Jump to content

Active shooter thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 13.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

4th&Five
4th&Five

Fuck off. You vote for this shit. Explain that to your kids. 

Pancho
Pancho

3rd leg of my move from Houston to the Bay Area, and I made it to LA.   I’m just now catching up on the news in my hotel.  I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again—I don’t have kids, but this e

royiv
royiv

WTF world are we living in when people are having a discussion about survival rates of certain rounds? People are being terrorized by gun violence and we're discussing which bullet has worse/better ch

Posted Images

'stache

'stache 21761

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, hpslugga said:

They only announce boycotts; they don’t actually follow through with them. For example, when those simpletons were burning their Nikes in protest of Colin Kaepernick, you know full well that those morons went out and bought another pair when it donned on them “shit, I need a new pair of shoes,” and they went out and got Nikes again. 

Please, none of them actually owned Nikes, they just reposted the same five videos. They owned the generic Walmart brand shoes that look like Nikes. They'll still buy them but pretend they boycotted 'cause aggy luv guns.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
American Swindle

American Swindle 102

Posted
Posted
On 9/5/2019 at 2:45 PM, longhornmatt said:

Are you saying that the federal government is a threat to subjugate the American people, but that they will only use the weapons at their disposal which could be defeated by a dude carrying an AR-15?   You’re the one arguing people need assault rifles to defend against government tyranny, but then you’re trying to write the rules to where the tyrannical government will just use slingshots and bayonets or sternly worded emails or something.  

People who think the federal government is such a threat to terrorize the populace probably should re-evaluate whether we want the military to be so heavily armed, though.  I agree it is strange how there are so many people who are over the top in glorifying the military and in favor of massive defense spending, and yet they simultaneously say they need guns to defend themselves against the coming attack on their families by said government  which could come at anytime. It doesn’t make much sense.  It’s almost like they just latch on to whatever argument they think will get them the result they want.

 

No no no, not writing rules.  We have a rule, it's the 2nd fucking Amendment. 

All I'm saying is that if we allow the State (local, state or federal) to restrict what types of firearms law-abiding citizens can possess, then it will increase the likelihood toward a path of total disarmament.  

Hitler did this to the Jews.  That did not turn out so well.  

 

  • Fuck You 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29397

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

No no no, not writing rules.  We have a rule, it's the 2nd fucking Amendment. 

All I'm saying is that if we allow the State (local, state or federal) to restrict what types of firearms law-abiding citizens can possess, then it will increase the likelihood toward a path of total disarmament.  

Hitler did this to the Jews.  That did not turn out so well.  

 

Negged for such a false equivalency that it was a deceitful statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13410

Posted
Posted

Story from Fox News.com regarding the first person to be indicted for possessing a bump stock: https://www.foxnews.com/us/houston-man-first-to-be-indicted-for-bump-stock-possession-since-ban  Houston representing.

Some push back on specific gun bans as impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. That If there are 10m certain guns out there, it's impossible to expect the owners to return all of them. I agree that some won't. However when you set a high penalty with possessing a certain weapon, most people, even criminals, will turn them in or personally destroy them. If they decide they don't want to, then they can deal with the consequences when they're caught. 

And some will never get caught with their illegal weapon. Which is a feature of our criminal justice program. Many criminals avoid attention, indictment, conviction, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotActuallyALonghorn

NotActuallyALonghorn 4968

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Story from Fox News.com regarding the first person to be indicted for possessing a bump stock: https://www.foxnews.com/us/houston-man-first-to-be-indicted-for-bump-stock-possession-since-ban  Houston representing.

Some push back on specific gun bans as impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. That If there are 10m certain guns out there, it's impossible to expect the owners to return all of them. I agree that some won't. However when you set a high penalty with possessing a certain weapon, most people, even criminals, will turn them in or personally destroy them. If they decide they don't want to, then they can deal with the consequences when they're caught. 

And some will never get caught with their illegal weapon. Which is a feature of our criminal justice program. Many criminals avoid attention, indictment, conviction, etc.

It'll be interesting what happens in this case. They will probably convict, but the appeals may overturn the entire bump stock ban since it basically rewrote law by executive order. I don't have a problem banning bump stocks, but the law was pretty clear and it should have been congresses job to ban them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

If we stipulate that what you say is correct, how does it not change the tenor of your argument when you concede the people with the semi-automatic rifles are the ones who support the white nationalist authoritarian President who is not going to transition power peacefully?  

Well I don’t concede that fact. 

Do you own a semi auto? Do you consider yourself a supporter of a white nationalist authoritarian take over of the us government?

Trijicon man, maybe you chime in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, longhornmatt said:

You’re the one who described Trump and the current America as on the verge of a white nationalist authoritarian takeover so you could imply that it’s stupid to give up guns in such a climate.  I wouldn’t actually describe America that way, but it was your post.  

Those points are pretty common dogma lifted straight from the Trump 2019 thread. I would link specific posts, but it would be a long cat, and we both know exactly what I am referring to.

 I don't believe that the 10+MM people in this country with AR-15s (nor the millions more with other SA rifles) would support a white nationalist authoritarian takeover of the federal government by a POTUS who refused to leave office, as you suggested. I think that is silly and that you don't believe that either.  

But I will tell what I do believe.  I believe that if the CR is right, and Trump is plotting an unconstitutional takeover of the federal government to effect a white nationalist authoritarian remake of America, I'd like to go ahead and keep my ARs and my magazines if that is alright.

I also believe that we can take a good number of common sense steps to address gun violence both broadly and specifically wrt mass shootings. 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

I’m ready to up the age to 25 unless you are law enforcement.  Crazies are fucking it up for everyone.

I wouldn't be totally opposed to that.  But I would apply all of the same restrictions to LEOs that are applied to the rest of us citizens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2035

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

Is Nazi Germany the only nation in world history that regulated ownership of assault rifles?  Why are we ignoring (checks notes) virtually every other country in the world today, each of which has more stringent gun control measures than the United States?  

I will even grant you could point to Venezuela or North Korea or some other authoritarian nation as places where civilians wished they had more guns, but on the balance it doesn’t seem like stable first world Western nations are in shambles or recreating the Holocaust because Little Johnny can’t buy an AR-15.

I mean Hong Kong seems that they want something more than sticks and stones against the Chinese.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grade of D as in David

Grade of D as in David 13253

Posted
Posted

Serious question. If the people of Hong Kong had access to the same weaponry, body armor, etc that American citizens have it would almost certainly escalate the Chinese response. Do you honestly think those people could defeat the Chinese military? Don't think the Chinese wouldn't do it either. They squashed a guy with a tank only 30 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2035

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Serious question. If the people of Hong Kong had access to the same weaponry, body armor, etc that American citizens have it would almost certainly escalate the Chinese response. Do you honestly think those people could defeat the Chinese military? Don't think the Chinese wouldn't do it either. They squashed a guy with a tank only 30 years ago.

Fuck, do you let the big guy just rape your wife, or are you too much of a pussy to do anything since he'll most likely pound you? (Not you specifically)

You do nothing, or you do something. One has a possibility to win the other you lose without a fight.

Edited by workswithseed
Link to comment
Share on other sites
phdhorn

phdhorn 6224

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

 They squashed a guy with a tank only 30 years ago.

Well, to be accurate, if you're talking about this guy:
tankman.jpg

No, they didn't squash him (whether they "squashed" other people remains to be seen).  The guy successfully forced the tanks to stop.

However what happened to him is still a mystery; some reports have him executed within 2 weeks of the incident.  Others are that he's alive and doing well in Taiwan.

Anyway, accuracy in history - because any other way leads to stuff as horror-inducing Surly Cloak Room posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28705

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Serious question. If the people of Hong Kong had access to the same weaponry, body armor, etc that American citizens have it would almost certainly escalate the Chinese response. Do you honestly think those people could defeat the Chinese military? Don't think the Chinese wouldn't do it either. They squashed a guy with a tank only 30 years ago.

Hell, our own military can't defeat the Chinese military.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Post Oak

Post Oak 20183

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Gunshots at another Alabama high school football game tonight, this time near Birmingham.
 

 


No idea if was inside the stadium or if anyone was hurt.

Terrifying watching those kids go from celebrating to ducking for cover.

 

Our new normal.  

This shit has to stop.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TDunk

TDunk 590

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I wouldn't be totally opposed to that.  But I would apply all of the same restrictions to LEOs that are applied to the rest of us citizens. 

Would that also apply to military personnel?  Or can you three sides this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104557

Posted
Posted
Would that also apply to military personnel?  Or can you three sides this...

Naaah. He’s just a fan of coming up with absolute conditions to impose on any possible solution so that nothing will ever actually change. It’s his thing. Well, one of his things. Might be his dumbest thing, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keef

Keef 757

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, phdhorn said:

Well, to be accurate, if you're talking about this guy:
tankman.jpg

No, they didn't squash him (whether they "squashed" other people remains to be seen).  The guy successfully forced the tanks to stop.

However what happened to him is still a mystery; some reports have him executed within 2 weeks of the incident.  Others are that he's alive and doing well in Taiwan.

Anyway, accuracy in history - because any other way leads to stuff as horror-inducing Surly Cloak Room posts

One of the better PBS frontline documentaries I've seen is on the Tank Man.  Worth the time:  https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Born to Run

Born to Run 6565

Posted
Posted
I’m ready to up the age to 25 unless you are law enforcement.  Crazies are fucking it up for everyone.
That's a prudent starting point based on psychology. Development of adolescent brains and what not.
Too bad we don't really study gun violence data under this administration. Makes things ripe for loss of rights, and when I see the open carry assholes, I cant help but say fuck em. I'll turn in my purchased guns happily to save any lives possible and turn the tide back towards sanity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, TDunk said:

Would that also apply to military personnel?  Or can you three sides this...

I don't think that would be practical. 

38 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Naaah. He’s just a fan of coming up with absolute conditions to impose on any possible solution so that nothing will ever actually change. It’s his thing. Well, one of his things. Might be his dumbest thing, though.

Big fan of asymmetrical armament of domestic law enforcement compared to the rest citizenry, huh?  I didn't put you on that one brisket. 

I generally think that, with extremely few exceptions, restrictions on firearms applied to law abiding citizens should be equally applied to domestic law enforcement. 

WRT gun control I have suggested any number of sensible steps that could be taken that are not reflective of "absolute conditions to impose...so that nothing will ever actually change." But I don't expect you to engage me on the topic honestly.  That isn't one of your things anymore. 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Degenerate Gardner

Degenerate Gardner 4081

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Gunshots at another Alabama high school football game tonight, this time near Birmingham.
 

 


No idea if was inside the stadium or if anyone was hurt.

Terrifying watching those kids go from celebrating to ducking for cover.

 

Surely there's enough good guys with guns and donuts to stop any bad guy.  Rest easy Alabamans, the situation is in hand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29397

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Fuck, do you let the big guy just rape your wife, or are you too much of a pussy to do anything since he'll most likely pound you? (Not you specifically)

You do nothing, or you do something. One has a possibility to win the other you lose without a fight.

Have you never heard of Gandhi or MLK? Non-violent resistance does have a history of success too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104557

Posted
Posted
Big fan of asymmetrical armament of domestic law enforcement compared to the rest citizenry, huh?  I didn't put you on that one brisket. 

I generally think that, with extremely few exceptions, restrictions on firearms applied to law abiding citizens should be equally applied to domestic law enforcement. 

WRT gun control I have suggested any number of sensible steps that could be taken that are not reflective of "absolute conditions to impose...so that nothing will ever actually change." But I don't expect you to engage me on the topic honestly.  That isn't one of your things anymore. 

Never been a fan of militarization of law enforcement. Still hate it.

I just see idiotic “if then” conditions for what they are - a recipe for doing neither thing.

I would like magazine restrictions and full background checks with a real database. I would also like non-militarized cops. I would also like available low-cost-to-free public higher ed options. I don’t think any of those should be made conditional on any other thing.

Good fallacy you’ve got going. You should definitely keep running with it.

3aa6348f5edd586625544d6b7300929d.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:

I would like magazine restrictions and full background checks with a real database. I would also like non-militarized cops. I would also like available low-cost to free public higher ed. I don’t think any of those should be made conditional on any other thing.

Oranges, grapefruit, and asparagus. 

 

It makes no sense from a policy perspective to tie public education into a discussion of gun control.

It makes perfect sense from a gun control policy perspective to ensure that any restrictions of 2nd amendment rights are applied equally to all citizens. Most especially if you have concerns about the actions and militarization of domestic law enforcement personnel.

Domestic LE is responsible for a far greater number of shooting deaths than mass shooters. The multiple is between 2-4, which gives you plenty of wiggle room for justified vs. unjustified police shootings.

If you want me to turn in my ARs, but not this guy, you can get fucked.

 

Brailsford.jpg 

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29397

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I mean, I don't know about you, but I would say that America/UK are different than the Chinese. 

How many Chinese individuals are you acquainted with? For the most part, the ones I'm friends with are very much the humanitarian sort who wouldn't hurt a fly. Sure, there likely some outliers, but I don't think they're any different than us WASPs. In fact, I'd much rather trust an average Chinese person with a gun than your garden variety redneck racist aggy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
American Swindle

American Swindle 102

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/6/2019 at 8:31 PM, Grade of D as in David said:

Serious question. If the people of Hong Kong had access to the same weaponry, body armor, etc that American citizens have it would almost certainly escalate the Chinese response. Do you honestly think those people could defeat the Chinese military? Don't think the Chinese wouldn't do it either. They squashed a guy with a tank only 30 years ago.

The answer may be no, but it boils down to the right to defend's one self against a tyrannical government.  Do they have the right to or not?  It's really simple.  Also, an armed population of informed citizens is a lot harder to control than an unarmed population.  

If we set the precedent in the US now, then what happens when a tyrant in the White House makes law abiding citizens criminals overnight with the stroke of a pen?  Then, let's say this tyrant is colluding with a foreign nation to do so.   Sounds crazy, but a lot on this board consider the current sitting president a treasonous Russian sympathizer that colluded to overthrow our election. So again, incrementally allowing the government to restrict what types of firearms law abiding citizens can own allows for a slippery slope toward total disarmament.  

And in the end, how does any of this address the crux of the issue:  factors that contribute to the mental health of humans that decide to go on these mass shooting sprees.  

Also, research shows that the deaths associated with these shootings goes exponentially down when the shooters are met with violent force in the shortest amount of time possible.  Thus, it would only benefit society to have more armed, law abiding citizens to quickly react with violent force rather than waiting 3-12 minutes for police to respond.  

Edited by American Swindle
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ConferenceRoom

ConferenceRoom 6126

Posted
Posted

Also, research shows that the deaths associated with these shootings goes exponentially down when the shooters are met with violent force in the shortest amount of time possible.  Thus, it would only benefit society to have more armed, law abiding citizens to quickly react with violent force rather than waiting 3-12 minutes for police to respond.  


Do you have a source for this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...