Guncrazy USA

The point I'm trying to make is that I've heard several people on this thread say things like "allowing more guns into the population is only going to cause more death and destruction!".

Well here you have an example of a country where guns are not only plentiful, they're REQUIRED...and they're as safe as can be.

Yes, I know the U.S. has a different culture but still that seems to be proof enough to me that the availability of guns is NOT the problem (unless the guns are NOT available to law abiding citizens).

Also as someone pointed out, guns were extremely easy to get during the 60's and 70's and shootings were much less common than they are today, with all the gun control laws in effect.

 

In many ways, yes, the manufacturing of said weapons takes more patience, skill and time than I am capable of, but that wasn't what I was going for. The firearms themselves, after completed, are beautiful in ever sense of the word. From the walnut used for their stocks to the engravings so carefully done, often taking hundreds of hours, that if viewed by themselves would look like a fine painting. I do not consider most weapons art, I think of them as just that, weapons. But the special ones..they really are.
Neither my dad nor grandparents were collectors, but I aspire to be. I don't have the finances necessary at the moment, but I hope to one day. Although, my Austrian heritage may have something to do with my love of fine firearms...

The firearms debate will always stand, one way or another, and for good reason. No benefit can be had from free ownership of fully-automatic, or cheaply made weapons simply for the sake of being one, but an all out ban, or super tight restriction will result in only more problems.

 

can i just call you savage? i was agreeing whith you and you make a good point! i was just commenting on the poss. of why! witch some of witch could be i mentiond could be contributing factors of why that works there, im glad you btought it up! if i remember correctly, when a swiss man becomes of age he is also requird to serve in some degree! whitch i have no problem with! im glad you enterd this disscussion balbus and pitt were getting to the point that they might just kill us with repition! so i think that any one over 12 to 16 should already know keep your hands off of outher pepoles stuff or risk the consoquenses, balbus wants to portray me as somthing im not! certainly there are things we must do as a society to combat crime and the reasons for it but on an induvidual basis we have a right and a duety to protect ourselves and those under our care! but will a completly armed society be a more polite sociaty? was what i was trying to get at in response to your post and i think that just may be the case! peace!

 

Pitt

Your scenarios are fictions that never seem to stand up to examination and when you presented a ‘real life’ burglary it turned out to be a domestic dispute about an ex-girlfriend a kid that turned violent and in which the home owner voluntarily opened the door.

**

I’m not promoting an outright ban

**

“You have shown nothing to the contrary”. – Yes I have, and you even agreed

**

So where is your countering data to the data I have provided time after time? – Several places what data are you talking about?

**

“If you have nothing to provide it is YOU that are just claiming your OPINION as fact.” – I’ve always said my theories are just theories, that my opinions are just opinions but I have explained why I think those theories and opinions are valid. You only seem to dismiss things I present as invalid without explanation except for contending that what you believe in is ‘fact’ and the ‘truth’

**

Now you continue to promote this idea that gun availability causes an increase in crime. I have shown studies that completely negate this theory of yours yet you continue to promote it.

You have shown studies that have expressed opinions based on an interpretation of data that I’ve shown can be interpreted differently.
All you do is claim that what you believe is ‘fact’ which ‘completely negates’ what I present and therefore dismiss it without addressing it.

**

I would call someone who refuses to see the facts when they are presented to them as a “fanatic”.

“the facts” – you mean your belief

Yes I see, in your world, the person that believes his opinions are ‘facts’ that cannot be disputed isn’t a ‘fanatic’ and the person that is happy to admit that his ideas are opinions and is willing to discuss them is a fanatic.

In your world up is down and left is right.

(Yes and that was sarcasm)

**

Guns are a deterrent and this has been proven by criminal interviews. –

Not proven, it is only your opinion that this shows the positive deterrent value of guns, but -

The criminals said they would prefer to go against an unarmed rather than an armed person

You and I have already said that for guns to be deterrent in such a way the guns would need to be on out and ready to use at all times as you put it ‘advertised’.

Otherwise the criminal would not know if the person he was about to rob was armed or not.

So how does the criminal know in advance who is armed and who isn’t?

You say that just knowing people could be armed is the deterrent.

But if the person is going to commit a crime, wouldn’t he do the crime in such a way as to not get the gun involved (e.g. burglary when the property is empty) or get a gun and have it out first, in an effort to limit the gun owner’s advantage?

So in many cases guns will be either useless or likely to increase gun crime.

**

Just as jails are a deterrent, just as police are a deterrent. They all work in your opinion by “threat and intimidation” yet you only promote banning one of them.

Again it doesn’t matter how many times I say something and explain it if it isn’t what you want to hear you ignore it.

1) I’ve not been promoting an outright ban.
2) I’m not against punishment but I’m not just for punishment.

**

Which points to nothing more than a societal/cultural difference and has nothing to do with gun availability.

Again you have just ignored months of posts.

societal/cultural difference

But as pointed out many times and explained at length the attitude of threat and intimidation (a societal and cultural thing) which seems to be very prevalent in American society means that people much more readily seem to see guns as a way of solving problems (defending themselves but also for attacking others, getting money or goods, dealing with relatives or family, getting even, etc).

**

And once again you ignore the intent of the post.

What intent?

Your rely was the sarcastic - Lets just get rid of all of them including jails and cops”

It was either sarcasm or really dumb, I mean we’ve been through my views on the law and punishment hundreds of times so you must have known what I’d say.

**

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

Yeah yeah once again both sides promoting the same thing yet only your side is the right one. Sounds more and more like organized religion. Live and act a certain way so you may get a “reward”.

You’re just ignoring what’s being said.

I explain a policy of carrots and sticks

You just want the sticks

So in your mind because sticks is in ‘carrots and sticks’ our views are exactly the same.

Pitt not for the first time – WHAT ABOUT THE CARROTS –

**

For example when I presented my ‘tough’ laws you cheered “Bravo!!!”,

Yes I remember, it was the same laws when I promote you say I am threatening and intimidating.

Carrots and sticks

Someone that only thinks in terms of sticks is displaying an attitude of threat and intimidation

It’s not exactly hard to understand.

**

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.

Ahhh so it’s ok to use a stick as long as you give then a carrot afterwards. Kind of like training a dog to do tricks huh?

As I’ve said this is why you come across as a jerk you prefer to make wise arse remarks than debate honestly.

You either ignore what’s said and repeat stuff that been dealt with many times over or you come out with some puerile piece of shit.

**

I have said through hundreds of pages. It is your definition of what constitutes threat and intimidation that changed.

You’re still not saying are you?

So is a guns deterrent value based on its ability to intimidate through its capacity to threaten injury or death - or not?

If yes it is an instrument of threat and intimidation

If not and it has no ability to threaten then what use has it got at a deterrent?

**

Ahh so laws on racism has changed the way people really think about other races?
Or gays or any of the others you mentioned.

What is your point?

**

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 you imply you can have only one or the other when in fact you have admitted you could do both. This shows nothing but you willingness to spin the topic wherever you can to fit your POV.

Again you just don’t take any notice of anything that doesn’t fit in with what you thinking – As I’ve said your methodology is just so close to religious fundamentalism.

Individual programs (especially those that only deal with the symptoms) are not policies aimed at addressing the causes.

My point has been that those with marked attitudes of threat/intimidation/suppression are likely to give little thought to such things or believe nothing much can be done about them.

**

it’s what’s called a holistic approach

all of which is fine and dandy. However the problem is you want to include programs (gun bans/restrictions) which has proven to have no effect on these problems. The time and resources would be better spent addressing these problems instead of pushing for useless gun bans/restrictions.

Oh Pitt once again you’re just ignoring what been explained multiple times

My point has been that those with marked attitudes of threat/intimidation/suppression do seem to give far more time, effort and attention into protecting what they see as a major plank of the threat mentality –gun ownership.

Again you seem to be backing up my thesis.

**

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.

Persuasion yes, education yes, setting examples yes, each will have an impact but change by force will not work. Again you are not listening.

I’m listening and trying to understand but you’re being very cryptic rather than clear. You said that people couldn’t be forced away from such things as ‘the me thing’, hedonism and materialism. I’ve set out some ideas and you’ve come back with – “change by force will not work” – what do you mean?

**

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

Lmao To you this all makes sense and backs up your “theory” but to no one else. I guess you were the only one to miss the intent of that post.

What intent was that?

You said – “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””

As I’ve said I keep explaining why many of your statements seem to back up my theories but you just deny it without explanation or addressing what said.

Which is basically what you do when you don’t have an answer.

**

You have been shown the stats, reports and conclusions yet you still deny the fact.

You have shown me stats and reports and I’ve given you my interpretation of them but since those interpretations do not fit in with what you believe to be ‘fact’ and the ‘truth’ you ignoring them.

**

Oh Pitt

If you are just going to ignore anything that contradicts what you believe to be true, then you are always going to be able to say you are right.

However what is clear from the above is that you do seem to have an attitude of threat/intimidation/suppression

You don’t seem to have given much thought about societal problems or ways to deal with them

But you do give a lot of thought to gun ownership and in thinking up ways to deal with anything you see as even the remotest threat to it.

In other words you back up my views on this subject.

If you have anything that refutes this opinion please present it (but don’t just repeat things that have already been dealt with).

**

 

so tell me what are you going to do when someone is hitting you whith a sharpend peice of steel?

When someone is hitting me, again is this an inevitable occurrence?

Thing is that this has never happened to me and I cannot think of the circumstances where it would.

This is like asking what I would do if a meteor fell to earth or bird flu broke out, I don’t know.

**

Look man you clearly are not interested in debate since you clearly haven’t read the threads involved – for me it is not so much the guns but the attitude that justifies gun ownership and that this attitude seem to see threat and intimidation (including guns) as a way of dealing with and also ignoring many of the social, economic and cultural problems within their society.

As to comparison with other societies this has been covered at length and as pointed out above (and not for the first time) the attitude of threat and intimidation which seems to be very prevalent in American society means that people much more readily seem to see guns as a way of solving problems (defending themselves but also for attacking others, getting money or goods, dealing with relatives or family, getting even, etc). In such a society with such a prevalent attitude the easy availability of guns likely to would have a major effect.

My view is holistic involving education, social and economic balancing and regulation of which only a small part of which would involve guns.

But this is why I think the US is gun crazy many Americans don’t seem to give much time or effort in thinking about ways to improve their society but even propose rather mild regulation on guns and many turn up running around like Chicken Little claiming the sky’s would fall in.

**

 

Yo Pitt

You choose an example of a gun being used to ‘foil’ an armed burglary, but in fact when it was looked at it wasn’t.

Now I’m not saying that anyone should be attacked, but what was this about what involvement was the kid or girlfriend in it, what was the dispute, could it have been resolved in another way, are there lessons to be learnt to stop such confrontations happening in the future? (And as mentioned weapons are not the best things to introduce into a emotional domestic dispute).

The thing is that you don’t seem to care about the incident or what could be learnt from it (apart from a gun was used)

You seem to think why or try and seek understanding, in an effort to try and reduce the possibilities of other such occurrences happening. No to you it is just an example of a gun been used in a ‘good way’ and so that’s all you seemed to be interested in.

That is your mentality, that is your attitude and again this backs up my theories.

(I pop into the website you mentioned from time to time and it has struck me just how many of the reports involve domestic disputes between family or ex-partners or involve substance abuse in one form or another)

-----

I’m not promoting an outright ban

I have shown you where your proposals indeed make up an outright ban. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and said you inadvertently did this by not thinking your own proposals through. You have done nothing but deny this which leaves no doubt as to your true intention. This statement of yours is an outright lie.

I’ve explained this several times, you don’t dispute what I’ve said you seem to be just ignoring it.

Why not address what’s already been said rather than making me repeat it?

As I’ve said anyone can go and see the sequence of posts, I’ll even post a link,

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189921&page=14&pp=10

This is the thing with you, what you believe in is ‘fact’ and ‘truth’ and anything thing or person that opposes your ideas has to be smeared or branded falsely as a liar.

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

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

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

-----------

So where is your countering data to the data I have provided time after time? – Several places what data are you talking about?

You have presented no supporting data other than your own unsubstantiated personal opinion

Well point out some particular data and we can examine it.

This is the difference between us – you make an accusation and I’m happy to help out with reference to the relevant posts and a handy link.

I ask you and you give us nothing except just more unsubstantiated accusations.

------

“If you have nothing to provide it is YOU that are just claiming your OPINION as fact.” –

I’ve always said my theories are just theories, that my opinions are just opinions but I have explained why I think those theories and opinions are valid. You only seem to dismiss things I present as invalid without explanation except for contending that what you believe in is ‘fact’ and the ‘truth’

I have presented facts in opposition to many of your “theories” which you continue to ignore.

Like what? (and what you think always to be 'fact')

Come on – I gave posts and links

You again you just make yet more unsubstantiated accusations.

--------

You have shown studies that have expressed opinions based on an interpretation of data that I’ve shown can be interpreted differently.

Then where are these studies that “interpret” this data differently?

The ‘studies’ of the data made here of cause, what are you on about? Are you just going to ignore anything you are unable to counter or refute?

--------

“the facts” – you mean your belief

like my “belief” that the reports of where you lived had the highest number of stabbings in the UK is only a belief because you didn’t witness all of them.

I believe it had been reported in the Daily mail but I could be wrong I don’t know what data they were supposedly based on and I saw none of the evidence, I mean this was over 25 years ago.

Again your methodology is to snipe, to sneer to make half arsed remarks. You’re a jerk.

Think about it many papers before the Iraq invasion reported they knew Saddam had WMD’s, Hans Blix who had been there thought the claims unlikely.

Who was right?

But just because it’s reported in a newspaper doesn’t make it uncontrovertibly ‘truth’ (accept to those who already want to believe it is true).

The people who supported the invasion had an agenda and therefore pointed to such newspaper reports and other ‘evidence’ as ‘fact and the ‘truth’

Those that questioned this belief were told that was just an opinion and their ‘facts’ trumped that opinion.

You also have an agenda and also a conviction that your belief is fact.

---------

So in many cases guns will be either useless or likely to increase gun crime.

Where is you supporting data showing gun availability increases crime?

You don’t dispute the huge amount of gun related crime in the US.

You claim that this is down to social, economic and cultural reasons and I’ve agreed and I’ve put forward a theory as to how the threat/intimidation attitude plays it’s part.

--------


1) I’ve not been promoting an outright ban.
2) I’m not against punishment but I’m not just for punishment.

1- You have suggested an outright ban and I have proven it.
2- Nor do I believe punishment is always the right or only correct path.

1 – you have pointed out a proposal I posted as a ‘thought experiment’ as to how the US could be cleansed of guns over time, which I don’t deny and which I was happy to drop.

2- But even after asking you many times you still refuse to give us anything but the stick and some vague urgings as a means of dealing with the symptoms of societal problems.

----

But as pointed out many times and explained at length the attitude of threat and intimidation (a societal and cultural thing) which seems to be very prevalent in American society means that people much more readily seem to see guns as a way of solving problems (defending themselves but also for attacking others, getting money or goods, dealing with relatives or family, getting even, etc).

Again no one is saying guns solve problems in general but they can influence individual situations while general societal problems are addressed.

But even when asked many times you still refuse to discuss your ideas for dealing with societal problems.

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

-------

Pitt not for the first time – WHAT ABOUT THE CARROTS –

No one has said carrots were not good. If you would read the post you would know that.

So again - WHAT ABOUT THE CARROTS – what carrots have you suggested?

What socio-economic policies would you bring in to make the US a better place?

------

As I’ve said this is why you come across as a jerk you prefer to make wise arse remarks than debate honestly.

I have debated honestly and you have done nothing but ignore the facts and opinions expressed that were not your own. The repetition has become to redundant to take seriously.

Do you think making wise arse remarks and claiming that those that have an alternative view to your own are insane – is honest debate?

--------

What is your point?

That government regulation will not change the way people think or act.

No law or regulation has ever had an impact on how you or anyone else has ever thought or made any difference to how you or they would act?

-------

My point has been that those with marked attitudes of threat/intimidation/suppression do seem to give far more time, effort and attention into protecting what they see as a major plank of the threat mentality –gun ownership.

And people like you seem to give far more time effort and attention in attacking gun ownership rather than attempting to address the real social problems. In fact you rarely if ever post in any other thread except the ones relating to guns.

I’ve been here in this virtual forum about five years and have covered many topics but as I’ve pointed out to you on many occasions (again you complain about repetition but ignore what I say, forcing me to keep repeating myself) I’m here trying to learn about Americans political ideas and attitudes in an effort to understand them.

I’m a UK citizen and put efforts for social change into this reality where I have been active in political groups, programmes and campaigns.

In other word I have a life outside of hip, these forums are an interest, I’m often here but don’t post, many times I don’t post for several days.

Remember the average time it takes me to get around to answering your posts is 24 hours, the average time you take to reply to mine is 2 hours and you post far more often than I do. I often see your posts but don’t reply strieght away, to me I reply when I can or when it suits me its not as urgent as it seems to be for you.

It seems to me that it is you that you are the one looking for something in a virtual life that is lacking in the real one.

-------

“change by force will not work” – what do you mean?

Exactly what I stated above “Persuasion yes, education yes, setting examples yes, each will have an impact but change by force will not work. Again you are not listening.”

I’m listening but again you are being cryptic as you seem unwilling or unable to explain what you mean by your statement, what force are you talking about?

-------

What intent was that?

Oh my you are very dense. To David Berkowitz it made perfect sense that a dog told him to kill. To you everyone backs up your theory. To everyone else neither situation makes sense.

So let me see you are unable to refute what I’ve presented as to you backing up my theories so you’ve decided to just call me insane and hope no one will notice you haven’t refuted what I’ve said.

If you think that’s going to work you’re the one who’s dense.

--------

You have shown me stats and reports and I’ve given you my interpretation of them but since those interpretations do not fit in with what you believe to be ‘fact’ and the ‘truth’ you ignoring them.

Again I have not only given you the facts I have shown you the academic studies backing them up. Where are your academic studies backing “your interpretation”?

So let’s see you find you are unable to refute the counter arguments and criticisms I’ve presented, so you’ve decided on the wheeze of claiming they cannot be valid because ‘academic’ studies don’t ‘back’ them up.

You hope that people will not notice the counter arguments and criticism still stand unaddressed and un-refuted.

Can you not think for yourself, have you never had to do research and come to you own conclusions, I think not, as I’ve pointed out several times you repeatedly ignore things that don’t suit the way you think and call people that bring up alternative ideas insane.

--------

In other words you back up my views on this subject.

Again David Berkowitz comes to mind.

Oh yes the stock reply of the person with no answers, claim your opponent is mad.

But my viewpoint, explanations, theories and opinions, still remain un-refuted and the criticisms and counter arguments I’ve levelled at your own ideas remain unaddressed.

**

What is clear from the above is that you do seem to have an attitude of threat/intimidation/suppression

You don’t seem to have given much thought about societal problems or ways to deal with them

But you do give a lot of thought to gun ownership and in thinking up ways to deal with anything you see as even the remotest threat to it.

In other words you back up my views on this subject.

If you have anything that refutes this opinion please present it (but don’t just repeat things that have already been dealt with).

Then come up with something new as all you have repeated over and over has been dealt with.

OH another smart arse, jerkish reply

The problem is your definition of having been dealt with something is rather unusual

I mean you’ve ‘dealt’ with these outstanding questions concerning your displays of the threat/intimidation attitude by claiming I’m insane.

This by any standard is rather weak, if not down right dumb.

So I’ll ask again - If you have anything (of value) that refutes this opinion please present it.

**

But this is why I think the US is gun crazy many Americans don’t seem to give much time or effort in thinking about ways to improve their society but even propose rather mild regulation on guns and many turn up running around like Chicken Little claiming the sky’s would fall in.

Ohh well its only a little regulation, then a little more, then a little more and suddenly we are in the same boat as the UK with a complete ban.

See even now you are making these really dumb mistakes – the UK does not have a complete gun ban – virtually all the people that had shot guns and rifles probably still have them (and I believe the numbers are growing).

We went through all this before again you complain I repeat stuff but because you are either so dumb you forget stuff or dishonestly ignore it – I find I’m always having to remind you.

Anyway your reply makes my point it is just a Chicken Little statement about the sky falling – imagine a chicken running around after the acorn has fallen on his head – “SEE, see, first a little falls down, then a little more will fall down, then a little more and suddenly we will all be flattened..run for your lives…run for your lives…”

It’s just manipulation and rather crude manipulation usually used by conservative establishment forces to try and stifle any change.

- give black slaves some freedom and the next thing you’ll know they will be out robbing and raping white folk –

- bring in welfare payments and the next thing you’ll know we will be living in a Stalinist state –

And so on and so on.

Again your reply actually back up what I’ve said and makes my point for me.

**

 

Balbus - "Anyone that injures themselves with their own legally owned gun would be banned for life from owning one, if they injure themselves with someone else’s legally owned firearm both they and the owner would be banned from owning a gun for life.

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


This sounds an awful lot like George Orwell's 1984 and/or the very definition of fascism.

 

I’ve explained this several times, you don’t dispute what I’ve said you seem to be just ignoring it.

Yes I have listened to your “explanation” time and time again; you were only throwing ideas out there. The problem is you will not even admit that the ideas YOU threw out did indeed constitute a BAN.

This was a challenge to see if measures could be thought up to try and limit or even clear US society of guns as is made clear - “But if you want some ideas on how to reduce then clear US society of guns, I can give you a few off the top of my head, its not hard.”

But I also made it clear that this exercise was rather futile because there was no will for such a thing due to many Americans attitudes toward guns.

It’s that attitude (which I later developed into the theory of threat/intimidation/suppression) that I’m most interested in studying.

And your obsession with the proposals (original and later) has in many ways backed up my theories by highlighting that attitude on numerous occasions.

-------

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

One minute you accuse me of “anything thing or person that opposes your ideas has to be smeared or branded falsely as a liar.” The next you admit I agreed in principal with some of YOUR ideas then go back to accusing me of being close minded. Which is it?

Oh Pitt you have it out of sequence possibly out of ignorance (not having a clue what and when things have been said) or maybe out of design (dishonestly) I’m not sure.

The proper order is -

A year ago you seemed to agree with some of my ideas and even thought them good.

Then almost immediately you seem to change your mind about some of them and in the following months attacked them as extreme without much coherent explanation for this change of view.

Now all you seem to do is smeared or brand as lies anything contrary to your way of thinking, again without much explanation as to why.

But remember ideas you happened to agree with then and still support now are part of your viewpoint and therefore wouldn’t be smeared.

---------

Well point out some particular data and we can examine it.

How about the facts that in the UK guns were banned in 1997 and ever since the gun murder rate has only risen? Gun crime has risen? A fact you have vocally denied over and over. The point being after all your praised gun bans they accomplished nothing.

We have been through this many times, discussing it at some length.

In your view the supposed increase is believed to be a failure of the policy but it is impossible to say if the present figures would be higher, lower or the same without the legislation. So it cannot be shown to have a negative or positive outcome.

But since Dundlane there haven’t been any mass shootings while the US has had many.

It is to me a difference of opinion, but of course you claim that your opinion is ‘fact’ and the ‘truth’ and anything else must therefore be wrong, but you haven’t really explained why my opinion is incorrect you just seem to be claiming it is.

--------

Like what? (and what you think always to be 'fact')

I have posted academic studies showing that gun availability has no impact on crime rates yet you dismiss these out of hand because they do not fit in with YOUR OPINION or THEORY. If you have studies countering these why have you not presented them after all of this time?

No, you have posted studies that in the opinion of the authors, based on their interpretation of some selected data seems to indicate that gun availability has no impact on crime rates. I’ve shown, where possible, that such data can be looked at differently giving an alternative opinion. I have explained at length how and why the data can be seen differently.

You have not presented serious counter arguments to those explanations, all you do is claim the authors opinions must be right, basically because they must be, seemingly only because they fit in with what you think.

**

[balbus] You have shown studies that have expressed opinions based on an interpretation of data that I’ve shown can be interpreted differently.

[pitt] Then where are these studies that “interpret” this data differently?

[balbus] The ‘studies’ of the data made here of cause, what are you on about? Are you just going to ignore anything you are unable to counter or refute?

OMG another plainly obvious dodge so you do not have to even think about providing countering studies. Pathetic

Where is the dodge? I’ve given my countering arguments to your studies now have you anything that oppose them or refutes them beyond just calling them wrong?

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

Again your methodology is to snipe, to sneer to make half arsed remarks. You’re a jerk.

Wooo hooo another post by St balbus calling me a jerk. Seems you are the one frustrated because someone dares to oppose your view and has data to back it up. You are acting more and more like an insolent child.

You aren’t opposing my view and what data are you on about?

You are saying that you think something that could have been nothing more than a rumour and for which you have no evidence is a ‘fact’ because you want it to be true.

So are you saying that anything you want to be true instantly becomes fact?

No wonder you never seem able to defend many of your statements, if they are built on your imagination alone.

--------

Think about it many papers before the Iraq invasion reported they knew Saddam had WMD’s, Hans Blix who had been there thought the claims unlikely.

There is no comparison to collecting data on the number of stabbings in an area of your own country and that of finding supposed WMD’s in another hostile country. Again you deny the obvious.

Again you’re building an argument from thin air and your fevered imagination, what data are you talking about?

All I said was the estate I lived on was supposed to have a high number of stabbings – SUPPOSED – dictionary definition – “assumed as true, regardless of fact” – REGARDLESS OF FACT.

The way your acting is exactly comparable with some media reporting on WMD’s before the invasion of Iraq. They built arguments out of thin air and a war fevered imagination, with the intention of convincing the people to support the war.

Again if this is an indication of your methodology and your critical facilities no wonder nothing you seem to present stands up very well to scrutiny.

--------

[balbus] So in many cases guns will be either useless or likely to increase gun crime.

[pitt]Where is you supporting data showing gun availability increases crime?

[balbus]You don’t dispute the huge amount of gun related crime in the US. You claim that this is down to social, economic and cultural reasons and I’ve agreed and I’ve put forward a theory as to how the threat/intimidation attitude plays it’s part.

No Nor do I deny the huge amount of CRIME in the US. Notice there is NO ANSWER in there to the question asked.

You agree there is a huge amount of gun related crime in the US and you have agreed that this is likely down to down to social, economic and cultural reasons.

I’ve put forward a theory as to how the threat/intimidation attitude plays it’s part in this situation. That theory seems to have been backed up many times in these threads and has not been seriously challenged

This attitude seems to be putting a halt on social and economic change as explained - by putting the emphasis on social control through suppression. Again these views have been expressed many times in these threads and the theory has not been seriously challenged.

This attitude of threat and intimidation seems to see guns as a way of solving problems (for getting money or goods, dealing with relatives or family, getting even, etc).

This makes the easy availability of gun, in the US, as a problem that it might not be in other places with differing social and cultural attitudes.

All of this has been covered many times and you still have not seriously challenged these theories (although you have seemingly backed them up many times) you just seem to be rejecting them without explanation.

----------


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--------

Do you think making wise arse remarks and claiming that those that have an alternative view to your own are insane – is honest debate?

Claiming everyone has backed up your theories and agrees with you when no one has stated any such thing does not seem really normal now does it?

Then simply explain why they don’t back up my theories. That’s what I’ve been asking you to do for months.

I’ve shown over and over in often lengthy explanation just why I think some comments back up my theories.

You don’t seem to be putting up counter arguments you’re just saying I’m wrong and insane.

That’s not an argument it’s a child’s tantrum, and in no way can it be seen as honest debate.

-------

I’ve been here in this virtual forum about five years and have covered many topics

I have looked at you post 95% of them are here in these gun related threads. The others you present the same egotistical attitude and even make such statements they anyone that opposes your POV is just backing you up or proving you right.

Again here you go on your head trip making things up out of thin air.

We only began talking in September 2006, I don’t believe I’d ever spoken to you before then and I’d been on the forums about five years by then.

As I’ve said I have limited time to post, I’ve got a normal life and a kid to rise, and this has been an interesting discussion and very revealing for me, so recently I’ve been spending my limited writing time on this.

You might not have a normal life, I don’t know, but you do seem to spend a lot of time here, I mean I checked the other day and you had 3,577 post since October 2005, while I had only 2,084 posts since May 2004 (when the revamped forum site began). You clocked up nearly 1,500 more posts than me while being on the site for nearly a year and a half less?

--------

I’m listening but again you are being cryptic as you seem unwilling or unable to explain what you mean by your statement, what force are you talking about?

Are you really having that much trouble following the conversation?

A stall, a dodge? – I’m getting the impression you don’t know, you can’t explain what you mean, you simply haven’t a clue what you mean.

--------

So let me see you are unable to refute what I’ve presented as to you backing up my theories so you’ve decided to just call me insane and hope no one will notice you haven’t refuted what I’ve said.

Ummm ok yeah ….. see above.

Above doesn’t address this issue pitt, by saying ‘ok’ here are you indicating that what I’ve said is true and you are hiding your inability to refute my theories behind childish taunting?

----------


I said that you showed clear signs of an attitude of threat/intimidation/suppression and that I’ve explained at length why you seem to back up my theories.

I asked you to if you had anything that refutes this opinion and if so to present it.

And now we have your considered reply – I’m insane.

That’s it, that’s all you have.

Your only counter argument is that I’m insane.

WOW Pitt, you’re truly an intellectual giant.

It reminds me of the dissidents that were called insane and put in mental hospitals in Russia, for highlighting the problems within soviet society.

Is this your idea of education, is this the way you want to teach kids right from wrong, is this how you wish to make a better America, class anyone that dissents or thinks differently, insane?


**

 

Michael Savage

This is why it is hard to have a debate with many pro-gunners here they seem more interested in making jibes than examining the issues and they plainly don’t do much research or give much thought to what they say.

I make it clear that if the challenge was to lessen or virtually clear the US of guns it wouldn’t be too hard to think up some ideas to get the ball rolling.

BUT, I make it very clear that ideas are easy and even the drafting of laws is not that difficult, the problem as I see it with regard to the US is that many Americans have a viewpoint that would oppose those ideas.

(in which I’ve been virtually totally been proved right)

I thought at the time that I’d made some progress in the discussion when Pitt came out in favour of some of the ideas

I said that was great and that it could be a basis for discussion but thought the other pro-gunners would still find the ideas unacceptable (which was correct)

But taking note of Pitts recommendations I was happy to drop or adapt the ideas -

Anyone that injures themselves with their own legally owned gun would be banned for life from owning one, if they injure themselves with someone else’s legally owned firearm both they and the owner would be banned from owning a gun for life.

Thats a bit like saying anyone that is in an auto accident will no longer be able to drive a car isnt it?

SO THIS WAS DROPPED

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

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

THIS WAS ADAPTED TO -

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

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189921&page=14&pp=10

post 140

**

As I predicted virtually all other pro-gunners have rejected all of the ideas and even Pitt who originally favoured a few has seemingly being trying to distance himself from that position ever since (except the punitive measures).

**

 

Since most of this seems to be the same old tripe spewed over and over again Ill just touch on a few highlights.

LOL which, if anyone cares to look, seems to mean that you are going to ignore all the questions put to you.

----------

In your view the supposed increase is believed to be a failure of the policy but it is impossible to say if the present figures would be higher, lower or the same without the legislation. So it cannot be shown to have a negative or positive outcome.

This seems like utter denial to me for simple reasons. You continue to harp about how safe you feel in the UK, that crime is not a problem to be to concerned with there that you have hardly ever even witnessed any crime. However the UK put the “policy” in effect in 1997 the gun crime/murder rates have increased since the time the policy came into effect with the exception of one year. If the policy had made a difference and the rates still climbed then the logical and evident conclusion is that the UK has become a MUCH more violent and dangerous place since the ban. So we are left with two choices,
1. The “policy” had little or no effect whatsoever, or
2. The UK has become a much more violent and dangerous place in the last decade.

Which is it?

Oh hell Pitt you talk about stuff been gone over again and again and then the first thing you bring up is something we’ve been through many times already I mean I’ve replied to this virtually identical question seemingly hundreds of times.

Why not address the answers I’ve already given rather than just ask the question over and over as if no answers have been given?

1. The “policy” had little or no effect whatsoever
You cannot say that without actually knowing what the effect would have been without the law in place. Can you tell me how many mass shootings have occurred in the UK and US since Dunblane the incident that sparked the tougher regulation in the UK?

2. The UK has become a much more violent and dangerous place in the last decade.
As pointed out the UK still hasn’t implemented the kind of policies (I’ve suggested) that would deal with many of the social, economic and cultural problems that still exist. For example a lot of gun crime in the UK as in the US is linked to drugs, and the drug policies in the UK and US are very similar.

There is a lot more but why not just go back and actually read my posts.

---------

No, you have posted studies that in the opinion of the authors,

Who are RESPECTED ACADEMICS

You think academics are godlike creatures that are never wrong, never have a bias and never wish to promote there viewpoint?

People with qualifications are still just people, history is full of academics who have seen information the way they wanted to see it, and got things completely and utterly wrong. And respect is often a matter of viewpoint I mean there are respected Creationist Academics, as in, they are respected by those that support creationism.

--------

I have explained at length how and why the data can be seen differently.

Are you a respected academic? You can skew and spin the data anyway you want but where are the academics that back up your POV of the data?

You only seem to be saying “skew and spin” because you seem unable to think of counter arguments that refute what I’ve said. All you seem to be doing is trying to hide the fact you have no argument behind this rather silly assertion that ‘academics’ can never be wrong.

-------

Where is the dodge? I’ve given my countering arguments to your studies now have you anything that oppose them or refutes them beyond just calling them wrong?

Hundreds of studies opposing your ONE OPINION and you think someone must still come up with yet another to dispute your baseless opinion.

Opinions for which you don’t seem to have any counter arguments – I’ve explained my point of view, at length, all you are doing is saying I’m wrong and you’re right without ever addressing or countering what I’ve said.

I’ll ask the same thing I’ve asked you for months – if you have counter arguments present them.

----------

All I said was the estate I lived on was supposed to have a high number of stabbings – SUPPOSED – dictionary definition – “assumed as true, regardless of fact” – REGARDLESS OF FACT.

So no matter where they got the data (supposedly from hospital and police reports) they are wrong because YOU didn’t witness it. Pull your head out of the sand.

What data? Please show me these hospital and police reports you’re talking of.

This is exactly the way the neo-cons pushed the WMD reasons for invading Iraq – they talked endlessly of ‘data’ but it all turned out to be hot air.

I’ve not claimed to be right or wrong I’ve just reported a rumour that I find suspect based on my first hand experience.

You are claiming I’m wrong and you are right on…well...please tell use, what are you basing your reasons for being right?

--------

You agree there is a huge amount of gun related crime in the US and you have agreed that this is likely down to down to social, economic and cultural reasons.

Yes comparatively there is a huge amount of crime in the US gun or otherwise. There is also a huge amount of DGU’s in the US. You want to concentrate on the first part and ignore the second part because if you include the second your stance becomes shakier.

Again you repeat statements that we’ve covered before, for which I’m just going to repeat the same reply – why not just address the reply rather than just repeat the stale statement?

Well as pointed out before numerous times statistically and taking into account the possible variables most ‘normal’ crime rates in the US are comparable with other states (like the UK, which we’ve examined), they are roughly the same, except in one particular area – gun crime which is much, much higher in the US.

You have agreed that this is likely down to down to social, economic and cultural reasons.

I’ve put forward a theory as to how the threat/intimidation attitude plays it’s part in this situation. That theory seems to have been backed up many times in these threads and has not been seriously challenged

This attitude seems to be putting a halt on social and economic change as explained - by putting the emphasis on social control through suppression. Again these views have been expressed many times in these threads and the theory has not been seriously challenged.

This attitude of threat and intimidation seems to see guns as a way of solving problems (for getting money or goods, dealing with relatives or family, getting even, etc).

This makes the easy availability of gun, in the US, as a problem that it might not be in other places with differing social and cultural attitudes.

**

As pointed out I’ve not ignored the DGU’s in fact some hundreds of post on the subject have been posted on it over the past several months.

It is silly in the extreme (or a note of your dishonesty) to say we’ve ignored them.

And as pointed out the DGU’s back up my theories rather than making my stance shakier.

It points to a belief in threat and intimidation as a means of suppression as I’ve explained at length several times.

If you have counter arguments please present them.

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

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

Another flat out lie. I have said repeatedly (to use your analogy) treat the cuts and bruises while at the same time look for ways to stop it from happening in the future. When you want to apply this analogy to guns you want to say take away the antiseptic and cold compresses and concentrate on how to stop it from happening again.

The important words here are – “I have said” – only saying something is rather different than actually backing up the claim. I’ve pointed this out numerous times and you still refuse to address it.

For example - Someone could say they are a world class swimmer but people might suspect the validity of that claim if, even when the opportunity arises and if expressly asked, they refuse to get in the water.

I’ve given you many opportunities and pleaded with you to comment but you have continually refused to discuss socio-economic and cultural problems in any depth and refused to debate possible ideas beyond the those of threat/intimidation/suppression in anything but the most basic and vague terms.

Are you ever going to get in the water?

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

Again here you go on your head trip making things up out of thin air.

Oh my oh my people can just click on your nick then “find more post by balbus” and scan through the list for themselves. It’s a very simple thing to do and everyone can see what you are vehemently denying is absolutely true.

You are so desperate to score some silly point you don’t read posts or think about them.

I’m not claiming I’ve not been spending my time on these threads please re-read – “I have limited time to post, I’ve got a normal life and a kid to rise, and this has been an interesting discussion and very revealing for me, so recently I’ve been spending my limited writing time on this”

It is interesting because as I’ve said the attitude of threat/intimidation/suppression bleeds into other areas and colours the world view of the individuals. It “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”
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3438947&postcount=9

In other words it shapes the social, economic, cultural and political landscape.

For example – The Iraq Invasion, there was a feeling amongst many of the proposers (and their supporters) that a military solution (threat or the use of force) would resolve the ‘problem’. Many people warned that guns alone wouldn’t work, they pointed out that there were deep seated, social, economic, cultural and political problems that needed to be understood and policies formed to deal with them before military action was taken.
As is shown in the splendid “Imperial life in the Emerald City”
http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Life-Emerald-City-Inside/dp/1400044871
These things - the social, economic, cultural and political problems were not understood or given much thought to before military action was taken, leading to many, many mistakes that meant violence or the threat of violence was left as the major if only alternative as a means of social control.

----------

Is this your idea of education, is this the way you want to teach kids right from wrong, is this how you wish to make a better America, class anyone that dissents or thinks differently, insane?

Actually I would want children to consider the FACTS from both sides unlike you that go though life with blinders on ignoring the facts that does not suit you.

But think about it pitt, you’ve made it very clear that you think that what you believe in is ‘fact’ and the ‘truth’ and that what I’ve presented is just “baseless opinion”, even when you seem unable to refute that opinion you claim it wrong.

It is like a religion that claims what it says is the truth and differing views are ‘misguided’ and therefore wrong.

So I have little confidence in you allowing your ‘facts’ to be challenged by differing ‘opinions’ especially as you’ve shown here that when they are challenged you begin smearing the challenger as insane and a liar (without saying why other than that they have challenged your ‘facts’).

Think about it Pitt, have you noticed that I’ve not claimed my views are ‘fact and truth’ (as you have). That I always qualify my statements with ‘it seems’ or ‘this implies’ you’ve even attacked me for this seemly implying that while I’m unsure of my position you are positive, that you know you are right and I’m unsure so I must be wrong, even when you seem unable to think of counter arguments to what I’ve said.

It is you who’s dictating what is ‘right’ and what ‘wrong’.

Such a biased and absolutist way of thinking is not advantageous to a balanced and unbiased education.

It seems to me that in your world the only ‘facts’ that would be allowed are your ‘facts’ and any view that dissented would be categorised as lies that can be dismissed without explanation because they are just the word of the insane.

You’re declaring just like those soviets before you that people must accept what you say is ‘fact’ or be deemed insane.

That isn’t a vision for a better future it is tyranny.


**

 

Take a page out of australias book and buy back guns - thats what we did when we had the port arthur massacre whereas after such shootings in armerica people say if only there were more guns

 

Let me take 2 wild, stab-in-the-dark guesses.

No, and no?



What do I win?!?

Oh that's right, being labeled a murderous gun-nut. Yay...

 

**

I said at the beginning of my last post that you seemed to be ignoring every query made of you or question put to you, I’d like to take this opportunity to point out you’ve done it again with your last set of replies.

**

The “policy” had little or no effect whatsoever

You cannot say that without actually knowing what the effect would have been without the law in place.

Nor can you say how effective it has been without the having been in place. You can however see the before and after stats and this can lead one to logical conclusions. Which is exactly what I said If the law HAD an effect AND the rates of gun crime and gun murder still went up that can only mean that the UK HAS become a more violent place.

As I’ve pointed out you are not stating a ‘fact’ you are just pushing a conjecture, an opinion, a belief, which has led you to what you believe is a logical conclusion.

But is it logical or just a viewpoint based on a personal bias?

If the law had not been in place it is unknown if the rates of gun crime and gun murder would have been higher than it is now, lower or the same.

You can try and guess but a guess can be greatly influenced by bias.

Also what is your point in relation to US gun crime?

**

Can you tell me how many mass shootings have occurred in the UK and US since Dunblane the incident that sparked the tougher regulation in the UK?

Actually If you want me to get that information for you AGAIN I can.

I don’t believe you have ever given such a list, and if you had why not give a link?

Here is a list of school shootings
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

I think the tally is 38 in the US to 1 in the UK.

**

However a more to the point bit of information would be: How many mass/school shootings had taken place in the UK before Dunblane? And about how often did these occur?

Why is that ‘more to the point’ in your context, as pointed out numerous times my view is that because of the prevalence of the threat/intimidation/suppression attitudes in the US (that seems to see guns as a legitimate way of dealing with problems and seems to be stifling socio-economic changes). So the easy availability of guns in the US is more likely to result in much higher levels of gun crime and large numbers of gun related deaths, the UK seems to have differing attitudes and historically much, much less gun related crime than the US.

It is then a matter of wondering which one probably needs tighter gun regulation more and why it was the UK that chose to bring it in.

It is my contention that the US probably needs it more but because of the prevalent attitudes there it isn’t likely to get them but because of the differing British’s attitudes gun regulations were adopted in the UK.

**

Again you only want to compare the UK with the US in areas of gun crime when it suits you.

But as pointed out before, I didn’t begin these comparisons you did.

And as pointed out by me many times the two are different countries with differing criminal methodologies and judicial systems and differing social, economic and cultural values and attitudes.

Also pointed out a number of times, the only area where there seems to be a significant difference in crime rates in the two countries is in gun related crime which is very much greater in the US. So those figures stand out.

The more logical and effective thing to do would be to compare the UK with the UK before and after an event to see the effects of that event.

But the law did come into effect in the UK you cannot compare it to a UK where the law wasn’t passed.

So you cannot with any certainty say what effect it has or hasn’t had.

---------

The UK has become a much more violent and dangerous place in the last decade.

As pointed out the UK still hasn’t implemented the kind of policies (I’ve suggested) that would deal with many of the social, economic and cultural problems that still exist. For example a lot of gun crime in the UK as in the US is linked to drugs, and the drug policies in the UK and US are very similar.

Implementing your suggested policies or not has nothing to do with the question. This is just another example of your manipulative spin tactics.

Again it’s very clear you don’t read my posts, the implementing of my suggested policies has a lot to do with this question. For example a lot of gun crime in the UK is linked to drugs, and the drug policies in the UK and US are very similar.

To me drug related gun crime will continue as long as the financial incentive is there to fuel it.

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

People with qualifications are still just people, history is full of academics who have seen information the way they wanted to see it, and got things completely and utterly wrong.

Right and they were PROOVEN wrong by other ACADEMICS not some bloke with an unfounded fear of inanimate objects. Where are the people that has studied this data and came to the conclusion which you promote so vehemently?

1) You are not explaining why I’m wrong, you are just saying I must be wrong because the people you believe are right must be right.

2) Also here you go again with the jibe about my supposed fear of guns, I’ve told you before I grew up in the countryside around people that owned guns, I was once a member of a shooting club and have handled a number of guns and once made pin money by shooting rats at an animal food warehouse.

3) And actually very often academics and academic opinion have been shown to be wrong or flawed by ordinary people who just happen to have an interest in a subject or by people that where not even planning on disproving some academic’s theory.

4) I’ve looked at the things you’ve presented or cited and given you my counter arguments and criticisms; I’ve often explained these in detail, often many times, (because you keep pretending they don’t exist). You are not addressing or refuting my arguments or criticisms you are just stating they must be wrong because the people you believe are right must be right.

Sorry but it doesn’t work that way – as I’ve been saying for months if you have something to address what I’ve said present it.

---------

I’ll ask the same thing I’ve asked you for months – if you have counter arguments present them.

What part of “Hundreds of studies opposing your ONE OPINION”

Let me get this straight

You have presented studies

I’ve posted criticisms and counter arguments opposing the opinions presented in those studies

You don’t address what I’ve said you just re-present the same studies and re-assert them as right.

This just means the criticisms and counter arguments presented remain unaddressed and therefore still valid.

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

What data? Please show me these hospital and police reports you’re talking of.

I said I assume it was hospital and police reports. You are the one that brought up the report AND claimed it was wrong because you hadn’t witnessed the attacks.

YOU ASSUME?

You’ve never seen the data, you don’t have a clue what it is or where it came from or how accurate it is, but you assume it is true, so it must be a ‘fact’ that proves you right and me wrong.

Again this reminds me of the neo-con behaviour before the Iraq invasion.

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

I’ve not claimed to be right or wrong I’ve just reported a rumour that I find suspect based on my first hand experience.

So instead of finding out where they got the data you just go around claiming its wrong because you didn’t witness it? Just like everything else in this thread. No matter what evidence others have and present you just deny it because St balbus has not witnessed it or can think of any number of illogical skewed reasons to interpret things differently no matter how off the wall.

Again what “evidence” are you talking about?

You did hear that this was 25 years ago?

You believe that every piece of data has to be researched and verified – just in case 25 years later someone on an internet forum might bring it up?

All I was pointing out was that to me the place seemed reasonably friendly and other people that lived there thought it was reasonably friendly, but you who as far as I know never lived there and has not actually seen any data about it, has decided that it is a ‘fact’ that this place must have been full of knife welding maniacs, because someone said so in a newspaper.

Again it reminds me of the neo-con behaviour before the Iraq invasion – the inspectors that had been to Iraq and saw no evidence that Saddam had WMD’s were wrong because some neo-con in Washington who had never been there and who’s ‘evidence’ to the contrary seemed to be just hot air picked out of newspapers said they were right and knew for sure that Iraq was full of WMD’s.

---------

This makes the easy availability of gun, in the US, as a problem that it might not be in other places with differing social and cultural attitudes.

Here you go again linking gun availability to crime rates. I have shown you studies which delve into this very premise and all have concluded that through out US history (and other places) there is no correlation between gun availability and crime rates.
You continue to push this theory in which is partially based on you assessment of the possible correlation. Until you can show some evidence to counter or dispute these studies your “theory” is still based on a flawed foundation.

Actually as far as I know none of the studies concentrated on the differing social, economic, cultural and political differences to any significant degree. I’d be very interested to examine such a report.

You have presented some studies that claim that gun availability isn’t important but I’ve already presented my criticisms and counter arguments to those views, which have as yet remained unaddressed.

I’ll say again as I have been for months – if you have counter arguments present them.

My theory of an attitude of threat and intimidation has been explained at length (and is partially based on your own comments) so far you have claimed repeatedly it is wrong but you have not come up with anything of value that seems to oppose it.

----------

If you have counter arguments please present them.

Then why have you not answered the question put to you dozens of times about DGU’s? All you say about DGU’s are that since we have them it points to an unhealthy society.

But I have over and over and over and over again but you ignore whatever I say and make the same statement about us not having discussed DGU’s.

As pointed out your stance on DGU’s backs up my theories, it points to a belief in threat and intimidation as a means of suppression, as I’ve explained at length several times.

If you have counter arguments please present them.

---------

The important words here are – “I have said” – only saying something is rather different than actually backing up the claim.

And you have only “said” what you consider that you have done to help society. Where have you “backed” up your claims? For all we know you are a 12YO girl polio victim confined to a wheelchair. Jeez why not just stick to calling me a “Jerk”?

I could be a 12 year old girl who is inflicted with polio and is unfortunately confined to a wheelchair.

But I haven’t claimed to be.

You have claimed several times that you have thought about socio-economic and cultural problems and about ways and policies of dealing with them (beyond those of threat and intimidation).

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

As I say it is like someone claiming loudly and often that they’re a champion swimmer but who never leaves the children’s paddling pool.

---------

But think about it pitt, you’ve made it very clear that you think that what you believe in is ‘fact’ and the ‘truth’ and that what I’ve presented is just “baseless opinion”, even when you seem unable to refute that opinion you claim it wrong.

I have read the studies, I have look at the numbers and figures I have listed to their explanations and I find them credible because they can back up their statements with data. You on the other hand have presented no facts to back up your claims leaving you many hundreds of times LESS CREDIBLE than them.

You have read the studies of people you seem already to have believed were telling the truth. You seem to have looked at their numbers and figures and never questioned their validity; you seem to have listened to their explanations and accepted them without question.

It is therefore not surprising that you find them credible and believe their data backs up their statements.

The thing is that when someone comes along and actually criticises these views and explains why they think the data that’s present could be seen differently you are totally unable to defend the criticised views.

All you do is say they’re right because it is what you believe is right and so anything else must be wrong.

You just don seem to be able to actually say or explain why it is wrong.

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

It seems to me that in your world the only ‘facts’ that would be allowed are your ‘facts’

Facts are facts no matter who presents them. That’s the problem you have not presented any facts just your opinion. If I say 2+2=4 you say no it might =5, after I physically show you the 2+2 indeed =4 you just dismiss the proof and continue to say its 5.

You are either playing dumb or being dishonest, I’m unsure which.

“Facts are facts no matter who presents them” and a creationist will point to Genesis and say these are the facts and it doesn’t matter if someone else says they are not they still remain the facts.

It is an overly simplistic and an absolutist’s way of thinking, 2+2=4, in other words you have decided absolutely what the values are before starting. For example, God exists + the bible is the literal truth = Creationism.

When someone comes along and says gods are just human constructs and the bible is just a collection of often contradictory folk tales and dogma, the creationists are unlikely to accept that interpretation.

You believe in one interpretation of some data and proclaim it ‘fact’ and when someone else comes along and sees things differently you proclaim that wrong because it isn’t what you believe to be right.

**

The thing is that a lot of what we are dealing with here is opinion based upon interpretable data, not absolutes.

To put it crudely it is like an uncertain equation where some values are not definite or unknown for example -

5 (with a margin of error of plus or minus 2) + 5 (with a margin of error of plus or minus 2) = Now depending how this is interpreted it can give any amount between 6 and 14

One person might put forward a theory that it is one figure and another person a different figure. It then becomes a matter of debate and explanation.

All you seem to be doing is saying that the only ‘true’ answer is 14 and that is a ‘fact’ that cannot be questioned.

But you don’t seem able to explain why it has to be 14 and you don’t seem able to defend your belief from criticism or counter argument.

**

You make claims such as banning/restricting guns will lead to “harm reduction” When this is challenged by the data from the UK which spans 10 years you just say well you cant know what would have happed if that law wasn’t there. This is nothing but a dodge so you do not have to look at the real world implications if your statements.
I still say you are just looking for converts and are not interested in the subject at hand at all.

I’m not dodging, you just refuse to address what I’m presenting.

My view is that because of the prevalence of the threat/intimidation/suppression attitudes in the US (that seems to see guns as a legitimate way of dealing with problems and seems to be stifling socio-economic changes) the easy availability in the US is more likely to result in very high levels of gun crime and gun related deaths.

US attitudes.

Again you bring up the UK claiming that it challenges the validity of my arguments, but as I’ve told you over and over again the two are different countries not only with differing criminal methodologies and judicial systems but also differing social, economic and cultural values and attitudes so rather than challenge my views in this area it could be said to back it up.

**

As to not being interested in discussing or debating the subject –

I’ve put forward some opinions and theories and repeatedly asked you and others to discuss them even to try and counter them. I don’t claim they are ‘truth’ or ‘fact’ and I’m not pushing them as such they are just some ideas I’ve built up from years of reading and listening. I expect they will change or adapt over time and may even collapse, but I’m happy to try and explain them, examine them and defend them.

Your approach is much more religious in feel, more dogmatic, people have to accept your ‘facts’ and your view of what is ‘truth’ if they don’t they are not only wrong, they’re possibly insane as well. When asked to explain things you refuse, when your ideas are criticised you refuse to defend them but still claim they are right, while at the same time when seemingly unable to counter or refute others arguments or theories you continue to claim they are wrong.

Which one in your opinion more typifies the spirit of discussion and debate?

**

 

And again yet another set of replies where you seem to be refusing to answer the questions asked of you.

Asked to explain things and all we get is silence

I make statements or even accusations and you ignore them.

This seems to becoming a one way street with me doing all of the running, if you’ve just giving up, what’s the point of us continuing?

**

You cannot say that without actually knowing what the effect would have been without the law in place.

Statistical analysis supports the conclusion with extreme high probability that the whole statement is accurate based on the two possible scenarios

I don’t think that can be shown, again it seems to be just a matter of being your opinion. In your opinion the regulations have had no affect whatsoever on any criminal action that may or may not have been committed if the law hadn’t been in place.
My view is that this is very hard to claim since you would need a direct comparison and you don’t have one.
You can only make a conjecture which unsurprisingly, given your bias, comes out in your favour. You then seem to be claiming that your conjecture is the only possible ‘fact’ but all I’m saying is its still only an opinion.

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

As I’ve pointed out you are not stating a ‘fact’ you are just pushing a conjecture, an opinion, a belief, which has led you to what you believe is a logical conclusion.

The policy either had an effect or not, either way the resulting conclusions are logical and probable. What other logical conclusion can you come up with?

It either had an effect or it didn’t, and in your opinion it didn’t, you see this as a logical conclusion because it fits in with what you want to believe to be the truth, it therefore becomes the ‘truth’ in your mind, a ‘fact’ that cannot be disputed.

The problem is it only in reality an opinion.

Again this is like religion – there is either a god or there isn’t a god, I person has looked at the data and interpreted it to say there is a god. So in there mind a god exists and no other logical conclusion can be made. But a sceptic, agnostic or atheists might interpret the data differently and come to another opinion.

-----------

If the law had not been in place it is unknown if the rates of gun crime and gun murder would have been higher than it is now, lower or the same.

This is nothing more than a stick your head in the sand and wear blinders statement

You are claiming that your opinion is ‘fact’ and that anyone that sees differently is just sticking their head in the ground?

Again you are implying that people either believe in what you believe or they are stupid or delusional.

-----------

I don’t believe you have ever given such a list, and if you had why not give a link?

Well for one I am not going to go back over literally thousands of post to find one you should have already read.

I’ve often searched the threads many times when you ask me such stuff, quoting me or you and many times giving links, it’s the honest thing to do.

But then it is probably easier for me since I read the posts and so remember a lot of them while you often seem to have forgotten stuff from only a couple of posts away.

----------

I think the tally is 38 in the US to 1 in the UK.

Wonderful list except the problem is that it starts in 1996. I have stated dozens of times that the UK didn’t have a problem with mass shooting before Dunblane. I have also asked you dozens of time how many school shooting there were in the UK prior to Dunblane, which you have never answered. There was not a problem of school shootings in the UK before and the UK people made a knee-jerk reaction law that actually combated nothing and had no effects.

I quote – “as pointed out numerous times my view is that because of the prevalence of the threat/intimidation/suppression attitudes in the US (that seems to see guns as a legitimate way of dealing with problems and seems to be stifling socio-economic changes). So the easy availability of guns in the US is more likely to result in much higher levels of gun crime and large numbers of gun related deaths, the UK seems to have differing attitudes and historically much, much less gun related crime than the US.
It is then a matter of wondering which one probably needs tighter gun regulation more and why it was the UK that chose to bring it in.
It is my contention that the US probably needs it more but because of the prevalent attitudes there it isn’t likely to get them but because of the differing British’s attitudes gun regulations were adopted in the UK.

Do you read my posts or what?

**

But still the difference 38 to 1

And the US has now had yet another shooting, in a shopping centre in Nebraska with eight people killed.

I mean how many multiple shootings have there been since we started these conversations?

There were the Amish killings in October 2006, 5 dead, the Salt Lake City Mall shootings, 5 dead, the Virginia Tech of course with 32 murdered, and now this. (Is that all of them?)

That’s what, 50 gun related murders, just from Dunblane like shootings.

According to the home office that’s the same as the total number of gun related murders for the whole of the year 2005/2006 (down from 75 in 2004/2005)

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk

As I say this seems to point towards differing attitudes toward guns, in the UK people reacted against gun after Dunblane, basically saying never again. Even in Switzerland I believe the killings by Gerold Stadler brought public outcry and heralded stricter gun regulation. But in the US even after many such murders many Americans believe that if only more gun were in circulation things would be better.

You seem to be implying that the British people should have had a different attitude toward Dunblane that they should have shrugged and waited to see if it happened again a few times before deciding what to do (or just got more tooled up).

Now maybe another Dunblane type killing wouldn’t have taken place or maybe it would, and maybe gun regulation stopped it from happening again or maybe it hasn’t that’s difficult to know.

But to me the interesting thing is the differing attitudes, and of course, my theories about the prevalence of an attitude of threat and intimidation, that sees guns as a way of solving problems.
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3438947&postcount=9

These theories still have not been seriously contested.

**

 

Why is that ‘more to the point’ in your context

The point is to the effectiveness of the gun ban. See above. This is something you do not wish to discuss because you apparently believe it does not matter if its effective or not as long as the ban was put in place.

We’ve covered this at length and on numerous occasions why not address the points raised in those discussions rather than constantly repeating statements that are only going to receive the same replies you don’t address?

The ban when it came wasn’t a big deal for most people, very, very few people had handguns anyway and those with shotguns and rifles basically kept them and gun crime has never been historically high in the UK (The US has historically had high levels of gun crime). As to the bans effectiveness that is a matter of opinion that seems difficult to resolve given the difficulties of comparison.

My interest has always being the differing attitudes toward guns between many Americans, especially pro-gunners or gun activists and others.

It is my view that the prevalence of the threat/intimidation/suppression attitudes in the US means that guns are seen as a legitimate way of dealing with problems and also seems to be stifling socio-economic, cultural and political changes that might more effectively deal with such problems.

----------

But the law did come into effect in the UK you cannot compare it to a UK where the law wasn’t passed.

I said compare the stats from before and after of what the law was intended to have an effect on. You can do this and reach two possible conclusions.
1. The law had no effect whatsoever.
2. The UK has become a much more violent place in the last decade since the law has been in effect.
AGAIN what other conclusion can you make? There is none based on the FACTS.

We’re still in discussion for goodness sake, are you just going to repeat something without any reference to any replies already made?

-----------

Again it’s very clear you don’t read my posts, the implementing of my suggested policies has a lot to do with this question. (the question being number 2 just above)

No it does not The question relates to the effectiveness of the Dunblane gun ban enacted in the UK in 1997. It don’t have anything to do with hypothetical policies and their effects.

Again I get the feeling you haven’t been reading the posts.

The question for me has been about trying to deal with crime in the most effective way. From what’s been said in these conversations I get the feeling that in your opinion the most effective way is by threat, intimidation and suppression with a lot of emphasis on gun ownership.

My own view, explained at length, involves a holistic policy taking in differing laws, regulations, programmes and institutions, only one of which involves some gun regulations (that you thought were good).

In my opinion there will always be violence associated with the illegal drugs trade as long as the financial incentive is there to fuel it.

Again this once more backs up my theories you want to emphasis guns rather than looking at the wider picture.

--------

1) You are not explaining why I’m wrong, you are just saying I must be wrong because the people you believe are right must be right.

1) nor have you proven where the studies are wrong.

1A) I’ve given my counter arguments and criticisms –they remain unaddressed, I’m not saying the studies are right or wrong, at this point. only that the unaddressed questions seems to indicate they may be flawed.

**

2) Also here you go again with the jibe about my supposed fear of guns, I’ve told you before I grew up in the countryside around people that owned guns, I was once a member of a shooting club and have handled a number of guns and once made pin money by shooting rats at an animal food warehouse.

2) Well you know I have been called by “someone” in this thread a “Jerk” many times

2A) But you being a jerk isn’t part of my argument against your views it is just an observation of your behaviour, at times you just act like the dictionary definition of a jerk.
You on the other hand have contended several times that the only reason I think that guns may need some more regulation in the US is because I’m ‘frightened’ by guns.
You are trying a smear by implying that my views are motivated by fear rather rational thought. It is a silly ploy but one often taken up by those that have run out of legitimate argument.

**

3) And actually very often academics and academic opinion have been shown to be wrong or flawed by ordinary people who just happen to have an interest in a subject or by people that where not even planning on disproving some academic’s theory.

3) Then once again offer up this proof.

3A) What proof are you talking about?
That people not in academia have shown academic opinion to be wrong or flawed?
Or are you referring to the counter arguments and criticisms of the things you’ve presented that remain unaddressed by you?

**

4) I’ve looked at the things you’ve presented or cited and given you my counter arguments and criticisms; I’ve often explained these in detail, often many times, (because you keep pretending they don’t exist). You are not addressing or refuting my arguments or criticisms you are just stating they must be wrong because the people you believe are right must be right.

Sorry but it doesn’t work that way – as I’ve been saying for months if you have something to address what I’ve said present it.

4) Yet you offer nothing to BACKUP your claims of counter arguments or criticisms.

4A) Again I ask, why would I need to back up things you don’t seem able to address already? And many of the things that back up my views anyway are your own comments or alternative interpretations of things you’ve presented.

The thing is that the counter arguments and criticisms are there, I’ve explained them in detail and once again you’re not addressing or refuting them, you just seem to be stalling.

---------

I’ve posted criticisms and counter arguments opposing the opinions presented in those studies

All you have presented was your OPINION with no supporting evidence.

You have presented opinions based on an interpretation of some data I’ve shown that the data can be interpreted differently giving a differing opinion.

All you do is claim that the opinions you present are ‘facts’ and anything else ‘baseless opinion’ although you refuse to defend your ‘facts’ against criticisms while at the same time refusing to address counter arguments levelled at those ‘facts’.

--------

You’ve never seen the data, you don’t have a clue what it is or where it came from or how accurate it is, but you assume it is true, so it must be a ‘fact’ that proves you right and me wrong.

Apparently neither have you (and you were the one to bring it up) and you just assume its wrong.

Again this reminds me of the neocons before the Iraq invasion

You are rejecting any other view out of hand in favour of a media ‘intelligence’ for which you have no source, no verification and haven’t even read yourself.

---------

All I was pointing out was that to me the place seemed reasonably friendly and other people that lived there thought it was reasonably friendly, but you who as far as I know never lived there and has not actually seen any data about it, has decided that it is a ‘fact’ that this place must have been full of knife welding maniacs, because someone said so in a newspaper.

So instead of challenging the paper and verifying the source you wait 25 years and then call them a liar. Nice tactic St balbus

All I’m saying is that what was rumoured didn’t seem to fit with the place I lived in.

For you this rumour is correct because of what? Because you want it to be?

I lived there, did you?

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

Actually as far as I know none of the studies concentrated on the differing social, economic, cultural and political differences to any significant degree. I’d be very interested to examine such a report.

differing social, economic, cultural and political differences was not the intent of the study. It was the contributing factor of gun availability to crime levels if any. The conclusions of all the studies show there is not one. I am sure there are studies concentrating more on differing social, economic, cultural and political differences as related to gun usage however this is not the intent or the subject at hand where I have quoted these studies.

But you agree there is a huge amount of gun related crime in the US and you have agreed that this is likely down to social, economic and cultural reasons.

I’ve put forward a theory as to how the threat/intimidation attitude plays it’s part in this situation. That theory seems to have been backed up many times in these threads and has not been seriously challenged

This attitude seems to be putting a halt on social and economic change as explained - by putting the emphasis on social control through suppression. Again these views have been expressed many times in these threads and the theory has not been seriously challenged.

This attitude of threat and intimidation seems to see guns as a way of solving problems (for getting money or goods, dealing with relatives or family, getting even, etc).

This makes the easy availability of guns, in the US, as a problem that it might not be in other places with differing social and cultural attitudes.

All of this has been covered many times and you still have not seriously challenged these theories (although you have seemingly backed them up many times) you just seem to be rejecting them without explanation.

The thing is that some of the studies you’ve presented seem to argue that the reason for high levels of gun crime are the fault of social, economic, cultural problems and down played gun availability as a factor. However if the social, economic, cultural problems are caused by an attitude that also see guns as a way of solving problems, the availability of guns is very much going to be a factor. So far none of your studies seem to have examined this possibility because none seem willing to examine the reasons for the societal problems in anything but the vaguest terms. This may be the reason why you don’t seem able to discuss such problems in any depth yourself, you haven’t been told what to think and seem unable to think about such things yourself, so you don’t know what to say?

Debate is a wonderful way to examine such things and if you were only willing to enter into open and honest debate I’m sure it would be enlightening.


**

 

But I have over and over and over and over again but you ignore whatever I say and make the same statement about us not having discussed DGU’s.

You have never once answered the basic question I have asked you dozens of times regarding DGU’s so how is this discussion?

Your basic premise seems to be that DGU’s show that guns tackle crime, are even a good way of tackling crime and given the emphasis you put on them it is possible that sub-consciously at least you think they are the best way of tackling crime, so what would happen if guns were taken away?

Here is just one reply given – “People need to feel secure and only once they do will they stop feeling threatened and then they are likely to stop feeling they need guns for protection.
The question then is what can we do to make people feel secure?
As I’ve pointed out many times the situation needs a holistic approach of which only a part would involve gun regulation.
The gun regulation element would be aimed at trying to reduce harm by trying to stop guns getting into the hands of people that might do damage with them. Such things as mandatory gun safes, so people’s guns would be less likely to be stolen or get into the hands of children and mandatory psychological testing to try and weed out those with emotional and mental problems.
But at the same time as I’ve outlined above I would try and make peoples lives more attractive, comfortable and worthwhile so people have more to loose from transgressing and are not likely to experience the intensity of stress that might make them act in a destructive manner.

I’m not saying people cannot defend themselves in a reasonable way, what I’m saying is that many Americans go beyond that they see guns as a way of solving problems, emotional problems, financial problems, societal problems.

For me it is a matter of tackling these problems while trying to limit the harm ease of access to guns (in the US) seem to have.

Your approach seems to be to ignore the attitudes that see guns as a problem solving devise and to also virtually ignore the societal problems as well. You only seem interested in protecting what can be seen as one of the main characteristic of the threat mentality – gun ownership.

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

You have read the studies of people you seem already to have believed were telling the truth. You seem to have looked at their numbers and figures and never questioned their validity; you seem to have listened to their explanations and accepted them without question.

If there is a question of the validity of the numbers it should be no problem for you to show conflicting data which you have never done.

It is about the interpretation of data (hell man read the posts rather than just trying to score points) you accept the validity of their interpretation you accept what is said without seeing if there are alternative viewpoints.

----------

“Facts are facts no matter who presents them” and a creationist will point to Genesis and say these are the facts and it doesn’t matter if someone else says they are not they still remain the facts.

There is no physical or statistical proof of genesis, the facts I speak of have this data supporting them. You can keep playing the creationist theory if you want but it holds no water.

To a Creationist the physical proof is the Book of Genesis itself and that is their data. They interpret that data one way.

You interpret data one way and like creationists call that truth and fact that cannot have any other impetration.

I’m happy to have opinions that I’m willing to discuss.

----------

When someone comes along and says gods are just human constructs and the bible is just a collection of often contradictory folk tales and dogma, the creationists are unlikely to accept that interpretation.

Creationist believe it is fact because they have “faith” which they will admit (at least any rational one). There is a difference between “faith” and “fact” You present your opinion based on “faith” if you have no “facts” to back it up.

Creationists believe the bible is literally the word of their god so they interpret the book of Genesis in line with that view.

You seem to believe in threat, intimidation and suppression with special emphasis on the role of gun ownership as a means of tackling crime and interpret data in line with that view.

You both seem to claim that your interpretation is ‘fact’ and all other interpretations false.

---------

But you don’t seem able to explain why it has to be 14 and you don’t seem able to defend your belief from criticism or counter argument.

What facts have I given that contains “variables”?

You claim so much as ‘fact’ that is opinion, based in interpretation (the metaphorical variables), that it’s difficult to know where to start but just pick a page and examine what you claim.

--------

the easy availability in the US is more likely to result in very high levels of gun crime and gun related deaths.

This is your unsupported opinion that is countered by various studies delving into this very subject. Your whole argument concerning guns is based on this being true and you have yet to show anything to support this as true. Whereas I have shown studies showing this to NOT be true.

Yes this is an opinion, that you don’t seem able to counter or refute just claim is wrong without explanation. As pointed out the studies you keep regurgitating have outstanding counter arguments and criticisms levelled against them that you refuse to address.

-----------

Again you bring up the UK claiming that it challenges the validity of my arguments, but as I’ve told you over and over again the two are different countries not only with differing criminal methodologies and judicial systems but also differing social, economic and cultural values and attitudes so rather than challenge my views in this area it could be said to back it up.

So you are saying that although gun bans in the UK did not work (or anyplace else) however they will work in the US because of differing social economic and cultural values?
Again the studies have specifically addressed gun availability in relation to crime levels in the US as well as elsewhere.

But it is only an opinion that gun regulations doesn’t work and the studies you’ve presented have outstanding counter arguments and criticisms levelled against them that you refuse to address.

My theory is about the attitude of threat and intimidation remains effectively unchallenged.

-----------

Your approach is much more religious in feel, more dogmatic, people have to accept your ‘facts’ and your view of what is ‘truth’ if they don’t they are not only wrong, they’re possibly insane as well.

Lol everyone that has spoken against your theories you label as a “gun nut” or a “jerk” and I’m the dogmatic one?

But if I have a good friend who has your level of commitment to football rather than guns and I call him a ‘football nut’ it’s not exactly an insult.

And as I’ve said before you sometimes do act just in line with the dictionary definition of a jerk –look it up. (foolish, rude, fatuous, tedious, naïve etc).

But I’ve also said many times that I think you’re intelligent (while you keep calling me a moron)

The thing is that claiming someone is insane for opposing your views is very different than such background banter.

--------

When presented with facts countering your “theory” or POV you claim it as being unreliable, impossible to verify, or wrongly interpreted without ever giving a realistic countering set of evidence.

Just pages after pages of counter argument and criticism with lengthy explanations as to why and where I disagree with examples and illustrations. Which for the most part remain unaddressed?

Again you are claiming your views are ‘facts’ while other viewpoints are just opinions that can be dismissed without explanation or being addressed.

**

For example about the effectiveness of the gun ban in the UK, You just assume that it is effective because you cannot go back in time and try it without the ban. To you this means you cannot make observations by comparing data from before and after the ban.

This isn’t an example of one of my theories is about a difference of opinion (see above).

I have proposed that there are two possibilities based on the data concerning Gun crime and gun murder.
1. There was no effect
2. If there was en effect and the data still shows an increase in both gun crime and gun murder in the UK then this means the UK must have became a much more violent and unsafe place since the ban came into effect.

So you just repeat what you’ve already said (in fact, twice in one post) without reference to any replies that have been made about it already or even mentioning that these statements are still under discussion?

As I’ve said before you seem to believe if you just repeat a statement over and over, any criticism of it just disappears – it doesn’t.

**

You just dismiss this observation without ever saying how there could be another conclusion or even what the other conclusion might be.
This is your definition of discussion

I’ve not dismissed it I still thought we were still discussing it at this very moment (see above) what you seem to be saying here is that you’ve already decided before the debated has ended that you are right and other views wrong.

Is that your definition of debate?

**

 

So let’s recap –

You don’t think any type of regulation or law can have an effect on gun related crime except seemingly for things like threat, intimidation and suppression with special emphasis on the role of gun ownership.

You don’t think any regulation or law or government policy can have an effect on societal problems, such as crime, except seemingly for things like threat, intimidation and suppression with special emphasis on the role of gun ownership.

You don’t seem to have thought much about societal problems or what to do about them and refuse to talk about it. Although you are very vocal about, and seem very vehemently to believe that guns have an important part to play in tackling the symptoms of such problems.

In what way do you not back up my theories?

**

 

I'd like to hear what some of you gun-haters have to say about that story...

 

Jebus, this thread is still going?!?!?

Maybe it is all about attitude toward guns, the brits are weak individualists, always have been. north americans generally care about principal more than pragmatism. i believe rights come with responsibilites, there will be those who abuse that, but we'd rather have the rights than not have them, the brits would rather do away with the rights of their individuals than to deal with the responsibilites associated with having a free populace.

everyone is safe inside a cage and the forest is not always friendly, but living in a cage has it's drawbacks as well and there are benefits to living in the forest that are equal to or outweigh the costs.

brits prefer the cage, americans prefer the forest. i don't think that's going to change in the u.s anytime soon and people still seem to like coming here, meanwhile brits are emmigrating from the u.k. at an alarming rate the last i heard...

leaving the cage for the forest the way i see it.

besides, addressing gun violence as a problem with the availability of guns, as if it were disconnected from violence itself, seems like treating the symptoms to me. if you want to deal with gun violence or knive violence or fist violence, you need to address violence, taking the tools are not going to address violence, violence will find another outlet. T

he problem seems to be america's violent culture, not it's gun culture. and as our national anthem deals with bombs and war and our national animal is a predator, we are only 150 years removed from slavery and genocide and we were founded with a revolution of armed citizens against gun taking oppressors (thats why they created the 2nd amendment after all, so that we could overthrow our government AGAIN if need be, the brits wouldn't know anything about that, they've always been oppressors and still kiss the toes of royalty), i think it will take a lot more time and effort to seperate america from violence, we secured our inalienable rights with violence, our largest religion is filled with violence, in the meantime non-violent folk should have a means to protect themselves from the violent ones. until we deal with our violent culture trying to take away guns or further restricting their availability will be fruitless toward ending gun violence because the violence is still there and the committed violent people will still harm others with guns(i mean not having bombs sold out of walmart doesn't stop them from building bombs in their garage does it, you think a gun law is going to stop people who build bombs in their basments from obtaining an automatic weapon, please).

What you are trying to do is to convince people to lay down their weapons in the middle of a battle, well you have to address the war and the reasons it is going on before you can convince anyone to lay down arms, especially those in the middle of fighting for their lives(literally and metaphorically).

anyways back to your fun. i cant believe this thread has lasted this long...

 

This seems to becoming a one way street with me doing all of the running, if you’ve just giving up, what’s the point of us continuing?

If there were any new ground to cover with you it would be different. Your continued ignoring of points made and evading of direct questions is as redundant as it were months ago.

New ground?

I’m the one waiting for my counter arguments and criticisms to be addressed, you’re the one stalling, ignoring and dismissing them without explanation while constantly repeating the things that those counter arguments and criticisms are levelled against.

-----------

I don’t think that can be shown,

So statistical analysis is meaningless in your view? Every statistician throughout history was just a cook promoting their POV. Nothing can be learned from studying the numbers and statistics of anything? Or is it just the ones that deal with guns?
You are turning a blind eye to something because it does not fit into your fairy tale world.

Statistical analysis is a process and a difficult one to pin down ‘fact’. I know statisticians and unless the data being worked on is very, very simple they always hedge their bets and talk of ‘trends’ and ‘possibilities’.
There are usually just to many possible variables to take into account (I’ve explained this several times and at length). It can also be open to abuse through selectivity and biased interpretation.

---------

My view is that this is very hard to claim since you would need a direct comparison and you don’t have one.

You have a direct comparison of stats from before the ban and after the ban.

And your interpretation of them is that they are ineffective, because gun crime rose. But you cannot say for a fact that the regulations didn’t have an effect because you don’t know what the outcome would have been if not in place.

You’re a gun advocate and it’s not surprising that you wish to promote the idea that gun regulations are ineffective.

But I’ve not being promoting the type of regulations taken up in the UK; actually the ones I’ve supported are ideas that you in fact said were good.

My interest is more about the American attitudes of threat and intimidation (that include guns)

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


--------

As I’ve pointed out you are not stating a ‘fact’ you are just pushing a conjecture, an opinion, a belief, which has led you to what you believe is a logical conclusion.

And how many times now have I asked you to show another conclusion? Another possibility concerning this? Have you answered this question? No you have not because you cannot come up with anything that would make it fit into your fairy tale world.

Another conclusion?

You have presented only some rather biased conclusions and demanded that only a choice can be made between them.

1. The law had no effect whatsoever.
2. The UK has become a much more violent place in the last decade since the law has been in effect.

But the law could have had an effect even if the figures rose it cannot be said one way or the other. Also the number of gun related murders in the UK has fluctuated, some years are up others down (and with changes in laws and population variables these fluctuations are hard to gauge) but they have never been on the scale of many other countries.

Violent crime again has fluctuated but from a peak in the 1995 the trend has been downward.

The thing is that the UK like many places still has a drug problem and in my view until that is realistically tackled we will continue to have certain levels of violent crime associated with the supply and trade in drugs.

That is why I have always emphasised that this must be tackled as part of a holistic approach.

---------

Again this is like religion – there is either a god or there isn’t a god,

The problem with this statement is that I have given you the possibility of both. I have said there are two possible outcomes. Either the gun ban had an effect or it did not. Is there a third possible conclusion I have missed? Come on balbus tell us what the third possibility is.

Again your approach is to try and limit.

Either the gun ban had an effect or it did not, did it or didn’t it?

I’m saying that it seems difficult to say one way or the other – just because a crime statistic rises does not mean that a law aimed at the crime is a failure and must be scraped. The police can arrest someone for carrying ‘house breaking equipment’ that law isn’t going to be of use for every burglary but it’s still useful to tackle burglary. Now there have been periods when burglary has risen year on year, does that mean the police should scrap that law?

---------

If the law had not been in place it is unknown if the rates of gun crime and gun murder would have been higher than it is now, lower or the same.

If the law had not been in place and gun crime/murder had been higher it would mean the law was effective

But how do you know that gun crime/murder would have been higher or not if the law had not been in place, seeing that it was in place?

If the law had not been in place and gun crime/murder had been lower it would mean the law was ineffective.

But how do you know that gun crime/murder would have been lower or not if the law had not been in place, seeing that the law was in place?

If the law had not been in place and gun crime/murder had been the same it would mean the law was ineffective.

But how do you know that gun crime/murder would have been the same or not if the law had not been in place, seeing that the law was in place?

Still only two conclusions are possible either it was effective or not. The same conclusions can be made by studying the stats from before and after with an extremely high probability of accuracy.

In you interpretation of the data you, who is against such regulation have come to the conclusion that all gun regulation is ineffective and should be scraped.

---------

You are claiming that your opinion is ‘fact’ and that anyone that sees differently is just sticking their head in the ground?

You stick you head in the sand because you refuse to even look at the figures and try to decipher their meaning because you realize it may not fit into your fairy tale world.

You mean try and decipher data that doesn’t exist – the data relating to a UK where the gun regulations were never enacted?

You seem to be the one telling tall tales about being able to compare a non-existent Britain with the existent one.

-------

Again you are implying that people either believe in what you believe or they are stupid or delusional.

No I ask the people look at the data seriously and consider the meaning. If they can come up with a logical and explainable conclusion differing from the one proposed great. You on the other hand refuse to give others this courtesy

But look above at every point you try and limit the choices open to people, your conclusions your opinions and no other.

As I’ve said you don’t like gun regulation so your conclusions are that gun regulation is useless you base this on your interpretation, your belief that the laws didn’t have an effect. You do this by pointing at figures before and after the laws and saying ‘see it was ineffective’

But what are you contrasting it with the figures from a Britain in another timeline that didn’t bring in the laws?

------

I’ve often searched the threads many times when you ask me such stuff, quoting me or you and many times giving links, it’s the honest thing to do.
But then it is probably easier for me since I read the posts and so remember a lot of them while you often seem to have forgotten stuff from only a couple of posts away.

Congratulations but there is no reason why I should search thousands of post to tell you the same thing over and over which I can quote from memory.

But you can’t – I asked you something (as I’ve done before) you refused and are still refusing to reply.

--------

Do you read my posts or what?

Yes and for the hundredth time show me where gun regulations have made an impact on the intended outcome of the gun law? Do you ever read my questions?

Yes but like this, I’m unsure what you mean?

Which regulations?

How do these relate to the regulations I’ve been promoting that you thought were good?

As I’ve said I don’t think the UK really needed the tougher laws since it never historically had a bad gun problem, but because of the attitudes of the British people many felt that tougher gun regulation was needed. In the US things are different I think they might benefit from more gun regulation where historically gun crime has been high but because of the attitudes of many Americans that seems unlikely.

---------

According to the home office that’s the same as the total number of gun related murders for the whole of the year 2005/2006 (down from 75 in 2004/2005)

Again If you look at the UK numbers from before the Dunblane gun ban and after there has been no impact.

And you know this because you are able to check against another UK that didn’t bring in the laws?

The only way you can find to justify anything is to selectively compare the UK with the US. Again how many times have I asked you to compare UK stats before and after dunblane? Yet another point you just ignore.

What I’ve been trying to point out is the seemingly different attitudes involved. The UK data is difficult to gauge given there is no way of comparing a UK with the laws with a UK without them.

And since my last post I believe that there has been more shootings, five more dead.

---------

As I say this seems to point towards differing attitudes toward guns,

Again you say its about guns and I say it is more the attitude people have toward others and themselves. An opinion you want to ignore.

We have been through this a seeming million times, I’ve written a length about it, I’ve tried putting it in the most simplistic of terms and still you ignore what I say.

Again what’s the point of talking to you if I’m just ignored, and what are you getting out of this if you just will not engage in what’s been said.

Go and re-read the theory – if you don’t understand it ask questions.

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

-----------

You seem to be implying that the British people should have had a different attitude toward Dunblane that they should have shrugged and waited to see if it happened again a few times before deciding what to do (or just got more tooled up).

Wrong. First off I don’t presume to tell the British people how to run their own society (unlike some people) just that the facts do not show any impact from their actions made after Dunblane.

By comparing the UK that didn’t with the UK that did?

---------

Now maybe another Dunblane type killing wouldn’t have taken place or maybe it would, and maybe gun regulation stopped it from happening again or maybe it hasn’t that’s difficult to know.

You seem to claim the gun ban was ONLY to do with Dunblane was ONLY meant to prevent School shootings yet weekly there are articles printed in the BBC discussing the fact that “more gun regulations” should be implemented to prevent more gun crime, to counter the growing “gun culture” in the UK suggesting the ban was intended to do a lot more.

There is that feeling among some people, but others point up the social, economic and cultural problems and the impact of the illegal drug trade.

---------

These theories still have not been seriously contested.

Nor have they been upheld.

You often back them up and I’ve pointed this out and explained why, so far you haven’t seriously challenged what I’ve said, like here you dismiss it without explanation, other times you ignore or stall.

**