"Guns for Tots"

[shanek]

No. I have not used a strawman once.

You said that the arguments I presented for one incident were meant to apply everywhere. That was a strawman.

You said that I claimed that police could be trained to recognize a toy gun painted to look real. That was a strawman.

You said that my points about the motivation behind the new law were the motivations behind the previoius law. That was a strawman.

You said that I had denied that accidental shootings of kids with toy guns at night happened. That was a strawman.

I'll go on the record here as stating that I think it's perfect acceptable to shoot someone who is using a toy gun as a real weapon. That is, if the toy gun looks like a real gun, points like a real gun, and the one pointing gives every indication it is a real gun, the officer is not in any way wrong for shooting said person.

And that's not at all different from what I've been saying. I think if you'd read what I actually wrote on the issue and not what you think I said, or believe I might say, then you'd see we're actually in agreement on this issue.

 

[Hazelip]

Shanek, you said that better training was required!

What better training do you propose to detect the difference between plastic and steel?

You have defined this issue as relating to one incident in NYC. I have demonstrated that it (banning toy guns) is occurring nationwide, for multiple reasons. I have even agreed with your conclusion that banning toys guns is absurd. I am not attempting to tear down your argument. If I were, that would be a strawman. I am not disagreeing with you. I am attempting to broaden the discussion.

Here is a list of questions for you to answer:

What was the original reason for a ban of realistic black and chrome toy guns in NYC?
What are the reasons for similar bannings in other cities across the U.S.?
Why do you claim that "better training" will help police officers to shoot only those wielding real guns?
What are those training methods?
How do they assist officers in detecting plastic from steel at a distance?

 

[a_unique_person]

You said that I claimed that police could be trained to recognize a toy gun painted to look real. That was a strawman.

"Sure. Ban toy guns. That'll cut down on the killings.

(Of course, that would probably make sense to those across the pond who made this same argument in the British gun threads...)

But the stupid thing is, the reason for the silly law is because apparently police can't tell the difference between a toy gun and a real gun, and shoot kids. Instead of training and punishing the police, their solution is to ban toy guns. Sheesh."

 

[shanek]

Geez, people, ASKED AND ANSWERED! If you're not even going to attempt to understand what I post, and insist on going with your knee-jerk strawmen arguments, what's the fscking point???

 

[Hazelip]

Geez, people, ASKED AND ANSWERED! If you're not even going to attempt to understand what I post, and insist on going with your knee-jerk strawmen arguments, what's the fscking point???

Shanek, if it's been asked and answered arleady, why don't you simply quote it from earlier in the thread. I don't see it. Unique doesn't see it. I'd wager that nobody can see it because it isn't there.

Keep calling it a strawman all you want if it makes you feel better.

 

[BillyTK]

(Of course, that would probably make sense to those across the pond who made this same argument in the British gun threads...)

And why in sam hill do we want kids to play with realistic toy guns? Not multicoloured plastic things with dayglo orange ends, but realistic metallic guns which even the police have a hard time differentiating from the real thing? Are we infringing on the kids fundamental rights to play with toy guns? Are we depriving them of their right to play at self defence? I don't hardly think so...

 

[shanek]

Shanek, if it's been asked and answered arleady, why don't you simply quote it from earlier in the thread. I don't see it. Unique doesn't see it. I'd wager that nobody can see it because it isn't there.

Keep calling it a strawman all you want if it makes you feel better.

How can I quote something I never said???

I have answered the strawman several times, as any scroll through the thread will see.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

Not multicoloured plastic things with dayglo orange ends, but realistic metallic guns

I'm unaware of any toy manufacturers that make realistic metallic guns. So your question is invalid.

But even if someone has a real gun, that alone isn't enough for a police to open fire. They have to at least be threatening someone else with it, in which case they want others to think it's a real gun, in which case the police can hardly be blamed for taking them out. On the other hand, if they aren't threatening anyone else with it, toy gun or no, the police have no business firing; and this is where the training comes in. Police are supposed to be able to tell the difference.

I really don't get what's so hard to understand about that!

 

[Hazelip]

Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

Police are supposed to be able to tell the difference.

I really don't get what's so hard to understand about that!

HOW? Tell me how training is going to help an officer tell the difference between realistic-looking plastic and a real steel gun.

That is the question you have refused to answer.

 

[Hazelip]

But the stupid thing is, the reason for the silly law is because apparently police can't tell the difference between a toy gun and a real gun, and shoot kids. Instead of training and punishing the police, their solution is to ban toy guns. Sheesh.

Explain what training method there is to detect the difference between realistic plastic guns and real steel guns. Explain why officers who are fooled by realistic-looking (or painted to be) plastic guns should be punished.

It's not the toy guns that lead to the deaths; it's the kids who spray-painted them black and used them to commit crimes!

So, you acknowledge there is a problem with identifying plastic guns that are made to look real but you want to punish police officers?

We're talking about people committing crimes with toy guns painted to look like real guns. These people deserved what they got, and the actions of the police were proper.

So...why would we punish these police officers?

But surely they can tell the difference between a Glock .40 and a day-glow green Super Squirter?

Super Squirter? Who's erecting the strawman here, Shanek? I thought this was about plastic guns that are being altered to appear real? You're substituting an over-sized water pistol to create an argument that detecting the difference between realistic-looking plastic guns and real guns is as simple as day glow colors. Failure to do so is deserving of punishment, but the officers are justified when they shoot those wielding such obvious (realistic-looking? Make up your mind here.) toys?

Which is it, Shanek? A colorful water pistol or a realistic-looking plastic gun?

Except that I don't think it's a mistake at all. The kids in question modified their toys specifically for the purpose of convincing others they were real guns, and committing crimes with them.

But the cops should be punished and trained better? Why?

First of all, accept that if someone modifies anything to look like a gun, and uses it to commit a crime, police have to respond accordingly. (That's actually the stupid thing about this--there's nothing at all wrong with the way the police responded to begin with.)

Second, recognize the methods that are already in place. One of your links mentioned the guy at a halloween party who was shot by a cop from outside even though no crime was being committed. The officer simply had no cause to fire.

I'm not proposing anything brand new or out of the ordinary. Just insisting that police be thoroughly trained in tried and true methods, which obviously isn't happening.

So, there's nothing wrong with police shooting people holding realistic toy guns, but you want the police punished when they do so. There are already "tried and true" methods, that you must know about or you wouldn't claim that they would work in these situations, but you won't describe them? The fact that a police officer, responding to a disturbance call at night, sees a realistic-looking Desert Eagle replica pointing at him, he is not justified in firing his weapon. But, in NYC, police officers who shoot people holding day-blow plastic guns painted and duct taped are justified...but you want them to be punished...and better trained?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
there is a perfect logical reason given for banning the toy guns given, although you may disagree with it.

Please state the logic, including all steps, premises and the lead to the conclusion.

Why is he required to justify his statements in such a strict fashion, and you're allowed to get by with "tried and true" methods without explanation or definition?

What would you propose the officers do? Should they be endowed with some dort of psychic powers that instantly tell them whether or not a gun is real or not?

But, but, but...I thought those "tried and true" methods were what worked? Which is it, Shanek? An officer needs mystical powers, or "tried and true" (whatever that means...you still won't explain those methods.) methods of deduction?

You said that the arguments I presented for one incident were meant to apply everywhere.

Well, children, toy guns, and police shooting people holding toy guns happen everywhere. But, I'm not permitted to bring that into the discussion because you want to restrict this to one event and one subsequent expansion of an existing law? Why?

Wait! I forgot! It's ok to bring other extraneous information into this discussion when it supports your view of things. Like the British ban of toy guns. So, if I talk about that, provide examples that contradict your view that would be permitted?

You said that I claimed that police could be trained to recognize a toy gun painted to look real. That was a strawman.

Well, what the heck does "I'm not proposing anything brand new or out of the ordinary. Just insisting that police be thoroughly trained in tried and true methods, which obviously isn't happening." mean?

Geez, people, ASKED AND ANSWERED! If you're not even going to attempt to understand what I post, and insist on going with your knee-jerk strawmen arguments, what's the fscking point???

And...

But even if someone has a real gun, that alone isn't enough for a police to open fire. They have to at least be threatening someone else with it, in which case they want others to think it's a real gun, in which case the police can hardly be blamed for taking them out. On the other hand, if they aren't threatening anyone else with it, toy gun or no, the police have no business firing; and this is where the training comes in. Police are supposed to be able to tell the difference.

I really don't get what's so hard to understand about that!

Hmmm...let's think this through. You think a Super Squirter is an appropriate example of a toy gun. You think the police need to be better trained. You think the police need to be psychic to tell the difference between a plastic and a real gun. You think the police should be absolved of shootings in which the guns are used in a threatening manner, realistic-looking or not. But, police are supposed to know the difference and you think they should be punished.

By the way, Shanek, whenever a police officer instructs you to drop your weapon, refusal to do so constitutes a threat to the officer. Lethal force is sanctioned.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

HOW? Tell me how training is going to help an officer tell the difference between realistic-looking plastic and a real steel gun.

That is the question you have refused to answer.

I never answered it because I NEVER CLAIMED IT!!!!!! GEEEEZ....

 

[shanek]

Explain what training method there is to detect the difference between realistic plastic guns and real steel guns. Explain why officers who are fooled by realistic-looking (or painted to be) plastic guns should be punished.

Strawman. I never said this.

So, you acknowledge there is a problem with identifying plastic guns that are made to look real but you want to punish police officers?

Strawman. I have said on several occasions that police are justified in that scenario.

So...why would we punish these police officers?

As I have repeatedly said, we shouldn't.

(rest of the drivel deleted)

Not one thing you said...NOT ONE THING...matches any claim I've made in this entire thread. And I've clarified it so many times in so many different ways it's ridiculous to think that any reasonable person could still misunderstand me.

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

It's only as silly as the law they're protesting.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WABC_020503_gunsftots.html



Sure. Ban toy guns. That'll cut down on the killings.

(Of course, that would probably make sense to those across the pond who made this same argument in the British gun threads...)

No, most people across the pond were arguing about banning replica guns, not toy guns.

 

[BillyTK]

Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

I'm unaware of any toy manufacturers that make realistic metallic guns. So your question is invalid.

The question's not invalid. Being unaware of an instance of some phenomenom does not invalidate an argument anyway, but regardless--have a look at the photo at the end of the link. Read the article. You made the comment about the argument making sense *over here*, here's a chance to familiarise yourself with the situation.

But even if someone has a real gun, that alone isn't enough for a police to open fire. They have to at least be threatening someone else with it, in which case they want others to think it's a real gun, in which case the police can hardly be blamed for taking them out. On the other hand, if they aren't threatening anyone else with it, toy gun or no, the police have no business firing; and this is where the training comes in. Police are supposed to be able to tell the difference.

I really don't get what's so hard to understand about that!

Ummm--okay. I'm not actually arguing justifications for police to open fire. You confuse me with Hazelip, perchance?

Edited for grammar

 

[Troll]

Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

And why in sam hill do we want kids to play with realistic toy guns? Not multicoloured plastic things with dayglo orange ends, but realistic metallic guns which even the police have a hard time differentiating from the real thing? Are we infringing on the kids fundamental rights to play with toy guns? Are we depriving them of their right to play at self defence? I don't hardly think so...

The proposal in NY does though. The "across the pond" comment, and I'm guessing here but I think I know Shanek's views on the matter and have seen him go through this a billion times with people across the pond well enough to know that he was simply commenting on your willingness to give up individual rights and accept the ban of inanimate objects and blame those objects for crimes and atrocities as opposed to actually concerning yourself with the fact that some people just suck and will ◊◊◊◊ ya no matter what ya do

 

[Troll]

Re: Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

The question's not invalid. Being unaware of an instance of some phenomenom does not invalidate an argument anyway, but regardless--have a look at the photo at the end of the link. Read the article. You made the comment about the argument making sense *over here*, here's a chance to familiarise yourself with the situation.



Ummm--okay. I'm not actually arguing justifications for police to open fire. You confuse me with Hazelip, perchance?

Edited for grammar

the point is, realistic looking or not, it's the threat that matters.

If I walk into a store and have a .357 in a shoulder holster and the clerk sees it, it's not a threat to him. If I reach for it or stick it in his face, it's a threat. The fact is you don't shoot or kill a non-threat. That's excessive force.

 

[BillyTK]

Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

The proposal in NY does though.

This pertains to what? I wasn't responding to that.

The "across the pond" comment,

Which is the comment I was responding to

and I'm guessing here but I think I know Shanek's views on the matter and have seen him go through this a billion times with people across the pond well enough to know that he was simply commenting

And if I was telepathic as well, I'd presume he made the comment to provoke a response. What's your point exactly?

on your willingness to give up individual rights

Which rights exactly? Is there a fundamental right to own realistic looking toy guns?

and accept the ban of inanimate objects and blame those objects for crimes and atrocities

Strawman

as opposed to actually concerning yourself with the fact that some people just suck and will ◊◊◊◊ ya no matter what ya do

Fact? Please provide supporting evidence. Exactly what recommendations are you making here? That we should just accept some people are bad? And do what? Please clarify if this is an inaccurate representation of your view.

 

[BillyTK]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

the point is, realistic looking or not, it's the threat that matters.

If I walk into a store and have a .357 in a shoulder holster and the clerk sees it, it's not a threat to him. If I reach for it or stick it in his face, it's a threat. The fact is you don't shoot or kill a non-threat. That's excessive force.

As I explained to Shanek, I'm not actually arguing this point.

 

[Troll]

Re: Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

This pertains to what? I wasn't responding to that.

Are we infringing on the kids fundamental rights to play with toy guns?/

Which is the comment I was responding to

And if I was telepathic as well, I'd presume he made the comment to provoke a response. What's your point exactly?

Which rights exactly? Is there a fundamental right to own realistic looking toy guns?

Strawman

Fact? Please provide supporting evidence. Exactly what recommendations are you making here? That we should just accept some people are bad? And do what? Please clarify if this is an inaccurate representation of your view.

yes you responded to the "across the pond" comment. I responded to that and explained it. Don't try ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ playing with me here. I know you too well from othe places already.

Is there not a right to own something that cannot harm someone in your country? It's not a matter of a fundamental right to own a realistic toy gun. It's a matter of banning the right to do so.

and yeah, accept that even with the gun ban you have over there, gun crimes have increased. Why? Because you're all too freaking daft to understand the simple fact that criminals and the criminal element do not abide by the freaking law. Simple

 

[BillyTK]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

yes you responded to the "across the pond" comment. I responded to that and explained it. Don't try ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ playing with me here. I know you too well from othe places already.

Is there not a right to own something that cannot harm someone in your country? It's not a matter of a fundamental right to own a realistic toy gun. It's a matter of banning the right to do so.

and yeah, accept that even with the gun ban you have over there, gun crimes have increased. Why? Because you're all too freaking daft to understand the simple fact that criminals and the criminal element do not abide by the freaking law. Simple

This supports your claims how exactly? And could you please respond in a civil manner?