Gun ownership is MAD?

I have answered your questions and have asked you questions in return yet you refuse to answer.

Go back and read the thread.

So you don’t know, you want me to find out, so why do you think I have refused to answer your questions, if you don’t know?

**

Again what do we do until this eutopian world exist?

That is the question I’m asking, what is to be done, as I’ve said to me many people in the US seem to believe that guns are the solution, and I fear that some think it the only solution.

**

I have shown the huge disparities in gun related homicides between the US and other countries (which you admit is true)

And I again point you to the fact that in stqates where CCW laws have been passed and carried out there has NOT been an increase in gun related homicides although there are MORE guns on the streets.

But you do agree that there are huge disparities in gun related homicides between the US and some other countries (US some 11.000, the UK some 70)

**

Your own posts claiming people could be a victim of crime at any moment, of the need for protection and that criminals have guns seems to point toward a society that is fearful.

Do you dispute the claim that anyone COULD become a victim?

But whereas I’m not afraid and you do to the extent you feel you need to be armed so that you might possibly defend yourself and you seem to be pushing others to think the same way. I just wonder why?

**

I have seen this attitude in many threads over the years I’ve been here, and your own views that external forces have little impact on a person becoming a criminal and your constant pushing of guns as a deterrent seems to imply that to some extent you also have this attitude (but we are still exploring this).

Again one has nothing to do with the other. Law abiding citizend in possession of a gun for protection has no impact on weather a person becomes a criminal or not.

But the attitude that focuses on guns as a solution to crime, without seeming to have any serious or worthwhile ideas on any other ways does have a crossover impact.

**

Again you equate not having a gun with not being protected and push the idea that guns are the best deterrent to being a victim of crime.

Its just stating a FACT that guns are A deterrent, not the only deterrent or maby not even the best deterrent. You have yet to show they are NOT a deterrent.

But my point is that you seem to be constantly emphasising the gun as a deterrent, and giving it a prominence that is lacking for any other solution.

**

I think a more approperate question is why do people in the UK think there is so much more crime in the US than the UK. Is it perhaps the UK citizens tend to ignore the problem?

And I think a more appropriate question (the one I asked first) is why should US people be more worried about being the victim of a crime than British people? Are US criminals so much more murderous and violent than those in the UK, who are therefore much more likely to want to injure or kill their victims?
If so why?
Could it be because Americans know the US is awash with guns and so anyone that might commit a crime could be armed with a gun? Or could it be that there is no greater risk than in the UK if so why does you reality seem so much more dangerous?

UK people don’t ignore crime you only need to see the space given to it in the British media and the time spend on it by politicians, but the thing is that we don’t seem as afraid of it as you seem to be.

**

I showed you a source claiming London has a much higher crime rate than New York, Which you have not countered other than to say the author is Biased.

But in comparing New York and London, as far as I can see the gun related murder rate for New York City is running at about 500 a year while the gun related murder rate for the whole of the UK is about 70.

US city of 8 million = 500

Non-US country of 60 million = 70

**

“Basic attitude is that we have the RIGHT to own guns”

A lie? not hardly. You are correct i do say there are people that should not have the right to own a gun, and our laws address this in specifics. Basically I agree with these laws.

So the basic attitude is that only some should have the right to own guns.

The thing is that that is my stance.

Correct in accordance with the existing laws.

LOL, So it wasn’t a lie it was just incorrect.

**

So the ‘we’ have the right to have a gun and the ‘they’ don’t have a right to have a gun.

So who are the ‘we’ and who are the ‘they’?

Again in accordance with existing laws. Children, mentally Ill, Convicted criminals, etc etc.

So the only people you exclude from having a gun is babies and children, those that have been recognised as being ‘mentally ill’, and anyone that has become a criminal?

So people that may have a ‘mental illness’ but which have not been diagnosed can have a gun, up until the moment they are diagnosed or use the gun inappropriately?

What level of mental illness would it be (e.g. would mild depression count)?

So people that have not yet been charged with any offence can have a gun, up until the moment they are charged or use the gun inappropriately?

How serious does the crime have to be does anyone that does anything that results in a police record result in that person being banned for life from owning or having a gun?

**

How do you stop them?
Well counseling comes to mind.

Fine but who gets the counceling (every teen that shows one or more of the above ‘warning signs’) and who pays for it?
Hmm well lets see since schools already have counselors in place, they can make a preliminary evaluation of people comitting suspect actions.

What suspect actions? Would it be based on the FBI list?

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

So would anyone that showed any of these signs would be evaluated?

**

Do you think if would be worth cutting down their access to guns?

cut down the access to guns For people committing suspect actions, hmmm let me see, ummmm YEAH? That goes without saying.

So anyone who has ever shown any of the FBI’s suspect warning signs should not be allowed access to guns?

**

Do you want everyone that wants to have a gun to take some type of psychological evaluation?

I dont think ther has to ba a psychological evaluation, look at the CCW laws and stats.

So in what way do you decide who is suspect and who isn’t? Do you use the FBI list of warning signs? I mean another of them is an ‘over-enthusiastic interest in guns’, which is open to interpretation, I mean it could mean anyone that likes guns and knows a lot about them.

**

In your opinion how do criminals become rehabilitated?
Again that will differ from criminal to criminal. I admit there is no cookie cutter answer to these type of questions, where as you seem to think there is.

Have you any ideas?

You’ve already mentioned counseling and rehab, but what about the problem of people going straight back into an a situation and environment that could lead them back into crime?

There is no answer but MANY answers, there is no program but MANY programs. There is no way to rehab 100% of the people. you do the best you can and have to realize there will be people that you loose.
You keep asking this over and over and I keep telling you the same answer over and over. What is it you want to hear? What is it you suggest for rehabing 100% of the people?

Your answers have been (1) that it will differ from criminal to criminal and (2) there is no answer but MANY answers. Twice doesn’t seem like over and over and the answers are not exactly answers I mean don’t you think they are a bit (if not very) ambiguous. I mean it doesn’t inspire confidence that you have any ideas on the subject or even though about it much.

**

 

Pitt


You claim that using guns as a deterrent to criminals is a great way of tackling crime and you wax lyrically on the subject, you also claim that other things can be done, and they are …well... things will be different form person to person, circumstance to circumstances, there is no one answer but many answers, programmes need to be set up you know, youth programmes that kind of thing, and parents should teach their kids right from wrong.

I get the feeling that while you are passionate about wanting to have guns (and use crime as a reason for pushing for their ownership) the other stuff the stuff that you say also should be done you are incredibly sketchy on.

As I’ve said its about the attitude that forms the viewpoint.

It is the way in which some people seem able to go on for ever, using many arguments and multiple statistic to defend the idea that guns are a good solution in combating crime, but seem very vague or have simplistic ideas when it comes to any other ways of tackling criminality.

For example – YOU DO THE CRIME YOU DO THE TIME.

What crime and what time?

Does every crime have to involve doing time?

Are there no other response other than prison?

If two people are charged with theft but one has stolen a packet of sweets and another has robbed a bank at gunpoint should they both do the same time?

In times past it was a crime for a slave to run away from their owner, was the slave justified in running or not?

In some places it is an offence to criticise the government, is the government justified in throwing into prison those that speak out against government corruption? A crime has been committed so shouldn’t time be given?

This simplistic slogan also doesn’t address the other ideas I’ve raised about what may be the causes people get into crime in the first place. In other words it is about solutions not causes.

It seem to me to smack of an authoritarian mentality a mentality that is more interested in control and suppression than in understanding.

 

Again what do we do until this eutopian world exist?

That is the question I’m asking, what is to be done, as I’ve said to me many people in the US seem to believe that guns are the solution, and I fear that some think it the only solution.

I have stated repeatedly it is NOT the only solution, but can be used in conjunction with any programs out there or that will be out there.

Well, that is what I’m still trying to find out about your own attitudes, so far, you say you believe in other solutions but don’t seem to have a clue what they may be, you just say there might be many of them and they could do something or other. Or you have come out with rather pointless slogans like “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time’, which even you seem to admit isn’t very helpful.

**

I have shown the huge disparities in gun related homicides between the US and other countries (which you admit is true)

And I again point you to the fact that in stqates where CCW laws have been passed and carried out there has NOT been an increase in gun related homicides although there are MORE guns on the streets.

But you do agree that there are huge disparities in gun related homicides between the US and some other countries (US some 11.000, the UK some 70)

Again Yes iI do agree, but how do you explain that in CCW states gun homicide has declined along with most all catagories of violent crime even though there are more guns legally on the streets?

Can you tell me the state with the lowest number of gun related homicides? And what is it?

**

Your own posts claiming people could be a victim of crime at any moment, of the need for protection and that criminals have guns seems to point toward a society that is fearful.

Do you dispute the claim that anyone COULD become a victim?

But whereas I’m not afraid and you do to the extent you feel you need to be armed so that you might possibly defend yourself and you seem to be pushing others to think the same way. I just wonder why?

Again repeating I never push for anyone to be armed but state that is a personal choice.

People can choose to have a gun or not but if they don’t have a gun and they are a victim of crime they will not be able to defend themselves. It’s your choice, have a gun and possibly survive a crime or not have a gun and possibly die, your choice. You might never need a gun but it you don’t have one and something bad happens you might end up dead, that your choice.

Still sounds like a sales pitch to me.

**

But the attitude that focuses on guns as a solution to crime, without seeming to have any serious or worthwhile ideas on any other ways does have a crossover impact.

While you Seem to imply that you cannot have law abiding citizens in possession of guns and have other programs at the same time.

LOL where do I state that?

**

I think a more approperate question is why do people in the UK think there is so much more crime in the US than the UK. Is it perhaps the UK citizens tend to ignore the problem?

And I think a more appropriate question (the one I asked first) is why should US people be more worried about being the victim of a crime than British people? Are US criminals so much more murderous and violent than those in the UK, who are therefore much more likely to want to injure or kill their victims?
If so why?

Again I dont think they are, I do believe they may be more aware of it. Being prepared does not equate to fear.

But saying that you may be in imminent danger of attack and death, is, and that is basically what you have been more than hinting at.

**

Could it be because Americans know the US is awash with guns and so anyone that might commit a crime could be armed with a gun? Or could it be that there is no greater risk than in the UK if so why does you reality seem so much more dangerous?

Repeating this does not give it more creedence. How many times will you c/p this?

But I don’t think I’m the only one who would have noticed that you don’t seem to be addressing what is being said, but are just dismissing it, why?

**

UK people don’t ignore crime you only need to see the space given to it in the British media and the time spend on it by politicians, but the thing is that we don’t seem as afraid of it as you seem to be.

Giving people warnings for theft seems to be in my opinion as ignoring the problem. Where is the deterrent in this?

If you commit a crime you receive the punishment associated with said crime. Punishment can and does vary according to the severity of said crime. If the theft is very minor or unproven a police caution (which comes with a police record) might be the most appropriate action or the best that can be given. Basically it is up to the police to decide.

**

I showed you a source claiming London has a much higher crime rate than New York, Which you have not countered other than to say the author is Biased.

But in comparing New York and London, as far as I can see the gun related murder rate for New York City is running at about 500 a year while the gun related murder rate for the whole of the UK is about 70.

US city of 8 million = 500

Non-US country of 60 million = 70

Yet again you wish to ignore all other crime and concentrate on the one item (gun Homicide) in which the numbers seem to favor your opinion.

My point is that –

You seem to fear crime and want to be armed

I don’t seem to fear crime and don’t feel the need to be armed

Why?

Could it be because while the US is awosh with guns and the UK is not, therefore it is much more probable for US people to meet a criminal with a gun, and more likely to die as a result of a gun?

**

“Basic attitude is that we have the RIGHT to own guns”

A lie? not hardly. You are correct i do say there are people that should not have the right to own a gun, and our laws address this in specifics. Basically I agree with these laws.

So the basic attitude is that only some should have the right to own guns.

The thing is that that is my stance.

Correct in accordance with the existing laws.

LOL, So it wasn’t a lie it was just incorrect.

Where is the lie or incorrect part of my statement?

LOL, oh I’m sure that no lie was intended it’s just you were not clear that when you said ‘we’ you meant a limited ‘we’, it didn’t mean -we as in all. It meant - we as in some.

Fine

So our basic attitude are the same, both of us believe only some should have the right to have a gun

**

How do you stop them?
Well counseling comes to mind.

Fine but who gets the counceling (every teen that shows one or more of the above ‘warning signs’) and who pays for it?
Hmm well lets see since schools already have counselors in place, they can make a preliminary evaluation of people comitting suspect actions.

What suspect actions? Would it be based on the FBI list?

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

So would anyone that showed any of these signs would be evaluated?

Again look at Kimveer Gill, for a recent example of someone that should have been evaluated.

So would anyone that showed any of the FBI signs be evaluated?

**

Do you think if would be worth cutting down their access to guns?

cut down the access to guns For people committing suspect actions, hmmm let me see, ummmm YEAH? That goes without saying.

So anyone who has ever shown any of the FBI’s suspect warning signs should not be allowed access to guns?

I believe the correct procedure would be to evaluate then action taken. I know this is a hard concept for you but its really rather simplistic.

So anyone who has ever shown any of the FBI’s suspect warning signs should not be allowed access to guns?

**

Do you want everyone that wants to have a gun to take some type of psychological evaluation?

I dont think ther has to ba a psychological evaluation, look at the CCW laws and stats.

So in what way do you decide who is suspect and who isn’t? Do you use the FBI list of warning signs? I mean another of them is an ‘over-enthusiastic interest in guns’, which is open to interpretation, I mean it could mean anyone that likes guns and knows a lot about them.

Again look at Kimveer Gill, for a recent example of someone that should have been evaluated.

So in what way do you decide who is suspect and who isn’t? Do you use the FBI list of warning signs? I mean another of them is an ‘over-enthusiastic interest in guns’, which is open to interpretation, I mean it could mean anyone that likes guns and knows a lot about them.


**

 

LOL

You really want me to give detailed plans for gun limitation don’t you? Would you be satisfied if I gave the answer you seem to find adequate with regard to socio-economic ideas – that there are many ideas of what to do and many possible phases and plans?

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.

It seems to be that they want guns, they like playing with guns, and this has breed the idea that guns are a way of dealing with certain problems. As I’ve implies elsewhere in the thread, this attitude bleeds across into others ideas and policies. For example the Bush Admin have given a prominence to the use of guns in dealing with ‘terror’ without seeming to do much about the root causes of why Arabs, Persians, and Muslims, dislike the US.

Until that attitude changes the US will continue to be a gun culture.

**

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. None of these would be brought in a once or at the same level of strength it would be a matter of coming in at degrees, over time.

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

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

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

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

Stop the sale of all new guns within the US and ban the import of guns. People found selling new guns (ones without an official ‘history’) or found bring guns into the US would be given a mandatory 20 year sentence. (In time laws would be brought in making weapons of a certain age inoperable)

Only handguns* would be allowed to be held at a persons home or place of work (barring businesses that involve guns). All other types of privately owned gun would have to be held a secure facility (police armoury) were they would have to be signed out if required (the reason would need to be approved).

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun.

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

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).

I would begin with the exclusions from gun ownership you listed above but over time tighten them up so that eventually anyone charged with any crime would be banned from owning a gun for life. Anyone that showed any type of mental illness (including mild depression) would be banned from owning a gun. Anyone one that didn’t achieve a certain level of academic attainment at school would be banned from owning a gun for life.

* A firearm designed to be held in one hand, aka pistol.

**

I would couple these types of laws with the other measures that I mentioned earlier in Post 37 (some of which you agreed with). Here they are again –

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

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

Prostitution would be legalised regulated and taxed.

The banning of all advertising aimed at children.

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

Equalising the societal quality of life.”

**

 

Well Mr.Pitt, your stance isn't my stance, but you are doing a decent enough job, i would have given up after the first couple rounds of repetitions...

 

I have stated counseling, youth programs, parent involvement, all of which are already in effect im my community. I have no one final solution. Again what is YOUR comprehensive solution?

As I’ve said it is a bit vague compared with all the stuff you seem to have to hand about guns or are willing to going looking for in support of guns.

I mean I gave you about twenty ideas of mine many just off the top of my head, but you seem to find it hard to pad out any of your ideas about alternative solutions.

Who gets the counseling, how do they get to get counseling, what is the counseling for and what are it’s aims?

What do you think the youth programmes should entail, who is to be targeted, what ages are to be covered?

Are parents to be given assistance if so what, what do you think could assist parents?

If these things are in effect in your community you must be able to give some details?

**

As far as the One state I am not sure however the New England region has the lowest homicide rate in the US. This region consist of:Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont. Source
Of these states Conneticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Umm all of them. source


As far as I can tell there were 147 gun related death in Connecticut in 2002

Population of Connecticut is 3. 5 million

The number of gun related deaths for the whole UK in 2002 was 81

Population of the UK 60 million

**

While you Seem to imply that you cannot have law abiding citizens in possession of guns and have other programs at the same time.

LOL where do I state that?

Your attitude seems to imply this. You keep stating that we only want to use guns as a solution and are not interested in other solutions. Do you now admit a person can do both?

What I’m trying to say is that if people focuses on guns as a solution to crime, without seeming to have any serious or worthwhile ideas on any other ways of looking at crime it is likely that solutions other than those related to guns are likely to go untried.

As I’ve pointed out you seem very acquainted with the arguments supporting guns as a solution to crime but seem vague on alternatives.

**

Your statement is based on the assumption that people in the US are more AFRAID of becoming a victim. I already said I do NOT think this is the case, only that they are not in denial and are more aware of it.

But from virtually everything you have said (except the denials) seems to indicate you obviously do seem to be worry about it. I’ve tried to point this out to you but you just deny being able to see it.

**

AGAIN I ask Where is the deterrent in this?

What are you saying you think the police are not the best people suited to make that decision?

**

My point is that –

You seem to fear crime and want to be armed

I don’t seem to fear crime and don’t feel the need to be armed

Why?

Because you want to ignore the FACT that CRIME is on the rise in the UK.

But I’m very much less likely to be confronted by someone with a gun who may mean someone harm here in the UK than an American is in the US.

I think this might have a bearing on why Americans seem so much more afraid of crime than the British do.

I mean it could well be that if US gun numbers got down to UK levels that Americans might feel less afraid of crime.

**

Could it be because while the US is awosh with guns and the UK is not, therefore it is much more probable for US people to meet a criminal with a gun, and more likely to die as a result of a gun?

Ill answer this one more time. No I do not think this is the case. According to p. 44; U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Handgun Crime Victims, July 1990
Quote:

The National Crime Survey (NCS) estimates that there are about 5.4 million violent crimes (both reported and unreported) and that guns of all types are involved in some 650,000 or 12 percent.10 In other words, 88 percent of violent crimes do not involve firearms.
12% do you worry about 12%?

Very near the beginning of your very first post you said “violent crime is everywhere” in reply to my question of what threat was so worrying to the people of the US.

Now you seem to be saying that people should not worry about it? So why all the warnings about criminals with guns and possibly meeting a criminal anytime anyplace that might have a gun?

**

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

So would anyone that showed any of these signs would be evaluated?

Again look at Kimveer Gill, for a recent example of someone that should have been evaluated.

So would anyone that showed any of the FBI signs be evaluated?

Any one act committed on a limited basis is not a sign of instability.

So two acts count?

What I’m trying to point out is, it seems a lot more difficult to work out who and who not to act against. But if there were fewer guns in the society as a whole those people would have less access to them in the first place.

**

What part of my answers do you not understand?

Who do you act against, if you don’t seem to know whom to evaluate?

My problem is that you seem incapable of giving an answer, because you don’t seem to have thought your ideas through.

 

Well this is wonderful Pitt really good, this is what can be so good about debate.

So we have some ideas for the first stage -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

So what do people think?

Shane, Haid, Proud, Otter?

Would you sign up to this?

 

Fuck no, no conditions.

 

Pitt


You want details that I do not have. I own two seperate businesses one of which forces me to travel on a regular basis. There are community groups here that have youth programs, shelters, drug rehab houses, all of which are administered by trained individual and staff. I have to trust these people to know what they are doing. I contribute annually to several of these programs including City Youth, NE counsel on family violence, DARE, amoung others.

You would have to tell me more about ‘City Youth’ and ‘NE counsel on family violence’ but DARE does seem to have a lot of critics-

“DARE has fallen under heavy criticism from various sources. The most common complaint is that it is ineffective, and that there is no proof that students who go through the DARE program are any less likely to use drugs.[5]
The U.S. Department of Education concluded in 2003 that the DARE program is ineffective and now prohibits its funds from being used to support it.(Zernike) The U.S. Surgeon General's office, the National Academy of Sciences, (Zernike) and the U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) have also concluded that the program is ineffective.(Kanof) The GAO also concluded that the program is sometimes counterproductive in some populations, with those who graduate from DARE later having higher rates of drug use. Studies by Dr. Dennis Rosenbaum (Rosenbaum), and by the California Legislative Analyst's office (Bovard) found that DARE graduates were more likely than others to drink alcohol, smoke tobacco and take illegal drugs.
Administrators of the DARE program have tried to suppress unfavorable research by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) that found that "DARE simply didn't work". A Federal judge ruled that DARE had sought to "suppress scientific research" critical of its program and had "attempted to silence researchers at the Research Triangle Institute, according to editors at the American Journal of Public Health and producers at Dateline NBC. [6][7] Some reporters, like those at Rolling Stone magazine, who have written negative stories on DARE have claimed that they were the victims of harassment and intimidation as a result. [8] Sources, such as Students for Sensible Drug Policy, DRCNet, and Drugsense, have accused DARE of teaching misleading and inaccurate information about drugs and drug use.
The policy of allowing or even encouraging anonymous reporting of drug use by other students, or even parents and teachers, has created resentment and raised important issues about both student rights and family rights to privacy.
Some argue that DARE's 'Just Say No' messages mislead by lumping all drugs from beer to heroin in the same category.[9]
It is also argued that DARE should be replaced by programs of proven effectiveness (Ennett et al). Regardless of these and many other criticisms, DARE still remains widely popular. [10]”
Wiki

General Accounting Office
"In brief, the six long-term evaluations of the DARE elementary school curriculum that we reviewed found no significant differences in illicit drug use between students who received DARE in the fifth or sixth grade (the intervention group) and students who did not )the control group). Three of the evaluations reported that the control groups of students were provided other drug use prevention education. All of the evaluations suggested that DARE had no statistically significant long-term effect on preventing youth illicit drug use”

The ethos of DARE seems to be based on the ‘just say no’ idea.

**

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

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

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

**

You mention that a friend is on the board of a shelter house for abused women and you say you contribute to the counselling in cases of family violence. Have you ever asked your friend why the women have been abused? Do you wonder why family violence has taken place?

**

While you seem able, even eager to defend guns, you have arguments and statistic seemingly at your finger tips, but when it comes to other alternatives to tackling crime you seem to have few ideas. It is someone else’s fight, someone else’s job. You seem to have details on guns as a solution to crime but not on anything else.

 

I began this thread by giving my criticisms of US gun culture and the attitudes that seem to promote it.

I wanted to know what was so threatening that many Americans thought they needed to own guns?

I’ve been told that it is because Americans could be at any time or place the victim of a violent crime. This was repeated so often that I presumed that Americans must be afraid of being victims of crime.

I’ve been told that isn’t true, I’ve been told that while Americans know violent crime is all around them and that they may be the victim of it at any time and any place. They are not in the least worried and so unworried are they that the guns they have to protect them are not carried or are locked up.

This seems to be a contradiction.

**

I wanted to know why there was such a threat to the American people (a threat they were or were not worried about)?

I was told it was all about greed then it was all down to an individuals choices in life then the reasons became many and so impossible to discuss since they would vary from person to person and circumstance to circumstance.

I must admit I’m still very little the wiser. Defending the roll of guns in controlling crime seems to come naturally but why crime might be happening seems more difficult.

**

So it was that I began to wonder if the prominence given to the gun might not be stifling thought about alternatives way in which to tackle crime.

I mean on the pro-gun side few have given any thought to alternatives, one would have none and the person that claims the pro-gunners do give thought to such things seems incredibly vague on the subject.

I put forward a few ideas on how to reduce crime these were in the main accepted but only in passing as the person once again extolled the role of the gun.

After giving me links and quotes and statistic that support his views on guns, when asked to give his views on what else could be done, he suddenly says he doesn’t know, and seems to not care about finding out.

**

From years on this forum I have noted many Americans attitude to guns, they like guns, they like playing with guns. I think that until that attitude changes there is little point in talking about individual plans or better ways to control guns, because they will reject and oppose any restrictions.

It was for that reason that I didn’t think it worth posting some ideas, but I was asked to and I did. One person was willing to support just a few of them but the other pro-gunners seem to have rejected all out of hand.

To them “Firearms should not be regulated. At all.” And that “no conditions” on guns are acceptable.

**

 

Balbus, why anyone continues to bother conversing with you is beyond me.
Everything in these last 2 posts have already been addressed repeatedly.
Since you fail to acknowledge the validity of the arguements already presented to you and continue to repeat your tired and already addressed arguements, i propose that you undergo a 10 day period of suspension from the Politics forum. you will be missed Balbus, but i think it's for the best. Maybe after that period of time you will be able to attempt a fresh arguement worth taking seriously.

 

Id like to see switchblades made illegal.


All of the little punk /goth deviants around here have those dangerous things.

 

Proud

Man you crack me up

Hey hey I have one…

The scenario is that there are these zombies, no, no even better these aliens, deviant aliens and like they land there spaceship right on top of this guy in a hummer…

**

Oh come on Proud have your argumentative skills not develop since kindergarten?

 

Shane, please explain why you believe the points have been addressed, as I’ve had to explain to people on many occasions just saying something don’t mean it is so, you will have to give your arguments for believing it is so.

**

Honestly Shane, you’re not that good at being a smart arse (ok just a little), I think you would be better off anyway concentrating on the rather large holes in your own ideas.

If you’ll come back to the ‘Better argument” thread or even the ‘post left’ thread I could try and help.

Yours with Regards

Balbus

 

You state "My own view is that ‘prohibition’ itself breeds more likelihood of crime" Yet you do not apply the same same logic when it comes to prohibiting firearms.

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

Please Pitt you really need to think through your replies rather than just reacting with a knee jerk gun defence argument like this.

**

You mention that a friend is on the board of a shelter house for abused women and you say you contribute to the counselling in cases of family violence. Have you ever asked your friend why the women have been abused? Do you wonder why family violence has taken place?

well lets see, alcoholic husbands, drug abusing husbands, general violent tendencies of the perpetrator, there are many and should be treated on individual basic.

Once again you answer is a non answer - it’s lots of things and there all different.

Have you never wondered why people turn to alcohol and drugs? Do you think peoples violent tendencies could be understood, lessened even cured?

As I’ve mentioned before your viewpoint doesn’t seem to be about thinking why and then stepping on to thinking how things could be changed for the better. It seems more interested in just holding the line, in suppression and control. It seems about dealing with symptoms not wondering about solutions.

You seem to feel that guns need another champion, even when the pro-gun lobby is huge in the US, while it seems to me that few in the US are actually asking themselves questions about there social and economic situation.

**

Wrong again I said PEOPLE could become victims of crime, that includes people inthe UK also. You have yet to show any resonto dispute this claim other than "I am not afraid".

What? Yes people can be a victim of crime, I’ve even told you that I’ve been the victim of a crime but even though you haven’t been a victim of a crime, you sound a lot more afraid than I do, going on about the violent crime that is everywhere and that people might get killed in an attack at any moment and would be better off armed with a gun.

But then when it suites you, you claim that there is nothing to be afraid of and say you don’t carry your gun and are not worried about being killed.

Again at first I thought these contradictions, were the mistakes of someone that hadn’t thought their ideas through but I’m beginning to suspect it is more a matter of suiting the argument to fit the situation. Saying one thing when that suits and saying its opposite when that suits.

**

Again I tried explaining this concept to you in very simplistic terms which you evidently have completely ignored. Ill ask you again:
Do you wear a seatbelt when you drive a car? If so is it because you are afraid of having an accident? Or is it just a precaution you choose to take?

I thought I told you I don’t drive, never have, I travel mostly by public transport, bicycle or I walk. If I do travel in a car I use a safety belt because there is the possibility of an accident, and the possibilities of injury or death can be quite high. Am I frightened of being in a car accident, well after being in three fairly serious ones, yes.

But what has travelling by car to do with guns. Cars are not designed to kill they are designed for transport, there are very few incidences of people purposely using a car to kill someone (either fiddling with the car or against pedestrians) or in a hold up (“Stick them up or I’ll get in that car and run you over”)

I put a safety belt on every trip in a car because there is the possibility of an accident. I don’t wear it only sometimes and I don’t reach for it when I think an accident might come along.

You’ve already said you don’t have your gun out at all times ‘scoping’ everyone that comes close or pointing it at everyone that looks suspicious, and you admit you don’t always have your gun with you, or have it locked away.

This is an apples and oranges comparison and I didn’t reply to it before because it seem so silly. (and also because Shane, poor lamb, has this real grudge thing about seatbelts)

**

I believe the point is that firearms ARE heavily regulated by law yet these laws are in general ignored and not inforced. You can add whatever law you wish but until you actually start enforcing these laws they will mean nothing. The fact is if the existing laws were enforced there would be no need to add anything else.

For the third time I’ll ask you – why is it in your opinion that the laws are not being enforced?

**

Again you say NEED I have seen no one claim they NEEDED a gun.

LOL

Oh my giddy aunts

At first I thought you honestly couldn’t see that there is very little difference between telling people that they needed a gun and telling them that they had the choice between having a gun to defend themselves or possible death at the hands of a violent criminal (or maniac).

I’m now not so sure I can’t believe anyone is that blind or that blinked and I’m beginning to suspect that a certain level of dishonestly may be taking a part, or there is a total lack of analytical thought.

**

I wanted to know why there was such a threat to the American people (a threat they were or were not worried about)?

I was told it was all about greed then it was all down to an individuals choices in life then the reasons became many and so impossible to discuss since they would vary from person to person and circumstance to circumstance.

I must admit I’m still very little the wiser. Defending the roll of guns in controlling crime seems to come naturally but why crime might be happening seems more difficult.

OK you tell US why crime is happening?

As I said you don’t seem to have given it much thought, I’ve asked you what you thought and it wasn’t much, so you want me to tell you. Don’t you see it? I mean you don’t need any help in defending guns but when it comes to anything else suddenly your wanting others to think of something for you. You didn’t seem able to think of much to reduce crime so I gave you some ideas that you then agreed with, you didn’t seem able to think of ways of limiting guns in the US and so I gave you some ideas which you then supported. I ask you about the social aspect and you say you support what other people do, but you don’t have much idea what they do or why.

Do you see the pattern, anything other than defending guns, and you don’t seem to have much of a clue.

**

So it was that I began to wonder if the prominence given to the gun might not be stifling thought about alternatives way in which to tackle crime.

I mean on the pro-gun side few have given any thought to alternatives, one would have none and the person that claims the pro-gunners do give thought to such things seems incredibly vague on the subject.

Again give us a detailed plan on wiping out crime, as you seem to not accept anything less from the other side.

I’ve given you some ideas on reducing crime and limiting the number of guns, again the same pattern, when it come to virtually anything but defending guns you seem to have few ideas?

**

I put forward a few ideas on how to reduce crime these were in the main accepted but only in passing as the person once again extolled the role of the gun.

You also wish to ignore the fact that there is crime happening that people need to be protected from, you criticise the fact that some people choose to use a gun to protect themselves yet offer no alternative for this protection.

You’ve read the first phase of the gun control measures I wrote and you supported, I’m not advocating taking legally own guns away from people (straight away) and I’ve said many time that other measures had to be taken (e.g. the crime reducing ideas that you supported).

**

After giving me links and quotes and statistic that support his views on guns, when asked to give his views on what else could be done, he suddenly says he doesn’t know, and seems to not care about finding out.

I admit I am not an expert on social programs, yet I did show you where I am actively supporting several in my community. You have yet to offer ONE form of protection for these people you wish to have give up thier weapons they use as protection from crime.

But this is my point you seem very much the expert when it comes to defending guns. But as soon as it comes to anything else, it seems to be someone else’s problem.

**

While you seem able, even eager to defend guns, you have arguments and statistic seemingly at your finger tips, but when it comes to other alternatives to tackling crime you seem to have few ideas. It is someone else’s fight, someone else’s job. You seem to have details on guns as a solution to crime but not on anything else.

Well maby I should return to college and major in some sort of social program. Like I said I am not trained in social programs I trust the people that are to do whats best, and contribute where i can. I never claimed to be an expert, you must be though. I could claim the opposite in regards to you. You seem to be able to defend social programs with arguments and stats, yet you cannot give any realistic reasons to lead to the banning of guns that do not rely on the criminal being the ones who has the guns.

Any intelligent person can think or wonder and can learn, I mean did you go to college to learn how to defend guns? I presume you didn’t, your viewpoint has been shaped by your environment and up-bringing and to you defending guns comes ‘naturally’.
A lot of people support the NRA, but I’ve found that even then, when they have given money to someone else to defend guns they are more than happy to defend guns themselves.
You seem to be saying that since you give money to ‘social programs’ those people can defend social issues and learn about them, but you are not interested.

I don’t believe I’ve defended any particular social programme or presented stats to do so, I have presented some ideas (many of which you support) and the principle that it might be better to look for the causes of crime rather than use guns to deal with the symptoms.

You argue that you can do both, but as I keep pointing out, you seem very enthusiastic in defending guns but you seem very little concerned with asking why crime is around.

Think about it

I’ve cobbled together some ideas on gun control that you support, I’ve got some ideas on tackling crime that you support.

What have you actually contributed to this discussion, besides the defending or selling of gun ownership?

 

Those arguements have been given and ignored multiple time throughout this thread.

And get sucked right back into the black hole that Dirk is in? Not a chance in hell.

 

Sure, you takes away their switch blades and they'll be little darlins, eh?

Chances are they're illegal already. Especially when brandished by goth punk deviants.

................................................................................................


There you have the most basic point of all on gun control.

 

Shane

“Those arguements have been given and ignored multiple time throughout this thread”

Yet you are unable to explain what they are, where they are or how they supposedly answered the questions raised?

LOL

Very convenient.

 

Proud (you old joker you)

One of the primary causes of crime would be excessive laws and regulation. Seriously. Think of all that's illegal that shouldn't be. Prostitution, drugs, hanging fuzzy pink dice off your rearview mirror. Laws that try to set a moral standard. Cops are wasting their time chasing after this kind of bullshit when they should be concerning themselves with violent criminals. And for every dumb bastard they arrest for smoking a joint or pissing behind a park bush, they displace a robber or a rapist. Let's show a little priority.#

Actually to an extent I agree and have said a few times that I believe we should –

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

Prostitution would be legalised regulated and taxed.

**

Unfortunately, the best source for moarality that most folks can think of is religion. Now we're talking about god's law, instead of man's, and it's back to square one.

I’m an atheist.

We need a populace that's able to recognise the right thing, do the right thing, and react appropriately when the right thing isn't done.

But as you point out what is ‘the right thing’, is it the Christians right thing, the Muslims right thing, the communists right thing, the neo-cons right thing, the nazis right thing…etc?

 

You state "My own view is that ‘prohibition’ itself breeds more likelihood of crime" Yet you do not apply the same same logic when it comes to prohibiting firearms.

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

Please Pitt you really need to think through your replies rather than just reacting with a knee jerk gun defence argument like this.

After pressing you and pressing you, you finally gave some examples of laws you would like to see.

Oh dear, I’ll try and explain again.

I said that I thought there was little point in posting my ideas on trying to lessen the US’s gun culture, because to me many pro-gunners would accept no compromises when it can to guns.

I was right, you accept only a few, but others rejected them out of hand.

I mean have you noticed we are not really talking about the ideas I posted.

I said there would be little point, but you insisted and so I did, but frankly there wasn’t much of a point in doing so. That is the thing I’ve been going on about, only when the attitude of those that like to play with guns and seem to venerate guns changes will the US’s gun culture have a chance to change.

**

However your basic premis is that you would like to see guns banned. This is prohibition, yet you claim you dont think prohibition works. You cannot have it both ways.

And yet another knee jerk reaction, please pitt read and understand before replying it would make thinks simpler and mean I wouldn’t have to keep repeating myself.

There is no prohibition in place on guns in the US and we were taking about drugs

So what prohibition do you think I was talking about?

Could it be the drugs.

OK

I have said several times that I would - Legalise or bring under regulation drugs, softer drugs would be put under licence and the more addictive types put under medical supervision

softer drugs would be put under licence – sold legally, but with restriction (like alcohol or tobacco)

more addictive types put under medical supervision – would not be sold legally

OK

It is regulation

OK

You believe only some people should be allowed to have guns and as I keep telling you I also believe that.

We both believe that guns should be regulated.

OK

Go look at the ideas I thought up and you agreed with (please don’t say I have to repeat them again)?

Do they say anything about making all gun ownership illegal?

**

Have you never wondered why people turn to alcohol and drugs? Do you think peoples violent tendencies could be understood, lessened even cured?

Do I think they can be "cured" sure if they want to be.

Sometimes this is like trying to get blood out of a stone, I mean sometimes you come across like a petulant school kid whose not interested in school or learning or anything that isn’t in you mind ‘cool’.

Teacher - “Johnny…johnny!.. What were the reasons for the US’s entry into WWII”

Johnny - “like...well…cause they wanted to”

As the teacher would you give that an A+ or think the kid just didn’t know and didn’t care?

I mean compare the enthusiasm with which you talk about cooler stuff like guns and their uses in tackling crime with you reticence and reluctance to talk about other ways of dealing with crime, which you keep claiming, have an equal place in your mind.

**

Wrong again I said PEOPLE could become victims of crime, that includes people inthe UK also. You have yet to show any resonto dispute this claim other than "I am not afraid".

What? Yes people can be a victim of crime, I’ve even told you that I’ve been the victim of a crime but even though you haven’t been a victim of a crime, you sound a lot more afraid than I do, going on about the violent crime that is everywhere and that people might get killed in an attack at any moment and would be better off armed with a gun.

Never did I say anything about "being killed" I said becomming a victim of crime. Why do you insist on putting your own meaning to whats being said.

To quote you - “People use guns to protect themselves from crime every day, to deny them this right would make me feel complicient in thier death should this occure.”

Their deaths, as in, they might be killed if they didn’t have a gun to protect them.

Really is this the level to which your argument has descended, to where you are getting at me for calling a spade a spade rather than as ‘an implement used for digging’?

Come on man get real and stop playing silly buggers.

**

But then when it suites you, you claim that there is nothing to be afraid of and say you don’t carry your gun and are not worried about being killed.

Again there are times I carry and times I dont carry. Its not something I sit around and think about all the time as you suggest. I cannot understand why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp.

The concept is not hard to grasp but it does seem that you are missing the implications.

I’ll try and explain yet again.

You seem to say that having a gun as protection is like having a safety belt in a car.

But you put a safety belt on every time you get in a car because there is always the possibility of an accident.

So you seem to imply that since there is always the possibility of attack, you should always be ready to use your gun.

But

You are saying one moment that the danger is dire and imminent so you need to carry a gun

But

The next you are saying that the risk is so low and so remote you don’t need to carry a gun.

**

Again at first I thought these contradictions, were the mistakes of someone that hadn’t thought their ideas through but I’m beginning to suspect it is more a matter of suiting the argument to fit the situation. Saying one thing when that suits and saying its opposite when that suits.

Again situation and location I expect to be in dictates weather I will be carrying, there is no contradiction here just the fact that you dont wish to understand.

So when you say “violent crime is everywhere” that is wrong, it is only in some places? So why do you keep implying that someone could be a victim of a crime any place and any time?

**

do you live in fear of being in a car accident everytime you get in a car? The odds of being killed in a car wreck is rather small considering how often a person is in a car and the sheer numbers of people in cars. or is it just the simple fact of taking sensible PRECAUTIONS. Same with carrying a gun for protection, at times its just a simple matter of taking sensible precaustions.

But as I keep seemingly have to keep reminding you, you are saying that sometimes take precautions and sometimes don’t.

**

You’ve already said you don’t have your gun out at all times ‘scoping’ everyone that comes close or pointing it at everyone that looks suspicious, and you admit you don’t always have your gun with you, or have it locked away.

This is an apples and oranges comparison and I didn’t reply to it before because it seem so silly. (and also because Shane, poor lamb, has this real grudge thing about seatbelts)

I am not saying they are the same however The basic premis is the same, wearing a seatbelt or carrying a gun, at times its just a sensible precaution, not fear. You should be able to understand this simple comparison just as well as everyone else here.

But someone would have to be clairvoyant to know in advance when an accident was going to happen and so to wear a seatbelt and when not.

**

I believe the point is that firearms ARE heavily regulated by law yet these laws are in general ignored and not inforced. You can add whatever law you wish but until you actually start enforcing these laws they will mean nothing. The fact is if the existing laws were enforced there would be no need to add anything else.

For the third time I’ll ask you – why is it in your opinion that the laws are not being enforced?

How about the repeat convicted criminals that are cought in possession of weapons tack on the added charge, tack on the added 10 years. This rarely happens. The person allowing a convicted felon to borrow thier gun, there is a mandatory sentance for this yet this is hardly ever prosecuted.

This tells me of something that is not done, it does not tell me - why is it in your opinion that the laws are not being enforced?

(what is it with this question this is the fourth time I’ve asked it?)

**

Again you are professing something that is not there. I do NOT NEED a gun, I choose to own guns for several reasons which I have stated.

It’s just that at some times you seem to imply that you fear that you could be attacked and even killed, so you ‘choose’ to have a gun (but at others you are completely unafraid and don’t).

So are you saying you feel you need a gun when you are afraid and don’t when you are not afraid?

**

As I said you don’t seem to have given it much thought, I’ve asked you what you thought and it wasn’t much, so you want me to tell you. Don’t you see it? I mean you don’t need any help in defending guns but when it comes to anything else suddenly your wanting others to think of something for you. You didn’t seem able to think of much to reduce crime so I gave you some ideas that you then agreed with, you didn’t seem able to think of ways of limiting guns in the US and so I gave you some ideas which you then supported. I ask you about the social aspect and you say you support what other people do, but you don’t have much idea what they do or why.

I have told you why I think crime is happening, GREED. The reasons for an individuals greed is varried from person to person and circumstance to circumstance.

Again with the cop out answer – ‘it would be different from person to person, circumstance to circumstance’. Do you not see how silly it is - back to petulant Johnny again

Teacher – “Johnny…johnny come on wake up..now..what do you think were the aims of the allies and axis leaders in WWII?”

Johnny “Easy dude.. they were varied, each one thought like different and they changed due to circumstance”

Would you give the kid an A+ or think he didn’t do his homework?

You say you believe in parental guidance of the young,, do you think Johnny’s parents are doing a good job?

**

Ok if you want to go back to the whole greed thing again we can.

Looking back your view seem to be - that those that cannot control their greed turn to crime. That there are reasons they cannot control the greed and those reasons vary from person to person.

It did seem like a cop out to me at the time but we moved on to other things, but since you wish to return to the subject -have you thought anymore on those reasons?

Or are you going to remain a Johnny

**

I did agree that some of your ideas were decent ideas that I could live with, however I also clarified this by saying I think existing laws should be enforced first.

And so far I’ve asked three times why you think they are not.

**

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

Actually it is.

But don’t just try and hit back, think about it.

It is not so much the product that is the crime it is the activities surrounding the product that are criminal.

**


And I have said if there was no crime the legitimate protection value of owning a gun would no longer be valid. Until this happens taking guns away from the law abiding citizen does nothing but help the criminal.

I don’t think there will ever be a point were there is no crime but crime may be reduced to the level were it was not so feared that people think they need guns.

**

I have referred people to said programs, given them contact to said programs. I have even driven a couple of women to the shelter when I have been in contact with them and knew of thier situation. Again what have you done?

But as I’ve tried to point out time and again, this thinking seems to be all about dealing with symptoms not looking for the causes.

A shelter for abused people is great and should be supported, but the pertinent question is why do you need a shelter in the first place?

The problem is that many people do not get beyond the shelter, they think since the shelter deals with the abused that is enough.

Just as I’ve said many times I think many people do not think beyond having guns as protection, to the point of wondering why they think they need guns for protection.

**

“This thread is about ownership of guns, I believe in this right”

As I’ve pointed out a few times and will do again – you believe that only some should have the right to have guns – so do I.

**

You throw in the fact that the root cause of crime needs addressed (and I have agreed with this) yet you want to take the right of gun ownership away from the average person BEFORE dealing with these root causes, but have yet to give people an alternative way of defending themselves.

I’ve said this before but I will repeat - The measures I’ve suggested (the first phase of which you supported) would not prohibit legally owned firearms just regulate their use and would be coupled with other measures to try and reduce crime (that you have mostly agreed with).

**

I have said enforce the existing laws before adding to the list of laws that will never be enforced, yet you dont even agree with this.

I will repeat myself again - why is it in your opinion that the laws are not being enforced?

**

that convicted criminals say they are afraid of the regular person with a gun, that they have indeed been scared away by the mear sight of a gun.

And I’ve said a few times before I wonder if that made these criminals want (or go and get) guns themselves.

**

You sound fanatical about getting rid of guns with no thought of the consequences

LOL – my dear Pitt a fanatic would say everyone should give up their guns tomorrow (or be shot or something), I gave a list of a few measures that could be phased in over time, some of which you agreed to, doesn’t that make you a fanatic as well?

**

“Your only contribution is to say lets deal with the root cause of crime, yet you do not define what this is”

As I’ve said before (a few times) I’ve given you my ideas on how to reduce crime levels and you’ve said you agree with most of them. I’ve also said (many times) that the socio-economic roots of crime need to be explored such as up-bringing, environment, etc.

**

Take a good hard look at what you have said and realize you have done nothing more than repeat yourself constantly.

Yes I have had to repeat myself, I have had to go back and explain myself several times. But as you might see the reasons are that I often have to.


**