Another School Shooting, time to attack Michael Moore again

[Luke T.]

Armed guards, security and metal detectors are one answer, but, once again, why the problem?

Ummm...

The shooting began Monday afternoon when Jeff allegedly shot and killed his grandfather, a tribal police officer, and his grandfather's wife. He then went to the Red Lake High School, where witnesses say he shot his way past the school's metal detectors, killing a guard, and then entered a classroom.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0323/p01s01-ussc.html

 

[Bikewer]

Knowing the sort of people that are normally employed as fixed-post guards at schools, this would not surprise me.

These individuals are to provide a level of deterence, not endure out-of-the-blue assaults.

Providing a high level of security at the many thousands of schools across the country would be a huge undertaking, greater by far in scope than providing airport security.

And school districts generally are strapped for money. Who's going to ante up?

These isolated, terrible incidents always provoke a great amount of outcry and question. Identification of potential problem individuals might prove more effective, but I don't think anyone has a 100% method of doing that.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

FYI. Im pro 2nd amendment.

Me too!!!

 

[Electron #1]

A simple glance at the law case history as well as
ancedotes of anyone with ANY experience in the public sale of firearms is obvious that criminal negligence is

prevalent

to

common place.

From manufactuer to distributor to owner , apathy

reigns second

only to greed or paranoia . Now due to the

proposed billl, civil suits that could bring about positive

change to the manner which guns are bought and sold

will be deemed null and void. NOW it is apparently a

lesser evil to have school children under armed guard

than to pass any PROGRESSIVE legislation that

would cut the bottom line of gun manufactuers .

With weapons and firearms being in the top 5 of

Americas exports.

Money is and will continue to do the talking as public

safety is 2nd place to "liberty" for matchlock owners.

 

[crimresearch]

A simple glance at the law case history as well as ancedotes of anyone with ANY experience in the public sale of firearms is obvious that criminal negligence is prevalent to common place.

That may be, if limited to the simple glance and to anonymous anecdotes.

But actual research on the *facts* of the matter often reveals something entirely different.

Of course, you could always give us those 'law case history' citations.

You do know how to properly provide legal cites don't you?

 

[Electron #1]

Proper?

So you have the case evidence that shows that criminals

obtain their firearms solely (or even in the majority)

through burgarlry or theft? I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT.

 

[crimresearch]

Re: Proper?

So you have the case evidence that shows that criminals
obtain their firearms solely (or even in the majority)
through burgarlry or theft? I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT.

Is that what they call a strawman fallacy? Faking words and pretending that I said them?

You are the one trying to pass off wild assertions as facts on a skeptic's forum.

So drop the drama, quit wasting our time with tapdancing around and pointless game playing, and start backing up your opinions with some facts, or be prepared to get laughed out of here..by both pro and anti-gun legislation skeptics alike.

Cite the 'law case history' you claim exists.

Prove that major firearms manufacturers conspire to INTENTionallly sell to distributors who are known to sell to traffickers, who are known to sell to criminals..

Is that too much to ask?

 

[RandFan]

A simple glance at the law case history…

You are still ignoring counter arguments. How about you give us some examples of this law history you know so much about?

…as well as anecdotes

Oh well, anecdotes. Anecdotes are not valid forms of evidence.

…of anyone with ANY experience in the public sale of firearms is obvious that criminal negligence is prevalent to common place.

Even if true, which you haven’t established, it doesn’t prove your premise.

From manufactuer to distributor to owner , apathy reigns…

Claim. Could you prove your claim?

…second only to greed or paranoia . Now due to the proposed billl, civil suits that could bring about positive change to the manner which guns are bought and sold will be deemed null and void.

The suits could also bankrupt the gun industry because of greed.

NOW it is apparently a lesser evil to have school children under armed guard than to pass any PROGRESSIVE legislation that would cut the bottom line of gun manufactuers

. Could you make up your mind? Legislation or lawsuits? What’s wrong with enforcing the laws as they are now?

With weapons and firearms being in the top 5 of Americas exports. Money is and will continue to do the talking as public safety is 2nd place to "liberty" for matchlock owners.

Rhetorical and without foundation.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Proper?

So you have the case evidence that shows that criminals obtain their firearms solely (or even in the majority) through burgarlry or theft? I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT.

It's your claim Einstein.

I guess you don't know the rules of skepticism and critical thinking, he who makes the claim must prove that claim. It is not up to us to prove a negative. Let me give you an example. If you claim there is a Santa Claus and we say there is no Santa Claus then it is up to you to prove that there is Santa Claus.

 

[Jocko]

Electron... Ion... anyone else see a connection, atomically speaking? Not sayin', just sayin'...

 

[LostAngeles]

Electron... Ion... anyone else see a connection, atomically speaking? Not sayin', just sayin'...

Well, yes, but even if Ion got Electron back, it doesn't seem like that would make a terrible amount of difference on the postive side of the intelligence scale.

 

[Jocko]

Well, yes, but even if Ion got Electron back, it doesn't seem like that would make a terrible amount of difference on the postive side of the intelligence scale.

I think just achieving equilibrium would be a vast improvement for either of them.

 

[LostAngeles]

I think just achieving equilibrium would be a vast improvement for either of them.

You sure? I mean, I'm sure they split for a reason. Such as to prevent the entire world from being sucked into the black hole of stupid that would surely form should all that stupidity be concentrated into such a small space and shouldn't this go to flame wars?

 

[Bikewer]

Just as an FYI, in 30 years of police experience, I've never encountered a "street" gun that was not illegally obtained.

Merely anecdotal, I know.

There are millions of firearms in this country. NYC routinely destroys thousands of them taken from arrested subjects.

Similarly with other large cities.

The claim of course, is that manufacturers routinely supply large numbers of weapons to "dealers" that violate interstate laws, purchase with fraudulent credentials, etc., and then in turn market these weapons to criminals in a large-scale underground arms operation.

I'm sure this occurs, there are a number of states which have very loose regulations regarding setting up dealerships and so forth. People can, in these states, make purchases which would be prohibited in another state, haul these weapons back to the restricted locality, and sell to whoever.
All these things are violations of existing laws, of course.

The manufacturers maintain that they sell weapons under close scrutiny from ATF and deal only with holders of FFL.
What happens thereafter is not a matter for their liability.

One might make the analogy to automobiles, I suppose. Ford Motor Co. is not generally considered complicit in situations where their autos are used criminally.

 

[Electron #1]

Well what do you know. Crime Reseach and the silly

goon

squad would like to see THE facts but cant seem to read

THE links I posted or deduce the most obvious cause

and effect of the proposed bill ( H.R. 800 or S.397)

"If similar legislation had passed last year, it would have let off the hook the gun dealer that "lost" not only the sniper rifle used by the DC area snipers but 238 other guns, along with other dealers that recklessly put guns into the hands of gun traffickers and have since agreed to pay damages. Since the legislation was defeated last year, a gun manufacturer and three gun dealers have settled three high-profile cases for substantial damages:

Bushmaster, Bull's Eye Shooter Supply Pay $2.5 Million To D.C. Sniper Victims - In September 2004, the families of victims of the D.C. sniper shootings won a $2.5 million settlement from Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, the dealer who "lost" the snipers' assault rifle, along with at least 238 other guns, and Bushmaster, the assault weapon maker who negligently supplied Bull's Eye despite its disgraceful record of missing guns and regulatory violations. Further, as part of the settlement Bushmaster agreed to inform its dealers of safer sales practices that should prevent other criminals from obtaining guns - something Bushmaster had never done before. Sharing in the settlement were the families of Conrad Johnson, James "Sonny" Buchanan, Hong Im Ballenger, Premkumar Walekar, Sarah Ramos and Linda Franklin, as well as two victims who survived the shootings, Rupinder "Benny" Oberoi and 13-year-old Iran Brown "

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=632

By the way ANY facts at all supporting the claims yall have

stated would be welcome and relinquish you from that

nasty big letter "H" brand. The NRA is arguably the

most powerfull and influential lobby in America. If ANY

BETTER ENFORCABLE gun laws are to come abut it

would most likely HAVE to come through the financial

pressuring of individuals through law suits. If that is too

huge a leap in logic for anyone then you most certainly

shouldnt be allowed to own a firearm.

edited to add link.

 

[RandFan]

"If similar legislation had passed last year, it would have let off the hook the gun dealer that "lost" not only the sniper rifle used by the DC area snipers but 238 other guns, along with other dealers that recklessly put guns into the hands of gun traffickers and have since agreed to pay damages. Since the legislation was defeated last year, a gun manufacturer and three gun dealers have settled three high-profile cases for substantial damages:

All legislation has pros and cons. I don't think the examples you cite are worth keeping the legislation from passing.

By the way ANY facts at all supporting the claims yall have stated would be welcome and relinquish you from that nasty big letter "H" brand.

This from the guy who asks a skeptics forum to prove a negative. You made a specific claim and you refuse to back it up. Instead you ask us to disprove it.

Could you list the claims we refuse to support?

I should point out that you are quickly loosing any credibility in this forum. Anyone dumb enough to ask for proof of a negative and then refuses to acknowledge that fact and then continue to demand such has little respect in a skeptics forum.

 

[crimresearch]

All legislation has pros and cons. I don't think the examples you cite are worth keeping the legislation from passing.

This from the guy who asks a skeptics forum to prove a negative. You made a specific claim and you refuse to back it up. Instead you ask us to disprove it.

Could you list the claims we refuse to support?

I should point out that you are quickly loosing any credibility in this forum. Anyone dumb enough to ask for proof of a negative and then refuses to acknowledge that fact and then continue to demand such has little respect in a skeptics forum.

Don't be too hard on Electron...

I could just be feeling generous because he did such a good job of proving my point that the government pursues criminal penalties against dealers who act in the manner he described.

But after shooting himself in the foot with his 'rebuttal' of my point, he has been predictably silent about backing up any of his claims.

Maybe he is finding it harder to cite 'law case history' than he thought?

In any case, Spring break will be over soon enough.

 

[RandFan]

Maybe he is finding it harder to cite 'law case history' than he thought?

I don't seem why, he talks as if he is an expert. Surely he has the data right at the tips of his fingers, right?

In any case, Spring break will be over soon enough.

You might have a point.

 

[TragicMonkey]

For the love of tutu-clad walruses, what's with the extra line breaks? It's killing me softly.

 

[RandFan]

For the love of tutu-clad walruses, what's with the extra line breaks? It's killing me softly.

Me to. and there is extra word space that has no rhyme or reason.