https://www.huffpost.com/entry/uvalde-officer-detained-mass-shooting_n_62b29d44e4b04a61736304b1 I thought the good guy with a gun was a good thing ? We seriously need to revisit the response from the police here. They stood in the halls for over an hour before going into the classroom, and now we have them literally disarming one of their own and STOPPING him from saving his own wife !!!! We have been told by every 2A'r that for every bad guy with a gun we need a good guy with a gun, yet we have 30+ "good guys" with guns, and they could not stop one bad guy with a gun, they actually stopped one of their own from actually saving his wife. Serious question: As a pro 2A person, can you really still think the good guy with a gun is a valid position after what happened here ?
It is a thing, you can see it in the person who actually ended the shooting and in this man who attempted and was physically stopped by his feckless and cowardly colleagues. Serious answer: Yes. Just because a bad guy with a gun exists, does not mean that the simple principle of being armed to defend yourself since the police not only have no duty to do so but will actively prevent others from doing so, doesn't hold. Your mistake seems to be in counting a gaggle **** of pigs as 'good guy with a gun'.
Actually ME! with a gun is a good thing, can't speak for everyone else that has a gun, but Criminals could give a **** about Liberal Democrat Gun control and would probably be in favor of disarming law abiding citizens, so they could operate in a world full of defenseless victims that they could prey upon with impunity. Go ahead ya Communist Liberals with your Gun Control, as long as it's the Criminals you're taking the guns away from and throwing them in jail to rot or execution.
The good guy with a gun is a good thing and it works, as evidenced by the lady who killed an active shooter recently. Or the hundreds of incidents a year where an officer stops an armed opponent because they have a gun. glad we could clear that up. Nothing here is new. If you paid attention you alrdy knew this lol. But yes, let’s rehash the same arguments so the anti gun left can lose the argument again. Whatever is necessary.
I've seen rather dumb takes posing as "hot takes" before, but in this case your post must be parody. Do you think something magical happens if a well armed person of good intent is in the proximity of an evil person? Are you amazed to learn that the armed person of good intent must actually engage the evil person? And that if he is forcibly disarmed and removed that his good intent has no real world effect? This law enforcement officer is not the only family member that was physically restrained from engaging the killer, allowing the killer to continue to kill, until the late arriving border patrol agent, also against orders, breached the classroom and stopped the threat. I do not agree with the judicial doctrine of "no duty to protect" but, this goes a step further to not only law enforcement not protecting, but law enforcement actively preventing OTHERS from protecting, for an hour, while lives are being lost at the average rate of one every five minutes. I expect that this will be extensively litigated and that we will have well reasoned judicial decisions coming from this, and I expect that Law Enforcement will be held liable if they prevent OTHERS from protecting, and perhaps, the Courts will go even further and recognise that the 14th amendment, in fact, imposes a duty on society to collectively protect those whose rights are being violated.
Your post must be parody. Thats what the 2A'rs think. The left has been saying since day one that a good guy with a gun is not the answer, hence we dont need more guns. The RIGHT has made the claim that a good guy with a gun IS the answer, and thats why we need more guns. That was literally what they said before, during, and after Uvalde. So now the defense is that we shouldn't even count on trained police with guns to save us ? So whats the answer. I honestly say this with respect here Zorro, unless I'm interpreting this post wrong, you're claiming that we should not count on the good guy with the gun, nor should we count on the cops to save us (your legal argument accepted), and that you expect that a "collective society" has the duty, yet that very "collective society" with their weapons failed, so doesn't that leave us with a collective society removing the weapons to protect us ?
he is lucky he gave them his gun, they could have killed him for resisting would they really kill him had he tried to save is wife? who knows...... all we know is the wife did not make it, very sad outcome
You are repeating words without demonstrating any particular understanding of their meaning. The foundation of our Constitutional Liberal Democracy includes 2A. Your attempt to illegitimately write it out of the foundation of our civil society makes as much sense as a snake posing as a squirrel. If the Left put as much effort into disarming the illegally armed felons that operate openly in Blue Run cities, gun violence would be reduced by nearly 60%. You already have all the law necessary to disarm them, so do it, then return and share the lessons learned. In your example, the good guy was forcibly disarmed and rendered powerless to stop the carnage, making our point. This incident makes this point. The trained police with guns did not stop the killing. The killing stopped when a late arriving armed Border Patrol Agent DEFIED the Incident Commander and breached the classroom, nearly instantly stopped the threat with no further loss of life. Are you seriously shocked to learn that the lawfully armed must actually engage the threat to stop it? Later you use the term "honest" to describe your intentions, and I have to be perfectly honest in return, I do not view this as an honestly made point by you. It's far too silly, about a very serious subject, to be taken as genuine. Shelby County Tennessee is a very high crime area. All the schools are securely fenced and every one enters through a metal detector just like you and I would if we went to a concert or to a courtroom, once the bell rings for class to start, the gates are locked and to enter you have to be buzzed in and pass through a metal detector. They have well trained law enforcement on campus. They have had NO school shootings. If I were given the task of stopping school shootings, this is the model I would follow. The rules of engagement for law enforcement are that a single officer MAY immediately engage a dangerous threat. As soon as there are two or more, they SHALL immediately engage a dangerous threat. Here, and in the Broward County shooting, Law Enforcement did not follow through on their training. That is a failure of leadership. With the proper leadership, law enforcement has a long history of promptly engaging and stopping threats such as this.
Bigotry towards whites is the largest issue of bigotry we have. White privilege doesn’t exist and nothing you posted there supports the claim it does. Though I am not surprised you would make the incorrect claim lol.
Your being obtuse and you know it WTF are you on about here. Where did I try to write out the 2A? I made the point that the rigth thinks that a good guy with a gun is the answer, when proven by this incident that thats not the case, you then take a right turn and make a claim to derail the point. AGAIN, Im point out your the falicy of the rights defense that a good guy with a gun is the answer, and you again take a right turn and completely deflect from the actual point. AGAIN, your deflection is noted. You seem to leave out that it was the other GOOD GUYS WHO DISARMED HIM !!! I will ask yet again.....IF WE CANNOT RELY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT, and the GOOD GUY WITH A GUN DIDN'T WORK, then where are we ? So we should send our kids to schools that are basically prisons, instead of looking at reducing gun violence.......F'n GENIUS AGAIN, We cant count on Law enforcement, or the good guy with a gun, so what are we to do ? Just sit back and watch kids be killed and send the "thoughts and prayers". Just admit it. You care more about guns and the 2A than you do about human lives. Every time these incidents happen the right in this country hugs the 2A yet brings nothing to the table to stop it. have a nice day
What happened in Uvalde parallels in several ways what happened at Sandy Hook. It is most likely another staged event meant only to advance the gun control agenda. Like Sandy Hook, to keep the secret they are now refusing to turn over video records and are talking about razing the building. Nothing to see here folks, move along and change the subject.
Have you any questions about the ever-changing details of the narrative at Uvalde? Any thoughts on why the police would do it the way they did, hanging around in the hallway when an 18 year old was ostensibly shooting up children? Why can nobody in authority establish an accurate timeline? Why are they refusing to release video records? You might not realize it, but the same things happened at Sandy Hook and Parkland. Coincidence? I think not.
Well obviously you would have to use them to get any use out of them and not sit there with your thumb up your ass
To be fair, this is a ridiculous argument whichever way you choose to spin it. Life isn't like the 80s action movies, where the rogue cop bursts in, shoots the bad guy, makes a wry quip, saves the girl and rides off in to the sunset (leaving everyone else to clean up and fill out all the paperwork!). It seems clear that the official response to this incident was flawed on several grounds (though the specifics still aren't clear, which is probably indicative of part of the problem) but that doesn't mean letting random people, who believe (rightly or not) that they have a loved one-inside, blindly charge in as if they're going to save the day (or at least one victim's day, ignoring all the others). Regardless of whatever else they did wrong, stopping this officer (and the parents who reportedly wanted to do the same) will have always been the correct approach.
So you're agreeing with me that since LOE's have no mandate to save, and since the "good guy with a gun" approach all failed, then the defenders of the 2A are flawed in their position that more guns are better ? And FTR, the one they stopped was not a "random people" he was a LEO that they stopped. The LEO's stood in the hallways for an HOUR. Thats not a tactical mistake, thats cowardice. AND , what were hearing now is that what they did was actually policy, then WTF are we doing as a society when the job of LEO's is not only to stand by, but to protect themselves over those they are sworn to protect. The irony is beyond rich in this instance
No, I don't think this incident has any specific relevance to the issue you're raising. In general, I don't think any singular incidents should be (ab)used as tools for promoting any position on gun laws (for, against or rational), especially before all of the details of those incidents are entirely clear.
Making the point you claim is not made. With a duty to protect ourselves. Profanity isn't a substitution for facts evidence and well reasoned logic. Is the WH "essentially a prison", are our Courts? Rock concerts, Ballgames? I told you, how I would address the problem, which is to use the same security already commonly used at HVT, at our schools. I frankly don't know where you come up with such inanities - basic physics informs you that thoughts won't stop ballistics. It is a basic fact of human existence that a bad guy or an unfortunate event can take you from your day to day life and in an instant put you in the position where you have to fight for your life. The more preparation you put into facing that instant, the more likely that you will find a way to survive it and get to resume your life once the moment passes. You are falsely putting words in my mouth and attributing positions and moral stances that I do not hold. But, you are wrestling with a brutal reality and that's the first step. May you do the same. Uvalde police failure reinforces the need for the Second Amendment. "Placing our entire sense of safety in the hands of governmental entities is not a wise idea. Just because police officers have sworn an oath doesn't mean they will uphold it at the crucial moment." I understand that this is rocking your world, but, keep in mind that your mind is being rocked by reality and as difficult as that is, firmly grasping reality is fundamental to rational preparation and response. Luckily you live in a society that when this bothers you, you can do something that begins to prepare you for this moment should it come and hopefully it never will, but, Krav Maga classes are available just about everywhere, and yes, it's expensive, but, it's also great exercise, effective, and a couple times a week you spend an hour with a roomful of others willing to put out a steady amount of effort and resources into ensuring that at least they have an idea of how they will embrace an unavoidable moment of grave danger that threatens them or those they have a responsibility to protect. A physical attack, by a person without a firearm, that goes to the ground is probably the highest probability of being the attack you may need to defend against, and if you have never practiced that, it's a shock how much physical exertion that requires. And the truth still remains that you can be violently engaged, and despite all the training and preparation there is no opportunity to thread the needle and continue to experience the blessing of life, which reminds of how important it is to use moments we do have, well. Despite our difference of positions, viewpoints and outlook, I feel for you. You are wrestling with a difficult truth and that's commendable.
