--> Jump to content

Active shooter thread


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

If I’m shooting at a person with body armor on his torso, the impact of the bullet should knock him down ? aim for the legs, groin, head ?

If I even had the presence of mind and the courage to shoot back at someone trying to kill me in a grocery store, I'd aim center mass and pray to science that my hands weren't shaking. There are so many variables (training, presence of mind, distance to target, caliber, etc.) that come into play in a situation like this. Bottom line is that if you have a handgun and your target is carrying an M4 (or whatever), you'd better hope they're wearing a t-shirt and shorts and that you have the drop on them. Better still, hope there's two of you and one of him. 

The guy who shot back probably knew he had one chance to do something and as a former cop, he probably aimed center mass and hoped he didn't miss. He likely knew he wasn't getting out alive. He's an American hero and I'd replace ten Tucker fans with one of him every day of the week. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Ban shit like bump stocks, binary triggers (my 2nd homies about to not like me) and body armor.   Loosen regulations on safety devices such as suppressors.  That would go a long fucking way in getting conversations started. 

Agreed. There's going to have to be give and take and these are reasonable suggestions. Write your congress critter. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

If I’m shooting at a person with body armor on his torso, the impact of the bullet should knock him down ? aim for the legs, groin, head ?

Head shot kills almost certainly but smaller target (hey-oh!) and sometimes rounds just whip around the cranium under the skin. Leg would kill eventually if the femoral artery is cut. Shatter the pelvic bone and the ability to stand goes away.

Also I don't know anything just spitballin'

Edited by Walser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, ConferenceRoom said:

If I even had the presence of mind and the courage to shoot back at someone trying to kill me in a grocery store, I'd aim center mass and pray to science that my hands weren't shaking. There are so many variables (training, presence of mind, distance to target, caliber, etc.) that come into play in a situation like this. Bottom line is that if you have a handgun and your target is carrying an M4 (or whatever), you'd better hope they're wearing a t-shirt and shorts and that you have the drop on them. Better still, hope there's two of you and one of him. 

The guy who shot back probably knew he had one chance to do something and as a former cop, he probably aimed center mass and hoped he didn't miss. He likely knew he wasn't getting out alive. He's an American hero and I'd replace ten Tucker fans with one of him every day of the week. 


center mass until he’s not standing. I have 15 shots and he’s getting all 15, only if I can’t make it to an exit though. If I can’t, I’m going down with an empty magazine 

 

Edited by tx 3 putt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s way past time to bring back the assault rifle ban. I own one but would get rid of it without hesitation. 
 

In fact, I don’t see the need for civilians to own more than shotguns, wheel guns, or single action rifles. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Followed immediately by:

 

It’s hard to ignore that the GOP has become an unapologetic white nationalist party powered by racial animus and grievance.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

A black guy called him a honkey once and that's just as bad as the centuries of terrorism that white supremacists have waged against black people.

I mean, what white child hasn’t watched in horror as the black sheriff in town beat the shit out of his dad while calling him a honkey and then the sheriff suffered no repercussions? What white child hasn’t watched his dad get refused a seat at the table or a room in the hotel or the use of a public restroom or even a drink from the water fountain because there was a sign there that said, “Blacks only?” What white man hasn’t been refused a loan from the black bank owner, or a job by the black business owner, or the right to buy a house from a black homeowner?

Obviously it works both ways equally.  🙄

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ConferenceRoom said:

Bottom line is that if you have a handgun and your target is carrying an M4 (or whatever)

Unless you are fighting our troops, this will not be an issue.  Look like /=/ same same. 
 

7 minutes ago, StruggleBus said:

It’s way past time to bring back the assault rifle ban. I own one but would get rid of it without hesitation. 
 

You can now, and would likely make money on the deal.  
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, fattyflattie said:

Unless you are fighting our troops, this will not be an issue.  Look like /=/ same same. 
 

Yeah, that was a little hyperbole thrown in for effect. However, I'd point out that a man wearing body armor with a mission to kill unsuspecting civilians with an AR might as well be the American military versus poorly trained combatants. The results, as we saw this weekend, are going to be the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ConferenceRoom said:

Yeah, that was a little hyperbole thrown in for effect. However, I'd point out that a man wearing body armor with a mission to kill unsuspecting civilians with an AR might as well be the American military versus poorly trained combatants. The results, as we saw this weekend, are going to be the same. 

I don’t disagree. As much as I hate the idea and can see the fuckery that’s going to come along with red flag laws, I’m getting there slowly but surely.  I have a real sense it’s going to fuck over a million innocents to every one it stops though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

I don’t understand, at all, not a single bit, why civilians “need” body armor. 

Mark Hasse could have used some during his encounter with Eric Williams 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

America's gun problems won't be solved until the Second Amendment is repealed.

Good luck!

It doesn’t need to be repealed. It needs to be interpreted correctly. You won’t get a gun nut to admit it but the words “well regulated militia” are there. You can ask them what those words mean but they’ll just ignore you as if they’re deaf. But those words are in the amendment and have meaning. And it doesn’t mean that a bunch of douchebags get to strap up and try to overthrow democracy just because they’re not happy with the outcome of a free and fair election. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Ban shit like bump stocks, binary triggers (my 2nd homies about to not like me) and body armor.   Loosen regulations on safety devices such as suppressors.  That would go a long fucking way in getting conversations started. 

I agree with all of this - some items are nonsense that they're included in the NFA, and some things are nonsense that they're exempted from the NFA like """pistol""" AR's and the like lol.

The problem is - the dialogue and the political climate is so stagnated that small changes are no longer possible. We as a nation have just accepted that school and mass shootings are par for the course and that ANY further regulation is tyrannical reduction of rights. Which in turn engenders an attitude that gun owners shouldn't get any more toys or get the rules loosened further.

So then it ultimately just turns into a game of power politics rather than good policy making. And from the direction of recent gun laws (like TX becoming constitutional carry for example), I don't see that trend reversing any time soon.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It doesn’t need to be repealed. It needs to be interpreted correctly. You won’t get a gun nut to admit it but the words “well regulated militia” are there. You can ask them what those words mean but they’ll just ignore you as if they’re deaf. But those words are in the amendment and have meaning. And it doesn’t mean that a bunch of douchebags get to strap up and try to overthrow democracy just because they’re not happy with the outcome of a free and fair election. 

Bingo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yoladu said:

so apparently a good guy with a gun tried to stop this loser but the bad guy had a bigger gun AND body armor and sadly killed the good guy.

so now, using NRA logic, to stop this we need good guys to have bigger guns and wear body armor at all times. great country we live in.

image.thumb.png.b667b4f1df94f3e49f7a92d5c250fc43.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Longhornlove said:

The Democrats blaming the Republicans for their own racial replacement theory is just classic. The hypocrisy has no end. I'm just a troll though, don't mind me.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/opinion/stacey-abrams-georgia-governor-election-brian-kemp.html

You're comparing black people winning elections to white fear of racial replacement?

Nope, no trolling here.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Unless you are fighting our troops, this will not be an issue.  Look like /=/ same same. 
 

You can now, and would likely make money on the deal.  
 

 

Just haven’t gotten around to it. It hasn’t seen daylight in ten years 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

True. But I have a whole lot less issue banning purpose built body armor.  The avg person does not need it for their safety or protection. 

This is a bizarre take.  Body armor isn't a weapon.  It's safety gear.  A motorcycle helmet is "body (OK, skull) armor".  On what grounds could it be banned?  How does one justify the idea of disallowing a citizen from protecting themselves because they feel unsafe at the grocery store?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

This is a bizarre take.  Body armor isn't a weapon.  It's safety gear.  A motorcycle helmet is "body (OK, skull) armor".  On what grounds could it be banned?  How does one justify the idea of disallowing a citizen from protecting themselves because they feel unsafe at the grocery store?

An extremely easy argument about why someone needs to be able to protect themselves with a firearm can be made.  Legit body armor plates aren’t motorcycle helmets.  
 

I can easily be missing why someone would need this? https://uarmprotection.com/product/fas-full-armor-system/?gclid=CjwKCAjw7IeUBhBbEiwADhiEMSseUbtjpqQXlmtERyz39-o8U-VWtcxqneiytWyD03ZZY7sh2yorQBoCw64QAvD_BwE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care if you think they don't "need" it.  I don't "need" my guitar amp.  I want it.  Same thing.  You are assigning nefarious intent to the purchaser, but you don't have a problem with that person purchasing a gun?

One item is potentially deadly, the other is in no way shape or form deadly.  You have it completely ass-backwards.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It doesn’t need to be repealed. It needs to be interpreted correctly. You won’t get a gun nut to admit it but the words “well regulated militia” are there. You can ask them what those words mean but they’ll just ignore you as if they’re deaf. But those words are in the amendment and have meaning. 

"Well regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well disciplined... It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now"

Source: 1st Google result of "what does a well regulated militia mean"

 

Edited by B00M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You're comparing black people winning elections to white fear of racial replacement?

Nope, no trolling here.

He's not trolling, he's an actual fucking nazi piece of shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Longhornlove said:

The Democrats blaming the Republicans for their own racial replacement theory is just classic. The hypocrisy has no end. I'm just a troll though, don't mind me.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/opinion/stacey-abrams-georgia-governor-election-brian-kemp.html

I wish you were a troll.

Hell, I wish the entire GOP for the last 15 or so years had been one really well organized Punk'd sketch. 

It pisses me off that you're all real.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't care if you think they don't "need" it.  I don't "need" my guitar amp.  I want it.  Same thing.  You are assigning nefarious intent to the purchaser, but you don't have a problem with that person purchasing a gun?

One item is potentially deadly, the other is in no way shape or form deadly.  You have it completely ass-backwards.

I think this is coming up because concealed carriers are realizing they would've been straight up fucked trying to draw against this guy. 

 

25 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

 

I'm confused. What point are you trying to make? That plates would've saved that guy from suicide by cop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, B00M said:

"Well regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well disciplined... It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now"

Source: 1st Google result of "what does a well regulated militia mean"

Well, if it’s the first result from a Google search then it must be authoritative, right?

How deep in the search results did you have to go before you reached Federalist No. 29, “Concerning the Militia?”

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

Or Federalist No. 69, “The Real Character of the Executive?”

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp

The authors didn’t intend that every dickhead with a gripe on either side could arm themselves to the teeth and fight each other over disagreements about politics.

Also, you forgot to cite your source.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't care if you think they don't "need" it.  I don't "need" my guitar amp.  I want it.  Same thing.  You are assigning nefarious intent to the purchaser, but you don't have a problem with that person purchasing a gun?

One item is potentially deadly, the other is in no way shape or form deadly.  You have it completely ass-backwards.

Ok. Let have both then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:


center mass until he’s not standing. I have 15 shots and he’s getting all 15, only if I can’t make it to an exit though. If I can’t, I’m going down with an empty magazine 

 

Probably not getting 15 shots off which is why I just carry a single grenade everywhere these days. All I have to do is get it close and I’m good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

He's not trolling, he's an actual fucking nazi piece of shit.

I never neg but goddamn, if for no other reason to let the kids know since a line exists. What a despicable piece of human garbage to post that take.

Edited by 'stache
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Covri said:

Probably not getting 15 shots off which is why I just carry a single grenade everywhere these days. All I have to do is get it close and I’m good.

I should be allowed to open carry an RPG and shoot first at anyone I find threatening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Covri said:

Probably not getting 15 shots off which is why I just carry a single grenade everywhere these days. All I have to do is get it close and I’m good.

 

playing call of duty and medal of honor online, taught me that rocket launcher is the way to go 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Well, if it’s the first result from a Google search then it must be authoritative, right?

How deep in the search results did you have to go before you reached Federalist No. 29, “Concerning the Militia?”

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

Or Federalist No. 69, “The Real Character of the Executive?”

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp

The authors didn’t intend that every dickhead with a gripe on either side could arm themselves to the teeth and fight each other over disagreements about politics.

Also, you forgot to cite your source.

Hamilton in Federalist 29 is arguing that the federal government, not the states, is best suited to efficiently/fairly regulate ("provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining") and command ("governing") the militia. That's exactly what I said was meant by well-regulated. 

In 69 (nice) Hamilton uses the words "regulate" and "regulating" in a negative way, like modern useage, as he's describing the absolute powers of a monarch in sharp contrast to the limited powers of the US President. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Lol. Pubs would have the popular vote wrapped up if every racist person of color was republican. Or we only taking white racists? 

unbelievably false, but please don’t let that stop you. 

There is also currently only one political party that is the PREFERRED party of White Supremacists  and Nazi's.  That would be the Republican Party, and Donald Trump specifically.  Just to make it more simple what my opinion of the GOP is currently.

I am fascinated by the logic "that if the White racists could only get the "person of color racists" to vote along with them the GOP could be a majority party musings... 

Perhaps I should have just responded more succinctly, stating, "Of course white racists, we are talking about the Republican Party!?!"  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Flattie Fattie,  I just listened to Tucker Carlson's opening explaining how "white identity politics" is really because (insert giggle here)... Dems started politics of color...

So I understand your logic, as I watched 10 minutes of Tucker Carlson.  White victimhood is what Fox and the GOP has decided is foundational now.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, horn4life said:

I'm sorry Flattie Fattie,  I just listened to Tucker Carlson's opening explaining how "white identity politics" is really because (insert giggle here)... Dems started politics of color...

So I understand your logic, as I watched 10 minutes of Tucker Carlson.  White victimhood is what Fox and the GOP has decided is foundational now.

Congratulations. You’ve now wasted more time than I ever have watching that idiot. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Covri said:

Probably not getting 15 shots off which is why I just carry a single grenade everywhere these days. All I have to do is get it close and I’m good.

Not me.  I’m not leaving anything up to chance 

image.gif.76ab6ec9cde5cafd7a94c1d2c5a1db2c.gif

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, B00M said:

Hamilton in Federalist 29 is arguing that the federal government, not the states, is best suited to efficiently/fairly regulate ("provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining") and command ("governing") the militia. That's exactly what I said was meant by well-regulated. 

In 69 (nice) Hamilton uses the words "regulate" and "regulating" in a negative way, like modern useage, as he's describing the absolute powers of a monarch in sharp contrast to the limited powers of the US President. 

Are you arguing that heavily armed right-wing militia groups are what the authors meant by “well regulated militia?” I haven’t read the constitution of every State but in Ohio the militia is under the command of the Governor. It’s not up to a bunch of douchebags to decide what they believe or don’t believe and then take up arms against the democratically elected government. To interpret it that way is to invite chaos where there could be many different loosely organized militias with competing ideologies decided on a whim who would only wind up creating civil war. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Are you arguing that heavily armed right-wing militia groups are what the authors meant by “well regulated militia?” ...To interpret it that way is to invite chaos where there could be many different loosely organized militias with competing ideologies decided on a whim who would only wind up creating civil war. 

Well, yes, and no. State militias that, if needed, could resist a federal army. Federalist 46 goes into detail about how the state militias must vastly out number the federal army (25 to 1). I think here's the disconnect: the militia was simply able bodied male* civilians that met up 2 whopping days a year to check each other. Make sure people were competent, equipped, informed (federalist 26)... They weren't right wing extremists larping in the woods every weekend fantasizing about overthrowing the government. Fuck those guys. The militia was and is just an armed populace and any true 2nd amendment supporter celebrates the arming of minorities. 

*whites only because shit was fucked up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Pancho changed the title to Active shooter thread


×
×
  • Create New...