-
@nta said in Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?:
@nta said in Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?:
The actions or rather lack of action on the part of deputy sheriff who was on the scene is absolute gold for those arguing you can't trust the authorities.
Absolute gold for the people saying a good guy with a gun can't stop a bad guy with a gun, too.
No not at all, because he didn't actually do his job. You know "serve and protect" and all that.
Should have phrased that better: "CAN'T".
He was a good guy with a gun and he didn't stop anything. So that erodes the argument around more guns being better.
You don't get it. By not doing his job or what he was trained to do he was not a "good" guy. All it does is highlight the incompetence of the authorities. As I said, pure gold for gun nuts.
-
@canefan said in Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?:
@nta said in Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?:
The actions or rather lack of action on the part of deputy sheriff who was on the scene is absolute gold for those arguing you can't trust the authorities.
Absolute gold for the people saying a good guy with a gun can't stop a bad guy with a gun, too.
No not at all, because he didn't actually do his job. You know "serve and protect" and all that.
Despite whatever training he had this guy didn't go in and take out the shooter. Perhaps he didn't know how many bad guys there were and decided to wait for backup? Training or not, I don't think it's necessarily cowardice not to want to embark on what could have been considered a suicide mission against a better armed opponent of unknown number and strength surprise as his advantage. It tells me that unlike what the pro gun people will tell you it isn't as simple as bursting in a taking out the bad guy Die Hard style. These were real bullets and real people dying. So what will the response be when one day a teacher pulls a gun on a perp and shoots a bunch of innocents caught in the crossfire while engaging a school shooter?
I'm not calling him a coward at all. Who knows how anyone will react in such an appalling situation. My original point was that it is mana from heaven for the "can't trust the gummit" crowd. Add that to the fact that the guy had been reported to the FBI and was illegally using firearms.
Personally I'd be more than happy for all guns to be confiscated except in specific cases. But that's never going to happen in the US so the best of the worst approaches are unfortunately required. Simply passing some useless law and basking in the glory of that just won't cut it.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?:
You don't get it. By not doing his job or what he was trained to do he was not a "good" guy. All it does is highlight the incompetence of the authorities. As I said, pure gold for gun nuts.
I get you. I just find it a very obscure point. Kinda judgemental, too.
It's conceivable that the gun nuts will take it that way and try to make it the problem with the authorities. But more likely, they'll think there weren't ENOUGH good guys with guns on site.
Arming teachers means MORE authority figures with guns! They're part of the system, man! đ
The gun nuts you speak of think that having someone on site with a gun is the answer to stop or deter bad guys. This situation is decent proof that it isn't that simple. It's not a video game. It's not shooting paper targets. Being a "good" guy is an entirely different situation when the target fires back.
Half the time these hillbilly fucks would just end up hitting each other or somebody else's kid.
Trained police ended the Lindt Cafe seige here in Sydney and ended up killing a bystander despite best intentions.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?:
@nta said in Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?:
The actions or rather lack of action on the part of deputy sheriff who was on the scene is absolute gold for those arguing you can't trust the authorities.
Absolute gold for the people saying a good guy with a gun can't stop a bad guy with a gun, too.
No not at all, because he didn't actually do his job. You know "serve and protect" and all that.
Who knows what sort of training this guy had. Up until the last couple of years many police departments trained their officers to 'isolate and contain' such incidents. There has been a shift in thinking recently that the 'isolate and contain' model does fuck all in an active shooter scenario. This guy might not have had active shooter training.
While it sounds like a no brainer that a cop would go in to a situation like this and 'serve and protect', there are other factors at play other than his bravery. Letâs say bravery (or lack of) is not the issue. If this bloke had been only trained to 'isolate and contain', isolating and containing would be his first instinct. To go against his training would be a big risk, and I donât mean just for his physical safety. Say he goes in, kids get killed and the whole thing goes to shit but he survives. He will be hauled in front of a Coroners Court and will have to explain his actions. People will be looking for someone to blame, the police force will be copping criticism and the police will be looking to divert the flack. And standing on his own will be poor old PC Plod, who despite being trained to isolate and contain went in anyway. The police force may turn around and say âItâs not our fault, we didnât train him to do that!â
Police forces are starting to wake up to the old âisolate and containâ model being ineffective. I know Qld and other Aussie states have introduced active shooter training. While the training is limited (itâs not like the army where you get to train for hours/days/weeks on end) the biggest benefit is there is now clear instructions for cops to fall back on if they are placed in an active shooter situation. If they have the balls to go in they now know, that if they are lucky enough to be standing before the inquiry after the event, they will have training to point to in defence. They can now say âHey we were trained to go in and neutralise the shooter.â
-
@nta said in Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?:
You don't get it. By not doing his job or what he was trained to do he was not a "good" guy. All it does is highlight the incompetence of the authorities. As I said, pure gold for gun nuts.
I get you. I just find it a very obscure point. Kinda judgemental, too.
It's conceivable that the gun nuts will take it that way and try to make it the problem with the authorities. But more likely, they'll think there weren't ENOUGH good guys with guns on site.
Arming teachers means MORE authority figures with guns! They're part of the system, man! đ
The gun nuts you speak of think that having someone on site with a gun is the answer to stop or deter bad guys. This situation is decent proof that it isn't that simple. It's not a video game. It's not shooting paper targets. Being a "good" guy is an entirely different situation when the target fires back.
Half the time these hillbilly fucks would just end up hitting each other or somebody else's kid.
Trained police ended the Lindt Cafe seige here in Sydney and ended up killing a bystander despite best intentions.
Nick go online. There pro-gunners are making massive hay out of this. I'm not saying it's right or justified, but that's what is happening. Not sure how it can be gold for the other side who claim that everyone should rely on the authorities and surrender their guns to them.
-
@gt12 said in Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?:
Long read (via longform) about the woman behind the NRA in Florida. If even half of the shit implied in this is true, itâs scary as fuck.
Democracy!
The key bit for me is this:
Before Stand Your Ground, Americans were forbidden to use force in potentially dangerous public situations if they had the option of fleeing. The new law removed any duty to retreat, justifying force so long as a shooter âreasonablyâ believed that physical harm was imminent. It was a radical break with legal tradition. Now a personâs subjective feelings of fear were grounds to shoot someone even if there were other options available.
Take a population
Create a culture of paranoia
Give them guns
Tell them it's ok to act on that paranoia
Rinse and repeat -
If there's one thing the #metoo phenomenon showed it's that protests can get massive groundswells of support with social media. It's now flowing into other avenues, this Russ McVeigh thing is an example. It will be interesting to see what happens with this youth driven anti gun protest and if it has a similar effect in galvanizing people to demand change
-
@nta said in Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?:
@canefan Looks like they've picked a pretty fucking tough place to start with Florida tho. That old bitch sounds like she's got everyone scared.
Yup. But #metoo started with Rose McGowan, hardly a high-profile actress anymore and the ripple effect hasn't stopped yet. I don't know what the specifics of these companies dropping their arrangements with the NRA but maybe it's the start of something big, maybe not
-
I saw on tv a young man at a town hall meeting asking Rubio point blank if he still accepts NRA money. It's one time but if the question starts being asked by a wider bloc of people, and if this idea that the NRA has blood on it's hands with every shooting catches on, it could start to generate change if politicians and associated businesses start to fear that their profits are threatened
-
@nta said in Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?:
You don't get it. By not doing his job or what he was trained to do he was not a "good" guy. All it does is highlight the incompetence of the authorities. As I said, pure gold for gun nuts.
I get you. I just find it a very obscure point. Kinda judgemental, too.
It's conceivable that the gun nuts will take it that way and try to make it the problem with the authorities. But more likely, they'll think there weren't ENOUGH good guys with guns on site.
Arming teachers means MORE authority figures with guns! They're part of the system, man! đ
The gun nuts you speak of think that having someone on site with a gun is the answer to stop or deter bad guys. This situation is decent proof that it isn't that simple. It's not a video game. It's not shooting paper targets. Being a "good" guy is an entirely different situation when the target fires back.
Half the time these hillbilly fucks would just end up hitting each other or somebody else's kid.
Trained police ended the Lindt Cafe seige here in Sydney and ended up killing a bystander despite best intentions.
I was just thinking about that. Does the fact that there was a whole SWAT team waiting outside the Lindt cafe while one shooter killed a man inside make them any less brave according to those in the US that pronounced that officer a coward? They not only had to consider the shooter but the welfare of the innocent people inside. I don't think a teacher jacked up with adrenaline with a glock trying to take out a prepared bad guy armed and with intent is any safer for those already in the firing line
-
@nta said in Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?:
@canefan Not an "active" shooter though? Lindt Cafe was a little different in that regard.
Fair call. Active or not they didn't rush in assuming they could overpower him. Too many unknowns
Guns?.........or is that the least of the problems?