Who needs a gun in a Court Building?

[Devils Advocate]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:

...knives are already prohibited.

Just for the record, small stabbing and blunt force weapons are very effectively made from non-metallic materials. New polymers with embedded fiber patterns are in some casses stronger and sharper than a lot of the cheap knives available. You've seen the plastic 'brass knuckles' that are harder, ligher, and more durable than 'the real thing,' right? Some of the new ceramics and plastics can even handle baing made into a gun, granted, it won't last but a few shots.

Did you ever consider the innocuous objects that can be re-purposed as a weapon? Clicker pens have nice springs in them. You can conceal other bit and pieces inside 'normal' objects. Fancy stainless steel pen, pocket calculator, cell phone, etc. Hell, a big gaudy belt buckle. It's perfect! Of course its setting off the metal detector, look at the thing; next... You draw suspicion away from yourself by drawing attention to yourself. A bad guy would want to be below the radar, right? All can be mere containers for parts that you can assemble into a weapon later. 2-3 people entering and leaving daily, with a stash locaton, can build up a bit of a stockpile inside the building in short order.

Perhaps I've said too much.... ;-)

Is yourargument basically?

"Because you could obtain a plastic weapon and sneak it into court thenwhy should the court house ban any weapons at all."

Most items known to be used as weapons can be located and kept out of the court house. When plastic knives become so problematic maybe the courts will make you walk through a body x-ray machines.

As the Devils Advocate I understand both sides.

I do not like having to lock up my gun in my carif I go to court because you do not know what can happen on the front steps by someonewaiting for his victim to step out.

But the courts have learned over the years that unhappy people canreturn to get revenge on Judges orProsecutors. Some people may even wantto break people out of jail while they are having their day incourt.

So, what do you suggest?

 

[ixtow]

imported post

I'm suggesting that keeping weapons out of the courtroom is, in the end, futile.

Where there is a will, there is a way. If you hate the judge/plantiff/etc enough, you can find a way.

I just don't understand why anyone would want to do it in a courtroom. There are so many less secure ways. But for those who want to, there isn't really a way to stop them if they put their minds to it. Given time and ingenuity, a little .32cal submachinegun could get in there just the same as a hat or a shoe (sure, that's an extreme example, but in no way far-fetched). Anything less than that takes less time and ingenuity.

Just like any other 'weapon free safe zone.' Those who obey it become the next victims. A report of exactly that is what strated this thread. One could say the same of an airport's sterile area too.

Blah blah blah...

 

[sccrref]

imported post

I do not believe that they had gone through the metal detector. If they had, then there is a possible serious flaw with the equipment. This based on the assumption that it was a metal type knife. Besides the polimer items mentioned, keys and credit cards are other normal everyday objects that can and are used as weapons. I understand your points as well and am just trying to play the "Devils Advocate" here.

 

[Kevin108]

imported post

We established on page 1 that there was no metal detector.
If you'd like, I can check tomorrow and see if there's one now.

 

[sccrref]

imported post

Kevin108 wrote:

We established on page 1 that there was no metal detector.
If you'd like, I can check tomorrow and see if there's one now.

Why don't you do that on a daily basis and keep everyone informed as to your observations.

 

[Devils Advocate]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

I'm suggesting that keeping weapons out of the courtroom is, in the end, futile.

Where there is a will, there is a way. If you hate the judge/plantiff/etc enough, you can find a way.

I just don't understand why anyone would want to do it in a courtroom. There are so many less secure ways. But for those who want to, there isn't really a way to stop them if they put their minds to it. Given time and ingenuity, a little .32cal submachinegun could get in there just the same as a hat or a shoe (sure, that's an extreme example, but in no way far-fetched). Anything less than that takes less time and ingenuity.

Just like any other 'weapon free safe zone.' Those who obey it become the next victims. A report of exactly that is what strated this thread. One could say the same of an airport's sterile area too.

Blah blah blah...

I get what you are saying.

But you are giving up and wanting to allowthings to get ever worse with that way of thinking.

Sure... if someone really wants to do it and they have the will, time, and planning.... they can probably get inwith aweapon.

But why make it easy?

If weapons are being brought in and can be used to cause harm then why freely allow more weapons to bebrought in as it only increases the chances for harm when it is the intended purpose?

You cannot assume the logic that if it does not work 100%of the time that it should be scrapped.

Look at traffic lights. Red means stop but it does not prevent ALL people from running the light? Nope!

There is no 100% way to get people to stop for red lights.Does this mean we need to tear down all traffic lights because it does not stop everyone? Let everyone approach the intersection and fend for themselves? I think not.

You have to at least try to limit the chances for harm. Red lights and court securityboth seem to be working rather well for the volume of traffic that passes through each.

How many people have been able to get weapons in past the security check points?

OK, how many courts do we have in the US and how many days they are open?

The percentage of weapons getting in probablyless than .01% and I think that proves it is worthwhile.


Weapon free zones are a different animal. This is a warning with no checks in place. It works on thehonor system. This has nothing to do with the court house where it is mandatory and is checked.


EDIT:Addressweapon free zones.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

All the 'security' and technology to that end serve no more than a locked door on your house. It only keeps the honest people honest. Just like any other attempt to force a circumstance, like gun-control. It will never affect the determined criminal, by definition, they do not obey. Just the decent people will lose the very safety and freedom claimed to be 'provided' by abiding the laws that don't do any good.

 

[Devils Advocate]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

All the 'security' and technology to that end serve no more than a locked door on your house. It only keeps the honest people honest. Just like any other attempt to force a circumstance, like gun-control. It will never affect the determined criminal, by definition, they do not obey. Just the decent people will lose the very safety and freedom claimed to be 'provided' by abiding the laws that don't do any good.

Now you are trying to work in gun control.

I agree that gun control does not work!! Criminals are going to walk around and have them. They are not subject to search on the street.

But we are talking about the court house were weapons are not allowed inside. This is a location where EVERYONE is checked before making entry.

There is a big difference here.

Gun control works on the honor system.

Court room security has no honor system and EVERYONE is screened who enters.

As I mentioned earlier, just because it is plausible that security could be bypassed it is no reason to have no security at all.

With your way of thinking we should not lock our homes and leave the keys in the car. Criminals that really want it are going to kick in the front door and punch the ignition anyway, right?

 

[ixtow]

imported post

I'm not 'working it in.' Simply pointing out that the same principle applies. Regardless if you think it is a good idea or not, the cocnept of 'controlled areas,' one room or nation-sized, just isn't possible. There is always someone, good or bad, who will foil the plot.

I did not advocate "dispose of the security." Simply observing its uselessness, and that it didn't help this guy. He wasn't even in a 'sterile' area.

I'm correlating the scenarios and demonstrating that it wouldn't be any different.

Poof.

 

[Devils Advocate]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

I'm not 'working it in.' Simply pointing out that the same principle applies. Regardless if you think it is a good idea or not, the cocnept of 'controlled areas,' one room or nation-sized, just isn't possible. There is always someone, good or bad, who will foil the plot.

I did not advocate "dispose of the security." Simply observing its uselessness, and that it didn't help this guy. He wasn't even in a 'sterile' area.

I'm correlating the scenarios and demonstrating that it wouldn't be any different.

Poof.

I agree that nothing is fool proof!!

Security is not there to protect people at the door so while you are out front in public it is up to you to be observant of your surroundings. While out in public you run therisk of attack no matter where you go. This is why I am always armed.

Securityis there to stop weapons from making it inside the building. They do a good job at this and it is far better than some honor system where you let anyone in armed. This decreases the chances that anyone will be harmed inside the court house.

It is called "Playing the odds"

Can you even show me a case were someone was able to get a weapon into court and deploy it against his intended victim?

 

[ixtow]

imported post

It really isn't uncommon. Why should I spoon-feed the Devil's Advocate?

I find it amazing that when someone opposes a view, they can't be bothered to do research to see if they are wrong in their own position. It's always a "show it to me" no matter how easy it is to find on your own. The only rational conclusion to draw from such a deliberate refual to do research, is that anything I present will be immediately discredited by some baseless agenda-driven interest. If you really wanted to know, you would go look. But you don't. Being one-sided and closed-minded suits your comfort zone much better. You may be "Devil's Advocate" but it describes reality too well. Those who already choose to be ignorant, will step up their passive bubble-saving into the next level, denial. Why waste my time? They have chosen a stance without examing information first. Clearly, the information, facts, isn't what matters to them. Holding firm to a fantasy, is; and making others pay/suffer while the experiments fail. It doesn't get much more Democrat/Liberal/Socialist than that...

I also don't quote people to catch them in lies they know that they have told (this is not a reference to you). Same waste of time.

Here is your utopia:
http://www.google.com

 

[Devils Advocate]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

It really isn't uncommon. Why should I spoon-feed the Devil's Advocate?

I find it amazing that when someone opposes a view, they can't be bothered to do research to see if they are wrong in their own position. It's always a "show it to me" no matter how easy it is to find on your own. The only rational conclusion to draw from such a deliberate refual to do research, is that anything I present will be immediately discredited by some baseless agenda-driven interest. If you really wanted to know, you would go look. But you don't. Being one-sided and closed-minded suits your comfort zone much better. You may be "Devil's Advocate" but it describes reality too well. Those who already choose to be ignorant, will step up their passive bubble-saving into the next level, denial. Why waste my time? They have chosen a stance without examing information first. Clearly, the information, facts, isn't what matters to them. Holding firm to a fantasy, is; and making others pay/suffer while the experiments fail. It doesn't get much more Democrat/Liberal/Socialist than that...

I also don't quote people to catch them in lies they know that they have told (this is not a reference to you). Same waste of time.

Here is your utopia:
http://www.google.com

I did a search on Google prior to submitting my post. Nothing came up!

This is why I asked you to show my something since you MUST have access to information to back up that security at the court house is flawed and has been bypassed.

If you wish to sway my opinion on security you are certainly going to need to present me with some data other than your opinion. I do not know you well enough to just trust your opinion.

It seems that you are no longer discussing court security and have begun to rant about other matters. You have also pushed the responsibility over to me to prove your case is valid. I am not going to spend hours searching for what I do not believe even exists.

I see both sides andI amwilling to view all the data out there. I really could care less about court security but I do see a valid needfor it.I cannot accept your logic on why it is useless.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

I'm not asking you to trust me or my opinion. I'm asking you to try a little harder to find something that contradicts your position. It's there. You just don't want it to be.

Spend 15 minutes refining your search, and you can post at least 30 links to repoted incidents yourself. Do bear in mind, Big Brother forwns on reporting his failures. Reporting of such events is scant and much harder to find than a search for 'nude women' will be. But it's there.

I will provide you with nothing.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

I think Open Carry would balance well the necessity of allowing for the individual to defend himself in the courthouse, with the reality that many people will fear assassination attempts if no weapons are prohibited.

 

[Devils Advocate]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

I'm not asking you to trust me or my opinion. I'm asking you to try a little harder to find something that contradicts your position. It's there. You just don't want it to be.

Spend 15 minutes refining your search, and you can post at least 30 links to repoted incidents yourself. Do bear in mind, Big Brother forwns on reporting his failures. Reporting of such events is scant and much harder to find than a search for 'nude women' will be. But it's there.

I will provide you with nothing.

If you really had something to offer you would have posted at least one link. You have chosen the easy way out byposting "go find it for yourself. It is there if you look hard enough."

You want me to find the end of the rainbow for the pot of gold you say exists.

I will assume you have nothing to provide further to this discussion.

EDIT: Spelling

 

[Devils Advocate]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

I think Open Carry would balance well the necessity of allowing for the individual to defend himself in the courthouse, with the reality that many people will fear assassination attempts if no weapons are prohibited.

Same argument as before. Can you post at least one assassination inside a court house past security? It seems to be an irrational fear that you will be attacked inside the secure area.

I am willing to concede that it is plausible but I have not seen one factual account that it has even happened.

Does it happen so often you need to worry? I suspect you should worry more about being at a 7-11as your chances are far greater there. Do you wear body armor when you buy a big gulp?


Let's say you can carry in the court house and stand 10 feet away from the judge who has just sentenced you to jail for 180 days. How do they handle you with your gun? What if you decide to open up and take out the judge? They cannot fire at you because the other people attending court are in the background.

The fact is that you in an audience of people permits you to shoot in the direction of the judge and the Deputy cannot fire back without risking the death of innocent people next to, in front of, and behind you.

I suspect you will counter with that another armed person behind you could take you out but they too have the same risk.

I do not want to be in court when you all start shooting at each other. I just want to argue my speeding ticket and leave.

I understand the desire to carry but do not see the need.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Devils Advocate wrote:

ixtow wrote:

I'm not asking you to trust me or my opinion. I'm asking you to try a little harder to find something that contradicts your position. It's there. You just don't want it to be.

Spend 15 minutes refining your search, and you can post at least 30 links to repoted incidents yourself. Do bear in mind, Big Brother forwns on reporting his failures. Reporting of such events is scant and much harder to find than a search for 'nude women' will be. But it's there.

I will provide you with nothing.

If you really had something to offer you would have posted at least one link. You have chosen the easy way out byposting "go find it for yourself. It is there if you look hard enough."

You want me to find the end of the rainbow for the pot of gold you say exists.

I will assume you have nothing to provide further to this discussion.

EDIT: Spelling

I flat-out told you that I will provide you with nothing.

Is everything you don't want to find a wild-goose chase? Your cop-out is noted.

I have not chosen any 'way out.' you have declared that since you aren't beins spoon-fed, it must be a lie. You can't be bothered to seek out that which might burst your bubble.

I will still provide you with nothing. If YOU wanted to prove that you are not just a one-sided agenda-pusher, you could post at least 30 links in the next 15 minutes to exactly what I'm asking YOU to find. I'm asking YOU to DARE defy your agenda and do some research. Prove you're not full of crap by taking action.

I've no need or desire to prove a point I have already proven. I'm simply asking you to validate your own motives. show me you're not one sided, that you can base a view on fact, instead of deliberate ignorance.

Courtrooms are not impregnable. You've not proven otherwise, nor have you bothered to discover that it is untrue. You cling to "I don't have to do anything, YOU have to hand it to me!!" In doing this, you have invalidated yourself, and proven that you have an agenda to press, not facts to find.

Thought welfare, anyone? I'm not going to do the thinking for you.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Devils Advocate wrote:

I do not want to be in court when you all start shooting at each other.

Yes, all who own guns are eventually overcome by the evil NRA mind control demons that all guns are imbuned with...

This argument is so dried up, it's not even worth the effort to rebut. It defeats itself.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Devils Advocate wrote:

marshaul wrote:

I think Open Carry would balance well the necessity of allowing for the individual to defend himself in the courthouse, with the reality that many people will fear assassination attempts if no weapons are prohibited.

Same argument as before. Can you post at least one assassination inside a court house past security? It seems to be an irrational fear that you will be attacked inside the secure area.

I am willing to concede that it is plausible but I have not seen one factual account that it has even happened.

Does it happen so often you need to worry? I suspect you should worry more about being at a 7-11 as your chances are far greater there. Do you wear body armor when you buy a big gulp?


Let's say you can carry in the court house and stand 10 feet away from the judge who has just sentenced you to jail for 180 days. How do they handle you with your gun? What if you decide to open up and take out the judge? They cannot fire at you because the other people attending court are in the background.

The fact is that you in an audience of people permits you to shoot in the direction of the judge and the Deputy cannot fire back without risking the death of innocent people next to, in front of, and behind you.

I suspect you will counter with that another armed person behind you could take you out but they too have the same risk.

I do not want to be in court when you all start shooting at each other. I just want to argue my speeding ticket and leave.

I understand the desire to carry but do not see the need.

So, basically, you troll the internet, looking for whole forums to disagree with?

 

[Devils Advocate]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

I flat-out told you that I will provide you with nothing.

Is everything you don't want to find a wild-goose chase? Your cop-out is noted.

I have not chosen any 'way out.' you have declared that since you aren't beins spoon-fed, it must be a lie. You can't be bothered to seek out that which might burst your bubble.

I will still provide you with nothing. If YOU wanted to prove that you are not just a one-sided agenda-pusher, you could post at least 30 links in the next 15 minutes to exactly what I'm asking YOU to find. I'm asking YOU to DARE defy your agenda and do some research. Prove you're not full of crap by taking action.

I've no need or desire to prove a point I have already proven. I'm simply asking you to validate your own motives. show me you're not one sided, that you can base a view on fact, instead of deliberate ignorance.

Courtrooms are not impregnable. You've not proven otherwise, nor have you bothered to discover that it is untrue. You cling to "I don't have to do anything, YOU have to hand it to me!!" In doing this, you have invalidated yourself, and proven that you have an agenda to press, not facts to find.

Thought welfare, anyone? I'm not going to do the thinking for you.

I am here seeking valid opinionsand willing to hear valid arguments for the allowing weapons in court.

It seems you have nothing to offerbut an theory on how bad things could happen and how it is nothing but gun control.

I do not like being disarmed either!But I do see the reasoning forthis in court. Is the prohibiting of weapons there to protect you? Not really. It is done in the best interests of the court house overall.

Unless you are the witness in a case and somebody wants you taken out you have little to worry about. The Judge and Prosecutor have far more to worry about. And the same goes for the deputy guarding the guy on trial.

Do you see how much easier it would make it if weapons were allowed? You could bust your brother out with all your family there armed. You could get revenge on the judge for sending a family memberto prison. You could shoot the guy that raped your daughter.

But if it is very hard to get weapons in the risk of this happening becomes much lower. Sure, it can happen if someone tries very hard. He can also follow you home.

But why make it easy!!??

You have become defensive and have opted to not even attempt to provide one example to back your claim.

Admit it.. neither of us could find anything dealing with your claim of weapons making it into court on some regular basis making security worthless.