Guncrazy USA

Just giving to a particular social programme doesn’t necessarily mean that a person has given much thought to social problems, we have really been through this at length, but simply put - a person might give money to give food to the poor without wondering why people are poor.

However it does mean they have given it thought and are concerned enough to get involved to the extent that they can. This has nothing to do whatsoever with weather they own a gun or not as you seem to imply.

So you’re still refusing to talk about social issues, as predicted by my theories.

--------

It has nothing to do with my expectations, I’ve said many times that its good to give to such programmes but that still does not automatically mean that the giver has though very much about societal problems.

Read above, just because they are unwilling to get into an in depth discussion with someone that is unwilling to listen does not mean they are unconcerned with the social problems we face.

So you’re making an excuse not to talk about social issues.

--------

Many gun owners have come here and expressed the idea that if a criminal or government agent breaks into their home they have a gun and can deal with it, but try and talk to them about alternative ideas of tackling social and political ideas and they very often, like you, refuse.

The point you refuse to listen to is if a criminal breaks into your home telling them there is a new social program to help them with their problems will do little to protect you or your family at that particular moment.

Again this just seems like an excuse not to discuss the social issues you seem unable to discuss although again you promote guns as a means of tackling such issues.

I’ve said many times I’m not against people protecting themselves in a reasonable way I’m pointing out that many Americans don’t seem to think about why their society has problems and what to do about it (just witness their reluctance to talk about such subjects) but they do push guns as a means of suppressing such problems.

-------

You haven’t ‘called me out’ you have repeatedly asserted that I’m wrong with very little or no explanation. That’s not ‘calling me out’ that’s running away and hiding from what I’ve said.

I have called you out about many things such as defining what you wish to accomplish with parts of your “holistic approach” yet you have always refused.

You really should read the posts and not ignore what doesn’t suit you.

I’ve explained many times that what I’m trying to accomplish is a better and more secure society that doesn’t have seemingly such high levels of fear. (see below)

Anyway you have hardly shown any interested in most of my holistic approach you main if at times only concern has been in attacking any form of gun regulation (even ones that you thought were good).

Again this fits in with what I’ve been saying - a disregard for wider social problems while concentrating on the defence and promotion of guns as a means of suppressing those problems.


-------

But is that understanding why the ‘me thing’ exists, does it explain how materialism can be tackled or in what way hedonistic ideas can be curbed?

Again as I have told you previously I am not a trained psychologist. Why do these traits exist? Why do any traits exist even the good ones?

Exactly my point, you have given it little thought, you don’t have to be a psychologist to give it some thought and try to work out why.

You just seem to be shrugging your shoulders saying it is someone else’s problem and in the mean time promoting guns as a means of tackling the problems you can’t be bothered to even wonder why are there.

--------

OH my dear Pitt, you really need to see what’s being said rather seeing what you think is being said. The very basis of my theory is that it isn’t just about guns.

Yes we all know this. It’s the refusal to explain the part that does include guns in a thread ABOUT guns.

But I’ve been doing little else than explained it, hell pitt did you not read those posts either?

So you’ve ignore my posts concerning the wider social issues and you’ve ignore my posts concerning gun regulation as well.

As to the thread its about the US being gun crazy and as I’ve pointed out, the craziness to me is that many Americans seem to think little about their society’s problems while believing guns can deal with them.

------

This is a perfect example of what I’ve been saying, your thoughts and thinking are gun centric to you it’s all about guns while to me gun ownership and usage are just symptoms of certain social attitudes and beliefs.

If guns are just a symptom of other social problems then as I have said before why don’t you concentrate on these underlying problems? Solve them and the gun problem becomes moot.

Oh my poor pitt, why not read posts and try and understand them?

This has been explained to you countless times why not reading the theory.

The difficulty is that guns are seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring social issues.

Now if this theory is right it means that they are not very likely to concentrate on the underlying problems they’re only going to think in terms of guns.

Are you concentrating on the underlying problems? At the moment you are just refusing to discuss such things you seem to think it’s someone else’s problem and no concern of yours.

Instead you push guns as a way of dealing with social issues such as crime.

---------

 

You’d find I actually say at one point “But it doesn’t have to be a gun, this attitude is about having ‘equalizing’ power, the ability to threaten”

Yet the gun is the only possible weapon or object with “threatening” power you wish to ban/restrict.

I‘ve only being suggesting some ideas that you thought were good. And as explained to you multiple times the thing about guns is that they are very effective and efficient killers.

---------

I don’t think that gun regulation alone could solve societal problems; I’ve made it clear time and again that it is only a minor part of a much larger holistic policy, as you say below. But you seem fixated on that one thing while seemingly uninterested in all the rest.

Yet you cannot explain what you wish to accomplish with your gun regulations. You cannot show any examples of how they have worked anywhere else. You are unwilling to look at this part of your “holistic approach”. You just wish to pursue this blindly without examination of the outcomes because you are anti-gun.

So when I say and explain that what I want to accomplish is harm reduction, you just ignore it?

We are constantly talking about the gun regulations (the ones you actually thought were good) because you are fixated on the defence and promotion of guns as a means of tackling societal problems and are refusing to discuss any alternatives.

LOL and anyway what you’ve been doing for the past few months is to declare all my arguments invalid since that is the only way you can claim I’m wrong.

--------

And anyway the regulations I have been pushing for are the ones you thought were good are more about reducing harm while other policies try to make a better and more secure society.

Again I have called you out to define what you consider the gun regulations reducing harm might be and how they are to accomplish this.

Again have you actually read anything I’ve posted or are you simply pretending it never happened?

But just pretending I never said anything or calling what I have said invalid isn’t exactly honest in my opinion.

And if you thought the ideas so bad why did you think them good?

----------

No you haven’t, you have expressed opinions that are often based on the biased interpretation of selective data, which when criticised you seem unable to defend and just repeat endlessly as if the criticisms haven’t been made.

I have shown you the data, I have given you the results by academic studies of this data, I have asked you to provide other possible results and YOU REFUSED.

Again there is this tendency to ignore what doesn’t suit you.

I did the opposite of refusing, instead I wrote thousands of words of explanation. I explained how the data could be interpreted differently, how the difficulty of variables made many of the ‘conclusions’ you were presenting suspect and gave you my opinion on how such things could be viewed differently.

The problem has been that you have repeatedly declared my views and opinions invalid, without actually explaining why you think that beyond saying you think they are.

----------

 

WOW man, are you honestly saying you haven’t read the hundreds of posts of explanation I’ve written on varying aspects of the holistic approach, the thousands upon thousands of words of often detailed explanation?

So define the parts I have asked you about. Just saying it will increase the quality of life or lower fear levels does not show how this is supposed to work. Again you just want people to fall in line behind you without knowing what you wish to accomplish.

Again have you just not being reading my posts?

I’m not bothered if people fall in behind me or not I’m just presenting some ideas and seeing what happens.

Anyway before we have covered this -

“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.”

I’ve present a few ideas here are a few in no particular order

A National Heath Service free at the point of service.

Investing in infrastructural networks such as clinics, cheap public transport, low cost housing, schools, training centres, etc, and the people to run them.

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

Trying to replace a destructive individualism with more community based ideas.

Limiting destructive consumerism by encouraging saving.

Banning of all advertising aimed at children and making sure all children have access to child care and a nursery place (subsidised according to wealth)

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

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

Oh and I would also make changes to the political system as well, bringing in the proportional representation.

**

 

I’ve being pointing out that many Americans that I’ve talked to on these forums and elsewhere seem a lot less interested (to the point of silence sometimes) in discussing their society’s problems as they are in defending and promoting guns as a way of tackling such problems.

Again for the thousandth time no one is promoting gun ownership as a way to tackle the cause of social problems.

And from the thousandth time I’ll point out that you do, by promoting the idea that without a gun people will be victims and most likely be murdered

For example you invented a story where an old lady is beaten to death but then point out that if she’d had a gun she would have lived.

That is promoting guns as a means of tackle social problems.

And when I explain this, you don’t explain why it isn’t promotion you just assert that it isn’t, you dictate that you are right and I’m wrong.

Often you continue to promote guns by saying about such criticism that people ‘do’ get murdered if they didn’t have guns.

You’re like those politicians that support torture but call it something else just so they can say they are not supporters of torture.

My point being that while you promote guns as a way of tackle social problems in this way you refuse to discuss alternatives.

**


Its no wonder why NO ONE wants to discuss anything with you because you REFUSE TO LISTEN. YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS all you do is lie, twist other peoples statements and spin anything you can to make it seem to fall in line with your POV. If you cannot do this you just cry that everyone else must be either dishonest or proving you right.

Again with the accusation you never seem to be able to back up.

Oh Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease if you had genuine proof you’d show it, so go ahead please show it?

-------

I think a holistic approach aimed at improving socio-economic wellbeing and changing the cultural and political landscape would be good for your society.

Answer the fucking question balbus. Harping about your “holistic approach” does NOT answer the questions about your bun ban/restrictions. Its just another dodge.

You are talking about the regulations you thought were good the ones you supported.

I don’t believe that exact set of regulations have been in place anywhere so what would I compare them with.

The regulations you have mostly pointed to are the UK’s and the Swiss but (1) they are not the same and (2) those are completely different societies with a different culture and set of attitudes.

We have been through this at length.

----------

Challenged me on what? You have told me I’m wrong and you’ve told me that everything I’ve said to support my ideas is invalid, but that is not challenging what I’ve said it’s just ignoring it.

I have asked you hundreds of times to show how this part of your “holistic approach” would have any impact and once again YOU HAVE REFUSED TO ANSWER.

You have a bizarre definition of refusing – if someone writes thousands of words on a subject over most of a year, spread across hundreds of posts that’s what you call refusing to answer.

To quote just one bit- “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”

Your problem is that rather than address whats said you just ignore stuff you don’t like then SHOUT LOUDLY that people haven’t answered when what’s really happened is you’ve ignore the answer because it isn’t the one you want and you don’t know how to counter it.

----------

As to the time, effort and money being better spent on something more effective, the thing is that so far you haven’t actually shown the gun regulations (that you thought were good ideas) wouldn’t be effective, you’ve expressed an opinion that it wouldn’t and I’ve given my reason for thinking that opinion is mistaken, so far you haven’t addressed what I’ve said, beyond just telling me I’m wrong without giving a reason why.

I have shown you facts and stats about your proposals and nothing whatsoever indicates they are effective. I have shown you flaws in your proposals for which your answer is to continue to make them more restrictive. I have shown you studies that show there is no indication there is any correlation between gun availability and violence/crime yet you continue to claim there is one.

Again you are confused, you have not presented facts or stats on our proposals (remember you supported them) since none of them have been turned into law in the US so there effectiveness cannot be gauged there. You have pointed to the hand gun ban in the UK, but the proposals I’ve supported (that you thought were good) don’t include such a gun ban and anyway it is only your opinion that they that was ineffective a position that has been challenged.

You have put some arguments as to you opinion that the proposals (that you supported) are flawed and I’ve given my counter-arguments which you’ve yet to address.

You have presented some opinions claiming that there is no correlation between gun availability and violence/crime and I’ve given my counter arguments which you seem to be ignoring.

--------

For example in England and Wales gun murders have gone up and down for years as I’ve pointed out

And as I have pointed out its been 10 years since the dunblane bans and you can compare that 10 year average and there is NO significant change in gun related crime or gun related murder. Yet you claim that you cannot compare anything because you cannot know exactly what would have happened if the ban had not been in effect.

Exactly my point

You say – “Death by gun is death by gun no matter how you look at it and death by gun has increased each year since the gun ban”

I show gun murders have gone up and down

You then say “you can compare that 10 year average and there is NO significant change in gun related crime or gun related murder.”

You’d prefer a year on year increase but you’ll settle for an ten year average that shows no significant change.

As I’ve said the thing is that it is not as simple a picture as you’d like to present it, why has violent crime dropped since 1995 the very time when hand guns were being removed from the system, shouldn’t it have risen due to the deterrent effect of guns being removed?
But then there wasn’t much of a deterrent effect before hand since very, very few people had handguns anyway so would the ban have had a significant effect anyway, and there haven’t been any mass killings like dunblane but then there wasn’t before but then whose to say that there might have been one without the ban...

And so on and so on

But the thing is that your theory is that the hand gun ban wasn’t effective because you believe it wasn’t, that’s you opinion.

Fine, but it isn’t a fact as you like to present it.

---------

The thing is all you seem interested in is in defending and promoting gun ownership.

It’s a thread about guns. I have asked you many questions about your views and proposals dealing with guns and you refuse to logically examine these but you want everyone else to follow you on your path to nirvana and your fictitious perfect world.

Hell Pitt read the damned posts, we have been through this several time now.

This thread is about the US being gun crazy and I’ve pointed out that to me and I quote- “the US seems gun crazy because many Americans don’t seem to give much time or effort in thinking about ways to improve their society but when even the mildest gun regulation is proposed many turn up running around like Chicken Little claiming the sky’s would fall in”

I’ve been trying to work out why they seem to think guns are a better way of dealing with social problems than actually trying to understand why they exist so that things can be dealt with.

-----

How is it plainly obvious that I’ve not thought my ideas through? I mean you haven’t been that interested in discussing them so how would you know? You even imply you haven’t read most of them so again I find it hard to believe you know what they are let alone how much thought has been given to them.

Then answer the fucking questions and address the concerns I have expressed about the GUN part of your programs/policies.

But I do, the problem has been that you dismiss them or ignore them all together if they are not the answers you want.

And again you seem only interested in the gun related issues and in defending and promoting guns as a means of dealing with social issues but refuse to discuss alternatives.

----------

Do you mean that what I’m trying to do is promoting gun regulations and are not really interested in discussing societal problems?

You promote gun restrictions as a way to tackle social problems without even defining what they are supposed to accomplish, without discussing possible problems with those restrictions, without thinking about the possible consequences. IN other words tell the world they will work without even knowing what they are supposed to address.

But we have discussed all of those things in detail and at length.

The problem is that if it the answers or counter arguments are not ones you like you ignore or dismiss them as wrong without explanation.

---------

Again you bring up something you know I dropped over a year ago and I don’t believe I’ve suggested since and isn’t even related to what the discussion has been about for many months.

Ok for “clarity” why don’t you just list this revised list of gun restrictions?

YOU DON’T KNOW THEM?

You’ve just being telling us how you had examined them and highlighted what you thought were there flaws and now you’re suddenly admitting that you don’t even know what they are?

If you don't know what they are how do you know they are flawed - or is it another case of them being flawed because you say they are, the reason being because you say they are?

**

**

 

--------

And the thing you say is in ‘bold type’ is in fact a headline, which usually are in bold.
You also make a thing of there only being 8 RECORDED uses of a reactivated gun without mentioning that in many case the type of gun is unidentified or unknown and the police think that 10% of gun crimes involve such a weapons.

And headlines are meant to grab attention and drive a point home should the reader not proceed further. Yes 8 recorded uses and many unknown types of guns, the exact number is 4,989. This means that there were 6100 IDENTIFIED guns used, 8 of which were “reactivated”. This is 0.1%, one tenth of one percent. For there to be a total of 10% usage of “reactivated” guns used in those crimes there would have to be a total of 1,108 of them used. That means out of the 4,989 unidentified guns 1,100 of them would have to be “reactivated” guns. that is 22% of the unidentified ones. Do you actually believe this is ANYWHERE near accurate? 10% is fucking BS if you would take the time to examine the numbers. However since these numbers represent FACTS and you don’t think facts are worth looking at I can understand why you would not have thought about them.

Again you make my point for me – this isn’t just a simple issue and not a simple as you very often try to present it, there are often conflicting opinions and interpretation of selective data.
I mean here the British police force according to the article thinks the figure is closer to 10% presumably using all the data available to them and you just using the limited data available in a short news item have decided the true figure is 0.1%.

And since you are right, the police figure must be bull shit.

---------

But there is something of interest here there is talk of tackling the "cultural and social acceptance of violence"

Which kind of fits in with what I said before about the UK becoming a more violent place. Doesn’t it?

So you are going to use an opposition politician’s rhetoric as a concrete fact that backs up your ‘truth’.

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

This again makes my point this is something that is absent in my conversations with many Americans they don’t seem to be thinking about social problems but just in seeing guns as a way of dealing with them.

And you just continue to promote ideas like this one to try and completely remove guns even if they have been “deactivated” because YOU don’t like them.

What ideas am I promoting? The stuff about welfare reform, universal healthcare free at the point of delivery, etc

Or

The gun regulations that you thought were good, of which none even mention completely removing guns, deactivated or not.

**

As I’ve said you do have a habit of only seeing what you want to see and ignoring anything that doesn’t suit you.

**

 

So let’s see.

My theory is that guns seem to be seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

And what would be the outward manifestations of such an attitude?

A) An inability and unwillingness to discuss general societal problems
B) The defence and promotion of guns as a means of tackling social problems.

You seem unable and are definitely unwilling to discuss societal problems.

You are very vocal in you defence and in the promotion of guns as a means of tackling social problems such as crime.

So in what way do you not back up my theory?


**

 

So you’re still refusing to talk about social issues, as predicted by my theories.
So you’re making an excuse not to talk about social issues.

No One is refusing to talk about social issues, you are just refusing to listen. You have plainly refused to discuss the implications and effectiveness of the gun part of your holistic approach in a GUN related thread.

I have been listening, so I know what you’ve said and can even quote you, as well as my replies which show clearly that I’ve not been refusing to listen.

The thing is that this again is again a refusal to discuss social issues which as I’ve pointed out is predicted by my theory.

And once more you only concern seem to be the defence of guns which again is predicted by my theory.

I ask you again in what way do you, not, back up my theory.

----------

Again this just seems like an excuse not to discuss the social issues you seem unable to discuss although again you promote guns as a means of tackling such issues.

The point being restricting/banning guns will NOT in any way deal with social issues.

My theory is that guns seem to be seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

And what would be the outward manifestations of such an attitude?

A) An inability and unwillingness to discuss general societal problems
B) The defence and promotion of guns as a means of tackling social problems.

You seem unable and are definitely unwilling to discuss societal problems.

You are very vocal in you defence and in the promotion of guns as a means of tackling social problems such as crime.

So again in what way do you not back up my theory?

------

I’ve said many times I’m not against people protecting themselves in a reasonable way I’m pointing out that many Americans don’t seem to think about why their society has problems and what to do about it (just witness their reluctance to talk about such subjects) but they do push guns as a means of suppressing such problems.

But it is YOU that decides on what constitutes “a reasonable way”.

I’m not deciding, that’s for the law and the courts to decide. Again you seem more interested in point scoring that thought.

And once again NO ONE is pushing guns as a way of tackling social problems.

I’ve explained at length why I think you do. So far you haven’t countered my arguments just told me I’m wrong without explanation.

----------

I’ve explained many times that what I’m trying to accomplish is a better and more secure society that doesn’t have seemingly such high levels of fear. (see below)

And once again how will your gun bans/proposals accomplish this?

This again makes my point.

I’m talking about a wide range of social and economic ideas and your only concern is in the defence and promotion of guns as a means of tackling such problems.

---------

 

You just seem to be shrugging your shoulders saying it is someone else’s problem and in the mean time promoting guns as a means of tackling the problems you can’t be bothered to even wonder why are there.

The social hierarchy and emphasis on personal gain over all else is why I think things are the way they are. As far as how to change this I like I have said will take time and education with a restructuring of priorities. I don’t believe any “policy” will change anything and once again it has nothing to do with gun availability.

This really doesn’t say anything more than you’ve said already and as pointed out you seemed to be refusing to explain or discuss that.

Lets go through it

You say the problem is social hierarchy – but removing social hierarchy would mean equality and when I mentioned trying to equalise society you’ve replied (and I quote) that “total equality will never happen, people will just have to learn to deal with it”. So what do you mean? Are you for some type of social and economic equalisation involving something like wealth distribution, if so what.

Personal gain over all else – (which is materialism and the men thing) this would imply you are opposed to the individualist economic approach but as I’ve pointed out numerous times you have expressed an individualist approach.

I mean whole books have been written on the subject of individualism both for and against from the communist standpoint to the extremes of neo-liberalism and right wing libertarians. What is you stance and what ideas do you have for tackling it?

Materialism I’m still waiting for you to explain what it means to you?

Education – we been through this before and I’ll ask again - who sets what to is to be taught and how, the only educational ‘policy’ you seem to have expressed so far is that ‘we’ should teach ‘our’ children ‘right from wrong’ and then said (as you repeat) that no ‘policy’ will change things. So what do you mean and are you able to explain, although repeatedly asked you have refused to so far.

The restructuring of priorities – and what does that mean and just how is it to be accomplished without some types of policies aimed at achieving it.

*

This is still very slim pickings and doesn’t explain anything further and it definitely doesn’t show any indication that you have though very much about about societal problems beyond the incredibly simplistic.

This seems to show that my theory in your case still stands.

**

 

As to the thread its about the US being gun crazy and as I’ve pointed out, the craziness to me is that many Americans seem to think little about their society’s problems while believing guns can deal with them.

Again who is saying guns can deal with social problems?

You’ve been implying it since we first began to talk. While you continually and vehemently defend and promote guns as a way of tackling crime you seem little interested in alternative ideas.

---------

The difficulty is that guns are seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring social issues.

Again who is saying guns can deal with social problems?

You’ve been implying it since we first began to talk…etc…

---------

I‘ve only being suggesting some ideas that you thought were good. And as explained to you multiple times the thing about guns is that they are very effective and efficient killers.

Yes they are and a 100 years ago it was the cross bow, and 100 years before it was the long bow and 100 years before it was the spear and 100 years before it was the sword etc etc. And 100 years from now it will be direct energy weapons. My point is that the weapon don’t matter it’s the underlying attitudes and willingness to kill to get what you want that is the problem.

Swords are tough to master to be efficient killers (and there were lot of differing types that gave advantages and disadvantages) and they had a limited range so they could easily be run away from or countered some type of blocking devise (I once saw a man successfully fight off a knife wielder with nothing but a chair if it had been a gun the attacker could just of shoot throw the chair)

Long bow – quicker loading than a cross bow but very difficult to master actually took years of constant practise to achieve even moderate efficiency. (I believe there was a laws in some places in Britain that made practice compulsory). The cross bow took over because it didn’t need such practise.

Cross bow - was not very accurate, difficult to aim and was only really effective when used on mass. Very slow loading. Superseded by guns, because they needed even less practise and were more lethal as even a glancing shot could be lethal or incapacitating.

Guns are by far and away the most lethal of this group and can be used by anyone and are often lethal even in unpractised hands because even a glancing shot can kill or cause serious injury.

The thing is that if the level of the efficiency of weapons wasn’t a factor then people would still be using swords.

As to the willingness to kill to get what you want, that has been my point is would seem (and you agree) that Americans seem more prone to violence and using weapons to solve problems and so they would most likely need regulations more than the Brits or Swiss that don’t have such tendencies.

**

 

So when I say and explain that what I want to accomplish is harm reduction, you just ignore it?

Read the post balbus how will a gun ban/restriction accomplish this? It has been tried and has had no discernable effect.

The regulations I’ve been promoting the ones you thought were good have no direct comparisons. So basically they haven’t been tried and so there effects are unknown.

------

And if you thought the ideas so bad why did you think them good?

Again I have answered this. At first glance some of them seemed good but after further thought concerns and flaws arise. Something you refuse to discuss.

Where have I refused to discuss then, please link or quote.

It would seem I actually did the opposite of refusing, instead I wrote thousands of words of explanation.

You have had the chance to address what I’ve said, you’ve chosen not to, but you still can if you want.

--------

“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.

So how has all the gun regulations and bans in the UK worked out with this goal in mind? No lower gun crime, no lower gun murder. There are still just as many guns in the hands of criminals and people that would do damage with them as before.

So to you all crime figures are dictated by gun regulation?

It’s not that simplistic, in the UK violent crime is down and gun murders have gone up and down over the last few years down again to 49 for 2007.

And anyway the regulations we’ve been talking about don’t even contain a hand gun ban.

---------

A National Heath Service free at the point of service.
Investing in infrastructural networks such as clinics, cheap public transport, low cost housing, schools, training centres, etc, and the people to run them.
Trying to move away from the idea that a person’s social status is only (or mostly) based on material possessions.
Trying to replace a destructive individualism with more community based ideas.
Limiting destructive consumerism by encouraging saving.
Banning of all advertising aimed at children and making sure all children have access to child care and a nursery place (subsidised according to wealth)

All of these are good ideas and should be further examined and see if they can be implemented. Some of these will not be able to be put in place with a simple “policy” and will only come with education as I have said.

As pointed out education, what is taught, how it is taught and in what way it is taught is a policy. The only thing you suggested so far is teaching ‘our’ kids right from wrong.

But anyway we have been here before you’ve called my ideas good are very reluctant to talk about them and on the rare occasions you have (e.g. with drugs) you confessed you hadn’t given it much thought and then attacked it on moral grounds declaring it wrong because it was wrong, then refused to discuss it further.

The thing is that you don’t seem to have given much thought to your societal problems, and seem unable and unwilling to discuss them when asked to.

---------

And from the thousandth time I’ll point out that you do, by promoting the idea that without a gun people will be victims and most likely be murdered

This is another flat out lie. Once again according to you everything is spoken of in absolute inevitability when in fact it has only been spoken about as a possibility. A possibility you cannot deny so instead you twist everyone else’s words.

So when you create stories where little old ladies are beaten to death because they didn’t have a gun to protect them that is in no way a story that’s trying to promote guns?

If you think not, you really would have to be stupid.

I’ve explained my thinking, but you are not countering it all you are saying is I’m wrong and a liar and you are right although you don’t seem to explain why.

----------

Oh Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease if you had genuine proof you’d show it, so go ahead please show it?

Read the fuck above.

What about above, nothing up there backs up your, thing is I think if you had genuine proof you’d produce it in bold type not a vague wave in a general direction.

So I’ll ask again, go ahead please show it?


----------

You are talking about the regulations you thought were good the ones you supported.

Sure the ones I thought were good but which I have stated many times will NOT make a fucking difference in regards to social problems and gun related crime.

Do you disengage you brain when you talk to me or what? I know you’re not stupid but saying things like this makes you come across as such.

We’ve been through this endless times you can’t have just forgotten.

The regulations are about trying to reduce harm while other measures tackle social problems.

As to not having an effect on gun related crime that is an opinion not a fact.

------

Your problem is that rather than address whats said you just ignore stuff you don’t like then SHOUT LOUDLY that people haven’t answered when what’s really happened is you’ve ignore the answer because it isn’t the one you want and you don’t know how to counter it.

This does NOT answer the fucking question of how your gun bans/regulations will accomplish this.

Accomplish what?

I repeat – ““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”

Again you don’t seem to be addressing what’s said just claiming it is wrong because you think it wrong.

Is that honest?


-------

You have put some arguments as to you opinion that the proposals (that you supported) are flawed and I’ve given my counter-arguments which you’ve yet to address.

Once again although they are good ideas they will NOT make a fucking difference in regards to social problems and gun related crime.

And once again you’re not addressing what I’ve said you are just telling me I’m wrong without any explanation

Is that honest?

------

You have presented some opinions claiming that there is no correlation between gun availability and violence/crime and I’ve given my counter arguments which you seem to be ignoring.

I have supported my opinion by giving links to academic papers regarding this very subject and all you have provided is your own personal opinion.

Again you are not addressing my counter arguments you are just telling me that what I’ve said is invalid and that gives you the excuse to dismiss them without explanation or answer.

Is that honest?

--------


You’d prefer a year on year increase but you’ll settle for an ten year average that shows no significant change.

Which is the fucking point if you would listen. All your gun bans and regulations made no fucking difference. All it did was remove guns from law abiding people.

And violent crime seems to have dropped dramatically since the ban. Most other crimes are down and gun related homicide goes up and down and for 2007 it seem to be down again to 49 deaths.

I believe there were over 10,000 gun related murders in the US in 2006, and violent crime went up in 2006 for the second year in a row.

--------

As I’ve said the thing is that it is not as simple a picture as you’d like to present it, why has violent crime dropped since 1995 the very time when hand guns were being removed from the system, shouldn’t it have risen due to the deterrent effect of guns being removed?

Again how many times have I said there is NO correlation between gun availability and crime? You are making statements that back up what I have said.

But that isn’t what you have been saying – you premise is that guns are a deterrent to criminality and protects against criminal behaviour which would mean you do think availability has an impact on crime. You seem to be arguing that the removal of guns would have a grave impact on peoples ability to tackle crime.

You now seem to be implying that the removal of guns wouldn’t have an impact on crime, that they are not a deterrent and have no value in tackling crime?

Which is it?

-----

I’ve been trying to work out why they seem to think guns are a better way of dealing with social problems than actually trying to understand why they exist so that things can be dealt with.

Yet no one has made any such statements.

I’ve given you my arguments for having this opinion; you are not producing counter arguments or addressing what I’ve said you are just saying I’m wrong without explanation.

---------

YOU DON’T KNOW THEM?

Obviously according to you they have changed many times.

No I don’t believe so.

So, you’re still not sure about the proposals you choose and we’ve been discussing for over a year?

Bizarre

-------

You’ve just being telling us how you had examined them and highlighted what you thought were there flaws and now you’re suddenly admitting that you don’t even know what they are?

When I point out a flaw on any of them you just say oh that’s one I dropped. No one knows what you have dropped and not.

You choose the proposals, you must know which ones you choose don’t you?

---------

I mean here the British police force according to the article thinks the figure is closer to 10% presumably using all the data available to them and you just using the limited data available in a short news item have decided the true figure is 0.1%.
And since you are right, the police figure must be bull shit.

Oh so it must mean that criminals who “reactivate” guns are just what?
Smarter than the rest of the criminals and don’t get caught?
Luckier than the rest of the criminals and don’t get caught?

So the police figures using all their available resources and data are wrong and you after reading one short news item are right.

--------

So you are going to use an opposition politician’s rhetoric as a concrete fact that backs up your ‘truth’.

So only part of what they say makes sense? And it just happens to be the part that reflects your POV.

You really should try and understand rather than trying to point score all the time.

The point is that there is the discussion going on about the best ways of tackling crime.

I’ve tried to have that discussion with many pro-gunners here and elsewhere and they only seem interested in promoting guns as a way of tackling social problems such as crime.

-------

What ideas am I promoting? The stuff about welfare reform, universal healthcare free at the point of delivery, etc

There are many more than those you NOW list.

What?

I’ve listed many, that’s my point, what ideas are you talking about?

-------

The gun regulations that you thought were good, of which none even mention completely removing guns, deactivated or not.

Well as I have pointed out many times your original list did indeed ban all guns. Now you have changed yout stance. Your proposals did indeed include “deactivating” guns. The point is that to the anti-gun people if they can get this far then they will try and continue until they can get then completely banned. Which is what’s happening in the UK as we speak.

And my original list was nothing more than a thought experiment to see what could be done to ‘clear’ the US of guns, it had very little seriousness as I said at the time it was just a few ideas off the top of my head, of what might be done, I wasn’t saying they could be done (in fact I said the opposite) or should be done.

Only you, by choosing some of them made those more ‘solid’ and I believe I thanked you for doing that at the time.

**

 

As far as post 1508 just read what was said the last time you posted the exact same thing.

Which if I remember was that I’m wrong, because I’m wrong, because you think I’m wrong.

So I’ll repeat and hope you’ll explain why I’m wrong without ignoring all my previous explanations (e.g. supporting single programmes does not prove deep thought on the general subject).

*

My theory is that guns seem to be seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

And what would be the outward manifestations of such an attitude?

C) An inability and unwillingness to discuss general societal problems
D) The defence and promotion of guns as a means of tackling social problems.

You seem unable and are definitely unwilling to discuss societal problems.

You are very vocal in you defence and in the promotion of guns as a means of tackling social problems such as crime.

So in what way do you not back up my theory?

**

 

Balbus, you're a one-trick pony. Is that the right expression?

I might be a one-trick pony too when it comes to my side of the argument, but the difference between me and you is my argument follows logic, and yours just doesn't. What I quoted above seems to be your primary argument, EVEN THOUGH I HAVEN'T HEARD ONE PERSON SAY ANYTHING LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING.

When you say that we're using guns to "tackle crime", you're making it sound like we're going out into the streets as fucking vigilantes with Colt single action army's on our hip. GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK DUDE. NO ONE IS DOING THAT, AND YOU KNOW IT.

We're talking about using them in ISOLATED LIFE-OR-DEATH INCIDENTS THAT COULD OCCUR IN OUR OWN HOMES, AND DO OCCUR MANY MANY TIMES EVERY DAY. This has nothing to do with the status quo, or the state of society man.

You're right about one thing. My gun is not going to make society any safer...but it WILL keep my home more secure from anyone that might try to enter against my wishes.

According to: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/proptrdtab.htm

In 2005, 29.5 out of every 1000 households in the U.S. were burglarized. And that doesn't even begin to paint the picture of the resulting murders, rapes, etc. that took place during many of those home intrusions.

29.5/1000? That breaks down to, get this:

1 out of every 34 homes burglarized!!! THAT YEAR ALONE!!!

I'm not a gambling man, but even if I were, I DON'T LIKE THOSE ODDS.

1 in 34 chance that my family will go COMPLETELY UNPROTECTED from some home-invading animal? 1 in 34 chance that I'll be gagged and bound with duct tape while my wife is gang raped in front of me? 1 in 34 chance that my only line of defense will be to pick up a phone, as the door is getting smashed down before my eyes? FUCK THAT.

Don't say I'm a fear mongerer, or afraid...because that's the last thing I am. I live a life very free of fear. I simply have the right to keep a tool in my home that will make all of that shit a LOT less likely to happen to me and mine, and I choose to exercise that right.


So yeah, I WILL use my gun to "tackle crime" should some thug ever try to earn his drug money by violating the place where I sleep at night.

You? You use whatever it is that you want to use. That's called freedom of choice.





This is really the final word in my side of the argument. The plainest English I can put it in and I don't know what else to say to make you even slightly more sympathetic to my views.

 

Yep, that's why they are having the same arguement about the same points over 100+ pages, Dirk won this months ago, they are just rehashing the same old stuff now. In the end Balbus wants to use control to save people and Dirk wants to allow people to protect and save themselves.

remember kids, it takes the police at least 5 minutes to get from where they are to where you are, they will get there in just enough time to start investigating who hurt you. Now don't you wish your parents could keep you safe(r) from bad people before and during those 5 min? yes? thought so...

 

Michael

Once more you make my points for me.

You say you don’t see guns as a way of tackling crime then go right on to explain how you think they can tackle crime.

You say you are not a fear monger and go on to talk of life and death struggles that are going to occur in our homes and which happen many, many times every day and every burglary is going to mean that someone is gagged and bound with duct tape while their wife is gang raped in front of them.

And so the best if only means of stopping this from happening is owning a gun.

My theory is that many Americans seem to think little about their society’s problems while believing guns can deal with them.

I’ve asked you several times already to give me you alternatives ideas of tackling crime , so far you’ve declined.

You do however promote guns as a means of tackling those problems.

**

 

The thing is that this again is again a refusal to discuss social issues which as I’ve pointed out is predicted by my theory.

I have discussed some of your ideas and given my thought on them.

You have made comments but you refuse to discuss them, you have many times said you will not do so claiming I ask to many questions.

*

Part of your ideas includes gun ban/restrictions.

The only part you seem interested in and are willing to talk endlessly about.

I have asked you hundreds of times to explain how these will effect any change.

And I have given you replies over and over again – just look above – the problem is that if you don’t like what I say so you ignore or dismiss it and claim dishonestly that I haven’t answered.

*

Your reply has only been that you believe it will lower fear in society but when pointed out that they do nothing to the criminal element of society you refuse to expand any further.

Again you have a unusual definition of refusing to expand, I answer you questions at length and in detail and explain at even more length and detail and you call that a refusal to reply.

The only way you do this is by ignoring what I’ve said.

*

All you do is complain that no one will talk about your other ideas. So in what way do you not back up my theory that the anti-gun only wants to get rid of guns no matter what the consequences and effects are?

LOL – Thing is you are refusing to talk about other things, while I’ve written reams on the gun restrictions.

As to me wanting to ‘get rid of guns’ is that in the proposals you chose and I’ve been promoting?

Oh yes but you claim that (rather conveniently) you have forgotten the proposals you chose.

--------

A) An inability and unwillingness to discuss general societal problems

Again no one is refusing to talk about anything except for you and the consequences and effects of your gun proposals.

Oh yes of course you claim you are willing to talk you just refuse to do so even when asked to do so many times.

See below – it is very clear that you have an inability to discuss general issues because you haven’t given them much thought.

--------

B) The defence and promotion of guns as a means of tackling social problems.

Once again you keep saying everyone is promoting guns as a way to tackle social problems and no one has made such a statement in fact the opposite has been said many times.

To repeat -You’re like those politicians that support torture but call it something else just so they can say they are not supporters of torture.

-----------

I’m not deciding, that’s for the law and the courts to decide. Again you seem more interested in point scoring that thought.

You have pushed all along that guns are NOT an acceptable way of defense in any case.

I’ve said many times I’m not against people protecting themselves in a reasonable way I’m pointing out that many Americans don’t seem to think about why their society has problems and what to do about it (just witness their reluctance to talk about such subjects) but they do push guns as a means of suppressing such problems.

---------

I’ve explained at length why I think you do. So far you haven’t countered my arguments just told me I’m wrong without explanation.

It has been explained.

I don’t believe it has, so please quote or link to where you have.

--------

I’m talking about a wide range of social and economic ideas and your only concern is in the defence and promotion of guns as a means of tackling such problems.

So you are once again dictating which of your ideas can be discussed. The gun proposals are your proposals, why are you afraid to discuss this part of your “holistic approach”?

I’m not dictating anything what I’m pointing out is that you seem unable and are extremely unwilling to discuss general social issues and idea but instead concentrate almost exclusively on gun as a means of tackling such problems.

This fits in with my theories and I’m trying to work out why you seem to have this attitude.

As to discussing gun regulation we have been doing a lot of it at your insistence the problem so far is that you seem to ignore what I say if it doesn’t fit in with what you want.

---------

 

You’ve been implying it since we first began to talk. While you continually and vehemently defend and promote guns as a way of tackling crime you seem little interested in alternative ideas.
You’ve been implying it since we first began to talk…etc…

Why do you continue to post this lie? I have stated flatly that gun ownership will not tackle societal policies many times.

Yet that is the only ideas you defend and promote constantly.

I’ve tried to talk to you about alternative ideas, more than once, and you have refused.

See below - you are either refusing to talk or admitting you haven’t given it much thought.

--------

Swords are tough to master to be efficient killers (and there were lot of differing types that gave advantages and disadvantages) and they had a limited range so they could easily be run away from or countered some type of blocking devise (I once saw a man successfully fight off a knife wielder with nothing but a chair if it had been a gun the attacker could just of shoot throw the chair)

And if the victim had a gun he would have probably ran off the attacker without incident.

LOL – it was you that stipulated that it was before the gun.

If a victim was confronted by someone with a knife or sword they are very likely to escape by just running away – ‘swish, swosh, hey you come back here’

If a person was confronted by someone with a gun even running is not likely to help – ‘stop, bang’

And as I’ve said before, I’ve seen someone fight of someone armed with a knife with nothing but a chair, if the attacker had had a gun the chair would have been of not use.

--------

Guns are by far and away the most lethal of this group and can be used by anyone and are often lethal even in unpractised hands because even a glancing shot can kill or cause serious injury.

All of these were the leading weapon in their time. A knife sword can be extremely deadly by longitudinally opening a vein because they are generally used in a slashing motion.

It’s not as easy as you seem to think (it’s not like the movies) and again it assumes the victim has not just fled.

*

The only reason guns are more deadly now days is they are used much more widely than knives. As far as a glancing shot the same can be said of any of the weapons I mentioned.

Actually for most of European history everyone (literally men women and children) carried a knife it was what everyone eat with (in many place they still do).

Guns are more deadly because they are built and designed to be extremely deadly.

--------

As to the willingness to kill to get what you want, that has been my point is would seem (and you agree) that Americans seem more prone to violence and using weapons to solve problems and so they would most likely need regulations more than the Brits or Swiss that don’t have such tendencies.

But once again this brings up the question of what real world effect will any of these gun proposals actually have.

So even though it is just above you have forgotten about reducing harm while other measures try to curb the tendencies.

----------

 

The regulations I’ve been promoting the ones you thought were good have no direct comparisons. So basically they haven’t been tried and so there effects are unknown.

The UK – complete handgun ban no discernable effect on gun related crime.
Washington DC complete gun ban – Murder capitol of the country many years running.
Conclusion – the people willing to use guns in a destructive/criminal way still have them. Which of your suggestions are you saying haven’t been tried?

It is only your opinion that the handgun ban has had no effect based on you belief that it didn’t have an effect. You do not know what the effect of not having the ban in place would have been; you’re just guessing it would be the same.

Well you can guess all you want but a guess isn’t a fact.

And I don’t believe Washington DC is still the murder capital any more it did have 399 murders in 1994 which was over ten years ago but by 2005 it was 195 and I believe by 06-07 that was down to 162

Calculated by number per 100,000 it came in 7th.

I believe Detroit is top these days (47.3) followed by Baltimore (43.3) and thrird is New Orleans (29.1)
http://top10ideas.blogspot.com/2007/12/top-us-murder-cities.html

But again the regulations I’ve been promoting the ones you thought were good have no direct comparisons. So basically they haven’t been tried and so there effects are unknown.

But again your stance seems to be that you haven’t thought about alternative ways to tackle this problem but I am going to promote guns as a way of tackling them.

--------

Where have I refused to discuss then, please link or quote.

OMFG I have given you concerns and asked you questions and all you did as far as replying was accuse me of wanting criminals to have access to guns.

So no quotes no link?

Just you making more assertions, that you don’t back up.

------

So to you all crime figures are dictated by gun regulation?

READ THE FUCKING QUESTION I said nothing about all crime. I said GUN crime and GUN murder.

No I think it is you that is just not reading the posts, the point is that you have claimed that the hand gun ban in the UK had a direct influence on violent crime - to quote you –

“The UK violent crime has risen DRAMITICALLY since the gun ban as the criminals know that they are less likely to meet resistance”

But in fact violent crime dramatically fell after the gun ban and gun murders have not risen year on year as you also claimed they in fact go up and down.

One moment you claim that guns have an influence on crime in general (see also below) then the next you claim guns don’t have any influence.

-----------

And anyway the regulations we’ve been talking about don’t even contain a hand gun ban.

So you don’t want to ban “hand guns” yet they are the most prevalent gun used in crime?

Your point being?

---------

So when you create stories where little old ladies are beaten to death because they didn’t have a gun to protect them that is in no way a story that’s trying to promote guns?

NO it points out situations that CAN and DO happen. To ignore the fact that these kinds of things do happen, you would have to be stupid.

But that’s exactly what I’ve been saying to you and others it all about heightening the threat the fear – it not that the possibility is very low, it’s you shouting that it CAN happen and that it DOES happen.

The thing is you’re doing that but you don’t seem to be wondering or caring why it can or does happen.

It seems all you are interested in is promoting the idea that guns are a way of tackling it.

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

So I’ll ask again, go ahead please show it?

Look for “READ THE FUCKING QUESTION”

What I said was that if you had genuine proof that your assertions were right you’d produce them in bold type, but you never seem to.

So I’ll ask again, please show it?

----------

As to not having an effect on gun related crime that is an opinion not a fact.

Again its an opinion BASED ON SOMETHING whereas yours is based on NOTHING

And the something it is based on is you belief that you are right. You claim that the UK’s gun laws have had no effect, because that’s what you want to believe so you’re guessing that the figures would be the same in a UK without the regulations as they would be in a UK with the regulations.

But a guess is a guess it’s not a fact.

---------

Accomplish what?

OMFG You cannot be this stupid. This is your problem when someone ask you a question you have no answer for you either make outlandish claims to have answered it or act like there was not question in the first place. READ THE FUCKING POST.

I read the post and answered your question - to repeat – ““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”

----------

And once again you’re not addressing what I’ve said you are just telling me I’m wrong without any explanation

Jesus Christ Ill say this one more fucking time.
Example: gun safes are a good idea. Making them mandatory will not have any fucking effect on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

Why not, so far your arguments against them (as I showed that last time you brought this up) as based mainly on the inconvenience to gun owners and the rather silly idea that something left out or put in a shoe box is as secure as something locked in a safe, so there is no point in locking things away to try and keep them safe.

--------

Again you are not addressing my counter arguments you are just telling me that what I’ve said is invalid and that gives you the excuse to dismiss them without explanation or answer.

You have not presented anything backing up your “argument”. Just saying it is so without ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE does not make it a fact except in your delusional mind.

LOL oh Pitt anyone can claim the other person hasn’t backed up their claims if they just ignore or dismiss as invalid everything that has been presented to back up their claims.

---------

And violent crime seems to have dropped dramatically since the ban.

So the GUN ban is not meant to address GUN crime?

I think it was meant to try and limit dunblane type shootings, but anyway as pointed out it is you that seems to claim that guns limited crime in general by being a deterrent and crime in generals gone down.

--------

But that isn’t what you have been saying –

How many times have I made this fucking statement? You just refuse to listen.

So your premise is that guns are a deterrent to criminality and protects against criminal behaviour which would mean you do think availability has an impact on crime. You seem to be arguing that the removal of guns would have a grave impact on people’s ability to tackle crime.

You now seem to be implying that the removal of guns wouldn’t have an impact on crime, that they are not a deterrent and have no value in tackling crime?

Which is it?

----------

You now seem to be implying that the removal of guns wouldn’t have an impact on crime, that they are not a deterrent and have no value in tackling crime?

It would have an impact on hundreds of thousands of people each year who use them in self defense. These individuals and individual situations would definitely be impacted however the overall criminal use of guns would not be effected.

That’s not a logical or rational argument and not what you’ve been saying at all.

Gun ownership has an impact generally (adding up those many situations) and through a deterrent value, but overall it doesn’t have an impact generally?

--------

I’ve given you my arguments for having this opinion; you are not producing counter arguments or addressing what I’ve said you are just saying I’m wrong without explanation.

Then show where anyone made such a statement. Once again all you are doing is making a claim with out anything top back it up.

Again it is the – as long as I didn’t say it I didn’t do it - frankly it doesn’t float.

It is like someone who supports things that most people would consider torture claiming that as long as they don’t say ‘I support torture’ they are not a supporter of torture.

You are promoting the ideas of guns as a way of tackling crime but claiming that as long as you don’t say ‘I’m promoting the ideas of guns as a way of tackling’ you’re not doing it.

–--------

So, you’re still not sure about the proposals you choose and we’ve been discussing for over a year?

You are the one claiming you have dropped some of them Can you not list the ones you still favor? Talk about bizarre.

So let’s get this straight, you don’t know which ones you choose and can’t remember discussing them for over a year.

--------

So the police figures using all their available resources and data are wrong and you after reading one short news item are right.

I used the available data which is verifiable. The 10% seemingly comes out of thin air. I showed you how I came up with my figures. Do you have anything showing how they came up with this 10%?

So the police figures using all their available resources and data are wrong and you after reading one short news item are right.

-----------

I’ve listed many, that’s my point, what ideas are you talking about?

And you conveniently leave out the ones which encompasses the basis of this thread.

What basis of this thread – I came into this thread talking about my theory and how you and others had backed it up (and are still backing it up) and how it reveal the true gun craziness of many Americans.

--------

Only you, by choosing some of them made those more ‘solid’ and I believe I thanked you for doing that at the time.

So why are you now refusing to verify the exact ones you still favor?

I’m not refusing, and can quote from them any time, what I’m wondering and marvelling at it is your seeming inability to know what your talking about.

----------

You seem unable and are definitely unwilling to discuss societal problems.

You are very vocal in you defence and in the promotion of guns as a means of tackling social problems such as crime.

I addressed each of your topics. Why are you unwilling/unable to address the gun portion of YOUR proposals?

LOL sorry Pitt but these days addressing what I’ve said to you just means ignoring what I’ve said

**

 

EQUALITY

You say the problem is social hierarchy – but removing social hierarchy would mean equality and when I mentioned trying to equalise society you’ve replied (and I quote) that “total equality will never happen, people will just have to learn to deal with it”. So what do you mean? Are you for some type of social and economic equalisation involving something like wealth distribution, if so what.

Yes I believe there will never be total equality. That does not mean however that the gap cannot be closed to some degree. The gap has done nothing in the past except get wider and wider. Exactly how to close this gap I don’t know for sure however I have agreed with many of your proposals when we discussed them before.

I agree that the wealth gap is too wide and I’ve been talking and discussing that subject on these forums for literally years.

But my question to you has been have you given this issue (or other societal problems) much thought, and your reply is that you haven’t – “Exactly how to close this gap I don’t know for sure” – it very similar to what you said when I tried to discuss drugs policies, you really didn’t know because you hadn’t given it much thought.

Thing is there are thousands of books written on these subjects every year along with millions of essays and articles published that discussed them and the differing economic and political models and ideas for tackling them and it seems you haven’t read one of them.

They seem to be of very little or no interest to you. Os much so that you don’t even seem to have a grasp of the fundamentals.

*

For the seeming origins of the increasing wealth gap try

A brief history of neoliberalism
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283265


Have you not wondered why the wealth gap has grown?

Have you not wondered what the impact of it would have on society?


**

MATERALISM

Personal gain over all else – (which is materialism and the men thing) this would imply you are opposed to the individualist economic approach but as I’ve pointed out numerous times you have expressed an individualist approach.

There is nothing wrong with wanting personal success, it is the attitude that places this above all else that is the problem. It’s the willingness to fuck every body else over in order to gain this success that must change.

But what is personal success; in what way do people gauge their personal success?

In a consumerist society, the economy can quite literally be based on making people feel they are not successful if they do not have material possessions.

People are made to feel like failures for not having ‘succeeded’ that is they haven’t got ‘what they should have’

This can lead to stress, debt, substance abuse, reckless or dangerous behaviour and violence.

Also if the system is set up in such a way that personal success can only come from fucking someone else over then it is teaching that fucking someone over is acceptable, because if you do and win then you are seen as a ‘success’.

But then just holding on to what you have (rather than the progression upward implied by success) also come a point of winning at all costs.

And in a system where a medical bill, hike in interest rates, or loss of job can bring disaster it is very easy to look to other means of getting out.

Try reading

Affluenza
http://www.amazon.com/Affluenza-All-Consuming-Epidemic-Bk-Currents/dp/1576753573/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201603418&sr=1-1

*

Materialism I’m still waiting for you to explain what it means to you?

You cannot be that dense. a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things

See what I mean you call me dense because I do not share you ideas yet its clear your ideas are based on little, no study or thought.

And this doesn’t explain what it means to you, what is the balance for you, between material comfort and something else?

If someone is trying to survive and keep their head above the metaphorical water line and getting the ‘material’ needs to keep them going then they are unlikely to have the time or energy for intellectual pursuits.

----

EDUCATION

We been through this before and I’ll ask again - who sets what to is to be taught and how, the only educational ‘policy’ you seem to have expressed so far is that ‘we’ should teach ‘our’ children ‘right from wrong’ and then said (as you repeat) that no ‘policy’ will change things. So what do you mean and are you able to explain, although repeatedly asked you have refused to so far.

Yes I believe the only way to change this is through education and getting back to teaching out children proper perspectives on life and material things. Yes there is no “policy” that will change this attitude. Face it there is a policy/law that says stealing is wrong, yet many children are brought up watching their parents steal and commit all sort of crimes setting the example they will remember all their lives.

But who sets what to is to be taught and how? You say just below that it “starts in the home with the parents” yet you say here “children are brought up watching their parents steal and commit all sort of crimes”

Again you don’t seem to have given education (which seems to be the main idea you have) much thought at all, it seems confused and contradictory

You want children to learn at home but know that this might be the wrong type of education. Then there are those that haven’t the time due to pressure of work to educate their children at home. Then there are those that do not have the money or grounding to be able to teach their children properly.

**

Education – we been through this before and I’ll ask again - who sets what to is to be taught and how,

Education starts in the home with the parents, formal education is not the only things kids must learn. If you cannot understand this then I have serious doubts in your ability to be around children

And again you seem more interested in point scoring that debate, but I’ll continue the thing is how do you aid and equip the parents to do what you want?

You don’t seem to have given it any thought what so ever.

In fact you ask me to give you ideas or direct you to them and I hope I can but that only make is even clearer that you haven’t thought about these things very much if at all.

**

So what policies can relieve the situation?

Again there are multiple crossovers that is why I talk of a holistic approach.

Minimum wage
Limits on working hours
Taxation
Free at entry healthcare
Ban on advertising targeted at children (with money being given to programme makers so they continue to make kids programmes)
Tighter advertising regulation
Welfare
Free at entry education
Maternity leave for men and women
Cheap public housing
Cheap and plentiful public transport
Alternative drugs policy
Quality of life initiatives
Political campaign reform
Free or subsidized child care facilities
Free or subsidized evening classes for adult education
Libraries
Educational facilitators and councillors

And I could go on.

**

 

Pitt

My theory is that guns seem to be seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

And what would be the outward manifestations of such an attitude?

An inability and unwillingness to discuss general societal problems

The defence and promotion of guns as a means of tackling social problems.

You seem unable and unwilling to discuss societal problems.

You are very vocal in you defence and in the promotion of guns as a means of tackling social problems such as crime.

So in what way do you not back up my theory?


**

 

That also seems to be changing in the UK now doesn’t it? If they are so safe why the knife bans in the UK?
wow are you sure of this? ive carried a knife since i was ten!!!