Guncrazy USA

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.

Weather it was a big deal or not has nothing to do with its effectiveness.
Yet gun crime in the UK is now higher than it was 10 years ago when you banned handguns.
A matter of opinion? Well then once again tell us WHY you see it as being effective? What facts or stats back up this opinion?

I’m not sure if it is effective or not, because I’m unable to compare the UK without the law with a UK with the law.

What I’m saying is it hasn’t had an impact on me or the majority of the population that didn’t own handguns.

--------

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?

ONCE AGAIN you ignore the question. It is repeated BECAUSE you have not answered.

I think what you mean here is I haven’t given the answers you want. Again it is about a total belief that you are right and therefore others must me wrong.

---------

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).

ONCE AGAIN when asked about specific programs YOU suggest and their effectiveness you clam up and say nothing except to revert back to the same old copy/past crap about “holistic approach”. Why are you afraid to discuss the varying parts of your “holistic approach”?

When have I ever clamed up, we’ve talked for months on my ideas of a holistic approach.

Did you ignore all of that? It would account for you never seeming to remember what’s been said.

You even say below – “I have discussed your take on social changes you have proposed. I agreed with some and disagreed with others”

Actually it was usually me making the running and you opposing but all the things were part of the holistic approach.

So one place you say we haven’t discussed things and somewhere else you claim we have.

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

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.

So once again tell us all how making an new “gun” law will stem the violence associated with the illegal drug trade?

OH, I see you really didn’t read my posts did you.

Look rather than me explaining it all over again why don’t you just go back and read the post’s.

OH I forgot you completely refuse to go back and read posts.

The gun regulations I’ve promoted (the ones you thought were good) are just a part of an overall (holistic) approach, taking in education, health and other social, economic factors as well as new drug regulations.

I can explain once more the drug regulations but it would be much easier if you just read the relevant posts again (or should I say read them this time)

-----------

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.

Like I have said hundreds of times anyone can make up any theory so long as they don’t have to produce any proof. I have a theory that you actually have an evil alien growing inside your chest waiting to burst forth like in that movie. You now have to prove this wrong.

Alien, Director Ridley Scott, writer Dan O'Bannon – a classic

Let’s see what would be my counter argument to your theory that I’m carrying such an alien.

1) I’ve never encountered an alien egg, the face-hugger ‘larva’ stage let alone been attacked and ‘caught’ by one.

2) I don’t live in the future, (if humans have colonised space and begun transporting ‘ore’ in huge space ship freighters across the interstellar viod no one told me).

3) And I don’t inhabit the fictional world of a movie franchise.

I do have the films on dvd, I but think that helps your theory does it?

Frankly this just seems like another stall. Just refusing to answer a counter argument or criticism doesn’t mean it goes away.

----------

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.

Right it’s your personal view and personal attack toward me. (a type of attack you recently admonished another former for) and you sometimes act like the definition of a hoplophobe.

Why do you believe I have an ‘irrational’ fear of weapons?

I can point to a number of examples of you acting like a jerk but where have I shown symptoms of hoplophobia?

And acting like a jerk doesn’t negate a person’s argument it just means they’re pursuing it in a tedious or fatuous way.

On the other hand implying that someone’s arguments are the product of an irrational dementia or insanity is often used to try and negate an argument for which the accuser has no real reply.

As I say - It is a silly ploy but one often taken up by those that have run out of legitimate argument.

----------

What proof are you talking about?

Any proof or facts which you have been asked to provide that would bolster your opinion.

You need to read the posts rather than just ignoring them then.

-----------

Again I ask, why would I need to back up things you don’t seem able to address already?

Lol the studies counter your statements on their own because they have facts to back them up. You have NOTHING.

Again I have to explain to you that the opinions of the writers of the studies are not ‘facts’ they are just opinions. They have come to those opinions by interpreting data in a certain way, all I’ve shown is that such data can often be interpreted differently making other opinions possible.

--------

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.

Kind of like your take on the Dunblane gun ban’s effectiveness?
It’s a matter of opinion !!!!! but I am not going to tell you what that other opinion is.

Yes it is a matter of opinion – you believe that gun regulation isn’t effective so your take on gun regulation is that it isn’t effective.
I’m unsure but I don’t think that your methodology is sound in this and so I cannot just accept without question your assertions.

---------

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.

YOU were the one that brought it up. YOU are the one making the claim they are wrong. YOU are the one that is saying it’s wrong because you didn’t “witness” it.

But you are implying ‘they’, whoever they are, were right on no evidence what so ever, but seemingly based on a personal bias.

---------

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.

HAHA now that you have been called out on this the story has changed from having the highest number of stabbings in the UK to being “full of knife welding maniacs”
Lol just go ahead and change whatever you want to make it fit into your fairy tale world.

What is this manic laugh for, and what is your reply, that you have just accepted without anything that I must be wrong and you are right?

----------

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

Why should I care if its true or not? I really doubt that weather true or not it will impact my life.

So why did you make such a fuss about it – again this reminds me of the neo-con approach to the Iraq adventure. First they made a big deal of the importance of Saddam’s WMD’s and when it turned out to be hot air they began saying ‘they don’t matter, they’re not important’. I don’t think many of them cared if there were WMD’s or not, it was just a way to push their personal agendas.

Is that what you were doing?

---------

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.

For the umpteenth time yes now where is your facts supporting your theory that making new gun bans/laws will have an impact on this?

It wouldn’t be just gun laws and not an all out ban either.

----------

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).

Guns, baseball bats, knives, fist, swords, steel toed boots etc etc.

This has been covered

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

----------

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.

Again for this theory to be true you have to show a correlation between gun availability and crime rates. The studies into this have shown NO correlation. The ball is back in your court to show where there IS a correlation or at least show the studies are flawed in their facts or theory.

Why not read my post rather than repeat statements that have already been covered extensively?

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.

-----------

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.

See above Again the ball is in your court.

Actually the ‘ball’ as you put it is still with you since you still haven’t addressed the issues I’ve raised many times now.

Just repeating over and over that the ‘studies’ you’ve presented are right and other views wrong doesn’t wash when the counter arguments levelled at them remain unanswered.

------

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?

One has to look at both sides of the issue, the good and bad, then weigh the consequences of contemplated actions. YOU see no good in firearms YOU ignore what is shown to you. You wish to ignore all dgu’s because they give the bad a counterweight which has no place in your fairy tale world.
I will answer your question of “what would happen if guns were taken away?” as it applies to DGU’s
There would be more completed acts of violence and murder because between 60,000 and 2,500,000 people per year would no longer have a weapon with which to defend themselves against these criminals. Taking them back to having to try to run, scream for help, wait on the police to get there from across town etc etc.

NOW WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION I HAVE PUT TO YOU ABOUT DGU’s? OR WILL YOU STILL AVOID IT?

You really don’t listen do you?

I’ll repeat again

“I’m not saying people shouldn’t be able to 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”


**

 

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.

If someone has a gun weather it be for protection of other legitimate purposes, what is the problem?

In my view there wouldn’t be a problem if the people with the guns don’t believe that threat and intimidation (and guns) are a way to solve problems, if they think it solves the problem of crime they are likely to ignore societal problems that seem to be the real motivator (as you seem to be doing). If they rely on guns to protect them from ‘the government’ they may actually be ignoring political problems that need to be resolved through participation (quite a number of pro-gunners on the forums). If they think threat (and guns) is a way of settling domestic problems there is a real likelihood of domestic shootings or murder (witness the many such occurrences in the US). If they think guns are a means of ‘equalising’ a situation (often just revenge for a real or imagined slight) it can lead to shootings (I mean how many multiple shootings have there been in the US since these conversations started? 5 or 6 with a body count of over fifty?).

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

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.

Again you copy/paste this. And once again Ill ask WHERE IS THE DATA SHOWING GUN LAWS OR BANS WILL HAVE AN EFFECT AS TO STOPPING THE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT DO DAMMAGE WITH THEM FROM GETTNIG THEM?
This has been the point of all the talk about the effectiveness of the Dunblane gun ban and you continue to just ignore it.

You have presented an opinion that gun regulation isn’t effective but it seems to me that the more important question is the one of attitude as you point out the UK doesn’t really have a gun problem the US does the question is why?

As to the measures I’ve promoted you thought them good the only difference between us seems to be that you wouldn’t want them as laws (except the ones involving threat and intimidation) while I would.

---------

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.

Yet we see no one through out this mile long thread where people are saying such a statement or even implying such yet you continue to harp about this. Once again where is your supporting evidence?

Again you would need to have not read a huge percentage of posts to think that way?

I’ve written at length with often detailed explanations of when and where you and others have backed up my theories, read again -

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

--------

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.

See above two sections and all the questions asked about this “holistic” approach.

I said – “it’s what’s called a holistic approach"

To which you replied – “all of which is fine and dandy”.

Your only complaint seems to be that I involve some ideas for gun regulation that you even thought were good.

--------

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.

So whose numbers should we believe? Should I or you conduct these studies for our selves? Should we look at police records ourselves? Oh but what if the police records are wrong? I guess we will have to follow all the police 24 hours a day so we can “witness” everything our self. But then How would I make YOU believe the figures because you didn’t witness it all personally.
What a f’ing crock you want to believe the figures you say bolster your side yet ignore all others and label the as suspect.

You are just being fatuous and silly

It is a matter of looking at such ‘studies’ with a critical eye. Your methodology seems to be to just accept totally the validity of things that seem to back up what you believe to the point of calling them ‘facts’ and the ‘truth’ while claiming any other point of view invalid and wrong without explanation.

---------

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.

Then logically explain your “interpretation” instead of just saying “it could be interpreted differently”

I have done many times – as I say - read the posts rather than just trying to score points.

The problem is that rather than address what I’ve said you have ignored them dismissed them or use stalling tricks to delay (indefinitely) from addressing them.

You’ve done this many times – you claim that things haven’t been said or explained, so I’ve shown you again and again that they have.

You dismiss things without explanation.

You say I need to back up things further before you’ll answer and even when I do you ask for more, ignore what I’ve said or dismiss it as invalid without explanation.

And so we go around and around

As I’ve asked you before what is the point?

You don’t seem willing or able to defend your position but just demand that others accept it without question.

The trouble is if you don’t address the criticisms of your position it still remains suspect and very possibly flawed.

----------

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

Data can be analyzed a book cannot. Again this holds no water.

Oh many of those academic that you seem to think are so omnipotent or unassailable would oppose that view many of them make their careers out of analyzing books.
For good or ill most things can be analysed and interpreted, markets, statistics and holy texts.

--------

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

Once again if asked how they know it is “literally the word of their god” they answer “faith”

No water, you are drowning with this nonsense.

You mean they ‘believe’ something is ‘true’ and a ‘fact’ even when confronted with opposing views.

Faith is just a religious persons way of trying to give legitimacy to what is only a belief – and you, as pointed out, seem to believe something is ‘true’ and a ‘fact’ even when confronted with opposing views.

I’ve never said that my opinions are concrete and unassailable ‘facts’ or that my theories are the only ‘truth’. I keep saying they are things open to honest debate.

But as I’ve also pointed out you don’t seem willing to enter into an open and honest debate you only seem to want blind obedience to your ‘facts’ and your ‘truth’.

-----------

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.

Then change the variable and show your side?

Change what variable?

Do you understand what’s been said because your statement here seems to indicate you don’t?

-------

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.

You say they can be interpreted differently without ever explaining how.
Balbus You are not a god, just because you say something does not make it fact

So is this going to be your new wheeze to get out of actually addressing the criticisms of your views?

Just pretend the criticisms were never made?

-----------

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.

If you agree that it is due to “differing criminal methodologies and judicial systems but also differing social, economic and cultural values and attitudes” then how do you justify comparing the two differing countries based on crime rates?

Again this just makes me even more aware you haven’t been reading the posts, this point has been raised before and explained before at least four or five times now.

Have you really no idea of what’s been said?

-----------

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.

Then explain how after a gun ban in the UK that gun crime and gun murder still went up?

But would have the figures been higher or low or the same without the laws?

And as pointed out several times in the last few posts the government have not implemented many of the other policies that would need to be bring in to tackle such things as the illegal drugs trade and social justice.

And as pointed out these problems seem a lot more acute in the US and the gun problem is much larger.

---------

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.

I can jokingly call someone a bitch and it not be an insult however if I call then that with the intent of being insulting or in an insulting way that changes the fact does it not?

Bitch is a lot stronger term than nut – well it is in Britain anyway - someone here would have to very much make it clear it was meant in a jokey way and even then it can fall flat.

Calling someone a nut really doesn’t have the same force and goes unnoticed.

Maybe the US is different, although recently some Americans did complain to me about it’s use in a thread so maybe not.

----------

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).

And I have explained that at times you fit the definition of hoplophobe (look it up. I have given you the link) yet you seem to take quite the exception to this do you not?

You have never explained why I fit into the definition of hoplophobe, you have asserted it but never explained why and you have never commented on my explanation as to why it seems incorrect.

---------

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

You are right I have called you a moron among other things in reaction to your own personal insults directed to me. For this I apologize I should not let your continuing name calling bait me into similar actions.

LOL, only ever in reaction to my insults?

---------

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

Again I see nothing to back up your claims other than opinion. There have been no facts or figures only your statements.

But your views are just opinions – how many times do I have to explain this?

----------

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?

Under discussion would imply that you have replied to the question of what other conclusion can be reached. You have not. And it does tie directly to “your theory” as to the relationship if any between gun availability and crime as well as to your proposals to combat social problems.

I’m still replying to what you have said (see above).

And please explain how it affects my theories?

--------

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.

You have not after all these times answered the question? How is that even remotely considered “still discussing”?

Answered what question – if there are other conclusions? (see above)

-----------

 

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.

Your replies don’t seem to say that what I’ve stated here is incorrect -

Again the people using guns in harmful ways in general are criminals. Criminals do not obey laws by definition.

A gun owner can be law abiding right up to the point where they break the law. Only once they have acted criminally are they not obey laws, but not before then (by definition).

Why would they obey any of the ones you have proposed?

As pointed out a thousand times only a few of the ideas I’ve promoted (that you thought good) were aimed at keeping guns OUT of criminals hands – again do I really need to explain this all again when I’ve already done it numerous times already?

Can you show me an example of where they in fact have obeyed gun laws?

So you think deterrent doesn’t work, that it is useless, that a criminal will always act with no notice of any possible deterrent put in their way?

The dunblane gun ban in the UK and the figures recorded in the 10 years for gun crime and gun murder would seem to point to the fact that they have NOT obeyed the law and calls its effectiveness into question. You have yet to address these points.

I’ve addressed them you just seem to be ignoring what I’m saying (that’s all you seem able to do these days).

Just because statistically something goes up that doesn’t mean that the laws brought in to limit it should be scrapped. Imagine burglary rates increase so the police just drop the laws that allows them to arresting people found carrying housebreaking equipment. The law may not be useful on all occasions but it may still be useful to have.

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

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.

How are you tying gun ownership to the effectiveness of programs aimed at addressing social problems?

Doesn’t answer the question and again, do you read anything I post?

Did anti discrimination laws have an effect on the people? Or did the resulting education taking place for years after make the real difference?

But education is a policy as is equal opportunity laws. You have said no policies can work. So please explain what you mean here?

--------

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.

I have discussed your take on social changes you have proposed. I agreed with some and disagreed with others. The basic premise of this thread is about guns, you have yet to show anything about how the part concerning gun regulation of your “holistic approach” will have an impact on these social problems.

You have discussed MY take on social change – well actually not really you made a number of negative assertions about some which you often seemed reluctant to talk about or refused to talk about.

But MY social policies are not your social policies and when asked about them you completely clam up

And actually the basic premise of this threat is about the seeming ‘gun craziness’ of the US. I’ve explained at length that I associate this ‘craziness’ to the attitudes of threat and intimidation.

I’ve also explained at length about the gun regulations I’ve being promoting (the ones you thought were good) are about harm reduction.

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


**

 

As to the most recent shooting

The man killed himself after murdering 5 people in two differing locations.

So in little over a year some 55 people have been shot dead in such incidents, to go with the 11,000 or so gun related murders that happen yearly in the US.

In the light of that it seems a little distasteful to be ‘celebrating’ this DGU as some kind of vindication of your position; it’s not exactly a victory is it?

Oh well yes but if only guns were even easier to get hold of, if only more people had easy access to them anywhere at any time…

Again this kind of attitude seems to back up what I’ve been saying about the seeming prevalence of threat and intimidation culture in the US and a seeming belief that guns are a way of solving problems.

**

Pitt we have been through the whole thing about people reporting ‘suspect’ behaviour at some length.

Here is the beginning I believe but it went on for months.

“I mean here are some of the ‘warning signs’ according to the FBI -

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

(As we’ve been joking here that sounds like the description of the average teenager boy)”
Post 119 http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189921&page=12&pp=10

As I pointed out many people that have come to these forums have displayed one or more of these symptoms.

Should I report them to the police, are the police the best people to judge, should they be assessed by a professional, but if they are potentially dangerous shouldn’t the police handle it, but if the police start turning up at the houses of everyone that shows one of the above symptoms to drag them away to be assessed isn’t that a infringement of peoples liberty, I mean have they actually done anything that’s against the law?

And so on and so on the idea to me seems to throws up more questions than answers.

I mean wouldn’t it just be easier if anyone wanting to have a gun had to have a psychological test?

While at the same time bringing all those other things I’ve talked at length about such as free at entry universal heathcare, better education, welfare, etc etc. to try and help such disturbed individuals and stop them before they act rather than after?

**

 

Shane nice to have you back.

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.


This seems like the perpetuation of the same old American myths of exceptionalism and independent frontier folk.

The thing is that most Americans live in urban areas and inhabit a post industrial first world country

As to this supposed love of ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ as I’ve pointed out before although they are talked about a lot in practice they are often been brushed aside.

And that’s been addressed elsewhere by the thread – ‘Can guns save you from suppression?’ http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253937

As to freedom, what freedom are you talking about the freedom to die if injured, the freedom to starve in the mist of plenty, the freedom to be raped if overpowered and the freedom to be murdered if you don’t shoot first?

Remember “I am not responsible for the people in darfur, kosovo, france, china, n. korea, india, new orleans, new york city, boston, chicago, or anywhere else.
They are responsible for their own survival, health, food, happiness, ect.”

**

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

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 be done 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 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.

**

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),

The first part of this has been address elsewhere by the thread – ‘Can guns save you from suppression?’ http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253937

Again it’s about myths.

Brits are all oppressors but you Americans are not oppressors even with the slavery and genocide?

**

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).

You talk of a culture of violence and you describe your feeling in the language of killing?

I’ve explained my theory of threat and intimidation to you before

Here is a reminder - http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3438947&postcount=9

The thing is that it seems to me that the problem is that many Americans believe that the threat or use of violence can solve problems. For example the domestic policy of execution as a deterrent and a foreign policy of pre-emptive strike that brought about Iraq.

And this seems to be very much your own philosophy so how are you going to convince Americans to give up there belief in the benefits of the threat or use of violence when you so obviously believe in the benefits of threat and intimidation?

It’s like shouting at someone ‘stop being fucking violent or I’ll fucking shoot you’ it makes people more likely to believe they themselves might have to act violently to save themselves, so the violent atmosphere grows rather than diminishes.

**

This post seems full of contradictions to me.

**

 

Very similar to what I have been saying to balbus for what seems like years now.

Pitt

The problem is that you have a habit of repeating something over and over seemingly demanding that people accept it without question.

The problem is that I do question so you just repeat again and again in the hope my questions will go away or disappear.

They don’t.

**

 

damn this is a hard thread to keep up with, so many replys or non replys, to try and quote, and reply to but pitt my hats off to you!! your a better man than i,
now balbus, i cant seem to find where anyone has said that certain things should not be done to combat poverty,drug related crime,socio/economic problems to help reduce the incentive for pepole to engage in violent crime, but your whole argument seems to be based on laws that use threat/inimidation as a means of combating threat/intimidation! so when you were being mugged who was it that was threatening intimidating? when you resisted do you think your mugger was intimidated? what in hell do you think the mecanisim of laws are based on? (if you do this this is what will happen) it seems to me that is threat intimidation!! if im wrong in this acertion please enlighten me!

 

to summarize, we've all come to agree that guns save lives, protect us from open tyranny, and look super cool, our advise, go buy plenty and keep a satuday night special with you when in dark alleys trying to fit your keys into your car, it could be the smartest move you ever did. i think balbus owns 3 himself, but i cant be sure and that's fantastic, i know not to mess with him or rob his house cause he might be packing something sexy.

 

hahahahaha! that was good shane! peace!

 

now balbus, i cant seem to find where anyone has said that certain things should not be done to combat poverty,drug related crime,socio/economic problems to help reduce the incentive for pepole to engage in violent crime,

I’ve shown many times often at length and in detail that many of the gun advocates that have come to these forums do not seem that interested in discussing alternative policies to those of threat and intimidation (which includes guns).

but your whole argument seems to be based on laws that use threat/inimidation as a means of combating threat/intimidation! so when you were being mugged who was it that was threatening intimidating? when you resisted do you think your mugger was intimidated? what in hell do you think the mecanisim of laws are based on? (if you do this this is what will happen) it seems to me that is threat intimidation!! if im wrong in this acertion please enlighten me!

This has been address a number of times you can read it at any one of the many ‘carrot and stick’ I could go to many places but lets start with post 1140 and follow it for a while.
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3702940&postcount=1140
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3705025&postcount=1148
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3709453&postcount=1158
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3714724&postcount=1162
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3719203&postcount=1166
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3719459&postcount=1171
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3721198&postcount=1173
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3723873&postcount=1181
I could go on but I think this gives a flavour.

**

To quote one -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

Thing is that in these Pitt has always ended up backing up my theories by refusing to discuss his socio-economic ideas for tackling crime.

**

You should probably read my theory as well –

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

**

 

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.

Your criticisms consist of nothing but your opinion. I show studies addressing a certain subject and all you have to say is basically ‘I don’t think that’s right’

Yes I don’t think them right and I’ve backed up that view with thousands of words of explanation showing why I disagree. These have raise points and issues that you don’t address.

All you’re basically saying is ‘I’m not going to address them’ All you do is repeat assertions you never seem able to defend.

--------

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.

I have given you stats and possible explanations and even asked you for other possibilities. You have declined to even explain or tell us what your other possibilities are.

So you’re just refusing to read my posts?

-----------

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.

A false statement bordering on a lie. I have given you TWO possible explanations for the numbers and I have even asked you for a third explanation since you seem so convinced there is one yet you refuse to provide an answer.

Still not reading my posts then?

---------

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

And my point has always been your view of “threat and intimidation” would take place WITH or WITHOUT guns.

Again what is the point of me posting stuff if you’re just going to refuse to read it?

I’ve explained all this at length and in detail go and read

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

to quote - “But it doesn’t have to be a gun, this attitude is about having ‘equalizing’ power, the ability to threaten”

But guns are the most effect means of killing they were developed to be so.

What is the point of saying anything when you ignore it and just make unfounded assertions that you’d know to be wrong if you only bother to check.

----------

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)

Thus leading to the second conclusion I presented and you once again ignore.

Oh hell Pitt just read the damned posts rather than just repeat the same thing over and over in the forlorn hope that the answer will be different.

---------

but they have never been on the scale of many other countries.

Neither before or after the ban, which again has been my point you refuse to acknowledge.

This has been addressed and explained many times at length and in detail, if you are just going to ignore what’s said what is the point of me saying anything?

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

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.

And banning guns as part of your “holistic approach” has affected the drug problem how?

Again what is the point of me saying things if you just refuse to listen, in the proposals I’ve been promoting (the ones you thought were good) are guns banned?

But my theory has always been that even such mild regulation would be opposed by most pro-gunners remember you were the only one (so far) who thought them good, and you seem to be opposing them now.

--------

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

Once more what other possibility is there from the two I have already posted REPETEDLY?

So the only choice is your choice?

And anyway did it or didn’t it?

To you it did to me the answer seem unsure because we haven’t got an alternative UK where the laws were not enacted to compare it with.

-------

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?

Have I called for ANY law to be “scrapped”? All I have asked for is for you to show me where it actually made a difference.

Well did it make a difference you seem to imply no and I’m unsure?

Your argument has been that such laws should be in place because they are ineffective so presumably if it was your choice you’d remove the law. A couple of articles you’ve linked to were about groups that want to scrap the law.

----------

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?

So ANY law in place or gets put in place should never be questioned or studied because you cannot know what would have happened if the law was never in place? Does this apply to drug laws? You call for decriminalizing drugs and regulating them but how do you KNOW the laws that are in place are not what has kept the world from disintegrating into chaos? So according to your way of thinking the drug laws should be kept and not even looked at.

Hell man you really don’t read my posts do you?

Netherlands, Switzerland, but I don’t think either of them have gone far enough.

It’s ideas to be discussed, the problem so far is that things you don’t like are just wrong to you and that’s the end of the discussion.

----------

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.

Once again what have I called for to be scrapped?

Se above

---------

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

Another flat out lie. I have asked you to only look at the facts and figures from before and after the ban and I have given you two distinct possibilities of interpretation of this data and asked you for a third and you have refused.

Again you are saying – give me the answer I want and if you don’t I’ll ignore what you do say and just repeat the question until I get the answer I want’

Why not actually read what I’ve put and address what I’ve said.

---------

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

ANOTHER lie how many times have I asked you for another explanation?

Again you are saying – give me the answer I want and if you don’t I’ll ignore what you say and just repeat the question until I get the answer I want’

Why not actually read what I’ve put and address what I’ve said.

----------

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’

Wrong I have said it was EITHER ineffective OR the UK has become more violent. I have asked you dozens upon dozens of times what other conclusion you can come up with, yet you refuse to answer.

Again you are saying – give me the answer I want and if you don’t I’ll ignore what you say and just repeat the question until I get the answer I want’

Why not actually read what I’ve put and address what I’ve said.

----------

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

LMFAO feigned ignorance does not become you St balbus.

So you can’t explain what you mean? Are you sure you know what you mean?

-----------

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

Again look above and apply this to other laws you want to do away with and the logic of this argument falls away.

You really don’t read what I’ve written, have you ever listened to what I’ve said, do you listen to anything said by people you don’t agree with you?

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

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

Well well read the post I made above about that shooting. Who prevented more deaths and how were they prevented? It seems you are the one not reading the post as I have thought.

And it’s clear you haven’t read my reply.

----------

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

Yes your theory includes the part where limiting guns will change attitudes and create harm reduction. I have presented lots of data discrediting the part about guns you have done nothing but ignore it and continue to claim the validity of this without presenting any countering data.

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

---------

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

No by comparing the UK from before the ban with the UK after the ban. Again where is this third explanation of yours?

But it’s impossible to say – you are still not addressing what I’ve said your just repeating the same thing over and over until the answer is the one you want.

---------

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.

Yet you have only promoted the ONE singular reason. Why is that?

I’m unsure what you mean, please clarify?

----------

You often back them up

Yes keep letting those voiced in your head tell you that.

But I’ve shown where and explained why and you just refuse to address what I’ve said.

Again what is the point if you are just going to ignore what’s been said?

All you do is claim I’m insane, which is just tedious, fatuous and silly.

In other words the dictionary definition of a jerk.

**

 

What I’m saying is it hasn’t had an impact on me or the majority of the population that didn’t own handguns.

Ahhh ok so any law that does not impact you or people like you is ok and it does not matter if it has been effective or not.

But has it been effective or not? You seem to be implying it isn’t but I don’t think that can be substantiated as you have nothing to compare outcomes with.

---------

I think what you mean here is I haven’t given the answers you want.

You haven’t given ANY answer.

Again you are not addressing what’s been said you’re just ignoring it.

-----------

When have I ever clamed up

When asked to show the effectiveness of gun laws/regulations/bans you have in place or suggested.

LOL – oh so basically you’re saying you have just ignored a year or more of my posts?

To you I’m wrong so that’s it, it doesn’t matter what I say, it doesn’t matter that you don’t seem able to address my criticisms of your own views, it doesn’t matter that you seem unable to defend your view, I’m wrong.

That’s all you do these days make the assertion that I’m wrong.

---------

Actually it was usually me making the running and you opposing but all the things were part of the holistic approach.

And I have challenged you to show where part of your “holistic approach” would be effective and if you cannot would not the money and effort be better spent on things that have a chance.

You mean your idea of being nice to each other and teaching kids right from wrong, as I’ve said that great but it’s not really a policy it’s more of a hope.

Notice the only thing that you really object to and constantly attack me on is the gun regulations (even ones you thought were good).

You are fixated on guns if asked about other policies you become vague and laconic but with guns you become animated and vehement.

See how that fits in to my theories and backs them up?

----------

So one place you say we haven’t discussed things and somewhere else you claim we have.

You social programs – discussed
Your gun proposals – not discussed

Oh man, LOL, so again you’re ignoring virtually everything that’s been said by me.

We’ve actually discussed gun regulation a lot more than social policies (but not for the want of trying). Or rather you’ve attacked virtually any idea of regulation even the ones you’re thought were good.

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

Look rather than me explaining it all over again why don’t you just go back and read the post’s.

So I can once again repeat the questions I asked you before in the exact same manner? I have already read then you should read the resulting comments and address those.

The gun regulations I’ve promoted (the ones you thought were good) are just a part of an overall (holistic) approach, taking in education, health and other social, economic factors as well as new drug regulations.

What you said about my drugs policy seemed to be that you didn’t really have any ideas much but you thought the proscription idea used in Switzerland that I thought useful was ‘morally’ wrong.

It was basically I was wrong because I was wrong.

----------

Alien, Director Ridley Scott, writer Dan O'Bannon – a classic

Definitely a classic and great movie.

1) I’ve never encountered an alien egg, the face-hugger ‘larva’ stage let alone been attacked and ‘caught’ by one.

But my theory says you have. How does everyone know you have not? You should have to prove you have not.

2) I don’t live in the future, (if humans have colonised space and begun transporting ‘ore’ in huge space ship freighters across the interstellar viod no one told me).

No in my theory the alien landed on earth one dark stormy night in your back yard where no one noticed.

3) And I don’t inhabit the fictional world of a movie franchise.

So in your answer you are making a statement that life only exist on earth? That life could not have evolved anywhere else in the universe? Sounds rather like a religious fanatical response to me.

So your theory is dependent on us living in the fictional world of a movie franchise?

Do you see any flaw in that argument?

Is that how it works with you if reality doesn’t fit in with what you want, you just make it up so it does fit?

If so some of your arguments become a lot clearer.

--------

Why do you believe I have an ‘irrational’ fear of weapons?

Didn’t read the literature I gave you a link for huh?

You still don’t explain why you believe I have an ‘irrational’ fear of weapons?

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

As I say - It is a silly ploy but one often taken up by those that have run out of legitimate argument.

Yes yes keep defending your personal insults/attacks all the while asking for apologies for perceived wrongs.

And I notice you’re still not addressing the issue.

----------

Again I have to explain to you that the opinions of the writers of the studies are not ‘facts’ they are just opinions. They have come to those opinions by interpreting data in a certain way, all I’ve shown is that such data can often be interpreted differently making other opinions possible.

Yet you refuse to say what those other interpretations are.

Again you have to ignore virtually everything I say to give that reply.

-----------

I’m unsure but I don’t think that your methodology is sound in this and so I cannot just accept without question your assertions.

I have shown you the data I have based my conclusions on. I have given you two distinct possible conclusions. You claim they are both wrong and flawed. This implies there MUST be at least a third conclusion to be reached from this data. This mystery third conclusion you refuse to divulge.

So again you haven’t read my posts and you are not addressing what’s been said.

-----------

But you are implying ‘they’, whoever they are, were right on no evidence what so ever, but seemingly based on a personal bias.

And you are implying they were lying or just wrong with no evidence what so ever, but seemingly based on personal bias.

So lets see – I lived there and you didn’t, yes?

I’m completely wrong and must be wrong because I have no evidence (although I lived there) and you are right because…well why are you right?

The weapons inspectors who had visited Iraq said that Saddam didn’t have WMD’s were wrong and the neo-cons were right because…well were the neo-con’s right?

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

What is this manic laugh for, and what is your reply, that you have just accepted without anything that I must be wrong and you are right?

No you may very well be right as far as I know on this “story” you brought into the conversation, without reference, without links, without anything but your opinion and recollection. The laugh is for how you change the wording to fit your POV.

So I might be right.

So you made a big fuss about nothing.

Again this is just like the neo-cons and the WMD’s – they made this big fuss, special session of the UN and all, and then once the invasion was over suddenly WMD’s weren’t important and yes maybe Saddam didn’t have any but who cares.

----------

Is that what you were doing?

Lol yep I tricked you into bringing up a story to bolster my view. A story which I have never heard, a story which I have never read, a story that could be as made up as Dan O'Bannon famous novel.

It’s an attitude it’s about point scoring over legitimate debate, it’s about trying to smear opponents rather than addressing their points.

It’s the neo-con approach to those that questioned the Iraq invasion.

What famous novel? I only know Dan O'Bannon for his film scripts (alien, dark star etc).

----------

It wouldn’t be just gun laws and not an all out ban either.

Ok so where are your facts supporting your theory that making new gun ban/laws will have an impact on this, AS PART OF YOUR HOLISTIC APPROACH?

I’ve answered this seemingly hundreds of times, what’s the point of repeating it again if you are just going to ignore what I say?

You have a gun safe and promote the idea of gun safes you just don’t want the benefits to be mandatory.

-----------

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.

And yet there have been many many studies where the subject involves the correlation between gun availability and the amounts of violence and crime taking place. There has been not one showing this correlation. They have all concluded there is no correlation yet you continue to say there is.

Again NO. You have presented opinions based on interpretation but as I’ve show these things can be interpreted differently but you are repeatedly ignoring what I’ve said presumably because you can’t address what’s said.

-----------

cultural problems are caused by an attitude that also see guns as a way of solving problems,

for the millionth time what do you have to back up this claim?

Over a years worth of posts for one.

---------

Just repeating over and over that the ‘studies’ you’ve presented are right and other views wrong doesn’t wash when the counter arguments levelled at them remain unanswered.

Then present something ANYTHING that supports your statements.

I do over and over again, but you refuse to accept them or totally ignore what’s said or dismiss them without explanation.

-----------

“I’m not saying people shouldn’t be able to 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.

That does not answer the question.

Please explain why not?

---------

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.

So answer the question I have asked hundreds of times. What harm will be reduced? You have banned guns in the UK the numbers do not show any “harm reduction” in the UK, the same can be shown for other countries. You keep claiming there is harm reduction but never show what it is or how it is to be/was accomplished.

Again NO, in your opinion the UK laws have had no effect but you seem to be basing this on a biased interpretation.

We are talking of the same proposals you thought were good?


**

 

In my view there wouldn’t be a problem if the people with the guns don’t believe that threat and intimidation (and guns) are a way to solve problems,

No one is claiming they “solve” problems in general.

Well from things you and others have said there seems to be a belief that guns can be used to tackle certain problems (crime, government suppression etc)

It’s the individualists approach – I can tackle crime by shooting robbers – I can tackle government suppression by shooting the agents of the suppressive government. But it seems clear from the number of domestic disputes that involve guns that many people take this attitude further for dealing with private matters.

Please read the theory again and this time try and understand it rather than just ignoring what’s said.

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


--------

You have presented an opinion that gun regulation isn’t effective but it seems to me that the more important question is the one of attitude as you point out the UK doesn’t really have a gun problem the US does the question is why?

So you ignore the question once again. I have stated my answer to your question as to why there is more murder here. Why will you not answer?

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.

The things that you though were good.


-----------

As to the measures I’ve promoted you thought them good the only difference between us seems to be that you wouldn’t want them as laws (except the ones involving threat and intimidation) while I would.

Yes I think education and support would be much better than having ineffective and unenforceable laws.

But this is the problem, from what you have said I don’t think you give much thought to education or support but you definitely do think a lot about protecting that most overt manifestation of the threat and intimidation attitude, guns.

It’s all there in the theories, why not just address what been said.

-------

I’ve written at length with often detailed explanations of when and where you and others have backed up my theories, read again –

Yet no one else see this confirmation that seems to only be in YOUR mind.

Again you refuse to address what’s said and once again your only answer is to try and claim I’m insane.

---------

Your only complaint seems to be that I involve some ideas for gun regulation that you even thought were good.

Once again most of your suggestions are already law/ You call for more and more restrictive laws over time and I have challenged you to show where they are effective and you have refused to do so. On the other hand I have shown you data suggesting they are probably INEFFECTIVE.

You have presented an opinion that I’ve challenged and you are still not addressing those challenges

--------

It is a matter of looking at such ‘studies’ with a critical eye. Your methodology seems to be to just accept totally the validity of things that seem to back up what you believe to the point of calling them ‘facts’ and the ‘truth’ while claiming any other point of view invalid and wrong without explanation.

Yet you are the one claiming them to be flawed and offer no proof of the flaws.

Again NO, you are just refusing to acknowledge the arguments by just ignoring them, I’ve explained at length why the opinions seem flawed.

Your only reply to my explanations so far is to repeat the opinion and say I’m wrong because I’m wrong.

----------


The trouble is if you don’t address the criticisms of your position it still remains suspect and very possibly flawed.

This is what I have told you many times.

So why not just address my criticisms?

--------

You mean they ‘believe’ something is ‘true’ and a ‘fact’ even when confronted with opposing views.

You mean OPOSING FACTS not “opposing views”

You really don’t listen – if someone believes something is a ‘fact’, it is to them fact.

Do you understand?

There cannot be to them an opposing fact since by definition it wouldn’t be a fact.

Get it?

--------

So is this going to be your new wheeze to get out of actually addressing the criticisms of your views?

The “Alien” thing has slipped your mind already?

So you are saying you prefer fiction to reality and in you fiction I’ve not criticised your views and so that means you can ignore them.

----------

But would have the figures been higher or low or the same without the laws?

Once again with a NON answer I have presented you with two possible explanations and asked you for this third mystery explanation and you STILL refuse to provide it. Is it some kind of state secret?

Again you are not reading what I’ve said or addressing what I’ve said.

----------

Bitch is a lot stronger term than nut – well it is in Britain anyway

If used in a friendly manner in a joking context why is it so different?

It’s still a stronger term than nuts over here.

----------

Maybe the US is different, although recently some Americans did complain to me about it’s use in a thread so maybe not.

I am sure you immediately apologized to the offended even though it was only a perceived offense. Oh wait I am talking to St balbus.

What? This doesn’t seem to make any sense, what are you on about?

-----------

You have never explained why I fit into the definition of hoplophobe, you have asserted it but never explained why and you have never commented on my explanation as to why it seems incorrect.

I believe I showed you a whole page dedicated to this and many points made can be tied to you directly.

No, you still haven’t explained why I fit into the definition of hoplophobe and you have never commented on my explanation as to why it seems incorrect.

You seem to be just making an assertion and repeating it without explanation, it’s a lot like your insanity smear you’re basically saying I am because you say I am.

Its how a 10 year old argues

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

But your views are just opinions – how many times do I have to explain this?

Opinions backed up by data which has been provided to you. Something you have yet to do.

But I’ve explained why a reinterpretation of the data can give another opinion and you still haven’t addressed the issues raised by this.

-----------

I’m still replying to what you have said (see above).

You mean still evading

Well please explain why it is an evasion, it is easy to dismiss as an evasion but maybe if you actually had to think why you believe it is evasion you’d see it isn’t.

**

 

A gun owner can be law abiding right up to the point where they break the law. Only once they have acted criminally are they not obey laws, but not before then (by definition).

So you propose the same restrictions for the law abiding as the criminals in case they become criminals.

Do you think about what you type or do you just type without any thought?

Laws are meant to cover everyone it is only when the law abiding break the law that they become criminals.

Or are you saying that people are predestined to break a certain law at a certain time and so are criminals even when they haven’t yet committed the crime?

I mean do you think about anything other people tell you?

A criminal probably wouldn’t comply with having a gun safe but then under my proposals they’d should have a gun anyway. As explained many times such things as gun safes are to try and cut down on thief and accident.

Hell man we’ve been through this at length – your opinion is that gun safe’s are a good idea but shouldn’t be mandatory (so unlikely to be widely used). My opinion is that gun safes can deter criminals from stealing guns and increasing their availability to criminals.

To me that means you’d rather protect gun owners from inconvenience than in trying to cut crime and possibly safe lives.

-----------

So you think deterrent doesn’t work, that it is useless, that a criminal will always act with no notice of any possible deterrent put in their way?

Not what I said or asked was it?

It is but you don’t seem to have understood the meaning try re-reading it and actually thinking about what was said.

-----------

Just because statistically something goes up that doesn’t mean that the laws brought in to limit it should be scrapped.

Once again I have not called for anything to be “scrapped”

See above

-------

Doesn’t answer the question and again, do you read anything I post?

Again not what I said for example the law removing the right of gun ownership or possession for convicted criminals. Yes it can be an effective thing so far as giving legal premise of additional time for persons breaking the law. However you have yet to answer my question posed.

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.

----------

But education is a policy as is equal opportunity laws. You have said no policies can work. So please explain what you mean here?

No I said no policy can change the way people feel or thing.

After equal opportunity laws came into effect people still thought the same way and would do whatever they could to get away with.

Only education began to change the way people actually thought and felt about things.

So policies can change the way people feel or think and you admit just after expressly asserting the opposite?

Again do you actually think before writing?

In the UK we have our problems but many people think the equal opportunity laws have been a great success in integrating and mixing people of differing groups.

--------

And actually the basic premise of this thread is about the seeming ‘gun craziness’ of the US. I’ve explained at length that I associate this ‘craziness’ to the attitudes of threat and intimidation.

And I have questioned this association.

But asserting something is wrong is not the same as explaining why you think it wrong.

As I’ve pointed out you seem to just demand that what you say is ‘truth’ and therefore other views are wrong, but you don’t seem able to explain why other views are wrong and you don’t seem able to defend your own position from criticism.

-----------

I’ve also explained at length about the gun regulations I’ve being promoting (the ones you thought were good) are about harm reduction.

Many of which I have explained were already law. Others I have questioned the need of. I have also explained my concerns regarding these. I have also questioned you ascertain that they would indeed reduce harm. I am still waiting on this answer from you.

I’ve given you the answers but you just keep ignoring them and making repeated assertions that I’ve not given them.

**

 

The man killed himself after murdering 5 people in two differing locations.

Maybe you should review your facts or at least read my post. He didn’t kill himself.

Review my facts?
“The El Paso County Coroner's Office has ruled the death of Matthew Murray, who went on a shooting rampage at two church campuses that left four people dead, a suicide” Denver Post
“US police say a man who carried out two fatal shootings at religious sites in Colorado on Sunday committed suicide”. BBC
----------

In the light of that it seems a little distasteful to be ‘celebrating’ this DGU as some kind of vindication of your position; it’s not exactly a victory is it?

So would it have been better if Jeanne Assam would not have been armed? Do you think there would have been no more killed if she had not been armed? Would it have been better if the innocent people in the church had to wait until police arrived to apprehend the murderer?
Victory? Not for me no but for many possibly hundreds yes her having been armed was indeed a victory.

A victory - 54 or so people have been murdered to one Jeanne Assam.

So what is your point?

That people should have more guns and carry with them everywhere? Is that the kind of world you want, where people feel they need to go to church armed? A world were people live in constant fear of an attack?

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

Oh well yes but if only guns were even easier to get hold of, if only more people had easy access to them anywhere at any time…

Again what would have happened if Jeanne Assam would not have been armed? Why will you not think about this? Why are you sticking your head in the sand?

It is very likely the shooter would have killed more people but he was still able to kill two before she acted and he’d already killed two other elsewhere.

I’m not against people defending themselves but why are these shooting happening all the time (5-6 times in the last year) why are there so many domestic shootings, and why in the US is the debate dominated seemingly by those saying ‘well if only more people had guns’.

----------

Again this kind of attitude seems to back up what I’ve been saying about the seeming prevalence of threat and intimidation culture in the US and a seeming belief that guns are a way of solving problems.

Again you deny the facts before you. I posted about how this could have been prevented, how the murderer fell through the cracks in the system. I say it was a good thing Jeanne Assam was armed because she saved many if not hundreds of lives by putting her own life in danger. You want to only Ignore the valiant effort of Jeanne Assam. Are you wishing that there would have been more killed? Because that is what would have happened if she were not armed at that time.

And I notice you are not addressing what I’ve said.

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

Pitt we have been through the whole thing about people reporting ‘suspect’ behaviour at some length.

It was a little more than mood swings and inappropriate sense of humor now wasn’t it?

Again this isn’t addressing what I’ve said, it’s a wise arse remark that says nothing of substance.

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

but if the police start turning up at the houses of everyone that shows one of the above symptoms to drag them away to be assessed isn’t that a infringement of peoples liberty, I mean have they actually done anything that’s against the law?

Yet you advocate assessing EVERYONE that wants to have a gun for sporting purposes even without exhibiting ANY symptoms. Is that not an infringement of personal liberty and privacy?

Everyone that wants to drive a car legally needs to pass a test and get a licence, is that an infringement of personal liberty?

---------

And so on and so on the idea to me seems to throws up more questions than answers.

Then why don’t you try and answer the questions posed to you above in this very thread?

What?

I’m unsure what you mean or even if you understand what you mean?

Once again this reply doesn’t address what’s been said is just another piece of misdirection.

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

While at the same time bringing all those other things I’ve talked at length about such as free at entry universal heathcare, better education, welfare, etc etc. to try and help such disturbed individuals and stop them before they act rather than after?

And those that act anyway? Do we just let them act?

Lets see there have been 5 or 6 such shooting with 55 dead and only one Jeanne Assam.

And once again this doesn’t address what I’ve said it just more evasion

**

 

There are so many ridiculous statements in post 1412 it is not even funny. However since it is directed at someone other than myself Ill let them reply themselves if so inclined.

Again with the assertions.

**

The problem is that I do question so you just repeat again and again in the hope my questions will go away or disappear.

And I have answered you and posed my own questions. Most of which you flat out ignore.

And again with the assertions – So please tell me where these answers of yours are and where my refusals to answer are?

The problem for me is that even if I give an answer, if it isn’t the one you want you just ignore it or claim it isn’t an answer.

**

well it seems my predictions concerning this latest shooting which was stopped by an armed civilian came true. The anti-gun people for the most part have been strangly quiet. Then there is the extreme anti-gun exemplified by balbus who all but ignore the facts of the tragedy, making such false statements such as "The man killed himself after murdering 5 people in two differing locations.". This is completely wrong and I have not seen a single news story stating such a falsehood. It seems even the BBC got the facts straight when the article states:
Quote:
Sisters Stephanie and Rachel Works, aged 18 and 16, were killed before Mr Murray himself was shot dead by volunteer security guard Jeanne Assam, an ex-policewoman.
source
Strange balbus somehow missed this little fact?
This is done to down play that Jeanne Assam stopped the murderer by being in possession of a firearm. They do not want this FACT known. The fact is if Jeanne had not been armed, many more people would have died.
balbus posted either completely out of ignorance of the facts of this tragedy (strange since I posted this very fact right above) or deliberately skewed, distorted, and flat out lied about the event to try and bolster thier position.
I know which way I see it, others can make up thier own mind.

So once again with the assertions

Assertions are all you seem to have these days Pitt, you don’t seem to have any counter arguments to the many criticism of your viewpoint and you definitely are unable to refute my theories but you do throw out lots and lots of assertions presumably in the hope that nobody will notice they never seem to stick.

Headline - US church gunman killed himself
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7140409.stm

I’m not denying Jeanne Assam shot the man in question but it seems he killed himself.

For someone that seems to spend so much time online I can’t see how you missed it, but maybe you were so busy trying to score a silly point you didn’t bother to check if I was right or not?

And now I presume you will apologise unreservedly for the erroneous remarks you directed at me that could so easily have been avoided if you’d checked the news rather than scoring points. LOL

**

The thing about these tragic shooting is why do so many take place what 5- 6 in a year with some 55 murdered?

My first thoughts are why is this happening and what can be done to stop them from taking place but many Americans first thoughts seem to be ‘if only someone had been there with a gun to shoot them’

See the difference?

One is about trying to find the causes so that things can be done to deal with them and stop such things from ever happening in the first place. The other is about hoping to deal with the symptom as they manifest themselves and limit the number of people killed.

Now some say that both can be done but the problem is I see no evidence of pro-gunners looking to social remedies or even a willingness to think about such ideas.

**

 

I don't know what the bottom line is so far on here (144 pages! WOW!!!), but can say that anyone who tries to break into my house will be welcomed by the business end of any number of guns--a shotgun would be my personal preference.

To those of you who do not own guns, while I hope the day never comes, but when the day comes where someone breaks into your house to cause you or your family harm, let me offer my sympathy for your tragedy.

 

Have you two ever heard of email?

 

Haha...I like that you guys are arguing specifically on a point-by-point basis, that's good. It is a little hard for most of us to keep up with though.

 

Dirk, Balbus, I love you guys. I stopped in about 45 pages ago. Still at it, huh? Gardner still here too? Keep on rockin'!