Alternatives to arming teachers

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

 

You have successfully pasted from Wikipedia. Congratulations. Now, as I said, careful with open flames near your straw man.

 

Factually incorrect. It is illegal to, in any way, provide a firearm to a prohibited individual.

Then pray tell why has it not been occurring? Going as far back as the start of the twenty first century, with only one exception, every single mass shooting that has been carried out, has been done so by an individual who is capable of legally purchasing their firearms from a federally licensed firearm dealer, and has done so. The only exception was the individual responsible for the Sandy Hook incident, and those firearms were acquired through an act of theft after the legal owner was murdered.

Despite all of the hyperbole and fear mongering, individuals with disqualifying records are simply not the ones going about acquiring firearms for the purpose of engaging in mass shootings.

Explain why it is not working at the state level. Why do the majority of firearms found in the possession of criminals in the state of California, originate in the state of California, rather than in any other state?

The need to focus is on the part of yourself. Even if all firearms were registered to legal owners, it would still be quite easy to illegally sell them. The individual that disposes of the firearm in an illegal manner could simply report it as being stolen from them, and then they are automatically absolved of any responsibility if the firearm is later discovered at either the scene of a crime, or is found in possession of a prohibited individual.

Not to myself, but rather to a seasoned and experienced prosecuting attorney in the state of Virginia, who is also a member of the forum, Bryanva. One whose entire career revolves around enforcing the law, and convicting the guilty of whatever offenses they have committed. He has gone on record in multiple posts stating that a registry of legal firearm owners has no legitimate or beneficial purpose that serves or otherwise aids law enforcement.

Here is one such example.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...doomed-to-fail.505447/page-21#post-1067516158

I completely disagree. No one will seriously argue we should pass a law that cannot be enforced. Everyone will agree it’s downright foolish to pass a law without some idea how it to enforce it—because it can only be effective if it can be enforced. The question of enforcement is where universal background check and registration laws become largely fantasy proposals.

And I throw this out for anyone here who pushes for UBC and/or a registration system.

The whole purpose of a UBC system is to prevent guns being sold to a prohibited person, like a felon. It sounds great in theory, but wonderful theories do not enforce laws. How do you enforce it?

Say John illegally sells his gun to Jack under the table and outside the UBC system. How will we ever know? Here is how police will likely find out about the gun…it will be used in a crime. For example, a murder happens, we ID a suspect named Jack, search his house, and find the gun used in the murder hidden in a closet. The UBC system says the gun was last sold to John. Jack is a felon, and there is no record of a lawful, UBC sale from John to Jack. Assume Jack confesses and says he bought the gun under the table from John, and he paid him extra money for agreeing to avoid the UBC process.

How do you prosecute John?

If John confesses he sold the gun to Jack, then it’s an easy prosecution. But if John does not confess, what then? You can’t just convict him merely because a gun he previously owned ended up in a felon’s hands. To convict John you have the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You must prove the gun was knowingly sold as opposed to being stolen. All John has to do is say the gun was stolen, or he has no idea how the gun got to Jack—or say nothing at all.

So what do you do? John has a right to confront and cross-examine his accuser, so you can’t just use Jack’s confession to the police. You have to have someone testify. If you say “we need you Jack” then he will say “I want a deal in return for my help.” So will you help the murderer and offer him some reduction of charges or a promise of a lighter sentence to go after the man who sold him a gun? Will you do what we call offering the Devil a deal to testify against a worshiper?

Good luck selling that to the family of the murder victim.

And don’t say “well we will just limit it to those who confess because catching some is better than none” and pretend it will remain an effective law. All it takes is a couple of people to confess and have their lawyers tell them “you idiot, I could have gotten you off if you had not confessed to selling the gun” for the word to spread that all you have to do to avoid prosecution is keep your mouth shut.

You may think these laws sound good in theory, but if you want the law you are responsible for showing how it can be enforced.

So how do you do it?

And pray tell what can be learned from the example, that would be useful in preventing future mass shootings? Law enforcement refused to do anything. What more can be done when those who are tasked with enforcing the law, will simply not do their job? They cannot legally be forced by law to enforce specific laws and regulations which are in place. Law enforcement has wide discretion in deciding which laws they will enforce, which they will not, and there is literally nothing that can be done about this.

First and foremost, the absent of mass shootings does not mean there have been zero mass killings.

Second, the member Bowerbird has also stated that causation does not equal correlation.

Third, the black market in the nation of Australia is thriving with illegal firearms and other weapons that have been smuggled into the country, available to anyone who wants access to them.

This point will be revisited quite shortly.

And this is where the previous statement made by yourself comes into play, as you are advocating two entirely different approaches to the matter at the same time. Stating that the laws implemented by the nation of Australia need to be implemented at the federal level, presumably in the united states, is proposing for the outlawing of a great many firearms that are currently owned by the public, not simply their sale. Those who owned the affected firearms in the nation of Australia were forced to surrender them for whatever pittance the government offered them, or face felony conviction for noncompliance.

So what is it that is being sought by yourself, as three different proposals have been advocated for at the same time. Prohibiting the legal sale of certain firearms and accessories to the public that can legally own them. Requiring background checks on all private sales. And forcibly confiscating currently legally owned firearms from their owners who have committed no crime, by declaring them illegal long after the fact.

First it is admitted by yourself that nothing which has been proposed and supported by yourself can actually stop mass shootings from occurring, nor are they designed to do such, only to try and lower the annual number of incidents, and possibly reduce the number of lives lost in the incidents that occur. Now in the very next sentence it is being claimed that the proposals are indeed about preventing such incidents from occurring. Consistency would be appreciated.

Inconsistencies aside, the entire presentation suggests an absence of logic. It is noted, by yourself no less, that none of the proposals will actually prevent mass shootings from occurring. The public does not want measures that will not work. When mass shootings continue to occur and grab headlines as the media reports on the incidents for weeks at a time, the public will demand something else be done, thus building support for firearm-related restrictions that go even further than what was implemented previously. They do not partial reductions, they want complete eradication of the incident at all costs, meaning the proposals being supported are left intentionally flawed to exploit the idiocy of the public. The proposals are not crafted to address the misuse of firearms, but rather target and restrict the legal ownership of firearms by presenting the matter with the substitution effect fallacy, claiming the two are directly linked when they are not.

Pray tell how so? A flawed and unconstitutional policy remains flawed and unconstitutional, no matter how long it remains in effect.

Then let us proceed with the matter of so-called "cop killer bullets", and how exactly this matter of hyperbole has any relation with mass shootings committed at facilities of learning, that would make it a viable alternative to armed educators.

 

How would a seller know if they are "prohibited" or not?

That's my point. In reality it's legal to sell guns to people who are not allowed to have guns.

I have asked you at least 3 times: Why do you keep trying to "prevent" shootings that have already happened? The purpose of my proposals is to minimize the number of instances and casualties in mass shootings that have not occurred yet.

I would if it had the least bit of relevance. My proposals apply at a Federal level regardless of in which state the firearms are manufactured. And they are intended to mitigate the number of victims in any state.

So you just assume that people who own assault weapons are criminals and breaking the law is not a deterrent.

Or... they can simply not sell it in an illegal manner. They can participate in the cash-for guns program and not get into any trouble.

Your mind works in a strange manner. Don't you think it would be just a "little" suspicious if a gun seller who deals in gun shows (just to give an example) suddenly started reporting guns as "stolen" and they just happen to turn up in crime scenes again and again? You don't see that as a problem, right?

I'm somewhat relieved that it doesn't make sense to you either. I am only debating with you... If anybody else wants to argue that tracing a firearm provides no clues to law enforcement, they are welcome to present their arguments here.

And, just so you know (and this is not meant in any way to be detrimental to your friend), presenting somebody as an "authority" on anything does not impress me one bit. You wouldn't believe some of the people with whom I've had tete-a-tete debates in the past, on different topics.

I assume the words in italics are not yours... And since you said your previous statement about tracing firearms makes no sense to you, then it's irrelevant.

Many things. Maybe that we should do more to not allow access to guns to people who have been involved in cruelty to animals, violent episodes, and who are not allowed to carry a back-pack.... Just an example.

Which is bad. But not as bad as not having other "safety precautions" in place in case law enforcement failed.

What more? I'm glad you asked. Read the OP on this thread.

My proposals are only meant to make the number instances and victims of mass shootings more difficult. It's not meant to stop all crime and it's definitely not intended (or sufficient) to bring about zero mass killings.

If you feel that you are not capable of carrying out this debate with your own arguments, I understand.

Which proves that making assault weapons illegal makes it more difficult to carry out mass shootings. If you don't know why I underlined the words "more difficult" then you need to start reading from the top again.

Wrong! I only mentioned Australia as an example where mass murders with assault weapons stopped when assault weapons were made unavailable. Other than that... I don't even know what the law adopted in Australia said. Much less if it's possible to implement it here.

BTW, you keep making these message kilo metric. Long messages usually carry little content.. I'll just see if there is anything relevant.

Nine! But not the ones you made up. Read the OP.

I think I have made it abundantly clear what is pretended. No less than 4 times on this post alone.

Wrong! Try again. Read the message and quote my words when you need to. And it would be appreciated that, if you do so, you do it in context. In any case, not making up statements for me is not appreciated.

If a policy saves lives, even if this Republican Supreme Court later declared it "unconstitutional" it can still save lives in the period before that happens.

Any little thing that may save a life is good. By accumulation, we may be able someday to have a broad idea of an estimated number of lives saved. .

Ok.

The Pathologist in Florida (Dr. Sher, I believe was her name) who examined most of the (dead) victims in the Parkland shooting just happened to be the same one who was on-duty when another mass shooting occurred in South Florida. This other one was at the shooting at Fort Lauderdale International Airport. The latter was carried out using "regular" ammunition. All of the patients that she attended in the Fort Lauderdale incident survived. Even though many received multiple shots. The Parkland victims Dr Sher examined would have had no chance whatsoever to survive even if they had received immediate medical assistance.

These so-called "cop killer bullets" (as Ronald Reagan described them) are the ones meant to kill. Explosive bullets or bullets that, in any way, are meant not just to stop an assailant, but to completely obliterate vital organs.

There is no reason for the public to have access to this ammunition. Thus the proposal to ban its sale.

 

Sorry wasn't from Wiki. Is that the only place you get information? And I posted it because you obviously didn't know what a straw man arguement consists of. Now you know how to use the term properly in the future!

 

None our your ideas would have prevented a single school shooting

 

How does a bullet stop an assailant other than by obliterating vital organs? I'd kind of want my daughter to have the most effective bullets available to defend herself.

 

Who says the only way to stop an assailant is to kill them?

 

I'm not saying the only way to stop an assailant is to kill him. I'm saying that the best way to stop an attack is to disable the attackers ability to continue the attack. There's no better, safer way for my daughter to do this than to use a firearm to obliterate his vital organs.

Unless you have some better idea.

 

A Taser.

 

Tasers are not always reliable. Limited range, including if the attacker is too close.

 

Combination Taser/Stun Gun

 

So that makes me wonder. Why do police officers even need to carry a firearm when they have tasers and stun guns on their utility belts?

 

Because they don't just want to stop the assailant. They want to capture them. I don't think your daughter is interested in actually capturing the assailant but, if she is, she might consider becoming a cop.

 

How does a gun, that destroys the innards of the person shot, capture someone? Wouldn't that kill the person?

 

I don't know, but if they do they shouldn't carry weapons that destroy the innards of a person. Killing them gets them off the hook too easy, in my opininon

 

Of course I know what a straw man is -- and your reply to my post is the textbook definition.

 

So you're saying that police officers and non police should carry the same weapons, only tasers and stun guns?

 

No. I'm saying exactly the contrary. Police should carry firearms.

 

Why should a police officer need to carry a firearm when he can rely upon a taser/stun-gun instead, which don't destroy people's innards.

 

Well... sure.... If they can capture the guy with a stun gun, that's ideal way to go. They could need a firearm, for example, if the suspect runs beyond the range of the taser. Which is something your daughter probably shouldn't do.

 

What if the attacker is attacking from beyond the range of the taser?

 

Old, tired gun banner BS warmed over. Its not going to happen. Get over it.

 

Then run!

 

What if you have three children (including an infant child) and can't run? What if the attack happens in a place from which you can't run?