Sign in to follow this  
Nailing Malarkey Too

Did and armed staff member just stop an active school shooter?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

It is a shame.  Its an even bigger shame that the Po-Leece didn't arrive for something like 15 min after the entire event was over and it required an armed citizen to intervene.

Besides the armed citizen was a RESPONSIBLE gun owner like you and Meli and the rest demand.  He had hiS rifle locked in a safe, with no magazines loaded and the ammo in stored in a different place.  The account is when he heard the shooting, he had to get his rifle out of the safe, find some magazineS, find some ammo, load the magazines and then run across the street in socks to engage the shooter.  You cannot in the same breath complain that he didn't act quickly enough and then simultaneously bitch at gun-owners for daring to keep weapons loaded and ammo and weapons together.  Well....... you can, but it makes you look like the hypocritical cunts that you all are.  

IF the guns weren't so readily available, the murderer probably would not have been able to kill 26 people in so easily.

GET RID OF THE KILLING MACHINES ALTOGETHER!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

If you really think guns were made solely for killing people you need to seek professional help.  It's called paranoia.  

The kid was armed with a Glock. What were Glocks designed for Dick breath?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

In reality that is NOT what happened.  Why do you lie?  Are you taking lessons from BL?

What happened was that the good guy with an assault rifle engaged bad guy with an assault rifle, hit bad guy several times and forced him to drop his own assault rifle and thereby prevented him from shooting any more people in the church or elsewhere.  But because bad guy was wearing body armor, the rounds didn't stop him immediately and he was able to get in his car injured and flee.  He then was chased by good guy to make sure he could not cause anymore harm and eventually bad guy took his own life after he crashed his car in a ditch when he realized he was fucked anyway.

So yes, in TX a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with gun.  Just like a good guy with gun stopped a bad guy with gun in this MD school.

Well that is the NRA version anyway. How about this. A good guy with a gun heard shots so he grabbed his own piece and headed for the church. When he got there, rather than enter (and actually save any lives) he waited across the street for the shooter to come out so he could fire at him from behind a car. Despite being an NRA instructor, he missed and the bad guy made it to his car. Then the good guy with a gun flagged down a good guy with a car and followed a safe distance behind. The bad guy pulled over and shot himself. So the score from the last few months is Bad guys with guns - over 100 dead. Good guys citizens with guns- nil. 

Seems an odd argument that with over 200 million guns in circulation not a single life has been saved by a good guy with a gun. 

But mental health is the real issue here, not guns...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kids won’t choose to shoot in schools where they know that there is a good guy with a gun. 

Except when they do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like domestic violence in a school. Some folks can't deal with rejection.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Looks like domestic violence in a school. Some folks can't deal with rejection.

Indeed it does. Which means a good guy with a guy didn't "stop" anything. He merely killed the kid after the deed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Indeed it does. Which means a good guy with a guy didn't "stop" anything. He merely killed the kid after the deed. 

If that's true, he should be prosecuted. Killing the kid should be in response to some kind of threat of imminent harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was the usual 'immediate harm' to the gun lobby to consider. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Indeed it does. Which means a good guy with a guy didn't "stop" anything. He merely killed the kid after the deed. 

That's true and I think Attempted murder/Suicide is still a possibility.

Good guys with guns aren't a 100% solution.  Nothing is.  That doesn't mean they are never effective.

Security never relies on a single solution. Awareness is more important.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was one private citizen who drew during the Representative Gifford shooting, and he later admitted he almost shot a woman who was holding down the would-be assassin.  A reasonable question for these situations might be “who drew”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

There was one private citizen who drew during the Representative Gifford shooting, and he later admitted he almost shot a woman who was holding down the would-be assassin.  A reasonable question for these situations might be “who drew”?

He drew but did NOT shoot.  Sounds like a reasonable and intelligent man with a gun. 

Unless, of course, you were looking for a vigilante executioner instead of an example of gun control.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

He drew but did NOT shoot.  Sounds like a reasonable and intelligent man with a gun. 

Unless, of course, you were looking for a vigilante executioner instead of an example of gun control.

 

Not my point.  I was agreeing with your point about awareness.  It does beg another question- is it possible for a good guy with a gun to shoot first without winding up in the the justice system?  Or is the good guy always going to be drawing and shooting after the fact?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

If that's true, he should be prosecuted. Killing the kid should be in response to some kind of threat of imminent harm.

Yes, because that was what I said and the point of my post. Then again, actually confronting that point would be a problem for the "good guy with a gun" storyline you invest in; so mischaracterisation is all you've got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Well that is the NRA version anyway. How about this. A good guy with a gun heard shots so he grabbed his own piece and headed for the church. When he got there, rather than enter (and actually save any lives) he waited across the street for the shooter to come out so he could fire at him from behind a car. Despite being an NRA instructor, he missed and the bad guy made it to his car. Then the good guy with a gun flagged down a good guy with a car and followed a safe distance behind. The bad guy pulled over and shot himself. So the score from the last few months is Bad guys with guns - over 100 dead. Good guys citizens with guns- nil. 

Seems an odd argument that with over 200 million guns in circulation not a single life has been saved by a good guy with a gun. 

But mental health is the real issue here, not guns...

Funny how with weekly mass murder events in the US, the "good guys with a gun" just fail to materialize.

Maybe they are "all hat - no cattle". Maybe they turn to shit and hide when they hear gunshots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the big talkers about guns are all hat, no cattle.

I can just see Nugent or LaPierre running towards the sound of gunfire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

All the big talkers about guns are all hat, no cattle.

I can just see Nugent or LaPierre running towards the sound of gunfire.

I would imagine running after you’ve shit your pants would be uncomfortable, if not difficult. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

He drew but did NOT shoot.  Sounds like a reasonable and intelligent man with a gun. 

Unless, of course, you were looking for a vigilante executioner instead of an example of gun control.

 

What is the exact moment when a good guy with a gun crosses the line and becomes a 'vigilante executioner'? Is it the same definition as a mass shooting. The first 3 bad guys down are the act of a good guy but the 4th one is a step to far? 

Come on, admit it. All you gun guys have fantasys about cooling a few dudes who deserved it with your rod. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

What is the exact moment when a good guy with a gun crosses the line and becomes a 'vigilante executioner'? Is it the same definition as a mass shooting. The first 3 bad guys down are the act of a good guy but the 4th one is a step to far? 

Come on, admit it. All you gun guys have fantasys about cooling a few dudes who deserved it with your rod. 

That's just it. Fantasy.

All the self appointed "good guys with a gun" would no doubt shit their pants & drop their guns & run when the bullets start flying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

That's just it. Fantasy.

All the self appointed "good guys with a gun" would no doubt shit their pants & drop their guns & run when the bullets start flying. 

 

 

What is the exact moment when a good guy with a gun crosses the line and becomes a 'vigilante executioner'? Is it the same definition as a mass shooting. The first 3 bad guys down are the act of a good guy but the 4th one is a step to far? 

Come on, admit it. All you gun guys have fantasys about cooling a few dudes who deserved it with your rod. 

Nope

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

All the self appointed "good guys with a gun" would no doubt shit their pants & drop their guns & run when the bullets start flying. 

I'm sure all the liberal pacifist would cut and run but those with moral and civic responsibility would stand strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I'm sure all the liberal pacifist would cut and run but those with moral and civic responsibility would stand strong.

If they had ANY moral & civic  responsibility they would NOT have a gun at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then how would they indulge their Rambo fantasies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

Nope

 

Actually kind of sad to have a job that pays what a store clerk job pays that includes getting into gunfights. Glad the good guy won, but the risk-reward ratio here is terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

Nope

 

To be fair, the guy with the paintball gun got tapped....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to solve this debate, once and for all:

  1. look at countries that have fewer gun deaths
  2. copy their gun laws
  3. enjoy fewer murdered schoolchildren

Yes, folks, it really is that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

How to solve this debate, once and for all:

  1. look at countries that have fewer gun deaths
  2. copy their gun laws
  3. enjoy fewer murdered schoolchildren

Yes, folks, it really is that simple.

We have very stringent murder laws in this country.  We even have the death penalty.  Those laws didn't solve the problem and neither will more laws.  Murder is just part of the American problem solving equation for some.  It mainly afflicts the poor and therefore isn't given much attention here.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I'm sure all the liberal pacifist would cut and run but those with moral and civic responsibility would stand strong.

What kind of gun do you want to get when you grow up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

We have very stringent murder laws in this country.  We even have the death penalty.  Those laws didn't solve the problem and neither will more laws.  Murder is just part of the American problem solving equation for some.  It mainly afflicts the poor and therefore isn't given much attention here.

Your answer does not compute. Please apply logic to your argument and try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Your answer does not compute. Please apply logic to your argument and try again.

I'm sure anything more complex than binary logic will be over your head.  It's OK, we have a lot like you shooting each other every day here.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I'm sure anything more complex than binary logic will be over your head.  It's OK, we have a lot like you shooting each other every day here.

No seriously. Your assertion that the death penalty doesn't solve the murder problem, and therefore gun control laws won't have any effect on gun murders is completely devoid of logic. It's a bit like saying pineapples are not vegetables, therefore the sky is blue. Please try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

How to solve this debate, once and for all:

  1. look at countries that have fewer gun deaths
  2. copy their gun laws
  3. enjoy fewer murdered schoolchildren

Yes, folks, it really is that simple.

No it isn't - nowhere else is like the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Your answer does not compute. Please apply logic to your argument and try again.

You incurable optimist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

No seriously. Your assertion that the death penalty doesn't solve the murder problem, and therefore gun control laws won't have any effect on gun murders is completely devoid of logic. It's a bit like saying pineapples are not vegetables, therefore the sky is blue. Please try again.

Have you ever heard of a deterrent?  That's what the death penalty is.  Gun control laws are a much lesser deterrent.  Hope that clears it up for the cerebraly challenged.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

No it isn't - nowhere else is like the USA.

At least we agree on something.  Good old American exceptionalism.  

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

At least we agree on something.  Good old American exceptionalism.  

YCMTSU.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Righty and Ronald MacDonald gave me a like. You really can not make this shit up. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They define the old expression "Thick as two planks".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Now, you are far less strident about what DID happen and switching to what MIGHT’VE happened. 

Speculation. 

Sorry.  It is not speculation that a good guy with a gun engaged and "stopped" a bad guy with a gun.  That is FACT.  That he didn't get there in time to save ALL the lives is irrelevant to the fact that he "stopped" the shooter from doing any more shooting.

Yes it speculation that stopping him saved future lives, but the fact that he was stopped rather than the shooter committing suicide on the spot like so many do when they are finished means that its a likely pretty high % of confidence that stopping the shooter when he did, the good Samaritan likely saved future lives.  Given that he ran and was in a high speed car chase meant that he was not ready to give up yet at the church.  Had he gotten away with his rifle and the po-leece finally cornered him - he likely could have ended up in a shootout with cops and other nearby civilians in danger.  Yes, speculation.  But the fact that he was NOT able to do that after the good guy injured him and chased him down means we don't HAVE to speculate any longer on what might have happened.  He is dead and the threat was ended.  And the cops had nothing to do with it.  Ergo:  Good guy with a gun stops bad guy with a gun.  Fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Both Righty and Ronald MacDonald gave me a like. You really can not make this shit up. 

FTFY :D

Untitled.thumb.jpg.00aa362146af77d45b9d21fc3008564b.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Sorry.  It is not speculation that a good guy with a gun engaged and "stopped" a bad guy with a gun.  That is FACT.  That he didn't get there in time to save ALL the lives is irrelevant to the fact that he "stopped" the shooter from doing any more shooting.

Yes it speculation that stopping him saved future lives, but the fact that he was stopped rather than the shooter committing suicide on the spot like so many do when they are finished means that its a likely pretty high % of confidence that stopping the shooter when he did, the good Samaritan likely saved future lives.  Given that he ran and was in a high speed car chase meant that he was not ready to give up yet at the church.  Had he gotten away with his rifle and the po-leece finally cornered him - he likely could have ended up in a shootout with cops and other nearby civilians in danger.  Yes, speculation.  But the fact that he was NOT able to do that after the good guy injured him and chased him down means we don't HAVE to speculate any longer on what might have happened.  He is dead and the threat was ended.  And the cops had nothing to do with it.  Ergo:  Good guy with a gun stops bad guy with a gun.  Fact.

It may also be that the "good guy with the car' stopped the murderer when he realized he wasn't going to get away so shot himself.

The "good guy with a gun" wasn't able to stop the murderer. Evidenced by the fact the bad guy drove away from the scene of the crime.

Just a coincidence that there was a guy in the car that had a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

If the knowledge that Deputy Gaskill, with his SWAT training, was patrolling the building was insufficient to keep this kid from bringing a gun to school, explain how arming 63 year old Mrs. Weathersbee, who teaches American Lit, will do that. 

 

53304DC1-4452-42E8-B90D-7CE572DD567E.jpeg

Who's claiming that having an SRO in the building will deter ALL threats?  The fact that he was there and ended the threat very quickly is evidence enough that we need armed personnel in the schools.  I think it might deter some and for those others that are too crazy to deter, he was there to end the threat.

And NO one that I'm aware of, including the orange buffoon, is suggesting arming 63 year old Mrs. Weathersbee.  Want to try that again?  Every proposal I've heard about arming school staff is 1)  completely voluntary 2) there is very intensive training (100+ hours) involved up to the level of a Po-Leeceman training and 3) no actual classroom teachers would be armed and 4) any armed school staff would be a last line of defense after the SRO's.  

And as an aside, "SRO" is such a mealy-mouthed squishy PC term.  Who the frack came up with that???  What's wrong with calling them an "armed guard" or "Security officer"???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Well that is the NRA version anyway. How about this. A good guy with a gun heard shots so he grabbed his own piece and headed for the church. When he got there, rather than enter (and actually save any lives) he waited across the street for the shooter to come out so he could fire at him from behind a car. Despite being an NRA instructor, he missed and the bad guy made it to his car. Then the good guy with a gun flagged down a good guy with a car and followed a safe distance behind. The bad guy pulled over and shot himself. So the score from the last few months is Bad guys with guns - over 100 dead. Good guys citizens with guns- nil. 

Seems an odd argument that with over 200 million guns in circulation not a single life has been saved by a good guy with a gun. 

But mental health is the real issue here, not guns...

LB, I hope you are at least being sarcastic here, because if you really believe that you're an even bigger cunt than I assume you are.  And I don't mean cunt in a cordial aussie way either.

The version of the story is not the NRA's, it is what was being reported on the news at the scene and from interviews with the good guy.  He did not miss.  He hit and injured the shooter.  But because the shooter was wearing body armor it was not immediately fatal.  He did drop his rifle.  Besides Why would you drop your rifle and run if the other guy had missed????  The bad guy then tried to run and was chased by two good samaritans at this point.  Shit bag crashes, is bleeding out and decides to end his own life.  Good guy with gun stops bad guy with gun.  Fact.

And I hate to break it to you, but lives are saved everyday by good guys (and gals) with guns.  A defensive use of a gun doesn't have to involve shoots being fired by either side.  A woman about to be raped pulls a gun out of her purse and point it at the would be rapists head and says "Say 'what' again. Say 'what' again, I dare you, I double dare you motherfucker, say what one more Goddamn time!"  Shitbag rapist suddenly decides he has somewhere else to be in a big hurry.

LB, stop being such a cunt.  You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Sorry.  It is not speculation that a good guy with a gun engaged and "stopped" a bad guy with a gun.  That is FACT.  That he didn't get there in time to save ALL the lives is irrelevant to the fact that he "stopped" the shooter from doing any more shooting.

Yes it speculation that stopping him saved future lives, but the fact that he was stopped rather than the shooter committing suicide on the spot like so many do when they are finished means that its a likely pretty high % of confidence that stopping the shooter when he did, the good Samaritan likely saved future lives.  Given that he ran and was in a high speed car chase meant that he was not ready to give up yet at the church.  Had he gotten away with his rifle and the po-leece finally cornered him - he likely could have ended up in a shootout with cops and other nearby civilians in danger.  Yes, speculation.  But the fact that he was NOT able to do that after the good guy injured him and chased him down means we don't HAVE to speculate any longer on what might have happened.  He is dead and the threat was ended.  And the cops had nothing to do with it.  Ergo:  Good guy with a gun stops bad guy with a gun.  Fact.

Jeff any further shootings by this guy are pure speculation. The fact remains he had finished shooting and left the church when the GGWAG arrived on the scene. Since the BGWAG didn't know that the GGWAG was waiting for him it says a bit about NRA shooting instruction that their instructor, with the element of surprise and clear view of the guy couldn't stop him. 

Clearly the answer isn't more guns it is better vetting of the instructors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

LB, I hope you are at least being sarcastic here, because if you really believe that you're an even bigger cunt than I assume you are.  And I don't mean cunt in a cordial aussie way either.

The version of the story is not the NRA's, it is what was being reported on the news at the scene and from interviews with the good guy.  He did not miss.  He hit and injured the shooter.  But because the shooter was wearing body armor it was not immediately fatal.  He did drop his rifle.  Besides Why would you drop your rifle and run if the other guy had missed????  The bad guy then tried to run and was chased by two good samaritans at this point.  Shit bag crashes, is bleeding out and decides to end his own life.  Good guy with gun stops bad guy with gun.  Fact.

And I hate to break it to you, but lives are saved everyday by good guys (and gals) with guns.  A defensive use of a gun doesn't have to involve shoots being fired by either side.  A woman about to be raped pulls a gun out of her purse and point it at the would be rapists head and says "Say 'what' again. Say 'what' again, I dare you, I double dare you motherfucker, say what one more Goddamn time!"  Shitbag rapist suddenly decides he has somewhere else to be in a big hurry.

LB, stop being such a cunt.  You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

I am sure the guy dropped his gun and ran like a cowardly pussy when someone fired at him. He was a gun owner after all. How come mr instructor couldn't get a head shot off? I am sure that GG's have used their guns to stop BG's. But not in a mass shooting they haven't. Not one life saved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Jeff any further shootings by this guy are pure speculation. The fact remains he had finished shooting and left the church when the GGWAG arrived on the scene. Since the BGWAG didn't know that the GGWAG was waiting for him it says a bit about NRA shooting instruction that their instructor, with the element of surprise and clear view of the guy couldn't stop him. 

Clearly the answer isn't more guns it is better vetting of the instructors.

Oh fuck right the fuck off, cunt.

Read this and then go fuck off again.  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/06/stephen-willeford-johnnie-langendorff-texas-church-shooting

Willeford said he loaded his magazine and ran barefoot across the street to the church where he saw the gunman and exchanged fire.

“He saw me and I saw him,” Willeford said. “I was standing behind a pickup truck for cover. I know I hit him. He got into his vehicle, and he fired another couple rounds through his side window. When the window dropped, I fired another round at him again.”

the Texas department of public safety regional director, Freeman Martin, said at a news conference on Monday that the armed resident who confronted Kelley was toting an “AR assault rifle and engaged” the shooter.

Martin later praised Willeford and Langendorff: “The number one goal of law enforcement is to neutralise the shooter. In this situation, we had two good Samaritans who did that for law enforcement.”

Other reports say that there were other weapons found in the car.  Yes it is speculation, but I don't think this fuckbag was done yet.

Oh and by the way - fuck off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

That is not how liberals work, they must fabricate the "truth" to coincide with their views.

I am a Liberal? I am a card carting member of the Australian Liberal Party but as you would know that is the largest Conservative party in Aus. On most issues my politics are slightly right of Hitler. It is only imbeciles like you that think the gun issue should be a political one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I am sure the guy dropped his gun and ran like a cowardly pussy when someone fired at him. He was a gun owner after all. How come mr instructor couldn't get a head shot off? I am sure that GG's have used their guns to stop BG's. But not in a mass shooting they haven't. Not one life saved. 

It must bug the living shit out of you that 'Murican citizens are willing and able to risk their lives to protect their family and others.  The cops will not always be there to save the day.  I just cannot fathom the sheep mentality you pusstralians possess.  You are more than happy to be defenseless and cower in the corner when bad things happen.  If the rest of you are as equivocating as bent was about protecting his family, it's no wonder you guys needed our help to defeat the Nips.  Before we entered the war, I hear you guys were already printing welcome banners in japanese to honor the soon to be arriving soldiers.  Even your own women think you're pussies.  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Oh fuck right the fuck off, cunt.

Read this and then go fuck off again.  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/06/stephen-willeford-johnnie-langendorff-texas-church-shooting

 

 

'Willeford said'.  Well that must be a fact then. He also said he was an NRA instructor. Maybe I just supposed he was a rifle instructor - but you would think one of them would have no trouble actually stoping the BGWAG. Do they have yoga at the NRA?-maybe that is what he instructs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I am a Liberal? I am a card carting member of the Australian Liberal Party but as you would know that is the largest Conservative party in Aus. On most issues my politics are slightly right of Hitler. It is only imbeciles like you that think the gun issue should be a political one. 

I don't think the gun issue in America should be political.  But the liberal politicians here insist on doing so.  

And BTW - gunz is and was a political issue in pusstralia too.  It was politicians who banned them in the middle of the night with little to no public debate as a knee jerk reaction to an isolated event.  Thus reinforcing why our constitution and our Bill of Rights continues to remain so important, so politicians cannot arbitrarily take away our rights when the mood suits them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

It must bug the living shit out of you that 'Murican citizens are willing and able to risk their lives to protect their family and others.  The cops will not always be there to save the day.  I just cannot fathom the sheep mentality you pusstralians possess.  You are more than happy to be defenseless and cower in the corner when bad things happen.  If the rest of you are as equivocating as bent was about protecting his family, it's no wonder you guys needed our help to defeat the Nips.  Before we entered the war, I hear you guys were already printing welcome banners in japanese to honor the soon to be arriving soldiers.  Even your own women think you're pussies.  Just saying.

True we are a long way behind the US. Not one of our prime ministers (including the female one :) ) have ever sued a pornstar yet. And yes I banged plenty of American girls when I was young and living in Hawaii as well Jeff. If one was your sister I apologise but don't blame her. It's our cute accent. Drives Seppo chicks wild.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Then it is clear you have no clue how American politics work.

The gun issue is a political issue because politicians write the laws about guns.

So every registered Republican is gun supporter are they? And yes Dumas, it is a trap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

'Willeford said'.  Well that must be a fact then. He also said he was an NRA instructor. Maybe I just supposed he was a rifle instructor - but you would think one of them would have no trouble actually stoping the BGWAG. Do they have yoga at the NRA?-maybe that is what he instructs?

Its a fuckload more fact than your imaging what might have happened.  And have you ever been in a gunfight?  Teaching shooting on a 1 way shooting range is a bit different than when it turns into a two way shooting range.  The first time you get shot at is an eye opener.  Many many supposedly professionally trained cops routinely miss in the heat of the moment.  Soldiers the same when they are in battle for the first time.  That you still think that just because he was an instructor means he's infallible and not subject to adrenaline just reinforces your king cunt status.  The fact that he actually not only engaged the shooter after hearing what was obviously multiple rounds from a rifle, he ran barefoot INTO the fight and still managed to hit the shooter while being shot at.  Many many cops and soldiers have done far worse their first time under fire.  The guy even honestly admitted he was terrified.  But the fact that he still overcame that terror and engaged him not just once but continued to pursue the shitbag knowing that shitbag was still armed sets him FAR FAR above what any pusstralian could ever hope to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I don't think the gun issue in America should be political.  But the liberal politicians here insist on doing so.  

And BTW - gunz is and was a political issue in pusstralia too.  It was politicians who banned them in the middle of the night with little to no public debate as a knee jerk reaction to an isolated event.  Thus reinforcing why our constitution and our Bill of Rights continues to remain so important, so politicians cannot arbitrarily take away our rights when the mood suits them.  

Yes it was our greatest and most conservative Prime Minister that did that. No stupid bill of rights that protects 200 year old rights to get in the way when common sense is required. Probobly saved a lot of Australian school children's lives. Your wonderful constitution continues to cost Americans school children their lives on a weekly basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Its a fuckload more fact than your imaging what might have happened.  And have you ever been in a gunfight?  Teaching shooting on a 1 way shooting range is a bit different than when it turns into a two way shooting range.  The first time you get shot at is an eye opener.  Many many supposedly professionally trained cops routinely miss in the heat of the moment.  Soldiers the same when they are in battle for the first time.  That you still think that just because he was an instructor means he's infallible and not subject to adrenaline just reinforces your king cunt status.  The fact that he actually not only engaged the shooter after hearing what was obviously multiple rounds from a rifle, he ran barefoot INTO the fight and still managed to hit the shooter while being shot at.  Many many cops and soldiers have done far worse their first time under fire.  The guy even honestly admitted he was terrified.  But the fact that he still overcame that terror and engaged him not just once but continued to pursue the shitbag knowing that shitbag was still armed sets him FAR FAR above what any pusstralian could ever hope to do.

Of course I have never been in a shootout. I am an Australian Civilian. Where pray tell could I get into a shoot out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LB 15 said:

Yes it was our greatest and most conservative Prime Minister that did that. No stupid bill of rights that protects 200 year old rights to get in the way when common sense is required. Probobly saved a lot of Australian school children's lives. Your wonderful constitution continues to cost Americans school children their lives on a weekly basis.

Yeah, I admit that the price of liberty sometimes means there will be some losses.  You can thank those pesky 1st, 4th and 5th Amendment rights for that.  IF ONLY we had the willpower to overturn those rights and put bad guys and dangerous mentally ill loons in jail that are otherwise free right now doing nefarious stuff because of their "rights" to speech, privacy, and due process.  

As evadent.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LB 15 said:

Mate I respect your service, I really do, but when were you involved in a shootout? Did the Red Barron shoot you down over northern France and you had to use your service postal to fight your way back across the western front? 

Nope, never been in a traditional gunfight like above.  But I have been shot at by ground fire guns and surface to air missiles - so somewhat the same principle.  I think the first time I saw a missile launched at me, I about shit my pants.  But fortunately training takes over and you do what you gotta do to get the mission done.  But I doubt my first real threat reaction was even close to textbook perfect given the amount of seat cushion my sphincter had just sucked up.  I consider myself an excellent shot with a rifle, better than with a pistol - and I've done a lot of realistic scenario training with one.  But I honestly don't know how I would react in a real gunfight.  I would hope at least 1/2 as well as the GGWAG in TX did.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Of course I have never been in a shootout. I am an Australian Civilian. Where pray tell could I get into a shoot out?

You would have to go to the USA for that LB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Of course I have never been in a shootout. I am an Australian Civilian. Where pray tell could I get into a shoot out?

Milperra

Top end

Hoddle Street

Surry Hills

Central Coast

Cangai

Port Arthur

Wright Street

Monash University

Martin Place 

Parramatta

Brighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see it never happens in Queensland. All safe here in the deep north.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

They define the old expression "Thick as two planks".

Sloop, I know I made you and LB eat dog shit on the playground in third grade but that was 35 years ago.  Can't we let bygones be bygones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, kmacdonald said:

At least we agree on something.  Good old American exceptionalism.  

Bahahahahahahahahahaha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LB 15 said:

You see it never happens in Queensland. All safe here in the deep north.

Queens are more likely to swat you with their hankie.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Clearly the answer isn't more guns it is better vetting of the instructors.

It's Amurrica - the answer is always more guns & ammo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A school shooting in 1853.  The South as a dominant cultural force (again) as far as guns are concerned-

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/24/first-us-school-shooting-gun-debate-217704

I especially appreciate the point that maybe we have a right NOT to get shot.  Some here will no doubt disagree....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Amati said:

A school shooting in 1853.  The South as a dominant cultural force (again) as far as guns are concerned-

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/24/first-us-school-shooting-gun-debate-217704

I especially appreciate the point that maybe we have a right NOT to get shot.  Some here will no doubt disagree....

 

They will tell you they have more right to have guns than other people do to not get shot. Curious, that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kmacdonald said:

Sloop, I know I made you and LB eat dog shit on the playground in third grade but that was 35 years ago.  Can't we let bygones be bygones?

Dear oh dear.  You are not very good at this are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Queens are more likely to swat you with their hankie.

Did you and Kmac attend the same NRA creative writing course?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Milperra

Top end

Hoddle Street

Surry Hills

Central Coast

Cangai

Port Arthur

Wright Street

Monash University

Martin Place 

Parramatta

Brighton

Been googling Jeff? Now how many of these occurred after the buy back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Dear oh dear.  You are not very good at this are you?

Kmac and Dumbass have resorted to blanket downvoting once again.

They're running out of options as more & more members ignore them.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Kirwan said:

And it turns out the 'good guy' didn't kill the Maryland shooter, he killed himself. 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-great-mills-shooting-update-20180326-story.html

The highly trained officer shot the assailant in the HAND. 

hand, head....both begin with an H.  

the NYPD only hit their intended target 18% of the time..........and dipshit wants teachers to be armed ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kirwan said:

And it turns out the 'good guy' didn't kill the Maryland shooter, he killed himself. 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-great-mills-shooting-update-20180326-story.html

The highly trained officer shot the assailant in the HAND. 

Thanks for the update. Kind of what I expected from the beginning but good to get some facts on the matter before going off half-cocked like all the "good guy with a gun killed bad guy with a gun" nutters. 

From the outline of events, kid accomplished what he set out to accomplish - killing the girl. The only other person he injured was the kid struck in the leg by the same bullet as the perpetrator shot the girl in the head with (i.e. accidentally, he didn't intend to shoot him). The "good guy with a gun" didn't stop anything. The "good guy" wasn't even shot at, he shot the kid in the hand who was shooting himself in the head. Not quite the "heroic pro-gun" story that sell NRA subscriptions and firearms though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God only knows what would have transpired it the school security officer didn't respond so quickly.  It certainly had the look of a massacre ready to happen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kmacdonald said:

God only knows what would have transpired it the school security officer didn't respond so quickly.  It certainly had the look of a massacre ready to happen.  

Yes, a minute later and he would have saved a bullet and a lot of paperwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kmacdonald said:

God only knows what would have transpired it the school security officer didn't respond so quickly.  It certainly had the look of a massacre ready to happen.  

Yes. It certainly looked that way by the kid bringing a handgun to shoot one person, with whom he recently broke up, before leaving without firing at anyone else

The obvious signs of a runaway massacre about to happen. You really like to prove you're a fucking moron don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Yes. It certainly looked that way by the kid bringing a handgun to shoot one person, with whom he recently broke up, before leaving without firing at anyone else

The obvious signs of a runaway massacre about to happen. You really like to prove you're a fucking moron don't you?

Thant for reading the shooters mind for us.  We couldn't have done it without you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kmacdonald said:

Thant for reading the shooters mind for us.  We couldn't have done it without you.

Must've missed where I did anything like that. Mind pointing out where my post spoke about his thoughts as opposed to what he did. 

  • He only brought a hand gun. Verified fact.
  • He only shot at one person - the girl with whom he had a previous relationship. Verified fact.
  • He left without shooting at anyone else. Verified fact.

You want to prove you're even dumber than a sack of rocks by trying again or do you think you fucked up hard enough for this hour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Must've missed where I did anything like that. Mind pointing out where my post spoke about his thoughts as opposed to what he did. 

  • He only brought a hand gun. Verified fact.
  • He only shot at one person - the girl with whom he had a previous relationship. Verified fact.
  • He left without shooting at anyone else. Verified fact.

You want to prove you're even dumber than a sack of rocks by trying again or do you think you fucked up hard enough for this hour?

You said the "kid accomplished what he wanted to".  Did he tell you that?You said he didn't mean to shoot the other person.  Did he tell you that?

When you lead with name calling you've already lost the battle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kmacdonald said:

You said the "kid accomplished what he wanted to".  Did he tell you that?You said he didn't mean to shoot the other person.  Did he tell you that?

When you lead with name calling you've already lost the battle. 

Idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kmacdonald said:

You said the "kid accomplished what he wanted to".  Did he tell you that?

I prefixed that with "from the outline of events". It is an opinion based on, as I stated, the outline of events. Reading comprehension isn't your strong point is it?

Want to try again?

 

Just now, kmacdonald said:

You said he didn't mean to shoot the other person.  Did he tell you that?

You're another failure of the US education system aren't you?

At 7:57 a.m., he approached classmate Jae