Toledo teen arrested for bringing loaded gun to school

[PaintMyHouse]

Looks like the "gun laws" worked out pretty well. The kid was arrested before anything terrible happened.

Yes... the kid had a gun, he carried it concealed, and he brought it into a school - all in violation of the law.
He was arrested because a school official was notified by another student that he had the gun.
Sounds like they worked perfectly.

The only applicability that "gun control laws" would have on this situation depend on how he got the gun - which we don't know anything about.

So... the laws against a minor carrying a concealed weapon and the laws against having a weapon in a school do not apply?
Why do we have these laws, if not to prevent situations like this?

Since his ass is in jail, I'd say that the laws apply. If the other kiddos didn't know before, they do now.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Looks like the "gun laws" worked out pretty well. The kid was arrested before anything terrible happened.

Yes... the kid had a gun, he carried it concealed, and he brought it into a school - all in violation of the law.
He was arrested because a school official was notified by another student that he had the gun.
Sounds like they worked perfectly.

The only applicability that "gun control laws" would have on this situation depend on how he got the gun - which we don't know anything about.

So... the laws against a minor carrying a concealed weapon and the laws against having a weapon in a school do not apply?
Why do we have these laws, if not to prevent situations like this?

Come on, man.

Are you really trying to argue that because people break laws, those laws should not exist?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There have been countless threads in the last few weeks about cops getting murdered.

Clearly the laws against murdering cops aren't working. Why do we have these laws, if they don't prevent cops from being murdered?

 

[bodecea]

Stupid point brought up in the OP....

What point was brought up in the OP?

So, there was no point brought up in the OP.....okey dokey.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Looks like the "gun laws" worked out pretty well. The kid was arrested before anything terrible happened.

Yes... the kid had a gun, he carried it concealed, and he brought it into a school - all in violation of the law.
He was arrested because a school official was notified by another student that he had the gun.
Sounds like they worked perfectly.

The only applicability that "gun control laws" would have on this situation depend on how he got the gun - which we don't know anything about.

So... the laws against a minor carrying a concealed weapon and the laws against having a weapon in a school do not apply?
Why do we have these laws, if not to prevent situations like this?

Come on, man.
Are you really trying to argue that because people break laws, those laws should not exist?

I haven't argued anything -- I asked a question to everyone in the OP, and I asked you -2- questions in the post you responded to.
Questions that have received no sound response.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There have been countless threads in the last few weeks about cops getting murdered.
Clearly the laws against murdering cops aren't working. Why do we have these laws, if they don't prevent cops from being murdered?

Who argues that the laws are there to prevent police from getting murdered?
No one.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Looks like the "gun laws" worked out pretty well. The kid was arrested before anything terrible happened.

Yes... the kid had a gun, he carried it concealed, and he brought it into a school - all in violation of the law.
He was arrested because a school official was notified by another student that he had the gun.
Sounds like they worked perfectly.

The only applicability that "gun control laws" would have on this situation depend on how he got the gun - which we don't know anything about.

So... the laws against a minor carrying a concealed weapon and the laws against having a weapon in a school do not apply?
Why do we have these laws, if not to prevent situations like this?

Come on, man.
Are you really trying to argue that because people break laws, those laws should not exist?

I haven't argued anything -- I asked a question to everyone in the OP, and I asked you -2- questions in the post you responded to.
Questions that have received no sound response.

Because they're nonsensical questions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes... the kid had a gun, he carried it concealed, and he brought it into a school - all in violation of the law.
He was arrested because a school official was notified by another student that he had the gun.
Sounds like they worked perfectly.

The only applicability that "gun control laws" would have on this situation depend on how he got the gun - which we don't know anything about.

So... the laws against a minor carrying a concealed weapon and the laws against having a weapon in a school do not apply?
Why do we have these laws, if not to prevent situations like this?

Come on, man.
Are you really trying to argue that because people break laws, those laws should not exist?

I haven't argued anything -- I asked a question to everyone in the OP, and I asked you -2- questions in the post you responded to.
Questions that have received no sound response.

Because they're nonsensical questions.

How, exactly, is that the case?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There have been countless threads in the last few weeks about cops getting murdered.
Clearly the laws against murdering cops aren't working. Why do we have these laws, if they don't prevent cops from being murdered?

Who argues that the laws are there to prevent police from getting murdered?
No one.

So laws against murder aren't there to prevent people from being murdered?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Looks like the "gun laws" worked out pretty well. The kid was arrested before anything terrible happened.

^^^
This, by the way, is a prime example of nonsense, as NONE of the gun laws in place to prevent such a thing worked at ALL.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There have been countless threads in the last few weeks about cops getting murdered.
Clearly the laws against murdering cops aren't working. Why do we have these laws, if they don't prevent cops from being murdered?

Who argues that the laws are there to prevent police from getting murdered?
No one.

So laws against murder aren't there to prevent people from being murdered?

Sorry - you'll have to address your own straw man.

 

[Brain357]

Toledo teen arrested for bringing loaded gun to school
TOLEDO, OH (Toledo News Now) -

A 17-year-old was arrested after bringing a loaded weapon to a Toledo Public School Tuesday.

Around 11 a.m., a TPS school resource officer responded to a call about a possible student with a handgun at Westfield School on Western Avenue in south Toledo.

When officers confronted the student, he confirmed he had a loaded gun. Police say the recovery of the weapon went smoothly. They say the serial code on the weapon had been tampered with. The suspect was then arrested and charged with carrying a concealed weapon, conveyance of deadly weapon on school grounds, and possession of a tampered firearm.

Toledo teen arrested for bringing loaded gun to school
The obvious question for the anti-gun loons:
What sort of gun control would have prevented this?

Gun control is why he was arrested obviously. It worked.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The only applicability that "gun control laws" would have on this situation depend on how he got the gun - which we don't know anything about.

So... the laws against a minor carrying a concealed weapon and the laws against having a weapon in a school do not apply?
Why do we have these laws, if not to prevent situations like this?

Come on, man.
Are you really trying to argue that because people break laws, those laws should not exist?

I haven't argued anything -- I asked a question to everyone in the OP, and I asked you -2- questions in the post you responded to.
Questions that have received no sound response.

Because they're nonsensical questions.

How, exactly, is that the case?

Because they're based on the idea that the purpose of a law is negated by an example of it being violated.

I live in a neighborhood where cars are broken into frequently. Does that imply that the criminal laws against breaking and entering are useless?

Criminal law acts as a deterrent by placing consequences on actions deemed illegal. The premise that a law should somehow immediately eliminate any violation of it from society is ludicrous, and the premise that a law "doesn't work" because it has been violated is either naïve or willfully misinterpreting how a legal system functions.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There have been countless threads in the last few weeks about cops getting murdered.
Clearly the laws against murdering cops aren't working. Why do we have these laws, if they don't prevent cops from being murdered?

Who argues that the laws are there to prevent police from getting murdered?
No one.

So laws against murder aren't there to prevent people from being murdered?

Sorry - you'll have to address your own straw man.

It's not a "straw man". Would you like to try for another excuse to not respond to my comparison?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So... the laws against a minor carrying a concealed weapon and the laws against having a weapon in a school do not apply?
Why do we have these laws, if not to prevent situations like this?

Come on, man.
Are you really trying to argue that because people break laws, those laws should not exist?

I haven't argued anything -- I asked a question to everyone in the OP, and I asked you -2- questions in the post you responded to.
Questions that have received no sound response.

Because they're nonsensical questions.

How, exactly, is that the case?

Because they're based on the idea that the purpose of a law is negated by an example of it being violated.

If the purpose if the law is to prevent (x), and can be demonstrated to NOT prevent (x), how can it be argued that the law is effective at its purpose? that the law is necessary to prevent (x)?

I live in a neighborhood where cars are broken into frequently. Does that imply that the criminal laws against breaking and entering are useless?

Are those law in place to prevent people from doing so?

 

[M14 Shooter]

There have been countless threads in the last few weeks about cops getting murdered.
Clearly the laws against murdering cops aren't working. Why do we have these laws, if they don't prevent cops from being murdered?

Who argues that the laws are there to prevent police from getting murdered?
No one.

So laws against murder aren't there to prevent people from being murdered?

Sorry - you'll have to address your own straw man.

It's not a "straw man".

Who argues that the laws are there to prevent police from getting murdered?
No one.
Thus, straw man.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Looks like the "gun laws" worked out pretty well. The kid was arrested before anything terrible happened.

^^^
This, by the way, is a prime example of nonsense, as NONE of the gun laws in place to prevent such a thing worked at ALL.

Every time a law is broken in this country - from jaywalking to capital murder - that law failed to prevent the crime from occuring.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Looks like the "gun laws" worked out pretty well. The kid was arrested before anything terrible happened.

^^^
This, by the way, is a prime example of nonsense, as NONE of the gun laws in place to prevent such a thing worked at ALL.

Every time a law is broken in this country - from jaywalking to capital murder - that law failed to prevent the crime from occuring.

Are those laws in place to prevent those crimes?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Come on, man.
Are you really trying to argue that because people break laws, those laws should not exist?

I haven't argued anything -- I asked a question to everyone in the OP, and I asked you -2- questions in the post you responded to.
Questions that have received no sound response.

Because they're nonsensical questions.

How, exactly, is that the case?

Because they're based on the idea that the purpose of a law is negated by an example of it being violated.

If the purpose if the law is to prevent (x), and can be demonstrated to NOT prevent (x), how can it be argued that the law is effective at its purpose? that the law is necessary to prevent (x)?

I live in a neighborhood where cars are broken into frequently. Does that imply that the criminal laws against breaking and entering are useless?

Are those law in place to prevent people from doing so?

Every law on the books exists to deter people from violating it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There have been countless threads in the last few weeks about cops getting murdered.
Clearly the laws against murdering cops aren't working. Why do we have these laws, if they don't prevent cops from being murdered?

Who argues that the laws are there to prevent police from getting murdered?
No one.

So laws against murder aren't there to prevent people from being murdered?

Sorry - you'll have to address your own straw man.

It's not a "straw man".

Who argues that the laws are there to prevent police from getting murdered?
No one.
Thus, straw man.

You keep using the word "prevent" - that's the strawman here.

No law can prevent a crime from occuring - not gun laws, or any other laws. That not how laws work.