Guncrazy USA

actualy i carried my grandfathers knife since i was 10 unfotunatly it was lost,along time ago!!! actually ive carried a knife since i was 6 ahh so much for letting your kids jump in puddles!!!!

 

balbus
did you ever run with sticks? you know you could put someones eye out!!! you keep this circular argument going, well this just backs up my theory, you wont awnser the questions put to you you just say ive already addressed this in length! well instead of saying that and arguing with pitt why dont you repeat yourself for are benifit? you want me to go through 1000+ posts to find were you said this thing that you claim you addressed? if your so in tune with what you posted pull it back up if you want it to be disscussed! i am going to try and send you im! a articale from a newspaper and would like to here your take on it but i will trust that you keep times, dates, and names to yourself if you would! i agree with you that there are things that could be worked on to decrease crime in general, but there are some (and maybe more here than there) who dont CARE! they find it easier or ther is no work!................ everybody has to eat and there are peeps that will TAKE what they want! check the history of your own country! too be continued...............................................

 

Wow, this is the thread that wouldn't die. Anyway, I enjoy shooting, guns are hobby with a lot of people in the US.

 

ya i enjoy killing cans! idont often becuse it freaks my dog out i only do it when sighting in a rifel and then ill take a littel practice with a hand gun at the same time !

 

You're all insane. If you're gonna let a few crazy fucks step on our constitutional rights why not just go ahead and write your congressman to vote for more articles like the patriot act. gun control only does one thing. it puts absolute power inthe hands of those who would probably will enslave you.

 

ahh evll we are alredy enslaved we just dont recognise it!lol, i laugh but i know its not funny! i did just have a thought tho, if i can remember through all the rest of them! ahh well cant get it back had to go outside and piss (no indoor toilet) but what a amazing sky! cold air coming in tonight! peace!

 

next thing you know youll need a permit to get your sneakers muddy!

 

lol, criminals are not obeying the law(shock) and individualists are being subjected to unreasonable stop/searches by the police state that they warned about when opposing the bans?

are we surprised?

god, the u.k. must suck ass, i talked to a guy the other day who was ticketed for warming his car up while he was getting himself ready for work. apparently because the practice of heating your car in your driveway on a cold day hurts the environment and invites criminal elements to take advantage of the keys in the ignition, you can be charged at the local level for letting your car idle. Of course, the unreasonableness of forcing a father of 3 to have his small children sit in a car in weather below freezing never seemed to cross anyone's mind when they drafted those rules...

keep in mind that anyone with a brick in hand can still steal his car.

i think they have the same laws/rules/regulations in germany and elsewhere in the European Soviet Union.

 

They can do that, the unarmed people are subjects, not citizens.

 

I'm not going to go and read a 154 pages of this so someone probably said this already but guns are similar to drugs, in that by making them illegal, there's only going to be an underground market for them. Guns and drugs will always be around no matter what the law says.

 

Pitt

"1522 and 1523 will have to be addressed at a later time as I have to go set up for a show tonight."

you seem to be posting again so...

**

 

Hi Shane

As i've said 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.

**

“criminals are not obeying the law” but why are these people turning to crime?

**

“individualists are being subjected to unreasonable stop/searches”

The stop and search question has been going on for over 200 years in one form or another and I was active (along with many on the left) in the campaigns of the 70 early 80 in the UK that lead to the end of the so called sus laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sus_law

Would being armed help in such a situation and in the UK to a large extent those most in favour of stop and search powers were also those that were pro-gun.

As I’ve pointed out in the thread ‘Can guns save you from suppression?’ http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253937

Guns in the hands of ‘decent citizens’ have often been the tools of political suppression.


**

As to the car warming up can you tell me where and when this was?

**

But Shane you have expressed the view that guns were a way of solving societies problems, you put forward the theory of a personal policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) where there would be a balance of terror where everyone was seen as a threat so guns would always be ready to fire on anyone else that took a threatening move.

As to you vision of a better society, how did you put it “Burn it all. Tear up the constitution, give everyone a gun, let the population drop off to what nature can sustain, tear up the roads and blacktop, erase every dotted line from the map, let private property become public property become just land”

Your argument seemed to be that in this future everyone should be armed and look after themselves, where individuals owed nothing and give nothing to quote you again - “I owe you nothing, i owe government nothing, i owe my neighbor nothing. I am not responsible for the people in darfur, kosovo, france, china, n. korea, india, new orleans, new york city, boston, chicago, or anywhere else. They are responsible for their own survival, health, food, happiness, ect”

A kind of Social Darwinism where everyone fights everyone else for the means of survival.

And since gun seem central to this idea I’d say this was the ultimate expression of my theory.

**

 

I agree with the idea that outlawing rights does not solve the problem. If outlawed, the only people who will own guns are the ones who misuse them.


On other debates:

The economic gap needs to be reduced not only to promote well being to the majority of the population, but also because it is an inevitability. If a society does not find ways to redistribute power, the result is social revolution. The balance must be kept.

To do so, those who have the means to contribute more should. Those of meager means should not be forced to contribute anything. This does not mean that society support those who wish not to be productive. If you don't care, then you don't matter. So tax the rich more. Any argument against this would include some inference to trickle-down economics and the ability of the wealthy to contribute more to the financial growth of the country. But this is not evident. The wealth being reproduced by the wealthy is being hoarded and/or spent overseas. Cost efficiency is the prime concern in capitalism. DO NOT RAISE MINIMUM WAGE. It is the most ineffective way to aid the lower class. It causes labor costs to rise, creates unemployment, creates inflation, harms the middle class, and has no effect on the poor since they still will not be able to afford the COL.

The name of the game is "RESOURCE MANAGEMENT", and this society, or any capitalistic one for that matter, have no discipline in this area. We use, and use, and use without any concern for the future. Because our planet is an isolated system with a limited amount of resource, actions will eventually have to be taken to control the rate at which we waste and create ways of to reproduce. The longer we wait, the more such actions will cost, and I'm not speaking monetarily.

Maitreya

 

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.

No you will not listen to the answers given you. You instead try to continue to drill deeper as if trying to find one singular cause fro societal problems. I have explained to you I do not think there is any such single cause.

You have brought up this excuse for not answering before and as I’ve shown and explained, it is only really a way of refusing to answer.

A debate is meant to be about drilling down deeper that’s its whole point, and as I’ve said many times I don’t think there is one cause.

Think about it if I thought there was only one cause there would be only one course of actions yet I’ve repeated over and over that I think it can only be tackled with a holistic approach with many actions.

Again this makes me think you haven’t read my posts or misunderstood what I’ve said or are just ignoring what I say, whatever it is this statement makes it clear you don’t understand what is meant by a holistic approach

---------

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.

You say to lessen fear, but do not say how this would be accomplished by such simplistic means such as gun control.

Oh Pitt really what the point of me saying things if you are just repeatedly going to ignore them?

The holistic approach as a whole is meant to have the aim of making people feel more secure (socially, financially, personally etc) the gun regulations are just one part that is meant to reduce harm as I’ve quoted about 4-5 times in the last few post.

Here it is again since you once again –

The gun regulation element would be aimed at trying to reduce harm by trying to stop guns getting into the hands of people that might do damage with them. Such things as mandatory gun safes, so people’s guns would be less likely to be stolen or get into the hands of children and mandatory psychological testing to try and weed out those with emotional and mental problems.

But at the same time as I’ve outlined above I would try and make peoples lives more attractive, comfortable and worthwhile so people have more to loose from transgressing and are not likely to experience the intensity of stress that might make them act in a destructive manner.

**

You say to keep guns away from those who should not have them But refuse to explain how these restrictions would accomplish this. You refuse to discuss the many gun bans and restrictions that seemingly have failed to do this.

See just above. Plus the other proposals you supported (that you seem now to have conveniently forgotten).

And again you definition of refusing is unusual; I’ve been ‘refusing’ by explaining at length and in detail my ideas for well over a year now.

-------

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.

Again how will these bans/restrictions of yours effect the criminals who are the ones using guns to cause harm Where all the other gun bans seemingly have failed to do so?

Did you not read the often repeated explanations of it being aimed at reducing harm? We, or at least I, have gone into detail of this very subject, have you being asleep for a few months?

Do I have to repeat myself over and over – what reassurances do I have that you are not simply going to ignore what I say again?

-------

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

I know which of YOUR proposals I said were on the surface good ideas or at least worth exploring. It is you that is refusing to define which ones you HAVE NOT dropped.

The ones I dropped where made clear, again do you actually remember what was said, if not you only have to go back and read.

---------

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.

Then show me where someone said guns will tackle social problems in general?

Oh Pitt read and at least try to understand what been said.

Someone can say they are not doing something while doing everything to push that thing, apart from actually saying they are.

You defend and promote guns as a means of tackling some social problems such as crime but you claim you are not because you haven’t actually said you are.

It’s a common dishonestly amongst the more unscrupulous politicians.

----------

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.

Again to you guns are never an acceptable way.

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

This whole thread is practically an explanation as to why I don’t think your proposals will make any difference.

So you are unable to actually quote or link to anything that backs up what you say, you just wave your hand vaguely and say it’s over there somewhere, someplace.

This doesn’t give me much confidence that you know what you are talking about or have talked about. It’s like the proposals you supported that you’ve forgotten about, you just don’t seem to know what’s going on.

----------

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.

Your idea of discussing these gun proposals seem to extend to you saying: If you don’t accept these proposals you must want criminals to have guns.

It’s a valid point, but not the only point, the thing is that you objections didn’t seem to be overwhelming they seemed 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.

As I pointed out before you seem more interested in putting up petty objections rather than trying to see the possible benefits (although you strangely claim you think the benefits would be good, and have a safe yourself)

--------

 

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

I have discussed your other proposals and asked you questions concerning these yet you are the one that refuses to discuss the consequences of part of YOUR own proposals.

In full what I said was -

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.

You have shown yourself over and over again to be unwilling to discuss other ideas than promoting guns as a means of tackling social problems

- And when you do let slip something you show that you hadn’t given it much thought.

----------

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’

Is that why there are so many knife attacks in the UK? Oh wait a minute you are saying they all get away by running away.

Your point being that knives are as efficient and deadly as a gun?

And as I’ve said before, I’ve seen someone fight off someone armed with a knife with nothing but a chair, if the attacker had had a gun the chair would have been of no use.

---------

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

Lol have you ever tried hitting a moving target with a pistol? You make it seem like it is a sure thing when in fact it takes quite a lot of practice to hit moving targets. Practice is not what criminals are known for.

And the designers of guns have added that great little feature into nearly all modern handguns (that a knife lacks) of having multiple chances of hitting the target that is running away, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang etc.

----------

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.

Again this does not address what I said about this before.

Well the only place were you reply to this seems to be when you say – “And if the victim had a gun he would have probably ran off the attacker without incident”

But the person didn’t have a gun, just a chair, and the other did have knife.

But if they had both had a gun, and the attacker drew first (since he is the attacker) he would have the advantage and wouldn’t he more likely shot if the victim began to pull his own gun.

You reply doesn’t seem like your addressing the situation but making it worse.

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

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 same is true of guns. You seem to wish to believe Hollywood about guns but not about knives.

Your point being that knives are as efficient and deadly as guns?

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 no use.

---------

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).

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?

I’m not saying they are safe, I’m challenging you view that seems to be that knives are as efficient and effective weapons as guns.

----------

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

Again how has this worked out in the UK? It does not seem to have made a bit of difference.

It is only your opinion that gun regulations in the UK haven’t made a difference you just believe it hasn’t and you are trying to peddle that opinion as solid fact and it isn’t.

Thing is that a guess isn’t a fact.

-----------

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.

And YOU are guessing that it did make a difference. For this to be true the UK would have had to become much more violent in the last 10 years.

All I’ve been saying is that I think it is impossible to say what impact the UK hand gun regulations have had on crime. But I’m not basing my arguments on it one way or the other; you are however and have made it an issue.

I’m just pointing out that you argument here seems to be based on a guess and a belief rather than being some type of solid fact.

So you argument doesn’t seem that solid.

-----------

I believe Detroit is top these days (47.3) followed by Baltimore (43.3) and thrird is New Orleans (29.1)

Actually I believe it was Memphis last year. However considering that DC is completely “gun free” It according to your theory should be the safest place in the country.

Oh hell’s bells Pitt, this makes it clear you haven’t been listening to a work I’ve been saying.

LOL no wonder you don’t seem to know what’s going on half the time, you’ve ignored so much you don’t have a clue what’s been said.

Thinking in terms of guns alone rather that the wider problems, is the thing I’ve being highlighting.

Read again - 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.

But even if it meant believing that just getting rid of guns was the way of dealing with societal problems is also ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

Have you not got that yet or are you so stuck on guns you can’t see beyond the end of the barrel?

The thing is that more of the pro-gunners I’ve talked to (but not all) do not seem to have given societal problems much thought and don’t seem interested in giving it much thought while those that believe in gun regulation seem to see it more of a side issue than the main one.

To me the gun attaitude i've talked about is a way of learning about American attitudes and viewpoints.

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

So no quotes no link?

Pick any page in this thread and look at the post I have made.

So another excuse – you don’t actually have an example so you’re trying to cover up by waving vaguely over there, you know somewhere.

----------

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 –

And you complained that the “recording criteria” has changed So I said ok lets just look at gun crime and gun murder. These are cut and dried stats.

And we did or have you forgotten.

----------

Your point being?

That you have not thought any of your gun proposals through.

No in your opinion I haven’t, but you’ve reached that opinion by ignoring the thousands of words of explanation and hundreds of posts I written on the subject.

-----------

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.

And you all but ignore the fact that they do happen.

Again pitt, why don’t you listen – I’m not ignoring they do happen, I’m pointing out that all you seem to do is use they as a means of promoting guns as a way of tackling social problems, but seem to be refusing to wonder by they are happening.

You still seem to be refusing.

----------

So I’ll ask again, please show it?

Each time I have went back and showed you, you’ve done nothing but ignore it.

And again another excuse not to show it and another accusation you will not back up.

I repeat - please show it.


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

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.

And you are guessing that it did indeed have an effect leaving only one other conclusion that the UK has become a much more violent place in the last 10 years.

But it hasn’t become more violent in fact it seems to have become less violent.

-----------

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”

Yes we have all read this same fucking banter over and over. Now answer the questions about this same old drivel.

What unanswered questions Pitt? We’ve been through this many times I think I’ve answered your questions sometimes many, many times, so please quote or link to the question you think I haven’t answered.

-----------

 

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 completely ignore what has been said.

I’ve not ignore what was said I can quote you on the subject of safe, with my replies if you wish (and can do more if this isn’t enough) –

So here it is again -


Pitfall #1 Increased cost just to be able to own a firearm.

Yes – and what? My intention is to try and limit the number of guns ending up in the hands of criminals.

Well why not just include a safe with the purchase of every gun? This is really the least of my concerns on this. Again I suggest reading a little on the Saturday night special laws and the reasons behind enacting it.

So this is the least of your concerns so you’re just going to shrug, so basically it’s not an overwhelming reason for being against.

-----------

Pitfall #2 what constitutes an “approved” safe

Could it be one that is approved! You know one that complies to a certain standard.

Who sets the standards and approves them? Perhaps the BATFE?

Is it overwhelmingly important who sets the standard?

**

Pitfall #3 Not only do you have to buy a safe you will have to buy multiple safes since he would change the criteria over time.

Over time – that means not every day or week or month it means over years and only if it’s needed.

If its good enough now what will change to cause everyone to have to purchase another one. This is just another BS scheme to increase cost and hassle.

But they might not, it depends on the results, it just a way of keeping the options open and anyway I’m trying to stop criminals easily getting their hands on guns, minor hassle doesn’t seem that overwhelming a reason for being against.

**

Pitfall #4 If you are away from home an d your house is burglarized what keeps the criminal from taking the lockbox with him and opening later to retrieve the weapon

Of course I’ve seen the light, halleluiah, I mean what is the point in having any safes what so ever, in fact what is the point of locking anything up – I mean if I lock my bike to a bicycle stand a thief could always take the stand along with the bike and take the lock off later, so really there is little point locking the bike up at all, it would be just as safe if I didn’t.

I’m sure I’ve told you how silly that is before haven’t I?

So you think its appropriate to have your government tall you that if you do not have a bicycle lock you cannot own a bicycle? Oh and by the way we might tell you next year you will have to have a different kind of lock.

The point is that all a lock is to keep an honest man out. This also goes back to the point of what constitutes an “approved” safe. Instead of making sill statements why not address the real point?

What real point – that you think that leaving a gun just hanging around is as safe as locking them up in a safe?

Again this doesn’t seem like a overwhelming reason for being against.

---------

Pitfall #5 Enforcement, how do you enforce this? Require proof of ownership when purchasing a gun? This doesn’t mean people will use it.

Think about it - 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 their weapon)

Every gun would be registered, an unregistered gun would be an illegal gun, every X amount of time a gun owner would be asked to take his gun(s) along to an office (or peace officer) to prove they still held them.

If a gun has been stolen or lost and not reported it would result in an even heavier fine, communal service order or even a prison sentence if compliance can be proved.

If you don’t have a safe and the gun is stolen that is (1) not having a safe (2) not showing due diligence in securing the weapon. That could mean two heavy fines and being banned from ever owning a gun again (and possible a 10 year sentence for holding what would have been an illegal weapon).

So now you have gone further and made a national gun registry which like I state below is a whole different can of worms. Again I have told you in the past you should study the examples of these throughout history. The latest being the Canadian Registry.

You don’t state anything below about it besides saying – “there shouldn’t be a national registration”

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

Pitfall #6 How do you insure that someone don’t buy a safe, buy a gun then sell the safe? By random surprise inspections?

See above

Yes see above and below comments on national gun registry.

You mean your opinion that - there shouldn’t be a national registration?

--------

Pitfall #7 Money spent enforcing this through random inspections would be better spent on other programs designed to prevent crime rather than searching law abiding people’s houses for safes

See above

So you are saying since the individual (or elderly lady) must find a police officer or go to the police station there is no cost involved in creating a national registration database and nationwide network and no additional personnel to handle the people coming in every day to show they are “law abiding” people?

Why elderly lady?

To me it seems worth it, to try and cut down on crime, you think differently?

-----------

Pitfall #8 wouldn’t random searches be a violation of “illegal search and seizure laws?)

See above

That would be fine except it really does not address everything so the question still stands.

Why? I’m not contemplating random searches so why hasn’t this been addressed? "


**

 

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.

You claim to have presented fact backing your theory up yet no one has seen this. I have given you links to academic papers as well as stats and figures.

I’ve presented opinions and theories and as pointed out to you many times now I don’t claim them to be anything more than opinions and theories. I've explained my opinions and theories and asked you to refute what i've said so far you've either refused to do so or failed.

You on the other had have presented opinions and claimed them to be facts and the truth, even when you are unable to defend them from criticism.

-----------

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.

Again Dunblane type crimes were NEVER prevalent in the UK. So what you are saying is the UK passed a knee jerk law to combat something that was not a problem in the first place. And all the new regulations since then was meant to be retroactive against Dunblane type crimes even though there has not been any other ones since?

They were not prevalent and we’ve been through this before (please try and keep up Pitt) the point is that the attitudes of many British toward guns is different to many Americans attitude. So they reached in a way that is very difficult for someone with that American attitude to understand.

Do I have to explain it to you all over again, why didn’t you just read it the first time?

----------


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?

It is exactly what I have said you are once again refusing to listen to what’s being said.

What haven’t I listened to?

I mean which is it?

---------

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

So in other words you CANNOT show this.

Show what, you promoting guns by (for example) making up stories about little old ladies getting beaten to death because they didn’t have a gun?

----------

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

OMFG read above.

What above, you haven’t produced them yet so I’ll ask again – do you actually know which ones you choose, the ones that we have been discussing for over a year.

Do you?

---------

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

Again now you are claiming the police figures are in this instance are correct even there is no way to show how they came up with them. Whereas a while back you were claiming The official numbers were wrong concerning how knife attacks took place where you had lived.

You don’t do deep thinking do you; my point is that you assume the figures are wrong even when you don’t know what they are based on because you want to believe them wrong because they don’t suit you.

So suddenly you’re totally right and they’re totally wrong.

It seems to me that what you want to believe become your reality and your truth.

---------

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

Again this is nothing but a lie. I have defended My right to own a gun and have stated many times over that gun availability will not tackle any of societies problems.

You have gone a lot further than just defending you rights, you have in my opinion been promoting guns as a means of tackling crime since we began. I’ve explained over and over why I think that, but you don’t address what I say you just claim I’m wrong without giving an explanation.

**

 

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?

Sure wealth redistribution would decrease the gap. Is this the best way to do this I’m not sure. There would have to be extreme checks and balances built into any attempt to redistribute wealth.

So that’s it – basically you’re saying you don’t know, you haven’t thought about.

So in what way does this not back up what I’ve said about you not seeming to think much about societal problems?

-----------

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.

I have expressed my opinions on your “solutions” to societies problems.

You haven’t said much beyond a comment on most and the few you have gone further on you’ve admitted you hadn’t thought about it (and still don’t seem interested in doing so) before refusing to discuss it.

**

The problem is you are never satisfied with any answer and want to continually drill deeper in an apparent attempt to find a root cause. I have spoken about this before.

This rather silly excuse is frankly just a refusal to reply.

A debate is meant to be about drilling down deeper that’s its whole point, and as I’ve said many times I don’t think there is one cause.

Think about it if I thought there was only one ‘cause’ there would be only one course of actions yet I’ve repeated over and over that I think it can only be tackled with a holistic approach with many actions.

Again I think you are just trying to get out of showing that you haven’t actually given much thought to societal actions so again how does this prove my theory wrong?

**

You claim no one else has given thought to societal problems and how to correct them. I still say you want to throw a bunch of feel good policies in place without even thinking about their outcomes or effects. This is proven by your refusal to examine your gun ban/policies you with to have.

I’m saying that many of the Americans I’ve talked to here seem to see guns as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

You are not disproving that theory in fact you continue to either refuse to discuss them or admit you haven’t given them much thought. You are however very forthcoming in you defence and promotion of guns as a means of tackling crime.

In what way does this run opposite to my theories?

-----------

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.

Again the same may be said about your gun policies and restrictions. Literally thousands of articles and studies about the effects of gun bans and laws and you seem to have read none of them nor are you willing to think about them all you want to do is put them in place so you can feel good and say you did something.

So you admit again you haven’t actually thought about societal problems?

Have you not wondered why the wealth gap has grown?

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

-----------

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


Christ its called “personal” success for a reason. Each individual will gauge themselves on success. If you would have read the whole post its not about weather a person IS a success or not its about HOW the go about to gain success.

So are you saying you don’t think a society can influence how ‘success’ is viewed or measured?

And if a 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’.

Isn’t it teaching people the acceptable way of going about gaining success?

Again you don’t seem to have given this much thought.

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

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.

Yes it would be very easy to “look for other means” but it does not have to be so eagerly accepted or perused.

But if the system is set up to 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.

People are therefore taught to even enthusiastically accept the fucking over of others and be rewarded for such aggression.

Ends come to justify the means.

Again you seem to have given as little attention to what I’ve said as to the subject.

----------

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

Have you totally lost your fucking mind? You are just refusing to listen, refusing to accept any answer even one from a fucking dictionary.

Is the dictionary definition written by you and giving your own definition of what it means to you? What is the balance for you, between material comfort and something else?

This is a big subject and not as simplistic as a one size meets all, it is not black and white.

For example is poverty relative to the society in which it is expressed?

And 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.

Again you don’t seem to have actually thought about the subject.

--------

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 that it “starts in the home with the parents” yet you say also that “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 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.

If you would have actually read the fucking post you would have read that I was not solely speaking of “formal education”. Again just another example of your refusal to listen to other people and then trying to distort what has been said.

I was reading, and you don’t seem to be listening.

The only education you have mentioned so far seems to have been about teaching ‘our’ children right from wrong and here when you say – “Education starts in the home with the parents formal education is not the only things kids must learn”.

Is that it? Is that the whole sum of your thinking on education?

And what about those that haven’t the time due to pressure of work to educate their children at home or those that do not have the money or grounding to be able to teach their children properly or those that are teaching their children things you would see are wrong, as right?

And in a conflict between home and school education which one takes precedence? If the parent’s are white supremacists teaching there kids that blacks etc are inferior does that take precedence over a formal education that opposes that view?

Again you don’t seem to have given this subject much thought at all.

--------

So what policies can relieve the situation?

The first one you list is minimum wage. We already have that so I assume you are referring to raining the minimum wage. What should the minimum wage be? Would it be the same in New York as it is in say rural MS? How do you balance the new minimum wage with production cost passed on to consumers?

And again you’re not giving me any hint that you’ve thought about anything on that list. Once more you are asking me for guidance, but what about you, have you given any of them any real thought?

**

Again you leave off your list anything that refers to guns that YOU want to include with your holistic approach. You act just like a politician who keeps adding the little extra controversial policies to a widely supported bill.

And so we again return to the only thing you seem interested in defending and promoting - guns.


**

 

As to 1523 you say -

For my reply just look at the last TWO times you have pasted this EXACT same fucking nonsense.

And you reply I believe was that I’m wrong because you’re telling me I’m wrong.

Thing is that you don’t seem to have given thought to you societies problems, again and again you seem unable and willing to discussing them.

However you are always ready and eager to defend and promote gun ownership, it seems to be the only issue you have given much thought to.

So rather than just telling me I’m wrong, please explain why you are not backing up my theories?

**

 

Maitreya

I agree with the idea that outlawing rights does not solve the problem. If outlawed, the only people who will own guns are the ones who misuse them.

Covered in the 2nd amendment thread.

*

On other debates:

So tax the rich more.

Fair enough but I think given the present US political system way too simplistic.

Where does the money go?

To the poor or to the propping up of the present economic system?

Also to a great extent the US is a military economy, that has suborned a lot of social welfare into the military sphere and budget, training, education, wages, pensions, healthcare, etc.

All that would need to be restructuring.

**

Cost efficiency is the prime concern in capitalism.

I think you mean that ‘profit maximisation’ is the prime concern of a capitalist system, cost efficiency can be an outcome but it can also very much not be, because short term profit can often be sort at the expense of long term harm that cost more to repair (as you point out below).

DO NOT RAISE MINIMUM WAGE. It is the most ineffective way to aid the lower class. It causes labor costs to rise, creates unemployment, creates inflation, harms the middle class, and has no effect on the poor since they still will not be able to afford the COL.

The same arguments were used to try and stop the minimum wage being introduced in the UK and no of it happened except for a rise in poorer workers quality of life.
Without a minimum wage a capitalist system can lean toward exploitation.

The name of the game is "RESOURCE MANAGEMENT", and this society, or any capitalistic one for that matter, have no discipline in this area. We use, and use, and use without any concern for the future.

But that is what a capitalist system more often than not does (as I point out above).
So in your opinion do we scrap the system or regulate it?

**