Jump to content

GW Hayduke

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1666
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GW Hayduke

  1. 2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

    Speaking of masturbatory gun regulations, the AWB is a damn good example. 

    What most gun owners want are measures that make sense and can actually impact outcomes while balancing the rights of law abiding citizens.  Y'all get mad at people for not voting D, but the reality is that a good number of D's rhetoric on the issue goes far beyond the bounds of common sense.  See e.g., Beto.  See also e.g., calls backs to the AWB. 

    Restricting access to assault weapons (high velocity, high capacity semi auto rifles) would decrease the magnitude of mass shooter events.  That seems rather obvious

  2. 19 minutes ago, Hmbre97 said:

    Was just coming here to post that video. But you know what? I'm sure as he laid there bleeding out and listening to 11 of his students getting murdered, I'm sure he was secretly grateful that AR's are around to take care of our hog problem in the state since there are without a doubt no other ways to deal with it. Take away ARs and we're staring at Planet of the Hogs.

    A mature society would handle the hog vs. dead kids dilemma the way Australia reformed their gun laws.  They would provide access to various types of firearms based on established need.  A landowner or property manager or hog eradication business is able to establish the need for a semi auto, large capacity, high velocity rifle, etc. to manage certain wildlife, then they would get a license for it.  Once that license expires, when that company goes out of business, or the property manager retires to an old persons home, the firearm is returned/sold back to a dealer. 
     

    To do all that though we would need to have a mature and responsible political environment to make laws. Muh freedom and anti-gov jack offs having weight in the GOP prevents that

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
    • Rage+1 2
  3. 11 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

    GW, think about what you're debating....    The fact that our small town police departments aren't properly trained to handle mass shooter events.   Maybe it's the crazy pills I take but WHY are we talking about that instead of how to reduce mass shooter events?

     

    I've been talking about both.  I don't think we should rely on small town cops to solve our mass shooter events problem - that is my entire point.  I don't think refresher training will fix our small town cops.  I also don't think major militarization reforms in small towns is the correct path either.  Major militarization may have some effect at decreasing the magnitude of mass shooting events, but I don't believe that benefit would outweigh the other costs associated with a more militarized police state.  Therefore, addressing your question of "how to reduce mass shooter events" is the appropriate one.  IMO that answer obviously lies with gun reform and universal healthcare.  

    • Like 1
  4. 2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

     

    I truly don't understand how you think that the active shooter response protocol requires some sort of Navy SEAL training shit.  

    We disagree. I don't consider refresher training to be effective at implementing real change - and if it does implement some minor change that change doesn't last very long, and I don't believe Uvalde is an anomaly in terms of small town law enforcement ability.   Ensuring quick, forceful responses in every small town (like Uvalde) against dudes with semi auto rifles and potentially body armor would require more structural changes - IMO - and we disagree on all of that.  

    • Fuck You 1
  5. 1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

    Oh.....I would think we definitely have reason to believe that every PD -- from a large metro area to a 3-man shop in West Cowshit -- needs a stout refresher/reminder in active shooter engagement training.  But again, we don't have to re-invent the wheel here.

    The protocol exists, and is not complex.

    The training exists, and is regularly provided to PDs all around the country.

    This is not advanced PhD level shit -- it's basic police protocol and training in America in the 2000s.  They already know how to do this.  They've already received the training (maybe there's an outlier here and there, and if they haven't done so -- then they sure as hell should).  It's about FOLLOWING the protocol and training.  And that isn't happening because police do not have our best interests at heart.

    Alright. Well I disagree with the idea that refresher training would result in any sort of actual change in how small towns across the US respond to mass shooter events.  We can disagree on that point - and thus we likely also will disagree on my point that a reliance on police to decrease mass shooting events across the US, in every small town, would require major reforms in the direction of greater militarization of police - which I am against - and instead other solutions would be more appropriate and effective.  

    • Fuck You 2
  6. 1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

    They don't have to be "good" at it.  Engaging the shooter is a solution in and of itself. If the shooter is having to deal with me, Deputy Barney Fife, then he is not able to focus on killing innocent victims.

    The lesson of Columbine (always immediately engage an active shooter) has been known and part of functionally all basic police training nationwide for decades.  Yes, even in small-town PDs.  This isn't a PhD in microbiology.  It's basic "how to engage against an armed suspect" training, which every cop who carries a firearm has already received.  We probably don't need much further training/instruction at all -- they already have it. 

    What we need is cops who give a shit.  That's a much taller order.

    So your position is that nothing needs to change from a reform perspective - just that small town cops need to just follow their prior training.  

    There seems to be an obvious disconnect here. Snapping fingers isn't a solution and isn't an effective method of change. Why would we think that any other small town in the US that has similar conditions as Uvalde (low population, potentially low-paid bored cops, maybe minimal training standards, maybe they haven't responded to an active shooter event for over a decade) would better respond to a mass shooter event? Is there reason to believe that Uvalde is an anomaly? 

    • Fuck You 1
  7. 3 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

    I don't think that this is possible. And I probably generally agree (using my words not yours) that while cops in general are often dullards who reached their low peak in high school this is particularly true for small town America. They are not the solution to this problem. They are just another problem. Of course our stupidity around cops stems from the same stupid western creation mythos that our gun problem is rooted in. They are not Wyatt Earp and neither are you.

    I agree.  That is why I generally equate the gun-rights narrative of "good guys with guns" as a similar idea of "small town cops should get good" or that we need more militarized police.  

    Relying on police as a solution to firearm violence and mass shootings is the same in my mind as the solution of "we just need more guns."  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

    False.  Functionally every cop carries a sidearm.  They are required to be trained in the use of that sidearm, including how to engage armed suspects.  There are hundreds/thousands of examples every year of ordinary cops engaging an armed suspect using only their sidearm.  Do that.  That's all I'm asking/demanding.

    For fuck's sake, I don't have ANY formal training.  But I own firearms and know how to use them.  IF you'd called me and said "Brisket, there's someone who has gone into your kid's school and is shooting kids -- can you get there and help them?", I would have damned well grabbed a weapon (probably a shotgun), and gone and engaged.  If all I did was exchange fire and draw fire away from the kids, I'd do that.  If I came to a locked door, I'd blow the fucking lock.  Because I would have a singular mission: get to the shooter and stop him, or at least keep him from shooting kids as long as I can.

    It is not too much to ask trained cops (I mean, every affidavit they sign starts with "based on my years of experience and extensive training") to engage an armed suspect.  It's the reason they carry a weapon.

    If cops who carry a weapon aren't willing to use it to save lives, then they shouldn't carry them at all.

    So your position is that cops should get good at neutralizing mass shooter events in small towns. Ok. How do we make that happen across the US in every small town? 

  9. 33 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

     

    I'm not following your arguments particularly well I think, but I don't think anyone currently participating in this thread is arguing that more militarized police force is going to decrease mass shootings or that evidence supports the idea that there is an effective step we can take that isn't improved gun control. I may just be getting confused myself, but I think there's a distinction to be made between saying that "the armed police officers who represent 40% of the town's budget and have all sorts of GI Joe toys to play with should have done something instead of fucking around outside and preventing parents from saving their children" and saying "we need swarms of cops ready to go guns a blazing in situations like this in order to solve the problem".  Different things.

    I'm not intimate with the town of Uvalde, but I understand it is small, rural and potentially with a decreasing population. I imagine that a motivated cop that takes his job serious and everything and is in that town is looking elsewhere to work. I imagine highly effective cops would seek employment in a big city - San Antonio - or with the CBP.  Paychecks may be a reason to leave and maybe even the idea that Uvalde is boring and real police work is limited (all assumptions on my part). My point is that Uvalde cops are potentially the bottom of the barrel - and there are lots of town like Uvalde.

    I have no reason to suspect that other similar small towns across the US would not respond in a similar way - in a way that potentially was ineffective to a mass shooting event.

    How do we address the mass shooting pandemic by making small towns across the US more effective at responding to mass shooter events?  IMO that answer leans obviously into militarization reform - more warrior police in greater numbers, etc.

     

  10. 12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Are you really this fucking stupid?  You conclude that I am against doing something about high-cap semi autos, when I say the following?

    I literally used the fucking word "both."  

    Your thought process are utterly fucked up, so let me get this super straight.  Then, take this post to the nearest third grader you can find, and have them explain it to you at a level you MIGHT be able to understand.

    Our assault weapons culture and complete lack of regulations or rules is a problem, and it must be addressed.

    When these events do happen, there is an unambiguous protocol, for ALL officers: ENGAGE, ENGAGE, ENGAGE.

    That protocol does not require SWAT.  In fact, it expressly contemplates the immediate responders being ordinary cops.  So, your "oh, you want to militarize the cops" statement -- that you've made repeatedly without citing to anyone at all proposing that -- is a red herring and a lie.

    Summary: we shouldn't have as many high-cap semi-auto weapons on the streets, and the shouldn't be in the hands of just anyone who wants one.  BUT, when someone starts using one in a mass shooting event, we can and should expect law enforcement arriving on the scene, using WHATEVER tools they have immediately at hand, to engage the shooter.  If they won't do that, then GTFO of the law enforcement business.

    That's it.  That's all anyone is saying, while you flail about and misdirect arguing that we somehow oppose any further gun control, that what we REALLY want is fully mliitarized police, and that apparently, fucking elementary classroom door locks are the most powerful block to law enforcement action in human history.  You are a fucking disingenuous moronic piece of dick.

     

    I get that you say you don't want more militarization, but "fixing cops," "getting them to do their jobs," "making them more effective," "getting them to drive into buildings," "being perfect 100% of the time every time," "getting them to ENGAGE, ENGAGE, ENGAGE," or whatever - on a large nationwide scale with short response times in every small community in the US would require reforms in the direction of more militarization. 

    Your position is that we can do all of that without more militarization. Ok. How does that happen without more militarization? How does that happen across the US in every small town?

    The expectation that we have all the small towns across the US be able to breach against a guy with a semi auto rifle and potential body armor in a short amount of time would require more militarization - more "warrior" training, more armed police, etc..  Uvalde appears to be evidence of that.  Decreasing our mass shooting problem through more effective police actions and faster swat response times, etc. - would require more militarization - more training - more armed police, etc.

    More militarization as a means of appreciably decreasing mass shooting events is the wrong direction IMO - the right direction lies elsewhere IMO - and that direction mostly lies with mostly with gun reform.

  11. 28 minutes ago, BurdineBandit said:

    There have now been a few conflicting statements on whether he engaged anybody outside. First there was a resource officer, then there was no resource officer, then I read last night there was a 12-minute confrontation before the shooter even entered the school (which kinda makes sense if he crashed his truck 100 feet away). I've also read that he had no plate in his vest, which would lead me to believe that they just couldn't shoot for shit and resorted to telling people around that he was iron man and their bullets were bouncing off him. 

    Even if your reporting is true, its rather clear IMO that 'good guys with guns' and a more militarized police force isn't going to decrease mass shootings - especially when compared to addressing the firearm saturation issue. 

  12. 10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    It is extremely difficult, but we should still talk about it.

    Ok. So like use it as a marketing campaign to rally turnout. Maybe. I wonder if that messaging would fire up the gun rights side more or the gun reform side more.  

  13. 1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

    Kinda makes the whole “DEFUND THE POLICE!” Vs “Defund the over militarization of the police to better resource a wide array of social services to deescalate the cycle of violence and rebuild our fraying society” look a little different, huh. 

    So how does this work in the context of Uvalde?

    Police reform is normally directed at the idea of demilitarization, decreasing the duties of police (not having armed police give out traffic citations, etc.), shifting certain domestic type calls to unarmed metal health responders, decriminalizing drugs, doing away with "warrior" training, etc.  The end result of that would all normally decrease the numbers of armed first responders in a community and decrease the ability of a community to respond with a swat type force (increasing the response time for that level of force) - I imagine. Wouldn't we have to solve the issue with over saturation of firearms first - the firearms designed for mass murder?    

    The evidence is clear IMO that more guns aren't going to prevent the next Uvalde - the MAGA buffalo shooter mowed down an armed security guard - the Uvalde guy apparently engaged and injured a couple police in the beginning - both of those events had a shooter with body armor and semi auto long rifles (I believe).  I don't believe more guns or a more militarized police would decrease the frequency or magnitude of mass shooting events - especially when compared to something like assault weapons bans combined with registration and licensing requirements, robust background checks, and mandatory waiting periods.

  14. 2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

     

     

    It seems hard to amend the constitution.

    Quote

    An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

    .https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=An amendment may be proposed,in each State for ratification.

    It seems an easier solution is to amend the SC's interpretation of the 2nd amendment.  I may be wrong, but I think packing the SC can be completed with a simple majority of the Senate after doing away with the filibuster - or maybe they already did away with the filibuster when it comes adding SC justices. 

     

     

     

    • Hook 'Em 3
  15. 1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

    I don’t give a fuck about a key dude. And you’re continuing to prove how regarded you are talking about a key that they waited 40-60 minutes to get while children were being slaughtered. 

    If you don’t give a fuck about the key, then you shouldn’t argue about it. I get that you and brisket feel they should have shot their way in - or rammed through with a truck.  I think a battering ram is probably safer and more effective.  But in this case they used a key - I don’t think that is in dispute.  

    We can talk about the 40 minutes to mobilize swat and get them to enter the locked and barricaded door. That is obviously too long considering the results, even for a town like Uvalde.  
     

    But my original point is that it seems the first responders followed brisket’s source for engage-engage-engage.   That resulted in a couple injuries and the barricade situation. I get that his feelings is that they should have kept engaging.  I’m not arguing against that idea. Just stating facts, as I have read them.  
     

    My other point is that good guys with guns isn’t the solution to mass shootings - this is further evidence of that. My point is that militarized police reform should be secondary to removing semi auto rifles from the equation

  16. Just now, Brisketexan said:


    Key? Key?
    You have a lot of fucking keys. They’re called firearms. Your shoot the fucking lock assembly 4-5 times, it’s done.
    Get to the shooter. Engage, engage, engage. The fucking former police chief on the news a few minutes ago said exactly that. You move forward, you attack, you engage. You do not disengage. Your job is to save lives. Even at the cost of your own.
    Cops are worthless. Never ever forget that.

    I assume the door was designed to prevent a mass shooter from entering getting since the swat guys used a key to enter the room. 

  17. 3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


    Read the rest of the protocol. Diamond wedge is optimal. But if need be, go in alone. Going in wearing flip flops and carrying a .38 wheel gun is feasible. Your job is to engage the shooter. Every second he’s focused on or distracted by you is a second he’s not killing kids.
    Go in and throw fucking rocks at him if that’s what you’ve got. It was the #1 lesson from Columbine.
    But if there’s one thing we know, it’s that cops are incapable of learning.

    I get that. But it seems some version of that was done by the first responders - the first couple cops on the scene.  Which resulted in their injuries and the shooter barricading himself in a classroom - if reports are correct. Breaching a locked and barricaded door seems different than that.  I understand the expectation is that the keys should have been quickly located and then the non-swat LEOs should have entered the room through the barricade and faced a shooter with a semi auto rifle and potentially body armor. That seems like the subject of an investigation 

  18. 13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    The answer doesn't have to be one thing alone. Here, the cops should have done their jobs. And we should have reasonable gun reform. 

    I agree solving mass shooting and our firearm violence pandemic will require a range of policy actions, but I don’t believe a more militarized police force should be part of that - or at least I would like to try the other solutions first. 

    • Fuck You 1
  19. 14 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

    This isn’t all a hypothetical where enabling a response to occur in under 40 minutes would require turning the town into a police state.  There actually were plenty of heavily armed LEOs at the site long before the SWAT team went in.  The problem is they didn’t act sooner even though they reasonably could have.

    Ok, but training is probably just as important as having gear - I imagine.  Can any group of small town cops put on bullet proof vests and become a swat and charge a barricaded gunman with a semi auto and potential body armor? 
     

    Obviously, less than 40 minutes should be expected, even for Uvalde. Everyone thinks it should be quicker. 
     

    But if that quick swat mobilization is our ticket to the mass shooting pandemic, those times are going to need to real low - like under 5 minutes - I’m guessing. That seems like a huge task to implement nationwide

  20. 8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


    After Columbine, we learned one hard and fast rule about active shooter situations: go in. Immediately. With whatever you have. That is THE active shooter protocol.
    Law enforcement’s highest and best purpose is to interrupt the shooter with whatever you have.
    Here it is, from an article in Slate in 2009:

    “And the final practical lesson of Columbine is a revolution in police response tactics. Cops followed the old book at Columbine: surround the building, set up a perimeter, contain the damage. That approach has been replaced by the “active shooter protocol.” Optimally, it calls for a four-person team to advance in a diamond-shaped wedge. (If there isn’t time to gather four officers, a single officer should charge in alone.) They’re trained to move toward the sound of gunfire and neutralize the shooter. Their goal is to stop him at all costs. They will walk past a dying child if they have to, just to prevent the shooter from killing more. The active protocol has proved successful at numerous shootings during the past decade. At Virginia Tech alone, it probably saved dozens of lives.”

    Shit, there’s a cop and expert (former chattanooga chief) on the news right now: “the rule is engage, engage, engage.”

    This event is far from the fault of law enforcement alone. But law enforcement failed in its singular mission here, completely and totally. Not a C, not a D, an F. An F-.
    All of the horrible lessons of modern America are writ large here: our religious obsession with guns and opposition to any and all restrictions, our utterly broken culture and social systems, and the fact that cops are hot garbage, mostly suited to abusing unarmed citizens and worthless at actually protecting innocents, etc. All of it is awful.

    That makes a lot of sense.  I wonder if something like that was attempted.  I know it is hard to tell what actually happened with wide ranging reports, but this story indicates that the first couple cops on the scene engaged and were injured - and then the shooter barricaded himself into a classroom.  Is a diamond wedge formation feasible moving into a barricaded room? Or is that method feasible when a shooter is moving around looking for targets?  
     

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/texas-school-shooting-loved-ones-071441288.html

  21. 2 minutes ago, Herbie Hancock said:

    If that’s really what you took from my post then there’s really no reason to engage you at all.

    Yeah. We wanted swat to mobilize and move in faster than 40 minutes. Of course. But how much faster should we expect at a small town? What is reasonable? And then apply the manpower, training, militarization to get that timeframe down to say maybe 10 minutes for all the small towns in the US.  That is massive reform - IMO - to address our mass shooting pandemic. 
     

    Or is the solution to mass shootings somewhere else?

  22. 5 minutes ago, Herbie Hancock said:


    No. Just fucking no. We have a saying in the fire service, and it’s a saying that is used to drive decision making in the heat of battle. Risk a lot to save a lot. Risk a little to save a little. Risk nothing to save nothing. Risk a lot to save a lot means that no matter how dire the situation may appear, if there is any chance that my actions could lead to a positive outcome then I’m all in. All in means all in. I stood in front of my coworkers, my family, and the taxpayers that pay my salary and swore service before self. That’s what a civil servant is. There’s a handwritten letter in my locker at work. It has my wife’s name on it and it is sealed in an envelope. There are two people that know about that letter, and she isn’t one of them. In that letter is everything I hope she never has to read. But I wrote it because if the day ever comes where it’s either me or Joe Shit the ragman that gets to go home, then my last act on this earth is trying to make sure Ms. Joe Shit isn’t a widow. And I’m at peace with that. I come to work with the goal of going home to my family at the end of my shift, but with the understanding that everyone else goes home to theirs first.

    What you’re condoning is cowardice and I’m not ok with it.

    So your solution to our mass shooting pandemic is police reform so we will have a more militarized police force in every small town, to increase “warrior” police mentality and training in every small town, to increase the numbers of those militarized warrior police to the point that every place of gathering (even in small towns) can be raided by a swat in under 10 minutes? 3 minutes?

    Or, is the source of addressing our mass shooting pandemic somewhere else?

    My take is that we shouldn’t have semi auto rifles at one end of standoff.

×
×
  • Create New...