Devils Advocate
Regular Member
imported post
Duplicate Posting
Duplicate Posting
OK, you want your argument?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.
I had a nice response all typed up, then I reread your latest post and realized you are a troll.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.
+1Devils Advocate wrote:
I had a nice response all typed up, then I reread your latest post and realized you are a troll.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 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.Devils Advocate wrote:
I had a nice response all typed up, then I reread your latest post and realized you are a troll.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 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.
This two-sentence paragraph is also an instant duplicity.I do not believe I demanded anything from you. I only requested you provide something more to show your point had some merit.
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.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.
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.Devils Advocate wrote:
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.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.
So why don't you start there? How is it that security theater works in court and nowhere else?
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.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.
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.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:
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.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.
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.
"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 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.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 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.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.
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.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.
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".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.
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.As I said, in this situation I would hate to be in the middle of that shooting. This is not trolling at all.
I'm not trying to bully you. I have no authority here that you lack.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.
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.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?
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with your appraisal.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.