|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:WaPo has a bunch of information about the shooter: did they specify whether or not he had ballistic plates within the plate carrier? He was technically "wearing" body armor if he has just the plate carrier on, it just does absolutely nothing also the tweet's gone Gripweed posted:Yeah the discussion really needs to be about banning all semi-automatics. It covers the rifles used in most mass shootings and the handguns that are used for most gun crimes. It also avoids that gun nerd thing, but frankly gun owners have shown themselves to be completely unreasonable and not worth negotiation with. from what i recall, systemic studies of gun violence have shown that the only sort of gun control that would have a meaningful effect on gun violence is a complete ban on handguns. so yeah, lol lmao etc etc A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 22:03 on May 25, 2022 |
#
?
May 25, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Tell us more facts about guns - I want to know all about calibers, magazine capacities, firing rates Why is this probed? This poster has a good point. Gun owners who don't like being called on the fact that they have a weird fetish try to gatekeep rules about guns by acting if you don't know what gun was used in WW2 you can't be apart of making the rules. Yet another garbage argument. Bottom line, we are all safer by having better gun control laws than you as a gun owner owning a gun. That's not a theory, that's a statistical fact. I don't own a gun, but I know how to use one. I a way better chance of defending my family with a loving wooden sword (because I have training) Or with a knife (again, training) than gun nuts do. Most gun nuts, just like cops are cowards anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:did they specify whether or not he had ballistic plates within the plate carrier? He was technically "wearing" body armor if he has just the plate carrier on, it just does absolutely nothing DHS says he had a bulletproof vest, but not "tactical plates."
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:DHS says he had a bulletproof vest, but not "tactical plates." yeah.........im gonna need to see actual hospital records regarding to what degree the cops got injured before i believe anything other than they were winged by debris and got scared by an actual threat to their life, as well as the actual bulletproof vest verified by an expert, because this loving reeks of rear end-covering
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:04
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:Why is this probed? This poster has a good point. Gun owners who don't like being called on the fact that they have a weird fetish try to gatekeep rules about guns by acting if you don't know what gun was used in WW2 you can't be apart of making the rules. Yet another garbage argument. Agreed, although I took it as a joke about how there is obviously more to legislate than just semi-automatic properties.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:05
|
|
|
Sincere question from someone pretty ignorant on the history of gun laws: The 2nd amendment of the constitution says a militia must be "armed" but it doesn't say "with guns". How can the US ban certain weapons, including most explosive devices, but not firearms? How are we able to regulate fireworks - which are primarily used for entertainment or perhaps to scare away wildlife from a farm field - and require federal explosive licenses to use those with more than 50 mg flash powder, but do nothing about AR-15s that are made with the express purpose of killing people? Does the powder become sacrosanct once it is placed in a bullet and fed into a tube? Or to put it another way, how does the Second Amendment magically expand over time from what whatever lovely muskets would be expected for your 18th century militia to all guns invented afterwards, but not to missile launchers? The limit seems pretty loving arbitrary to me.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:from what i recall, systemic studies of gun violence have shown that the only sort of gun control that would have a meaningful effect on gun violence is a complete ban on handguns. What do you mean by “meaningful effect”? And what studies are you referring to?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:09
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:Sincere question from someone pretty ignorant on the history of gun laws: The 2nd amendment of the constitution says a militia must be "armed" but it doesn't say "with guns". How can the US ban certain weapons, including most explosive devices, but not firearms? How are we able to regulate fireworks - which are primarily used for entertainment or perhaps to scare away wildlife from a farm field - and require federal explosive licenses to use those with more than 50 mg flash powder, but do nothing about AR-15s that are made with the express purpose of killing people. Does the powder become sacrosanct once it is placed in a bullet and fed into a tube? The 2nd amendment doesn't do anything to prevent regulation of guns. Or guarantee gun ownership The idea that it does is a very very recent extremist interpretation.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:10
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:yeah.........im gonna need to see actual hospital records regarding to what degree the cops got injured before i believe anything other than they were winged by debris and got scared by an actual threat to their life, as well as the actual bulletproof vest verified by an expert, because this loving reeks of rear end-covering Only things I've seen confirmed are: - Local police said he had "body armor" and was shot at least once. - DHS later confirmed that he had a bullet proof vest, but not "tactical plates." - The school resource officer was unharmed. - One of the two police officers was shot in the shoulder and treated at a hospital. - No info on where/how serious the other officer was injured. - After the two officers engaged the shooter and were shot, the two police officers and the school resource officer called for backup.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Generally it is not helpful to have extremists, much as spreading and weaponizing conspiracy isn't beneficial. The goal is to anchor policies in reality. I know it's not a game. And I'm not trying to engage in tribalism, but I don't think it's out of line to say, maybe some people who are responsible should be the ones hurt instead. I wrote up a screed, but the gist is that I am a teacher and two of my students have been shot this month. At least one was racially motivated. I'm worried for my students of color. I'm worried about my LGBTQ kids. I'm worried about the girls at my school who might get accidentally pregnant. Why is no one making things better, and why is no one trying? Being the party above senseless violence and fear mongering is hollow. Let's do what they do but better.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:16
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Good lord. I guess we're well past the point where we just assume and immediately label the guy a Muslim or a far left radical or something. There were at least two different random trans women who 4Chan attempted to target ~for the lulz~ plus one 4Chan idiot who thought it would be funny to pretend to be the killer and post photos of himself cross-dressing. Only the images of the poor girl from reddit made it through the right-wing news centipede and onto the twitter of a sitting Congressman. I hope she sues the living hell out of them and I hope (but know it won't happen) Gosar at least loving apologizes.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:17
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Only things I've seen confirmed are:
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
Kalit posted:What do you mean by “meaningful effect”? And what studies are you referring to? by meaningful effect i mean having a measurable impact on gun violence and firearm usage in crime. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF this isnt the study i was thinking of, but it roughly confirms what I thought, 90% of the guns used in criminal activity are handguns. cat botherer posted:There’s been a number of conflicting statements. Police have shown themselves to be dishonest a million times times over. I don’t see why we should take anything they say seriously without outside confirmation. cannot echo this statement enough Youth Decay posted:Sincere question from someone pretty ignorant on the history of gun laws: The 2nd amendment of the constitution says a militia must be "armed" but it doesn't say "with guns". How can the US ban certain weapons, including most explosive devices, but not firearms? How are we able to regulate fireworks - which are primarily used for entertainment or perhaps to scare away wildlife from a farm field - and require federal explosive licenses to use those with more than 50 mg flash powder, but do nothing about AR-15s that are made with the express purpose of killing people? Does the powder become sacrosanct once it is placed in a bullet and fed into a tube? what the second amendment literally says matters far, far, far less than what the jurisprudence and precedent related to guns says. and in that case, the 2nd amendment means that you can go hog loving wild on guns. A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 22:22 on May 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
Beast Pussy posted:I know it's not a game. And I'm not trying to engage in tribalism, but I don't think it's out of line to say, maybe some people who are responsible should be the ones hurt instead. Some of the people responsible are in fact being hurt. Beast Pussy posted:I wrote up a screed, but the gist is that I am a teacher and two of my students have been shot this month. At least one was racially motivated. People are in fact trying to make things better (which is extremely not synonymous with "hurting the ones responsible"), and the processes that do so are difficult, frequently involving undermining or cleaving different polities. I have already discussed some of them in the last several pages. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:24 on May 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF I’m confused, this study has nothing to do with your claim? Of course most gun violence is caused by handguns. But that is not a study on what type of gun control does/does not help reduce gun violence cat botherer posted:It’s big mass shootings like this that make the most news, but the steady drip, drip of gun violence is from easily concealed weapons. Canada and Australia have all but banned them, and that policy has paid them dividends. Lol at that happening here though. E: Sorry, I cannot read Kalit fucked around with this message at 22:53 on May 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:I a way better chance of defending my family with a loving wooden sword (because I have training) Or with a knife (again, training) than gun nuts do. Most gun nuts, just like cops are cowards anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:Did you really just do my sword skills are better than a gun? Or is this a a gun nuts don't actually know how to use a gun thing? While you played with your inelegant and crude weapons, I studied the blade. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:People are in fact trying to make things better (which is extremely not synonymous with "hurting the ones responsible"), and the processes that do so are difficult. I have already discussed some of them in the last several pages. I'd argue it is synonymous. Justice needs to be seen to be done and, as we are seeing, has increasingly little to do with the law as practiced. You just don't find this idea persuasive for some of your prior reasons. Nothing is being done because of the structural weaknesses on display.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I’m confused, this study has nothing to do with your claim? Of course most gun violence is caused by handguns. But that is not a study on what type of gun control does/does not help reduce gun violence cat botherer fucked around with this message at 22:33 on May 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:31
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I’m confused, this study has nothing to do with your claim? Of course most gun violence is caused by handguns. But that is not a study on what type of gun control does/does not help reduce gun violence the reasoning i am employing is that to have a statistically significant effect on gun violence, the gun control measure must target the sort of guns used most frequently in criminal activity, and the overwhelming majority of gun crime involves handguns. I do acknowledge that I overstated the case as requiring a complete ban to have an impact, but the measures must target handguns rather than so-called assault weapons, which make up a vanishingly small percentage of guns used in crime. If you disagree with that reasoning, please let me know why and i will do my best to respond
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:31
|
|
|
I cannot imagine as a private, unarmed citizen standing outside that school listening to gunfire that means the murder of children and not going in. Even if it meant certain death. If all I had was a rock I would pick it up and go in. I would not be able to live with myself if I did nothing. For trained, armed and armored cops... I cannot understand how they could resist the impulse to stop what they knew was a slaughter of innocents.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:I cannot imagine as a private, unarmed citizen standing outside that school listening to gunfire that means the murder of children and not going in. Even if it meant certain death. If all I had was a rock I would pick it up and go in. I would not be able to live with myself if I did nothing. Cops aren't trained to help people.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:34
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:I cannot imagine as a private, unarmed citizen standing outside that school listening to gunfire that means the murder of children and not going in. Even if it meant certain death. If all I had was a rock I would pick it up and go in. I would not be able to live with myself if I did nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:34
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:I cannot imagine as a private, unarmed citizen standing outside that school listening to gunfire that means the murder of children and not going in. Even if it meant certain death. If all I had was a rock I would pick it up and go in. I would not be able to live with myself if I did nothing. okay i loving hate cops but this is stupid. charging into an unknown situation with gunfire is not heroism it is stupidity. If you are not trained for this sort of situation the only thing you will do in such a situation is add to the body count at best, and endanger the children already present by contributing to the chaos at worst.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:Did you really just do my sword skills are better than a gun? Or is this a a gun nuts don't actually know how to use a gun thing? I said wooden sword when I could have said baseball bat. My point is swinging a loving stick is more accurate than 99% of people who are gun nuts.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:38
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:I cannot imagine as a private, unarmed citizen standing outside that school listening to gunfire that means the murder of children and not going in. Even if it meant certain death. If all I had was a rock I would pick it up and go in. I would not be able to live with myself if I did nothing. Very few cops are trained to a level that they can take on a freaking athletic blue belt in even the lamest martial arts. That's why they desperately need their guns and tasers. The few cops that are are almost universal ex military with real training (often who killed people overseas).
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:40
|
|
|
Madkal posted:I work at a college and we did an active shooter drills few years back. I remember the guy telling us what to do saying that even if the police arrive it doesn't mean that the event is over. They will wait to get a layout of the buildings, a possible ID of the shooter (at least physical description) and such. Now this is a college where everyone is old enough to look like a potential suspect, and I am not trying to defend the police in this case, but cops are trained not to go into an active shooter situation guns blazing until they have a plan. Unfortunately the time it takes to have that plan means people are still at a greater risk. The solution to this problem is a bit more nuanced than having the options be either do nothing because all cops are lazy cowards and go in immediately and hope for the best because we think all cops should be superheroes. That used to be the case, but after one of the previous big mass school shootings where the cops stood by and did nothing, the doctrine and training were (supposedly) changed to tell the cops to rush in first and foremost, at least when they know it's a clear mass shooting and not a hostage situation or something like that. Charging in guns blazing may not be ideal, but it's not like you're gonna save lives by surrounding the school for an hour first. It's been well-known for decades that the "surround the building and gather intel" approach, though it may be safer for the police, basically amounts to abandoning the people inside the building to their fates. punk rebel ecks posted:Because it's unsurprising that the gunman with rifles (who probably caught them by surprise) would heavily out arm two people with pistols? People keep saying "police were too scared to do anything" when they clearly did do something, shot at the shooter. I'm heavily skeptical of this "the police were outgunned" story, because that's been a talking point in favor of police militarization for decades. The fact that a single Border Patrol officer was able to rush in alone without a plan and kill the entrenched shooter all by himself strongly suggests that this was not a matter of the police being overwhelmingly outgunned by an armored super-criminal. It's still probably gonna take a few days for a clear picture of what went on that day to emerge, but I think it's more likely that the cops screwed up, rather than being defeated by superior equipment. You're right that reactive solutions to mass shootings are simply impossible, though. At most, they can reduce the frequency and reduce the bodycount; they can't realistically stop the initial spree, nor can they discourage someone who's prepared to die.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:I cannot imagine as a private, unarmed citizen standing outside that school listening to gunfire that means the murder of children and not going in. Even if it meant certain death. If all I had was a rock I would pick it up and go in. I would not be able to live with myself if I did nothing. I read that while the shooter barricaded themselves in a single classroom that other officers walked around the school breaking windows and evacuating students and teachers. I'm not sure what the timeline was for all of that including DHS showing up. Another article highlighted a lot of teacher quick thinking of escaping and hiding. So I'm not sure what the full story is. CmdrRiker fucked around with this message at 22:50 on May 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:46
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:I said wooden sword when I could have said baseball bat. My point is swinging a loving stick is more accurate than 99% of people who are gun nuts.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
Kalit posted:It was Beto O’Rourke who interrupted it: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna30522 Good.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:48
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Yeah that's why I said "all but banned." They are heavily restricted, and as a result, far fewer of them around. 3% vs. 18% of HH have one from a cursory read. This, believe it or not, translates into less crime with them. I do not understand what you are trying to say here except to make some kind of pedantic point. Are you asserting the strict control is ineffective? Whoops, sorry, I cannot read. A big flaming stink posted:the reasoning i am employing is that to have a statistically significant effect on gun violence, the gun control measure must target the sort of guns used most frequently in criminal activity, and the overwhelming majority of gun crime involves handguns. I do acknowledge that I overstated the case as requiring a complete ban to have an impact, but the measures must target handguns rather than so-called assault weapons, which make up a vanishingly small percentage of guns used in crime. That make a lot more sense, thanks for the explanation. I do agree that there's way too much hyperfocus on "assault rifles", etc. Especially since that phrase seems to be a trigger for gun nuts for some reason. I just think there is a lot that we could do about gun violence without an actual full ban on them. Especially since a full ban would probably end up worse than other regulations and send a lot of people clamoring for a new civil war. Hell, in my opinion, even the ghost gun regulation Biden passed is meaningful
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:I cannot imagine as a private, unarmed citizen standing outside that school listening to gunfire that means the murder of children and not going in. Even if it meant certain death. If all I had was a rock I would pick it up and go in. I would not be able to live with myself if I did nothing.. Not to excuse the actions of the cops, or to doubt your intentions, but no one actually knows this until they are called to actually do it. History is littered with people who would have done something and then just...didn't.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
He's still going to get rinsed but Beto doing a pro wrestling run-in during this situation is far and away the savviest political move he's made in his entire life
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 23:01
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I'd argue it is synonymous. Justice needs to be seen to be done and, as we are seeing, has increasingly little to do with the law as practiced. You just don't find this idea persuasive for some of your prior reasons. Nothing is being done because of the structural weaknesses on display. Retributive justice isn’t the only type of justice. Ask who deserves what from multiple positions relative to the event. Suddenly it’s way more complicated and hard. Real justice isn’t easy and straight forward in the way retribution is and DV is addressing this in the way that tries to work towards it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:I cannot imagine as a private, unarmed citizen standing outside that school listening to gunfire that means the murder of children and not going in. Even if it meant certain death. If all I had was a rock I would pick it up and go in. I would not be able to live with myself if I did nothing. Your heart is in the right place here but it's really easy to say something like that until it happens. Most of us never deal with a life and death situation so you really don't know how you'd react in that situation regardless of how you think you'd act.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 23:14
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:Not to excuse the actions of the cops, or to doubt your intentions, but no one actually knows this until they are called to actually do it. History is littered with people who would have done something and then just...didn't. Yeah its hard to overstate how you really cannot predict your own responses to a high-threat situation. sometimes you do behave as the OP describes under stress but its just pure instinct. personally - and no judgment here for anyone who reacts differently - if I'm outside of a school building and I hear shots fired I'm the gently caress out of there. i'm always unarmed and I'm not trained in how to protect or save kids. If I ran in there's a 99% chance that I would just end up another body on the slab or another guy taking up space in an already crowded emergency department after getting totally ripped down by rifle fire . not to mention it would really suck to be trying to save a classroom full of kids and instead draw attention directly to them, loving up an otherwise decent lock down strategy. and there's a 1% chance I nail the perp with a can of Campbell's soup and take him down, of course
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Your heart is in the right place here but it's really easy to say something like that until it happens. Most of us never deal with a life and death situation so you really don't know how you'd react in that situation regardless of how you think you'd act. Even in a war it can be hard to get soldiers to fire directly at people on the other side who are firing at them. There were studies on this after WWII.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:With Roe imminently being overturned, what is even the pragmatic argument for keeping the filibuster? So let's say eliminating the filibuster is off the table. Ok. Fine. Why can't we revert it to where someone actually has to stand for hours until they're exhausted? If they want to block this legislation at least make them work for it. If we want to go all, 'but tradition!' then actually go with the traditional implementation
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
DeeplyConcerned posted:Yeah its hard to overstate how you really cannot predict your own responses to a high-threat situation. sometimes you do behave as the OP describes under stress but its just pure instinct. And it isn't even necessarily a direct threat to *you* either. I've been around enough "we need an ambulance now" medical emergencies that I know what my adrenal response is and it's not to daringly charge into danger. It takes a second for your rational brain to respond unless you drill the absolute gently caress out of it, and until then it's freeze or flight. I'm not proud of that, but it's just what it is, and it's something you have to experience to learn about yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 23:29
|
|