BREAKING: Mass school shooting multiple victims

[Asclepias]

Laws do not prevent crime, crimes are punished and that is what keeps society relatively safe.

Okay. Laws do not prevent crime, ergo gun control laws do not stop gun violence from happening. Therefore gun control laws, and gun free zones are pointless. If laws are pointless, it doesn't matter how many times someone is punished.

Thanks for making my case.

By that logic, laws against murder are pointless too. After all, people still commit murder, even though it's illegal.

Laws against murder punish murderers.

Gun control laws don't punish crime, they are passed solely to prevent these types of crimes.

If they don't do that, they are utterly useless.

Laws against owning a nuclear weapon punish those those that break those laws. You dont see a whole bunch of people with nuclear weapons walking around do you?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't believe that I've said anything close to "Gun Free Zones will deter mass shootings".

When I say "anyone" I don't necessarily mean you.

Then why did you direct it towards me specifically, in your post?

This is the "strawman" that I was referring to.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Society can make laws limiting speed on roadways, if a person wants to speed they'll do so;
You can put locks on all your doors and windows, they won't keep out a burglar intent on breaking and entering and stealing; rapists rape, molesters molest and drunks still drive.

Why do we have laws?

You position is idiotic.

Your claim is that the Left did not create Gun Free Zones to prevent gun violence, which it did.

Your claim is that the Gun Free Zone is designed to punish those who bring an otherwise perfectly legal tool, into the Gun Free Zone, without regard to intent... which is a law intended to punish otherwise law abiding people, who happen to carry an otherwise legal tool, into a zone which forbids such. Thus demonstrating YOUR OWN SUBJECTIVE NATURE... foolishly claiming that a subjective law is a valid law.

Here's a clue... law which fails to be objective, fails in the service of justice and in so doing fails the very purpose of law.

The best defense from gun violence is gun owners in possession of guns. And this is so because Guns represent power and power well beyond that of the unarmed individual. Thus the best means to counter that power, is with an equal or greater power.

So at no point does your argument serve reason, except where it serves the purpose of demonstrating the feckless nature of fallacious argument.

 

[HenryBHough]

This tragedy is not a current event and needs to be moved to a taunting board because it may offend some delicate sensibilities..... Lol

Not a "current event"?

Oh, right! The liberal mantra will claim this all happened not under O'Bumbles---nay, it happened under Boooossssshhhhh!

 

[Asclepias]

The best defense from gun violence is gun owners in possession of guns.

Sounds like the wild wild west to me. That was a peaceful time with no gun violence.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then why did you direct it towards me specifically, in your post?

Because you were the one who responded to the previous post I made. That's the nature of engagement. I punch you, you punch back, so on and so on.

This is the "strawman" that I was referring to.

Actually, come to think of it, it's not. Because through your debates with other posters on this thread, and your debate with me on the nature of laws and their meaning, you are putting forth that very argument.

Gun Free Zones are based on existing laws, that puts forth a punishment for violating them. But as you can see, the punishment didn't deter the murderer. Sure, you can catch a criminal and punish him under the law, but it serves as no deterrent to prevent the next criminal from committing the same crime; whether he is caught and "punished" or not is of no consequence.

 

[candycorn]

Australia had a mass shooting, got rid of the guns and hasn't had one since.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why can't you simply respond to my posts, rather than building strawmen to knock down?

I am.

But in response I get the generic "that's a strawman" retort.

I assume since you insist on referring to my statements as "strawmen", that you have no effective rebuttal. Calling them "strawmen" is a convenient way to dismiss the argument without having to address it.

Do you understand what a "strawman" is?

Do you?

A strawman is an attempt to refute an argument another person did not make. I know what it is perfectly.

 

[francoHFW]

Keep arguing inanities. The USA is the only country where this idiocy goes on. Thanks, idiot NRAGOP.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why can't you simply respond to my posts, rather than building strawmen to knock down?

I am.

But in response I get the generic "that's a strawman" retort.

I assume since you insist on referring to my statements as "strawmen", that you have no effective rebuttal. Calling them "strawmen" is a convenient way to dismiss the argument without having to address it.

Do you understand what a "strawman" is?

Do you?

A strawman is an attempt to refute an argument another person did not make. I know what it is perfectly.

I have not made any argument in support of "Gun Free Zones".

Therefore, every post you've made attacking me over "Gun Free Zones" are strawmen.

This isn't complicated.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's an asinine argument.

Why? What good are gun free zones and gun control laws like background checks if they don't stop tragedies like this one? Even with those things in place, 13 people still died.

What good are laws against murder, if people still murder?
What good are laws against rape, if people still rape?
What good are laws against jaywalking, if people still jaywalk?

...and so on, for every single law that has ever existed.

Your point?...
Do you libs really believe that removing firearms from law abiding citizens will end bad behavior?
That is the fallacy of your side's argument.

 

[Asclepias]

Then why did you direct it towards me specifically, in your post?

Because you were the one who responded to the previous post I made. That's the nature of engagement. I punch you, you punch back, so on and so on.

This is the "strawman" that I was referring to.

Actually, come to think of it, it's not. Because through your debates with other posters on this thread, and your debate with me on the nature of laws and their meaning, you are putting forth that very argument.

Gun Free Zones are based on existing laws, that puts forth a punishment for violating them. But as you can see, the punishment didn't deter the murderer. Sure, you can catch a criminal and punish him under the law, but it serves as no deterrent to prevent the next criminal from committing the same crime; whether he is caught and "punished" or not is of no consequence.

Youre pretending you have the abilities of the authorities in the Minority Report movie. You dont know what the laws have prevented. Thats like saying the presence of metal detectors have not prevented someone from bringing a gun on a plane.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That's an asinine argument.

Why? What good are gun free zones and gun control laws like background checks if they don't stop tragedies like this one? Even with those things in place, 13 people still died.

What good are laws against murder, if people still murder?
What good are laws against rape, if people still rape?
What good are laws against jaywalking, if people still jaywalk?

...and so on, for every single law that has ever existed.

Your point?...
Do you libs really believe that removing firearms from law abiding citizens will end bad behavior?
That is the fallacy of your side's argument.

Since neither I, nor anyone else that I know of has made that argument in this thread, the only "fallacy" in question is your strawman.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Keep arguing inanities. The USA is the only country where this idiocy goes on. Thanks, idiot NRAGOP.

That is NOT true.
In nations where private gun ownership is illegal. Yet there are still gun crimes.

 

[Missourian]

Australia had a mass shooting, got rid of the guns and hasn't had one since.

Neither of those statements are true.

 

[Asclepias]

That's an asinine argument.

Why? What good are gun free zones and gun control laws like background checks if they don't stop tragedies like this one? Even with those things in place, 13 people still died.

What good are laws against murder, if people still murder?
What good are laws against rape, if people still rape?
What good are laws against jaywalking, if people still jaywalk?

...and so on, for every single law that has ever existed.

Your point?...
Do you libs really believe that removing firearms from law abiding citizens will end bad behavior?
That is the fallacy of your side's argument.

Who claimed it will end all bad behavior? Do you have a link?

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's an asinine argument.

Why? What good are gun free zones and gun control laws like background checks if they don't stop tragedies like this one? Even with those things in place, 13 people still died.

What good are laws against murder, if people still murder?
What good are laws against rape, if people still rape?
What good are laws against jaywalking, if people still jaywalk?

...and so on, for every single law that has ever existed.

Your point?...
Do you libs really believe that removing firearms from law abiding citizens will end bad behavior?
That is the fallacy of your side's argument.

Since neither I, nor anyone else that I know of has made that argument in this thread, the only "fallacy" in question is your strawman.

Be realistic.
You'd be just fine if the 2nd Amendment were repealed. Don't deny it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's an asinine argument.

Why? What good are gun free zones and gun control laws like background checks if they don't stop tragedies like this one? Even with those things in place, 13 people still died.

What good are laws against murder, if people still murder?
What good are laws against rape, if people still rape?
What good are laws against jaywalking, if people still jaywalk?

...and so on, for every single law that has ever existed.

Your point?...
Do you libs really believe that removing firearms from law abiding citizens will end bad behavior?
That is the fallacy of your side's argument.

Who claimed it will end all bad behavior? Do you have a link?

I read those tweets in the OP.....Go ahead and tell me you disagree with them. And I will call bullshit.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That's an asinine argument.

Why? What good are gun free zones and gun control laws like background checks if they don't stop tragedies like this one? Even with those things in place, 13 people still died.

What good are laws against murder, if people still murder?
What good are laws against rape, if people still rape?
What good are laws against jaywalking, if people still jaywalk?

...and so on, for every single law that has ever existed.

Your point?...
Do you libs really believe that removing firearms from law abiding citizens will end bad behavior?
That is the fallacy of your side's argument.

Since neither I, nor anyone else that I know of has made that argument in this thread, the only "fallacy" in question is your strawman.

Be realistic.
You'd be just fine if the 2nd Amendment were repealed. Don't deny it.

Is that what your crystal ball tells you, clown?

 

[francoHFW]

Keep arguing inanities. The USA is the only country where this idiocy goes on. Thanks, idiot NRAGOP.

That is NOT true.
In nations where private gun ownership is illegal. Yet there are still gun crimes.

We're talking massacres. Oz made assault brifles illegal after one, and no more.