Psychology of Gun Culture

[RF667799]

Nope, go back and re-read, you did not quote me.

Just more dishonesty from you.

Post 2085 is where I directly quoted your post 2084.

Post 2086 is where you repeated what I quoted you as saying, and claimed I mis-quoted you.

I think lying so transparently has no higher purpose than trolling.

 

[Chillfolks]

Post 2085 is where I directly quoted your post 2084.

Post 2086 is where you repeated what I quoted you as saying, and claimed I mis-quoted you.

I think lying so transparently has no higher purpose than trolling.

And Bingo was his name-o

 

[soylentgreen]

That's funny.

Britain's (and later the UK's) gun control has been about one thing, political control . . . Crime control is just the latest, modern BS justification for the political control that gun control affords the government.

Even centuries ago the political focus on Britain's gun laws was recognized as being grounded in subterfuge. Blackstone admitted, "the prevention of popular insurrections and resistence to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws". English game laws had less to do with protecting hares and partridges and was really geared to disarming commoners to avoid sedition against the Crown.

I have no argument with the proposition that a population with centuries of forced deprivation of arms is compliant and obedient with the detritus of the authoritarian rules of that society. What you are advocating is trying to reverse engineer in the USA, the centuries-long legacy of a subservient population's submission to the political agenda of forced deprivation of arms . . . Just because today you can point to that disarmed population having low rates of gun crime. Well, duh!

The myth you promote is that condition can be replicated here in the USA using mandated?? disarmament of the population and not have the political upheaval that such action is sure to instigate. The undeniable impetus for the 2nd Amendment was grounded in resistance to oppressive British gun control and resistance to the tyrannical political control that disarmament of the citizenry leads to.

There was a time when Americans cared what the British thought about our guns; that time is loooong gone. We disagreed then and killed them and drove them back to their backwards little island; you can keep your monarchical ideas there and limit them to your fellow subjects there.

.

Let's see There was the irish rebellion, the cornish rebellion, the ketts rebellion, the 1798 rebellion, jacobite rebellion and the jacobite rising, the extinction rebellion, the monmouth rebellion

Would seem the english are not as compliant as you would wish them to be.

 

[Rich2018]

Post 2085 is where I directly quoted your post 2084.

Nope:

Post#2085 reads:

I know some things that they wouldn't say.

All of them? That's a tough claim to prove. You'll fail.


Me: Some
You: All

QED

No stop your lies.

 

[RF667799]

Nope:

Post#2085 reads:



All of them? That's a tough claim to prove. You'll fail.


Me: Some
You: All

QED

No stop your lies.

Hahahaha! You're adding the bold to try and make your claim. There probably aren't any depths....

 

[Rich2018]

Hahahaha! You're adding the bold to try and make your claim. There probably aren't any depths....

No, just trying to focus your mind and demonstrate your dishonesty.

 

[RF667799]

No, just trying to focus your mind and demonstrate your dishonesty.

Post 2085 is where I directly quoted your post 2084.

Post 2086 is where you repeated what I quoted you as saying, and claimed I mis-quoted you.

 

[Rich2018]

Post 2085 is where I directly quoted your post 2084.

Post 2086 is where you repeated what I quoted you as saying, and claimed I mis-quoted you.

So now you've given up any semblance of argument, and are just spamming the thread by copy & pasting your old posts:

In this case post#2101.

 

[jaeger19]

I didn't say the majority of UK gun owners were poor did I ?
A disingenuous reply

You implied that the great majority were wealthy/titled people - it is this that I dispute
So go on back up your claim that UK gun owners are overwhelmingly wealthy/titled.



*Personal

You are no doctor. Your assertions on suicides/guns in Japan proves that.



Again, no doctor would repeat such stats and draw the fallacious conclusions you do.



Yes they do, increased gun availability would result in more homicides as well as more successful suicide attempts, and in all liklihood an increase in those suicide attempts.

A doctor would know this. That you don't proves you aren't.

Yeah I contend that gun owners in the uk are by and large wealthy. They have to be to afford the hunting..the shooting clubs..
The reasons for having a firearm..not to mention the cost of the firearms, license fees, and costs of safe storage.
2. Nope.
3. Umm yes..
It's called statistics. If as you say..that firearms make committing homicide more frequent..
The places like Vermont and idaho with more guns per capita ..should have a higher homicide rate than ny. With a lower guns per capita. But they don't.

The same with the uk and Sweden and Norway and New Zealand.
The uk has fewer guns per capita..yet a higher homicide rate.

Don't get mad at me that the statistics don't support your premise rich.

Sorry rich but I already dealt with you on the suicide issue and you just got mad and made personal attacks.
But...these facts are in evidence.
1. Firearms do not have a physiological mechanism by which to increase the incidence of suicide..( unlike drugs and alcohol which can change brain chemistry)
2. Studies indicate that suicide attempters and those that actually commit suicide differ psychologically.
3. Studies now indicate that suicide is not the impulse act previously thought. Particularly involving suicide completers..

Sorry rich but the medical evidence simply does support your premise

Frankly..the key to reducing suicide is proper treatment before people become suicidal.
And that reduces all suicide. Not just those with a firearm.

 

[jaeger19]

Of course it happened I have never denied that. I simply pointed out that nz did not look to america to see what is the most stupidest way to do a ban and then do it that way.

And again no one cares that you are so selfish that you can only consider yourself. I have said many times that the philosophy of individualism is a good philosophy unless your in america where they seem to think it means that any individual will consider only what is best fro him and if it hurts others then **** them.

And again I will point out that I have never advocated a ban on guns in america. It would be to much like taking a toy from a spoilt child just for the fun of watching them throw a tantrum.

No, it is more a case of your argument relies on only talking about yourself while ignoring the idiots with guns.

1. So your whole post was meaningless.
" well we didn't do it the American way"..
So what..that not what I was even hinting at.
You panicked because one person went on a mass shooting and you took away your fellow law abiding citizens property be abuse of your fear of your fellow man.
2.. selfish???
What is more selfish? Allowing people to keep their property when they have done no harm to me or mine..
Or demanding that they turn in their property because you get afraid of what they " might" do.
Seems to me. You are the selfish society demanding that others acced to your demands when they have done nothing to you.
3. Don't care. You have repeatedly made claims about American and American gun owners that are completely and utterly fictitious.
4. What idiots with guns? If you are an idiot with a firearm..you go to jail..face fines etc in America.
In no way is that ignoring anything.
Just more of you bs.

 

[CLAX1911]

Here's your evidence? For what? You seem to have left that part out.

Can you quote the part in that rather lengthy transcript that supports whatever point you think you're making?

I think the point is attempting to make here is that someone who walks into a school and guns down as many children as if they can it's perfectly mentally healthy in every way. And that every gun owner in the US is on the verge of doing that at any moment and we must take away some of their guns because they can't do it with others for some reason.

I read through some of the information he posted it doesn't support his claim.

 

[RF667799]

I think the point is attempting to make here is that someone who walks into a school and guns down as many children as if they can it's perfectly mentally healthy in every way. And that every gun owner in the US is on the verge of doing that at any moment and we must take away some of their guns because they can't do it with others for some reason.

I read through some of the information he posted it doesn't support his claim.

For one thing, his source says this:
Another example is where the electronic media focus on long guns, like Bushmasters and assault weapons. They account for a very small percentage of gun violence in the United States. The vast majority of gun violence has to do with hand guns. So, there's a lot of misinformation and the press only cares about selling adver … – not the press but the electronic media – mainly cable news mainly care about selling air time so they put on the things that are most dramatic and that causes people to overgeneralize.

 

[Rich2018]

Yeah I contend that gun owners in the uk are by and large wealthy. They have to be to afford the hunting..the shooting clubs.

OK cite your evidence for that.
Cite a source listing the income brackets of UK gun owners.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to provide anything.

The reasons for having a firearm..not to mention the cost of the firearms, license fees, and costs of safe storage.

And just what do you perceive these costs to be ?

2. Nope.

Explain.

3. Umm yes..
It's called statistics. If as you say..that firearms make committing homicide more frequent..
The places like Vermont and idaho with more guns per capita ..should have a higher homicide rate than ny. With a lower guns per capita. But they don't.

You have no understanding of statistics

Equally, you have no understanding of how they relate to places like Vermont and New York and zero understanding of cause and effect

Your primitive reasoning is proof, that you're no professional, let alone a doctor.

The same with the uk and Sweden and Norway and New Zealand.
The uk has fewer guns per capita..yet a higher homicide rate.

Ditto.

Don't get mad at me that the statistics don't support your premise rich.

Sorry rich but I already dealt with you on the suicide issue and you just got mad and made personal attacks.
But...these facts are in evidence.
1. Firearms do not have a physiological mechanism by which to increase the incidence of suicide..( unlike drugs and alcohol which can change brain chemistry)
2. Studies indicate that suicide attempters and those that actually commit suicide differ psychologically.
3. Studies now indicate that suicide is not the impulse act previously thought. Particularly involving suicide completers..

Sorry rich but the medical evidence simply does support your premise
Click to expand...

Don't apologize to me, instead get an understanding of statistics and cause & effect
I would ask you to cite a source for these "studies", but the last time I did, your merely copy and pasted half a dozen random URL's utterly devoid of relevance, and then a day or so later claimed you'd provided "proof"

Guns do NOT make people suicidal
They do however make it easier for a suicidal person to act on their suicidal thoughts
Moreover suicides attempts using a gun a way more successful that those using other means

Yet you still parrot the myth that guns do not affect the suicide rate and Japan's suicide rate somehow proves this. You've been rebutted so many times now, your persistence in repeating this is getting to be dishonesty
(and further proof that you're no doctor).

Frankly..the key to reducing suicide is proper treatment before people become suicidal.
And that reduces all suicide. Not just those with a firearm.

That will help, as will a gun ban.

 

[RF667799]

OK cite your evidence for that.
Cite a source listing the income brackets of UK gun owners.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to provide anything.



And just what do you perceive these costs to be ?



Explain.



You have no understanding of statistics

Equally, you have no understanding of how they relate to places like Vermont and New York and zero understanding of cause and effect

Your primitive reasoning is proof, that you're no professional, let alone a doctor.



Ditto.



Don't apologize to me, instead get an understanding of statistics and cause & effect
I would ask you to cite a source for these "studies", but the last time I did, your merely copy and pasted half a dozen random URL's utterly devoid of relevance, and then a day or so later claimed you'd provided "proof"

Guns do NOT make people suicidal
They do however make it easier for a suicidal person to act on their suicidal thoughts
Moreover suicides attempts using a gun a way more successful that those using other means

Yet you still parrot the myth that guns do not affect the suicide rate and Japan's suicide rate somehow proves this. You've been rebutted so many times now, your persistence in repeating this is getting to be dishonesty
(and further proof that you're no doctor).



That will help, as will a gun ban.

A gun ban that isn't a gun ban.

Just helping newer posters understand your position, Rich.

 

[uptower]

Queen Anne (reign: 1702 – 1714) once said that the greatest thing ensuring her survival, was not a corps of guards, but the love of her people.

So I would reply; why don't the British people find their government so untrustworthy as to demand arms ?

The answer is simple: the often repeated "need" for guns, to defend against a potential tyrant, is nothing but a dishonest excuse to have guns
You have guns because you like guns.


England has had constitutional monarchs for 435 years Btw.

They don't just look above them at the threat of imaginary tyrants. They're looking below as well at minorities and 'the other' and fears of social change.

The similarly repeated need for an entire arsenal for 'protection' or 'home defense' where a pistol or a shotgun would suffice is much like the 'big govt' claim. The real reason behind this vigilante fetishism is keeping 'others' in their place and protecting one's own traditional power and perceived position in society.

 

[CLAX1911]

For one thing, his source says this:
Another example is where the electronic media focus on long guns, like Bushmasters and assault weapons. They account for a very small percentage of gun violence in the United States. The vast majority of gun violence has to do with hand guns. So, there's a lot of misinformation and the press only cares about selling adver … – not the press but the electronic media – mainly cable news mainly care about selling air time so they put on the things that are most dramatic and that causes people to overgeneralize.

Well this is definitely an interesting take but I think he's missing some components here mostly because he's looking at it from a mental health perspective.

The point in trying to make this about AR-15s or whatever assault weapons are supposed to be is strictly 100% about gun control it's not about preserving life.

To the only initiated as in to a person who doesn't own guns or maybe on the fence about it they look at an AR-15 and say why would you want that what purpose could it serve. Essentially they see it as low hanging fruit. This gun that clearly doesn't really serve lawful purpose in their view is rather extreme and probably should be banned. It's a persuasion tactic. They'll say stuff like you only want that to compensate for a smaller penis or so you can play commando. And that's the gun people use to shoot up schools.

Essentially it's a first cut and a death by a thousand cuts. If they can get people to violate the constitution for that well then the next thing will be bolt action rifles or semi-automatic pistols or pistols of the magazine that holds more than six rounds or whatever arbitrary thing that come up with next.

Essentially it's an inch so they can take a mile.

 

[Rich2018]

A gun ban that isn't a gun ban.

Just helping newer posters understand your position, Rich.

Why don't you understand the concept of "exemption"

In your mind was the consumption of alcoholic drink banned by the National Prohibition Act (otherwise known as the Volstead Act) ?

 

[RF667799]

Why don't you understand the concept of "exemption"

In your mind was the consumption of alcoholic drink banned by the National Prohibition Act (otherwise known as the Volstead Act) ?

Yes, you want to exempt some guns, after you ban them all.

Basically, you want to talk out of both cheeks, both advocating a ban and saying you aren't proposing a ban.

 

[Rich2018]

Yes, you want to exempt some guns, after you ban them all.

Correct, that would not make the gun ban, not a ban.

Basically, you want to talk out of both cheeks, both advocating a ban and saying you aren't proposing a ban.

You didn't answer, so I'll ask again:
"In your mind was the consumption of alcoholic drink banned by the National Prohibition Act (otherwise known as the Volstead Act) ?"

 

[RF667799]

Correct, that would not make the gun ban, not a ban.

Right. The gun ban that isn't a ban.

You didn't answer, so I'll ask again:
"In your mind was the consumption of alcoholic drink banned by the National Prohibition Act (otherwise known as the Volstead Act) ?"

 

[Rich2018]

Right. The gun ban that isn't a ban.

Once more, since you continue to dodge:
"In your mind was the consumption of alcoholic drink banned by the National Prohibition Act (otherwise known as the Volstead Act) ?"

 

[RF667799]

Once more, since you continue to dodge:
"In your mind was the consumption of alcoholic drink banned by the National Prohibition Act (otherwise known as the Volstead Act) ?"

Not completely. So it wouldn't be correct to say that consumption of alcohol was categorically banned. There were very small exceptions allowed. One was that pre-existing private stocks were grandfathered in.

But you sometimes refer to your idea as a ban, and then sometimes claim it isn't a ban. The fact is that you want to be able to claim both. Your idea involves a complete and total ban, and then some (or no) exceptions.

 

[Rich2018]

Not completely. So it wouldn't be correct to say that consumption of alcohol was categorically banned. There were very small exceptions allowed. One was that pre-existing private stocks were grandfathered in.

But you sometimes refer to your idea as a ban, and then sometimes claim it isn't a ban. The fact is that you want to be able to claim both. Your idea involves a complete and total ban, and then some (or no) exceptions.

Indeed, so my proposed ban would be like the Volstead Act, not a complete ban, but with a few exemptions (just as the Volstead Act, did. just as successive British gun bans have not banned every type of gun).

Is this what you're reduced to now, arguing over semantics ?
Ban versus total ban versus total and utter ban ?

 

[RF667799]

Indeed, so my proposed ban would be like the Volstead Act, not a complete ban, but with a few exemptions (just as the Volstead Act, did. just as successive British gun bans have not banned every type of gun).

Is this what you're reduced to now, arguing over semantics ?
Ban versus total ban versus total and utter ban ?

But the exemptions are not anything guaranteed. There might be none...but the ban comes first.

Also, you have called for a complete ban in the past, and you often neglect to mention that your ban isn't really a ban.

 

[Rich2018]

But the exemptions are not anything guaranteed. There might be none...but the ban comes first.

And down the rabbit hole you go - now you're objection is that the exemptions would not be guarateed ?
Is that regardless of which political party control the government ?

Subsequent National Executives would be free to add/subtracts from the list of exemptions

Next.

Also, you have called for a complete ban in the past, and you often neglect to mention that your ban isn't really a ban.

Really ?
Care to cite a thread/post where I did that, or just one where I omitted to add my usual caveat of * Subject to exemptions already discussed ?


I really must remember to add that caveat to every post I ever make regarding gun bans, so as not to confuse you.