Alternatives to arming teachers

What is preventing these individuals from bringing firearms into facilities of learning as is, and using them for illegal purposes?

Why should those who are looking to legally carry concealed firearms, be required to undergo the level of training necessary to qualify as a security guard?

 

The illegality comes from the fact that so-called "red flag" laws are done in an ex parte fashion, where the accused is never actually given notice that they are being accused of any wrongdoing, or what they have been accused of doing, they are provided with no opportunity of defending themselves against the accusations, they do not have anyone arguing in their defense at the hearing, the standard of proof used against them is abysmally low, they are not provided anything resembling due process until long after the fact, meaning their constitutional rights are severed in a manner that violates the fifth amendment of the united states constitution. No person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. There is no due process to be found under these so-called "red flag" laws.

Regardless of such, it is being supported on the part of yourself for the purpose of restricting constitutional rights. Again, without due process of law.

Except for the fact that no possible good can actually come of such a bad proposal. If it is going to be argued that the ends justify the means, then serious consideration will have to be given to the notion of vigilante-style justice where known criminals are murdered by the public for the crimes they have been accused but not convicted of, all because someone believed that they were guilty.

None of which changes the fact that nothing which has been proposed by yourself is either "designed" nor "intended" to save lives. Anyone with basic reading comprehension skills, and even a rudimentary understanding of how things work in the united states, is aware of such facts.

What is not understood is that in order to save lives, it is necessary to sometimes actually end lives to do such. It is no different from using chemotherapy to treat cancer in an effort to save the patient. Not every life is precious, redeeming, or worth trying to prevent the loss of.

Irrelevant. There is no evidence that implementing firearm-related restrictions, especially those that are unenforceable, does not qualify as being the "right thing" as is being referred to by yourself.

Such as the proposal to prohibit public access to ammunition that is already not available to the general public under any circumstances?

A great deal actually. At least one third of the united states population has grounds for refusing to comply with the proposals being presented by yourself, and government does not have the resources to deal with such a development if it comes to pass. State governments have learned this lesson the hard way, and the federal government will learn the same lesson even harder.

The requirements that would naturally stem from the proposals being presented on the part of yourself.

Despite the constant, repetitive claims presented on the part of yourself, so-called "assault weapons" are used in exceedingly few mass shootings compared to handguns, making them statistically minute overall. The deadliest school shooting in all united states history was carried out with handguns and magazines that would continue to remain widely available under every proposal that has been presented on the part of yourself, demonstrating that said proposals have no actual, legitimate merit, and cannot fulfill the false promises being used to try and sell them to the public. No measurable change, none whatsoever, will come about from any of the proposals, because they are intentionally designed to do nothing more than fail, for the express purpose of building public support for even more restrictive proposals.

It has everything to do with the proposals being presented on the part of yourself, as it pertains to the question of exactly what will government do when a large percentage of the population simply refuses to comply, and tells government that it cannot make them comply? What then? What will be done when government must contend with millions of members of the public simply stating that they are not going to do what they are told?

 

Hold on.... My proposal is to give courts the authority. A Court of Law is an entity or tribunal with the authority to adjudicate on legal matters. Nobody appears in a court without notice. Everybody is entitled to a defense attorney in a court of law. A Court of Law, by definition, is itself "due process". So, I don't know what red flag law you are talking about, but the one I propose is in a Court of Law, which is where due process happens. A court can deprive a person of their right to liberty (send them to jail). In some states they can even deprive people of their right to life. Why would they not be able to deprive them of guns? Of course, legislation would be necessary to frame this measure. So that's what I'm proposing.

If by "means" you are referring to the no-fly list, I already said that is not part of my proposal. It's already in place.. Regardless of you and I considering that the no-fly list should be declared unconstitutional, that fact is that it hasn't. So my proposal has no control over the "means". If the no-fly list is unconstitutional, then take it up with the Supreme Court. It's their job, not the legislator's, to determine that.

Well... that's the most ridiculous argument you can make. You could argue that it wouldn't accomplish the goal it was intended to fulfill, for example. And then argue why. But establishing the "intention" is completely up to the author.

Imagine I said, for example, that the intention of these laws is to de-denuclearize North Korea. You could easily show that the intention would not be accomplished because Kim Jong Un couldn't care less about our laws. And you would be right. But that doesn't change the intention.

See the difference?

Hmmm.... I just read somebody taking about "the end not justifying the means", or something. Can't remember who... Oh! It was you

Consistency is not a bad thing.

Better talk about the ones that are available. Like the ones used in Parkland. Another poster mentioned two types. If I remember correctly, one was M855, or something like that. You could get with them to find out. They might be on to something.

If they are not available anymore then.... hey! Our job is done! You gotta hand it to those Parkland kids.

Not many that I can think of. You would need to be more precise. Give me a case scenario.

The great thing about my proposals is that they eliminate many of the consequences that might be brought about by incompetent law enforcement officers.

The purpose is that they don't become more than "few" but rather even less.

,

I know the very old argument. It boils down to "If we can't stop all mass shootings, then we shouldn't stop any" Never found any logic whatsoever in it, and your version doesn't provide any either.

Classic Slippery-slope fallacy.

"Comply" with what? What are these imaginary neo-confederates of yours refusing to "do"?

I think I have asked this on every single message in our discussion. Why are you unable to say what it is you are talking about?

 

What is being proposed by yourself, is not how the laws in question are actually executed and utilized in the united states. They are all implemented in a manner in which the accused is never informed that they are actually being accused of something, what they are being accused of, and do not even know that the proceedings are taking place in their absence. They are not given any notice of anything that has transpired until after law enforcement is showing up at their place of residence to confiscate their firearms, by force if necessary.

Then do not advocate using it. It is not that difficult of a concept to understand.

It is a matter of the truth. It is easily seen in reading the proposals as they are presented.

Then those who draft the legislation should stop going about doing such in the most vague, overly broad terms possible, and instead be as precise as possible in detailing exactly what the purpose of the legislation is, how it is supposed to go about doing such, and do so in terms that even private individual should be able to understand with ease, rather than legislative terms that need to be interpreted by a licensed attorney who can explain the matter in commonly understood terms. They have no excuse for being deliberately vague and confusing in how they try to convey a message.

The difference is that the above reference presented on the part of yourself is completely off topic, and deals with aspects far more complicated than private firearms ownership as it currently is. International issues are of no relevance in the discussion pertaining exclusively to the united states.

It is not an inconsistency, just a recognition of the fact that not every life is precious, in possession of redeeming qualities, or can possibly be saved by timely intervention. Nor should such an outlook even be possessed. It is not possible to protect the public by attempting to implement legislation to hypothetically prevent access to certain common goods by those who should not have them, as these restrictions have been proven to instead cause harm to the public. The only way to prevent these individuals from posing a harm to the public is to remove them from the equation entirely. Either confine them to an appropriate facility for the duration of their lives, or simply end their lives. Whichever is done, it is not cared about, as it is of no importance.

Due process exists for the survivors. It does not apply to those who are killed by their intended victims while in the commission of a crime, or by law enforcement. If someone is killed because they chose to engage in the act of committing a violent crime, then that is ultimately their fault.

The M855 ammunition is no more an armor-piercing round, than any other centerfire rifle cartridge is. It is not specifically designed, nor intended to penetrate ballistic vests, it simply does so by virtue of being a rifle cartridge. It is utilized by the military, not because of any outstanding penetrative qualities, but because the heavier bullet is more easily stabilized for use at longer ranges that exceed the practical, physical capabilities of the fifty-five grain M193 cartridge that was originally used with the M16.

Beyond that matter, the ammunition utilized in the Parkland incident could not have been true M855 ammunition, going by the reports of the radiologist cited by yourself. M855 ammunition does not produce significant tissue trauma upon entering the body, nor does it easily fragment. It produces a clean wound channel and very little tissue upset. That is why the united states military is seeking replacement of the round, as there are reports of enemy combatants taking numerous hits from such ammunition, and failing to stop fighting back. The reason to ammunition continues to be utilized is because it is cheap, and in abundant supply.

Those that refuse to surrender the targeted firearms of ammunition magazines, putting law enforcement and government in the precarious position of trying to figure out how to enforce the proposals, or whether or not to even attempt doing such.

Another example would be those who continue to sell firearms without performing a background check, knowing that they will never be held responsible for doing such.

Explain how and why such is actually believed.

It is not about the inability of the proposals being presented by yourself to stop all mass shootings. It is that successful mass shooting have been carried out with firearms and ammunition magazines that would not be prohibited under the proposals of yourself, demonstrating that no meaningful difference would occur. These incidents are not spur of the moment, they are planned out weeks or months in advance, meaning the perpetrator knows exactly what they are going to do, what they have to work with, and how they will have to utilize it in order to be successful. Ten round magazines were not a problem for Nikolas Cruz and others, they will not be a problem for future mass shooters.

The simple fact is that too many mass shootings have occurred with firearms and ammunition that would not be prohibited under the proposals presented on the part of yourself, to do anything other than confirm that nothing would change. Not simply nothing meaningful, but rather nothing whatsoever.

Except for the fact that it has already been proven and confirmed as being the case. The laws of the state of New York are a testament to that fact.

Comply with what is being proposed by yourself. None of them will have any impact if the public simply chooses to treat them as if they do not exist. And since enforcement is next to impossible, there is no motivation for the public to not comply with them. There is nothing to motivate them to surrender certain firearms, and parts breakages are too rare to actually take any of them out of circulation. Just as there is nothing to motivate them to not sell a firearm to a completely random stranger in a back alley if they so desire to do such.

The difficulty in understanding what is being stated on the part of myself, is not shared with anyone else involved in this discussion. Such would suggest that such is unique to yourself, rather than an indication of any difficulty on the part of myself in presenting a coherent thought or concept.

 

Ok. So we are in agreement that "what is proposed by myself" is necessary. See? Now we're making progress.

Why not? I don't agree with the SCOTUS Heller decision, but I advocate using it. What you say is insane. We use the laws in existence. Acting as if they didn't exist because we don't agree with them, would be idiotic.

You obviously have no idea what the concept of "Country of Laws" means.

I completely agree! Case in point, the 2nd Amendment. Which was probably made vague on purpose, and has gotten us into this big mess. As far as specifically, my proposal, I have made the intention as clear as I can: to reduce the number of instances of gun shootings and the number of victims. And the "how" is pretty clear: by mandatory background checks, banning the sale of assault weapons, etc.... And by "clear" I mean as clear as it can be made in an Opinion forum. Legislators can have at their disposal a "battalion" of experts on everything, from law to linguists, who help them draw the final text of a bill. An asset that we don't have for this forum.

"Off-topic"? Ever hear of an "example to illustrate a point"?

You are obviously not very experienced or skilled in debates... or even deductive reasoning. But please don't use your inexperience as a way to evade the point. If you don't understand the example, just say so...

You also are lacking in morality and ethics. But if you used an example to dodge a point, you're even more likely to wander off if I get into that. Let's just say that the Constitution and Human Rights require that all lives be treated equally.

Who said anything about surrendering firearms or ammunition?

I asked you this question very early in the debate: "enforce what?" And you refused to answer. See all the time we could have wasted if we had?

That's absurd! How would they know they would never be held accountable? And what gives you the idea that people break the law so matter-of-factly?

These are two questions that I also asked before, and you refuse to answer. I have a feeling that, if you did answer clearly and to the point, we would have a resolution to this. Just like we just did above with the other question you refused to answer before today.

Isn't it obvious? Because, by far, the large majority of people usually chose to follow the law. And the proposals even include further incentives to do that.

The fact that you start with this false premise invalidates your whole reasoning. The sale of the guns and magazines used in the worst recent mass shootings would be banned. Thus making the killings more and more difficult to accomplish in the future.

Oh... so, according to you, the number of dead would not increase if he had use 30 or 50 round capacity magazines.

Now you abandon all attempt at making sense.... And you do even worse by mentioning one shooting as if that were the one that we are trying to address. The Texas church shooting was done with 30 round magazines. Why did you mention the Parkland shooting and not this one? I'll answer: because this one was "inconvenient" to your argument.

All your arguments have been of this type: completely ad-hoc arguments in which any element that fits what you want to say at the moment, you use, but conveniently "forget" any element that doesn't because it would contradict your argument. Then drawing back on the one you previously forgot because you find it "convenient"

I don't debate based on convenience like you. I debate based on reason and facts. And all this is a definite sign of somebody who is not serious and has no idea what they are talking about. Therefore, discussing with you is a complete waste of time. You refuse to respond to questions, and after I insist again and again, you answer. And by your response we find out that you simply didn't understand the proposal. That, plus the fact that I have just demonstrated, shows that you are incapable of holding a rational debate. And that such a debate is impossible with you.

So thanks for trying. But you have perfectly illustrated the fact that gun advocates have no arguments. And this is why we need to implement proposals like mine as soon as possible. Because their nonsense, while it might look "cute" in a forum, is going to get a lot of people killed.

 

Incorrect. No such statement pertaining to necessity was made on the part of myself. Rather it is being stated how there is no understanding on the part of yourself as to how the proposals being supported by yourself work, or what they actually entail.

First, what exactly is being proposed by yourself? Cause as much damage to the united states constitution as possible, and violate as many constitutional rights as possible, in an effort to try and force the united state supreme court to actually step in and undo the damage?

Second, the united states is already acting as if laws that are in existence do not exist, as is the case with countless firearm-related restrictions that never make it before a court room, because the individual who committed the offense is not charged with such. Felons are not prosecuted when they are found in possession of a firearm. Firearm traffickers are not prosecuted for knowingly supplying firearms to prohibited individuals, even when they are used in the commission of murdering law enforcement officers. Those who attempt to illegally acquire firearms are not prosecuted for such, despite the evidence of their crime being documented on federal forms.

At the time of the drafting and ratification of the united states constitution, both the language and the meaning of the second amendment was easily understood by not only the government, but also the people.

The same cannot be said about the legislation of today where a single bill may span several hundred pages, and is presented in a rambling, highly technical manner filled with legalese terms that the private individual has little chance at comprehending even with extensive reading.

None of which would do any good at accomplishing the aforementioned goal.

The same experts responsible for the current mess in the drafting of legislation, written in vague, confusing terms that the average individual has little understanding of? First you agree that the drafting process is overly confusing, and now you are advocating using it as it is.

Was it not yourself who stated that consistency is not a bad thing?

It has, but the manner in which it was attempted was not conductive of doing such.

What is being said by yourself is indeed understood. It is simply factually incorrect.

What do morality and ethics have to do with anything in this discussion? Possessing such character traits does not make one factually correct by default, just as being cold, calculating, and focused on facts does not make one factually incorrect. Matters of morality and ethics are subjective to the topic being discussed.

Such does not change the fact that not all lives are worth saving. There are those in this world who possess no redeeming qualities to justify their continued existence, and whose passing can only serve to improve the situation as a result. Remove them from the equation, one way or another, and both the quality of life, and the overall security in the united states, will be drastically improved. If the courts no longer have to put up with continual repeat offenders demonstrating that they will not abide by the rules of society, things can only improve as a direct result.

Yourself, pertaining to the so-called "buyback" programs offering a meager pittance to anyone who is willing to surrender their lawfully owned property after it has been outlawed in an ex post facto manner.

How many times must it be explained, what is being discussed pertaining to enforcement are the various details found without the proposals being presented by yourself.

Critical thinking skills that demonstrate how a background check requirement cannot be enforced since no firearms are actually registered to any particular individual, meaning there is no way of telling whether the firearm was possessed by the individual in question prior to the requirement or not.

Why exactly should it be believed otherwise, when the media is full of accounts of individuals choosing to disregard the law, and do what they want to do instead?

The questions have indeed been answered. They have simply not been acknowledged by yourself.

The public at large chooses to abide by the law when they believe there is a significant risk of being caught in the act of committing a violation, and facing legal consequences as a result of such. However if they believe that such is not the case, if they believe there is little actual risk of consequences, then they will disregard the law at first moment of convenience that presents itself. Those who knowingly engage in the use of illicit narcotic substances, despite them being illegal under all circumstances, serve as ample evidence of the above. Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and countless other similar substances are all prohibited at every level of government in the united states, as well as international treaties. And yet despite this, they are highly sought after by large portions of the public, and have served to create a lucrative criminal industry, just as was done during the prohibition of alcoholic beverages.

The number of mass shootings committed with firearms and ammunition magazines which are not prohibited by the proposals supported by yourself demonstrates that the above hypothesis will not come to pass. No matter how many times it is argued otherwise by yourself, Nikolas Cruz made use of ten round magazines exclusively, as have numerous other mass shooters. The proposals presented on the part of yourself are useless, and will make no difference. The reason they are useless is because they are based on the same mistake that countless other proposals are based upon, that being the focus is solely on the implement, not on the individuals that make use of such.

Not according to myself, but confirmed facts.

The Parkland incident is only the most recent incident where ten round magazines were used in the successful commission of a mass shootings, with victims in the double digit range.

Also an example of government not doing its job, because the united states military refused to forward disqualifying information about the individual in question to the national instant check system, which would have prevented the legal acquisition of a firearm. But government chose not to abide by its own requirements, and instead allowed the incident to transpire.

To demonstrate that limitations on magazine capacity do nothing to save any lives.

Then what has been done throughout this entire discussion between yourself and myself has been missed on the part of yourself.

This entire thread was started by yourself, in an effort to present proposals that are being claimed by yourself to be viable alternatives to allowing teachers to legally carry concealed firearms while performing their duties at facilities of learning. Throughout this entire back and forth discussion between yourself and myself, the validity of these proposals has been discussed at length, with it being explained how they are not viable, and how they will not work. In an effort to defend these policies as being viable, it was admitted by yourself that they will not actually prevent mass shootings from occurring, and that the best that can be hoped for is simply a reduction in the overall number of casualties that will be experienced when another mass shooting is carried out. You were led into admitting to everyone present that people, especially children, will still be killed, with the only possible hope being that the killer in question simply running out of ammunition because they do not have legal access to magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.

These proposals were presented at alternatives to educators being armed, and it was admitted by yourself that mass shootings will continue to be carried out. Your entire alternative to armed educators is to allow mass shootings to continue being carried out and simply hope for the best to come about as a result. That is not an alternative, much less a potentially viable one that would be accepted by the public.

What has been done throughout this entire discussion, was yourself being lured into admitting to the uselessness of what is being presented by yourself, all done by an individual with no real stake or interest in the matter overall, so long as facts are being discussed. Facts have indeed been discussed, and the shortcomings of the aforementioned proposals being admitted to by yourself for everyone present to see, as it is acknowledged that mass shootings will continue unabated, all in the desperate hope that with the passage of enough time, enough so-called "assault weapons" will eventually fall out of circulation and make a difference, despite the fact it will take decades for such firearms to eventually be rendered inoperable due to parts breaking from not being available.

 

I described (as part of my proposal) due process. You said that's not how it currently works. So you are now saying that due process is not a necessity. Make up your mind!

No! In an effort to save lives. Point is that "no-fly list" is not part of my proposal. Which is obvious because it already exists. As I said, I believe it should be declared unconstitutional. But the Constitution ascribes the power to determine that to the SCOTUS. Not to me.

Nonsense. But irrelevant to the discussion about my proposals. As a matter of fact, this whole message is irrelevant to my proposals. Just a series of senseless rants about the size of bills, how you can't understand the language (I can't help you with your reading comprehension problems), the experts lawmakers use, how confused you are by the legislative process, ... And, from all this, your only comment about my proposals boils down to "they won't work", with nothing to support such statement.

So how can this not be a waste of time?

To you, Moral and Ethics are "character traits"?

Oh boy! No wonder you are in this predicament. No! Morals and Ethics are the whole point. Allowing people to die because "they are not worth saving" is objectively immoral. There are objective and universal moral principals that are above any law, the Constitution, any government... The very survival of our Species is predicated on these universal moral principle, Which are contrary to your statement.

So now you advocate Eugenics.... No surprise... Only thing noteworthy is that to use eugenics as an argument against my proposals is not only immoral, it's also ridiculous.

No no NO....!

No guns are outlawed in my proposal. Anybody who wants to keep them can do so. Only their sale is outlawed.

You haven't even read the proposals. So what are you doing here?

Commenting on something you haven't even read is just wasting our time. No need to respond to this post, as I will waste my time no more.

 

More accurately, it is the recognition that it is simply not possible for yourself to actually defend the proposals being put forth, when faced with tough questions relating to matters of enforcement, practicality, basic logic, basic human behavior, and a great many other factors that are not even given consideration during the drafting phase by those who have authored the proposals long before they were actually found by yourself. It is not possible for yourself to explain how any of the presented proposals would work, or what they would ultimately do that would directly translate into saving lives. It has been admitted by yourself that mass and school shootings will continue regardless, meaning nothing of relevance or significance has changed. Under the proposals presented by yourself, both students and educators will continue to be murdered in large numbers, because under the proposals the only one who will be armed will be the perpetrator, meaning everyone else will still remain unarmed and helpless, just as they are presently in a majority of the individual states.

What is being proposed by yourself are not viable alternatives to allowing educators to legally carry concealed firearms while performing their duties at facilities of learning. They are nothing more than further restrictions on the second amendment rights of united states citizens who actually obey the law, and do not go around murdering others, all based on the flawed notion of addressing the implement rather than the individuals that choose to misuse them against others, because such is more convenient and cannot be considered as discriminatory in nature.