windwalker wrote:Condolences to the families who lost love ones
The guy who did it, a tortured soul, if there is a hell,,,hope he finds it...
Just mentioned because of the AR-15 ect....
all weapons will, can and do kill...What there'er designed for.
There are other rifles magazine loaded, that also have a high rate of fire.
lever action, rate of fire can be pretty quick...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89n-51foFqI“If someone is going to stab me, I will stab them first.” As another man succinctly put it: “Nobody is bigger and harder than a blade.”
https://theconversation.com/why-so-many ... ives-84385
Seems to be the weapon of choice in the UK
windwalker wrote:Dmitri wrote:
Definitely need to require extensive training
and a serious psych evaluation before purchase (let alone background checks -- an absolutely minimal requirement, which is thankfully already in place in most states).
Anyway...
Loved this monologue from Jimmy Kimmel:
https://youtu.be/OF_GofUF_y4
What is "extensive training".
What does that mean.
Dmitri wrote:
"Extensive" compared to watching some 15-minute video about handling firearms before one is allowed at a range.
How about 30 days of in-person classes (sort of a boot camp), teaching theory and practice, implanting awareness of and deep respect for the potential deadliness of mishandled firearms; including tactical stuff. With extensive psychological eval bits worked into the curriculum.
Comprehensive, serious, tough tests at the end of that, and if you get anything less than an 'A' in any of them (theory, practice, or psych eval), you don't get to own any firearms. Feel free to take as many of those 30-day classes as you like (at your expense) and try again.
origami_itto wrote:Hey now, all that education is getting in the way of my rights, sounds an awful lot like socialism
origami_itto wrote:Could anybody explain to me the tactical motivation behind twenty cops sitting around bullshitting and drinking water while a lone gunman with no training was systematically murdering children.
Because I'm a brain dead liberal, I don't understand.
I would think that, because cops are tough and smart and well trained and have the hearts of heroes, the thought of these children being slaughtered would pull them through the door.
I mean, they have training and tactics, right? Roughly 40 percent of the towns budget. They have weapons and bullet proof vests.
I'm sure they knew what they were doing, though.
They're there for us, to keep us safe. To protect us from violent criminals who want to murder us.
Isn't that what the thin blue line is? Protecting citizens from criminals?
I just wish they would explain, though, I'd love to understand why they stood around bullshitting for an hour while innocent children were being gunned down.
Because I guess that's just what heroes do.
40% of cops are heroes, right? Just Google "40% of police"
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
It’s not just that the police cannot protect you. They don’t even have to come when you call.
In most states the government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack.
The District of Columbia’s highest court spelled out plainly the
“fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”5
The women’s first call to D.C. police got assigned a low priority, so the responding officers arrived at the house, got no answer to their knocks on the door, did a quick check around, and left. When the women frantically called the police a second time, the dispatcher promised help would come—but no officers were even dispatched.
The attackers kidnapped, robbed, raped, and beat all three women over 14 hours. When these women later sued the city and its police for negligently failing to protect them or even to answer their second call,
the court held that government had no duty to respond to their call or to protect them.
Case dismissed.[
windwalker wrote:origami_itto wrote:Could anybody explain to me the tactical motivation behind twenty cops sitting around bullshitting and drinking water while a lone gunman with no training was systematically murdering children.
Because I'm a brain dead liberal, I don't understand.
I would think that, because cops are tough and smart and well trained and have the hearts of heroes, the thought of these children being slaughtered would pull them through the door.
I mean, they have training and tactics, right? Roughly 40 percent of the towns budget. They have weapons and bullet proof vests.
I'm sure they knew what they were doing, though.
They're there for us, to keep us safe. To protect us from violent criminals who want to murder us.
Isn't that what the thin blue line is? Protecting citizens from criminals?
I just wish they would explain, though, I'd love to understand why they stood around bullshitting for an hour while innocent children were being gunned down.
Because I guess that's just what heroes do.
40% of cops are heroes, right? Just Google "40% of police"
Nope, not there to keep people safe...mistake to think so...
It might be more correct to understand that they are there to enforce the law..
The ones that those in charge of them, agree withWASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/poli ... otect.html
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests