Run, you fucking piece of shit. Go go go gogogogogogog!
My niece told her grandmother about her fear of getting murdered at school. Feel that fear, asshole.
Wait, you mean he wasn’t suddenly transformed into a good-guy action hero with a gun? I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
This event only marks the beginning of his metamorphosis.
In the future, when an unsuspecting minority youth mistakenly knocks on his mansion’s gate, the transformation will be complete.
Not until they reverse to back down the driveway and try to leave will it complete.
I’m starting to think that the gun lobby might be lying to us…
Don’t be ridiculous. They spend tens of millions of dollars a year to have other people lie to us.
Remember kids, you can’t buy a gun without donating to the Republican Party.
I would love to be wrong, but it’s too bad one of the injured or killed weren’t connected to the governor. That seems to be the only time some people give a shit.
They still don’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting
The only difference is they were a lot faster to admit it was an act of terrorism. No efforts to limit the access to firearms to prevent it in the future.
I like how little attention this got in the news at the time. /s
They’ll just say more guns and you know it.
“Clearly, the 800 police officers that were there weren’t enough. 1,600 cops would have made those villains think twice!”
As the saying goes, when seconds count the police are minutes away.
Highschool dropouts need jobs too
If you had a gun would you pull it? There were likely hundreds of guns there. But there was also hundreds of police officers ready to take down anyone with a gun.
Removed by mod
Linebackers, not guns.
Not an option you have if theres people between you and the shooter like a dense crowd, and firing through a crowd is general frowned upon, even when you’re trying to not hit them. The last thing you do if you have a gun in that situation is pull it out before you have cover and know where the threat is coming from or your will absolutely be shot by the cops if not the shooter. Dense crowding also played a part in why they were able to be tackled to the ground. A lot harder to get close if the shooting starts and no one’s physically near the shooter.
Lol the fuck would I want a gun for? I think you misunderstood my sarcasm
“Well… why wouldn’t you want a gun? It’s badass. What, are you one of them huggy, feely readin’ queers?”
Yes actually.
That was sarcasm.
But I keep being told that these mass shooters only target gun free zones because they’re easy targets.
So what are we tolerating all these mass shooters for, if gun owners aren’t delivering on their promises?
Soon with AI it will be:
But what if the streets themselves had guns.
Whimper… if only the federal government hadn’t banned sales of Milkor MGLs to the public, my relative would still be alive now.
If my armed drones had been circling, I could have dealt with the problem with minimal, minimal additional casualties.
But you could be sure the bad guy would be caught up in the kill zone I circled on my drone app on the IPad
I was reading a book about how people change their minds and this is true. Horrible trauma is one of the ways people change.
So the solution to getting republicans on the side of gun control is just… shooting at them? I can get behind that.
I mean, it worked for the Black Panthers, and they weren’t even trying to get gun control laws put in place.
For the unaware, modern gun control laws basically started with the Black Panthers. During the civil rights movement, peaceful protests would get violently busted by the cops. But people quickly noticed that heavily armed protests would have the cops politely watching from across the street. (Turns out, cops are way less likely to fire into a crowd when the entire crowd can immediately return fire.) So the Black Panthers started arming themselves, to keep the cops from shutting down their protests.
When Republican lawmakers realized that the cops weren’t going to shut down the heavily armed protests on their front lawns, they got really fucking sweaty, really fucking fast. So conservatives pushed the Mulford Act, which was (at the time) the most restrictive gun control law the country had ever seen. It was authored by Ronald Reagan (yes, the same Reagan that the right upholds as a paragon of conservative values) and endorsed by the NRA, (yes, the same NRA that lobbies for looser gun control in the wake of mass school shootings.) All because the wrong people had guns.
The goal of the Mulford Act was to criminalize gun ownership, so the cops could bust individual protesters after the fact, instead of needing to break up an entire protest as it was happening. And it basically set the stage for modern gun control laws. The cops would follow individual protesters home, and kick in their front door while they were having dinner with their family the next evening. This is ironically what led to the Black Panthers becoming so militant, as they implemented anti-espionage tactics to protect the group. Code names, so busted members wouldn’t be able to positively identify other members by name. Segmented information, so a busted member (even a high ranking member) wouldn’t be able to compromise an entire protest. Randomized meeting locations, so cops couldn’t set up stings ahead of time. Etc, etc… It took them from “the people who really like guns and peacefully protest with them for self defense” to “a full blown armed guerrilla-protest group.”
"I don’t see any peaceful way to disarm America’s whites. There’s only one thing that’s going to save this country from itself. Same thing that always saves this country from itself. And that is African-Americans. And I know the question a lot of y’all have in your minds is, should we do it? Fuck yeah, we should do it.”
“No matter what they say or how they make you feel, remember, this is your country, too. It is incumbent upon us to save our country. And you know what we have to do"
"Every able-bodied African-American must register for a legal firearm. That’s the only way they’ll change the law.”
– Dave Chappelle (2019)
And that was bad.
It was done for the wrong reasons, and used for nefarious purposes, yes.
Removed by mod
Just shoot more next time.
Didn’t work when they tried it with Steve Scalise.
Gotta be a better shot I guess
Fuckin jowls must have been all kinds of flappin.
Like a basset hound in a hurricane
Like Pamela Anderson in Baywatch.
Once he picks up enough speed they flatten out like plane wings and he’s able to get some air and fly away.
“Jowls A’Quiver: A Survival Story”
Coming to TBN this November.
So what you’re saying is that he wasn’t the good guy with a gun?
They never are. And by “they,” I mean everyone who carries a gun for “protection,” and by “never,” I mean that the good guy with a gun almost never actually stops shootings.
Just look at the numbers of justifiable homicides vs the number of murders by guns in the US. The justifiable homicides are almost statistically insignificant in comparison.
I mean that the good guy with a gun almost never actually stops shootings
Last I looked, they had a lower success rate than unarmed people.
Last I looked, they had a lower success rate than unarmed people.
I’m a firm support of much strong gun control laws, and so this claim is something I would really love to be true …which is exactly why I’m pausing here and asking to see the evidence. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
So what is this based on?
It was a while back, so i can’t remember the caveats (if any). It may have been for that year or something. A quick dig looks like it holds up though.
This media investigation, aided by Texas State University shows the stats.
According to the data, citizens stopped shooters 50 times in the 316 attacks. But in only 10 out of those 50 incidents did citizens actually stop the shooter by using a gun. The other 40 times, it was with their hands or another weapon.
It also briefly touches on the trauma when an actual good person kills someone.
“I don’t feel like I killed a human,” says Wilson. “I killed an evil and that’s how I’m coping with the situation.”
“The individual did not make any attempt to get up because of his head wound. He didn’t make any… it was just quivering and that was it.”
He is actively forcing himself to not see the shooter as a person and it’s clear the image of the person he killed twitching on the ground will haunt him forever.
The pro-gun crowd didn’t save that man, they sold him and everybody else in that church out. They armed the mass shooter then used Wilson as propaganda, claiming his trauma is actually the gold standard for dealing with gun violence and that teachers and targeted minorities should be enthusiastically following suit.
I’m sure the fact that it would preserve or increase the profits of a lobby group that gives $16 million a year to Republicans is purely coincidence.
After all, if an industry was causing massive social harm, they’d immediately cease operation for the public good, not suppress research and statistics about how many people they’d killled while astroturfing and hiring politicians as shills.
But in only 10 out of those 50 incidents did citizens actually stop the shooter by using a gun.
And this begs the question. . .what percentage of people actually carry a gun? If it’s less than 20% then that means gun owners were more effective at stopping it (well, it would actually be more complicated, but I’m just trying to demonstrate my point).
Not only is it more complicated, it doesn’t even matter.
Around 80% of mass shooters bought the guns legally. Of the 20% remaining, the majority are teenagers who used their parent’s legally owned firearm.
Criminals in America have better access to firearms than they do in anywhere else in the world, with many of the guns in South America being originally purchased from a store in the United States.
This has resulted in a homicide rate that is far higher than it should be. Sort this list by homicide rate and take note of just how far before and after “United States” you have to scroll before finding a country you would consider “wealthy and stable”.
As compensation for that, we’re told things like “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. But the “good guys” have been given all the guns they want and they stop exactly fuck all. It’s not even close to the number of shootings they enable.
So who gives a fuck how “effective” they are on paper? In the real world, police and unarmed civilians stop more mass shooters and it doesn’t require arming the mass shooters in the first place.
So who gives a fuck how “effective” they are on paper?
If it doesn’t matter, why did you bring it up?
The goal of defensive use of a gun isn’t homicide, you can’t compare that statistics
The goal of defensive use of a gun isn’t homicide
That’s interesting because I was always told never to point a gun at anything I didn’t want to kill.
“Defensive use” does not implicitly imply pointing and shooting a gun at anyone. Often merely showing a holstered firearm will cause the bad guy to leave quickly because no one wants to get shot. This IS a defensive use of a firearm in the clearest sense. And in such a scenario, it will not make the news for you to hear about nor is it likely to even be reported to law enforcement. And this is more likely to happen than drawing and shooting - because very few people actually want the extreme problems that will follow. Shooting someone is the last resort.
As far the this governor running away well, as governor it was very unlikely he was armed - he has a security detail carrying the guns for him, (just like any liberal person with money or power). And secondly, if you’ve ever taken a self-defense class for a carry permit, there is a checklist of things to do BEFORE you draw and shoot. And guess what, running away if at all possible is at the top of the list…
Still, this guy is an idiot and much like most loud idiots no matter their political beliefs they get the most ink. But there is more to this argument than the circle jerk that is happening here. You are a liberal thinker and probably pride yourself on being smarter and more intellectually honest. Be what you believe you are. Otherwise, you are no better than this clown.
You are a liberal thinker and probably pride yourself on being smarter and more intellectually honest. Be what you believe you are. Otherwise, you are no better than this clown.
I was raised around guns. Had some (superficial) training in the military with guns. I’m not a gun owner now, but while I think R and the right in general are absolutely culpable regarding our gun violence problems due to their refusal to acknowledge them or do a damn thing about them, I’m not anti-2A, and not being disingenuous with my comment here.
I was told by everyone who was ever responsible for training me in gun safety that you don’t pull it out unless you are prepared to use it, and you should not be prepared to use it unless you are prepared to kill with it. I was also taught that brandishing was illegal, and more likely to escalate than defuse a situation.
You can be prepared to use it and not have to use it when the criminal decides to disengage.
I’m not going to redo this entire discussion. You can see the other replies in this same comment chain that trod the same ground.
The brandishing part is why it’s not reported or on the news. But that does not mean it doesn’t happen successfully.
So one of the best uses of a weapon defensively is to break fundamental gun safety rules that are in literally every gun safety course (and the law)? Aren’t R the party of law and order?
Often merely showing a holstered firearm will cause the bad guy to leave quickly because no one wants to get shot.
They can’t be too concerned since the crime rate in America is functionally identical to countries with gun control (except there is much more murder).
The rest of your comment just undermines the gun laws you’re trying to defend, functionally claiming “We need to keep selling guns to the public to keep them safe from the people we’ve sold guns to, but only if they can’t run away or hide, even if they have a gun or a team of people with guns”.
The person you are most likely to use a gun on is yourself.
The second most likely person you are to use a gun on is your spouse, with men overwhelmingly preferring firearms as a form of spousal homicide.
The third most likely person you are to use a gun on is a family/tenant.
Home invaders are way down on the list of “at-home gun use” targets. And, to make things even more stick, police tend to be more concerned with facing an armed resident than actual burglars. This leads to a high rate of police homicides ruled justifiable, on the grounds that the officer entering the home believed that the resident possessed a gun.
So, we’re looking at a solid four different likely ways keeping a gun in your home will result in the death of you or another lawful resident of your house.
Someone setting out to kill another is NOT comparable to someone trying to stop a threat.
deleted by creator
I don’t know, shooting an unarmed teenager in the head and claiming you were scared makes it sound like homicide is the point for some people.
Clearly he forgot to bring his Good Guy Gun.
deleted by creator
Run faster, you fuck.
I wouldn’t mind slower actually
I don’t need to be the fastest on 2 feet, I just need to be faster than you trips other person
Things to do during a mas shooting:
- Try to escape
- If you can’t escape, hide.
- If you can’t escape or hide, fight back.
Supporting gun ownership or even carrying a gun on your hip doesn’t change that. All carrying a gun does for you in a mass shooting is mature the odds a little less terrible if it comes to option 3.
A handgun is imprecise, low-power, and difficult to aim accurately. On top of that a “good guy with a gun” has to care about collateral damage.
The purpose of carrying a handgun is personal defense, not civil defense. It’s good defense against assault or a mugger. It’s a good deterrent from someone who why’s to harm you and walk away. It’s not good for taking on an unhinged maniac that’s fully intending to die.
Mass shooters are the suicide bombers of the US.
You don’t get the main point of gun control. Gun control means vetting out bad people from getting the guns. Like driver’s license, if you don’t know how drive or regularly violated traffic regulations your license is revoked. Similarly if you have gun license, good people with proper training can get the gun. But people who don’t follow laws will be banned from getting guns.
People who don’t obey laws are already banned from owning guns.
And they are able to get those guns because there’s too many damn guns out there.
Yeah, there are a lot of stories in the news that prove this insufficient. 77% of mass shooters from 1966 to 2019 obtained their guns legally. So great, the laws cover 23% of cases? You know what would happen to me at work if I only handled 23% of my job? I’d be fired.
Clearly new agencies & laws are required, old laws are not effective they need more scrutiny.
“You proclaim to love the ocean, yet you flee from the tsunami… Curious”
[Charlie Kirk.png]
“…Governor & First Lady Parson want to thank the Missouri Highway Patrol, KCPD, and their security officers for their quick and professional actions.”
For getting our own asses out of there, while leaving everyone else to fend for themselves.
“I just ran away from a mass shooting at the Chiefs parade where I saw the Missouri governor (the gun lover below) running scared for his life next to me with an army of officers protecting him,” Quaife wrote"
deleted by creator
OvergrownEnhanced amygdala.The party gets all of its support from slinging FUD, what do you expect?
Fear
Uncertainty
Doubt
It’s a powerful combination.
Now that we’re in election season I see political ads for Republicans running for various things on TV, almost all of them show them brandishing or firing some sort of military style assault weapon. These politicians spew bullshit about protecting kids but instead are a big reason why we now have so many dead ones .
If only he was a teacher, then he could have saved himself and everyone around him.
This strikes me as like implying that I’m hypocritical because I support gay marriage, but then turned down a man who hits on me because im not actually gay.
A person can be pro gun rights and at the same time still be afraid of an active shooter.
I’m hypocritical because I support gay marriage, but then turned down a man who hits on me because im not actually gay.
It would be ironic to loudly and repeatedly declare “If you don’t want to get hit on at a bar, put on that wedding ring” and then get chased out of a bar by a bunch of married men slapping your ass.
A person can be pro gun rights and at the same time still be afraid of an active shooter.
A person who stakes their reputation on the phrase “An Armed Society Is A Polite Society” fleeing said armed society for their lack of politeness establishes a certain hypocrisy.
A person fleeing that situation who may well be unarmed is self-preservation, not hypocrisy, regardless of their stance on guns. He is however reaping what he has helped sow. Hypocrisy is simply the wrong word. This isn’t the same as being anti-abortion and then paying for your mistress to get one. Being pro-gun doesn’t mean you just stand there.
A person fleeing that situation who may well be unarmed is self-preservation, not hypocrisy
A person who insists everyone should be armed everywhere they go and then isn’t armed when he asserts a gun would have been handy is ironic.
A person who stakes their reputation on the phrase “An Armed Society Is A Polite Society” fleeing said armed society for their lack of politeness establishes a certain hypocrisy.
Of course not.
A handgun compares to a rifle like a dagger to a sword.
What?
What did you not understand? A pistol is a gun, a rifle is a gun, a Soviet D-20 howitzer is a gun.
You can’t be that stupid to call somebody a hypocrite for supporting carry of weapons for self-defense because they ran from a mass shooter with a rifle. People usually don’t carry rifles for self-defense.
You can’t be that stupid to call somebody a hypocrite for supporting carry of weapons for self-defense because they ran from a mass shooter
I don’t see this guy making any effort to distinguish between gun and rifle ownership. The Barret .50 plastered on a “Come and Take It” flag was part of the Governor’s pro-2A rally display as recently as last October.
Why the hell should he? I mean that it’s extremely unlikely he had such kind of an instrument with him during that mass shooting.
Who is saying anything about hypocrisy? This is about the guy feeling the consequences for his shitty policies.
2 of the top 5 comments right now are attacking him for not being the “good guy with a gun” and arguably multiple people have challenged me to defend the implicit claims of hypocrisy. So I disagree the implication isn’t there.
Apples to oranges argument and a straw man argument all in one. Bravo sir, brav-fucking-o. Yall never cease to amaze me.
You could explain why, but that would actually take thought and effort and open your position up to being challenged, which is scary. I get it. Empty insults are much easier.
When a gay man “sets his sights” on you, death isn’t a possible outcome. So supporting gay people isn’t a life threatening position to hold. It’s just the right fucking thing to do. However, Being full on pro gun does come with the inevitable death of someone. This politician made it so the exact people who shouldn’t have a gun, would have one. If you are a responsible gun owner than good on you. Please by all means keep your guns, but is it truly too much to ask that you at least take the time to be background checked before getting another gun? Or maybe take a few classes on gun safety? Or be legally required to have it stored in a place away from children and the mentally unstable?
So supporting gay people isn’t a life threatening position to hold. It’s just the right fucking thing to do.
It’s funny how often it happens that when someone falsely accuses of doing something, they are really projecting what they have already done, or are warning you of what they’re about to do.
In this case, attacking a strawman. I certainly did not say that they are equivalent when it comes to life and death. It’s like you forgotten basic SAT logic (or whatever equivalent test you took). Square : rectangle is like murder : homicide. This doesn’t mean that I think all murders have 4 equal sides and 4 right angles.
I was very clear I was talking about the implicit hypocrisy.
And ftr, I’m a firm supporter of stronger gun regulations so the whole rant about what gun regulations you want has zero to do with the point, and reels of just pandering to the opinion of the typical Lemmy user.
you berate me for not fully explaining my position and then come back with a full explanation of your original comment? Just saying sorry I did see through your initial response and should have been more clear in my first comment. I’ll personally try to do better.
you berate me for not fully explaining my position and then come back with a full explanation of your original comment?
First, you were an asshole to me out of the gates, so expecting me to kind to you when you misrepresent my position is kind of bizarre. But never the less, you are correct I should have still stayed respectful, so I too apologize for my response.
But this is what I do when someone doesn’t understand, whether it’s their fault or mine, I try to explain it another way.
I see this soooo much on Lemmy. even more so than on reddit.
As much as I’m on the same page as everyone here; America’s gun laws need to change, are you not allowed to be afraid of the very well known thing your hobby does? Like, being afraid of being shot doesn’t make you a hypocrite for liking guns.
I don’t think anyone is honestly shaming this person for being afraid.
They are shaming him for refusing to do anything about a situation that he eventually wound up in himself, and suggesting that if he’s not going to do something legislatively then he damn well better do something in person, else he has failed in his duty to care for his citizenry. Which is like saying the pot is black, honestly, since politicians don’t care about the citizenry.
The GOP had a stance of good guys with guns will defend people with said guns. So voting to have the guns present and not having one and running instead of defending the people either shows he was a coward by their stance, or not one of the good guys.
Yeah man, that looks like a different set of words to describe what I said.
I’ll take you at your word that that is what you meant to convey, however their set or words is more succinct than yours.
*convey
Sorry
The first mistake people made was believing the GOP had their back.
The first mistake is assuming the GOP cares about people not related to them, or people who don’t benefit them in any way.
Yeah but leaders have to lead and this is what happens when you allow your voters to be terrorized constantly at the expense of your own privilege. He’s lucky he hasn’t been tarred and feathered yet.
You think this was legal under current law?
The issue is that the most common argument against gun control is “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” So now this lawmaker has proven that he doesn’t practice what he preaches. If he truly believed a good guy with a gun was the only thing that could stop the shooter, then why not put his money where his mouth is? Surely he’d be hailed as a paragon for gun rights when he took the shooter down…
But clearly he’s a hypocrite who doesn’t actually believe what he’s saying; He only says it because the gun lobby gives him tons of money to do so.
Gun or no gun, he’s not a good guy and couldn’t have stopped the bad guy…
Yeah you can be enamored by nature and its fauna, while still having a healthy fear of being attacked by animals.
I love trains but being tied to tracks while a train approaches isn’t what I think of as “fun”.
That said proper, responsible gun ownership like any hobby involves accounting for dangers, and also advocating for measures for people to be able to enjoy their passion safely.
Going to the range and being afraid of criminal shooters isn’t hypocritical.
Being afraid of criminal shooters and fighting against gun control reforms makes you a hypocrite and a bad person.
And there’s nothing wrong innately with being a hypocrite. But you’re a pretty shit person if your empathy and considerations can only extend as far as things that have threatened you personally.
No, but open carry and being afraid of criminal shooters is though.
… What?
Guna don’t scare me but people using guns recklessly or maliciously do.
Is “liking” the problem?
Is it?
Is it though?
Well, no.
But neither is “owning.”
The problem is “illegally misusing.”
The problem is obsessive fetishism that ensures illegal uses have no problem finding ownership.
That’s not even my argument: it’s their argument. ‘Criminals can always get a gun!’ Yeah hey y’think that’s got anything to do with how many fuckin’ guns there are? Like maybe we should do something about that number?
Illegal users will always have no problem finding ownership, there are 600,000,000 out there already with no registry to know who/where and nobody wanting to give them up, pandora’s box has been opened, yes. Furthermore even if we ended private sale and mandated safe storage, all black market dealers have to do is manufacture (which is already increasing in popularity but not price, so “yes it can happen” and “no they won’t then be prohibitively expensive or poorly manufactured,” we already see those being proven now), or just say the illegally privately sold arms were stolen from the safe, “forced to open it at gunpoint because all yours were inside it” and such. Actual murderers regularly carry “hot” firearms now, that they knowingly bought as stolen firearms, this practice would continue uninhibited.
Y’all don’t really listen, huh.
“The number’s too big!” We can lower that number. “… Nuh-uh.” We can stop making that number bigger. “No that’s worse somehow.”
Like you cannot imagine anything being different from right now, so just repeating the problem means it cannot be solved.
And your actions can’t make it worse.
As if the exact number of murders going on right now is the same as if we handed every single human alive an untraceable firearm and wished them luck. It’d be the same! Exactly the same! Because so long as a criminal can get a gun, they’re all identically well-served by a flawless free market, exclusively for people you’ve branded “criminals.” Not like your gun-nut friends ever have trouble getting anything legitimately, even though it’s sold at fucking Wal-Mart.
Isn’t it just awful how the school shooters and gangbangers all have full-auto Uzis like in 80s action films, since laws about that did absolutely fucking nothing to make those objects harder to get?
This is where you share your grand plan on how.
Btw, full auto has been illegal since 1986 and the fact that as you say “school shooters have it” proves my point.
You’re proving mine. It’s depressing. I’m not even sure explaining sarcasm would help, if you missed sarcasm that fucking blatant. I put ‘because laws never make things harder to get, huh?’ right at the end, but you’re not really listening. I should not be surprised.
So I’ll be condescendingly literal.
Some people want full-auto guns, but can’t get them, because they’ve been illegal for ages. We successfully made those guns nearly impossible to get. You know this, but you refuse to connect it to any discussion of other kinds of guns, because your script is stuck on the status quo. You do not believe the number can be made lower, for general firearms… even though we’ve made the number lower, for specific firearms.
And you know better than I do how we made that number lower.
Being afraid of being shot does make you a hypocrite if you are against gun restrictions and regulations.
Your world view is getting people killed, you SHOULD be scared.
