135 replies to this topic

[SeaBeeGipson]

All you'll do it redirect targets, not prevent it.  

 

My point. Right here. Spelt out.

You CAN"T stop it, but you can redirect it or limit it. That's the goal. If you believe ridding a country of guns reduces violence, it doesn't. It REDIRECTS the weaponry of choice, or redirects how one goes about it. As far as the walrus statement, if you truly believe a hard target has just the same odds as getting hit as a soft target, it is delusional. The problems with organized terrorism and your run-of-the-mill domestic terrorist equal the same ideology, but with different means to obtain it. Organized terrorism can produce larger weaponry (usually illegal), but your domestic terrorist will just change routes. Like stated, banning guns won't stop an anger, mentally ill person from making a shit ton of molotavs and just tossing them at people. It wouldn't stop someone from driving a truck full of explosives into a building. It wouldn't stop someone from obtaining a knife. Running a parade over with your car/truck. It does not stop evil actions. Equating domestic terrorist to organized terrorist does equate to they will always find a way to do damage. Banning guns won't solve anything.

All that security is reactive, if someone walks in with a rifle the best it can do is limit the issue, not prevent it. Unless you get very very lucky, an armed teacher can respond after the first shot is fired. Which you know, if you consider 15-20 kids getting shot instead of 30+ a good deal, may be worth it...but that's a pretty shit metric for a solution.   

This is why guns are needed. Exactly what you stated. An armed teacher can only respond after the first shot is fired. How much longer would someone wait for a police officer? An SRO at the school might have to wait for backup before reacting. Teachers can provide that initial backup since, at least around here, they are provided the immediate response training necessary. A long, buckled down gun fight? Probably not, but that gives time for SWAT and police to respond. A quick response is better than a prolonged one. If you were at the mall, and someone set the mall on fire. Nothing could stop the initial fire from happening, because someone in love with arson wants to start a fire. Does that mean you wait for the fire department to arrive, or does the mall have sprinklers to try and tackle the fire initially? Fire extinguishers to tackle it initially? You can't put out a fire that isn't there yet, but you can change how you react. Faster reaction = better. If that is a shit metric to follow in a world where violence won't ever go away, I'll take my shit metric every time.

The reason why an AR-15 isn't traditional used as a hunting rifle is because it DOESN'T have the stopping power needed for bigger game. The irrational fear of it being the most dangerous weaponry available is unrealistic. It does, however, provide therapy. Myself included. Going to the range and having to calm down, take the time to watch your breathe, make far off shots, that is relaxing. Customizing a gun that is just yours is relaxing. It feels accomplished and prideful to look at something you made. This is that culture you speak of. It isn't a culture of fantasting about a gun to go out and shoot people. Anyone with that mentality shouldn't have a gun to begin with. The "man-card" idea is the same as cars. Guys love cars. We argue over brands and models. Ford vs Chevy, Camaro vs Mustang, etc, etc. We argue over Colt vs Sig. 1911 vs any other handgun. M4 vs M16. It's not a culture designed to be violent. It is a culture designed for our interests and hobbies.  My girlfriend's brother and my girlfriend have been trying to get me and a few buddies into air soft. Haven't tried it yet. Interested to see how therapeutic that can be. I just bought a rifle the other day, though apparently I need a mask and stuff. lol.

[DeathMerchant]

 

The NRA is one of the greatest fucking cons in the US however. They don't support individual rights, and they don't represent gun owners. They're a marketing and lobbying tool for gun manufacturers

 

 

That is why I let my NRA membership expire years ago. Sadly, its mostly become all about marketing, building up hype, and getting donations. Seeing the NRA cave on certain issues, or hear them talk about doing something in a specific state and then doing absolutely nothing, really convinced me it was time to move on.

 

Come to think of it, I don't really get why the NRA gets so much hate from Liberals. Because if you take a look at history, thanks to NRA support in one way or another, we have:

 

1934 National Firearms Act (NRA was all for this)

1968 Gun Control Act (NRA endorsed it in exchange for some provisions)

1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (The NRA helped write the Bill)

2017 NRA requested the ATF reevaluate the bumpstock ruling

 

Those are all things on the Federal level, get down to the State level and it becomes even more apparent the NRA doesn't do much to enforce individual rights, except when it can be used as positive outcomes for the NRA.

 

To an extent I still feel the NRA does some good. The Eddie Eagle Program, offering training to those who want to learn safe shooting fundamentals, and helping to preserve historic/museum grade firearms. But apart from that I don't have much love for the NRA.

 

I've found GOA (Gun Owners of America), to be one of the few firearm organizations that actually seems to care about the right's of the individual. I do like their attitude of "Not one inch." No caving, no carve outs, no sell outs. All of which the NRA has been guilty of many times.

[Lysistrata]

My girlfriend's brother and my girlfriend have been trying to get me and a few buddies into air soft.

OH DUDE! I just checked out some youtube videos of airsoft, and you so have to do this. I played paintball war games for about 5 years in the late 80's and early 90's. We had hundreds of players, and we wrecked the savage jungles of Orange County California. It was the most insane physical challenge ever... but hands down the best game I ever played, entirely way too much fun. I couldn't possibly do it now... ageing sucks, but this airsoft looks so much sleeker, much more accurate, but just as exhilarating. I wish I could turn back a bit, and join you!

[DeathMerchant]

I can attest to Airsoft being incredibly fun. Whether you play random games, use it for training, or attend large scale MILSIM events modeled after real world combat, it will be very enjoyable.

I used to play Airsoft from 2007-2011, and it was some of the best moments of my life. I met some awesome people and I have some great stories to tell.

[Lysistrata]

If we make guns illegal, then nobody will get shot anymore.

That's how we stopped everybody from doing drugs.

[Rand0m her0]

 

All you'll do it redirect targets, not prevent it.  

 

My point. Right here. Spelt out.

You CAN"T stop it, but you can redirect it or limit it. That's the goal. If you believe ridding a country of guns reduces violence, it doesn't. It REDIRECTS the weaponry of choice, or redirects how one goes about it. As far as the walrus statement, if you truly believe a hard target has just the same odds as getting hit as a soft target, it is delusional. The problems with organized terrorism and your run-of-the-mill domestic terrorist equal the same ideology, but with different means to obtain it. Organized terrorism can produce larger weaponry (usually illegal), but your domestic terrorist will just change routes. Like stated, banning guns won't stop an anger, mentally ill person from making a shit ton of molotavs and just tossing them at people. It wouldn't stop someone from driving a truck full of explosives into a building. It wouldn't stop someone from obtaining a knife. Running a parade over with your car/truck. It does not stop evil actions. Equating domestic terrorist to organized terrorist does equate to they will always find a way to do damage. Banning guns won't solve anything.

 

All that security is reactive, if someone walks in with a rifle the best it can do is limit the issue, not prevent it. Unless you get very very lucky, an armed teacher can respond after the first shot is fired. Which you know, if you consider 15-20 kids getting shot instead of 30+ a good deal, may be worth it...but that's a pretty shit metric for a solution.   

This is why guns are needed. Exactly what you stated. An armed teacher can only respond after the first shot is fired. How much longer would someone wait for a police officer? An SRO at the school might have to wait for backup before reacting. Teachers can provide that initial backup since, at least around here, they are provided the immediate response training necessary. A long, buckled down gun fight? Probably not, but that gives time for SWAT and police to respond. A quick response is better than a prolonged one. If you were at the mall, and someone set the mall on fire. Nothing could stop the initial fire from happening, because someone in love with arson wants to start a fire. Does that mean you wait for the fire department to arrive, or does the mall have sprinklers to try and tackle the fire initially? Fire extinguishers to tackle it initially? You can't put out a fire that isn't there yet, but you can change how you react. Faster reaction = better. If that is a shit metric to follow in a world where violence won't ever go away, I'll take my shit metric every time.

The reason why an AR-15 isn't traditional used as a hunting rifle is because it DOESN'T have the stopping power needed for bigger game. The irrational fear of it being the most dangerous weaponry available is unrealistic. It does, however, provide therapy. Myself included. Going to the range and having to calm down, take the time to watch your breathe, make far off shots, that is relaxing. Customizing a gun that is just yours is relaxing. It feels accomplished and prideful to look at something you made. This is that culture you speak of. It isn't a culture of fantasting about a gun to go out and shoot people. Anyone with that mentality shouldn't have a gun to begin with. The "man-card" idea is the same as cars. Guys love cars. We argue over brands and models. Ford vs Chevy, Camaro vs Mustang, etc, etc. We argue over Colt vs Sig. 1911 vs any other handgun. M4 vs M16. It's not a culture designed to be violent. It is a culture designed for our interests and hobbies.  My girlfriend's brother and my girlfriend have been trying to get me and a few buddies into air soft. Haven't tried it yet. Interested to see how therapeutic that can be. I just bought a rifle the other day, though apparently I need a mask and stuff. lol.

 

 

Most of what you've said either simultaneously fails the reality check, or is irrelevant to anything said in the thread. 

 

Despite having half the population the USA has seen more mass shootings this year (an i do mean since january) than europe has seen in the last 5. If you exclude what usually gets labeled as "terrorist attacks" in that they have some political motivation, from both the lists: The last major mass killing in europe was in 2013. The last one in the USA before this one...was January. The last one before that was november 2017. The last one before that was also november. The last one before that was october. On and on.

or in short: "There is nothing that can be done to prevent this says only nation in the world where this happens on a regular basis" 

 

 

 

 

This is that culture you speak of. It isn't a culture of fantasting about a gun to go out and shoot people. Anyone with that mentality shouldn't have a gun to begin with. The "man-card" idea is the same as cars. Guys love cars. We argue over brands and models. 

 

 

 If you fail to make a distinction between a  sports car and a weapon then I'm not even sure where to start. A gun if first and always a device designed to kill.  It is not a toy. it is sure as shit not a surrogate dick by which someone can feel secure in their manhood. That sort of attitude frankly vile and disturbing and it's one that permeates much of american gun culture. 

 

 

 

 Arming teachers is pure theater. It won't prevent this, it doesn't address the problem, and demands teachers take risks with their own lives and the lives of their students in an attempt to "stop" the attack. it's idiotic. You know why teachers being armed isn't a thing? Every time the proposal comes up, teachers, the teachers unions, parents, the educational board and bascily everyone involved goes "this is a bad idea" and then it dies. 

 

And again, *this doesn't happen anywhere else*   the "solution" elsewhere hasn't been "draft teachers to do the job of an armed response team." 

 

The problem isn't guns, the problem isn't even mass shootings, the problem is America. 

 

 

[Fox Fire]

An SRO at the school might have to wait for backup before reacting

Screw that! They are the only other person with a gun. They should be running towards the gun fire, not hiding behind their desks waiting for backup. Otherwise, why the fuck are they even there to begin with?

 

The reason why an AR-15 isn't traditional used as a hunting rifle is because it DOESN'T have the stopping power needed for bigger game.

I beg to differ. I mean it's not going to stop something too big, but I've brought down deer with my .223. Aside from that, AR-15s come in numerous different rounds. Though I would never use one for hunting just because semi-auto and large mag seems like unfair overkill for most hunting. 

 

 

 

 

The NRA is one of the greatest fucking cons in the US however. They don't support individual rights, and they don't represent gun owners. They're a marketing and lobbying tool for gun manufacturers

 

 

That is why I let my NRA membership expire years ago. Sadly, its mostly become all about marketing, building up hype, and getting donations. Seeing the NRA cave on certain issues, or hear them talk about doing something in a specific state and then doing absolutely nothing, really convinced me it was time to move on.

 

Come to think of it, I don't really get why the NRA gets so much hate from Liberals. Because if you take a look at history, thanks to NRA support in one way or another, we have:

 

1934 National Firearms Act (NRA was all for this)

1968 Gun Control Act (NRA endorsed it in exchange for some provisions)

1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (The NRA helped write the Bill)

2017 NRA requested the ATF reevaluate the bumpstock ruling

 

Those are all things on the Federal level, get down to the State level and it becomes even more apparent the NRA doesn't do much to enforce individual rights, except when it can be used as positive outcomes for the NRA.

 

To an extent I still feel the NRA does some good. The Eddie Eagle Program, offering training to those who want to learn safe shooting fundamentals, and helping to preserve historic/museum grade firearms. But apart from that I don't have much love for the NRA.

 

I've found GOA (Gun Owners of America), to be one of the few firearm organizations that actually seems to care about the right's of the individual. I do like their attitude of "Not one inch." No caving, no carve outs, no sell outs. All of which the NRA has been guilty of many times.

 

I've never been an NRA member and never found them appealing. It is ironic how they are so hated by liberals despite their lobbying for gun control. The whole bump stock debate in particular was interesting to watch people ignore the NRAs opinion on. 

 

Most of what you've said either simultaneously fails the reality check, or is irrelevant to anything said in the thread.    Despite having half the population the USA has seen more mass shootings this year (an i do mean since january) than europe has seen in the last 5. If you exclude what usually gets labeled as "terrorist attacks" in that they have some political motivation, from both the lists: The last major mass killing in europe was in 2013. The last one in the USA before this one...was January. The last one before that was november 2017. The last one before that was also november. The last one before that was october. On and on. or in short: "There is nothing that can be done to prevent this says only nation in the world where this happens on a regular basis" 

We already know from statistics that stricter gun regulations and bans do not reduce gun violence. The fact that areas with the highest gun control have the highest rates of gun violence is quite evident. And why are you so obsessed with mass shootings? Again, that is an almost irrelevant fraction of American gun violence. 

 

If you fail to make a distinction between a  sports car and a weapon then I'm not even sure where to start. A gun if first and always a device designed to kill.  It is not a toy.

No it is not. That doesn't mean it can't be used for entertainment. 

 

And again, *this doesn't happen anywhere else*

Oh for sure! This doesn't happen anywhere else! Stop gobbling up and regurgitating the medias lies. Europe is comparatively just as bad if not worse. 

[onbekende]

And we devolved into people thinking "gun control" is "no guns".

 

 

swell...

 

 

 

And as for the bazooka's, while some throw alot of cash towards guns, if $$ can keep people away from using them, lets add some taxes

[Rand0m her0]

 

An SRO at the school might have to wait for backup before reacting

Screw that! They are the only other person with a gun. They should be running towards the gun fire, not hiding behind their desks waiting for backup. Otherwise, why the fuck are they even there to begin with?

 

 

 

The reason why an AR-15 isn't traditional used as a hunting rifle is because it DOESN'T have the stopping power needed for bigger game.

I beg to differ. I mean it's not going to stop something too big, but I've brought down deer with my .223. Aside from that, AR-15s come in numerous different rounds. Though I would never use one for hunting just because semi-auto and large mag seems like unfair overkill for most hunting. 

 

 

 

 

The NRA is one of the greatest fucking cons in the US however. They don't support individual rights, and they don't represent gun owners. They're a marketing and lobbying tool for gun manufacturers

 

 

That is why I let my NRA membership expire years ago. Sadly, its mostly become all about marketing, building up hype, and getting donations. Seeing the NRA cave on certain issues, or hear them talk about doing something in a specific state and then doing absolutely nothing, really convinced me it was time to move on.

 

Come to think of it, I don't really get why the NRA gets so much hate from Liberals. Because if you take a look at history, thanks to NRA support in one way or another, we have:

 

1934 National Firearms Act (NRA was all for this)

1968 Gun Control Act (NRA endorsed it in exchange for some provisions)

1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (The NRA helped write the Bill)

2017 NRA requested the ATF reevaluate the bumpstock ruling

 

Those are all things on the Federal level, get down to the State level and it becomes even more apparent the NRA doesn't do much to enforce individual rights, except when it can be used as positive outcomes for the NRA.

 

To an extent I still feel the NRA does some good. The Eddie Eagle Program, offering training to those who want to learn safe shooting fundamentals, and helping to preserve historic/museum grade firearms. But apart from that I don't have much love for the NRA.

 

I've found GOA (Gun Owners of America), to be one of the few firearm organizations that actually seems to care about the right's of the individual. I do like their attitude of "Not one inch." No caving, no carve outs, no sell outs. All of which the NRA has been guilty of many times.

 

I've never been an NRA member and never found them appealing. It is ironic how they are so hated by liberals despite their lobbying for gun control. The whole bump stock debate in particular was interesting to watch people ignore the NRAs opinion on. 

 

 

 

Most of what you've said either simultaneously fails the reality check, or is irrelevant to anything said in the thread.    Despite having half the population the USA has seen more mass shootings this year (an i do mean since january) than europe has seen in the last 5. If you exclude what usually gets labeled as "terrorist attacks" in that they have some political motivation, from both the lists: The last major mass killing in europe was in 2013. The last one in the USA before this one...was January. The last one before that was november 2017. The last one before that was also november. The last one before that was october. On and on. or in short: "There is nothing that can be done to prevent this says only nation in the world where this happens on a regular basis" 

We already know from statistics that stricter gun regulations and bans do not reduce gun violence. The fact that areas with the highest gun control have the highest rates of gun violence is quite evident. And why are you so obsessed with mass shootings? Again, that is an almost irrelevant fraction of American gun violence. 

 

 

Oh for sure! This doesn't happen anywhere else! Stop gobbling up and regurgitating the medias lies. Europe is comparatively just as bad if not worse. 

 

 

 

I'ma keep this really short: The CPRC is yet another gun industry lobbying tool. It literally has the tagline "More guns"

 

Frankly I can't even begin to describe how fundamentally flawed there. It equates general homicides, terrorists acts, cherry picks data across europe over 3, proceeds to then role in information from outside of europe, often dating to periods of political instability, jerks off about casualties, and and is littrealying lying in a few cases because no there were way more than 29  mass shootings in the USA between 

 

Even if you take that statistic, Europe has over twice the US's population. So yay 25 mass shootings (many of which were political/religious terrorism related and aren't comparable phenomena) compared to 29 in the USA. But massive population disparity between the two.

 

 

Also your just...

 

We already know from statistics that stricter gun regulations and bans do not reduce gun violence. The fact that areas with the highest gun control have the highest rates of gun violence is quite evident. And why are you so obsessed with mass shootings? Again, that is an almost irrelevant fraction of American gun violence. 

 

 

What the hell even is this? Any statistic that claims to measure if banning guns reduce gun violence is lying through its teeth. No such data exists. *no one bans guns*. Wana go to canada? You can have a gun. Wanna go to france? You can have a  gun. Wanna go to switzerland? If you're talking to someone over 18, they probably can shoot better than the average american. Wana head anywhere in eastern europe? The rate of gun ownership out there is often higher than in the USA. 

 

 

And why are you so obsessed with mass shootings? Again, that is an almost irrelevant fraction of American gun violence. 

 

 

 

Hey you know drunk driving is behind such a tiny percentage of america traffic deaths, why not repeal those laws, it's not a big deal. 

 

 

just really

[Fox Fire]

I'ma keep this really short: The CPRC is yet another gun industry lobbying tool. It literally has the tagline "More guns"   Frankly I can't even begin to describe how fundamentally flawed there. It equates general homicides, terrorists acts, cherry picks data across europe over 3, proceeds to then role in information from outside of europe, often dating to periods of political instability, jerks off about casualties, and and is littrealying lying in a few cases because no there were way more than 29  mass shootings in the USA between    Even if you take that statistic, Europe has over twice the US's population. So yay 25 mass shootings (many of which were political/religious terrorism related and aren't comparable phenomena) compared to 29 in the USA. But massive population disparity between the two.

It is a conservative research center, having worked for one myself I'm sure it has bias, but even with bias statistics, it still shows that the US is not the only place this happens. Originally I was just going to compile a huge list of European mass shootings but got lazy. I think terrorist acts of mass shootings and other general mass shootings are equally comparable in this case and should both be included. We've had numerous shootings that were or may (we don't know) be based on terrorism. Either way, both are related to the issue of gun control. 

 

 

 

What the hell even is this? Any statistic that claims to measure if banning guns reduce gun violence is lying through its teeth. No such data exists. *no one bans guns*. Wana go to canada? You can have a gun. Wanna go to france? You can have a  gun. Wanna go to switzerland? If you're talking to someone over 18, they probably can shoot better than the average american. Wana head anywhere in eastern europe? The rate of gun ownership out there is often higher than in the USA. 

 

By ban guns I mean ban certain type of guns or ban them all together. Yes, places do do that.

Idaho has a high gun death rate at 14.7 deaths per 100,000 people, but a homicide rate of only 2.0 per 100,000 people. Less than half the national average. (2015)

San Diegos homicide rate (smaller population than Idaho) was 2.7 per 100,000 people. (2015)

Also, Russias homicide rate is about twice as high as the US, despite having far more gun restrictions. 

You said yourself, the problem isn't guns, it's America.

 

 

 

Hey you know drunk driving is behind such a tiny percentage of america traffic deaths, why not repeal those laws, it's not a big deal. 

You're comparing apples to oranges here. On the issue of guns there are no laws to be repealed, only laws to be implemented. 

Also, cars actually kill far more people than guns. Drunk driving accounts for nearly 1/3 of all vehicle related deaths in the US and the rate of drunk driving deaths is very comparable if not almost identical to firearms related deaths in any given year. 

[Sister Midnight]

I thought this was interesting:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PIFiJdw0uME

[Lysistrata]

I thought this was interesting:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PIFiJdw0uME

Are you sitting down Sister? If this is real, and not staged, then you just showed me a real problem, and I agree with you. You would think a parent or adult guardian would have to make this purchase. I have seen many instances where liberal media has edited videos and recordings to advance their agenda. I also believe if this is true, then that guy that sold that weapon to the kid would at least lose his license. But then again... it was a bolt action single shot rifle, which may be different law, depending on the state. I don't know... DM could chime in and clear that up for us.

 

If someone is buying a semi-automatic, and enough ammo to fill a cemetery, maybe there should be some kind of requirement that many people close to them be made aware... I think most mass shooters are loners, and wouldn't want too many people knowing that they own the hardware, and anyone who isn't a mass shooter doesn't mind people close to them knowing they have a gun hobby. Just thinking of ways to obstruct the criminal mind. Thanks for sharing

[Samus]

One thing that I can't really seem to get into my head is why the US government spend millions of taxpayers $$$ enforcing anti drugs, which to me says "drugs are a problem and not people", but when it comes to guns, it's "people are the problem, and not guns" 

[DeathMerchant]

 

I thought this was interesting:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PIFiJdw0uME

Are you sitting down Sister? If this is real, and not staged, then you just showed me a real problem, and I agree with you. You would think a parent or adult guardian would have to make this purchase. I have seen many instances where liberal media has edited videos and recordings to advance their agenda. I also believe if this is true, then that guy that sold that weapon to the kid would at least lose his license. But then again... it was a bolt action single shot rifle, which may be different law, depending on the state. I don't know... DM could chime in and clear that up for us.

 

That video seems a little odd, there should be a lot more to it and they definitely cut portions out. I think it was heavily edited to make it appear worse then what actually happened.

 

The video description says it was filmed in Virginia, and in Virginia there is no minimum age for owning a long arm. But legally owning a firearm is different from legally purchasing a firearm. As far as I know, you must be 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun from a licensed firearms dealer (FFL) in Virginia. So, a parent could buy their child/teen or rifle or shotgun, and allow them to have possession of it, or some form of limited possession (only allow possession with adult supervision).

 

Now if it truly was a private sale and the seller did not possess a FFL, then I do not know the procedures are for Virginia. Because if the seller was a FFL then the kid would have to complete a NICS Check (Background Check), even if it was at a gun show.

 

The Virginia State Police website states:

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms.shtm

What is the legal age to purchase or possess a firearm?

    A person must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun from a licensed firearms dealer.

 

But I can't find any information on minimum age for private sales.

 

So 1 of 2 things happened.

 

1. The creator of the video lied, and an adult standing next to the kid 'legally purchased' the firearm from a private seller. Or the seller was under the impression the adult present was technically buying it for the teen to posses.

 

2. The kid legally bought the firearm for himself.

 

 

When I was contemplating getting my own FFL several years back, I planned to deny every single sale to someone who seemed odd, dangerous, or possibly under the age of 18. I don't care if an adult was present and they were there to buy it for their kid (In NY you must be at least 16 to possess 18 to buy). They were getting denied. The ATF gives the dealer immense discretion in refusing to complete a firearm sale. You literally can legally deny people for whatever reason you want. "I don't like your green shirt. Denied." "You drive a Toyota. Denied". The reason why this is legal is because the ATF wants the dealer to be a judge of good character. And its not worth making a profit of $100 selling to someone who clearly shouldn't be owning a firearm.

[Lysistrata]

That video seems a little odd, there should be a lot more to it and they definitely cut portions out. I think it was heavily edited to make it appear worse then what actually happened.

Yeah... that's what I was thinking as well. I guess you saw the Katie Couric interview... and the aftermath? Thanks DM

[Lysistrata]

Shameful.

I just heard that there was a Broward County Deputy Sheriff at the school when the shooting began.

He never went in to confront the killer.

https://www.wptv.com/news/national/deputy-at-florida-high-school-where-17-were-killed-never-went-in-resigns

[Fox Fire]

Shameful.

I just heard that there was a Broward County Deputy Sheriff at the school when the shooting began.

He never went in to confront the killer.

https://www.wptv.com/news/national/deputy-at-florida-high-school-where-17-were-killed-never-went-in-resigns

See this is a problem. We have armed officers at schools for a reason. At least the coward resigned. 

[Rand0m her0]

Oh just shut the hell up. A SRO is not  in way trained or equipped to deal with an active shooter. Dude would have had a cotton shirt and a side arm. Jumping in with an unknown number of shooters, in unknown locations, with zero back up in a crowded and chaotic environment would have more likely than not resulted him getting killed and the next responding officer conga-lining in after him with no knowledge of the situation. An officers job isn't to be fucking dirty harry, no PD worth a damn expects an officer to run in like that, and there is a massive stack of court precedent that boils down to "no, this is not in anyway shape or form something that can be required".

 

JFC could you two be bigger pricks?

[Lysistrata]

An officers job isn't to be fucking dirty harry

In this situation he had a choice. Try to save lives and come out a hero, or wait for back up and resign. He waited for back up and resigned. Anyone who would attack a school with an AR-15 and kill 14 kids and 3 teachers is a shit stained coward. This "Deputy" was bested by a 19 year old shit stained coward. He had the training, and a responsibility to take action. Even the Sheriff said he "should have went in, addressed the killer, and kill the killer". He had to resign, because no one would ever respect him.

could you two be bigger pricks?

We've not even begun to get large.

[Rand0m her0]

 

An officers job isn't to be fucking dirty harry

In this situation he had a choice. Try to save lives and come out a hero, or wait for back up and resign. He waited for back up and resigned. Anyone who would attack a school with an AR-15 and kill 14 kids and 3 teachers is a shit stained coward. This "Deputy" was bested by a 19 year old shit stained coward. He had the training, and a responsibility to take action. Even the Sheriff said he "should have went in, addressed the killer, and kill the killer". He had to resign, because no one would ever respect him.

 

 

could you two be bigger pricks?

We've not even begun to get large.

 

 

 

The sheriff is a fuckhead who's  PD's response pissed over fucking everything in a dozen different ways and is going out of his way to deflect blame.

 

If you think a School resources officer, who's main job is to hrumph at teenagers and make noises about how serious fighting in the halls is, is in anyway equipped or trained to deal with that shit your absolutely delusional. At best he took a three day course at some point in the past 20 years. Maybe. While some PDs give the responding officer the ability to conduct a solo entry if they feel it should be done, fucking no on requires it. And the ones that allow it mostly do so because they're small PDs in the middle of bugfuck nowhere and it might be half an hour before backup gets there. Set up a perimeter, gather and relay information, wait for other responding officers to arrive so you can get together a contact team for entry is exactly what should be done, and is exactly what he did.

 

Something like 1/3 of all officers who do a solo entry into an active event like this end up shot. Half of the time, they fail to accomplish anything. 25% of the time the shooter  commits suicide. If you're to lazy to do the math, that means in the average case with a persistent shooter who doens't off themselves, it's a coin filp on if they get shot or accomplish something. Except in the average case the shooter is armed with a pistol, not a rifle, which kinda tilts the odds more.

 

Seriously, the fact you're sitting here wanking yourself off over this is just fucking vile.