Guncrazy USA

satv365

“Do you want to be at the mercy of Organized Crime and the Government? Thats what the Left wants whether directly or indirectly, they are pushing for a population of people unable to defend themselves from crime or the Government”

This has been covered a number of times.

If you are actually interested in the debate of the issues rather than simply sloganizing you could read -

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2822065&postcount=19

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3438944&postcount=8

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231360&page=21&pp=10

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3658951&postcount=1

And we might be able to have a more informed debate.

**

As to the writing of the Constitution and the “Founders of this Nation”

These people where not gods or saints and they could see into the future, they were politicians. The things they produced were not sacred texts of holy writ; they were the product of compromise and deals hammed out in smoked filled back rooms.

I have made no secret of my belief that the US constitution should be re-written and in that regard I have a lot in common with one of the major figures of early US history Thomas Jefferson who wanted to have a new constitution re-written every 20 years or so.

"Jefferson's dedication to "consent of the governed" was so thorough that he believed that individuals could not be morally bound by the actions of preceding generations. This included debts as well as law. He said that "no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation." He even calculated what he believed to be the proper cycle of legal revolution: "Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it is to be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson


**

 

This debate has been won by the gun owners countless times within this thread alone.

 

He has had things stolen, he thinks he knows who it is and his preferred method of dealing with this dispute is to use a baseball bat.

Which implies that he believes the way to settle disputes is through the threat or use of violence. This is about gaining control through intimidation and suppression, and the question is can he seen beyond that?

So in your view if someone breaks into your home and steals your possessions you consider that a “dispute”? I think most people consider that a crime not a dispute.

Once more a perfect example of your duplicity and lack of thought.

You said – “holy crap balbus he is not talking about “settling disputes” he is talking about protecting himself and loved ones from violent attack. Just another example of your twisting other peoples words”

I showed that you were wrong, the bit I was highlighting was not about violent attack it was about theft, you just ignore that and try and score a point on something else.

The thing is you got it wrong…Again

If you have something stolen it is a crime if you accuse someone of doing it you are in dispute with that person over the validity of the claim.

The thing here is that this person implied he would prefer to settle that dispute with a baseball bat.

You’re putting so much effort into making snide remarks or scoring points that you are not reading or thinking about what’s said so you keep getting things wrong.

---------


Not ignored, it was the same old same old that has been covered numerous times. Once more you present something without reference to (or addressing) the criticisms that such statements have already attracted.
Also it once more backs up my theories – society is seen as threatening (your home could be invaded by armed people at any time) and the way to deal with this is to use a gun to gain control through threat/intimidation/suppression.

No it has not been covered. It is a situation that is perfectly plausible and happens daily. The odds of it happening to any single person is low however there is that possibility that one person can be you. Using gun ownership to threaten or intimidate would require the person to constantly advertise “I own a gun and am willing to use it at any time”. Just because someone owns a gun because they realize there is always a possibility of being a victim does not constitute threat or intimidation.

Yes it has been covered a number of times - you have presented a number of scenarios where people come home to a burglary or are at home when the house is burgled or are attacked by criminals. In each case your response has always been along the lines of ‘wouldn’t it be good to be armed then’.

The thing is that when examined these scenarios never seem to stand up to scrutiny, that other ways of dealing with the situation often come across as safer and more rational.

Lets look at this one – “it may be a good idea [to have a gun] if you have left the local pub or night club and upon returning home you walk in and suddenly find yourself confronting an armed violent burglar in your bedroom”

So let’s see I come home and find my door’s been forced and the alarm going off and the lights are on. So I ring the police and report a suspected burglary in progress.

But this is not what you would recommend – what you think is a prudent way to act on finding ones door’s been forced, the alarm going off and the lights are on, is to walk casually inside go straight upstairs to get ready for bed?

Does seem very clever does it?

As I’ve pointed out before with your other scenarios, they seem more about fear-mongering and the promoting of gun ownership than they do with reality, for example every criminal is a violent and armed criminal that is out to harm the victim.

---------

You claim loudly that you don’t promote gun ownership but you keep presenting such fear mongering scenarios which anyone wanting to promote firearms would present with the intention of frightening people into getting a gun.

Show me where I have said anyone needs to get a gun? I have always stated that is a personal decision. Again you are just lying and making up facts to suit your POV.

Semantics and again it just highlights your duplicity – as sales courses would inform you it’s not a good idea just to come out with – buy my product – because people are liable to say ‘no’ and that’s the end of it. A better sales technique is to try and convince people of the benefits of a product and if that doesn’t work the handicaps or dangers of not having the product.

That is what you have been doing since the beginning – promoting the benefits of owning a gun, that criminals are less likely to attack you. You have also been pushing the drawbacks of not having a gun, that criminals might kill you.

Basically you are just using a well tested sales technique.

Your very narrow definition of what promotion means would re-categorize most advertising as documentary, which is plainly absurd.

-------

Also it once more backs up my theories – society is seen as threatening (your home could be invaded by armed people at any time) and the way to deal with this is to use a gun to gain control through threat/intimidation/suppression.

Again are you saying that that an armed criminal coming to your home is impossible?

Aliens landing in Parliament Square is possible, the US voting in a communist as president is possible, it is possible a billion chimpanzees typing on a billion keyboards will write the complete works of Shakespeare.

What you and other pro-gunners do is hype the probability so that you convince yourselves (and try to convince others) that it could happen any moment. Your attitude is one of threat, and your response is one of intimidation.

The question is can you see beyond the barrel of the gun at alternatives ways of dealing with crime?

Again I do not say it is “THE” way to deal with crime but only “ONE” way. A point you have yet to show to be wrong.

Oh you say that it is only ‘one’ of the ways.

You just go on about the guns and refuse to talk about any other way.

I’ve been asking for over a year now and you are still refusing to discuss anything but the threat/intimidation/suppression method.

So I think this excuse is running a bit thin.

If you really do have other ways what are they?

----------

We have discussed this at length many times you admit to carrying a gun in an attitude of threat/intimidation/suppression.

Again for this statement to be true it would have to be advertised.

Ok to deal with this and hell Pitt all it highlights is your duplicity.

We have been through this many times and to grossly simply what’s been said, I will try and recap

You claimed guns are a deterrent

I pointed out that for this to work effectively people would have to show they had guns and that they were ready to use them (as you put it advertise the fact)

You said that was silly and that gun owners didn’t have to do that – that if the criminals thought that lots of people had guns they would be to frightened to act because they wouldn’t know how was armed.

In other words gun ownership was meant to threaten, to be intimidating and therefore suppress criminal activity.

Now you seem to be implying that gun ownership isn’t a deterrent to criminal activity.

I mean you cannot have it both ways – that guns are a threat and therefore a deterrent and guns are at the same time not threatening and therefore are useless as a deterrent.

---------

You say that gun owners are just regular people who just want to live their lives in peace. But I’ve heard racists say the same thing. Being ‘regular’ doesn’t mean that people might not hold certain attitudes and views in common.

So are you now saying gun owners are racist?

You refuse to address the issues raised and instead try to score a stupid point.

No I’m not saying gun owners are racists (although some maybe).

I was pointing out that what you said – “gun owners are just regular people who just want to live their lives in peace” – was to all intents and purposes a meaningless statement, I mean you are not likely to say the opposite (‘gun owners are a bunch of weirdoes who just want to cause trouble’) are you?

All you are doing in coming out with such useless homilies is to distractive from the fact you haven’t addressing the issues.

-------

So in fact you are telling me that my assessment is right

Well lets see if guns are a deterrent what are they a deterrent from? Criminals. If the criminals admit that they are indeed a deterrent what do you have a problem with?

But you are now implying they are useless as a deterrent because for that to be true gun ownership would have to be advertised (see above).

---------

This is the problem one moment you say I’m wrong but after examination the next you’re saying I’m right, then later you often come out saying I’m wrong again.

No I have said the exact same thing over and over. You just refuse to see the facts and admit your proposals have indeed been tried and had NO EFFECT whatsoever.

As I say you flip flop whenever it chooses you. One moment you say guns are threatening and therefore a deterrent that suppresses the criminal urge to act. The next you are saying that they are not threatening and therefore no use as a deterrent.

What is it?

If you think guns are a threat that deters criminals it backs up my theories about the attitude of threat/intimidation/suppression.

If you don’t have an attitude of threat/intimidation/suppression and believe guns are not being held as threatening weapons, because they are unthreatening, then how can they be an effective deterrent?

---------

Instead of trying to create a happier, healthier society where people’s lives are more attractive, comfortable and worthwhile. You only seem to believe in the use of threat and intimidation with the aim of suppressing or controlling problems.

Again what a load of BS. You continued lying on this is unbelievable. You are saying gun owners (or me specifically) only want guns and no other programs to combat problems. I have seen no one here saying that.

Again policies not individual programs, once again you fall into semantics and duplicity.

We have been through this at length.

Giving money or support to individual programs does not mean that someone has thought about alternatives to their general belief in the use of threat and intimidation as a means of suppressing or controlling problems.

For example someone might give money to a home for the victims of domestic violence but also believe that arming a battered wife is a good idea (as an example you once gave implied) so she can shot her husband if he tries it again.

Someone might give money to a ‘just say no’ drug program but give little or no thought to the drug problem (as was clear in our conversations on the subject) and think the best way to tackle the symptoms of drug addiction was through threat.

Supporting individual programs does not mean that a person has thought about the social, economic and political causes the symptoms of which such programs deal with.

I mean even when I’ve asked many times you are still very, very, very vague about what you believe are the US’s societal problems and how to deal with them.

All we’ve had from you as to the problems is ‘the me thing’ and ‘hedonism’ which you refuse to discuss. And your policies for dealing with them is ‘help each other’ and ‘teach our kids right from wrong’ and again you refuse to discuss these ideas.

As I’ve pointed out many times, you seem to give a lot of thought to guns within the general attitude of threat but you don’t seem to have much thought to anything else.

-----------

So once again we come back to the same problem – you just repeat the same old stuff which is often little more than a slogan without addressing (or even acknowledging) the criticisms of those statements.

You can criticize all you want but if you have nothing to back up these criticisms they are nothing more than mantra repeated in effort to gain converts.

It is very easy to claim anything is invalid if you dismiss or ignore anything that even hints it might be valid.

This is simply what you do.

My theories are based on conversations, books and articles I’ve read over many years and it had also drawn upon posts on these (and other) forums.

Some of these things are your own statements and I’ve explained on each occasion my reasons for thinking these things support or back up my theories.

When you are unable to refute such explanations you dismiss them as wrong (without explanation) or you just ignore them and pretend they don’t exist, or on the occasions you do contest them it is invariably shown that I’m correct, but then all you do is dismiss or ignore these conclusions.

As I’ve pointed out it is exactly what people like Creationists do, they ignore or dismiss anything that conflicts with their belief and therefore present their view as uncontested fact and truth.

**

Now as I’ve said I came upon my views independently but it seems others that have looked into the subject seem to have come to some of the same conclusions, such as Joan Burbick, the author of the book Gun Show Nation,

“The gun lobby's main argument is that guns protect their owners. They deter criminals and attackers whom - the gun lobby points out helpfully - are often armed themselves. Some surveys estimate there are more than two million 'defensive' uses of firearms each year. But others say that this argument is a shield, using guns as a way of deflecting harder arguments about how crime is caused by economics, poverty and racism. 'The argument over guns redefines a lot of social issues as simple aspects of crime,' said Burbick. She argues that a way to make Americans feel safer from crime is not to arm them with guns but to tackle the causes of crime: urban poverty, joblessness, drug addiction and racial divisions. 'We have to take back the language of human security. To talk about solving those social issues in terms of safety, not just letting the gun lobby control that language,' she said.”
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2190804,00.html

To quote myself “My thesis is that the problem with many American attitudes towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and also ignoring many of the social problems within their society”


**

 

Salmon

This debate has been won by the gun owners countless times within this thread alone.

What exactly is a 'win', what have they 'won' and where exactly do you think this 'winning' took place?

 

so balbus how would you deal with voilent criminals when they come to your house want your things and your wife? say to them ok if that is what makes your life more comfortable sure take my wife?

 

and by the way im not hunting any one but if i catch someone stealing my shit again you can bet ill do anything in my power to put the punk in the hospital!! as i said im a surviver of attempted murder!! have you ever been on the receiving end of a voilent crime? or any crime at all?

 

To you guns are a way of dealing with problems but do you think about other ways of dealing with such problems? how would you deal with a man who out reaches you by 6 or 7 inches plus the foot or so of sharpend steel when hes hitting you in the head?

**

 

Oh god balbus I think you are taking his statements way out of context. I don’t think he is saying he wants to go over to who he suspects and beat him with a bat but rather if he catches someone in the act that is his preferred method of handling the situation.

So you think people should be their own judge, jury and executioner? You think people should take the law into their own hands and for example put in hospital those that they see as wrongdoers? You think that is the best way to tackle crime?

And in what way does this contradict my theory of an attitude, mentality based on threat and intimidation as a means of social control?

--------

you have presented a number of scenarios where people come home to a burglary or are at home when the house is burgled or are attacked by criminals. In each case your response has always been along the lines of ‘wouldn’t it be good to be armed then’.

The thing is that when examined these scenarios never seem to stand up to scrutiny, that other ways of dealing with the situation often come across as safer and more rational.

Such as? Run and hide, yell for help and hope the criminal sticks around long enough for the police to arrive and arrest him instead of him physically attacking you to get away with his spoils?

Again you’re not actually giving a reply to the issues raised just trying to do a bit of immature and silly point scoring. It’s this kind of behaviour that makes me think you are a jerk.

Ok, think about it – you believe that a building has armed and violent criminals inside who will not hesitate to kill you. You don’t know how many there are or what they might be armed with. You are alone and have one gun.
Do you think the most rational approach is to go on in knowing that the advantage in such a situation is with the defender and that now the criminal’s only means of escape is going to be through you?

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

But this is not what you would recommend – what you think is a prudent way to act on finding ones door’s been forced, the alarm going off and the lights are on, is to walk casually inside go straight upstairs to get ready for bed?

Oh so over there the burglars use the Front Door? And turn on the lights? And everyone has a burglar alarm? Come back to the real world and stop living in fantasy land.

The most common form of entrance is through a window or door, in my place the easier would be the door (although even then you’d need a battering ram to get it open). The police here say that one of the most effective deterrents to burglary is an alarm system (and unlike a gun they are effective when you are not around). In urban areas a flashlight is more likely to draw attention and suspicion than simply turning the lights on.

For hints on how to make your home more secure try –
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/cpbtb.htm

-----------

As I’ve pointed out before with your other scenarios, they seem more about fear-mongering and the promoting of gun ownership than they do with reality, for example every criminal is a violent and armed criminal that is out to harm the victim.

Its about reality. No one is saying every criminal is a violent one but there are to many situations happening every day where violent criminals attack victims. Your spin tactics hold no water.

So these scenarios that you make up, are your reality?

But let’s look at the catch phrases,

it seems always to be about ‘violent criminals attacking innocent victims’

There are always too many situations which hypes the idea of numbers,

And is always happening every day, implying it can happen at any moment.

As I’ve mentioned it’s about the hyping of a sense of fear with the intention of increasing gun ownership.

Simple marketing, not an examination of the issues.

---------

That is what you have been doing since the beginning – promoting the benefits of owning a gun, that criminals are less likely to attack you. You have also been pushing the drawbacks of not having a gun, that criminals might kill you.

Lmfao I have never told anyone to gun.

Again as long as you keep the definition of promote down to this narrow interpretation then you can claim you are not.
But as I’ve said that narrow definition would re-categorize most advertising as documentary, which is plainly absurd.
By any normal definition you’ve been promoting guns all along.

I guess if I state the facts as happens in the real world I am trying to get everyone to get a gun.

That’s exactly what an advertiser wants – they try and convince the punter that they are not trying to sell them something they are ‘just stating the facts’.

- I’m not saying you need a gun but did you know that if you don’t have one you could very likely be killed by violent criminals –
- I’m not saying you need these disinfectant wipes but did you know that if you don’t have them you children could get sick from all the germs in your house.

It does not hold water you moron. Everything I have stated about the deterrent effects of gun ownership is well documented and you have been shown that.

What doesn’t hold water? That you are promoting guns as a means of tackling crime? But you follow this with another variation of your advertising slogan – gun ownership tackles crime.

As to the deterrent effects of gun ownership you’ve stated some opinions that I’ve countered and criticised. And although these counter arguments and criticisms have been often repeated I’m still waiting for them to be addressed. The thing is that since it is obvious by now you are not interested in an honest debate of the issues (preferring point scoring and snide remarks) I’m resigned to the possibility they will never be addressed.

--------

You just go on about the guns and refuse to talk about any other way.

Another lie. I have talked about programs I am involved in. What have you said you were involved in?

No you have mentioned programs, but you have rather consistently refused to discuss them. This goes back to pages 2 or 3 of the ‘Gun ownership is MAD?’
well over a year ago and has been consistent throughout our conversations.
People can go back and look if they want.

----------

I mean you cannot have it both ways – that guns are a threat and therefore a deterrent and guns are at the same time not threatening and therefore are useless as a deterrent.

The simple fact that it is common knowledge people are allowed to have guns for protection is in itself a deterrent.

So if the criminals think that lots of people have guns they are frightened to act because they wouldn’t know who is armed. In other words gun ownership is meant to threaten, to be intimidating and therefore suppress criminal activity.

- guns are a threat and therefore a deterrent –

This policy of deterrent through threat would therefore be diminished if it was known who was or wasn’t armed.

---------

All you are doing in coming out with such useless homilies is to distractive from the fact you haven’t addressing the issues.

Ther is no distraction I can show you the facts that most (in the 90+ percentile) gun owners are silent about the fact and never have used a gun in any threatening manner. The burden is on you to prove what you are stating which you have yet to do on anything you have said.

But as you have explained gun owners don’t have to actually use or show their guns to be part of the policy of threat – “The simple fact that it is common knowledge people are allowed to have guns for protection is in itself a deterrent”

As pointed out before, it is actually you who very often backs up what I’m saying.

---------

But you are now implying they are useless as a deterrent because for that to be true gun ownership would have to be advertised (see above).

Yes see above it is very clear to everyone without a simple and closed mind.

Things would be a lot clearer if you didn’t keep contradicting yourself

You said that guns are not about threat or intimidation because for

“gun ownership to threaten or intimidate would require the person to constantly advertise “I own a gun and am willing to use it at any time””

So for guns to be about threat and intimidation it would have to be common knowledge that people were allowed to have guns for protection.

“The simple fact that it is common knowledge people are allowed to have guns for protection is in itself a deterrent”

So because of this knowledge criminals feel so threatened they are deterred from crime.

So in your view gun ownership is about threat and intimidation?

Which is it?

-------

If you don’t have an attitude of threat/intimidation/suppression and believe guns are not being held as threatening weapons, because they are unthreatening, then how can they be an effective deterrent?

It has all been explained over and over there is no duplicity in my statements only your attempts to spin what is said.

No spin, I just find your contradictions and your seeming ability to change your views to suite the argument a little odd.

-------

Again policies not individual programs, once again you fall into semantics and duplicity.

We have been through this at length.

Yes we have. There is no government policy that will change a damn thing.

OH Thank you Pitt

Once more you back up my theories

You can’t think of anything realistic to do, but you haven’t actually given it much thought, so in your mind very little can be done so that only leaves threat and intimidation to suppress and control the problems.

-------

For example someone might give money to a home for the victims of domestic violence but also believe that arming a battered wife is a good idea (as an example you once gave implied) so she can shot her husband if he tries it again.

Both are good ideas especially if there is a continuing threat against the woman. There are many hundreds of example where this would apply.

Oh and again you back me up.

-------

I mean even when I’ve asked many times you are still very, very, very vague about what you believe are the US’s societal problems and how to deal with them.

I have described what I think the basic problems are. You on the other hand want to dismiss them as either simplistic or inconsequential and would rather instead blame something else. (the availability of guns)

No you haven’t exactly described, you have stated that you think ‘hedonism’ and the ‘me thing’ is part of it but you’ve refuse to discuss these things. I’ve pointed to many social, economic and political factors and I’ve explained often at some length what policies I’d pursue and why. But you don’t even seem that interested in discussions of those. Instead you keep returning to guns and the way they can tackle problems.

-------

All we’ve had from you as to the problems is ‘the me thing’ and ‘hedonism’ which you refuse to discuss. And your policies for dealing with them is ‘help each other’ and ‘teach our kids right from wrong’ and again you refuse to discuss these ideas.

These basic problems are very simple and yet there is no “policy” whatsoever that can remedy these problems.

Again – I don’t think you’ve given them much though, I mean you seem utterly unable to discuss them so how do you know nothing can be done?

Again this just seems to back up my theories about many pro-gunners ignoring social issues in the belief that threat and intimidation are the best way to deal with things.

--------

My theories are based on conversations, books and articles I’ve read over many years and it had also drawn upon posts on these (and other) forums.

Yet when confronted and countered by facts gathered from research by professionals you just ignore it.

But just look above time and again you seem to back up my theories.

As to your supposed ‘facts’ as shown they are very often just opinions that you can only claim are ‘facts’ by dismissing or ignoring anything that contradicts them.

--------

She argues that a way to make Americans feel safer from crime is not to arm them with guns but to tackle the causes of crime: urban poverty, joblessness, drug addiction and racial divisions. 'We have to take back the language of human security.

Very smart statement. Which is what I have been saying from the very start. Gun availability has nothing to do with the causes of crime and violence. So why is it you want to attack my right to own a gun. Quit spouting nonsense and concentrate on the real problems.

Oh again the contradiction

You think it smart to have policies to tackle societal problems such as: “urban poverty, joblessness, drug addiction and racial divisions”

But you don’t seem to think there are any policies that can help, you’ve already said that you think “There is no government policy that will change a damn thing” in relation to societal problems and even more clearly that “there is no “policy” whatsoever that can remedy” the things you see as the cause of societal problems.

You do on the other hand seem to think that guns are a way of keeping a lid on any problems such as crime that might arise from such things as “urban poverty, joblessness, drug addiction and racial divisions”

Again you seem to back up my theories.

-------

To quote myself “My thesis is that the problem with many American attitudes towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and also ignoring many of the social problems within their society”

Another pasted repetition of the same nonsense which you have yet to show anything in evidence to back up this “theory” of yours.

What can I say read the above – you are continually making statements that seem to back up my theories.


**

 

Flmkpr

so balbus how would you deal with voilent criminals when they come to your house want your things and your wife? say to them ok if that is what makes your life more comfortable sure take my wife?

“They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of suppression.
This attitude can lead to a near paranoidic outlook were everything and everyone is seen a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas”

To you it is not ‘if’ or ‘imagine’ but ‘when’ – for you there is an inevitability that violent criminals will come to your, mine or anyone’s house. And these vile criminals will not just want our goods they will also demand our wives.
You sleep with a load shotgun at your side.

I repeat – “This attitude can lead to a near paranoidic outlook”

Thing is that I don’t live in a Mad Max movie, I live in what is on the whole a rather civilized and friendly country with a murder rate lower than many US cities.

**

and by the way im not hunting any one but if i catch someone stealing my shit again you can bet ill do anything in my power to put the punk in the hospital!!

So you think of yourself as ‘the law’ – judge, jury and seemingly under your judicial system torturer as well.
As I’ve said threat/intimidation/suppression

have you ever been on the receiving end of a voilent crime? or any crime at all?

I’ve been ‘mugged’ twice. One mugger ran off when I put up resistance (he was unarmed) and the other (armed with a knife) I got chatting to and he decided to sit down and have a coffee with me instead.
I’ve had my home burgled once and that was in 1992, nothing much was stolen and I was out at the time.

As I’ve said I travelled for ten years as a migrant worker/labourer and have mixed with the law abiding and others. I’ve also lived in some of the rougher tougher areas of a number of cities; one estate I lived on in London supposedly had the highest number of stabbings in the UK although I found it a friendly place myself.

To you guns are a way of dealing with problems but do you think about other ways of dealing with such problems? how would you deal with a man who out reaches you by 6 or 7 inches plus the foot or so of sharpend steel when hes hitting you in the head?

Don’t know I’ve never had it happen to me.

I have had the mugger with a knife, a drunk who put a loaded shotgun to my head and someone that mistakenly thinking I was a thief set about me with truncheon.

On all three occasions reaching for, or using a gun, would have very likely made bad situations worse.

**

 

If I found someone trying to steal from me or others I’d likely try and stop it and if possible detain the thief. I’d then likely call the police or relevant authority; I would not try and hospitalize the thief with a baseball bat. That is what you seem to be condoning.

Anyway this again seems to indicate an attitude of threat/intimidation/suppression.

--------

Ok, think about it – you believe that a building has armed and violent criminals inside who will not hesitate to kill you. You don’t know how many there are or what they might be armed with. You are alone and have one gun.
Do you think the most rational approach is to go on in knowing that the advantage in such a situation is with the defender and that now the criminal’s only means of escape is going to be through you?

No that would not be the prudent thing to do in that scenario. No one is talking about knowingly walking into a crime in progress. This is just another instance of you spinning the truth. Unknowingly stumbling into a crime and deliberately walking into one is two completely different scenarios and you know that but wish to ignore what does not fit into your fantasy world.

Again this just highlights your duplicity and you juvenile predilection to point scoring.

I said that if I came back home and found my door had been forced, the alarm going off and the lights on, I would ring the police and report a suspected burglary in progress.

Your snide and rather sarcastic rely to this was that I “Run and hide” and “yell for help” presumable to try and indicate I’m some type of frightened coward.

But when it’s actually put to what you would do, it turns out that in the same situation you would do the same as me, so are you some type of frightened coward, no, we are just been prudent.

This is why I think you’re acting like a jerk you’re more interested in been a smart arse than been truthful.

**

As to unknowingly walking into a crime we have been through that many times – if you walk into something unknowingly you are by definition unprepared, so unless an armed person walks around continually with the gun out, safety off and ‘scoping’ anyone that comes near, it is very likely the advantage will be with the person committing the crime rather than the person walking into it, even if armed.

So let’s examine your scenario the way you seemed to want it –

You have a completely unsecured house and therefore have no clue that it has been burgled. The burglar has got in he has disturbed nothing, not tried to unhook the dvd or rummage in doors, nothing to indicate they are there (all in the dark). They have gone up stairs and gone to your bedroom.
You come in, unaware that a violent and armed criminal is in the house. Therefore you make the usual noise in entering and turn on the lights. Thereby alerting the criminal in you bedroom to your presence who gets his gun out ready for action.
You go upstairs turn the hall light on, open the bedroom door, there you are silhouetted in the doorframe a perfect target, you see the criminal for the first time and being armed you go for your gun. The criminal sees you reaching and suspecting a gun shoots first.

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

The most common form of entrance is through a window or door, in my place the easier would be the door (although even then you’d need a battering ram to get it open). The police here say that one of the most effective deterrents to burglary is an alarm system (and unlike a gun they are effective when you are not around). In urban areas a flashlight is more likely to draw attention and suspicion than simply turning the lights on.

Your right by god they do use windows and doors instead of cutting through the wall of the house, the problem is they use the ones that are out of sight most of the time. Do you walk around your house to see if all the doors and windows are still secure before entering your own home?

With my house you would know as soon as the door was open, if not before.

Also if you have an alarm system, that’ll pick up something like that. Plus motion sensor lights are good to stop people getting near unseen or allowing them ‘out of sight’ areas.

I could go one.

Again your reply seem to be more about sneering than thought

-------

By any normal definition you’ve been promoting guns all along.

I have been promoting the RIGHT to own a gun there is a difference and you know it. Again another attempt to spin the truth.

Oh I know the difference, but the problem is that for you the line is blurred to the point of non-existence and I think you know that.

The way you choose to ‘defend’ gun ownership is often a matter of trying to convince people that they need them or should have them, which is promoting gun ownership.

---------

What doesn’t hold water? That you are promoting guns as a means of tackling crime? But you follow this with another variation of your advertising slogan – gun ownership tackles crime.

Gun ownership DETERS crime which is what I have said.

And you believe this because the threat that you see guns posing to criminals intimidates them into not acting and so suppresses the problem of crime.

This to me is obvious and I’ve found it strange that you have been denying it so vocally for such a long time.

So as I’ve said there is this attitude of threat/intimidation/suppression
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3438944&postcount=8

But the second part of this is theory is that many pro-gunners don’t seem to be able to look beyond this (to look beyond the barrel of the gun) and think of other ways of dealing with societies problems.

**

 

I have stated this all along and provided studies backing this statement up. You have done NOTHING to counter these studies. Instead you want to lie about what is being said.

You have expressed the opinion that guns are a good deterrent to crime but this viewpoint has been challenged and although you keep repeating this opinion you seem to be refusing to address the counter arguments and criticisms of it, even when these have been repeated my times. You do this by unilaterally declaring that such counter arguments and criticisms are simply invalid without actually explaining why.

It is easy to claim anything ‘fact’ if you declare anything that casts doubt on it invalid, it’s just what people like Creationists do.

Basically the problem is that gun ownership doesn’t seem to have a significant impact on normal crime levels but does seem to have caused (in the US) a huge increase in gun related crime. To me this is due to the easy availability of guns and a seeming tendency to use them in crime amongst Americans which I think is related to a prevalent culture of threat/intimidation/suppression which sees the threat or use of violence as a legitimate means of solving problems.

---------

So if the criminals think that lots of people have guns they are frightened to act because they wouldn’t know who is armed. In other words gun ownership is meant to threaten, to be intimidating and therefore suppress criminal activity.

Jails are meant to threaten and intimidate criminals. If they get caught they go to prison. Should we just tear down all the prisons? If there were no jails or cops no one would be afraid to do whatever they please.

Once again you prefer to make fatuous comments than examining the points raised.

And anyway we have been through this before a number of times.

“As I’ve said many Americans attitude toward guns is just one aspect of a more general attitude of intimidation in US society.

For example the US has the largest prison populations in the world (686 per 100,000) and has one of the highest execution rates in the world (in the company of such countries as China, Iran, Pakistan and now Iraq). It is also about zero tolerance and the three strike rules.

(Switzerland prison population is 83 per 100,000, England and Wales 148 per 100,000. Both countries do not have the death penalty)

To me this seems more about ruling through intimidation and the fear of violence (especially since US prisons are often described as extremely brutal especially compared with those in the UK and Switzerland, - Amnesty International)”
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3368136&postcount=203

----------

As pointed out before, it is actually you who very often backs up what I’m saying.

So get rid of what you consider instruments of threats and intimidation. Lets just get rid of all of them including jails and cops.

Again you’re acting like a jerk, making snide puerile asides rather than looking at the points raised.

We’ve been over this before do you remember the ‘carrot and stick’ sequence of posts all about benefits and loss?

To quote –

“I’ve never said I’m opposed to the rule of law (as long as those laws benefit society) and many laws it is true are sticks.

I hope that one day people might not need laws but I don’t think that is going to happen any time soon so I see them basically as necessary evils.

But I don’t cheer when I see such laws, I’m sad that they seem necessary. What I then do is try and work out why they seem necessary in the hope that the things that seem to make them necessary can be alleviated and the laws lessened (even removed).

This is the difference I see between my own views and those of an attitude of threat and intimidation as outlined in my theories.

For example when I presented my ‘tough’ laws you cheered “Bravo!!!”, more moderate laws aimed at keeping gun out of the hands of criminals you seem less enthusiastic about (or are hostile) and when asked to present alternative ideas that are about dealing with problems rather than just suppressing them or dealing with the symptoms you seem to become vague and directionless.

I’ve presented a few ideas, they’re aimed at making peoples lives more attractive, comfortable and worthwhile, which is the carrot, while I still feel that for the time being we may still need a stick, tough laws, but I hope that in time they would not be so necessary.

You talk of getting tough and coming down hard, which is the stick, but what about the carrot, what social, economic or even political changes are you offering to alleviate the problems that can be behind the crimes?”

In the same way I see prisons as a necessary evil and last resort after other options have been looked at. They should be places not just of suppression but of rehabilitation and corrective education.
But the thing is that for me it is not about tearing down prisons but about trying to create a society where the fewest people turn to crime and therefore end up in prison.

The problem, as I’ve said many times, is that you seem very reluctant to discuss anything but the ideas of threat, intimidation and suppression.

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

 

Which is it?

It is what I have stated hundreds of times. There is no contradiction on my part only your varying definition of what constitutes threat and intimidation based on who is saying it.

So which is it, I’m sure I’m not the only one that noticed you didn’t actually say?

-------

No spin, I just find your contradictions and your seeming ability to change your views to suite the argument a little odd.

Lol everyone knows your take on this is skewed, You interchange the terms at will.

Interchange what terms? Why is it skewed?

--------

Ok so tell me what policy has changed the attitudes and real world effects of the people. Did the drug policy work? Did Prohibition work?

Enfranchisement
Racism
Gays
Women’s rights
Health
Mental health
Labour practices
Social security
Welfare

As to the drug and alcohol prohibition policies we have covered that before (do you listen to anything that anyone else says or do you just ignore anything that doesn’t fit in with how you think?)

In these instances it is/was about threat and intimidation being used to suppress the adverse symptoms associated with a product without dealing with the issues that gave rise to the symptoms.

Again this just shows your lack of thought on these issues and your seeming inability to get beyond the threat mentality, to see beyond the barrel of the gun.

As I’ve said your stance seems to back up my theories.

--------

You have yet to show how they are both not good ideas.

This wasn’t about them being good ideas (although arming people in a highly charged emotional state doesn’t seems the best way of dealing with such situations as spousal abuse)

This was about being able to support individual programs (especially those that only deal with the symptoms) while also having a threat/intimidation/suppression mentality.

Again your reply just seems to back up that view.

--------

No you haven’t exactly described, you have stated that you think ‘hedonism’ and the ‘me thing’ is part of it but you’ve refuse to discuss these things. I’ve pointed to many social, economic and political factors and I’ve explained often at some length what policies I’d pursue and why. But you don’t even seem that interested in discussions of those. Instead you keep returning to guns and the way they can tackle problems.

Lol When I tried to talk about what I thought the problems were you were never satisfied bet continued to ask “But Why” “But Why” “But Why” “But Why” you would not discuss the general problems but just wanted to continue to disrupt the flow and drill down to ONE ROOT CAUSE. There is no one root cause but many requiring a many faceted approach.

This is just your excuse for not having a debate and it wearing a bit thin.

You can spend over a year going into the minutia of the arguments for having gun ownership as a way of tackling societal problems but ask you to look at alternative methods and views on tackling problems and you clam up claiming that you haven’t the time or inclination to get into such detail, that you own “two seperate businesses one of which forces me to travel on a regular basis” that limits the time you have to look into such things.

But that excuse just doesn’t stand up any more because you seem very willing to spend the time to drill down in detail when it’s about defending gun ownership (although even then when things don’t seem to stack up in your favour you just refuse to debate any further).

**

The ‘ONE ROOT CAUSE’ jibe is just another snide remark that you sneer whenever this subject gets raised and for the umpteenth time and (as I’m sure you already know) I’ll give you the same reply I don’t believe there is one root cause there are many social, economic and political factors involved.

To take the example you’ve given

“For instance when I stated something about spousal abuse you kept asking but why did she get beat up type questions. Individual reasons are pointless when it comes to this problem”

My reasons for asking what factors you thought were associated with such violence was to see if you had given it much thought not only to the causes but to ways of lessening those causes.

You didn’t seem to be that interested, preferring to concentrate on guns and later putting forward your view that introducing guns into the equation was a way to deal with such things (see above).

But there are some well established factors associated with such violence and ways to try and limit it.

To begin many people believe that threat and intimidation are the best way of controlling events around them, that the threat or use of violence can ‘solve’ problems and they bring this mentality to bare in their relationships. Also stress can be a factor often related to financial matters or work and this can bring about substance abuse as can depression.
Such things can be helped by free counselling and medical help (as part of a policy of universal healthcare) and through education (as part of a policy of child and adult education). By encouraging a good ‘work/life balance (labour laws) and by raising peoples quality of life (environmental and housing policies) through tax breaks for those in difficulty (tax policy) and welfare by giving financial help (welfare policy) this can also help with the problem of dependency, were partners feel they cannot leave an abuser because they have no income or savings, which can fit in with the provision of subsidized or free childcare (education, welfare policies) so single parents can get into work and been mostly women this is related to anti-discrimination laws (labour policy)…

And so on and so on - it’s what’s called a holistic approach (I think you might have heard of it)

**

 

All we’ve had from you as to the problems is ‘the me thing’ and ‘hedonism’ which you refuse to discuss. And your policies for dealing with them is ‘help each other’ and ‘teach our kids right from wrong’ and again you refuse to discuss these ideas.

You want a “policy” laid out to address such things and I have told you there is no policy that will change this. It will have to encompass social change which is something that cannot be forced.

You see your mentality?

To you it would have be about being forced, presumably by threat or intimidation, but why?

What about persuasion? (educational policies) Trying to educate people to move away from the idea that a person’s social status is based on their material possessions and by the promotion of communal rather than individual ideologies.

While at the same time regulating the excesses of the consumerist society e.g. advertising aided at children (regulatory policies).

But I’ve mentioned and explained this all before (do read anything I type?)

Anyway this idea that it can’t be done and that therefore all that’s left is threat and intimidation as a means of suppressing the symptoms of these problems again just seems to back up my theories.

-------

But just look above time and again you seem to back up my theories.

And David Berkowitz really believed a dog told him to kill. Its all in your mind balbus all in your mind.

I’ve given you explanations of why I think you back up my theories.

You don’t explaining why you think your comments don’t back up my theories all you do is deny it without explanation.

Instead all you seem willing to do is make rather dumb asides which just make you come across as a jerk.

--------

You think it smart to have policies to tackle societal problems such as: “urban poverty, joblessness, drug addiction and racial divisions”

Does she talk about creating government policies or “tackle the causes”?

She says –

“How much easier it is to believe in the politics of the gun and to fight for our right to be armed, than to step in front of the gun and build social and civil institutions that sustain our society and promote economic and political justice? The gun is ultimately a shortcut, a strategy to sidestep consent. Our will to engage in democracy is what is at stake. The question remains: Can we put aside the lethal politics of the gun and take up again the challenge of democracy?”

-------

What can I say read the above – you are continually making statements that seem to back up my theories.

Remember david Berkowitz? Keep repeating “Its all in my mind” “Its all in my mind” “Its all in my mind” “Its all in my mind” “Its all in my mind” “Its all in my mind”

Do you notice you don’t actually refute what I’ve said?


**

Thing is that I don’t live in a Mad Max movie, I live in what is on the whole a rather civilized and friendly country with a murder rate lower than many US cities.

While violent crime surpasses even the largest US cities.

No, in your opinion violent crime surpasses even the largest US cities, but that opinion has been challenged and although you keep repeating this opinion you seem to be refusing to address the counter arguments and criticisms of it, even when these have been repeated my times.

As I’ve pointed out before

-------

one estate I lived on in London supposedly had the highest number of stabbings in the UK although I found it a friendly place myself.

Wearing blinders and being ignorant about what is really going on around you must be wonderful. So I guess whoever said it “had the highest number of stabbings in the UK” was just wrong because St. Balbus said so?

I lived there and I’m giving you my opinion, I had a number of friends on the estate and they also found it a reasonable place to live. Did you live there and can therefore give an alternative viewpoint?

Again you seem much more interested in making snide, smart arse comments than you do in actual debate.

**

 

ok balbus this thread has been going on for a long time, and you keep saying that pitt has not adresswd the issuse that you bring up all well and good!! so tell me what are you going to do when someone is hitting you whith a sharpend peice of steel? simple question, i know that the answer is not so simple! but id like you to answer it anyway can you find the time to do that????

 

apparently you dont have a problem with guns you have a problem with hand guns! so lets keep the difference apparent!! its like saying drugs should be irradicated, whitch will never happen! pepole have been useing them from time immorable, but peepole seem to want to put it all into the same caeagory, so are you talking about guns, in genral? or hand guns? and ya that moose on the dancefloor could realy hurt pepole! or feed those that are hungry!a full grown bull can take your bmw. for a ride that youll never forget, or provide about 600lbs. of meat! witch would reduce the crime rate signifantly for about a WEEK!

 

To you guns are a way of dealing with problems but do you think about other ways of dealing with such problems?
absolutly!
how would you deal with a man who out reaches you by 6 or 7 inches plus the foot or so of sharpend steel when hes hitting you in the head? i
i cant see where youv answerd this question!
threat/ intimidation/suppression] sounds like crime/punishment to me!
oops pitt already addressed that better than me i might add, thanks pitt! lol
Jails are meant to threaten and intimidate criminals. If they get caught they go to prison. Should we just tear down all the prisons? If there were no jails or cops no one would be afraid to do whatever they please.

 

For those that are in favor of gun control/bans based on the logic that more guns = more violence, how do you explain the situation in Switzerland?

Switzerland, where every able bodied man of age is legally REQUIRED to keep an automatic assault rifle in their home yet they don't seem to have any problems with random acts of violence.

 

im sure this is due to many factors! a lot of them i think we ALL can agree are social, economic, cultural and the like but it just might include the fact that everybody is armed, i had an english teacher in highschool who asked each of his classes that question ( would a fully armed sociaty be a more polite scociety?

 

To ban firearms, all firearms, would remove a unique form of art from society. I know most people don't think of a rifle or handgun as art, and most are not, but there are still those who produce, by hand, some of the most beautiful and inspired works I have seen. I guess the saying best used here is, "See the forest for the trees".

..not to mention the security concerns of taking firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens, which would only leave them in the hands of those who do not care about law in the first place.

 

emm, not sure of the art thing in this conversation but ya some firearms are works of art the manufacturing of firearms may be an artform but i think for this particular thread your reaching! was your dad,grandad a collector?