"Guns for Tots"

[Guest]

About the proposed law before the City Council:

City Councilman David Weprin, Queens (D): "I think we're going to prevent a number of incidents in the future. If we save one life it's worthwile."

Yeah. And kids can't fight back or vote.

 

[Hazelip]

Why don't you read what I wrote? The shootings in question occured when some kids modified their guns to look real and used them to commit a crime! Sheesh...

I'm sorry, but the issue of toy guns is more than just one incident. There is a history of children being shot by accident by police officers, often at night. You can restrict your view of the banning movement to just one incident, but that does not make you right.

http://www.oxnardpd.org/toyguns.htm

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, it seems that stupidity reigns supreme.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WABC_020603_gunsftots_folo.html



Wanting something from you??? What exactly were they wanting from you, Mr. or Mrs. Harlem Resident? They were GIVING STUFF AWAY!!!!

they were cynically using them to generate publicity.

 

[shanek]

they were cynically using them to generate publicity.

No, they wer trying to call attention to a bad law being proposed.

But, knowing you, banning toy guns probably makes perfect sense to you...

 

[shanek]

I'm sorry, but the issue of toy guns is more than just one incident. There is a history of children being shot by accident by police officers, often at night. You can restrict your view of the banning movement to just one incident, but that does not make you right.

Congratulations. Your strawman just officially became a lie.

 

[Hazelip]

Congratulations. Your strawman just officially became a lie.

Excuse me? Toy guns are being banned across the entire country city by city. Most of the reasoning behind these bannings is accidental shootings.

I never even said that banning the toy guns was a good idea. I happen to agree with you. Your premise that cops just need to be trained better, however, is ludicrous. I'm attempting to get you to see things outside your tight-lid Libertarian boxed view of the world of New York.

There is no strawman involved. I am not attempting to substitute one situation for another. I'm putting forth that the issue is far more complex than just people using toy guns to commit crimes. I concede that does happen. I concede that banning toys guns is not the answer. You, however, have such an insular view of the matter, that you refuse to acknowledge all the children who are shot at night holding unpainted toy guns. There is no lying or deception involved.

A Google cached page on gun safety for children addressing the issue of accidental shootings by police.

Toy gun bannings in Texas.

A grown man is shot on Halloween, at night holding a toy Desert Eagle.

East Brunswick, NJ officer nearly shoots a boy with a pellet gun.

Chicago ordinance against toy guns.

18 year old kid getting himself killed with a toy rifle...at night.

Lubbock teen shot and killed after pointing toy gun at cops. And deserved it.

Oaklahoma cop comes close to shooting another stupid kid with a toy gun.

In Racine, WI cops order a boy out of a car and handcuff him for playing with a Laser Tag gun.

Jacksonville, Fl police officers shoot a man walking out of a room in his home holding, not pointing, a toy gun.

As you can see, the issue of toy guns isn't so confined to a single incident as you would make it out to be. Yes, the recent robbery shootings may have been a catalyst, but it was already illegal to sell black or chrome toy guns in NYC. Those restrictions preceded the incident to which you are adhering as your shining example of lunacy. The issue is actually much more broad and common than a single robbery shooting in NYC. Open your eyes just a little bit, and you'll see that it isn't so cut-and-dry as you would make it appear to be.

 

[shanek]

Excuse me?

Excused. I'm talking about one local law and the motivations thereof. You're trying to say I'm claiming something completely different.

 

[Hazelip]

Excused. I'm talking about one local law and the motivations thereof. You're trying to say I'm claiming something completely different.

You can't. There was already an existing ban. Without addressing the reasoning behind that ban, you can't adequately address this proposed expansion.

I'm not saying you're claiming anything different than you are. You claim this current expansion is the direct result of a single incident, and I'm pointing out that you are deliberately ignoring the significance of the pre-existing ban and the reasons behind it. You simply cannot take such a limited view of a situation with pre-existing conditions. That would be like claiming the common cold a killer of those affected with AIDS while ignoring the fact that AIDS inhibits the immune system needed to fight the common cold...

 

[shanek]

You can't. There was already an existing ban. Without addressing the reasoning behind that ban, you can't adequately address this proposed expansion.

Are you saying that the expansion of any given government power is done for the reasons government was originally given that power to begin with? Because I can provide a great many examples showing otherwise.

 

[Hazelip]

Are you saying that the expansion of any given government power is done for the reasons government was originally given that power to begin with? Because I can provide a great many examples showing otherwise.

Shanek, keep trying to twist and turn, but it won't change anything. You want to talk about one law. That's what I was addressing. However, you refuse to acknowledge that a ban on toy guns was already in place in NYC, and you want to isolate the current movement to ban to a single incident involving a robbery using toy guns that were altered to look like real guns.

I'm not getting into some esoteric theory debate about the nature of government. I'm not here to discuss Libertarian views in the post modern society, or some other silly extraneous horse ◊◊◊◊.

I'm not trying to substitute anything you're positing, I'm trying to demonstrate that this single law is not an isolated law. It's happening in Texas. It's happening in California. It's happening for reasons other than someone committing a robbery with a toy gun. Children are getting shot by police while holding toy guns.

I have agreed with you that banning toy guns is not the answer. You have steadfastly refused to provide just how one would train a police force to immediately, and accurately distinguish between a toy and real gun.

You simply must acknowledge that the issue of toy guns and police is far more broad than people using toy guns to commit crimes. You simply must acknowledge that toy guns present an impossible challenge to police officers.

That's it. I'm not saying that you're wrong about objecting to the banning of toy guns. I'm saying you're wrong to confine your view of the issue to one criminal incident and the resulting expansion of a previous law without taking into account the nature behind the previous law.

 

[shanek]

However, you refuse to acknowledge that a ban on toy guns was already in place in NYC,

Where have I refused to acknowledge such?

and you want to isolate the current movement to ban to a single incident involving a robbery using toy guns that were altered to look like real guns.

Gee, couldn't be because the current movement is based on exactly that?

I'm not getting into some esoteric theory debate about the nature of government. I'm not here to discuss Libertarian views in the post modern society, or some other silly extraneous horse ◊◊◊◊.

Thank you for exposing your bias.

I'm not trying to substitute anything you're positing,[/]b

Yes, you are! I never said one thing about preceding laws in New York or any other laws regarding toy guns anywhere else in the country. You brought those in.

You have steadfastly refused to provide just how one would train a police force to immediately, and accurately distinguish between a toy and real gun.

Not true. I answered that in this very thread.

 

[Hazelip]

Shanek, no matter how badly you want it to be, this issue is not so black and white.

Tell me, since I just read the thread over and I don't see any of your training suggestions, what exactly is your training suggestion?

You're right I brought all that other stuff in. Because the issue is far more complex than just one shooting in NYC. The fact that there was an existing ban in place is demonstrative of the fact that the city was aware of the same or other issues prompting the prior ban. To be willfully ignorant of that fact is absurd. To imply that only NYC is banning guns is absurd. To imply that other cities are banning guns for the very same issue is absurd. Toy guns exist outside NYC, you know...

 

[shanek]

Tell me, since I just read the thread over and I don't see any of your training suggestions, what exactly is your training suggestion?

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.

 

[Hazelip]

Actually, Shanek, the Halloween party story involved the man with the replica Desert Eagle turning around while aiming his gun at the officers. Since it was a costume party, he may have assumed the cops weren't really cops. The cops just opened up on reflex.

Still, however, you're being vague about these "tried and true" methods to detect painted plastic from 30 feet or more. There is no possible way to tell the difference in the split second needed for a cop to make a judgment regarding the authenticity of a gun aimed at him or her. None.

 

[a_unique_person]

No, they wer trying to call attention to a bad law being proposed.

But, knowing you, banning toy guns probably makes perfect sense to you...

there is a perfect logical reason given for banning the toy guns given, although you may disagree with it. their publicity stunt used the residents.

those handing out the guns, if they had some genuine concern, might have found something more constructive to do with their time.

 

[a_unique_person]

Why don't you read what I wrote? The shootings in question occured when some kids modified their guns to look real and used them to commit a crime! Sheesh...

so 'criminals' get shot, and everything is ok. perhaps they parents who loved them wanted to prevent them getting involved in crime.

 

[shanek]

Actually, Shanek, the Halloween party story involved the man with the replica Desert Eagle turning around while aiming his gun at the officers.

If it's the same story I'm thinking about, the officers were outside in the dark where the man couldn't even see them. As he turned, his weapon happened to be pointed out the window and the officer fired.

Still, however, you're being vague about these "tried and true" methods to detect painted plastic from 30 feet or more.

Yet another strawman. I have said repeatedly that the officers who shot at the ones holding the weapons painted to look real were justified.

 

[shanek]

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.

their publicity stunt used the residents.

They weren't "using" them. They were trying to make them aware of the proposed law and how ridiculous it is.

 

[shanek]

so 'criminals' get shot, and everything is ok.

Never said it. Stop lying.

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?

perhaps they parents who loved them wanted to prevent them getting involved in crime.

If so, they likely wouldn't have committed any crime. I've already produced copious evidence of that.

 

[Hazelip]

Yet another strawman. I have said repeatedly that the officers who shot at the ones holding the weapons painted to look real were justified.

No. I have not used a strawman once. I know you're desperate for me to, but I have not. I have attempted to illustrate how wide the scope of toy gun banning is and you have steadfastly refused it.

Furthermore, you have not actually stated how a police officer is to detect if a gun pointed directly at him, or civilians, is plastic or steel. So, Shanek, what are these miraculous training methods to which you refer?

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.

With that out in the open, how can you say that "better training" will prevent officers from shooting people holding realistic toy guns? It's a simple question, and no strawman at all. I'm asking you to defend your own proposition.