Guns are still America’s religion

Of those 433 active shooter cases, an armed bystander shot the attacker in 22 of the incidents. In 10 of those, the "good guy" was a security guard or an off-duty police officer, the Times reported.

And having more than one armed person at the scene who is not a member of law enforcement can create confusion and carry dire risks, the report found. For example, an armed bystander who shot and killed an attacker in 2021 in Arvada, Colorado, was himself shot and killed by the police who mistook him for the gunman, the Times reported.
Click to expand...

So 433 ACS, with 12 Citizens (AKA "good guy with a gun") intervening. And IIRC, at least three of those "good guys" killed/shot by LE.

America, Fuck Yeah! :unsure:
 
ronntaylor said:
So 433 ACS, with 12 Citizens (AKA "good guy with a gun") intervening. And IIRC, at least three of those "good guys" killed/shot by LE.

America, Fuck Yeah! :unsure:
Click to expand...
Just reread the article and the figures are mind-blowing

www.nytimes.com

Who Stops a ‘Bad Guy With a Gun’? (Published 2022)

A review of 433 active shooter attacks reveals that most are over before the police arrive. Bystanders sometimes stop attackers, but seldom shoot them.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

The paid good guys with a gun (LEOs) show up and shoot the attacker maybe 1 out of 4 shootings. Uvalde was only an aberration in that police inaction was extended. And good guys that intervene most often don't have a gun. It's not even close.
 
ronntaylor said:
Just reread the article and the figures are mind-blowing

www.nytimes.com

Who Stops a ‘Bad Guy With a Gun’? (Published 2022)

A review of 433 active shooter attacks reveals that most are over before the police arrive. Bystanders sometimes stop attackers, but seldom shoot them.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

The paid good guys with a gun (LEOs) show up and shoot the attacker maybe 1 out of 4 shootings. Uvalde was only an aberration in that police inaction was extended. And good guys that intervene most often don't have a gun. It's not even close.
Click to expand...
In the end, bad guys with guns stop bad guys with guns most often (suicide by the mass shooters).
 
ronntaylor said:
And good guys that intervene most often don't have a gun. It's not even close.
Click to expand...


... or the good guy, has a gun, and makes the wise decision not to draw it, even though they [presumably] have the correct training:

www.dailymail.co.uk

Hero Houston cop recounts how he took down would-be shooter

Houston Police Sgt Kendrick Simpo was working a second job as a security guard at the Galleria Mall when he tackled Guido Herrera and grabbed his rifle outside a children's competition.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
DT said:
... or the good guy, has a gun, and makes the wise decision not to draw it, even though they [presumably] have the correct training:

www.dailymail.co.uk

Hero Houston cop recounts how he took down would-be shooter

Houston Police Sgt Kendrick Simpo was working a second job as a security guard at the Galleria Mall when he tackled Guido Herrera and grabbed his rifle outside a children's competition.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...

Another religious nut.
 
www.npr.org

Students in a Dallas school district must wear clear backpacks after Uvalde shooting

The decision was made using a parent and student survey, as well as by the district's internal and external safety task forces.
www.npr.org www.npr.org

I’m sorry - how is this supposed to help? Perhaps I missed something, but I don’t recall a school shooting in which the perpetrator snuck the weapon in using their backpack.

It’s pathetic to see these worthless bits of security theater. We all know the guns are the real issue. But one of the two parties in America cares about gun manufacturers more than America’s children.
 
SuperMatt said:
It’s pathetic to see these worthless bits of security theater. We all know the guns are the real issue. But one of the two parties in America cares about gun manufacturers more than America’s children.
Click to expand...

No, one party cares more about the rights of the people as stated in the Constitution.

I do have a question. The left has as many wealthy donors as the right. Why don't these donors simply either buy up every gun for sale (or at least handguns and semi-automatic rifles) or start buying out the manufacturers? Make the supply so tight that prices will go through the roof so that no one can afford them.
 
Herdfan said:
No, one party cares more about the rights of the people as stated in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Wrong. They care more about ONE right, which many would argue they've misinterpreted. But even if you concede the 2A is literally no regulations whatsoever on what type of guns one can own or who can own them, its hard to take them seriously about anything regarding the constitution after watching Trump wipe his ass with it and literally try to overturn a free and fair election because his feelings were hurt. "I win or there was fraud" - which was stated BEFORE the election - is not something you should hear from someone who is supposed to represent a party that cares about constitutional rights. Alternate slates of electors? Installing a nobody as AG? A crackpot lawyer as a special counsel? Inviting the Overstock CEO and a pillow salesman to the White House to plot a coup? Trying to pressure the VP to reject electoral votes? Sending a mob of lunatics to the Capitol to "fight like hell" because they "won't have a country anymore"? The media is the enemy of the people? Taking Putin's side over the side of those YOU YOURSELF chose for high-ranking jobs in the administration?

Holding the RNC at the White House and other federal property? Gassing peaceful protestors and demanding ten years prison for someone who spray paints a statue while admitting you want to pardon people who beat police and hung nooses?

The republican party stands for Donald Trump's ego, and that's about it.
 
GermanSuplex said:
Wrong. They care more about ONE right, which many would argue they've misinterpreted. But even if you concede the 2A is literally no regulations whatsoever on what type of guns one can own or who can own them, its hard to take them seriously about anything regarding the constitution after watching Trump wipe his ass with it and literally try to overturn a free and fair election because his feelings were hurt. "I win or there was fraud" - which was stated BEFORE the election - is not something you should hear from someone who is supposed to represent a party that cares about constitutional rights. Alternate slates of electors? Installing a nobody as AG? A crackpot lawyer as a special counsel? Inviting the Overstock CEO and a pillow salesman to the White House to plot a coup? Trying to pressure the VP to reject electoral votes? Sending a mob of lunatics to the Capitol to "fight like hell" because they "won't have a country anymore"? The media is the enemy of the people? Taking Putin's side over the side of those YOU YOURSELF chose for high-ranking jobs in the administration?

Holding the RNC at the White House and other federal property? Gassing peaceful protestors and demanding ten years prison for someone who spray paints a statue while admitting you want to pardon people who beat police and hung nooses?

The republican party stands for Donald Trump's ego, and that's about it.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the US Supreme Court is to unite the states under common law. This Supreme Court seems to think its mandate is the polar opposite. Nobody on that side of the political spectrum has any interest in having “united” states and these people aren’t idiots. They know exactly what they are doing and the likely outcome. It’s the ultimate cynical elite chess game where we are pawns and they are bored with simply owning everything. They want to watch from their safe box seats as they push everybody to extremes and use the 2nd amendment to slaughter each other.
 
Herdfan said:
No, one party cares more about the rights of the people as stated in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The 2nd amendment explicitly mentions a "well regulated militia" that is necessary to the "security of a free State." This language was not put in there by accident and the Constitution further elaborates on these militias as shown below. Militias of musket owners formed to defend the new nation bear no relation to today's situation where individuals own all sorts of weapons, ironically in many cases because they think they have to defend themselves against the State.

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 Powers of Congress:
o To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
o To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2 Powers of the president:
o The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
 
mac_in_tosh said:
The 2nd amendment explicitly mentions a "well regulated militia" that is necessary to the "security of a free State." This language was not put in there by accident and the Constitution further elaborates on these militias as shown below. Militias of musket owners formed to defend the new nation bear no relation to today's situation where individuals own all sorts of weapons, ironically in many cases because they think they have to defend themselves against the State.

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 Powers of Congress:
o To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
o To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2 Powers of the president:
o The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
Click to expand...

Honest question, has there ever been a situation where the government raided a group of gun stockpilers and that was the only questionable/illegal activity they were up to? I realize there’s a difference between questionable and illegal, but it seems these groups also love to constantly straddle that line and would quickly go into illegal territory shall their head brainwasher instruct them to.

If these mass shootings exposed anything both sides can agree on, it’s that the laws already on the books aren’t being enforced and it doesn’t really matter when the laws are completely different when you easily cross an open border. Maybe we need to wall off way more than just the southern border.
 
It reminds me of a great poem I once read... I may have some of the words wrong.

First they never came for my guns, and I spoke out—
Because I was an idiot.

Then they didn't force me to carry a child to term, and I spoke out—
Because I was an idiot.

Then they counted the votes and picked a winner, and I spoke out —
Because I was an idiot.

Man, woman, person, camera, tv.

It went something along those lines.
 
mac_in_tosh said:
The 2nd amendment explicitly mentions a "well regulated militia" that is necessary to the "security of a free State." This language was not put in there by accident and the Constitution further elaborates on these militias as shown below. Militias of musket owners formed to defend the new nation bear no relation to today's situation where individuals own all sorts of weapons, ironically in many cases because they think they have to defend themselves against the State.

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 Powers of Congress:
o To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
o To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2 Powers of the president:
o The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
Click to expand...
Thanks for pointing all that out! It really exposes how little Justice Scalia ACTUALLY cared about the original text of the constitution. The meaning of the term militia was quite clear in the Constitution, but Scalia simply ignored it to push an agenda. His acolytes on the court now are all doing the exact same thing. “Honor the original text! (except the parts we don’t like)"
 
It's always the same F'N thing. We have a massive proliferation of firearms, and it's been made remarkably easy relatively to get firearms & ammo. So it's those whose lives will be put in danger who have to adapt / make adjustments because of the ease to get firearms, and the deadly consequences for all others.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1549358414073061377/

What a childhood we are giving today's kids.
 
Imagine working for an ignorant asshole like this.

 
Back
Top