Active shooter thread

[Anastasis 23717]

10 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

This is such bullshit and I have no idea why this retardation gets brought up every time this discussion comes up.

Retardation imo is trying to draw a line around the 2nd amendment based on hunting. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

39 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Nope, couldn't be done.  Sorry ranchers.  Shit out of luck.  Gun nut tears!

Luckily large ranchers are never politically connected. 

17 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

This is such bullshit and I have no idea why this retardation gets brought up every time this discussion comes up

It’s a facetious reminder to a tweet from some idiot after one of the shootings,  that posters here are playing off of you fucking dunce. Similar to every third post on this entire site.  JFC it’s like you haven’t realized the collection of assholes on this and previous iterations of this site. 

[Brian Fantana 6864]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Retardation imo is trying to draw a line around the 2nd amendment based on hunting. 

 

Just now, fattyflattie said:

Luckily large ranchers are never politically connected. 

It’s a facetious reminder to a tweet from some idiot after one of the shootings,  that posters here are playing off of you fucking dunce. Similar to every third post on this entire site.  JFC it’s like you haven’t realized the collection of assholes on this and previous iterations of this site. 

Yeah yeah my bad I haven't had coffee yet

[fattyflattie 4640]

But for real tho, I’ve never needed one to fuck up a sounder. 00 buck does wonders. 

The only real reason to hunt with one imo is they make great youth guns (low recoil, many calibers to choose, collapsable stock).  Any other reason a hunter gives you is bullshit, imo. 

[Anastasis 23717]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

But for real tho, I’ve never needed one to fuck up a sounder. 00 buck does wonders. 

Too much to manage hanging out the side door of the helicopter.

[Brian Fantana 6864]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

But for real tho, I’ve never needed one to fuck up a sounder. 00 buck does wonders. 

The only real reason to hunt with one imo is they make great youth guns (low recoil, many calibers to choose, collapsable stock).  Any other reason a hunter gives you is bullshit, imo. 

I'd still teach my kid on a bolt-action rifle, probably a .243, which is what I started out on as a kid. Not a ton of recoil there, but accurate.

[fattyflattie 4640]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Too much to manage hanging out the side door of the helicopter.

Friend of a friend has a name you’d know if you’re from south Texas, and 10’s of thousands of acres. They do the helicopter thing on their place a few time a year. They use both pretty much equally. I don’t know if I kept any of the vids but you can tell the difference when the shotgun hits them, they fold drt.  They prefer the AR for recoil advantages - efficiency/cost is a non factor with that group. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

11 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I'd still teach my kid on a bolt-action rifle, probably a .243, which is what I started out on as a kid. Not a ton of recoil there, but accurate.

Yep, that’s a staple. But a gas .243 still considerably less recoil than a bolt. And ability to fit the stock to them by the inch for a proper fit is likely even more important.  I have all girls, this kind of stuff adds up. Less recoil and better fit mean better placement.  

I’m not advocating we should keep AR’s for this reason, I’m simply saying there is something they do better wrt hunting. Whether that’s important in the grand scheme, everyone else can argue about that. Idgaf as I don’t own them, and probably never will. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4999]

There's also the aspect of being able to swap uppers for different game. You can swap from something big and heavy hitting for larger game to something small and fast with a longer target barrel for varmints. If you already own an AR, you can probably build/buy an extra upper for less than you could buy a whole new rifle.

[hayden_horn 11402]

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

 

Yeah yeah my bad I haven't had coffee yet

don't sweat it, imo. thing is, while @Anastasis was being sarcastic, there are plenty of people out there in this argument who actually use that justification. i had an acquaintance who did just that. don't get me wrong, i love firing an AR-15. it's a fucking blast. but, it's not that important to me to keep it around for kicks, if people keep using it for mass shootings. 

we can keep the thing around, as long as we adopt more stringent policies for gun ownership. you can still own rifles in the UK, you just have to jump through hoops for them. i'm okay with that, increasingly, as each day goes by.

and i own guns. 

 

[Goredho 17652]

On 9/17/2019 at 10:03 AM, Bama Chick said:

Now for something new - it was a girl this time!
 

I guess she was going to shoot through the glass ceiling?

[Neonmoon 38130]

Like Oil companies transitioning to Renewables, Gun companies will start transitioning to military sales only. Yes, it will be a long transition, but getting ahead of the competition is a good idea. 

The young generation is holding mass protests about climate change and gun control. That shit doesn’t just go away when they get older. They will grow up to be lawmakers and business owners. 

Starting over 70 years ago, there was mass protests about civil rights, then women’s rights, then gay rights. They have those rights today. These things don’t just go away 

[jimmyjazz 47162]

47 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

don't get me wrong, i love firing an AR-15. it's a fucking blast.

Curious thought for those who enjoy shooting the AR-15:  would there be any value in a ban that allowed "licensed" gun ranges to own and rent out on premises?  Would that take all the fun out of shooting one?

Honest question.  I don't shoot, and don't own guns, but I get the sporting & hunting aspect and support it.

[Goredho 17652]

 

23 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

This comes across to me as actually not a great thing.

“On the other hand, our warfighters and law enforcement personnel continue to demand Colt rifles and we are fortunate enough to have been awarded significant military and law enforcement contracts.  Currently, these high-volume contracts are absorbing all of Colt’s manufacturing capacity for rifles,” he said.

In other words, the Repugnantcan Party is increasing our national deby by  subsidizing gun manufacturers like they are farmers? :trollface:

[fattyflattie 4640]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Would that take all the fun out of shooting one?

 

All, no.  A lot of it, sure.  Whether it’s get rid of completely or only have “shooting centers” as it were, then of course that’s better than nothing.  Ideally law abiding citizens can continue to do as they already do, and greater efforts are made to weed out the shitheels ruining everything for everyone else. I know, perfect world rainbow and unicorn dreams there. 

[hayden_horn 11402]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Curious thought for those who enjoy shooting the AR-15:  would there be any value in a ban that allowed "licensed" gun ranges to own and rent out on premises?  Would that take all the fun out of shooting one?

Honest question.  I don't shoot, and don't own guns, but I get the sporting & hunting aspect and support it.

part of the deal with AR-15s, as near as i can tell, is that they are fun to fuck with. you can do all kinds of different custom bits with it. so it's for people who like to tinker with the thing. 

that part would go away on the gun range, i reckon, unless people would want to go customize one before shooting it at the gun range. i dunno.

like i said, i fired one a couple of times, out on hunting land, and it was a blast. 

but it's not THAT important to me to be able to do it again.

[DixonHur 11959]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Retardation imo is trying to draw a line around the 2nd amendment based on hunting. 

How about this.  We allow people to keep all the hunting rifles and handguns they want at home, but all military grade weapons need to be kept at a state controlled armory for use when the big bad federal government comes to take over...the thing they already control.

It would be nice if the gun nuts obeyed ALL of the 2nd amendment, instead of just the second part.  

[DDD Dad 14648]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Too much to manage hanging out the side door of the helicopter.

Just don't lead 'em as much.

[Anastasis 23717]

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

How about this.  We allow people to keep all the hunting rifles and handguns they want at home, but all military grade weapons need to be kept at a state controlled armory for use when the big bad federal government comes to take over...the thing they already control.

It would be nice if the gun nuts obeyed ALL of the 2nd amendment, instead of just the second part.  

How about instead of creating state run armories we start by fixing the gaps in the NICS database system, provide a mechanism for background checks on all transfers, and raise the age limit on rifles to correspond with handguns. 

[Fondren & Main 6897]

22 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

How about instead of creating state run armories we start by fixing the gaps in the NICS database system, provide a mechanism for background checks on all transfers, and raise the age limit on rifles to correspond with handguns. 

A fair proposition.

[DixonHur 11959]

42 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

How about instead of creating state run armories we start by fixing the gaps in the NICS database system, provide a mechanism for background checks on all transfers, and raise the age limit on rifles to correspond with handguns. 

Frankly, I don't think background checks are the answer.  I'd much rather focus on the "well regulated militia" part.  Even if you remove the armory part, their is no doubt that guns can be "regulated".  I've mentioned it before, but what if guns were regulated like cars?  Require training / exam to get a gun license, and require guns to be registered, and all owners to carry liability insurance.

[Anastasis 23717]

18 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Frankly, I don't think background checks are the answer. 

Flaws in the background check system were exploited by the perp in the Midland shooting, the guy who had an AR in Pease Park, the Gilroy shooter, etc. It's a problem that should be easily addressable. Fix the data feeds, and provide a mechanism for checks on private sales. 

[DixonHur 11959]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Flaws in the background check system were exploited by the perp in the Midland shooting, the guy who had an AR in Pease Park, the Gilroy shooter, etc. It's a problem that should be easily addressable. Fix the data feeds, and provide a mechanism for checks on private sales. 

My issue is that I don't believe you can fix the data.  Plus, what happens if someone passes the background check, buys a gun, and then goes nuts and shoots the place up?  I don't believe either the El Paso or Dayton shooters failed their background checks.

However, you could make the background check part of the licensing process.  But I think the biggest long-term deterrent would be financial.  If you're required to show proof of insurance before buying a gun, then if something does go wrong, the gun owner, and insurance companies would be on the hook for any civil lawsuits.  Pretty soon guns like AR-15's become less desirable because of the higher cost of ownership.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4999]

2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Frankly, I don't think background checks are the answer.  I'd much rather focus on the "well regulated militia" part.  Even if you remove the armory part, their is no doubt that guns can be "regulated".  I've mentioned it before, but what if guns were regulated like cars?  Require training / exam to get a gun license, and require guns to be registered, and all owners to carry liability insurance.

You don't have to register a vehicle or have insurance unless you plan to drive it on public roads. There are tons of ranch vehicles out there that never leave the ranch and have no registration or insurance beyond whatever their homeowners policy covers. Most states at least treat handguns this way, minus the insurance requirement. If you want to carry in public you have to take a class and pass a background check. I guess there isn't any sort of registration requirements for each individual gun, but handguns are largely treated similar. I don't see a problem with expanding that to rifles and making the class/background check system mandatory through a nationwide reciprocity system for those who wish to carry in public. There needs to be some allowance for transportation of unloaded and secured firearms between private land, however. We also need to fix the background check system so to allow/require background checks through private sales without having to go through an FFL. Magazine capacity restrictions are also something we should talk about before restricting a whole class of firearms that are only really different than those exempt from the assault weapons ban because they commonly have available magazines with a higher capacity.

[Bama Chick 28596]

This sounds bad.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Heartbreaking.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Dead good guy with a gun.

[fattyflattie 4640]

Yeah, would have been much better if only the 2 men robbing him were armed. 

[jimmyjazz 47162]

15 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Yeah, would have been much better if only the 2 men robbing him were armed. 

I think the dead guy might agree.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

28 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think the dead guy might agree.

It’s a decent point. 

[ConferenceRoom 6214]

For what it's worth: 

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

It’s fucking Travis county?  I feel like that information should have been highlighted on here. 

[Biff Tannen 46163]

Nothing to see here.  

[Pig Bellmont 8885]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think the dead guy might agree.

The bystander who was shot probably agrees too. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think the dead guy might agree.

The dead criminal absolutely would.   

[pantone159 728]

17 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Yeah, would have been much better if only the 2 men robbing him were armed. 

Yeah, the guy being robbed would have been complaining about how much it sucks to have been robbed at gunpoint. That sucks. Now he doesn't have to complain about anything!!!

 

[BNB 100]

I think the best solution would be to just stop selling ar type weapons to the public and a voluntary buy back.

I don't know how you would ever accomplish a mandatory buy back.

You can't have machine guns, just admit we fucked up allowing these type of weapons .  I get the "opening the floodgates" to take away other weapons, but I don't think you could ever enforce another bill to take away any other type of weapon.

 

[jimmyjazz 47162]

I don't have a big problem with licensed concealed carry, and I think this story is sad, but it's also a pointed reminder about how "a good guy with a gun" can make things worse.  He was robbed outside a barbershop, and then the two men who robbed him went inside to rob it as well.  Mr. Good Guy could have walked away and called the cops, but he elected to draw his weapon and start shooting.  It cost him his life, as well as that of one of the robbers, and a bystander also took two bullets to his leg.

Could it have gone just as badly had it been trained law enforcement engaging the criminals?  Sure, it could have.  I would imagine the statistics lean fairly heavily towards the private citizen fucking things up more than the cops, though.  (Please, don't turn this into an anti-cop sidebar.)

[fattyflattie 4640]

46 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I would imagine the statistics lean fairly heavily towards the private citizen fucking things up more than the cops, though. 

I don’t know if I’d go that far. Plenty of examples of them not being able to shoot worth a shit.  Just as there are examples of when it all works out in the favor of the good guy. NRA makes sure to publish those every chance they get; sort of the opposite of what the Post did here. Everyone has their own agenda.  

Edited September 25, 2019 by fattyflattie

[jimmyjazz 47162]

14 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I don’t know if I’d go that far. Plenty of examples of them not being able to shoot worth a shit.  Just as there are examples of when it all works out in the favor of the good guy. NRA makes sure to publish those every chance they get; sort of the opposite of what the Post did here. Everyone has their own agenda.  

Yeah, no.  I'm quite confident that the average LEO has far more training than the average "good guy with a gun", both in terms of shooting as well as situational awareness and how to react.  You're offering the tail ends of the curve as evidence?  Come on.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

...and likelihood of wearing a vest while doing so.

[fattyflattie 4640]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You're offering the tail ends of the curve as evidence?  Come on.

I’m not offering shit. He made a poor choice and died because of it. Most responsible CCL wouldnt have followed him, but they weren’t the ones just robbed. Maybe he lost something he felt was worth dying over, we don’t know. 
 

But to assume every CCL or derogatory “good guy with a gun” as you like to call them, is not proficient with their weapon is bullshit. I would venture to guess someone who edc is at the range several times a month at a minimum.  So yeah, maybe not as often as law enforcement, but considerably more than what you are portraying. Where the LEO would have the advantage isn’t even in practice, it would be his experience in the amount of times he’s been in a drawn weapon situation.   I would put several members of this forum up against a cop in shooting at targets, any day of the week. Anyone that competitively shoots 3 gun. I’d put most veterans above LEO in that regard as well.    Turn that into an active shooter situation, and LEO holds an advantage over civilian Joe, maybe not the veteran.  There’s a lot of stories of people shooting intruders/car jackers dead. The fact the Post doesn’t cover them at the same clip, I don’t know what to tell you. 

[jimmyjazz 47162]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

But to assume every CCL or derogatory “good guy with a gun” as you like to call them, is not proficient with their weapon is bullshit. I would venture to guess someone who edc is at the range several times a month at a minimum.  So yeah, maybe not as often as law enforcement, but considerably more than what you are portraying. 

You have an extraordinary way of putting words in people's mouths.  I made no such assumptions.  Prove otherwise or fuck off.

[fattyflattie 4640]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

You have an extraordinary way of putting words in people's mouths.  I made no such assumptions.  Prove otherwise or fuck off.

Expand 

[jimmyjazz 47162]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Expand 

Good lord.  I never said "every CCL . . . is not proficient with their weapon".

Expansion complete. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

Ok. If that’s what hurt your feelings, so be it.  I’ll go fuck myself now. 
 

For a seemingly intelligent poster, you speak on this topic while far too deep into your feels.  Guns scare you, and not knowing shit about them increases your fear.  That’s understandable.  And I remember our conversations for years now on the subject - you admittedly didn’t know shit about shit wrt guns in your first posts. Maybe you’ve googled enough since to feel you an authority.  But I’d wager you don’t have a dog in the hunt on one side, and that happens to fall inline with your politics, so you’ve taken a hard stance on it.  
 

A man took made a bad decision and died from it.  That was the story.  Both the Post article and the forum posts associated with it seem to happy it happened.  “See, told y’all” - it’s projecting a “having a gun isn’t going to project you in a robbery” feel and that’s absurd.  One event doesn’t prove shit for either side. 

Your “good guy with a gun” bit is over used at best, and as a gun owner, it reminds me of when I hear people refer to POC as “Democrats”.  You should consider just calling them a CCL, or licensed holder, etc. 

[jimmyjazz 47162]

For starters, I don't know who the hell you are, because I don't keep a cheat sheet of new user names.  (You'll note that I haven't changed mine in decades.)  So, I don't know your posting history.  Clearly mine has had an effect on you, though.

Beyond that, nothing I posted requires me to be a gun owner or an experienced shooter, although I have shot a few guns in my day and found it roughly as enjoyable as fishing, which is to say "not all that enjoyable but it beats a kick in the nuts".  Believe it or not, I'm on your side.  I'm not "scared of guns", so you're wrong there, too.  I would suggest that, while you accuse me of speaking while "too deep into my feels", you speak while a little deeper in your brains.

[fattyflattie 4640]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

 

For starters, I don't know who the hell you are, because I don't keep a cheat sheet of new user names.  (You'll note that I haven't changed mine in decades.)  So, I don't know your posting history.  Clearly mine has had an effect on you, though.

 

Man, that hurts.  After 11 years (shaggy started in ‘08 iirc) I figured you might remember my handle. We’ve specifically gone back and forth over this issue mainly on surly since a year or two ago.  I don’t remember what thread, I think it was around the time of the Parkland tragedy. I remember you specially because you always seemed like you were interested in the discussions, and would ask questions about the aspects you weren’t familiar with.  I thought we had some fruitful exchanges. Maybe I need an avatar... 

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Believe it or not, I'm on your side.

I follow many discussions in the CR cesspool - we don’t fall on the same side on much of anything.  Which to me is fine, it takes different strokes to move things forward, imo. 

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I would suggest that, while you accuse me of speaking while "too deep into my feels", you speak while a little deeper in your brains.

I didn’t start with much, I’m doing the best I can. 

[jimmyjazz 47162]

I just thought you were riffing on KSU's fatty.  2008 isn't that long ago -- I can't say I remember your handle all the way to '08 but certainly do over the last half decade or so.  You mentioned "years now" which to me feels a little different than "a year or two ago".

So, mea culpa.  I thought you were implying you used to post way back in the day under a different handle.

That said, I'm a curious person, I like to learn as much as I can about just about anything, but I find it ludicrous that one should be expected to have an encyclopedic knowledge of (currently) legal weaponry in order to have an opinion, particularly when plenty of people who DO have such an in depth knowledge state unequivocally that the average Joe doesn't need an AR-15 or its variants.  I also point you to Warren Burger, who without question had very strong opinions on the gun lobby and the damage it has done to our society.

Ultimately, I'd suggest gun proponents seek out people like me who are willing to compromise on the issue.  I've had my viewpoint willfully distorted by many around here -- Armybrat is a consistent offender and proudly so -- so fuck those people.  I support your right to own handguns, shotguns, most rifles, w/o many exceptions.  Try not to diminish my perspective or that of others like me because the alternative could be a whole lot worse.

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m not offering shit. He made a poor choice and died because of it. Most responsible CCL wouldnt have followed him, but they weren’t the ones just robbed. Maybe he lost something he felt was worth dying over, we don’t know. 
 

But to assume every CCL or derogatory “good guy with a gun” as you like to call them, is not proficient with their weapon is bullshit. I would venture to guess someone who edc is at the range several times a month at a minimum.  So yeah, maybe not as often as law enforcement, but considerably more than what you are portraying. Where the LEO would have the advantage isn’t even in practice, it would be his experience in the amount of times he’s been in a drawn weapon situation.   I would put several members of this forum up against a cop in shooting at targets, any day of the week. Anyone that competitively shoots 3 gun. I’d put most veterans above LEO in that regard as well.    Turn that into an active shooter situation, and LEO holds an advantage over civilian Joe, maybe not the veteran.  There’s a lot of stories of people shooting intruders/car jackers dead. The fact the Post doesn’t cover them at the same clip, I don’t know what to tell you. 

There are exactly zero material objects that are worth dying over.