Who needs a gun in a Court Building?

[Devils Advocate]

imported post

Duplicate Posting

 

[ixtow]

imported post

There is plenty of it. Your laziness is bordering on deception at this point.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Devils Advocate wrote:

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

It seems you have nothing to offer but 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 for this 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 member to 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.

OK, you want your argument?

As your name might suggest, you seem to be focused on a mere "two sides" to the debate, trying to make arguments conform to one or the other model. First you fail to realize this is not an honestly "two-sided" approach, because you implicitly assume the sole argument of "the other side" is an argument you obviously disagree with and are prepared to refute.

What you've done, effectively, is reduce the debate to one of two possible outcomes. This itself is a commission of the false dichotomy fallacy.

In your mind, there is A: Security works and people don't have weapons in courthouses, and there are no (readily findable) instances of assassinations in court, so security => safety; and B: Without security people will bring guns into court and end up shooting each other, so no security => no safety.

What you've failed to consider are arguments C through Z. Right off the bat, your premise is flawed. You fail to consider that correlation does not imply causation, and thus the mere presence of "security theater" does not necessarily account for the safety of court. Have you considered the vast array of potential weapons which might be found past security? Have you considered the ramifications of committing an act of murder in full view of the court? Have you considered all the times security utilizing the very same technology "securing" our courthouses has failed in other applications? Clearly, you haven't considered any of these.

I needn't even explain further how security theater may fail, nor how safety exists in the courtroom regardless; your own arguments have yet to begin to hold water.

"Devils Advocate", indeed. :quirky At best you're naïve. More likely you're a troll.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

I had no intention of throwing him that many bones... Nor pointing out what he was obligated to in order to re-source his credibility. Now he can't admit it, he's duty bound to deny all things... hahaha

 

[Devils Advocate]

imported post

I realize I am new here but why the hostility being directed towards me? Is this some type of initiation between open carry members? I never has a believer in hazing.

It would appear that because I do not agree with either of you at this time, both of youhave decided to point fingers at meand turn to name callingmaking this apersonal thing.

I do not recall saying anything disparaging towards either of you.This should be nothing more than an open discussion and not dishing out personal attacks.

I am not here to disagree just to do so.I posted that I donot agree andI stated why. You can accept my opinion or provide something to help sway me in another direction. Instead, you have decided to slander me.

I have already searched for information on what you posted and did not find anything to support it. I watch the news every nightand have yet to see anything there either.

Iasked for more information to support yourside but you have refused and flamed me saying:

"There is plenty of it. Your laziness is bordering on deception at this point."

Somehow your refusal to post something to give weight to what you are saying is now laziness on my partfilled with deception. You lost me here. Because you fail to support your side I am somehow at fault.

And then you say:

"At best you're naïve. More likely you're a troll."

Why you needed to postthis is unknown to me. This has nothing to do with the discussion. You are clearly taking a cheap shot in an attempt to hide the fact that your opinions on the subject matter cannot be backed up.

So the way I see it I am dealing with two membersofboardthat post opinions and then slander those that do not agree with them.

I have not been here that long but as I read the posts I am getting that feeling that"He who slanders the most wins the argument."

So let's agree to have a difference of opinion and call it a day. I am not here to trash other people. I am here to discuss open carry matters and supports the second amendment.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Blah blah blah...

I'm a reasonably decent speaker too. That ability doesn't make yours, or my, words any more true or false

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Devils Advocate wrote:

I realize I am new here but why the hostility being directed towards me? Is this some type of initiation between open carry members? I never has a believer in hazing.

I had a nice response all typed up, then I reread your latest post and realized you are a troll.

I don't have to provide any evidence, because I used logic to demonstrate the fallacy inherent in your false dichotomy.

You have yet to use logic, evidence, or any other tool of rational debate to support your argument. It has thus far consisted of "My position is right, and you can't find any evidence to show that it's wrong". Yet when I used logic instead of evidence to refute your argument you pretend as though I said nothing.

YOU have yet to address MY rebuttal in any way. The burden remains on YOU.

Troll.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:

I realize I am new here but why the hostility being directed towards me? Is this some type of initiation between open carry members? I never has a believer in hazing.

I had a nice response all typed up, then I reread your latest post and realized you are a troll.

I don't have to provide any evidence, because I used logic to demonstrate the fallacy inherent in your false dichotomy.

You have yet to use logic, evidence, or any other tool of rational debate to support your argument. It has thus far consisted of "My position is right, and you can't find any evidence to show that it's wrong". Yet when I used logic instead of evidence to refute your argument you pretend as though I said nothing.

YOU have yet to address MY rebuttal in any way. The burden remains on YOU.

Troll.

+1

 

[Devils Advocate]

imported post

Did I come off as a hostile person where you needed to be pushing back and start gettingoffensive?

It seems that because I do not see things in the same way as youI must be a troll. Do I have it right?

Are members here not allowed to have independent thoughts and ideas? I could work this in reverse and call you a troll if that was the case because you do not agree with me. But I have not called you any names. I only asked for some additional information to help me better understand your thought process.

We are all going to see the world differently. I do not expect you to agree with me nor should I expect you to accept my opinion. All I really did was request you provide some additional data and you both refused.

Are you wanting to force me to accept your opinion when you start the name calling. Do you want me to just toss my opinion aside for fear you will call me names? How childish is it to go name calling anyway.

Honestly, help me out here. What have I done that was so wrong except have my own opinion and ask you for information?

Do you treat all new members like this that have questions? I thought this board was supposed to help people learn.

 

[Devils Advocate]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:

I realize I am new here but why the hostility being directed towards me? Is this some type of initiation between open carry members? I never has a believer in hazing.

I had a nice response all typed up, then I reread your latest post and realized you are a troll.

I don't have to provide any evidence, because I used logic to demonstrate the fallacy inherent in your false dichotomy.

You have yet to use logic, evidence, or any other tool of rational debate to support your argument. It has thus far consisted of "My position is right, and you can't find any evidence to show that it's wrong". Yet when I used logic instead of evidence to refute your argument you pretend as though I said nothing.

YOU have yet to address MY rebuttal in any way. The burden remains on YOU.

Troll.

I am not clear why this offended you so much. It was a rhetorical question pointing out nothing more than you both seem to be making a great attempt to be offensive to the new guy.

I do not believe I demanded anything from you. I only requested you provide something more to show your point had some merit.

Anyone can have an opinion or belief. I believe the Mexican Army will invade us someday. Could it happen? Sure. But I have not offered any proof that there are any ongoing attempts to show that is the case. No.

The same goes for people trying to sneak weapons into the court house. Could it happen? Yes!! Is it happening? We cannot know unless they are caught with the weapon inside the building.

So my main question was "Have there been any reports on weapons being successfully taken into the court house?"

I asked for ONE example of this after searching on my own unsuccessfully.

Now help me out here.... How is that wrong to ask?

My logic is just as valid as yours. The lack of weapons in the court house has a direct correlation on the lack of attacks with dangerous weapons inside court rooms. It does not mean that attacks cannot happen.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

The act of asserting an easily observable, proven falacy is offensive to any logical mind. Labeling it as an 'opinion' is deceptive at best. Once proven false, it is no longer an opinion, it is a lie. There is little that is more offensive than that.

"Opinion" is too often used to promote lies.

Your opinion is in contradiction to fact. Thusly, it is a lie. Both of our 'opinions' are totally irrelevant. I have disposed of mine in favor of fact. You choose the path of intellectual fraud instead.

I choose to seek fact and then base my position upon that.

Fact: Weapons get into courtrooms and are used.
Fact: Violence occurs in courtrooms.
Fact: Virtually any object and be a weapon. Logically, a weapon is defined by it's use, not it's material, form, or even function.
Fact: The 'security' was circumvented to achieve this.

This is undeniable, and there are pleny of records and corpses to prove it. I do not need to present them to you, they are in the public record, and fairly prominent there. Not finding it for yourself is an exercise in deliberately remaining ignorant.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Devils Advocate wrote:

I do not believe I demanded anything from you. I only requested you provide something more to show your point had some merit.

This two-sentence paragraph is also an instant duplicity.

You don't demand, yet you demand.... Sure....

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Devils Advocate wrote:

My logic is just as valid as yours. The lack of weapons in the court house has a direct correlation on the lack of attacks with dangerous weapons inside court rooms. It does not mean that attacks cannot happen.

Correlation does not imply causation. You must first demonstrate the relationship to support a causal relationship with correlative evidence. I do not agree that you have sufficiently established that the lack of violence in court has anything whatsoever to do with either A: the imagined "lack" of weapons in court or B: court security.

So why don't you start there? How is it that security theater works in court and nowhere else?

 

[Devils Advocate]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:

My logic is just as valid as yours. The lack of weapons in the court house has a direct correlation on the lack of attacks with dangerous weapons inside court rooms. It does not mean that attacks cannot happen.

Correlation does not imply causation. You must first demonstrate the relationship to support a causal relationship with correlative evidence. I do not agree that you have sufficiently established that the lack of violence in court has anything whatsoever to do with either A: the imagined "lack" of weapons in court or B: court security.

So why don't you start there? How is it that security theater works in court and nowhere else?

Well, I am not all that interested in security work or trying to change the security at the court. I try to avoid getting tickets and keep out of court.

So I will not be working on this beyond a simple discussion here.

But you are right in that it does not imply a thing. But the common man can draw his own conclusions from what he knows.

We do not know all that happens or how many people have been caught trying to sneak in weapons.

 

[razor_baghdad]

imported post

ixtow-marshaul - you two should lighten up..... - IMHO......

Opinions are like A$$holes....and you 2's stink just as much as the rest of us.

The OP asked for opinions and/or advice, not condemnation and insults.

Mods, grab this one or consider the loss of a mil veteran Special Forces poster willing to listen to good debate, not BS....and I'll take a few with me.

Get a grip....or a life....

:what:

 

[marshaul]

imported post

First of all, if you don't like it, press the "back" button.

Secondly, I'll admit I may have gotten a little carried away with Devils Advocate here. However, in my defense, he did say the following:

Devils Advocate wrote:

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.

Sounded like trolling to me... I didn't really get involved in this thread (beyond a single post) until I read this. But I just couldn't let it slide.

Thirdly: The admins like to let the forums mostly self-moderate. I guess they're fans of free speech or something. At any rate, they don't seem to take kindly to being pressured by members who threaten to leave. They've been known to retaliate by leaving threads open indefinitely.

I will agree with you, however, that this debate wasn't very interesting. Not really my fault, though.

 

[Devils Advocate]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

First of all, if you don't like it, press the "back" button.

Secondly, I'll admit I may have gotten a little carried away with Devils Advocate here. However, in my defense, he did say the following:

Devils Advocate wrote:

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.

Sounded like trolling to me... I didn't really get involved in this thread (beyond a single post) until I read this. But I just couldn't let it slide.

Thirdly: The admins like to let the forums mostly self-moderate. I guess they're fans of free speech or something. At any rate, they don't seem to take kindly to being pressured by members who threaten to leave. They've been known to retaliate by leaving threads open indefinitely.

I will agree with you, however, that this debate wasn't very interesting. Not really my fault, though.

Do not agree with your comment about "the back button". I could apply that as well to you here on what I say but I think we should all remain civil and be courteous to one another. We should not go off half cocked and expect people to turn a blind eye if they do not like what they see.

You got carried away, yes. There was no need for it and you claim you did it because of what I said. It would have been nice had you asked to clarify what I said first if it was misunderstood.

You see, you took it out of context and posted only part of the message. What you extracted was part of a longer sentence and this was not a stand alone remark.

"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."

What I was getting at is thatwe are in a confined location where it is not optional for use who are required to be there. Not like going to the bar, a mall, or a dark alley. This is a location where you are required to go and sit where things can go bad when people get mad.

This location has a historyfor assaults on defendants, judges, prosecutors,and opposing family members. Currently, these attacks have limited usage with dangerous weapons.

This is a location where shooting back is extremely dangerous to do without great risk of hittingother innocent bystanders. Then you have to be aware of who is going to be doing the shooting and know who is the good guy versus the bad guy.

As I said, in this situation I would hate to be in the middle of that shooting. This is not trolling at all.

I noticed there are no moderators and this is a first for me. Every other board I have visited has them. This is probably why some people can play school yard bullyhere and pick on others for fun.

I never threatened anyone that I was going to quit because of what you said. I just got here so why would I? Are you saying the owners will retaliate against us if we say something they do not like?

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

Wow, guys, lighten up on the new guy!


There are very few places in which I am on board with the idea of disarming citizens. However, the area of the courthouses where court is actually held is one place I'm ok with having a security checkpoint. However, I find the idea of having to lock it in your car and enter and leave the courthouse unarmed to be unacceptable.

I think that Washington has the right idea with a requirement for the courts to provide lock boxes for citizens to secure their sidearms when entering secure areas of the courthouse. That way citizens are not left unarmed when in non-secure areas of the courthouses or when coming or going and do not have to worry about have a firearm stolen from a vehicle. Actually, I think any law or regulation that leads to unattended firearms, loaded or not, being left in vehicles is stupid as it is just asking for a criminal to get hold of it.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Devils Advocate wrote:

Do not agree with your comment about "the back button". I could apply that as well to you here on what I say but I think we should all remain civil and be courteous to one another. We should not go off half cocked and expect people to turn a blind eye if they do not like what they see.

I wasn't telling him to turn a blind eye because I couldn't stand his criticism. Trust me, I can stand it. I was telling him to press the "back" button because he seemed so bothered by this thread's existence.

Devils Advocate wrote:

You got carried away, yes. There was no need for it and you claim you did it because of what I said. It would have been nice had you asked to clarify what I said first if it was misunderstood.

You see, you took it out of context and posted only part of the message. What you extracted was part of a longer sentence and this was not a stand alone remark.

I fail to see how the context makes what you said any less of a trolling remark. Every time I read it, I wonder what you're doing on this forum.

Devils Advocate wrote:

What I was getting at is that we are in a confined location where it is not optional for use who are required to be there. Not like going to the bar, a mall, or a dark alley. This is a location where you are required to go and sit where things can go bad when people get mad.

You didn't say that. You implied we would start shooting each other, which is no better an argument than our claiming court is not safe, without evidence.

Devils Advocate wrote:

This is a location where shooting back is extremely dangerous to do without great risk of hitting other innocent bystanders. Then you have to be aware of who is going to be doing the shooting and know who is the good guy versus the bad guy.

This is your best point, so far. But it still assumes that people will start shooting each other. I don't believe that will happen in court. I believe the authority of the court, so reified, is what discourages violence in court. I do not credit "security theater".

Devils Advocate wrote:

As I said, in this situation I would hate to be in the middle of that shooting. This is not trolling at all.

Actually, you said "when you all (the members of this forum?) start shooting each other". You didn't say you wouldn't want to be in the middle of the shooting if it happened, you said we were going to cause the shooting.

Devils Advocate wrote:

I noticed there are no moderators and this is a first for me. Every other board I have visited has them. This is probably why some people can play school yard bully here and pick on others for fun.

I'm not trying to bully you. I have no authority here that you lack.

Devils Advocate wrote:

I never threatened anyone that I was going to quit because of what you said. I just got here so why would I? Are you saying the owners will retaliate against us if we say something they do not like?

No, I was referring to comments made by razor_bahdgad, to the effect that he would quit the site if the mods didn't lock this thread. I was joking on the fact that they don't lock threads very often.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Wow, guys, lighten up on the new guy! 


There are very few places in which I am on board with the idea of disarming citizens.  However, the area of the courthouses where court is actually held is one place I'm ok with having a security checkpoint.  However, I find the idea of having to lock it in your car and enter and leave the courthouse unarmed to be unacceptable. 

I think that Washington has the right idea with a requirement for the courts to provide lock boxes for citizens to secure their sidearms when entering secure areas of the courthouse.  That way citizens are not left unarmed when in non-secure areas of the courthouses or when coming or going and do not have to worry about have a firearm stolen from a vehicle.  Actually, I think any law or regulation that leads to unattended firearms, loaded or not, being left in vehicles is stupid as it is just asking for a criminal to get hold of it.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with your appraisal.

Now, look, Devils Advocate: I myself am not even convinced we should be allowed guns inside a courthouse. I was effectively merely playing the "Devils Advocate" that your name suggests.

See how much farther you can get when you don't intimate that I'm going to shoot somebody?

I hope it's clear now that, while I may have taken issue with some things you said and some arguments you made, my intent never was to "bully" you. It's impossible to bully someone where all they need to do is make a better argument to win. That's what's great about the internet.

Now, with that said, don't think I take any of my posts back.