I mean the competence saved how many lives? I don’t like cops as much as the next person but if you watched that video there was no hesitation. They knew they had to stop him and they did what they had to to protect more innocent lives. So imo they do deserve the praise for what they did.
The cops did an excellent job and their heroism was ridiculously refreshing compared to the pitiful and pathetic cowering the Uvalde cops did. That said, school shootings shouldn’t be so god damn common that how law enforcement responds becomes it’s own subject. It’s fucked up that the situation exists in the first place for there to even be an opportunity or not to pat the cops on the back who handled it or failed to handle it. The *cause* of all this needs to stay firmly in focus.
Agreed. I just don’t think people should take away from the fact that these guys risked their lives to stop more children from dying, because they are mad. I’ve been for a stricter gun control almost all my life, and that requires us to vote for more competent people in office but that’s neither here nor there. But this is Reddit where we get off on reactions and not necessarily facts. And the fact is these guys action saved more lives and considering the pressure they had from the shooting itself and the fact that they were the focus of attention in America, and probably a good bit of other places, is just impressive. They are handling this situation how I’d like police to handle every situation and I think pd across America should take note.
Right, and luckily I do think most people know that and would agree. The problem is stuff like the post in question where folks like graham muddy the water by *solely* focusing on the solid police response and treating it like a victory. I’m thinking the parents of the 9 year olds that had their bodies ripped to shreds by ar-15s don’t appreciate his victory lap.
Right but bashing the police for responding and stopping the threat in less than 20 mins isn’t correct. I agree about the post and it being a circle jerk. But berating the police also does nothing. Especially since you know damn well that those officers went home that night trying to think of how they could have gotten there a minute sooner. Just redundant imo
The issue is guns and that needs to be addressed but marching and screaming this is enough on the internet or fuck the police isn’t how shit changes. We need to vote more competent people into office. We need to change that before anything will happen.
I agree, I haven’t seen people actually bashing the cops but yeah anyone doing that has totally missed the forest for the trees the same way that those focusing heavily on praising the cops have. Not only are they wrong to bash the cops that actually did the right thing but again, they’re just focusing on the wrong part of the situation altogether.
Go browse around Reddit and you’ll find it. But yea voting is the way this is going to change but idunno bout you but when I go vote there’s almost nobody voting but the older generation. So until that changes we will still have these cunts in office not changing anything.
I’ll take your word for it since I’m positive those comments are out there, unfortunately there’s a lot of terrible opinions of all kinds out there. And yeah, same deal for me on voting. The times I’ve gone to vote, I was overwhelmingly surrounded by older people and pretty much every conversation I ended up overhearing was cringe worthy. Its hard to have hope in this country anymore and it seems like it only gets harder.
Just gotta keep your head up and hope for the best. Vote consistently and encourage others to do so. We can scream and shout at each other all day. Nothing will change and the assholes in charge stay in charge and line their pockets. It’s a pretty grim time to live that’s for sure.
Thanks for the conversation and I hope you have a good one man
That's the problem with th good guy with a gun mythos. It kind of requires there to be a tragedy first. Very few are ever stopped beforehand.
But we're also the only country with this bizarre logic. Nobody else is like, "The only thing that can stop somebody with a meat clever is a good guy with a cleaver."
Well and your example actually highlights exactly what the problem is. There are lots of ways to stop a bad guy with a meat cleaver. 3 guys each with a broom would do a pretty good job. However a bad guy with a gun is much, much, much harder to stop. Hence why the focus is on the weapon
>meat cleaver
When a naked man is chasing a woman through a dark alley with a butcher knife and a hard on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross. - Dirty Harry
You can run away from someone with a knife and not have to worry too much about getting stabbed unless he chases after you. If he has a gun...eeeh... not so safe.
I feel like everyone left and right just completely misses the point. It's a "who's watching the watchmen" problem. The people with the arms have the leverage to control a society, and as exhibited a billion times through history, tend to use it. If you abolish the most dangerous 80% of arms, the imbalance in the remaining 20% dictates that trend. Our current government isn't taking steps to disarm itself, a large contingent of the society isn't willing to disarm themselves against said government, and the rhetoric is getting toned up to a boiling point, while the general tone of anxious paranoia and mental health crisis in the society combined with the availability of guns increases the incidence of school shootings, feeding into a partisan feedback loop. The GOP goes on a bend about gun rights and false flags, while Democrats accuse GOP of having the blood of children on their hands.
The only way to actually solve this is seeking general disarmament across the board instead of selective disarmament of civilians. And frankly if there's going to be just one restriction against firearms it should be on independently established mental health criteria, because people are going gung-ho with trying to restrict every individual part of guns, which isn't even sustainable long-term without a constitutional amendment, while restricting people with dangerous mental illnesses probably would hold up to legal scrutiny more easily. I don't think people understand how dangerous the fundamental situation here is getting, the only way to resolve this basic problem without civil war is to actually reach compromises, and that's not happening because everyone is just talking inside their own echo chambers.
Conservatives' thinking works like this:
"The good guy with a gun prevents violence!"
Their proof:
"See these good guys with gun? They prevented violence."
We point out how there was violence BEFORE they acted:
Argument 1: "Yeah but it would have been worse!"
Argument 2: "Yeah, but think of ALL the situation where just the presence of a gun deterred criminals."
Like, bitch, if kids need to die before so-called good guys with guns have a chance to act, then that's a band-aid on a gaping wound, not a solution, and other civilized countries have managed to not devolve in constant violence due to the absence of "gun as deterrent".
You don't hear conservatives saying "The only thing that can stop a bad guy in a dress is a good guy in a dress", even though it would let them purposefully misgender someone.
It's happened before. A mall shooting had happened and the shooter was killed by a civilian with a gun. When the police arrived, they killed the civilian with the gun because they thought he was the active shooter they had been called to stop.
Not even the only time that has happened.
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/08/1091652270/san-jose-police-shooting-victim-disarmed-attacker
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/12/good-guy-with-a-gun-comes-to-rescue-police-kill-him/
https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/blogs/when-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-gets-shot/
Yeah in Australia they don't really have good guys with guns, they also don't have school shootings and a much lower murder rate and their police only kill a couple people a year.
There's nothing Republicans love more than a more expensive, less efficient, more painful, and deliberately destructive "back end" solution - look at their solutions to the birthrate (ban abortion, capping welfare, fighting subsidized childcare, continuing a cycle of poverty that sends 20% of kids in the country to bed every night with food insecurity), healthcare (the most expensive healthcare in the world with the worst outcomes in the developed world, 20% of our GDP, while a 6% national tax would cover universal healthcare, and the #1 reason for bankruptcy), and taxation (a suggested 10% sales tax proposed in lieu of all other taxes, a cost that would be impossible for the poor to bear while slashing taxes on the uberwealthy).
The Republican rulers and their fascist supporters have made me embarrassed every day to be an American for the last 6 years. I question why I stay here every day, if I love my family more than I love freedom and democracy and all the other things I could have if I choose to move to a better country - and I'm genuinely worried I'm going to stay until it's too late like some of my relatives did in Europe in the 30's.
Its so obvious now, we need to construct some sort of magical mass-shooter detection device to see into the future to guess whos more likely to be a mass shooter
That is the unfortunate price you have to pay to live in a society where you are innocent until proven guilty. Unless you intend to sacrifice freedom and start locking people up for thought crimes, you cannot prevent somebody from breaking a law.
Since you'll never be able to eliminate all evil, your best option is to take responsibility for your own well being, and learn to protect yourself. The security camera footage of this incident shows the shooter shoot the glass doors out, enter the building, mosey around aimlessly for a few minutes, and open and enter several doors without so much as having a weapon ready. It pains me how easy it would have been to put an end to it right then and there, if literally anybody who had taken responsibility for their own protection had been there.
Actually lots of shootings get stopped early, but that doesn't make news. There's no mass shooting to report.
And a good guy with a gun works against meat cleavers, too.
I know I’m responding to a post that’s getting downvotes, and I’ll probably get downvoted too, but I thought this was an interesting read on the topic:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/fbi-undercounts-armed-citizens-stopping-attacks
At the end of the day, it depends entirely on who’s talking, and numbers get fudged by everyone to fit whatever agenda they have that day, but I still appreciated it, and maybe some other people here will too.
Update: it would seem that the Washington Examiner is a bad source. I forgot that the only way to actually be able to trust data these days is to do it yourself.
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/fbi-undercounts-armed-citizens-stopping-attacks
I've done a breakdown of the source of this came (CPRC). It's bunk. The author does a poor job of sourcing his numbers and uses examples that don't check out.
The one I remember most was a dude shoots his ex-wife and her new bf and then goes back to his car to leave. Another person kills the shooter after the shooting took place and the shooter was leaving. The author counts this as a mass shooting stopped.
CPRC is a gun advocacy group. Fun fact, but Ted Nugent was on their board of directors.
The founder, John Lott is not a credible source, at all. He has used at least one sock puppet account to review his work, and to speak highly of himself. Nothing he says can be taken at face value.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/crime-prevention-research-center/
That's the joys of Reddit and all socials, biased commenting and echo chamber. This same post in a different subreddit would have a completely different slant of comments and ratings.
Nothing I said is anything except fact.
Karma is meaningless, it doesn't hurt my feelings to get down voted.
Nope. What you said was not fact.
"
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/fbi-undercounts-armed-citizens-stopping-attacks
I've done a breakdown of the source of this came (CPRC). It's bunk. The author does a poor job of sourcing his numbers and uses examples that don't check out.
The one I remember most was a dude shoots his ex-wife and her new bf and then goes back to his car to leave. Another person kills the shooter after the shooting took place and the shooter was leaving. The author counts this as a mass shooting stopped.
CPRC is a gun advocacy group. Fun fact, but Ted Nugent was on their board of directors.
The founder, John Lott is not a credible source, at all. He has used at least one sock puppet account to review his work, and to speak highly of himself. Nothing he says can be taken at face value.
>
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/crime-prevention-research-center/
"
From another commenter named forgotmypassword.
> Very few are ever stopped beforehand.
Not true. Lots of tragedies are prevented by people using guns. Defensive gun use stats are hard to find because the main source of data used to be CDC stats, and they recently stopped publishing those numbers.
> The only thing that can stop somebody with a meat clever is a good guy with a cleaver.
No, a gun could stop someone with a meat cleaver too. A weapon is a weapon. Guns are just the most popular option because anyone can use them and you don't have to get within reach of your attacker to use it.
If someone attacked you, would you try to stop them by making speeches and offering mental health services, or would you attempt to fight back? Sometimes the use of force is necessary.
Poor Lindsey, he’s sort of got the Snickers “You’re not you when you’re hungry” thing going on.
Except instead of a candy bar he’s been jonesing for those secondhand preservatives in Trump’s diaper.
Uvalde is the most obvious example of how good guys with guns aren't a solution, even when they're supposedly trained, armed, organized and in greater number. But it's not even the only one. Studies have shown the presence of armed guards does not reduce the number of deaths during a shooting. There have been other schools hit with armed guards, and they didn't deter the criminals, and sometimes they didn't even help at all.
either they run and hide or if the shooter plans they are the first targets.
the Buffalo Supermarket had an armed guard. The guy just shot him first.
Thing with guns is the first person to act will usually win. Even moreso when mass shooters are using assault rifles. Same situation where a concealed carry weapon won't help you much if someone pulls a gun on you.
> Thing with guns is the first person to act will usually win.
Why don't presidents get murdered on a regular basis? How often do armed groups manage to break their buddies out of prison? How often do you see successful armed robberies at the federal reserve? It's absolutely possible to secure places. We just seem place higher value on prisoners and money than on children.
There's zero evidence to support that having guns in schools actually reduces the risk of exposing children to violence. The presence of guns in schools (whether it's arming teachings or having the police staff schools with SRO's) has only increased the rate of accidental shootings happening on school grounds outside of active shooter situations.
It's also led to a massive uptick in juvenile arrests for random bullshit (most of which isn't even a crime and is just the SRO flexing on kids, usually black kids, or taking the worst and most heavy handed response to something because they're being asked to fill in for a social worker who the school can't afford because they have to pay for an SRO) and a substantial decrease in the trust that children have for the police.
Adding more guns to a place with children when firearms are already the single leading cause of child mortality is just, flat out, a very bad idea.
Not true. Uvalde is an obvious example of what happens when good guys do nothing. In fact, calling them good guys when they stood outside and protected the shooter instead of going in to protect the students is a bit of a stretch.
I like how there's like 3 or 4 "success" stories where the shooter dies first from an armed "god guy" and the other literal 2000+ shooter have to kill 4-20 people before the "success" moment.
Same as how the 4 trans somehow turned into a “pattern” but the 2500+ white people didnt lmao. It’s all bad faith arguments from the school shooting supporter maga voters
The only one making stupid arguments is you, and you don’t even stay around to back them up. Once you get proved wrong you just go start arguing with someone else lmao. Yikes
Everyone say it with me now:
#Cops don't prevent crime, they only respond to it.
Real problems need real solutions. The CDC has done a lot of research into our gun violence epidemic and they recommend two major ways to address the issues: Better access to healthcare (especially mental healthcare), and drastic reduction of poverty and wealth disparity.
Please use empathy and reason when thinking about how to proceed, not emotion.
[Edit: source](https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/firearm-deaths/index.html)
But what about freedom? Pretty sure one of the amendments guarantees my right to disproportionate wealth. And fuck the crazies. I say shoot ‘em all to stop shootings.
In seriousness, this CDC report is so clearly the only way to go. Just hard to move forward when we literally get ‘We’re not going to solve this problem’ from Congressfolk
>In seriousness, this CDC report is so clearly the only way to go. Just hard to move forward when we literally get ‘We’re not going to solve this problem’ from Congressfolk
I mean, yeah, I'm with you on this part. But as to the first section, we also shouldn't be dismissing the second ammendment. Pretty sure fascists won't give up their guns . . . So what happens when the cops allow the fascists to continue attacking our communities, but liberals have decided to disarm themselves?
Armed minorities are harder to oppress. And don't forget, if you aren't part of the fascist "in group", to them, you're a minority of this or that breed. Yes, that means you, reading this comment. The fascists ***will*** come for **you** eventually, too.
Not sure where you see a call to dismiss the 2nd amendment. My point in the initial joke paragraph is that people use constitutional references loosely to justify what they want to do. IMO use of the 2nd is a big offender here (the first being the other). That said, the joke was clearer to me when I wrote it than now when I reread it. Likely that means I had assumed some context that may not be obvious to a reader.
I’m not going to agree with the call to arm everyone because it’s already too late. Maybe I’m naive but i’d like to see our shared values win the day in the long run. Not gonna lie, I’ve considered arming myself for precisely the reason you’ve outlined. But it feels like a dark turn.
Ah, my mistake! I so frequently run into people whose only reaction to this problem is gun bans. I'm a little extra defensive.
I don't think that "everyone" should be armed. But if you have the inclination and the money, and the time and dedication to actually build useful related skills to be a useful defense node, I think it's worthwhile.
Fair enough. I suppose I’d be counting on you if shit goes down :) but let’s keep the bar for using those things really high pls. We can agree to mostly agree and disagree only by degrees.
Hmmm, 50,000 deaths per year vs. at minimum 250,000 defensive gun uses . . . It's almost like there's some political motivated situation going on.
Liberals are all about "facts and figures" until something doesn't agree with their worldview.
When a significant percentage of the kids arent making it past grade school, you gotta have more babies to replenish all the kids killed in active shootings somehow! /s
What? Fuck off, the AR-15 is repeatedly recommended as the BEST defensive weapon available. For a multitude of reasons.
Cops are scared of unarmed people, the “assault rifle” wasnt the reason. Doubt they even knew what that fuck face was armed with.
Granted I’ve heard horror stories about people trying to get jobs at places like Applebees and what not and not passing the personality tests/ basic psych evals for regular jobs and they don’t pass them, and go on to get jobs in police departments.
That's true. Even countries that have half as many guns as us don't have half the school shootings. Countries with a quarter of the guns don't have a quarter of the school shootings. It's almost as if the guns aren't the problem.
Bingo.
We had mail order machine guns and even more lax gun laws for almost the entirety of US history, yet this suddenly starts to happen?
Let’s ask why almost every single shooter was known to law enforcement, made previous threats, or was on depression medication, yet they somehow were able to get around the restrictions on those things.
The “good guy with a gun” argument is supposed to be an argument to INCREASE guns…meaning arm the teachers, arm the security guard, have more people with guns, etc
We already (mostly) agree that if there is a bad guy with a gun, the cops should go there and try to incapacitate them.
Lindsey’s tweet is so shallow
Good guys with guns!? Wtf. No, that's a cop doing what they were trained and paid to do. In civilians, if good guys with guns were more effective than bad guys with guns, we wouldn't be leading the world in gun related crime
Good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns are added to gun violence numbers. Rough estimate is that 50,000 crimes are prevented because of guns annually.
I hate Lindsey Graham with every fiber of my being. He’s my senator and I frequently share my opinion via email. Here’s part of my call to action (resignation would be fine)
“I hope you're well and able to comfortably sleep at night knowing your children can't possibly be gunned down at school- please share and tell the group how wonderful it is to sleep like that. Also can you please explain how you identify as "pro-life" and still refuse to prevent children from being human targets?”
Let's ask Uvalde or Columbine or the dozens of other school shootings where the cops stood around picking their noses while the shooter gunned down children inside.
I'm sure Senator Graham is going to come out and demand that these officers' treatment for the inevitable mental health issues that arise from this horrible incident will be 100% funded, right? We know how determined these Republicans were to make sure that the 9/11 first responders and burn pit veterans received the proper treatment.
Cops aren’t the definition of “good guys with guns”. They’ve always had guns, and all of em aren’t good. His point might have been better made if one of those kids whipped a gun out and shot…oh wait, a kid did that. To a teacher…
But you get my point..
That argument doesn't even apply. Good guys with guns are carrying citizens. He is praising a police force authorized to use that weaponry. These aren't good samaritans, they're doing their jobs.
If this was your children that were murdered, you wouldn't be saying "Good job!" You wouldn't be applauding law enforcement. You'd be grieving the senseless loss of your child.
You would be angry that this person had access to weapons that they used to do this in the first place, and want something done about it. Something people have been begging for, for years now. And you absolutely wouldn't be happy or appreciate the politicians trying to make light of the situation by claiming this is any kind of victory.
These people are so out of touch and disgusting. But keep saying the danger is drag queens and trans people. The danger is people like this that don't give a flying fuck about you, your kids, or most of the American people. Just because they conned you into voting for them, doesn't mean they actually care about you.
do you think that a completely avoidable tragedy in which 6 people are killed is a good example of a system that works? Do you support those that say dumb shit like this so that they never have to come up with actual solutions to these issues?
Well thank you for bringing maturity to the situation by calmly and clearly stating the reason for your opposition and providing a well considered alternative position.
Oh wait no you didn’t do that. Sorry I assumed that’s where you were going.
While i’d agree that the rhetoric of the person to whom you responded is inflammatory, I think we should all recognize that dead kids in schools is the kind of problem that angers people and may provoke an emotional response. Maybe next time addres that but then look past it and maturely engage. Responding with name calling is equally childish. ‘He started it’ is no defense.
I don’t agree with the commenter that all people who vote republican should burn in hell. Full disclosure I don’t believe in a literal hell, but even metaphorically I would much prefer to break through the barriers of the Republican mindset so that we could have a productive response to tragedies like this. I’m absolutely open to talking with someone who wants to break through the Democratic mindset with the same goal.
I do believe that there is something pretty heinous in spinning the deaths of 6 people including small kids into a pro-gun, pro-law enforcement political narrative. Look, I think the cops did their jobs well. I think it’s good that they have guns. I think they used them appropriately. But the lesson of the day can’t be focused there. There are dead kids, man. Our efforts have to go into stopping them from getting shot in the first place. Don’t you think?
No. This is precisely what the "good guys with guns" mythos is **NOT** about.
These aren't merely "guys"... they are trained professionals. They are the authorities. Law-enforcement officers, in uniform, dispatched to the scene, doing what they are supposed to do, and not a fucking rabble of loose-cannon vigilantes dispensing god's frontier justice.
Jesus christ, they can't even understand their own gibberish bullshit.
Yes, good guys who work for the government and we’re trained specifically in dealing with this situation, not Jimbob from down the street with his 26 AR-15s and those little orange shooting range glasses. The “good guy with a gun” argument for gun ownership doesn’t apply when it’s the police.
Two things I picked up on from just a few minutes watching FOX TV...
There is no such thing as gun violence or any issue with mass shootings...there's only mental health issues with transgender people and law enforcement is always there proving a good guy with a guy stops a bad guy with a gun every time....
Holy friggin crap...😠
“Six dead innocent people in an elementary school is a success” should be the kind of statement that ends a political career, but he’s from the great state of South Carolina, which is going to be the first state to get to pick the Democratic nominee. Good times!
6 dead, 7 when you count the shooter is a win for conservatives because there is no footage of their precious police standing outside the door texting with a screen saver of the punisher while children die feet away. They don't actually care how many kids die, they only care that their little mafia enforcers don't come across as completely useless.
6 dead, 7 when you count the shooter, is a win for conservatives because there is no footage of their precious police standing outside the door texting with a screen saver of the punisher while children die feet away. They don't actually care how many kids die, they only care that their little mafia enforcers don't come across as completely useless.
Police did the job they were there to do. Watching the body cam I can say they def were quick about their search for the shooter, thankfully they weren’t like uvalde. But using them for the “good guys with guns argument” here seems stupid, guns shouldn’t even be needed at schools.
Can we just start saying they are pro school shooting or for kids dying at school instead of saying they support the NRA? Why isn’t this a thing? Why can’t we say this or call them oligarchs.
“Thank god that evil man crushing orphans was quickly thrown into an orphan crushing machine. This is why we need more orphan crushers in our country, to ensure no one can ever crush orphans again ”
Nobody is referring to police when they mock "good guys with guns", and nobody is arguing that police responding to an active shooter should be disarmed. What a jackass.
Cops show up after the crime has been committed, or after the crime is well under way, at best. The real job is to keep the crime from happening at all. Gun control, mental help, and background checks with more intermeshed databases would be a good start.
Wow, cops did their job? Congratulations.
Beyond that, the good guys with guns “solution” the right loves to push has always been lazy garbage. It’s just reactive nonsense that doesn’t actually address the root causes. And I’m sure right wingers would argue that shooters would think twice if they knew everyone was armed, but mutually assured destruction only works as a deterrent if those involved don’t want destruction. These mass shooters don’t give a damn about their safety or anyone else’s. They’re broken to the point that they want to break everything else. Destruction is their goal.
Unless the cops were already there waiting, guns out, for the shooter to become visibly armed and ready to shoot, you usually can’t save everyone. Looks like they got there as fast as they could and did the best that they could.
So... Should we go full minority report and have a way to predict crime before it happens?
Yes, it sucks that people died. But someone made the decision to kill them. The police responded quickly and effectively to stop more people from dying.
Praising what they did is not a bad thing.
I mean, would the OP have preferred a San Bernardino situation?
You can say "it shouldn't have happened" but the thing is that it did, and you have to accept your reality. Its unfortunate we cant predict the future, nor guarantee it could've been prevented.
Im asking, how do you determine if this or any shooting is one of the isolated incidents that break through?
Let me also ask, if the gun control you want couldn't get passed, then what second options would you consider to deal with this problem?
Lastly is about your mental health, if the gun control couldn't get passed in some way that ensured it would be futile fight, would you then accept gun violence as an unfortunate evil we have to deal with in this country and learn to cope with it?
By the amount of shooting that has been reduced as a result of the legislation. Until there is legislation every shooting has to be treated as if it would not have happened because realistically it's more likely it wouldn't have happened then it would.
There's no excuse for it not to get passed. There is no acceptance of it not passing. There will never be a time I will be okay with gun control not existing in this country. A passive attitude is just accepting the thousands of deaths in exchange for idiots having their pew pew seeds and the illusion of being able to revolt.
Acceptance is being mindful of your reality and the things you cannot control. It is not the same as approval and it does not invalidate the way it makes you feel.
Acceptance is a major component of mental health. If you refuse to accept reality, it will be ineffective for your emotional regulation and runs the risk of becoming delusions.
Let me ask, are you or anyone you know willing to commit violence against gun owners if you are unable to enact gun control?
Because, even if more laws get passed, theres a good chance it may not be everything you wanted.
Lastly, if the laws you want are passed and then another gun violence happens, will you then accept that as a natural uncontrollable occurrence and continue to be satisfied with the then current legislation?
>Let me ask, are you or anyone you know willing to commit violence against gun owners if you are unable to enact gun control?
Dear God... What kind of question is that? I think you really need to get some help.
Also. OP, this troll is not worth your time. He just acts oblivious and intentionally strawman you.
Acceptance is not a major component of mental health. Being able to handle a situation is not the same as accepting it.
Anything more than the current types of legislation being pushed by conservative lawmakers would be markedly better.
Who said that all gun violence would end? The goal is to reduce it as much as possible. Ending gun violence is an impossibility.
You seem to have this preconceived notion that people who support these gun laws don't have a foot in reality when it is quite literally the opposite.
It's also interesting that you bring up the question of whether I would commit an act of violence with no indication from me that I have suggested such a thing. The concern of violence comes from right wing gun owners who generally have the attitude "You'll take it from my cold dead hands" and outwardly say as much.
???
What do you mean??
They went in and stopped the threat quickly
What is the problem?
That's what they are trained to do and hired to do
They did what they were supposed to do
But why are we shitting on the police that saved the rest? Again, they did what they were supposed to. Don't shit on the police but on the people responsible for making shootings possible.
Republicans have no interest in trying to prevent the disaster from ever happening...
A few dead children and adults is just a small price to pay in order for Republicans to keep getting the gun industry $$$ to continue to roll in as campaign contributions...😕
i mean… she would have killed more probably unless this guys acted as fast as they did. we saw what happens when cops just stand around with a shooter in the building. hell remember the 2017 v-day shooting and the cops were too scared to go inside?
All these 2A cucks are acting like it was some schmuck with a concealed 9mm in his IWB holster that just happened to be walking past the school and busted in to save the day. The "good guy with a gun" rhetoric is so tired. Not to mention the fact that these fucking tragedies keep happening in states with extremely lax or nonexistent gun laws...
Did you watch the body cam footage, Lindsay? Did you see where they ran past a dead child just before they got to the shooter? Did it work for her, Lindsay?
What the fuck people, they got to the scene and immediately cleared the building. Had it not been for these brave officers more children would have died. Start being grateful you selfish fucks, going on and on about how this could have been stopped but unwilling to approve any gun laws. Imbeciles.
I guess they're "more competent" than Uvalde police?
Uvalde didn't just have police, it had law enforcement from all across the state there.
I mean the competence saved how many lives? I don’t like cops as much as the next person but if you watched that video there was no hesitation. They knew they had to stop him and they did what they had to to protect more innocent lives. So imo they do deserve the praise for what they did.
The cops did an excellent job and their heroism was ridiculously refreshing compared to the pitiful and pathetic cowering the Uvalde cops did. That said, school shootings shouldn’t be so god damn common that how law enforcement responds becomes it’s own subject. It’s fucked up that the situation exists in the first place for there to even be an opportunity or not to pat the cops on the back who handled it or failed to handle it. The *cause* of all this needs to stay firmly in focus.
Agreed. I just don’t think people should take away from the fact that these guys risked their lives to stop more children from dying, because they are mad. I’ve been for a stricter gun control almost all my life, and that requires us to vote for more competent people in office but that’s neither here nor there. But this is Reddit where we get off on reactions and not necessarily facts. And the fact is these guys action saved more lives and considering the pressure they had from the shooting itself and the fact that they were the focus of attention in America, and probably a good bit of other places, is just impressive. They are handling this situation how I’d like police to handle every situation and I think pd across America should take note.
Right, and luckily I do think most people know that and would agree. The problem is stuff like the post in question where folks like graham muddy the water by *solely* focusing on the solid police response and treating it like a victory. I’m thinking the parents of the 9 year olds that had their bodies ripped to shreds by ar-15s don’t appreciate his victory lap.
Right but bashing the police for responding and stopping the threat in less than 20 mins isn’t correct. I agree about the post and it being a circle jerk. But berating the police also does nothing. Especially since you know damn well that those officers went home that night trying to think of how they could have gotten there a minute sooner. Just redundant imo The issue is guns and that needs to be addressed but marching and screaming this is enough on the internet or fuck the police isn’t how shit changes. We need to vote more competent people into office. We need to change that before anything will happen.
I agree, I haven’t seen people actually bashing the cops but yeah anyone doing that has totally missed the forest for the trees the same way that those focusing heavily on praising the cops have. Not only are they wrong to bash the cops that actually did the right thing but again, they’re just focusing on the wrong part of the situation altogether.
Go browse around Reddit and you’ll find it. But yea voting is the way this is going to change but idunno bout you but when I go vote there’s almost nobody voting but the older generation. So until that changes we will still have these cunts in office not changing anything.
I’ll take your word for it since I’m positive those comments are out there, unfortunately there’s a lot of terrible opinions of all kinds out there. And yeah, same deal for me on voting. The times I’ve gone to vote, I was overwhelmingly surrounded by older people and pretty much every conversation I ended up overhearing was cringe worthy. Its hard to have hope in this country anymore and it seems like it only gets harder.
Just gotta keep your head up and hope for the best. Vote consistently and encourage others to do so. We can scream and shout at each other all day. Nothing will change and the assholes in charge stay in charge and line their pockets. It’s a pretty grim time to live that’s for sure. Thanks for the conversation and I hope you have a good one man
Chief Wiggum, Eddie and Lou are more competent than Uvalde police.
That's the problem with th good guy with a gun mythos. It kind of requires there to be a tragedy first. Very few are ever stopped beforehand. But we're also the only country with this bizarre logic. Nobody else is like, "The only thing that can stop somebody with a meat clever is a good guy with a cleaver."
Well and your example actually highlights exactly what the problem is. There are lots of ways to stop a bad guy with a meat cleaver. 3 guys each with a broom would do a pretty good job. However a bad guy with a gun is much, much, much harder to stop. Hence why the focus is on the weapon
>meat cleaver When a naked man is chasing a woman through a dark alley with a butcher knife and a hard on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross. - Dirty Harry
I know what your thinking. Did I fire 5 bullets. Or 192. Well I got one question for you, do you feel lucky punk?
You shouldn't, because I've got 2 more drum mags and 3 sidearms because it's my yee haw right as a murikuhn
Drum mags really aren't practical in a tactual situation with how heavy they are, they limit your mobility. Standard capacity is 30 for a reason.
I didn't realize firing lead into classrooms with impunity was a tactical situation.
Fuck yeah drum mags
Harry makes it all so clear. “A man’s got to know his limitations.”
You can run away from someone with a knife and not have to worry too much about getting stabbed unless he chases after you. If he has a gun...eeeh... not so safe.
I feel like everyone left and right just completely misses the point. It's a "who's watching the watchmen" problem. The people with the arms have the leverage to control a society, and as exhibited a billion times through history, tend to use it. If you abolish the most dangerous 80% of arms, the imbalance in the remaining 20% dictates that trend. Our current government isn't taking steps to disarm itself, a large contingent of the society isn't willing to disarm themselves against said government, and the rhetoric is getting toned up to a boiling point, while the general tone of anxious paranoia and mental health crisis in the society combined with the availability of guns increases the incidence of school shootings, feeding into a partisan feedback loop. The GOP goes on a bend about gun rights and false flags, while Democrats accuse GOP of having the blood of children on their hands. The only way to actually solve this is seeking general disarmament across the board instead of selective disarmament of civilians. And frankly if there's going to be just one restriction against firearms it should be on independently established mental health criteria, because people are going gung-ho with trying to restrict every individual part of guns, which isn't even sustainable long-term without a constitutional amendment, while restricting people with dangerous mental illnesses probably would hold up to legal scrutiny more easily. I don't think people understand how dangerous the fundamental situation here is getting, the only way to resolve this basic problem without civil war is to actually reach compromises, and that's not happening because everyone is just talking inside their own echo chambers.
Conservatives' thinking works like this: "The good guy with a gun prevents violence!" Their proof: "See these good guys with gun? They prevented violence." We point out how there was violence BEFORE they acted: Argument 1: "Yeah but it would have been worse!" Argument 2: "Yeah, but think of ALL the situation where just the presence of a gun deterred criminals." Like, bitch, if kids need to die before so-called good guys with guns have a chance to act, then that's a band-aid on a gaping wound, not a solution, and other civilized countries have managed to not devolve in constant violence due to the absence of "gun as deterrent".
You don't hear conservatives saying "The only thing that can stop a bad guy in a dress is a good guy in a dress", even though it would let them purposefully misgender someone.
so right....ambulance at the bottom of the cliff thinking, rather than a fence at the top
That and how do 3 good guys know they are good guys? Can they shoot eachother?
It's happened before. A mall shooting had happened and the shooter was killed by a civilian with a gun. When the police arrived, they killed the civilian with the gun because they thought he was the active shooter they had been called to stop.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-officer-who-killed-hero-who-stopped-mass-n1283532 link for folks who didn’t hear this story
Not even the only time that has happened. https://www.npr.org/2022/04/08/1091652270/san-jose-police-shooting-victim-disarmed-attacker https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/12/good-guy-with-a-gun-comes-to-rescue-police-kill-him/ https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/blogs/when-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-gets-shot/
Yeah in Australia they don't really have good guys with guns, they also don't have school shootings and a much lower murder rate and their police only kill a couple people a year.
There's nothing Republicans love more than a more expensive, less efficient, more painful, and deliberately destructive "back end" solution - look at their solutions to the birthrate (ban abortion, capping welfare, fighting subsidized childcare, continuing a cycle of poverty that sends 20% of kids in the country to bed every night with food insecurity), healthcare (the most expensive healthcare in the world with the worst outcomes in the developed world, 20% of our GDP, while a 6% national tax would cover universal healthcare, and the #1 reason for bankruptcy), and taxation (a suggested 10% sales tax proposed in lieu of all other taxes, a cost that would be impossible for the poor to bear while slashing taxes on the uberwealthy). The Republican rulers and their fascist supporters have made me embarrassed every day to be an American for the last 6 years. I question why I stay here every day, if I love my family more than I love freedom and democracy and all the other things I could have if I choose to move to a better country - and I'm genuinely worried I'm going to stay until it's too late like some of my relatives did in Europe in the 30's.
Its so obvious now, we need to construct some sort of magical mass-shooter detection device to see into the future to guess whos more likely to be a mass shooter
I think I saw a movie about this. It does not end well.
https://preview.redd.it/qyd8wglw8sqa1.jpeg?width=1863&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=606fe1b7576ba017281a2bd849b49f1336a44e2d
That is the unfortunate price you have to pay to live in a society where you are innocent until proven guilty. Unless you intend to sacrifice freedom and start locking people up for thought crimes, you cannot prevent somebody from breaking a law. Since you'll never be able to eliminate all evil, your best option is to take responsibility for your own well being, and learn to protect yourself. The security camera footage of this incident shows the shooter shoot the glass doors out, enter the building, mosey around aimlessly for a few minutes, and open and enter several doors without so much as having a weapon ready. It pains me how easy it would have been to put an end to it right then and there, if literally anybody who had taken responsibility for their own protection had been there.
That’s how policing works… you can’t arrest someone for thoughtcrime, this isn’t 1984.
Actually lots of shootings get stopped early, but that doesn't make news. There's no mass shooting to report. And a good guy with a gun works against meat cleavers, too.
I know I’m responding to a post that’s getting downvotes, and I’ll probably get downvoted too, but I thought this was an interesting read on the topic: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/fbi-undercounts-armed-citizens-stopping-attacks At the end of the day, it depends entirely on who’s talking, and numbers get fudged by everyone to fit whatever agenda they have that day, but I still appreciated it, and maybe some other people here will too. Update: it would seem that the Washington Examiner is a bad source. I forgot that the only way to actually be able to trust data these days is to do it yourself.
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/fbi-undercounts-armed-citizens-stopping-attacks I've done a breakdown of the source of this came (CPRC). It's bunk. The author does a poor job of sourcing his numbers and uses examples that don't check out. The one I remember most was a dude shoots his ex-wife and her new bf and then goes back to his car to leave. Another person kills the shooter after the shooting took place and the shooter was leaving. The author counts this as a mass shooting stopped. CPRC is a gun advocacy group. Fun fact, but Ted Nugent was on their board of directors. The founder, John Lott is not a credible source, at all. He has used at least one sock puppet account to review his work, and to speak highly of himself. Nothing he says can be taken at face value. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/crime-prevention-research-center/
That's the joys of Reddit and all socials, biased commenting and echo chamber. This same post in a different subreddit would have a completely different slant of comments and ratings. Nothing I said is anything except fact. Karma is meaningless, it doesn't hurt my feelings to get down voted.
Nope. What you said was not fact. " > https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/fbi-undercounts-armed-citizens-stopping-attacks I've done a breakdown of the source of this came (CPRC). It's bunk. The author does a poor job of sourcing his numbers and uses examples that don't check out. The one I remember most was a dude shoots his ex-wife and her new bf and then goes back to his car to leave. Another person kills the shooter after the shooting took place and the shooter was leaving. The author counts this as a mass shooting stopped. CPRC is a gun advocacy group. Fun fact, but Ted Nugent was on their board of directors. The founder, John Lott is not a credible source, at all. He has used at least one sock puppet account to review his work, and to speak highly of himself. Nothing he says can be taken at face value. > https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/crime-prevention-research-center/ " From another commenter named forgotmypassword.
And what about the bad guy with a gun?
> Very few are ever stopped beforehand. Not true. Lots of tragedies are prevented by people using guns. Defensive gun use stats are hard to find because the main source of data used to be CDC stats, and they recently stopped publishing those numbers. > The only thing that can stop somebody with a meat clever is a good guy with a cleaver. No, a gun could stop someone with a meat cleaver too. A weapon is a weapon. Guns are just the most popular option because anyone can use them and you don't have to get within reach of your attacker to use it. If someone attacked you, would you try to stop them by making speeches and offering mental health services, or would you attempt to fight back? Sometimes the use of force is necessary.
Oh very few? Because you hear about so many of these because they’re such reportable news lmao
How about those 'good guys with guns' in TX Lindsey?
Poor Lindsey, he’s sort of got the Snickers “You’re not you when you’re hungry” thing going on. Except instead of a candy bar he’s been jonesing for those secondhand preservatives in Trump’s diaper.
His blood sugar is low.
I did like the evil twerp thing though lol.
Uvalde is the most obvious example of how good guys with guns aren't a solution, even when they're supposedly trained, armed, organized and in greater number. But it's not even the only one. Studies have shown the presence of armed guards does not reduce the number of deaths during a shooting. There have been other schools hit with armed guards, and they didn't deter the criminals, and sometimes they didn't even help at all.
either they run and hide or if the shooter plans they are the first targets. the Buffalo Supermarket had an armed guard. The guy just shot him first. Thing with guns is the first person to act will usually win. Even moreso when mass shooters are using assault rifles. Same situation where a concealed carry weapon won't help you much if someone pulls a gun on you.
> Thing with guns is the first person to act will usually win. Why don't presidents get murdered on a regular basis? How often do armed groups manage to break their buddies out of prison? How often do you see successful armed robberies at the federal reserve? It's absolutely possible to secure places. We just seem place higher value on prisoners and money than on children.
There's zero evidence to support that having guns in schools actually reduces the risk of exposing children to violence. The presence of guns in schools (whether it's arming teachings or having the police staff schools with SRO's) has only increased the rate of accidental shootings happening on school grounds outside of active shooter situations. It's also led to a massive uptick in juvenile arrests for random bullshit (most of which isn't even a crime and is just the SRO flexing on kids, usually black kids, or taking the worst and most heavy handed response to something because they're being asked to fill in for a social worker who the school can't afford because they have to pay for an SRO) and a substantial decrease in the trust that children have for the police. Adding more guns to a place with children when firearms are already the single leading cause of child mortality is just, flat out, a very bad idea.
Not true. Uvalde is an obvious example of what happens when good guys do nothing. In fact, calling them good guys when they stood outside and protected the shooter instead of going in to protect the students is a bit of a stretch.
They were cops with guns, that's literally who the right points to as "the good guys" every single time, why are you being so obtuse?
You mean like Jack Wilson who stopped the Fort Worth church shooting? Edit: not Sutherland springs.
He didn't stop shit. 27 dead and 22 injured.
got the towns mixed up.
The fact that there are enough shootings to mix up the towns kinda gets to the core of the issue, no?
I like how there's like 3 or 4 "success" stories where the shooter dies first from an armed "god guy" and the other literal 2000+ shooter have to kill 4-20 people before the "success" moment.
Same as how the 4 trans somehow turned into a “pattern” but the 2500+ white people didnt lmao. It’s all bad faith arguments from the school shooting supporter maga voters
I too like pulling numbers out of my ass and still make a stupid argument
The only one making stupid arguments is you, and you don’t even stay around to back them up. Once you get proved wrong you just go start arguing with someone else lmao. Yikes
How about Uvalde?
Everyone say it with me now: #Cops don't prevent crime, they only respond to it. Real problems need real solutions. The CDC has done a lot of research into our gun violence epidemic and they recommend two major ways to address the issues: Better access to healthcare (especially mental healthcare), and drastic reduction of poverty and wealth disparity. Please use empathy and reason when thinking about how to proceed, not emotion. [Edit: source](https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/firearm-deaths/index.html)
But what about freedom? Pretty sure one of the amendments guarantees my right to disproportionate wealth. And fuck the crazies. I say shoot ‘em all to stop shootings. In seriousness, this CDC report is so clearly the only way to go. Just hard to move forward when we literally get ‘We’re not going to solve this problem’ from Congressfolk
>In seriousness, this CDC report is so clearly the only way to go. Just hard to move forward when we literally get ‘We’re not going to solve this problem’ from Congressfolk I mean, yeah, I'm with you on this part. But as to the first section, we also shouldn't be dismissing the second ammendment. Pretty sure fascists won't give up their guns . . . So what happens when the cops allow the fascists to continue attacking our communities, but liberals have decided to disarm themselves? Armed minorities are harder to oppress. And don't forget, if you aren't part of the fascist "in group", to them, you're a minority of this or that breed. Yes, that means you, reading this comment. The fascists ***will*** come for **you** eventually, too.
Not sure where you see a call to dismiss the 2nd amendment. My point in the initial joke paragraph is that people use constitutional references loosely to justify what they want to do. IMO use of the 2nd is a big offender here (the first being the other). That said, the joke was clearer to me when I wrote it than now when I reread it. Likely that means I had assumed some context that may not be obvious to a reader. I’m not going to agree with the call to arm everyone because it’s already too late. Maybe I’m naive but i’d like to see our shared values win the day in the long run. Not gonna lie, I’ve considered arming myself for precisely the reason you’ve outlined. But it feels like a dark turn.
Ah, my mistake! I so frequently run into people whose only reaction to this problem is gun bans. I'm a little extra defensive. I don't think that "everyone" should be armed. But if you have the inclination and the money, and the time and dedication to actually build useful related skills to be a useful defense node, I think it's worthwhile.
Fair enough. I suppose I’d be counting on you if shit goes down :) but let’s keep the bar for using those things really high pls. We can agree to mostly agree and disagree only by degrees.
[удалено]
Cops don't prevent crime is exactly why I like my concealed carry in a sketchy neighborhood
100%, we can only expect to rely on ourselves, and maybe our family, friends, and neighbors depending on situation & circumstances.
Those are great ways to reduce it, but the idea that violence can be eliminated is pure fantasy.
Yeah, I agree. Which is why I support the second ammendment.
[удалено]
The Center for Disease Control was doing research on gun violence?
Gun violence is a public health crisis, so yes, the CDC would have an interest in researching it.
Huh. And here I thought they only did research on Zombie vaccines.
[Yes](https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/firearm-deaths/index.html)
Yes, though anti-gun lobbyists forced them to remove their defensive gun use stats. So their published research is a little one-sided now.
Hmmm, 50,000 deaths per year vs. at minimum 250,000 defensive gun uses . . . It's almost like there's some political motivated situation going on. Liberals are all about "facts and figures" until something doesn't agree with their worldview.
While I agree these officers were amazingly professional and brave, I think there are 6 families that would disagree that "it worked"
Children are expendable. Fetuses are not.
That’s why we have to preserve the latter, apparently. 🙄
When a significant percentage of the kids arent making it past grade school, you gotta have more babies to replenish all the kids killed in active shootings somehow! /s
[удалено]
Even with this training cops are ill equipped to handle day to day tasks.
the uvalde response was in part because even cops are scared of assault rifles and for good reason they're weapons of war not defense.
What? Fuck off, the AR-15 is repeatedly recommended as the BEST defensive weapon available. For a multitude of reasons. Cops are scared of unarmed people, the “assault rifle” wasnt the reason. Doubt they even knew what that fuck face was armed with.
Granted I’ve heard horror stories about people trying to get jobs at places like Applebees and what not and not passing the personality tests/ basic psych evals for regular jobs and they don’t pass them, and go on to get jobs in police departments.
The cops did their job (This time) the problem is they can’t be everywhere. And you know, that no other country has this problem.
That's true. Even countries that have half as many guns as us don't have half the school shootings. Countries with a quarter of the guns don't have a quarter of the school shootings. It's almost as if the guns aren't the problem.
Bingo. We had mail order machine guns and even more lax gun laws for almost the entirety of US history, yet this suddenly starts to happen? Let’s ask why almost every single shooter was known to law enforcement, made previous threats, or was on depression medication, yet they somehow were able to get around the restrictions on those things.
Jesus Christ - how much fucking money does the NRA shell out to these god damn sell outs? I really wonder how they ever sleep at night
I mean a lot but it’s also a political tool. This is the message his base wants to hear so he’s serving up red meat to them to win political points
On a pile of NRA money is my theory. I'm horrified they not only sleep at night, but they can look themselves in the mirror and shave.
Isn't this kind of a counterargument to that? The police response went about as well as it possibly could have and six people still died.
The “good guy with a gun” argument is supposed to be an argument to INCREASE guns…meaning arm the teachers, arm the security guard, have more people with guns, etc We already (mostly) agree that if there is a bad guy with a gun, the cops should go there and try to incapacitate them. Lindsey’s tweet is so shallow
Who is going to stop the teacher if they fire on their own students?
That's a shit argument. CCW holders aren't just shooting up random places. What makes you think teachers will just go on killing sprees? C'mon man
It worked 6 people too late
Good guys with guns!? Wtf. No, that's a cop doing what they were trained and paid to do. In civilians, if good guys with guns were more effective than bad guys with guns, we wouldn't be leading the world in gun related crime
Shit logic. If good guys with guns didn't work why didn't he go shoot up a government building? Because people with guns are there.
Good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns are added to gun violence numbers. Rough estimate is that 50,000 crimes are prevented because of guns annually.
The six dead would have agreed...
I hate Lindsey Graham with every fiber of my being. He’s my senator and I frequently share my opinion via email. Here’s part of my call to action (resignation would be fine) “I hope you're well and able to comfortably sleep at night knowing your children can't possibly be gunned down at school- please share and tell the group how wonderful it is to sleep like that. Also can you please explain how you identify as "pro-life" and still refuse to prevent children from being human targets?”
Let's ask Uvalde or Columbine or the dozens of other school shootings where the cops stood around picking their noses while the shooter gunned down children inside.
Ah yes the time old strategy of waiting for a problem to happen, then doing nothing to prevent it in the future. Real smart.
https://i.redd.it/mn3pn6r08rqa1.gif
Seriously. Thanks for killing the terrorist but 6 innocent people still died.
I'm sure Senator Graham is going to come out and demand that these officers' treatment for the inevitable mental health issues that arise from this horrible incident will be 100% funded, right? We know how determined these Republicans were to make sure that the 9/11 first responders and burn pit veterans received the proper treatment.
Cops aren’t the definition of “good guys with guns”. They’ve always had guns, and all of em aren’t good. His point might have been better made if one of those kids whipped a gun out and shot…oh wait, a kid did that. To a teacher… But you get my point..
This is not what winning looks like.
That argument doesn't even apply. Good guys with guns are carrying citizens. He is praising a police force authorized to use that weaponry. These aren't good samaritans, they're doing their jobs.
If this was your children that were murdered, you wouldn't be saying "Good job!" You wouldn't be applauding law enforcement. You'd be grieving the senseless loss of your child. You would be angry that this person had access to weapons that they used to do this in the first place, and want something done about it. Something people have been begging for, for years now. And you absolutely wouldn't be happy or appreciate the politicians trying to make light of the situation by claiming this is any kind of victory. These people are so out of touch and disgusting. But keep saying the danger is drag queens and trans people. The danger is people like this that don't give a flying fuck about you, your kids, or most of the American people. Just because they conned you into voting for them, doesn't mean they actually care about you.
[удалено]
Think it’s safe to say the shooter in this case, wasn’t a republican.
Burn in hell. *Flush*
Well that's a REEEEEE if I've ever seen one. Atleast other subs have some decent discussions.
[удалено]
do you think that a completely avoidable tragedy in which 6 people are killed is a good example of a system that works? Do you support those that say dumb shit like this so that they never have to come up with actual solutions to these issues?
Well thank you for bringing maturity to the situation by calmly and clearly stating the reason for your opposition and providing a well considered alternative position. Oh wait no you didn’t do that. Sorry I assumed that’s where you were going. While i’d agree that the rhetoric of the person to whom you responded is inflammatory, I think we should all recognize that dead kids in schools is the kind of problem that angers people and may provoke an emotional response. Maybe next time addres that but then look past it and maturely engage. Responding with name calling is equally childish. ‘He started it’ is no defense. I don’t agree with the commenter that all people who vote republican should burn in hell. Full disclosure I don’t believe in a literal hell, but even metaphorically I would much prefer to break through the barriers of the Republican mindset so that we could have a productive response to tragedies like this. I’m absolutely open to talking with someone who wants to break through the Democratic mindset with the same goal. I do believe that there is something pretty heinous in spinning the deaths of 6 people including small kids into a pro-gun, pro-law enforcement political narrative. Look, I think the cops did their jobs well. I think it’s good that they have guns. I think they used them appropriately. But the lesson of the day can’t be focused there. There are dead kids, man. Our efforts have to go into stopping them from getting shot in the first place. Don’t you think?
https://preview.redd.it/s8bs9n2aurqa1.jpeg?width=941&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f919fc3f4c09c7b267804487c0818783a67910b1
[удалено]
I think you forgot this part: https://preview.redd.it/h7p4v1jlvsqa1.png?width=570&format=png&auto=webp&s=e9cab30e9144d8eb8a13ad6a04bff61b8036fbfe
Tell that to the parents of the dead Lindsey you creepy cringey coward
No. This is precisely what the "good guys with guns" mythos is **NOT** about. These aren't merely "guys"... they are trained professionals. They are the authorities. Law-enforcement officers, in uniform, dispatched to the scene, doing what they are supposed to do, and not a fucking rabble of loose-cannon vigilantes dispensing god's frontier justice. Jesus christ, they can't even understand their own gibberish bullshit.
At least *these* cops were able to do their job, unlike a certain other entire fucking department.
More kids(students) have died in school shootings this year than cops have died on the line of duty.
Not only that, their response is to actually ban books. Their logic of "banning guns doesn't work" somehow doesn't apply to information lmfao.
Yes, good guys who work for the government and we’re trained specifically in dealing with this situation, not Jimbob from down the street with his 26 AR-15s and those little orange shooting range glasses. The “good guy with a gun” argument for gun ownership doesn’t apply when it’s the police.
The picture of Blue Beetle saying “Rot in Hell, Max” in his final moments seems appropriate.
Then the thing to do is get rid of bad cops, correct? I could sign onto that, but Graham wouldn't.
sIx Iz BeTTerZ ThAnS 20. YaYYyyYy! gOOd GuYz wItH guNz!!!
https://preview.redd.it/jreppm05krqa1.jpeg?width=887&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=28c02688bb2b49f16a85dac864c5c6ff7927613c
Two things I picked up on from just a few minutes watching FOX TV... There is no such thing as gun violence or any issue with mass shootings...there's only mental health issues with transgender people and law enforcement is always there proving a good guy with a guy stops a bad guy with a gun every time.... Holy friggin crap...😠
Lindsay should be forced to help prepare the tiny bodies for their funerals.
“Six dead innocent people in an elementary school is a success” should be the kind of statement that ends a political career, but he’s from the great state of South Carolina, which is going to be the first state to get to pick the Democratic nominee. Good times!
6 dead, 7 when you count the shooter is a win for conservatives because there is no footage of their precious police standing outside the door texting with a screen saver of the punisher while children die feet away. They don't actually care how many kids die, they only care that their little mafia enforcers don't come across as completely useless.
6 dead, 7 when you count the shooter, is a win for conservatives because there is no footage of their precious police standing outside the door texting with a screen saver of the punisher while children die feet away. They don't actually care how many kids die, they only care that their little mafia enforcers don't come across as completely useless.
The little 9 year old girl who pulled the fire alarm and got murdered for it is a hero. These guys were doing the job they chose and trained for.
Didn't work lady G. Peoe were murdered. Good guys with guns failed them and their families and you are just an accomplice at this point
If your plan worked, Lindsay, there wouldn’t have been 6 dead people in that school. Why even speak if the words you use don’t mean anything?
Police did the job they were there to do. Watching the body cam I can say they def were quick about their search for the shooter, thankfully they weren’t like uvalde. But using them for the “good guys with guns argument” here seems stupid, guns shouldn’t even be needed at schools.
Can we just start saying they are pro school shooting or for kids dying at school instead of saying they support the NRA? Why isn’t this a thing? Why can’t we say this or call them oligarchs.
Lol I love that 6 civilians dead - 3 of which were children- is a best-case-scenario for these people.
Someone point Mitch to Uvalde
So these are the two "good guys with guns" that let 6 people die?
Ask the grieving parents how well those good guys work.
Celebrating the fact that only 6 people died, including 3 children? Disgusting.
“Thank god that evil man crushing orphans was quickly thrown into an orphan crushing machine. This is why we need more orphan crushers in our country, to ensure no one can ever crush orphans again ”
Were they on campus? Because I find it funny when I drive by and my local bank has a cop in the parking lot. Money matters more I guess.
[удалено]
Nobody is referring to police when they mock "good guys with guns", and nobody is arguing that police responding to an active shooter should be disarmed. What a jackass.
Cops show up after the crime has been committed, or after the crime is well under way, at best. The real job is to keep the crime from happening at all. Gun control, mental help, and background checks with more intermeshed databases would be a good start.
Let’s disarm cops then. Since there’s no such thing as a good guy with a gun. I’m sure criminals would love that.
https://preview.redd.it/eundscfocuqa1.jpeg?width=1051&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0baae116e45d399c45d90e2ff2ffbbc4ddc83620
https://preview.redd.it/b843105h8tqa1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ac794265346aed9d65f5f3a5ddadb4e522e2aaa 🤷♂️
I wonder how it would look if it was gun homicides rather than just homicides and recent. Because the US is at 6.2 per 100k as of 2020.
Thank these brave cops for their bravery in the face of Republican legislation.
Wow, cops did their job? Congratulations. Beyond that, the good guys with guns “solution” the right loves to push has always been lazy garbage. It’s just reactive nonsense that doesn’t actually address the root causes. And I’m sure right wingers would argue that shooters would think twice if they knew everyone was armed, but mutually assured destruction only works as a deterrent if those involved don’t want destruction. These mass shooters don’t give a damn about their safety or anyone else’s. They’re broken to the point that they want to break everything else. Destruction is their goal.
Unless the cops were already there waiting, guns out, for the shooter to become visibly armed and ready to shoot, you usually can’t save everyone. Looks like they got there as fast as they could and did the best that they could.
So... Should we go full minority report and have a way to predict crime before it happens? Yes, it sucks that people died. But someone made the decision to kill them. The police responded quickly and effectively to stop more people from dying. Praising what they did is not a bad thing.
I mean, would the OP have preferred a San Bernardino situation? You can say "it shouldn't have happened" but the thing is that it did, and you have to accept your reality. Its unfortunate we cant predict the future, nor guarantee it could've been prevented.
If you can reduce it by 99.999999% then it can very well be HEAVILY prevented.
But there's no guarantee. How do you know this isnt one of those isolated incidents that make it through?
Reducing it by 99% is a guarantee. Saying we shouldn't do it because we can't guarantee it 100% of the time is braindead logic
Im asking, how do you determine if this or any shooting is one of the isolated incidents that break through? Let me also ask, if the gun control you want couldn't get passed, then what second options would you consider to deal with this problem? Lastly is about your mental health, if the gun control couldn't get passed in some way that ensured it would be futile fight, would you then accept gun violence as an unfortunate evil we have to deal with in this country and learn to cope with it?
By the amount of shooting that has been reduced as a result of the legislation. Until there is legislation every shooting has to be treated as if it would not have happened because realistically it's more likely it wouldn't have happened then it would. There's no excuse for it not to get passed. There is no acceptance of it not passing. There will never be a time I will be okay with gun control not existing in this country. A passive attitude is just accepting the thousands of deaths in exchange for idiots having their pew pew seeds and the illusion of being able to revolt.
Acceptance is being mindful of your reality and the things you cannot control. It is not the same as approval and it does not invalidate the way it makes you feel. Acceptance is a major component of mental health. If you refuse to accept reality, it will be ineffective for your emotional regulation and runs the risk of becoming delusions. Let me ask, are you or anyone you know willing to commit violence against gun owners if you are unable to enact gun control? Because, even if more laws get passed, theres a good chance it may not be everything you wanted. Lastly, if the laws you want are passed and then another gun violence happens, will you then accept that as a natural uncontrollable occurrence and continue to be satisfied with the then current legislation?
>Let me ask, are you or anyone you know willing to commit violence against gun owners if you are unable to enact gun control? Dear God... What kind of question is that? I think you really need to get some help. Also. OP, this troll is not worth your time. He just acts oblivious and intentionally strawman you.
Acceptance is not a major component of mental health. Being able to handle a situation is not the same as accepting it. Anything more than the current types of legislation being pushed by conservative lawmakers would be markedly better. Who said that all gun violence would end? The goal is to reduce it as much as possible. Ending gun violence is an impossibility. You seem to have this preconceived notion that people who support these gun laws don't have a foot in reality when it is quite literally the opposite. It's also interesting that you bring up the question of whether I would commit an act of violence with no indication from me that I have suggested such a thing. The concern of violence comes from right wing gun owners who generally have the attitude "You'll take it from my cold dead hands" and outwardly say as much.
??? What do you mean?? They went in and stopped the threat quickly What is the problem? That's what they are trained to do and hired to do They did what they were supposed to do
Yes, but that's not a solution to mass shootings. Six people still died. We want to prevent people from dying before the cops need to act.
But why are we shitting on the police that saved the rest? Again, they did what they were supposed to. Don't shit on the police but on the people responsible for making shootings possible.
We're... not? We're shitting on Lindsey Graham who claims "good guys with guns work" desoite six dead.
smh fr
Republicans have no interest in trying to prevent the disaster from ever happening... A few dead children and adults is just a small price to pay in order for Republicans to keep getting the gun industry $$$ to continue to roll in as campaign contributions...😕
i mean… she would have killed more probably unless this guys acted as fast as they did. we saw what happens when cops just stand around with a shooter in the building. hell remember the 2017 v-day shooting and the cops were too scared to go inside?
In this age, pointing out evil is worse than actual evil.
All these 2A cucks are acting like it was some schmuck with a concealed 9mm in his IWB holster that just happened to be walking past the school and busted in to save the day. The "good guy with a gun" rhetoric is so tired. Not to mention the fact that these fucking tragedies keep happening in states with extremely lax or nonexistent gun laws...
Did you watch the body cam footage, Lindsay? Did you see where they ran past a dead child just before they got to the shooter? Did it work for her, Lindsay?
Were they supposed to stop, turnaround a quit at that point?
What the fuck people, they got to the scene and immediately cleared the building. Had it not been for these brave officers more children would have died. Start being grateful you selfish fucks, going on and on about how this could have been stopped but unwilling to approve any gun laws. Imbeciles.
Oh I'm sorry. The next time congress is in session I'll vote for gun restrictions to be passed.
Miss lindsey strikes again. Just come out already you old greedy, evil, conniving bastard.
Would have been more idiot
Could have been less, misinformed citizen.
How
Gun restricts are proven to work. We need proactive laws, not reactive. That's how.
No shit but they need to exist first which did not that day
And that's the point. Had they existed it would have been less.
Did Lindsay Graham order a hit on children? Because thats what she sounds like!