Guncrazy USA

Dear Pitt – what, no apology for your mistake above?

**

The point about the Creationists is that it doesn’t matter what criticisms are made or what evidence produced they would still ignore it and refuse to address it because they ‘know’ they are right so anything critical of their belief must be wrong and so they just repeat that the world was created in six days 6000 years ago.

And the point I was making is that you need to provide some sort of evidence other than you just making a statement of opinion, which I have done in each case.

I have but you don’t accept it as evidence you call it opinion (while claiming your own opinion as fact).

We have been through this at length but if something isn’t to your liking you just ignore it and it doesn’t matter how often I explain the evidence or demonstrate the validity of the criticisms if it isn’t what you want you dismiss it as wrong, without any attempt at actually addressing the points raised.

**

Again, what are you trying to achieve?

I am not trying to achieve anything. I have just pointed out that most of the anti-gun mantra spouted endlessly is based on flawed and inaccurate information at best, or based on nothing.

So in other words you want to paint the ‘anti- gun’ stance as bollocks - that’s what you want to achieve.

But that’s not going to be achieved by just ignoring all dissent and recycling arguments that have already got counter arguments and criticisms stacked against them that you refuse to address.

Then all that happen is you come across as a fundamentalist with a grudge.

**

 

Pitt

You’re still not seeing the point about the Creationists, they believe in Gods creation as described in the bible they do not accept alternatives, it doesn’t matter if others accept the evidence of evolution, they do not.

Is that clear?

You are pro-guns, you believe that guns are a good thing for American society and you do not accept alternative viewpoints, it doesn’t matter what evidence or argument is presented in opposition of your viewpoint you just will not accept it.

You just ignore what you find difficult to answer while picking up on perceived weaknesses in opposing viewpoints.

For example arguments around the issue of Defensive Gun Use - these took up many months were spread out over numerous posts and often involved long explanations (usually at your demand) and included some tiresome amounts of repetition (also at your demand) and it raised many questions and points of contention which unfortunately you refused to address.

And the thing is that the counter arguments and criticisms against your viewpoint on DGU’s still remain unaddressed.

You have ignored those questions once more and chosen to pick up on one thing that you think is a weak point, which you have then taken out of context to make it seem even weaker.

I don’t think DGU’s are a sign of a healthy society and I’ve given long explanations of why I think that (which you haven’t countered, by the way). But that is not the be all and end all of my opposition to your viewpoint over DGU’s (nor is the accuracy of the figures involved the other misdirection you have used).

The thing is that you never address the valid questions raised just try and score points.

**

So in other words you want to paint the ‘anti- gun’ stance as bollocks - that’s what you want to achieve.

Pointing out the facts is wrong in your opinion? Pointing out the facts that people often repeat mantra that sounds good to them although it is NOT based on facts and refusing to check them out is wrong in your opinion? The thing to achieve is the truth about such things. When presented with facts you wish to dismiss them as “biased” offhandedly.

To a Creationist their view is ‘truth’, is ‘fact’, and so alternative views are wrong. You often seem to think in the same way – your opinions become ‘fact’ while others opinions are ‘untrue’ – you know the ‘truth’ so it stands to reason that alternative views must be wrong.

But I’m not claiming I’m right and you are wrong.

I’m just pointing out that you have continually refused to address the counter arguments and criticisms levelled against your views while at the same time repeating your views as if they had not been opposed.

It is like the Creationists that repeat over and over that the world was created by a god in six days some six thousand years ago without ever addressing the opposing arguments.

**

You seem to feel that I need ‘correcting’ and that what I’ve said is so damaging that it needs opposing.

But how is refusing to address the criticisms I’ve raised, correcting or opposing my viewpoint.

**

 

You’re still not seeing the point about the Creationists,

Yes balbus I see your point. The simple fact is that it is I that is more like the evolutionist by providing facts and data to back up what I claim. All you do is provide opinion like the creationist.

No Pitt, from this statement it is clear you don’t see the point.

To a believer what they believe in is the truth what others believe is only false opinion.

I don’t claim I’m right and you are wrong, I don’t claim that I know the truth - I’m just saying that you have continually refused to address the counter arguments and criticisms levelled against your views while at the same time repeating your views as if they had not been opposed.

Remember a lot of what you claim as ‘truth’, as FACT, is actually only an interpretation of statistics that could be seen differently when interpreted differently – I’ve shown this on several occasions it forms part of my criticism of your viewpoint, but you refuse to acknowledge what I say as valid because it doesn’t conform to your idea of what the ‘truth’ is.

Also by not acknowledging it you believe you don’t have to address it.

It doesn’t matter what I or others say, or what is presented, if it isn’t what you want to hear you just ignore it.

That is why you are a believer and I’m just a seeker of knowledge.


**

 

All these things have been covered multiple times, some even in the last few days.

What is the point of me saying anything if you are just going to ignore it?

**

You’re a believer and I’m a rationalist

You believe that your ‘truth’ is the truth, I’m not even sure there is a definitive truth.

You are positive that your arguments are right and righteous; I just know that you seem unwilling or unable to allow them to be examined.

To you it is about ‘winning’ to me it is about the examination of the subject.

For you it seems to be about getting me to accept what you say as ‘truth’ without question but I cannot accept anything without question.

It seems that I’m either ‘saved’ or I’m ‘damned’, I either accept your belief or remain a blasphemous heretic, and it seems that you will carry on preaching the same lines over and over, (while never answering any question of them) until I and others give in.

As I’ve said before it is frustrating to meet such ‘believers’ but in the end you just have to accept that such individuals exist.


**

 

All these things have been covered multiple times, some even in the last few days (for example concerning the DGU’s).

What is the point of me saying anything if you are just going to ignore it?

You absolutely believe your position is right, you have no doubts what so ever, to you there is no disputing evidence, no evidence that runs counter to what you believe.

You believe your viewpoint is overwhelmingly right, because there is nothing of any worth opposing it.

And that is not arrogance it is just the modesty of the righteous.

But the thing is that it is easy to say nothing opposes your viewpoint if you just ignore anything that questions what you think.

You ask me to produce things I’ve produced, but as I discovered it didn’t matter how many times I produced them, they raised points you didn’t wish to address or questions you couldn’t or wouldn’t answer.

So they were ignored.

I have answered you questions but my own remain unanswered, I’ve examined what you have produced but the countering arguments I’ve given remain unaddressed and I’ve given examples you have preferred to dismiss.

These things are still being ignored but that doesn’t seem to stop you from preaching the same lines over and over, that still have those questions stacked up against them.

Sorry you think that I’m such a threat to your viewpoint that you feel you have to keep on preaching like this but what is the point, you’re not going to answer my questions and asking me to produce things I’ve already given but which you will only ignore seems pointless.

And so I pass over to Brother Pitt who will give us his next sermon on the foul and heinous unbelievers.......................


**

 

Brother Pitt

Hey man I’ve really rattled your cage haven’t I?

Why do you think I’m such a threat to your views Brother, have I hit a nerve or something are you having doubts and are therefore trying to over compensate?

**

But come on man this just shows that you really don’t take any notice of what I say?

I said above – “For example arguments around the issue of Defensive Gun Use - these took up many months were spread out over numerous posts and often involved long explanations (usually at your demand) and included some tiresome amounts of repetition (also at your demand) and it raised many questions and points of contention which unfortunately you refused to address”

Did you understand what I was trying to point out?

Well…No…You seem to have only seen what you wanted to see.

**

My point was that the arguments that we’ve had concerning Defensive Gun Use were many facetted and involved.

The one facet you have chosen to highlight is my belief that DGU’s do not point to a healthy society.

And I don’t deny it.

But let us examine it, because you have taken it out of context to try and diminish it’s significance within the argument as a whole.

**

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control (this includes guns) and this mindset gets in the way of many of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

It seemed to me that many American’s attitudes in relation to guns mean 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 have said “No one said that DGU’s were a “good sign”. However “Whatever stops 60,000 – 2,500,000 crimes cannot be all bad”

My comment on this was - “DGU’s are not a good sign but they are still good? But wouldn’t it be better to think of alternative ways?”

[pitt] Thinking of alternative ways and even acting with these alternative ways does not negate the fact that DGU’s stop crimes thousand upon thousands of times a year. Are you saying it would have been better had these crimes not been stopped?

[balbus] But this is the thing – are many pro-gunners, are you, actually thinking of alternative ways (that is ones not tied up in the whole threat/intimidation mentality)?

I’m not saying people cannot defend themselves against attack, I’m asking is anything been learnt from that besides the ‘usefulness’ of gun ownership?

**

You spend a lot of time and thought in defending guns as a means of tackling social problems – but I’ve asked you many times to explain your ‘alternative’ ideas to tackling those social issues and you don’t seem to have given it much time or thought.

(I hope you will not go off again about supporting social programmes since I’ve already shown that to be a red herring)

As indicated above you seem a lot more interested in trying to prove DGU’s are not a bad thing (e.g. a good thing) that you seem little concerned about their negative impact on your society.

**



....Ok later we will have the NRA Tabernacle Choir singing hymn 98 ‘I shot the sheriff’ - but first another sermon from Brother Pitt on the heathen Balbus and his pernicious ways….



**

 

Brother Pitt

What is the point of me saying anything if you just ignore it?

You ask me a question – I give you an answer – you ignore the answer – you then claim I haven’t answered.

Oh dear like many a heretic in the eyes of a believer - I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t.

While again with all the accusations flying outward, you hope it isn’t noticed that once again you didn’t address the points that were raised.

**

What agenda do you think I’m promoting? All I’m asking for is that people think of other ways to deal with social problems other than using threat, intimidation or violence. Is that a bad thing to promote in your view?

Do you want less DGU’s? Apart from claiming you do what have you actually suggested that might lead to that?

For example you say – “the way to accomplish this is to tackle crime itself” – But how, the main thing you have promoted in our talks is gun ownership as a means of deterrent, which is likely to increase the number of dgu’s not cut there number.





….and coming soon Reverends’ Smith and Weston will rap the second amendment to the constitution of the united states to the tune of Nessan Dorma, but first Brother Pitt will explain why Balbus is a nefarious reprobate who is going to burn in hell….


**

 

Greetings Brother Pitt

What is the point of me saying anything if you just ignore it?

What was ignored?

Frankly man you seem to ignore anything that doesn’t fit in with what you want. And there seems little point in me repeating stuff because you just ignore it again.

But hell, I’ll give one example –

You are asking me if I’m opposed to people using a gun to defend themselves? I have replied to this many, many, times each time you have dismissed it and claimed I’ve not answered (as is your way)

To quote “I’m not saying people cannot defend themselves against attack, I’m asking is anything been learnt from that besides the ‘usefulness’ of gun ownership?”

It is clearly stated in the post above, and that was quoting from a post from months ago, and that was just reiterating something I’d expressed in many ways before that.

But I get the feeling that since this isn’t the complete and utter submission to your dogmatic will that you wish for it cannot be acceptable as an answer.

**

You ask me a question – I give you an answer – you ignore the answer – you then claim I haven’t answered.

Where did you answer these questions?

As explained just above – what is the point of me repeatedly giving you answers that you just ignore?

**

While again with all the accusations flying outward, you hope it isn’t noticed that once again you didn’t address the points that were raised.

Again your points were addressed.

SORRY PITT THEY WERE NOT – AGAIN

This is the flip side to you ignoring my answers – you ignore the fact that you seldom give any.

**

What agenda do you think I’m promoting?

To ban/restrict guns from law abiding people. You wish to do this without giving any definition of benefits of the proposals you wish to see implemented. You promote these ideas of yours when there is evidence thy have no effect on crime or violence.

Again – what is the point of me repeating myself if you just ignore what I say?

I’ve said plainly over, and over, and over and over and over again that I would not take guns away from those that abided by the law.

If you choose to ignore me or choose not to believe me, there is nothing I can do – so again what is the point of me repeating myself?

**

All I’m asking for is that people think of other ways to deal with social problems other than using threat, intimidation or violence. Is that a bad thing to promote in your view?

I have never said that was a bad thing to do. However you like most politicians want to take a singular idea and couple it with others in an effort to promote your personal beliefs even though you have nothing in support of those beliefs.

And this personal belief is, I presume, that I want to take guns away from the law abiding – which I’ve said many times that I don’t?

You don’t want to hear what I say so what’s the point of me saying it?

**

 

And more salutations Brother Pitt

Do you want less DGU’s?

I believeI have stated that multiple times.

You have also stated that you think them a good thing and a bad thing, so which is it?

This is my problem you say you want less gun use but you don’t seem that committed to less gun use and seem to be promoting wider gun ownership as a means of tackling crime, meaning the likelihood of more DGU’s. (see below)

**

Apart from claiming you do, what have you actually suggested that might lead to that?

I have pointed out ideas to help in crime and social problems which in turn would lower DGU’s without added negative effects.

Is this about telling people to help each other more and teaching ours kids right from wrong?
You have put forward that you think ‘hedonism’. ‘materialism’ and the ‘me thing’, are behind many social problems but I don’t believe you have suggested anything to actually tackle them, besides teaching ‘our’ kids right from wrong?

You on the other hand have promoted ideas that would lower DGU’s by eliminating the possibility of them while increasing the number if instances of violent crime. Is that what you really want?

Again you have ignored what I’ve said, what is the point of me repeating it? I mean we have been through this a length, many times?

I’ll give a short and therefore limited version to point out how much you ignore

It’s about harm reduction while trying to get to the root of the problem.

So first you try and reduce harm by trying to limit guns to only those that are least likely to use them to harm others (through such things as mandatory gun safes and psychological testing).

But at the same time you tackle some of the underlining socio-economic problems.

Here are some of the things that I’ve mentioned –

Improving the material and emotional environment so all people can experience a good quality of life. This would involve putting investment into infrastructural networks. For example - a National Heath Service free at the point of service, local clinics, cheap public transport, low cost housing, free nurseries, schools and training centres, etc.

**

Regulating drug laws making some legal (giving licences to small businesses) while giving others through proscription to the addicted while dealing with their addiction. The money taken in taxes been used to finance free rehab centres and realistic drug education programmes.

**

Prostitution would be legalised regulated and taxed, with the money raised being used in try and educate people about the sex industry, tackling STD’s and getting people out of the trade.

**

Trying to move away from the idea that a person’s social status is based on material possessions. There the promotion of communal rather than individual ideologies.

**

Limiting consumerism, through the regulation of advertising, especially those aimed at the young.

**

And I would also want to make changes to the political system to bring in proportional representation.

**

 

Hail again Brother Pitt

For example you say – “the way to accomplish this is to tackle crime itself” –

And you disagree? Explain the flaw in the statement.

OH HELL PITT, What is this?

You cut up a sentence half way through cutting off the point being made about the quote. That is really dishonest.

The point wasn’t that I disagreed with the statement but with the methods you seem to be promoting.

(WOW Pitt, I really have rattled your cage if you have to resort to crap like this.)

So here is the second part of the sentence

- But how, the main thing you have promoted in our talks is gun ownership as a means of deterrent,

I am not really “promoting” gun ownership merely defending it.

From the very beginning in September 2006 you have promoted gun ownership – you’ve repeatedly said in several ways that criminals will target the person that isn’t armed, even said that if you are not armed you are more likely to be killed – that is promoting guns.

It is the same thing advertisers do.

But I’m just repeating myself, again –

**

which is likely to increase the number of dgu’s not cut there number.

While decreasing the number of crimes committed. Do you dispute that during an effective DGU a crime is thwarted?

Again – to you DGU’s are a bad thing and a good thing – you both promote guns as a means of tackling crime and you don’t promote guns as a means of tackling crime.

Which is it?

You seem to change you reply according to the question being asked, do you actually know what you think?

**

….and coming soon Reverends’ Smith and Weston will rap the second amendment to the constitution of the united states to the tune of Nessan Dorma,

Again I see you are being sarcastic but unwittingly you hit on another topic that both the anti-gun and pro-gun tend to harp about endlessly that in essence is a topic that is moot. Let me explain:
The argument about the second amendment is about weather it grants individual rights or state militia rights. Lets Passover this for a second and examine it in a different light. Does the second amendment deny the rights to either and individual or militia? No it does not. In fact it is generally accepted that the federal government passes the responsibility of gun regulation to the states as long as the do not contradict federal law concerning them. Now go further and examine each individual states constitution. In most of the states mention specifically “individual” rights thus making the argument like I said moot.

My point all along has been that some pro-gunners get so side track by the defence or promotion of guns that they loose any sense of proportion, they stop actually thinking of what is best for their society and only think about how guns can be crowbared into that equation.

**

but first Brother Pitt will explain why Balbus is a nefarious reprobate who is going to burn in hell….

I am sure I will meet you there since I am in your mind a gun owner and therefore must be pure evil.

I’ve known many gun owners and gone shooting with them, I used to be a good shot and as a kid I make pin money killing rats for at a local animal feed warehouse.
I’ve never said I think gun owners are evil and I’ve tried to point out to you several times that I’m not the enemy even if you seem to think I am (but that seems to be something else you ignore).

You’re the believer, you know you’re right and are therefore the good guy and so I’m wrong and must be the bad guy. But I’m not even sure there is a definitive right or wrong, I don’t think it is black and white but filled with differing hues and shades.

**



….coming up next is Father Browning with an endearing story from ‘The Amazing Adventures of Eddie Eagle’ this tale is entitled ‘Don’t shoot Baba, I’m your Papa’.

But first another rousing sermon from Brother Pitt where he once more exposes the satanic plans of that iniquitous and impious fiend Balbus….



**

 

This ones just for you RebelFight420...

 

Brother Pitt

You are asking me if I’m opposed to people using a gun to defend themselves? I have replied to this many, many, times each time you have dismissed it and claimed I’ve not answered (as is your way)

To quote “I’m not saying people cannot defend themselves against attack, I’m asking is anything been learnt from that besides the ‘usefulness’ of gun ownership?”

So you do agree that law abiding people have the right to use a GUN to defend themselves. Yet you continue to push for things that will remove that option from those law abiding people.

Well, this is another case of the difference between you and me.

I eventually (after months of trying) get you to acknowledge that I gave an answer to your question some time ago, but which you seem to have missed (although it was repeated many times).

And do you say ‘ops sorry, don’t know how I could have missed that”

Do you ask yourself ‘Oh maybe you are right and I’ve missed other answers you have given’

NO

You just pretend it hasn’t happened.

Hey man try putting yourself in my shoes for a bit – don’t you think that’s like just a little hurtful?

Me like, I would’ve said something, I mean I’ve done it before, missed something or quoted something wrong, I’m happy to eat humble pie, it’s like I figure we’re you know…like all human, what was it the bard said…oh yeh..”to err is human”.

But that’s the difference I suppose between you and me, you are a righteous believer, you don’t err like us regular people.

Anyway the question you ask in place of an apology has already been covered many times already, in short, medium and long posts.

**

As explained just above – what is the point of me repeatedly giving you answers that you just ignore?

Selective question answering is what you have done all along. Where are the answers to the questions I have repeated dozens of times. Such as:
Where did you answer these questions?
Considering all the studies showing numbers measuring between 60,000 and 2,500,000 lets just pick out the lowest of 60,000. If there were 60,000 fewer DGU’s does it not stand to reason there would be an additional 60,000 crimes committed?

(Simple logic tells you this is true)

Now if there were an additional 60,000 crimes would the US be a more or less healthy society?

Look what’s the point of me repeating answers I’ve already given when you don’t even apologise for repeatedly missing ones I do repeated again.

Look man I’m hurt, you know like deep down hurt, like man I’m wounded by your heartlessness.

And when do I get any of my stuff answered?

As to “Where are the answers to the questions I have repeated dozens of times. Such as:
Where did you answer these questions?”

I can say that I’ve answered those questions in the threads we have been talking in sometimes I’ve answered them several times and in several threads.

Anyway I’ll jog your memory – DGU’s show that guns don’t seem to work as a deterrent and that wider scale gun ownership doesn’t seem to reduce crime levels by any significant amounts but does greatly increase the use of guns in crime. We went through these things at length and you are still not addressing what was raised.

**

This is the flip side to you ignoring my answers – you ignore the fact that you seldom give any.

Lol You mean questions like
I’m asking is anything been learnt from that besides the ‘usefulness’ of gun ownership?”

Well lets see We also learn there are still people in situations that are either desperate or uncaring enough to commit violence.

Der! – Again the reply just shows that you haven’t been listening to anything I’ve said - So have you any ideas on what to do; besides promote gun ownership, or are you once again going to talk about people just helping each other out and teaching our kids right from wrong as the means to right or social, economic and political ills?

**

I’ve said plainly over, and over, and over and over and over again that I would not take guns away from those that abided by the law.

You wish to take guns away from people by introducing useless and unenforceable laws such as your “mandatory gun safe” law. Anyone in violation of these useless and unenforceable laws now becomes criminals and no longer law abiding. Just like in the UK you people made it unlawful to own a handgun, now all the thousands of people that had never broken any laws except to have inherited their grandfathers war pistol became criminals unless they gave them up to you.

To me, wow do you mean people are going to give me, personally, all their old guns, when is this going to happen?

Basically what you’re saying is you don’t agree with me so I’m wrong.

I’ve explained at length my reasoning behind having gun safes (at your insistence) and remember this was something you thought was a good idea (anyway see below)

**

And this personal belief is, I presume, that I want to take guns away from the law abiding – which I’ve said many times that I don’t?

See above.

See above - also.

-----------

This is my problem you say you want less gun use but you don’t seem that committed to less gun use and seem to be promoting wider gun ownership as a means of tackling crime, meaning the likelihood of more DGU’s.

Again I have never told anyone to go out and get a gun so how am I promoting “wider” gun ownership. Again if there are more legitimate DGU’s then there is at least that number (or more) less crimes committed. Less crime is bad to you?

‘Look I want less DGU’s I’ve said that right and look they’re not a good thing I’ve said that too right - and Oh no I’m not trying to say guns are the best way of tackling crime OH NO not me - all I’m going to say, is well, you know, if you had a gun, well then you could tackle crime couldn’t you, and you know if there is more DGU’s then that’s a good thing right isn’t it.

Oh come off it Pitt, you say one thing but mean the opposite, either you’re trying to con people or you really are very confused.

**

It’s about harm reduction while trying to get to the root of the problem.

Yes I know you view of “harm reduction” Lower DGU’s by removing firearms. In the mean time each DGU not happening because there is no longer a gun available to the law abiding another crime has been committed.
To you
DGU’s + firearm reduction + Crimes still being committed = harm reduction
You should really look a little closer at your equation.

But I’m not removing the guns from the law abiding- oh hell here I am saying it again….

**

So first you try and reduce harm by trying to limit guns to only those that are least likely to use them to harm others (through such things as mandatory gun safes and psychological testing).

Again with the gun safes when are you going to realize this is useless and unenforceable?

If gun safes are useless why have you got one? (anyway see below)

**

Here are some of the things that I’ve mentioned –

Each of these we have discussed and I have given my views on. All of these can be discussed and Implemented without disarming the law abiding people and removing the ability to do so from those needing protection. Without removing the ability of those to enjoy sport shooting, without limiting the ability of those who enjoy hunting. Etc.

But I’m not removing the guns from the law abiding- oh hell bells here I am saying it yet again….

Also you have refused to discusss the social policies i've outlined.

Are you saying you would implement all those social policies?

**

I have pointed out ideas to help in crime and social problems which in turn would lower DGU’s without added negative effects.

Is this about telling people to help each other more and teaching ours kids right from wrong?
You have put forward that you think ‘hedonism’. ‘materialism’ and the ‘me thing’, are behind many social problems but I don’t believe you have suggested anything to actually tackle them, besides teaching ‘our’ kids right from wrong?


**

 

All bow down before the illustrious Brother Pitt

You cut up a sentence half way through cutting off the point being made about the quote. That is really dishonest.

Lmfao yo accuse me of not addressing all your points raised in your post and when I do address each and every word you posted you cry.

You don’t even see the dishonesty involved do you Pitt?

To you it was just scoring a point against the enemy and for that anything is legitimate.

And even your reply isn’t honest - you were not addressing a point I’d raised you were trying to catch me out on something that was covered in the second part of the sentence anyway.

And the only crying I do reading your posts is with laughter, in fact the giggle factor is the main reason for reading them these days, I mean you haven’t said anything new in about 8 or 9 months and nearly everything asked of those things is still waiting to be addressed by you.

But still, the way you have to contort things to score a point that isn’t even that effective or relevant can be very amusing.

**

From the very beginning in September 2006 you have promoted gun ownership – you’ve repeatedly said in several ways that criminals will target the person that isn’t armed, even said that if you are not armed you are more likely to be killed – that is promoting guns.

Promoting guns would be me telling you to go get a gun. I have not done this at any time. What I have said is that it is a PERSONAL CHOICE for a person to make weather they will own a gun or not. I have given the facts and figures about crime and interviews from the criminals themselves. I have shown studies showing the things you want to do with firearms have been tried before and failed to make a difference. Your claim is utter bullshit because you have nothing else.

Someone would have to be the most naive persons in the world to fall for that line down at Uncle Bobs Rodeo Used Car Dealership – Imagine there he is dressed in a nylon cowhide patterned shirt saying “look son, I’m not trying to sell you this car, no sir-ree , that’s your personal choice, but I’ll just point out that……

OH No he’s not trying to sell you that car, he’s just letting you know the ‘facts’ and making sure you know the figures….he’ll even let you kick the tires.

Pitt do you really take us for schmucks

**

You seem to change you reply according to the question being asked, do you actually know what you think?

Again this is complete bullshit. I have stated this many times. It is bad that we have to have DGU’s but it would be even worse if we had to live with all the extra crime that would not have been prevented without them. If you cannot understand that statement then you really are an idiot however I find that unlikely so I must put it down to desperation.

Do you read your posts or think about them?

You say “It is bad that we have to have DGU’s”

Have to have?

But for most of our conversation about DGU’s I’ve been saying shouldn’t we be trying to find ways of not having to have DGU’s. Why should people feel they need for guns to defend them? And after all the repetition you still haven’t got it.

**

My point all along has been that some pro-gunners get so side track by the defence or promotion of guns that they loose any sense of proportion, they stop actually thinking of what is best for their society and only think about how guns can be crowbared into that equation.

And the anti-gun never do that huh? They are never so blinded by their fear and hatred of a firearm they will do anything to rid the world of them no matter what the consequence.
ALL HAIL THE BALBUS errrr BRADY CAMPAIGN

Again with all the fear and hatred, oh yeh I really have to run around in circles and have an aspirin and a lie down every time I think about guns OH NO I’ve done it again .run.. run.. run.. gulp.. gulp.. kerplonk

Come on Pitt grow up.

My whole thing has been that crime is a social, economic, cultural even political problem and can only be tackled by looking at the social, economic, cultural and political sphere. Guns are just a small part of that whole to me and I’ve been trying to point out that for many Americans guns seem to get in the way of them looking at the social, economic, culture and political problem.

You are a case in point, you never seem able to get beyond the guns themselves and your desire to own them.

**

You’re the believer, you know you’re right and are therefore the good guy and so I’m wrong and must be the bad guy. But I’m not even sure there is a definitive right or wrong, I don’t think it is black and white but filled with differing hues and shades.

Then why do you not wish to think about your proposals and their total effects instead ignoring the consequences. Lets just continue to promote useless and unenforceable things like mandatory gun safes because no matter what anyone can say or prove they are good so sayeth the balbus.

But you think gun safes are good, you have said that many times and gone on about your own safe.

This is the problem, you want me to accept what you think and you will accept nothing else. Any deviation from what you believe is the ‘truth’ is automatically seen as wrong. Even discussion of alternatives to what you see as the truth is seen as dangerous heresy and has to be stomped on.

You believe mandatory gun safes are useless and would be unenforceable, so I must be wrong for even thinking about it.

You believe the consequences of my ideas would be terrible so I must be wrong for even thinking about them.

But you seem incredibly reluctant to talk about them much, its as if they are just wrong because you believe them wrong. (anyway see below)

**

 

Please all rise and kiss the ring of Brother Pitt

Balbus’ suggested gun restrictions and “new” laws.

Not exactly true.

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

I have responded to each of these in the past although he seems to think I haven’t.

Again this is not exactly true.

You have responded to them and I’ve taken note of what you’ve said, dropped some and adapted others in the light of your comments and I’ve also defended them against what I have seen as unfounded or spurious criticisms.
To imply that I have never responded to your comments seems very much like lying.

I have expanded my thought on each of these and it shows my point that balbus does not fully think things through like his beloved mandatory gun safe proposal listed below.

Doesn’t ring true either I mean this is not exactly an expansion is it?

Most of these comments are just repetitions of things we alresdy talked about and I’ve already given you answers to.

The very last part I have reprinted with a response and a link showing the inaccurate knowledge of weapons the anti-gun (and balbus) often vilifies. They tend to base assumptions on looks and not functionality.

Well that’s just rhetoric. And rather childish as well with its – ‘oh I know more about guns than you do’ – jib.

I’ve acknowledged many times that you know more about guns than me, in fact you seem rather fixated by them, there defence and there promotion.

But that fixation is the thing that I’ve been trying to highlight, because it seems to be getting in the way of looking at guns in a societal context.

**

Anyway here we go again -

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.

(That’s already LAW and has been for quite some time. The one problem is balbus wishes to change what constitutes an illegal gun)

As I say we covered a lot of these things back in September - October 2006, over a year ago –

if it’s a law already then that’s fine with me

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

(I have no problem with this except balbus wishes to change what constitutes an illegal gun)

Covered, I mean you originally said ‘bravo’ if I remember right.

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.

(That’s kind of like robbery VS armed robbery it already carries a harsher sentence. And I am not opposed to that)

Fine, again you said bravo.

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

(Attempted murder/conspiracy to commit murder are already major offenses. Not sure what the mandatory minimum sentences are and think it varies from state to state)

So having one law covering all states seems reasonable

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 their weapon)

(Due diligence would have to be specifically defined. Which would probably be very hard to do in legal terms)

Courts and lawyers deal with a lot more difficult questions than that (also see below)

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)

(This one definitely has its pitfalls. I believe balbus did modify this at one time to include that the gun could be out of the safe if you were at home.

**

Pitfall #1 Increased cost just to be able to own a firearm.

Yes – and what? My intention is to try and limit the number of guns ending up in the hands of criminals.

Pitfall #2 what constitutes an “approved” safe

Could it be one that is approved! You know one that complies to a certain standard.

Pitfall #3 Not only do you have to buy a safe you will have to buy multiple safes since he would change the criteria over time.

Over time – that means not every day or week or month it means over years and only if it’s needed.

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

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

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

Pitfall #5 Enforcement, how do you enforce this? Require proof of ownership when purchasing a gun? This doesn’t mean people will use it.

Think about it - 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 their weapon)

Every gun would be registered, an unregistered gun would be an illegal gun, every X amount of time a gun owner would be asked to take his gun(s) along to an office (or peace officer) to prove they still held them.

If a gun has been stolen or lost and not reported it would result in an even heavier fine, communal service order or even a prison sentence if compliance can be proved.

If you don’t have a safe and the gun is stolen that is (1) not having a safe (2) not showing due diligence in securing the weapon. That could mean two heavy fines and being banned from ever owning a gun again (and possible a 10 year sentence for holding what would have been an illegal weapon).

Pitfall #6 How do you insure that someone don’t buy a safe, buy a gun then sell the safe? By random surprise inspections?

See above

Pitfall #7 Money spent enforcing this through random inspections would be better spent on other programs designed to prevent crime rather than searching law abiding people’s houses for safes

See above

Pitfall #8 wouldn’t random searches be a violation of “illegal search and seizure laws?)

See above

**

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

(I believe age would be a better indicator and less likely to be abused and it’s already law)

Actually I’m not so sure about this myself – at the time you said “this might not be a bad idea” and I thought the same But I’m quite happy to drop it and try and use the psychological times weed out problem cases. Although it does give an incentive to gun crazed kids to do well at school.

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

(The more I think about this one the less I like it because it is basically a national registration list which has its very own pitfalls)

But to me there should be a national registration list.

**

When you actually look at it your objections are not that strong, it seems to me that you haven’t actually thought about them, you just believed some were wrong and then tried to think up reasons why they were “useless and unenforceable” but when it came down to it you couldn’t actually think of much.

In other words you haven’t had valid concerns as to why you think something wrong, you believe something it wrong then you try and think up reasons why.

Again it is the difference between a rational human being and a believer.


**

 

**




… later we have on stage Reverend Glok in a rapid fire Q&A session on the subject of ‘The ethic of shooting fish in a barrel’…

But first please give it up for Brother Pitt, and his sermon today will be on that malevolent merchant of mischief the misbelieving malcontent Balbus…




**

 

Oh the venerable Brother Pitt.

Another great sermon and so wonderful that you need take no heed of honesty when haranguing the unbelievers.

I mean mate what is the point of me saying anything if you are just going to ignore me?

This puts me at a sever disadvantage when dealing with you, you can say anything however untruthful and I continue to try and be fair and even.

I’ve shown many examples of you ignoring my answer when it suits you but another of your tricks is to ignore you have acknowledged and accepted my answers.

For example –

You say

Lmfao yeah yeah just like you didn’t call for a “ban” on guns when I showed you that in fact you did call for a ban that took place over time.
Can’t import them
Can’t manufacture them
After they reach a certain age they are disabled.
What else would you call this.

But we have been through this many, many times -

Take Post 953 of this thread posted June 5th 2007 (not the only example just one picked at random)
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231360&page=96&pp=10

But the accusation and the fact it isn’t true actually goes back to September of 2006 and has been brought up many times before and after June.

But this is the problem – you make an accusation – I point out it isn’t true – you eventually acknowledge it isn’t true (to quote you - “I know you are not for an all out ban”) – then later when you wish to portray me as a supporter for an ‘all out ban’ you make the exact same accusation you’ve acknowledged isn’t true.

Untruthful yes, dishonest yes, the work of someone with no honour, yes.

But then that’s what I’ve come to expect, you’re the believer and anything is legitimate to crush the unbelievers.

I’ve shown time and again that I’ve answered your questions but it makes no difference and in the meantime do you answer any of mine, no.

So what is the point this, it isn’t a debate it is you trying to kick down someone that doesn’t agree with you.

**

I mean you cut and paste something that you admit is very likely wrong and ask me to do the research to prove it wrong.

This is not just a mater of laziness it smells like another dishonest trick.

You want me to be damned if I do and damned if I don’t – if I do show its wrong you’ll just ignore what I’ve said and I’ve wasted my time and if I don’t you’ll just declare it an unassailable fact.

**




…coming up later in the show we’ll be having on stage the Kalashnikov Cossack Dance Troupe who will be assaulting your eyes and I hope your hearts…

….But first, another sermon by that scourge of the unbelievers, the one and only Brother Pitt who will be making his own assault on that low and loathsome lover of Lucifer, the heretic Balbus…




**

 

To his Excellency Brother Pitt of the Church of Christ the Sniper.

Boo hoo hoo if you keep repeating this every time you post I’m sure someone will eventually believe you.

Boo hoo hoo? You didn’t really have an answer there did you?

Thing is that I don’t really care if people believe me or not, I’m not trying to ‘win’ like you – but it is interesting that I can back up my claims time after time with examples showing exactly how deceitful you can be - while you never do, even when asked.

And again you are ignoring what is said (misdirection being another of your tricks) about your making such accusations – that I then show are wrong – which you then acknowledge as wrong – and then later you make the same accusation you’ve already admitted was wrong.

So that it doesn’t matter what’s said if it isn’t what you want you just ignore it when it suits you.

**

But we have been through this many, many times –

Yes we have and you have never admitted what you had proposed was indeed a complete ban on guns. A very common tactic of the anti-gun if called out just “drop” it for now.

But I’ve said I’m not calling for a total ban hundreds, possibly thousands, of times in the last year – you have even admitted that I’m not.

As said, the problem is that you just make accusation even if you’ve already admitted they’re wrong, just to try and score cheep points against what you see as the enemy.

So what is the point of me saying anything – if it shows your arguments are flawed or just plain wrong, you just pretend it never happened.

**

You just don’t listen if what’s been said is something that you don’t like or shows you’re thinking to be flawed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

What’s the matter balbus you afraid this just might be true? Afraid it goes against your “theory”? Afraid it will unravel your baseless arguments?

This is exactly what I predicted - you are trying to declare an opinion as a fact that ‘defeats’ my arguments, just because I haven’t contended it.

But in fact we have been through this before at great length and spread over several months.

**

 

OK here we go –

This is an edited version of something written several months ago – you have never been able to refute it and in fact haven’t even made any serious attempt to challenge it.

**

The problem is the variables involved in any comparison of direct data between differing data collection areas and groups.

It is in fact very difficult to compare the crime figures from two different countries because there are so many variables that are not represented in the plain figures.

This is why all reputable statisticians frown on such direct comparisons and such bodies as the UN and the US Bureau of Justice expressly warn against it.

“The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic.”
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_survey_seventh.html

“Different definitions for specific crime types in different countries: The category in which any incident of victimization is recorded relies on the legal definition of crime in any country. Should that definition be different, and indeed this is often the case, comparisons will not in fact be made of exactly the same crime type. This is particularly the case in crimes that require some discretion from a police officer or relevant authority when they are identified. For example, the definitional difference between serious or common assault in different legal jurisdictions may be different, and this will be reflected in the total number of incidents recorded.”
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_surveys_3.html

“Note: BJS cannot validate any data obtained from non-BJS sources, nor does BJS encourage comparisons of national data due to differences in classifications of crimes and methodological differences.”
Bureau of Justice Statistics
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ijs.htm

“Definitions of offences vary between countries due to both legal differences and statistical recording methods. For example, the USA and Canada do not appear to include minor assaults, intimidation, and threats within their definition of violent crime. However, New Zealand does include these crimes in its definition, and these offences comprise approximately half of all violent crime in this country. Also, New Zealand does not include sexual offences in violent crime, whereas Australia, USA, Canada, England and Wales do”.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-2.html

“Additionally, the Home Office's July 2000 "Review of Criminal Statistics: A discussion document" indicates how difficult it is compare crime rates between their own forces, let alone conducting international comparisons, stating that amongst the England and Wales' Police:
"There is some confusion in what is counted as a recorded crime......(there are) two contrasting approaches to recording crimes that are currently in use by police forces. The first is a "prima facie" approach, by which the police accept all crime reports at face value and seek to include in their crime figures every apparent criminal event that comes to their attention. The second approach is the more traditional one, termed the "evidential", whereby the police sift and evaluate those events reported to them and only in those cases where they believe on the basis of the known facts that a crime has actually taken place do the police then record a crime. ......the lack of consistency makes it impossible to compare forces in a reliable fashion."
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-7.html

**

Statisticians also warn that other variables outside of police and legal definition recording and methodology also have a great impact when coming to interpret raw data.

For example such figures don’t take into account local drives or crackdowns that may boost figures in certain areas. Encouraging rape victims to come forward (with such methods as granting animosity) can lead to higher rape figures, but in fact there has not been an increase in the number of rapes just the number being reported.

Economic factors have an impact, higher unemployment leading to higher crime rates in those areas associated with financial gain, whereas high employment rates lead to more crimes related to drink as more people have the money to go out.

One of the major factors on crime is population density with certain crimes like affray and burglary being more prevalent in more populated areas (e.g. 244.69 people per sq km in the UK compared with 29.77 people per sq km in the US) This can also mean the greater possibility of affluent and non-affluent areas being in close proximity.

Demographics can have an effect as Susan Estrich says of the US “Eighteen years ago, the number of young men between the ages of 18 and 25 -- the prime crime years -- was set to decrease steadily for the next decade. Even if you did absolutely nothing, crime was likely to decrease because there would be fewer would-be criminals to engage in it”

The prevalence of insurance is another factor people are more likely to report criminal damage or burglary if that is what is needed to make a claim (and we saw how few people had such insurance in New Orleans).

Even the perceived efficiency of the police can be a factor. Some crime rates can be low because people think the police are useless and don’t report the crime but if the police become better at the job people do report those types of crime (again the crime rate hasn’t gone up just the reporting). This means that higher figures can actually point to a healthy and working system and low figures to a sick and dysfunctional system.

Even the prevalence of CCTV cameras can have an effect on crime, fights in bars that at one time were not reported or led to no conviction because of lack of evidence are now being captured on camera and as pointed out to me several times the UK has many more CCTV cameras than the US.

These are just a few of the factors that lead to multiple variables that all need to be taken into account when comparing direct data.

However there is one area where there is less controversy when it came to comparisons (although it still depended on the countries being compared) and that was murder. Homicides are very much more likely to be reported when discovered and there is far less leeway in definition.

“In selected cases, most notably homicide, country to country comparisons are safer, although may still be subject to the drawbacks outlined above. In the case of some categories of violent crime - such as rape or assault - country to country comparisons may simply be unreliable and misleading.”
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_surveys_3.html


**

This needs to be read carefully and understood, which I think was the problem the first time I printed an earlier version (even with the many explanations that followed on from it)

You are trying to compare directly the US and English figures without taking note let alone account of any of these many, many variables.

It makes things simple but as I’ve warned you often life is seldom simple and very rarely if ever a case of black and white.


**

 

Then we need to be clear about terms - what is defined as a ‘Hot Burglary’, its not an academic term or official term?

So what does it mean?

One definition was – “A "hot burglary" is one in which the burglar or burglars enter the dwelling knowing in advance that it is occupied, also typically referred to as a "home invasion" burglary or robbery.” Jeff Johnson

Another definition I found was – “a burglary that takes place when the homeowners are present. A home invasion is a much more accurate term.” liberal quicksand

So how is ‘home invasion’ defined? Wikipedia on the subject says - Home invasion differs from burglary, which is illegal entry into any occupied or unoccupied building, with intent to commit a felony (often theft.) Home invasion sometimes involves several criminals, whereas burglary tends to be performed by a single perpetrator.[citation needed]
But as shown this isn’t definitive.

Here is a piece from a security firm that explains the difference between burglars and home invaders – “Residential burglars work mostly during the day and when a residence is more likely to be unoccupied. Most burglars work alone and tend to probe a neighborhood looking for the right residence and the right opportunity. Alarm signs and decals, bars on windows, strong locks and doors, big dogs, and alert neighbors can sometimes deter burglars. Also, burglars will avoid a confrontation and will usually flee when approached. Most burglaries do not result in violence unless the criminal is cornered and uses force to escape.
….Home robbers rarely work alone and rely on an overwhelming physical confrontation to gain initial control and instill fear in you. The greatest violence usually occurs during the initial sixty seconds of the confrontation and home invaders often come prepared with handcuffs, rope, duct tape, and firearms. Some in-home robbers appear to enjoy the intimidation, domination, and violence and some even claim it’s a "rush."
(There seems to be a certain amount of suggestion that burglaries termed ‘hot’ involve intentioned violence and even the use of firearms to overpower the victim. That is rare in the UK)


**

So I’m unsure what defines a ‘hot burglary’ and if it isn’t defined how do people measure it?



How can there be X% of ‘hot burglaries’ in the US and X% of hot burglaries in the UK when there doesn’t even seem to be such a thing as hot burglaries in any official list of statistics?



**

 

So we come to the British Crime Survey statistics first these are figures from 1997 – ten years ago when there was an estimated 1.6 million domestic burglaries – now according to the BCS figures for 2006 there were an estimated 726,000 (although only 292,285 were recorded by the police)

Back to those 1998 figures.

54% - no one was at home

46% - someone was at home

But 14% of the 46% was a partner or ex-partner of the victim someone known to them.

So you actually have 32% that involved what may be termed an attack on someone’s home.

Half of those were ‘attempts’ where the thief ran away when they discovered the house was occupied. (Even if the victim was unaware of the robbery, remember 22% of the original 46% had no ideas they were being robbed).

So we are now down to about 23% -16% where the occupant was aware of the burglary and the burglar had entered the house.

Now we have some cross over in these statistics (the con artist burglar gains entry through deceit, robbers only being glimpsed when leaving) which means that basically we are talking about a figure from 18 – 10 % where the occupant was aware of the burglary as a burglar - the burglar had entered the house and the two met.

**

So we come to the US figures and frankly where are they?

According to the FBI (2005) about 60% of household burglaries occurred during the day with about 30% happened at night with the rest being unknown.

How many of those households were occupied at the time and how many knew they were being robbed or met up with the thief wasn’t recorded.

A lot of figures are being banded around on the web as to the US figures but so far I’ve found nothing official to back them up.


**

Again this seems like misdirection based on innuendo.

“Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.)”

Britain has a “"hot" burglary rate near 45% - what are hot burglaries? And the figures don’t seem correct if you actually look at the data from 1998 and burglaries in England and Wales have dropped since then.

“13% for the U.S” where is this from what is it based on? I’ve tried to find evidence and I haven’t found anything except a report from the 1980’s that had US as 14% and the UK as 25% but even that wasn’t corroborated.

“a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary” – Again what is this based on? And if doesn’t follow that US and UK rates would be the same and if you check the UK data they don’t seem to be.

**