Guncrazy USA

NO DISCERNIBLE EFFECT ON ARMED ROBBERY???????

 

"The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. When you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters, the very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand most of these people are not ready to be unplugged, and many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it." — Morpheus

 

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/12/6/365

Read it please, come to your own conclusion. Post it, thankyou.

 

I just clicked the link and searched THE ENTIRE REPORT for the word "robbery".


Zero results.



Every other source we've seen so far has shown 40-60% increases in armed and unarmed robberies throughout the country starting THE YEAR AFTER the gun ban.


Holy shit man, how many times do we have to do this same old song and dance?

 

The massive increase you keep banging on about is mostly to do with the change in the way data was collected that year. Once you take that fact into account, then the rate becomes within the norm.

 

And I'm assuming you have something to prove this other than your word?

 

Actually, having been trained in the martial arts, I happen to know that a sword can be more effective than a firearm, believe it or not. A wound from a bladed weapon can be up to three times as effective. Here's why:

It puts you into shock faster. That's right, if you're hit with a high velocity firearm round it'll blast right through tissue and you may not feel it for up to 30 seconds. Then it rolls over you like a tsunami. With a knife, the pain is instantaneous, and the trauma is much greater due to a wider surface area and the fact that it's entering a lot slower than a bullet, adding time to the damage process.

Knives are more easily concealable. Even swords can be made easily concealable under a jacket. Plus, a sword is silent, efficient, and deadly. Even with a sound supressor, a firearm is not totally silent. It still makes a dull thud or a high-pitched ping. Much quieter than without one, but still...

The only thing you hear from a sword beheading someone is the sound of it going through, and maybe the blade breaking through the air.

Swords are just as dangerous as firearms at short range. At long range, a bow is equally dangerous in the hands of a skilled archer.

 

Pitt

*Well its been 2 1/2 weeks since balbus instated the ban against Dirk_Pitt (me). I guess it must be a perminant ban. Im not sure since he never stated how long the ban was for, in fact he never contacted me at all before the ban. It seems he found his way to silence views other than his own.
Anyway not to ramble on just let me say thanks to all of you who voiced support. As this will probably be my last post let me make one final response to balbus. Although Im sure balbus will in all probability delete this post maby a few of you will get to see it first. The first part is a copy/paste of post 1690 in which he announced the ban. I wrote the response the next day in anticipation of the removal of the ban, its very obvious balbus is either afraid to remove the ban or he is still reveling in his power of moderation.


Sorry not got to you sooner but family matters came first, anyway here I am.

I only gave you a time-out to the 14th March, but someone made it permanent, I think someone out there thought it was more serious.

All who voiced support? LOL, you mean Michael (your spandex cheer-leader) and Proud (‘a million murdered innocents is worth me having a gun’). Not exactly the cream of the crop is it.

=========================================

1690

*Very pretty color there balbus but the post consist of nothing more than asking me to go back and search through hundreds of post to link back to something you know already exist.

But I don’t think they do exist and I’ve looked.

*And as I have told you plenty of times I’m not going to play this game with you.

It’s not a game; it is very serious I’m saying you are a liar whose statements cannot be trusted, because you claim things that don’t seem to exist.

*Either come up with something new or at least answer the questions that you have been asked.

But how can I answer question that don’t seem to exist?

**

*Look above balbus I don’t think I can explain it any further. I’m not going to continue to play this endless ‘go back and tell me again’ game with you.

*Either answer the questions you have been asked or come up with something new.

What questions Pitt, I’ve told you if you can point out, link to or quote the questions you refer to then do so, just saying I’ve not answered something or other without actually ever saying what it is supposed to be is just a dishonest trick.

**

You are still not going to answer the questions or defend in any reasonable or sensible way what you’ve said and will continue to lie instead?

I asked you how that could not be seen as trolling and you don’t seem to be able to refute the charge so I’m going to give you some time out to think about it and maybe you can use the time away to find some answers to the questions put to you, so that we can possible move on when and if you return.

Please remember that trying to return to the forum before the end of your time out may lead to a longer period or even a total ban.


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

Mar 4, 2008

*Well since I have at least today or this week or however long the balbus ban is for, ill take the time to continue to read the forum and see what he has to say. As I have said many times and now you have just proven me correct. You do not wish discussion you only want converts and a place to push your agenda.

==============

*You use double speak, evasion, twisting of other peoples post, verbal abuse, personal attack and completely ignore post you have no answer for. What’s worse is that fact it has become more and more frequent for you to verbally insult anyone who dares to disagree with balbus the almighty. You have had no one to back up your baseless claims or “theories”. You present no data to support your claims. (As noted by others such as in 672) If anyone post any referenced data you claim it’s biased or can be interpreted differently without ever showing how this can be accomplished. You have used these same techniques in every thread I have ever seen you post in. (For another example of balbus twisting or other peoples post just look for a thread “Post-Industrial Revolution Society” Somewhere around the 11th & 12th page in.)

Again with the accusations you never back up.

And I notice once again you don’t actually quote or link to anything that shows any proof of this.

As to the Post-Industrial thread here is a link, I’m quite happy for people to go and have a look.
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261860&page=1&pp=10

The problem seems to be that anything you can’t answer or address you call ‘twisting’ or some such, in the hope people will not notice you haven’t answered.


============

*You claim you have answered all questions when you know that you have not done so. How many times have I asked how you can interpret the data presented in the various studies I have referenced differently? How many times have you answered this question? NONE not once have you even attempted to explain. You are the liar.

Again with the claims you are unable to prove.

As I’ve said many times quote or link to the damned studies you are talking about and we can go through them again if you want.

You never produce the studies, why, if you think they’re so overwhelming why not produce them?

==========

*How many times did I ask you for the mysterious third conclusion in reference to the increased gun murders in the UK? Did you ever provide this? Um no you seem to be the liar

Hell Pitt, this is crap and you know it,

Picking somewhere a ramdom I found –

(pitt)I have said there are two possible outcomes. Either the gun ban had an effect or it did not. Is there a third possible conclusion I have missed? Come on balbus tell us what the third possibility is.

Again your approach is to try and limit.

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

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

---------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===========

 

*How many times have I asked you to explain how GUN MURDERS rates in the UK have not decreased even with the gun bans in place? How many times have I asked how the changes in recording techniques would have an impact on the number of GUN MURDERS? How many times have you answered this? NONE not once have you even attempted to explain this. Again you are the liar.

Not once, but just many times.

You began by saying that violent crime had risen ‘dramatically’ in the UK since the 1996 regulations. 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”

Actually violent crime has dropped since a peak in 1995.

*

You then claimed ‘gun crime’ had risen this again could not be supported.

And as I pointed out that the time those two figures were subject to increases due to recording techniques.

*

You then moved on to gun murder, but you already admit that gun murders have basically remained around the same level for years, I can reprint the list if you wish? But as I said at the time -

“So the UK has a fluctuating figure in a period of increased population, in fact in the list only two figure stick out 2001/02 and 2002/03, so in 17 years only two figures seem abnormally high”

===========

*I asked you pointedly almost a year ago about the effects of the UK gun ban on murder in the UK and you responded once again by comparing the UK and the US murder rates while all the while making statements that one cannot compare the US and the UK. Even back then (post count 140+ range) I was telling you to compare the UK with the UK pre and post ban. You’re twisting and stalling was plainly obvious to others as well as illustrated by post count 154.

Can you quote or link to where you supposedly asked me pointedly?

As to pointing out the difficulties in comparing statistics here is a post from several months ago (which was a edit of a previous post)

“This is an edited version of something written several months ago – you have never been able to refute it and in fact haven’t even made any serious attempt to challenge it.

**

The problem is the variables involved in any comparison of direct data between differing data collection areas and groups.

It is in fact very difficult to compare the crime figures from two different countries because there are so many variables that are not represented in the plain figures.

This is why all reputable statisticians frown on such direct comparisons and such bodies as the UN and the US Bureau of Justice expressly warn against it.

“The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic.”
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_survey_seventh.html

“Different definitions for specific crime types in different countries: The category in which any incident of victimization is recorded relies on the legal definition of crime in any country. Should that definition be different, and indeed this is often the case, comparisons will not in fact be made of exactly the same crime type. This is particularly the case in crimes that require some discretion from a police officer or relevant authority when they are identified. For example, the definitional difference between serious or common assault in different legal jurisdictions may be different, and this will be reflected in the total number of incidents recorded.”
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_surveys_3.html

“Note: BJS cannot validate any data obtained from non-BJS sources, nor does BJS encourage comparisons of national data due to differences in classifications of crimes and methodological differences.”
Bureau of Justice Statistics
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ijs.htm

“Definitions of offences vary between countries due to both legal differences and statistical recording methods. For example, the USA and Canada do not appear to include minor assaults, intimidation, and threats within their definition of violent crime. However, New Zealand does include these crimes in its definition, and these offences comprise approximately half of all violent crime in this country. Also, New Zealand does not include sexual offences in violent crime, whereas Australia, USA, Canada, England and Wales do”.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-2.html

“Additionally, the Home Office's July 2000 "Review of Criminal Statistics: A discussion document" indicates how difficult it is compare crime rates between their own forces, let alone conducting international comparisons, stating that amongst the England and Wales' Police:
"There is some confusion in what is counted as a recorded crime......(there are) two contrasting approaches to recording crimes that are currently in use by police forces. The first is a "prima facie" approach, by which the police accept all crime reports at face value and seek to include in their crime figures every apparent criminal event that comes to their attention. The second approach is the more traditional one, termed the "evidential", whereby the police sift and evaluate those events reported to them and only in those cases where they believe on the basis of the known facts that a crime has actually taken place do the police then record a crime. ......the lack of consistency makes it impossible to compare forces in a reliable fashion."
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-7.html

**

Statisticians also warn that other variables outside of police and legal definition recording and methodology also have a great impact when coming to interpret raw data.

For example such figures don’t take into account local drives or crackdowns that may boost figures in certain areas. Encouraging rape victims to come forward (with such methods as granting animosity) can lead to higher rape figures, but in fact there has not been an increase in the number of rapes just the number being reported.

Economic factors have an impact, higher unemployment leading to higher crime rates in those areas associated with financial gain, whereas high employment rates lead to more crimes related to drink as more people have the money to go out.

One of the major factors on crime is population density with certain crimes like affray and burglary being more prevalent in more populated areas (e.g. 244.69 people per sq km in the UK compared with 29.77 people per sq km in the US) This can also mean the greater possibility of affluent and non-affluent areas being in close proximity.

Demographics can have an effect as Susan Estrich says of the US “Eighteen years ago, the number of young men between the ages of 18 and 25 -- the prime crime years -- was set to decrease steadily for the next decade. Even if you did absolutely nothing, crime was likely to decrease because there would be fewer would-be criminals to engage in it”

The prevalence of insurance is another factor people are more likely to report criminal damage or burglary if that is what is needed to make a claim (and we saw how few people had such insurance in New Orleans).

Even the perceived efficiency of the police can be a factor. Some crime rates can be low because people think the police are useless and don’t report the crime but if the police become better at the job people do report those types of crime (again the crime rate hasn’t gone up just the reporting). This means that higher figures can actually point to a healthy and working system and low figures to a sick and dysfunctional system.

Even the prevalence of CCTV cameras can have an effect on crime, fights in bars that at one time were not reported or led to no conviction because of lack of evidence are now being captured on camera and as pointed out to me several times the UK has many more CCTV cameras than the US.

These are just a few of the factors that lead to multiple variables that all need to be taken into account when comparing direct data.

However there is one area where there is less controversy when it came to comparisons (although it still depended on the countries being compared) and that was murder. Homicides are very much more likely to be reported when discovered and there is far less leeway in definition.

“In selected cases, most notably homicide, country to country comparisons are safer, although may still be subject to the drawbacks outlined above. In the case of some categories of violent crime - such as rape or assault - country to country comparisons may simply be unreliable and misleading.”
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_surveys_3.html

 

*When the topic of DGU’s has been brought up your only statements are the effect of: A high number of DGU’s indicate an unhealthy society and you would not want to live there. I have asked you since the minimum number of DGU’s estimated are at 60,000 instances per year if they would instead be 0 and this means there would be an additional say 30,000 (50% of the smallest estimate) more acts of crime per year, would that be a better place? Once again have you answered this? No you have not.

I’ve answered you hundreds of times (too many to quote here), the problem is that you don’t like my answer so you ignore it.

One at random -

“You just don’t listen if what’s been said is something that you don’t like or shows you’re thinking to be flawed.

We have discussed this at length and you still haven’t addressed my criticisms of your viewpoint.

You just repeat this over but without reference to countering views.

I’ve made it very clear that I’m not opposed to people defending themselves but for me DGU’s are not something to be celebrated. You on the other hand seem to think it is something to be celebrated; you seem to positively relish the idea of having to use your gun to defend yourself.

But every time someone pulls a gun there are consequences, some unseen, there is always the possibility of people getting injured or killed unnecessarily.

My view and my aim is to make people feel secure enough that they don’t even feel they need guns to protect them, thereby bring down the number of DGU’s taking place.

You seem to be promoting fear, by constantly and consistently going on about the possibilities of being attacked, in the hope it seems of making people feel less secure so they think they need guns to protect them, thereby most likely increasing the number of DGU’s taking place.

And DGU’s seem to point toward gun ownership not being the best way of tackling crime but we have been through this and it doesn’t seem to matter what I say you just ignore it…”

*

“WOW, skid marks on the road, you’ve lost all traction with reality.

Nowhere ever have I said that it would be better to have 60,000 more crimes.

I’ve said that it doesn’t seem to me like a good idea to be promoting policies such as wider gun ownership as a means of tackling crime when that only seems to be about suppressing crime not dealing with it’s causes.”

============

*Back in post 493 while discussing an increase in murder rates in Switzerland I made reference to both anti-gun and pro-gun organizations predilection for manipulating figures to lean more toward their side. I also asked if the increase had really increased as much what else had changed:

“I really don’t think you or anyone really believes the firearm homicide rate increased that much but If you do believe it i have a few question for you.
What changed in those 15 years that caused the increase?
Were guns more available? Um no they are in fact less available due to restrictions on the general public I posted this earlier.
Did Ammo become more readily available?
Did poverty increase?
Did some sort of economic depression occur?
Did the job market take a hit?
Did perhaps a more open border happen allowing a more diverse mixture of people and cultures to mingle?
What happened to cause an increase of such great proportions your post indicates?”
Does this not show that I have thought about and wondered why such things happen? Again this is something you claim I don’t do. Another lie?

You were discussing this with White Scorpion not me, it was about figures you two were using that I had no part in.

And you made it plain you disagree with white’s figure “You see to me the numbers you posted of 6.2 just did not have a completely honest ring to it. I still believe this as the math does not hold up. Its a typical tactic that anti-gun AND pro-gun organizations use to promote thier agenda.”

*

But are you honestly using this one post as evidence that you ‘think’ about alternatives to guns?

But your first thoughts are both gun orientated -

Were guns more available?
Did Ammo become more readily available?

*

You then say -

Did poverty increase?
Did some sort of economic depression occur?
Did the job market take a hit?
Did perhaps a more open border happen allowing a more diverse mixture of people and cultures to mingle?

So are you saying you think the US’s problems (besides ‘materialism’, ‘hedonism’ and the ‘me thing’) are due to –

It having high levels of poverty

It suffering from an economic depression?

That it has high levels of unemployment?

And because it had ‘too’ high a level of racial and cultural diversity?

===========

*Another example of you not answering questions is illustrated in post 1241 addressing the DGU issue. What’s funny about this particular line of post is after I did go back and search out all these previous post about DGU’s your response was:
“Brother Pitt
Hey man I’ve really rattled your cage haven’t I?
Why do you think I’m such a threat to your views Brother, have I hit a nerve or something are you having doubts and are therefore trying to over compensate?”

So again I say Ill not keep going back and reposting things just so you can not address them again and make snide childish remarks.

But lets quote the whole post shall we –

“Brother Pitt

Hey man I’ve really rattled your cage haven’t I?

Why do you think I’m such a threat to your views Brother, have I hit a nerve or something are you having doubts and are therefore trying to over compensate?

**

But come on man this just shows that you really don’t take any notice of what I say?

I said above – “For example arguments around the issue of Defensive Gun Use - these took up many months were spread out over numerous posts and often involved long explanations (usually at your demand) and included some tiresome amounts of repetition (also at your demand) and it raised many questions and points of contention which unfortunately you refused to address”

Did you understand what I was trying to point out?

Well…No…You seem to have only seen what you wanted to see.

**

My point was that the arguments that we’ve had concerning Defensive Gun Use were many facetted and involved.

The one facet you have chosen to highlight is my belief that DGU’s do not point to a healthy society.

And I don’t deny it.

But let us examine it, because you have taken it out of context to try and diminish it’s significance within the argument as a whole.

**

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control (this includes guns) and this mindset gets in the way of many of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

It seemed to me that many American’s attitudes in relation to guns mean they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and also ignoring many of the social, economic and cultural problems within their society.

You have said “No one said that DGU’s were a “good sign”. However “Whatever stops 60,000 – 2,500,000 crimes cannot be all bad”

My comment on this was - “DGU’s are not a good sign but they are still good? But wouldn’t it be better to think of alternative ways?”

[pitt] Thinking of alternative ways and even acting with these alternative ways does not negate the fact that DGU’s stop crimes thousand upon thousands of times a year. Are you saying it would have been better had these crimes not been stopped?

[balbus] But this is the thing – are many pro-gunners, are you, actually thinking of alternative ways (that is ones not tied up in the whole threat/intimidation mentality)?

I’m not saying people cannot defend themselves against attack, I’m asking is anything been learnt from that besides the ‘usefulness’ of gun ownership?

**

You spend a lot of time and thought in defending guns as a means of tackling social problems – but I’ve asked you many times to explain your ‘alternative’ ideas to tackling those social issues and you don’t seem to have given it much time or thought.

(I hope you will not go off again about supporting social programmes since I’ve already shown that to be a red herring)

As indicated above you seem a lot more interested in trying to prove DGU’s are not a bad thing (e.g. a good thing) that you seem little concerned about their negative impact on your society.”


===========

*You cry foul because I have refused to go back and find exact post in all these pages when you ask me to do so. Yet in post 1297 YOU are the one refusing to go back and find the post. Remember the “oh it’s up there somewhere” remark you so often use? I see: par delictum

Lets look at that again at the whole thing

(I said) I’ve made it very clear that I’m not opposed to people defending themselves but for me DGU’s are not something to be celebrated.

(you said) Again this goes back to the question above you have never answered. Which is better to have a DGU or to have another burglary, assault, rape or mugging?

(I replied) I have answered, but it is an answer you do not wish to accept or are able to address so you are ignoring it.

It doesn’t seem to matter how many times I repeat things or in what way I repeat them if it isn’t what you want you just go on ignoring it.

**

I have answered, but it is an answer you do not wish to accept or are able to address so you are ignoring it.

Again WHERE IS THIS ANSWER TO THE ABOVE QUESTION?

*

It was the basic DGU question again that I’d answered hundreds of times before this and (on you insistence) hundreds of times after. (again just above)

My answer doesn’t really change, but since it isn’t the answer you want you constantly ignore it rather than addressing it.

===============

*You were just recently called out twice (ref: 1691) to show how “GUN MURDER” could be reported as anything beside gun murder and you have done nothing but banter on about every statistic EXCEPT gun murder reporting techniques. In fact a search of your reply to this question shows no mention of murder whatsoever. Then you go on to once again compare UK and US murder rates, when you continue to proclaim one cannot compare different countries.

Addressed above

============

*The above illustrates your unwillingness to answer questions and discuss points made without having to resort to trickery and manipulation.

How does it illustrate that? In fact what it seems to illustrate is that I’m right in calling you a liar and a cheat, who tries to cover up a weak argument with make-believe and falsehood.

In other words a troll.

*These are the reasons I have said I will not go back and search through hundreds of pages of post to reference you back to a question you refused to answer many times before.

Oh yes, the 'excuse' again.

Not only can I answer, have answered, I can also quote my answers, as is shown above.

Back up your claims or remain a troll, it is your choice.

===============

*Your claim of trolling and the ban is utter nonsense and can be plainly seen for what it really is.
Definition
{An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.}

You would think a “moderator” would know the definition.

I’ve explained why you are a troll – I notice you don’t actually dispute what I’ve said you’re just ignore it.

*If anything you were the one guilty of such forum improprieties when you followed me from thread to thread in a stalking manner even thought I had asked you in plain English to stop (post 599). I on the other hand did nothing but respond to post directed to me personally in a thread with very little activity other than myself and you. I even suggested if you did not like my post you were free to put me on your ignore list so you would not be tempted to respond. (Example post 1192)

OH pitt LOL, this is your best shot?

Pathetic.

=============

*Where were the bans back around the post 840-850ish where one guy was using multiple personalities in an obvious attempt to disrupt the thread? Was he not banned perhaps because he is anti-gun much like you?

Did you PM me with a complaint? Because no one else did either.

=============

*It seems today you did make good on your various threats of banning me. What is the result; nothing more than showing your ineptitude as moderator and your propensity toward strong-arm tactics and craving of power. It shows everyone what type of person you truly are. This is not unexpected (as shown at the end of post 1688) since your attitude over the last several weeks and months more closely resembled an impetuous and petulant child screaming to get his way.

Sorry laughing to much to write.

==============

*As far as answering your questions, they have been answered before. As far as going back and digging through thousands of post to link you back to what has been posted before, it’s still not going to happen.

No they haven’t and you are still refusing to answer or show where you claim they have been answered.

I’ll give you until 1st April (fools day).

**

 

Michael

Considering the beam in your own eye?

Mass shootings

I believe no murder spree type mass shooting have occurred in Australia since 1996
In the US they are common, their have been several in the last year alone.

*

Murder

There is a huge difference in the homicide rates per 100,000 of population between the two countries -

US 5.9

AU 1,28

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...cide_rate#2000s

*

The prison population

The US seems to feel it needs to lock up far more people.

US – 714 per 100,000 (I believe the highest in the world)
AU – 117 per 100,000

*

State murder used as deterrent.

Australia doesn’t have the death penalty.

The US, I believe, is the fourth or fifth highest executioner in the world.

*

So I’ll ask you again - Who do you think has a worse societal problem the US or Australia?

Now are you arguing for these problems to be looked at, so that solution may be found or are you arguing that you need a gun to protect you from your society’s obvious problems?

But this is it you don’t seem to care about your society or how it can be made better all your efforts seem to be aimed at defending or promoting gun ownership.
__________________

 

Penny

We need defense against all the other different weapons. Knives, bats, hell... Anything that can be used as a weapon. I guess that means you as well. I could easily cut off your arm and beat somebody to death with it. Anything can be made a weapon, pretty much.

A perfect example of the attitudes I’ve talked of – the paranoia of being attacked and the threat/suppression response.

*

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoidic outlook were everything and everyone is seen a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

For example many feel they need guns to ‘protect’ them from the government, but how realistic is that belief and what in essence does it mean?

If anyone looked at the history of the US they’d see clearly that gun ownership has never been a tried and tested method of escaping the actions of the government. From the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion to Ruby Ridge and Waco, in fact the use of weapons against authority has been seen as justification by many or most Americans for tough action (repression as a means of problem solving).

But have the armed citizens of America been a bulwark against injustice or have they more often than not helped perpetrate it? If people actually thought about the classic cases of injustice in US history they would see a pattern. More often than not guns in the hands of ‘decent people’ have been used as a means of suppression. From the subjugation of the ‘savage Indians’, the repression of ‘bestial negroes’ to the defence against ‘insidious pinkos’ the use or threat of force has been obvious and the gun the symbol of that power.

But it doesn’t have to be a gun, this attitude is about having ‘equalizing’ power, the ability to threaten and this is why the argument runs that if there were no guns then there would be swords and knives and in that case they would want also to have swords and knives.

It seems to me that when threat, intimidation and suppression come to be seen as the most important (or only) means of dealing with domestic social problems and the outside world, the mindset becomes blind to alternatives.

So in crime (as in many other areas) ‘toughness’ in other words repressive measures are praised while calls for understanding of the social context that leads to criminality is dismissed as soft and ‘giving in’ to the criminals.

Guns are just part of that repressive approach.

I feel that it could be this attitude that marks US culture out, of course not all Americans have this viewpoint and not everyone that does has it at the same intensity of feeling but I believe enough do to make the viewpoint prevalent.

It is my contention that if this attitude didn’t exist, many social and political problems would be dealt with in a lot more rational and realistic manner and the feeling that weapon ownership was so necessary and desirable would not be so widespread in the US.

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/sho...947&postcount=9

Penny again

I’ve not being pushing for a gun ban just regulation aimed at reducing harm.

I was wondering about your own position, regulation or no regulation?

**

So, if guns are outlawed, people will just use different weapons.

As I’ve explain before this is not exactly an argument but more of a slogan, one of many pro-gunners seem to present as if it trumps anything their opponents might say.

The thing is that it is true but not the ‘truth’ they’re trying to project.

It comes down to effectiveness; guns are very efficient and effective weapons much more so than other ‘street’ weapons. It is possible to run away from a knife or club and they both have limited range and not as much hitting power as a gun.
USA - 17,034 persons murdered in 2006 up 1.8% from the previous year.

67.9% gun related
12.2% knife/cutting instrument

England and Wales - 757 persons murdered in 05/06 down 2% from the previous year

34% knife/cutting instrument
8% gun related

So knives are used a lot more in the UK but still don’t match US levels of gun use.

*

But the interesting thing is the levels of murder –

60 million people in England and Wales = 760 murders

double population to - 120 million people = so double the murders - 1520

240 million people would then be = 3040

480 million people would then be = 6080

So 300 million Americans seems to equal 17,000 murders

While 480 million Brits seems to equal only 6080.

So even if you inflate the population of Britain to way over that of the present US’s it would seem to still have far fewer murders?

I agree that the societies are different, the American one seems to be much more prone to violence and much more likely to see arms as a way of solving problems than is the norm in the UK at the moment.

The thing is that what I’ve been saying is that it seems to me that many Americans don’t seem interested in confronting their society’s problems but instead seem to see guns as a way of tackling or suppressing the symptoms of the problems.

**

Which leads me to your seeming attitude to the problem -

Look at your crime in the U.K., and look at your culture.

What point are you making what are we meant to be looking at? It’s meaningless without an explanation.

Total gun ban will not work in the U.S. The U.K. has less population, less area, less major cities, etc. The culture is way different as well. I respect my brothers across the pond, even you, but trust me... It wouldn't work here.

And this isn’t an explanation, what have population levels, size or number of urban areas, got to do with it?

When you can see some gangsta ass fool buying a beat up AK-47 out of the back of a decked out Caddy for $50 in a back alley, you know that gun control won't work there. That's a beat up but still functional Russian Kalashnikov. Not a replica, not a toy, the real thing, fully automatic.
Imported from the Bloc, and if they can get those that cheap, gun control doesn't matter to the criminals.

What do you mean by ‘gangsta ass fool’, who or what are you refereeing to?

Why does the person want or feel they need an AK-47?

*

It just won't work, the culture, population, topograpy... It's all different... Everything doesn't work for everyone in every society everywhere. Sorry.

Again you say it wouldn’t but you don’t give much in the way of explaining why it wouldn’t, you seem to be shrugging your shoulders at the problem and giving up before even giving it much thought and then falling back on guns as a way of dealing with the symptoms of your society’s problems.

My question is why don’t you seem to be even thinking of ways to make your society better?

 

ZZ

So unless you have actually murdered someone you shouldn’t have an opinion on if it’s a good or bad thing?

Should only people that have stood for office be allowed to vote, should only ex-presidents be allowed to vote for the next president?

I mean otherwise people are just giving an opinion on subjects without really knowing what they're talking about.

I have shot guns but so what, does that mean I’ve got some greater knowledge on the subject, no, it just means I’ve shot guns.

**

 

I agree completely with that, it's just that most people are not very skilled in sword use, and based off of personal experience, a gun takes a little less time to get the hang of than a sword. A gun is also slightly more concealable than a bow for longer range attacks.

I read something somewhere once that talked about how bladed weapons are actually more effective than a gun at short range, because of the greater amount of damage that can be done, as well as the fact that it is more difficult to defend yourself against a knife attack and be uninjured than it is a gun.

 

No, the point I was trying to get across is that numbers and statistics only go so far. Without personal experience and/or personal observation, I believe that you are lacking something essential in understanding the subject in discussion.

In other words, in politics, you can't just look at who voted for what bill in the senate and who has the majority of the african-american vote in what state, you need to listen to the candidate's platform and a speech or two to really get a solid and well-rounded opinion.

As far as murder goes... yes, you could look at statistics and numbers and calculate the financial impact for your family if you were killed tomorrow and blah blah blah; but most people know someone, or know of someone who lost someone or who died themselves, and it doesn't take much to understand why murder is considered by most people to be "bad" as you put it.

Sorry if I didn't get my point across very well before, this is what I meant to say.

 

Pitt

I’m, not sure how relevant this is going to be since you’ve already stated you are going to ignore what I say (LOL not much change there then)

**

And I notice once again you don’t actually quote or link to anything that shows any proof of this.

*From Post 94
Why do you feel the need to make stuff up to reinforce your flawed arguments, Balbus? Who said anything about devil worshippers? Where are you getting this from?

Oh come on Pitt, is this it, is this your overwhelming ‘evidence’ for me ‘twisting’ other peoples words?

Did you actually read my reply, did you check it out, or did you just ignore it because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear?

My reply post 98.
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261860&page=10&pp=10

Rat

Why do you feel the need to make stuff up to reinforce your flawed arguments, Balbus? Who said anything about devil worshippers? Where are you getting this from? Stop building strawmen.

Who said it and where did I get it from?

YOU

To quote you directly – “Once people understand the esoteric symbolism behind Freemasonry and such secret societies as Skull & Bones and Bohemian Grove, they will understand that the agenda we are dealing with is in fact Luciferian in nature…Many people will probably scoff at such a "ludicrous" idea, and that is fine. Whether or not you believe in Lucifer or Molech worship is irrelevent. The fact of the matter is, members of the Global Elite do, and they engage in this activity regularly.”

Post 8 ‘The conspiracy’ what’s the point?’ thread
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144901

Are you saying that you don’t believe the elite are devil worshippers anymore?

*

(do you notice that pitt, I quoted and linked to back up what I’d said?)


**

*Post 104 Addressed to you
God we've seen the gun topic with you and Pitt where it goes on and on and on and on, and now this is starting, give it a rest!!! Quite a few people seem to feel that Matt has provided an adequate response.

Rat was arguing that worship of Lucifer was not devil worship

My reply was – “So let me get this straight – they worship Lucifer or Molech, but the Lucifer is not the biblical Lucifer, he represents hidden knowledge, so what about Molech, the ancient near eastern god that was also known as the “prince of hell”?

*

Pitt, are you honestly arguing that Lucifer worship and devil worship are so obviously different?

That by saying devil worship rather than Lucifer or Molech worship I was totally twisting what Rat said?

**

*Post 119 Again directed at you
what the heck????
I never said that.
where do you get that from?

And in my reply I explain where and why -

“You seem to be saying now that you believe questions should be asked

But that isn’t what you said the first time

You said “Nobody has alllll the answers.. look within yourself instead of asking everyone to always hold your hand for everything”

Which implies - Look inside yourself instead of asking questions.

If that isn’t what you were implying why have the ‘instead’.

(and I’m still unsure what you mean by the whole ‘look within yourself’ thing anyway)”

**

*Will this do enough for you?

This is your problem Pitt

You only see things you want to see and ignore anything else that doesn’t suit your purpose.

All the things you cite were replied to, but you don’t deal with the replies you just repeat the accusations as if they were not replied to.

This is the same thing you’ve done all along, it seems to me to be the only way you can hold on to your beliefs, because if you actually were honest to yourself and put them to question I think you know they would be found wanting.

Any do you notice – you made an accusation, I defended myself.

I accuse you of being a liar, cheat and slanderer and you ‘claim’ you cannot be bothered to defend yourself, well Pitt I don’t think it is because you are too lazy (someone with your determination is not lazy), I think it is because you can’t defend yourself, because the accusations are true.

Please if you can prove me wrong.

**

 

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

As I’ve said many times quote or link to the damned studies you are talking about and we can go through them again if you want.

I have not posted any quotes from other sites or studies that I have not provided references to.

So where are they?

Produce them.

If you cannot, why not?

-----------

Picking somewhere a ramdom I found –

(pitt)I have said there are two possible outcomes. Either the gun ban had an effect or it did not. Is there a third possible conclusion I have missed? Come on balbus tell us what the third possibility is.

Again your approach is to try and limit.

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

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

*How is this being limiting? I have asked you for a third option You refused to provide on, even a theoretical one.

If you just ignore what I’m saying you are going to get nowhere.

Your opinion is that it didn’t have an effect; you are basing this on your belief that it didn’t have an effect.

But think about it, you began by saying – “The UK violent crime has risen DRAMITICALLY since the gun ban as the criminals know that they are less likely to meet resistance”

Actually violent crime has dropped since a peak in 1995.

Now I’m not sure the drop in violent crime was down to the gun regulations of 1996 but it didn’t rise dramatically.

OK

To quote from our past discussions again –

“Another conclusion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Notice again you make accusations I defend myself.)

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

“So the UK has a fluctuating figure in a period of increased population, in fact in the list only two figure stick out 2001/02 and 2002/03, so in 17 years only two figures seem abnormally high”

So again how do you justify banning something when there is no discernable effect?

You are either very stupid or very dogmatic. It is only your opinion it has had no effect. As you’ve admitted it doesn’t seem to have done any harm, we haven’t had another Dunblane yet, our violent crime rate has gone down and our gun related homicides have remained pretty stable.

I’ll ask you the same thing as I have Michael

*

Mass shootings

I no murder spree type mass shooting have occurred in UK since 1996
In the US they are common, their have been several in the last year alone.

*

Murder

There is a huge difference in the homicide rates per 100,000 of population between the two countries -

US 5.9

UK 2.03

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate

*

The prison population

The US seems to feel it needs to lock up far more people.

US – 714 per 100,000 (I believe the highest in the world)
UK – 142 per 100,000 (admittedly the highest in Europe, but still not 714)

*

State murder used as deterrent.

The UK doesn’t have the death penalty.

The US, I believe, is the fourth or fifth highest executioner in the world.

*

So I’ll ask you Pitt - Who do you think has worse societal problems, the US or UK?

Now are you arguing for these problems to be looked at, so that solution may be found or are you arguing that you need a gun to protect you from your society’s obvious problems?

But this is it you don’t seem to think that much about your society or how it can be made better all your efforts seem to be aimed at defending or promoting gun ownership.

**

 

*I asked you pointedly almost a year ago about the effects of the UK gun ban on murder in the UK and you responded once again by comparing the UK and the US murder rates while all the while making statements that one cannot compare the US and the UK. Even back then (post count 140+ range) I was telling you to compare the UK with the UK pre and post ban. You’re twisting and stalling was plainly obvious to others as well as illustrated by post count 154.

Can you quote or link to where you supposedly asked me pointedly?

*Are you honestly saying I have not asked you to compare only UK Gun murders pre and post ban?

You have and we have and so what? We dealt with the issue, I didn’t ignore it as you imply, again you are being dishonest here.

You are also dishonest in claiming I didn’t explain why it is difficult to directly compare certain crime statistics as you had been doing up to that point.

----------

“In selected cases, most notably homicide, country to country comparisons are safer, although may still be subject to the drawbacks outlined above. In the case of some categories of violent crime - such as rape or assault - country to country comparisons may simply be unreliable and misleading.”

*Again this is why I have asked you to use ANY ONE country, ANY One State, ANY One County, Any One City. So why do you continually compare the UK and The US?

From the beginning of our conversations you have constantly compared the two countries you have always tried to use the UK experience and model along with selective use of statistic to back up your argument for gun ownership.

You are doing it now.

The problem is that you seem pissed because it hasn’t worked in your favour.

Instead of just raging that I’m wrong why not try and work out why you don’t seem able to defend your ideas?

----------

I’ve made it very clear that I’m not opposed to people defending themselves but for me DGU’s are not something to be celebrated. You on the other hand seem to think it is something to be celebrated; you seem to positively relish the idea of having to use your gun to defend yourself.

*Again I have stated it is not something to be “celebrated” but I would rather have a DGU than another successful murder or other violent crime.

And you’ve promoted the idea that guns are a good way of tackling crime all I’ve been saying is that it – “doesn’t seem to me like a good idea to be promoting policies such as wider gun ownership as a means of tackling crime when that only seems to be about suppressing crime not dealing with its causes.”

What have you other than the promotion of guns?

Mumbled comments on ‘materialism’, ‘hedonism’ and the ‘me thing’?

-----------

You were discussing this with White Scorpion not me, it was about figures you two were using that I had no part in.

*So now you are saying any demonstration of thinking about the causes of crime only counts if you are the one I am discussing it with?

I didn’t say that, I was just placing the post in context, which was probably why I didn’t remember it and the reason why I hadn’t given it a direct reply before.

I do now and what do you do?

Ignore what I say.

----------

But your first thoughts are both gun orientated –

*Out of 8 Questions two were “gun oriented”. I guess in your world Those two (which were important to the discussion) negates the other six?

So a fourth of your questions were gun related. A fourth, and the ones at the top of the list.

And it seem like it is you, not me, whose negating the other six questions by ignoring my questions on them?

To repeat -

So are you saying you think the US’s problems (besides ‘materialism’, ‘hedonism’ and the ‘me thing’) are due to –

It having high levels of poverty?

It suffering from an economic depression?

That it has high levels of unemployment?

And because it has ‘too’ high a level of racial and cultural diversity?

You bought up the this post and this issue are you now going to run away?

The answer seems to be yes, you are just going to ignore it.

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

But lets quote the whole post shall we –

*By all means go ahead and quote away. Nothing in your reply addresses anything I said or referenced.

All you are saying is ‘you didn’t’, I think I did and explained why – can you please explain why you think I didn’t?

That’s the problem, when faced with a challenge you always seem to retreat into ‘I’m right, you’re wrong’, without ever explaining why you think that or addressing all the evidence to the contrary.

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

It doesn’t seem to matter how many times I repeat things or in what way I repeat them if it isn’t what you want you just go on ignoring it.

*Are you honestly saying you did NOT refuse to go back and post references? Of course you did. Yet this is the fallible reason you used to ban me.

As the quoted post shows I’d just gone back and gone through the issue, you then completely ignored what I’d said and shouted that I hadn’t.

As I said - It was the basic DGU question again that I’d answered hundreds of times before this and (on you insistence) hundreds of times after. (again just above)

My answer doesn’t really change, but since it isn’t the answer you want you constantly ignore it rather than addressing it.

*

My reason for banning you is because I believe you are a liar, cheat and slanderer, in other words a troll.

You can defend yourself anytime you are just ‘claiming’ you can’t be bothered.

-----------

Addressed above

Oh please show us where you answered how gun murders would be effected by “reporting techniques”?

To repeat –

You began by saying that violent crime had risen ‘dramatically’ in the UK since the 1996 regulations. 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”

Actually violent crime has dropped since a peak in 1995.

*

You then claimed ‘gun crime’ had risen this again could not be supported.

And as I pointed out that the time those two figures were subject to increases due to recording techniques.

*

You then moved on to gun murder, but you already admit that gun murders have basically remained around the same level for years, I can reprint the list if you wish? But as I said at the time -

“So the UK has a fluctuating figure in a period of increased population, in fact in the list only two figure stick out 2001/02 and 2002/03, so in 17 years only two figures seem abnormally high”

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

*The above illustrates your unwillingness to answer questions and discuss points made without having to resort to trickery and manipulation.

How does it illustrate that? In fact what it seems to illustrate is that I’m right in calling you a liar and a cheat, who tries to cover up a weak argument with make-believe and falsehood.

In other words a troll.

*These are the reasons I have said I will not go back and search through hundreds of pages of post to reference you back to a question you refused to answer many times before.

Oh yes the excuse again.

Not only can I answer, have answered, I can also quote my answers, as is shown above.

Back up your claims or remain a troll, it is your choice.

**

*Your claim of trolling and the ban is utter nonsense and can be plainly seen for what it really is.

I’ve explained why you are a troll – I notice you don’t actually dispute what I’ve said you’re just ignoring it.

**

 

Pitt

I’m not asking you to back up what you’ve said on a whim, I asking you to defend yourself against the charger of being a liar and a slanderer.

Please do so or be banned as a troll.

**

“To prevent temptation you are now on my ignored list”

It seems to me this is indicative of your world view and your character, when faced with difficult questions you ignore them.

You can regurgitate slogans, snipe at your opponents and present other’s views but faced with criticism you don’t think, you retreat into dogmatic belief, you pretend the questions have not being asked or liar that the they have been answered when they haven’t .

Then come the claims that words are being twisted and abused when what you really mean is you can’t refute what’s been said.

**

 

ZZ

Originally Posted by Balbus
"I have shot guns but so what, does that mean I’ve got some greater knowledge on the subject, no, it just means I’ve shot guns."

No, the point I was trying to get across is that numbers and statistics only go so far. Without personal experience and/or personal observation, I believe that you are lacking something essential in understanding the subject in discussion.

In other words, in politics, you can't just look at who voted for what bill in the senate and who has the majority of the african-american vote in what state, you need to listen to the candidate's platform and a speech or two to really get a solid and well-rounded opinion.

That’s just more data its not personal experience. I have been active in politics but other people I know haven’t I don’t tell them their political ideas are rubbish because they don’t know what it’s like first hand. I haven't stood for office however so am i not able to comment on that?

That’s what you seemed to be saying.

As far as murder goes... yes, you could look at statistics and numbers and calculate the financial impact for your family if you were killed tomorrow and blah blah blah; but most people know someone, or know of someone who lost someone or who died themselves, and it doesn't take much to understand why murder is considered by most people to be "bad" as you put it.

Again that’s not direct experience of murder it is just more data. A friend of mine was murdered and I know what the aftermath was like, but many people I know haven’t had that direct experience, but I don’t tell them they cannot have an opinion on whether murder is bad.

You seemed to be saying that before someone could comment on shooting they had to have shot a gun. But why?

I mean here is what you said –

“This is what drives me insane in debates like these. You have a lot of people who just shoot off their opinions without really knowing what they're talking about. I'm not saying everybody here does that, but how many people here have actually shot a gun? If you haven't, then you can shut your mouth right now. I don't care how many statistics and "facts" you may have, if you haven't even experienced what you're so vigorously trying to put down, then you really need to try it.”

Again - “If you haven't, then you can shut your mouth right now”

Why?

**