this investigation it was recommended that his firearm certificate be revoked. It never happened and he was forgotten about until 5 years later. You asked me earlier why I thought existing gun laws were ignored. I said I was not for sure. I would now ask you the same thing about Thomas Hamilton, why was he ignored?

Interesting question -

“The files also include evidence from the former deputy chief constable of Central Scotland, Douglas McMurdo, who explained why he did not revoke Hamilton's handgun certificates. This was despite being alerted to an incident in 1989 when Hamilton took a gun to a family's home and showed them how to fire it.
An internal memo from Detective Sergeant Paul Hughes also requested the licence be withdrawn following complaints about the camps.
But Mr McMurdo concluded he "never ever considered Mr Hamilton to be a violent or dangerous person, nor did he do anything which would have given me evidence to revoke his firearms certificate".
He said five firearms incidents involving Hamilton had not been reported to police until after the massacre.
Mr McMurdo said the incident which most concerned him was an allegation that, in January 1996, he pointed an unloaded handgun to a man in his home and pulled the trigger.
"Were there evidence that this allegation was true I would have gone for revocation," he said.
Mr McMurdo resigned in 1996 after his force was harshly criticised following Cullen”
Scotsman newspaper

The problem it seems was one of evidence (and often evidence only come out after events at shown here) and a police officer that may not have been as stringent as he could have been, who resigned.

Once again we have actually been through this all before starting around post 120 or so (I noticed that fact as soon as I read your post, you would have done as well, if you had actually been taking notice of what is being said in the thread)

We were discussing who should be checked or disqualified from using a gun, I pointed out that some of the FBI ‘warning signs’ for those that may possibly be a danger were -

“Fascination with violence in films and TV
Angry outbursts
Inability to take criticism
Exaggerated sense of self-importance
Intolerance
Narcissism
Attention seeking
Nihilism
Mood swings
Inappropriate sense of humour”

I wanted to know if anyone showing such behaviour should not be allowed to own a gun?

You were rather non committal but you did say that Kimveer Gill should have been noticed But later you said if “Kimveer Gill did not have easy access to guns he would have gotten one illegally or just improvised and used another kind of weapon such as a pipe bomb etc. This guy was sick in the head not because he had access to guns because he had mental problems. Post 142”

Which seems to imply that it wouldn’t have mattered if the police had revoked Thomas Hamilton gun licence (or anyone else that did such a thing) anyway.

But that doesn’t really tell us about general crime.

**

 

Again you seem to want to go back rather than move the debate forward, this is just the continuance of your tactic of misdirection, trying to get us to cover a whole load of stuff that has already been covered often at length and in detail.

You say that if we ban guns the gun crime will decrease.

But when you asked me for what I would do, what laws I would pass, I didn’t just ban guns a set out a list of proposals and you actually agreed with most of them.
I have also said many times that my approach is holistic in nature and is not just focused on guns, and have given you examples of what I would do in other areas at length and in some detail.

**

In 1996 the UK banned guns yet the figures do NOT show any decrease but an INCREASE in gun crime.

But you comparisons are difficult and changes in the law have most likely made the figures even more difficult to interpret.

**

“According to you banning guns has dropped the gun crime figures dramatically”

No I don’t think I have, you contended in you second post on the thread (post 8, page 1) that “violent crime in the UK has risen dramatically since the famous "gun Ban"”. Which was shown to be wrong, but I don’t believe I’ve said it has dropped.

**

Again part of my argument has been that a ban on guns does not decrease crime, all it does is disarm the law abiding citizen.

But when you asked me for what I would do what laws I would pass, I didn’t just ban guns a set out a list of proposals and you actually agreed with most of them.
I have also said many times that my approach is holistic in nature and is not just focused on guns, and have give you examples of what I would do at length and in some detail.

**

I have asked you to show me countering facts supporting the notion that a gun ban decreases crime, you have not, I even think you CAN NOT.

When you asked me for what I would do what laws I would pass, I did as for a gun ban, I set out a list of proposals and you actually agreed with most of them.
I have also said many times that my approach is holistic in nature and is not just focused on guns, and have give you examples of what I would do at length and in some detail.

**

“So you have to ask yourself why are some Americans so afraid?”

How many times are you going to repeat this question to me. I have answered THAT i DO NOT THINK THIS TO BE A TRUE STATEMENT. This is evidently your OPINION, while you have the right to your opinion if you want people to comment in depth on it show something to back up your statement. You have been asked to do this many times and you have yet to produce anything.

This has been covered many times back around the 170-80 posts and again just recently. (Again the same tactic of misdirection)

I explain why I think you and others seem to be afraid

You say you are not afriad

I explain again why I think that

You do not counter my claimed but assert again that you are not afraid

I explain again

You assert again without refuting my claims.

**

Think about it logically.

You must fear something to some degree to feel threatened by it, because no one fears something that is unthreatening.

**

“most British don’t seem to feel the need.”

Again this is a very bold statement indicating you speak for the majority, when it is now (since 1996 anyway) a moot point to the British citizen. If you (or any British Citizen) did feel the need, to bad for you.

In Post 325 you linked to a poll from 2003 which I pointed out indicated that “78% of those asked didn’t feel they needed a gun for protection against crime and in London an urban area that you say is the most risky only 7% felt the need.” (my post 334).

By the way as I’ve pointed out I live in London and I don’t feel the need and nobody I know feels it either.

**

 

“No tricks ot tactics”

Once again you are just going over old ground and it becomes clearer with each post that you have either not read my posts, have not understood my posts OR are just playing silly buggers in an attempt to cover up the fact you are unwilling to debate in an open and honest manner.

In the post 353, I explained that in my opinion we had reached an impasse because you seemed unwilling to talk about certain subjects.

Since then all your post seem to be directed to derailing the thread or finding an excuse for you to not debate.

You have refused to discuss subjects because you claim I ask too many questions.

You have tried to justify not entering to discussion by claiming that I to am not willing to debate.

You have refused to enter into open debate limiting your replies to what you alone will consider intelligent comment.

You are now seemingly refusing to have an honest debate because of my supposed arrogance.

What’s next mate?

Are you going to refuse to talk unless I pay you to do so?

**

Have you noticed I have not put limits or conditions on having a debate, none, zilch, nada?

I like debating, I like learning about other people’s views, I want to have an open and honest debate.

Have you also noticed that I seem to have a much greater grasp of what’s actually been discussed in the thread.

I’m very happy to point out where the relevant posts are so people can if they wish go back and make up their own minds, which again is an example of me trying to be open and honest. On the other hand it seems to me that time and again you make claims about what you or I have said that just don’t seem to be supported by the record.

**

Please Pitt

Just stop all of these tricks and begin to debate in an honest and sensible way?

Or at least stop dragging up subjects that we have already covered?

 

**

Please calm down man, your post comes across as a bit hysterical there my friend and it was posted less than an hour after I’d posted mine.

Are you online all the time just waiting for me to post or what?

I’m presuming not (or are you a stalker?) which means that you couldn’t have had much time to read the post, think about about what was said, try and understand it, check out what was being said and think up a reply before you posted back.

Which makes me worry that you are not really thinking about the subject just trying to score points.

I mean just a quick read of the post and it is clear that you haven’t understood some of my replies, or thought through you comments, now that’s cool I’ll try and explain them again.

But if you actually took the time to try and understand them you might not have to keep dragging up stuff over and over again.

Now I’ll get back to you when I have the time to do your post some justice

Yours with regards

Balbus

PS: really man, try and take it easy

 

Ok the fact was that your post seemed hysterical because it came across as hasty and ill thought through, maybe it was the wrong term possibly flustered would have been better. I mean your use of capitals (shouting) and multiple question marks (????) seems to me to point to a certain nervous agitation?

You say that you think it doesn’t take much to reply but as any teacher will tell you the difference between just a reply and a considered and well prepared one is that between a D and an A.

**

Post 396

“He said five firearms incidents involving Hamilton had not been reported to police until after the massacre.”

Which goes to prove my point that it is the responsibility of the law abiding citizen to get involved and report suspicious/illegal activity. Again the blame can be put on people not guns.

I asked if someone showed any sign of -

Fascination with violence in films and TV
Angry outbursts
Inability to take criticism
Exaggerated sense of self-importance
Intolerance
Narcissism
Attention seeking
Nihilism
Mood swings
Inappropriate sense of humour

Should they be report to the police?

Your replied “Any one act committed on a limited basis is not a sign of instability” but isn’t that the problem, you might not know of other instances? It is easy for people to come forward later and recall instances but a lot harder to gauge the relevance of an outburst at the time.

It is also difficult to judge the importance of something.

Billions have enjoyed the violent films of Arnold Schwarzenegger and many more millions enjoy been the killer in First person shooters, should they all be suspect of planning some future massacre? I mean I have a friend who waxes lyrically about Grand Theft Auto, should I report him to the police?

Think about it many of the other FBI ‘signs’ are witnessed here on this forum every day, (angry outbursts, inability to take criticism, etc) and often seen more than once from the same person, does that mean that they should be reported to the police?

The thing is that it seems to me that if gun control regulation were based on the FBI list virtually no one would be able to own a gun.

And how would such a system of citizen reporting work in practice?

Someone hears a man holding a DVD of a violent film make an inappropriate joke. Not knowing if this is a single incident they informs the police.

The police taking no chances ask him to take a psychological evaluation (if he refuses can they force him)

While waiting for the evaluation (which I presume is paid for by the state) is he held in custody or watched?

As part of the process the police interview all the mans friends and relatives to find out if he has shown any of the other ‘symptoms’.

If he passes it seems a lot of police time and effort but if he fails do they have to keep him under surveillance or lock him up?

But honestly I wouldn’t want to live in such a society.

**

Anyway I took our discussion into consideration when I put together my proposals

“Anyone wanting to purchase a gun would first have to pass a psychological evaluation, that evaluation would have to be retaken every year, failure to have an up to date evaluation would result in the confiscation of the gun and a heavy fine (the evaluation time would drop to every six months then every three months).”

To which you replied

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.


**

I wanted to know if anyone showing such behaviour should not be allowed to own a gun?”

And I answered that they should be checked/counseled to see if removing access to guns was approperate.

See above

**

“You were rather non committal but you did say that Kimveer Gill should have been noticed But later you said if “Kimveer Gill did not have easy access to guns he would have gotten one illegally or just improvised and used another kind of weapon such as a pipe bomb etc. This guy was sick in the head not because he had access to guns because he had mental problems. Post 142””

This was proven to be true as shown to you in the federal study that interviewed convicted criminals. They state that a high percentage of criminals use illegal guns to begin with. They further state that if handguns were banned and became to expensive or hard to get they would just move over to sawing off shotguns or rifles to arm themselves. Again attesting to the fault being on the person not the availability of guns.

You see your fixation on the gun.

As I’ve tried to explain all the way through, the question should be - why are these people turning to crime in the first place.

You have conceded that the reasons are probably social and economic but you seem very reluctant to discuss those issues.

**

“Which seems to imply that it wouldn’t have mattered if the police had revoked Thomas Hamilton gun licence (or anyone else that did such a thing) anyway.”

Now who is not listening (reading and understanding) I said if a person has been recognized to be a potential threat they should be evaluated. He was not, why?

Oh come on man, the idea of a psychological evaluation was not part of British law at the time. The closest thing was that ‘intemperate habits’ could be taken into account by the police when someone asked for a gun licence.

He was under suspicion but lack of clear evidence seems to have hampered them taking action.

As far as I know there are no psychological test associated with gun ownership in the US and as mentioned I would have such evaluations in future laws myself, as would you.

(PS : So why the petty triumphlism of the ‘now who is not listening’ gib? Think about it you were saying that it doesn’t matter if such murders had legal guns or not they want to kill so they will get illegal guns or build bombs. The proposal I put forward was that people wanting legal guns should be evaluated. If people don’t pass the evaluation what happens, are they watched or incarcerated as a public risk?)

**

Post 397

You say that if we ban guns the gun crime will decrease.

But when you asked me for what I would do, what laws I would pass, I didn’t just ban guns a set out a list of proposals and you actually agreed with most of them.
I have also said many times that my approach is holistic in nature and is not just focused on guns, and have given you examples of what I would do in other areas at length and in some detail.”

Again that does not answer the question now does it. Another example of how you dodge the question without ever answering. Show me an example of where a gun ban actually decreased crime.

Let us go through this because it is clear you haven’t thought about it.

“You say that if we ban guns the gun crime will decrease”

If all guns could be taken out of circulation yes gun related crime would decrease but we haven’t a magic wand and as I’ve made clear many times to me it is not so much guns but many American people’s attitudes towards guns that seem to be the problem.

As I’ve pointed it seems like guns act as a means of ignoring many of the social, economic and cultural problems within their society

This theory still stands because as can be seen by this thread the pro-gunners are a hell of a lot more willing to discuss and defend guns as an integral part of American culture and as a means to tackle crime than they are to talk about socio-economic factors.

I have suggested a holistic approach for dealing with crime (not just gun crime) part of that is the tougher regulation of guns. These measures would be coupled with other social and economic measures (as explain, sometimes in detail, throughout the thread).

You see such answers as a dodge only because you want things to be simple (I sure it is not because you can only understand the simple) and you don’t try to understand what has been said, as I’ve pointed out many issues are not simple and involve complex interactions.

All you seem to see is “gun ban” and that seems to annoy you and causes you to be blind to anything else been said even when it is pointed out to you that my proposals do not ban guns.

How can I put it more simply?

**

“In 1996 the UK banned guns yet the figures do NOT show any decrease but an INCREASE in gun crime.

But you comparisons are difficult and changes in the law have most likely made the figures even more difficult to interpret. “

Again ignoring the facts presented to you.

But what are you saying about the figures?

To take the figures from the gun control network you presented earlier

It is true that in 1996 there were only 49 gun-related homicides but in 1995 there were 70 and 1993, 74

In 1999 three years after the ban the figure is again 49

I believe new recording methods came in to effect in 02 and that year the count was 97 but fell to 81 in 03 and 68 in 04.

Hand gun murders in 02 - 54
Hand gun murders in 04 – 35

**

March 04 – 05 according to the Home Office use of handguns had gone down by 16%, robberies involving firearms had gone down by 9% and serious injuries coming about due to firearms offences had gone down by 6%.

But they do say “Despite these figures, the number of overall offences involving firearms has been increasing each year since 1997/98. And crime involving imitation weapons was up 55% in 2004-05 compared to the previous year. (Source: Crime in England and Wales 2004/2005)”

But it seems to me that it is a lot harder to say that the figures would have been higher or lower if the gun ban had or had not happened (if that is what you are trying to attempt?). To see the ban as the major or even sole factor seem to me to point once again to a viewpoint fixated with guns.

But let us say that we accept your viewpoint and believe that crime is incredibly bad in the UK (worse than the US). Why is it that most Brits don’t seem to feel they need a gun to protect them from crime?

**

But as I keep pointing out crime is a complex subject, you only seem to be seeing it in relation to guns, one of the main areas of concern in relation to crime (and gun crime) is the illegal drug trade. In fact many think it is the reason for rising gun crime.
But as I’ve tried to explain at length what could be done to alleviate this problem.

**

“According to you banning guns has dropped the gun crime figures dramatically”

No I don’t think I have, you contended in you second post on the thread (post 8, page 1) that “violent crime in the UK has risen dramatically since the famous "gun Ban"”. Which was shown to be wrong, but I don’t believe I’ve said it has dropped.”

You have implied this throughout this thread, now you are changing your story because the figures do not hold up to your assumptions.

Can you point to the places where I say or implied that UK gun crime has dropped “dramatically” since the gun ban?

And if I was trying to say that a gun ban was what was needed wouldn’t I have proposed the immediate banning of guns in my list of proposals?

And why if that was what I was implying would you have supported so many of my proposals?

Does that make sense to you?

**

Pay close attention to this part

“You assert again without refuting my claims.”

You are the one making the “claim” I have asked repetedly for data to support this. You have never produced anything. If we were so fearful wouldn’t there be a high percentage of people with CCW permits?

You claim that in the UK only 7% feel the need.

Now lets compare this figure to the US. This website shows the percentage of adults with CCW by state, the highest percentage being 7.45% in South Dakota, only 3 states have a percentage above 6% most states listed are below 4%. This data seems to refute your claim very easily showing that we are no more afraid than you are. WHERE IS YOUR DATA??????????????????????????

We have been through this many times. I’ve explained why you seem fearful of crime many times.

You must fear something to some degree to feel threatened by it, because no one fears something that is unthreatening.

**

As to the figures on CCW licences what is it meant to prove?

I mean I believe that before the gun ban in the UK less than 1% of people had a gun licence mostly shot gun licences. In the US I believe that legal ownership levels run a lot higher.

And according to P.J. Cook and J. Ludwig, ‘Guns in America’, some 75% of handgun owners had a gun ‘primarily’ for protection.

Now at the beginning of this thread I asked what was the threat that drove people to wanting a gun to protect them.

You clearly said you thought the threat was crime, and you have said you believed that crime could kill you, are you honestly saying that you are not afraid of crime just threatened by the possibility that crime could kill you? That although you are in no way afraid you sometimes carry a gun because you think you might be attacked or killed?


**


“I believe I have tried several times to end this because of your lack of honest direct answers to questions. It is you that each time that makes post to me directly.”

Don’t you think this sounds a bit childish?

This is an open forum you can come and go as you wish and if you are not enjoying it here why stay?

I enjoy debate and learning that’s why I’m here and remember that you joined in this thread of your own free will (you began by asking me question), I didn’t force you to join and I’m not making you stay.

As it is, you seem to want to leave but blame it on me, but I’m not the one limiting what I will or will not talk about but I am the one answering question (often repeatedly) while you hardly touch the issues and points I’ve raised.

Is that fair?

**

 

How well do you think this will work ?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16763344/

 

“You say that you think it doesn’t take much to reply but as any teacher will tell you the difference between just a reply and a considered and well prepared one is that between a D and an A.”

Oh come on now balbus, read the whole thing not just the parts you can respond to. What I said was: It doesn’t take much time to respond when I keep having to repeat the same questions over and over and over and over. If someone asks you what 2+2 equals do you have to take 2 hours to form an answer? Of course not its because you have answered this question countless times over and over.

Oh Pitt, the problem as I see it is that you don’t seem to read or think about the posts before you reply with the same question.

To take your example it is like someone asking what 2+2 equals?
They reply ‘Four’
The person then says ‘no I asked what 2+2 equals”
They reply by saying ‘I said four, I’ll explain 2+2 = 4’
Only to get in reply “Why is it you can’t answer the question, I repeat what does 2+2 equal?”

**

Five firearms incidents does not equate to “Fascination with violence in films and TV”. My question was why these were not reported/investigated. My point is that people are not willing to get involved until its to late and many not even then. Like I said about your list any few acts by and unto themselves are not a problem but when there are most/all of them are present and obsessive then yes investigate the person.

You seem to be taking several things out of context to create a third (2 apples + 2 oranges = 5 mangoes)

And you still don’t seem to have read the posts involved?

“Isn’t the problem that you might not know of other instances? It is easy for people to come forward later and recall instances but a lot harder to gauge the relevance of an outburst at the time”

For example someone on these forums once told me that after talking to me ‘he had gone out and bought another gun’

Was that a threat, an attempt a humour, what?

Of the five firearms incidences I only have sketchy information on one that he allegedly pointed an unloaded handgun at a man and pulled the trigger.

I my opinion that should have been reported but without more detail I cannot say why it wasn’t? And I don’t know what the other things were. It is very easy to make judgements in hindsight.

**

“And how would such a system of citizen reporting work in practice?”

oh come on now if you see someone committing an firearms violation you report them to the police. Every child knows this, you should to.

So not the FBI signs? Again this reply makes it clear you hadn’t read the post.

I clearly state the FBI list and you change it to ‘committing an firearms violation’

To take your example take 2 and 2 and come up with 5

**

“But honestly I wouldn’t want to live in such a society.”
But you don’t mind living in a society where the government restricts what you can do to protect your own life and property.

What do you mean?

I was saying that I wouldn’t want to live in a society that put you under suspicion of being a possible future mass murderer because you made an ‘inappropriate joke’ (or other thing on the FBI list)

Are you saying that if it meant you were able to keep your gun you wouldn’t mind living in such a society?

**

“You see your fixation on the gun.”
That’s because your solution removing/restricting access to guns for the law abiding people has never been shown to have any effect on crime.

My solution?

Once again it is clear you just are not listening or are unable to understand what has been said.

I did propose some things that I hoped would restrict the access to guns to criminals while allowing the law abiding to own them.

You agreed with those proposals.

So that part of the solution was ours not just mine.

And again how many times do I have to point out that my ideas are not restricted to guns alone they also involved social, economic and judicial changes.

The thing is that you only seem willing to talk about guns.

**

“If people don’t pass the evaluation what happens, are they watched or incarcerated as a public risk?)”
Depending on the depth of the reasons they were denied, yes. My god man it happens now with people all the time, if someone has serious mental instability they are hospitalized. What is the difference?

Actually most people with mental problems seek out help themselves, only a relatively few are ‘sectioned’ (detained under section 4 of the Mental Health Act) in the UK

But the problem is that many people don’t realise they have problems and don’t show enough outward signs that they are, until too late (and that usually means their own suicide rather than them committing murder).

But what you seem to be proposing is that anyone can accuse anyone else of showing ‘unstable’ behaviour and have them (even forcibly) taken away for psychological evaluation.

**

“But what are you saying about the figures?”
That although you and many others tout the benefits of a gun ban there is no evidence to show any positive effect.

What gun ban?

My proposals (the ones you supported) didn’t ask for a gun ban, I’ve mentioned this many times now.

**

“Can you point to the places where I say or implied that UK gun crime has dropped “dramatically” since the gun ban?”
You speak of how safe you feel because guns are banned in the UK. How else would anyone interpret this?

No, I say that I feel no need for a gun to protect me from crime (and that most Brits seem to agree). The thing is I felt that way before the gun ban. As I’ve said not many people owned guns at the time of the ban and there wasn’t that much opposition to it.

You do feel the need to have a gun to protect you from crime and many Americans seem to be virulently opposed to any gun restrictions (proud says he doesn’t care if it cost the death of a million innocent children a year he still wouldn’t want restrictions)

Also can you in fact point to the places where I say or implied that UK gun crime has dropped “dramatically” since the gun ban?

**

“As to the figures on CCW licences what is it meant to prove?”
You say everyone here is so scared and we think guns are the only/best defense against crime. If this were true wouldn’t you think a much higher percentage of people would have CCW? It shows that according to your figure of 7% is very comparable to the US. You are blind or in denial if you cannot see this.

But that doesn’t seem to cover any of the points I raised why don’t you try again -

“I mean I believe that before the gun ban in the UK less than 1% of people had a gun licence mostly shot gun licences. In the US I believe that legal ownership levels run a lot higher.

And according to P.J. Cook and J. Ludwig, ‘Guns in America’, some 75% of handgun owners had a gun ‘primarily’ for protection.

Now at the beginning of this thread I asked what was the threat that drove people to wanting a gun to protect them.

You clearly said you thought the threat was crime, and you have said you believed that crime could kill you, are you honestly saying that you are not afraid of crime just threatened by the possibility that crime could kill you? That although you are in no way afraid you sometimes carry a gun because you think you might be attacked or killed?”

Many more people in the US own guns
75% of handgun owners had a gun ‘primarily’ for protection
You seem afraid of crime and have a gun(s) to protect you from it.

**

“Is that fair?”

Well now lets see, you want direct in-depth answers to your points/questions, yet you are the one refusing to answer directly. So umm yeah “Is that fair?”

LOL As I’ve said it doesn’t seem to matter how I reply you don’t seem to be reading it anyway, as to answering question, it isn’t me that is trying to dictate what I will and will not answer like you are doing.

**

 

Once again your posts seems like reactions rather than thought out replies to what I said.

It is as if you were more interested in just simple point scoring rather than in discussing the subjects and issues raised.

**

A theory is something that predicts or explains phenomena and remains valid if it survives repeated testing.

My theory is that as far as I see it many American’s attitudes towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and also ignoring many of the social, economic and cultural problems within their society. It also seems to me to lead to a belief that threat and suppression is the best means of defence.

My view is based on my own experiences, the things I’ve read and listened to over the years.

I’ll try an explain using another example from the forum.

Many people have come here claiming not to be racists.

But in conversation they have expressed racist attitudes. For example some of the things that have been said are that they wouldn’t employ black people because ‘everyone knows that culturally they are lazy’ that in their opinion it was just ‘a matter of fact that it was harder to train a black person than a white person’. That such things were a matter a nature, some groups were better than others at certain things, for example black people were better at sport and were better dancers, things that didn’t need so much mental ability.

To me those are racist attitudes but from people who don’t see themselves as racists. So if a survey was made and they were asked, they would reply they were not racists.

So the survey says that X percent of people are not racists.

This percentage is then used as ‘proof’ that X amount of people are not racists. But I point out that although they might say they are not racist they might have racist attitudes and I give examples from personal experience.

The person doesn’t accept my personal experience but demands I show ‘factual proof’ that disputes the ‘fact’ that X amount of people are not racists.

So what if people might have racist attitudes if they say they are not racist then they must not be racists and unless you have ‘data’ to ‘prove’ differently it doesn’t matter what they say.

**

So we come once again back to my theory

That the problem with many American’s attitudes towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and also ignoring many of the social, economic and cultural problems within their society. It also seems to me to lead to a belief that threat and suppression is the best means of defence.

**

I base my theory on my own experiences, the things I’ve read and listened to over the years as well as the things said in this thread. To me that is ‘data’ it is information or evidence, just because it happens to be me that is recording and cataloguing that data doesn’t make it necessarily false.

Let us take a couple of points

I’ve pointed out that you seem afraid of crime. I’ve given my evidence for believing this several times.

I asked what threat warranted wanting a gun as protection. You replied that the threat was crime.

You went on to claim that people without a gun could be killed by a criminal.

If you think something is a threat you must to some degree fear it because people don’t fear something that is unthreatening.

It was only when I pointed out that you seemed afraid that you began to back track on the severity of the threat.

Your stance then seemed to radically change.

Crime you explained wasn’t everywhere and it was very, very unlikely that anyone would be a victim of it, so much so that hardly anyone wants to carry a gun and even those people that can don’t carry one very often.

(imagine if you had said something like that at the beginning of this thread rather than ‘violent crime is everywhere’. The nature of the thread might have been very different?)

But even so if someone had given that as a reply I would have said ‘quite so but many Americans still seem to be very vocal and load in claiming that guns are a means of tackling crime but seem unable or unwilling to talk about alternatives methods.’

The thing is that again and again you push the view that guns are a good way to “protect your own life and property”, and that “gun ownership can and does protect against crime” and so on.

Most of what you have said in this thread has been a eulogy to gun ownership, you have brought up supposed ‘facts’, made assertions and tried to ridicule and insult your opponents, all to up hold the idea that gun ownership must be protected.

But one thing you haven’t done is show a willingness to talk openly and honestly about the social, economic and cultural issues raised by this debate.

You say -

“Have I not stated that the solution is multi-prong requiring many solutions to many base problems that can vary widely from individual to individual? How is this concentrating solely on guns?”

And I would have to say, yes you have, you have stated it but you don’t seem willing to discuss it.

However you are more than willing to talk at length and in detail about guns and their role in tackling crime.

**

That the problem with many American’s attitudes towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and also ignoring many of the social, economic and cultural problems within their society. It also seems to me to lead to a belief that threat and suppression is the best means of defence.

Dealing with – Repeatedly saying that guns are a way of tackling crime.

Ignoring – Having an inability or unwillingness to talk about the alternatives to tackling crime

**

 

Alot of people said there would be "DAILY"shootings in the streets when Florida passed its Castle Doctrine Law , as of yet it hasnt happened. 20+ other states have done pretty much the same. Seems were not as trigger-happy as some imply.

 

Not to piss anyone off or anything but: I like guns. I am going to buy multiple hand guns when I am 21 and get a concealed weapons liscense. If I had money now I would buy a shotgun and a rifle. I may also try to get liscenses for higher powered rifles, assault rifles, and multiple gun ownership. In the right hands guns are not evil killing tools. Cars kill people, should they be illegal? No, because in capable and responsible hands they are used to travel places. Well in capable and responsible hands guns are used for protection, enjoyment (shooting ranges), and as a hobby (gun collectors/referbishers/etc). That's how I feel, but i understand the other side of the arguement.

 

Pitt

I’ll reply to your repeats soon but a few comments first

I’ve been wondering why is it that you seem determined to go over the same ground even the same questions over and over again?

For example in your last post you dare me to answer a question (as if I cannot and never could answer it), to imply yet again my supposed dishonesty and unwillingness to answer questions.

You asked -

Can a person own a gun and at the same time work in social programs? (yes or no answer, simple and direct)

I reply

Yes they can,

But I’ve already said that haven’t I

And here is where I said it last - the reply I gave to the virtual same question back in post 353 –

“I see nothing wrong with a law-abiding social worker owning a gun”

That wasn’t exactly long ago was it?

Yet only 50 odd posts later you are asking the same thing.

Why?

**

Well if people haven’t yet worked it out I’ll tell them

It is a trick

It called treading water

It is a way of derailing a debate by just recycling questions and arguments.

Even if the person gives a clear answer the other person just waits a few posts and asks again as if it wasn’t.

The social worker question isn’t the only one, virtually every question or argument Pitt has thrown at me for some time has been recycled

As I’ve said about his last few post he doesn’t even seem to be reading the replies any more he doesn’t have to this is not about getting replies or answers it is about not debating in any open or honest way.

Because this is the trick of someone whose arguments or ideas are likely to unravel if they did debate honestly and openly

**

Pitt

Come on man stop the tricks and lets move on. This could be a really good debate if you were just willing to re-enter it.

**

 

I live in NH. And almost all states (that I know of) require a liscense to own more than 2 handguns, assault rifles, any auto-matic weapon, some require a liscense to have one in your home, and high powered (like sniper high power) rifles. In NH all they do is a 3 day backround check to get the guns and then it takes about another 3 days to get your concealed weapons liscense (takes time to come in the mail). I know in Vermont they allow people to carry concealed weapons w/o a liscense as long as they are legally carrying their weapons.

 

Well once again your post (410) comes across as being a list of reactions designed mainly for point scoring. That is they don’t seem considered or thought through.

Also once more you seem to want to look back to things we have already covered (often many times at your insistence) when it would be so easy to move this thread forward into new ground.

**

“I my opinion that should have been reported but without more detail I cannot say why it wasn’t? And I don’t know what the other things were. It is very easy to make judgements in hindsight.”

Any firearm “incident” implies unsafe or illegal uses of weapons. What incident of this nature can you think of that would not warrant reporting?
Easy to make judgments in hindsight? Oh yeah maybe I should have told someone that guy pointed a gun at me and pulled the trigger. I don’t think I would have to think much about reporting that.

But that is the problem as I keep saying and you keep ignoring.

You keep talking about what should have been, the question is that it didn’t happen, you blame that on the people involved not reporting stuff. Do we use the FBI list of warning signs Or do we take what people say or a mixture?

I mean you talk of “The kid down the street torturing animals. Etc etc”,

The thing is that it becomes subjective depending on the environment, circumstance and opinion.

You say “If someone says they want to go shoot up a school, that’s not a joke that’s a threat” and so presumably it should be reported. But people say they’d like to kill their schoolteacher or boss or blow up their place of work all the time without really meaning it. I believe the secret service investigate thousands of threats made against the president each year virtually all of which end up being people blowing off steam (we even had one kid on this forum who got a visit after an unguarded comment).
As to cruelty toward animals, is shooting a bird with an air rifle cruelty or sport? Is fox hunting cruelty or sport? People have differing opinions.

What I’m trying to say is that things are not so clear cut in real life.

And I’ve already suggested that people that would wish to own a gun would have to do an annual psychological evaluation. Hopefully such tests would catch unstable characters.

**

I said school counselors should be more involved with students showing multiple signs of violent behavior. IE talk to them and see if there is a deep seeded reason or if its just youthful showboating.
Its very simple so stop trying to twist it around.

But I agree with you but this just mentions student many murderers are not students, do you think any adults that has shown signs of violent behaviour should be forced to have a psychological evaluation?

What happens to the students or adults that fail? I mean it doesn’t mean they definitely will do something and they probably haven’t done anything illegal so what happens?

**

“You agreed with those proposals.”

Again it is you that is not listening. I agreed in principal that some of your ideas were not to extreme an infringement for the law abiding person.

Here are the proposals and your comments

Anyone in possession of an illegal gun or having a gun when they have been banned from having one would get a mandatory 10 year sentence.

(Thats already LAW yet it is not enforced, which is what I have been saying is it not?)

Anyone who uses an illegal gun or uses one when they have been banned from having one would get a mandatory 20 year sentence.

(Ahhh so finally "get tough on crime" Bravo!!!)

Anyone that has a gun on them while committing anything but a low level crime (e.g. -minor traffic violation) would get a mandatory 30 year sentence.

(Ahhh so finally "get tough on crime" Bravo!!!)

Anyone that uses a gun with the intent to injure or kill another person would get a mandatory 50 year sentence.

(Ahhh so finally "get tough on crime" Bravo!!!)

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun. (If its shown they did not show due diligence for securing thier weapon)

(If its shown they did not show due diligence for securing thier weapon.)

Any handgun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure (and approved) safe. People that didn’t have an approved safe would not be allowed to own a gun (over time the security level of the approved safe would rise)

(Biometric lock boxes, I have already said that is a good thing.)

Anyone that doesn’t achieve a certain level (to be decided on) of academic attainment would be banned from owning a gun for life.

(Hmmm depends on what "level" you are speaking of but this might not be a bad idea.)

Anyone wanting to purchase a gun would first have to pass a psychological evaluation.

(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.)

**

“I have clarified this for you by saying to enforce the existing laws before adding new ones”

So we come back once more to the your mantra of enforcing the existing laws before adding new ones, again you seem to want to take us back rather than forward Why?

We have established already that you don’t know why the laws are not being enforced.

And you don’t seem that bothered in finding out.

“I have further said and shown facts to prove that these restrictions would only affect the law abiding people and criminals would just ignore them as they do now. So how will this reduce criminal access to guns?
In other words, I agreed in principal but do not see any real affect on crime except placing more restrictions on the law abiding person”

How do you know that these proposals would not reduce criminal access to guns? Can you see into the future?

Also as pointed out (several times) these measures are not the only ones that would be taken.

**

“And again how many times do I have to point out that my ideas are not restricted to guns alone they also involved social, economic and judicial changes.”
So which is more important then, restricting access to guns or social programs? Which should be put on the highest priority?
I have already stated that if all social problems were solved there would be no worries about people with firearms.

Oh hell here we go again, why is it that you keep going back to cover stuff already covered, again and again and again.

We have gone through the “Which should be put on the highest priority?” question before and the answer is the same as before, this is a holistic approach, a unified approach, where there wouldn’t be a sliding scale of priority. But as I’ve said I’m a pragmatist and willing to work out solutions (for example the proposals on gun regulations that you supported). But I have repeatedly pointed out, that thinks are unlikely to change at all if many American’s attitude toward guns does not change. Because they seem to be ignoring the socio-economic aspects and concentrate too much on guns.

**

“What gun ban?”
OMFG. What are the numbers concerning? Why would you ask such a ridiculous question? Unless you are trying to distract from the point. You know very well what I am talking about, what ban I am talking about, what the numbers show.
You have no answer for the question so you are trying to confuse the point. This is a prime example of the skirting, ducking and doublespeak I mentioned earlier.

I’m not distracting from the point, as I’ve asked, do the proposals I’ve mentioned that you supported involve a gun ban?

**

“The thing is I felt that way before the gun ban..”

If you do not feel safer now than you did before the ban, what good did it do?

It didn’t really effect me (or many Britain’s). But that in a way is the point, you said that in your opinion violent crime had increased ‘dramatically’ since the ban, but the fact is it hasn’t lead to me wanting a gun.

You seem to want a gun to protect you from crime, I wonder why?

**

“As I’ve said not many people owned guns at the time of the ban and there wasn’t that much opposition to it”

So there wasn’t very many guns turned in for the ban then?
I believe there was more opposition than you are willing to admit. The reason is one would be ridiculed for opposing the ban as it was more a knee jerk reaction to Dunblane.

There was opposition and it was vocal but it was far from huge

**

“You do feel the need to have a gun to protect you from crime and many Americans seem to be virulently opposed to any gun restrictions (proud says he doesn’t care if it cost the death of a million innocent children a year he still wouldn’t want restrictions)”

Again this “theory” of yours that we feel a “need” or that we are “scared” has been dealt with. You have been given opposing opinion, facts and figures which you have refused to address.

LOL , But it hasn’t been dealt with. You say you are not afraid although you think that crime is such a threat that it might kill you.

**

I will ask this one time:
Is there more good or bad uses of guns per year?

But why does there have to be bad uses of a gun?

**

75% huh? What exactly is this saying? Surely you are not saying that 75% of the US citizens own guns? So if 100 people own guns 75 of them say that they would if necessary use the gun for protection, even if all they happen to own is a shotgun?
Haha nice try on manipulation of figures.

Man, this reply once again makes you seem hysterical, agitated, or whatever.

No I’m not saying that 75% of the US citizens own guns, and that is not what was posted, it says clearly that according to these people 75% of handgun owners asked said they had the gun for protection.

Haha nice try on manipulation of figures.

You could only come to that conclusion if you didn’t read the post properly or you were a complete idiot.

**

I have also told you I own many guns and what reasons I have to own these guns. I even listed the reasons in by priority. So again manipulative doublespeak has no validity.

You did say why you owned guns

Your said -

(post 21)

protection from violent people (ie criminals, carjackers, gang bangers)
Hunting (I eat what I hunt)
Target shooting (actually a stress reliever)
Competitive shooting (I shoot competitively twice a month)
Collecting (I have several antique firearms I have never fired)

When it was pointed out that your priority seems to be protection, you changed your list to

(post 25)
Competition shooting
Collecting
target shooting
Protection

With protection at the bottom.

It’s like when I pointed out that you seemed afraid of crime with all your tails of it been everywhere and so dangerous that it could kill you and you suddenly started proclaiming how unafraid you were how crime wasn’t everywhere and that someone was very unlikely to be victim.

**

“LOL As I’ve said it doesn’t seem to matter how I reply you don’t seem to be reading it anyway, as to answering question, it isn’t me that is trying to dictate what I will and will not answer like you are doing.”

Haha ok well lets hear your DIRECT answer to the question above (first one I scroll up to):

Another question which you have never answered:
What do you expect these 60,000 – 2,500,000 people to do each year?

As I have said many times you seem to be fixated on how things are, but I’m trying to see if you could think about what could be.

So as I’ve pointed out several times the question is why are these crimes taking place?

What is it about your society that this is happening?

As I’ve said many times from your gun centric point of view you see the gun tackling crime but you never seem to be asking yourself –‘if fewer people turned to crime few people would need to use or even own a gun for protection’

We have been through this before.

**

“The thing is that again and again you push the view that guns are a good way to “protect your own life and property”, and that “gun ownership can and does protect against crime” and so on.”

Yes it is my view that guns are a way to protect against crime.
Evidently you think this is a false statement. I have shown you numbers to back up my statement yet every time I ask you to produce anything to bolster your argument that my statement is false you have nothing. Why is this? Is it perhaps that you have nothing so your MO is to just ignore what you cannot defend?

What I’m saying is why do you feel that crime is so bad and so dangerous that you believe you need a gun to protect you from it?

And why is it that you are so fixated on the use of guns to tackle crime but seem so unwilling to talk about alternatives or to have even thought about them?

**

“However you are more than willing to talk at length and in detail about guns and their role in tackling crime.”

You attack gun ownership by proposing unwarranted restrictions, as a gun owner and a believer in the 2nd amendment I will of course defend this.

You mean the ‘Unwarranted restrictions’, that you supported?

**

I have talked about my personal actions dealing with social programs. I have also stated that I am not a trained social worker, so how can I discuss in-depth benefits of individual programs? I can give my opinion but that does not make fact. (a point I recognize and you do not)

I agree you have stated your personal actions dealing with social programs.

But you seem unwilling to discuss the issues, for example we now get yet another excuse that you are not a trained social worker so you cannot have an opinion.

Are you honestly saying that no-one can give an opinion on anything that they are not working directly in? (To me these are issues that involve the society you live in so you are involved in it).

Again this just re-enforces my theory that many pro-gunners seem to wish to ignore socio-economic and cultural matters, as someone else’s problem.

**

“That the problem with many American’s attitudes towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and also ignoring many of the social, economic and cultural problems within their society.”

You say this about me and I have stated many times that I am indeed involves with social programs to the best of my ability. This fact tends to put a kink in your ascertains.

And as I have pointed out (many times) you have stated that you are involved with social programmes but as I keep saying when I try to discuss them you seem very unwilling to talk.

**

Your statements again sound like you are saying that if one owns a gun they cannot be involved in or promote other social programs.

As I’ve said before (many times) I’m not saying that gun owners cannot be involved in social programmes, I am saying many pro-gunners seem very reluctant to discuss the issues (as opposed to gun related issues which they are willing to talk a hell of a lot about).

**

Can a person own a gun and at the same time work in social programs? (yes or no answer, simple and direct)

Yes they can, but I’ve already said that.

(here is my reply to the same question from post 353 – “I see nothing wrong with a law-abiding social worker owning a gun” not exactly long ago is it?)

But as I’ve also said before that doesn’t mean anything, the theory still seem to stand because the majority of pro-gunners I’ve tried to talk about socio-economic and cultural issues either know nothing about the subject (and seem reluctant to find out) or refused to talk about it in any depth (as you refuse).

**

Does owning a gun hamper in any way the ability of a person to give thought to alternative or existing social programs? (yes or no answer, simple and direct)

It shouldn’t, but from my experience many pro-gunners to seem not to have given much thought to alternative ways to tackle crime.

Why I don’t know it is what I’ve been trying to find out.

**

(again this includes all even gang member vs gang member, drug dealer vs drug dealer, cop vs criminal)

As with most of this thread I’ve tried to discuss this before for example as early as post 24

“You then go on to seemly wish to take out of the US homicide figures “criminal vs criminal” deaths.

You seem to be implying that in your opinion these deaths should be dismissed.

Isn’t that the very mentality I talked about that dismisses such crimes and is therefore wishing to ignore the underlying social problems that caused them?”

**

 

And here we go again on covering what has been covered

As I’ve already shown Pitt seem to ignore any reply that he doesn’t like or doesn’t suite his gun centric agenda.

So he goes back to subjects but with out dealing with (or even sometimes acknowledging) the replies those subjects received the first time (or second, third, fourth and so on).

**

1. You admit that one can own a gun and work in social programs at the same time.

But as I’ve also said before that doesn’t mean anything, the theory still seem to stand because the majority of pro-gunners I’ve tried to talk about socio-economic and cultural issues either know nothing about the subject (and seem reluctant to find out) or refused to talk about it in any depth (as you refuse).

**

2. You admit that owning a gun does not prevent people from thinking about existing or new social programs.

But as I’ve also said before that doesn’t mean anything, the theory still seem to stand because the majority of pro-gunners I’ve tried to talk about socio-economic and cultural issues either know nothing about the subject (and seem reluctant to find out) or refused to talk about it in any depth (as you refuse).

**
3. You have no data showing that gun bans/heavy restrictions lower crime rates.

It’s circumstantial at best either way there seems to be no firm evidence. I’ve shown that your data isn’t as important or relevant as you often seem to think it is the problem is that you still see it as so important because you don’t seem to read my posts or ignore my arguments, as I keep highlighting.
Why is it that the US seems so violent that people feel they want a gun to protect them?

**
4. You have no data disputing the fact that guns are used to prevent crime at least 4x the number of people killed each year with guns, and as much as 166x.

And the gun related murder rate in the US is many times greater than the UK’s. But it goes back to my theory (which this statement once again backs up) you see guns as a way of suppressing the problems rather than seeing if the problems themselves can be tackled.

**
5. You have no data to support your assumption that people in the US are more afraid of crime than the people in the UK.

So why do you see crime as so much of a threat that you wish to have a gun to protect you from it while I don’t?

**
6. In light of the above you still want to ban guns as shown in post #134 where you state:
Stop the sale of all new guns within the US and ban the import of guns. People found selling new guns (ones without an official ‘history’) or found bring guns into the US would be given a mandatory 20 year sentence. (In time laws would be brought in making weapons of a certain age inoperable)
You may say this is not a ban but consider the fact you call for stopping the sale of new guns, stop the importation of guns, and when guns become so old (you never did say at what age this would be) they would be made inoperable. This is in itself a ban on guns that would take place over time.

If you had actually read on you would have found out that I was willing to drop that proposal because of your objections, as I’ve said I’m willing to be pragmatic and reasonable

Again do you actually read what is posted?

**

So in light of the above one can safely conclude that gun bans/restrictions do nothing but make people like you feel good about yourself.

But you supported the proposals I put forward and as I’ll point out again they do not include a gun ban.

**

I believe this shows the discussion of a gun ban/restriction is merit less.

But this is my point and a stance that is predicted by my theory, to you it is all about guns, and your seeming fear of them being banned or restricted. It doesn’t seem to be about tackling the social, economic and cultural problems within your society that you seem to be using as one of the excuses for gun ownership.

**

 

The Drugs Issue

And once again Pitt goes back rather than moving forward.

But it could be instructive to look at this drug issue as it progressed in the thread originally -

OK the full quote for post 37 would be

Here are just a few musings in no particular order that I’ve mentioned here over the years -

Legalise or bring under regulation drugs, softer drugs would be put under licence and the more addictive types put under medical supervision.

Prostitution would be legalised regulated and taxed.

The banning of all advertising aimed at children.

Trying to move away from the idea that a person’s social status is only (or mostly) based on material possessions.

Equalising the societal quality of life.

**

To which Pitt replied

Total equality will never happen, people will just have to learn to deal with it, some of the others I definately agree with.

**

But, it wasn’t until the 140’s before we got back to the issue (after a lot of talk about guns)

**

In post 147 I said -

My own view is that ‘prohibition’ itself breeds more likelihood of crime and that the best way of dealing with it is to take it out of the hands of criminals so that it is regulated, taxed and controlled. With milder drugs coming under licence and harder drugs coming under doctor’s supervision. The taxes raised would go toward hospitals, rehab programmes and education.

I would also be trying to improve the environments of those areas with the most heavy drug use.

The licences for the legal recreational drugs would go to independents or local community co-ops (not to big companies) so that in many cases the people who had sold the illegal drugs would be licensed to sell the legal ones (dependent on police record).
Same with the growing or production of the recreational drugs (dependent on quality).

**

To which Pitt replied

Yet you do not apply the same same logic when it comes to prohibiting firearms.

(notice the return to the gun issue rather than an exploration of the drugs issue)

**

To which I said

The measures I’ve suggested (the first phase of which you supported) would not prohibit legally owned firearms just regulate their use, just as I’ve suggested regulating recreational drug use.

(notice again I have had to correct Pitt about the gun ban thing, something I’m still having to do it seems)

**

Once again the talk of drugs disappeared as Pitt went back to guns

I tried to get back to drugs -

I have said several times that I would - Legalise or bring under regulation drugs, softer drugs would be put under licence and the more addictive types put under medical supervision
softer drugs would be put under licence – sold legally, but with restriction (like alcohol or tobacco)
more addictive types put under medical supervision – would not be sold legally

**

To this Pitt scoffed - Legalizing drugs is your idea of reducing crime? Just making something no longer a crime in the eyes of the law is not reducing crime.

**

I replied -Actually it is. But don’t just try and hit back, think about it. It is not so much the product that is the crime it is the activities surrounding the product that are criminal.

**

Pitt -Ok so how will legalizing MJ reduce the "activities" surrounding it?
After prohibition on alcohol ended did the crimes associated with it end? There are still moonshiners, there are still drunkard brawls, drunk drivers etc etc.

**

I’ve tried to explain to you more than once that it is not one measure but the measures as a whole, with integrated policies, a holistic approach. (and I’m still having to explain the holistic approach)
So it’s not just about marijuana.

After alcohol prohibition in the US the criminal organisations moved into other illegal activities, prostitution, gambling, drugs etc. With the end of drug prohibition I would try to give the organisations nowhere to go while at the same time inviting them to become legitimate.

People might grow their own cannabis for a small fee, they would have to pay a larger fee if they went commercial. Governments could buy opium and coca on the world market.

Crimes such as possession, growing, taking etc would not exist as crimes and so those crimes would no longer be crimes and the crime rate would be lessened.

As to drunken brawls, they were a part of life even with prohibition, and most stoners can’t be bothered to brawl.

As to drunk drivers, that wasn’t really tackled as a social problem until the seventies and has reduced considerably in this country since the introduction of police testing kits.

As to stores being hit, well those that were robbing such places to feed their habit, wouldn’t need to since they would be getting proscriptions or treatment.

The reason that dealers get attacked in most cases is about turf, (just as in prohibition rival ‘companies’ would attack the warehouses of rivals and smash the barrels). Drinks companies don’t do that today because they don’t want to jeopardise their licence to sell. Thugs and guns would be replaced with laws and regulation.

As to crop raiders is there a big problem with tobacco rustlers in the US?

**

To which Piit said - “Well by this logic lets just have nothing illegal and we would have 0 crime”

**

And i replied to that rather shocked - That’s it, that’s your considered and reasoned argument?
Oh come on man, do you honestly think that statements like that makes you sound ‘clever’?
It is about harm reduction and regulation, I think the supposed ‘war on drugs’ does more harm than good, so I’m think of ideas to lessen the harm and boast the good.
I’ve given you details of my idea, what is your idea?
Well you did mention DARE, which seems to be a ‘just say no’ programme that many people seem to think does very little to actually help.

**

And this was his reply - Yep best I can do, Like I said before just making something no longer illegal is not reducing crime.

**

After this Pitts argument was that ‘crime’ would always exist so guns would always be needed, again it he seemed more interested in protecting guns from criticism as a means of tackling crime and not about tackling the problems that might be causing crime.

**

So what does this tell us?

Well I think it clear that he hadn’t give that much though to the issue and yep that’s the best he could do.

So it seem worthwhile to ask in advance if since this last discussion, he has given any more thought to what he would do in relation to drugs and what his drugs policy would entail?

**

 

:agree:

Keep in mind though, Balbus is a Brit, the U.S. constitution doesnt apply.

 

Once again the two major problems turn up again - going over stuff we have already covered and not seeming to have read the posts.

**

“How do you know that these proposals would not reduce criminal access to guns? Can you see into the future?”
Because these ideas only effect the lawful purchase/acquisition of weapons. This does not affect the illegal acquisition of a weapon which studies have shown is how most criminals acquire their weapons.

And once again you do not seem to have read what’s been posted. Out of eight proposals the first four are about coming down hard on gun crime and criminals not the law abiding and another (the safe) is designed to try and stop thieves getting hold of guns left in peoples homes.

**

“I’m not distracting from the point, as I’ve asked, do the proposals I’ve mentioned that you supported involve a gun ban?”
No the ones I agreed to in principal did not impose an tremendous hardship to gun owners. However the ones that were indicative of a ban I did not agree with even in principal. However this was not the point of the post and you know it.

It seemed to me that I was being reasonable in taking your views on board and dropped the things you didn’t like from the first draft.

So just to be sure you agree that proposals did not include a gun ban?

**

“You seem to want a gun to protect you from crime, I wonder why?”
Because I take responsibility for my own protection. While you rely on government and police for yours. If you will do a little research the police have no obligation to protect individuals, only the public in large.

But you say that you often don’t even carry a gun? So presumably you also rely on the government and police to protect you when you are not armed? And if you are afraid that the police have no obligation to protect you why do you go unarmed so often?

**

“LOL , But it hasn’t been dealt with. You say you are not afraid although you think that crime is such a threat that it might kill you.”
Again ignoring the figures given to you.

But do the figures talk for you as an individual? I mean why do you say you are not afraid although you think that crime is such a threat that it could kill you?

**

“But why does there have to be bad uses of a gun?”
Because there are people who place a higher priority on gaining materialistic goods than on their fellow human beings comfort and welfare.
But that does not answer the question posed now does it?

But this is the point you seem to see the gun as a means of tackling these societal problems. Why are these people turning to crime? I’ve tried to discuss these issues but you continue to refuse.

**

“You could only come to that conclusion if you didn’t read the post properly or you were a complete idiot.”
How can you assume I did not read when I gave you the background of the study you are quoting?
Here once again is an example of you throwing insults. I have refrained from this until now but let me take this opportunity to say FU.

Well this is exactly why I say you don’t read the posts, read again -

75% huh? What exactly is this saying? Surely you are not saying that 75% of the US citizens own guns? So if 100 people own guns 75 of them say that they would if necessary use the gun for protection, even if all they happen to own is a shotgun?
Haha nice try on manipulation of figures.

Man, this reply once again makes you seem hysterical, agitated, or whatever.

No I’m not saying that 75% of the US citizens own guns, and that is not what was posted, it says clearly that according to these people 75% of handgun owners asked said they had the gun for protection.

Haha nice try on manipulation of figures.

You could only come to that conclusion if you didn’t read the post properly or you were a complete idiot.

You were the one that said I was manipulating data because you seem to think I was saying 75% of US citizens own guns – but I hadn’t even suggested that.

It seems to me that anyone that made such a clear and obvious mistake either didn’t read the post, didn’t understand such a clear and obvious point or was willing to lie to make a cheap jib about ‘manipulating the figures’ when they knew that hadn’t occurred.

You don’t say why you came to those false conclusions (just taking the opportunity to say FU) so we can all still wonder which it was?

**

“With protection at the bottom.”
Ohh come now balbus the first was a “list” with no personal priority attached, the second was only made for your benefit.

First was a list in which you instinctively placed protection on the top.

And only when this was pointed out to you, did you make a conscious effort to place it at the bottom.

Of course there may be nothing in it?

**

“Another question which you have never answered:
What do you expect these 60,000 – 2,500,000 people to do each year?”
“We have been through this before.”
Again no direct answer to the question posed.

But once again – As I have said many times you seem to be fixated on how things are, but I’m trying to see if you could think about what could be.
So as I’ve pointed out several times the question is why are these crimes taking place?
What is it about your society that this is happening?
As I’ve said many times from your gun centric point of view you see the gun tackling crime but you never seem to be asking yourself –‘if fewer people turned to crime few people would need to use or even own a gun for protection’

**

”You mean the ‘Unwarranted restrictions’, that you supported?”
Again agreeing to in principal is not supporting.

Hell man they are just above

OK lets have them again then.

Anyone in possession of an illegal gun or having a gun when they have been banned from having one would get a mandatory 10 year sentence.

(Thats already LAW yet it is not enforced, which is what I have been saying is it not?)

Anyone who uses an illegal gun or uses one when they have been banned from having one would get a mandatory 20 year sentence.

(Ahhh so finally "get tough on crime" Bravo!!!)

Anyone that has a gun on them while committing anything but a low level crime (e.g. -minor traffic violation) would get a mandatory 30 year sentence.

(Ahhh so finally "get tough on crime" Bravo!!!)

Anyone that uses a gun with the intent to injure or kill another person would get a mandatory 50 year sentence.

(Ahhh so finally "get tough on crime" Bravo!!!)

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun. (If its shown they did not show due diligence for securing thier weapon)

(If its shown they did not show due diligence for securing thier weapon.)

Any handgun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure (and approved) safe. People that didn’t have an approved safe would not be allowed to own a gun (over time the security level of the approved safe would rise)

(Biometric lock boxes, I have already said that is a good thing.)

Anyone that doesn’t achieve a certain level (to be decided on) of academic attainment would be banned from owning a gun for life.

(Hmmm depends on what "level" you are speaking of but this might not be a bad idea.)

Anyone wanting to purchase a gun would first have to pass a psychological evaluation.

(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.)


**

 

Incorrect again. It shows that a gun ban/restriction is pointless in combating crime. The discussion has clearly shown this by my listed points. Unless you can show where a ban/restriction will have an impact on crime you have to conceede this.

But you agree there are restrictions that you already support, you don’t think children or the mentally unstable or those with some types of criminal record should have guns (Post 131). These are in part to reduce crime.

Unless you are saying you support allowing anyone to have a gun (as Shane does) so that even those that were clearly intent on committing a crime or murderously mad would be allowed unrestricted access to guns?

So you already concede that restrictions have an impact on crime.

As I keep pointing out you really should think through your ideas before you post and if you had read the posts you would know that we have already covered this.

**

When something is shown to be meritless or ineffective its time to move on.

But you seem to admit that restrictions do have merit

Once you get to this point one can get beyond the feel good need for a gun ban and then discuss the next proposal on your list.

As I keep pointing out I haven’t proposed a gun ban in the list we agreed to and I believe in your last post agreed this was right.

This is the reason things has not and cannot move forward. You only want debate/discussion on your terms and points while ignoring the others.

But I was not the one that is repeating something that we have already been covered. If you want to move the debate forward why do you insist on going backwards all the time?

**