Every single last one of these worthless shit stains should be thrown in jail for impersonating an LEO.
Another school shooting
- Thread starter Cubs79
- Start date
Nah, too soft. These pigs should be charged with being an accessory to murder. They actively restrained parents from saving their kids for over an hour, while the children bled out on the floor.
I know originally that I was trying to find some logical reason for why they wouldn't go in but there isn't one. I generally don't like making examples of people but this is an exception to that. Every officer involved in this, from those in the school to those in command that day to those that organized policy and training need to be cleared out. We need to quite clearly communicate to all of the other agencies in this country what is expected in these situations.
One might get the impression from their inaction that those local yokals were scared sh*tless to charge the shooter.
Combination of being scared, lack of proper communication, and extremely poor training.
I really think it says a lot that a border patrol who was getting his hair cut an hour away was able to borrow a shotgun from his barber and blast the shooter in a more efficient and timely
manner than the 19 useless stooges who were impersonating LEOs and standing around washing their hands or playing Wordle on their phone.
One might get that impression. How many times have you charged into the face of someone firing a gun at you?
The harsh reality is that A LOT of cops aren’t going to take a chance on being outgunned. Too many cops are dying and many are just saying screw this.
Exactly! Who the hell wants a job where they might be required to charge a wack-job with an AR-15 military-style assault rifle? Yet people like sk8 -- despite having a wife on the force -- wants to keep those weapons of war on the street? For the umpteenth time: WHY?
It has been determined that the Second Amendment doesn't allow me to go out and purchase hand grenades, mustard gas, or bazookas. What makes assault rifes so different?
No one is making that argument except politicians, and yes, that includes law enforcement politicians who haven't worked a beat in years, if not decades.
The 'outgunned' argument is 0% reality because anyone taking on anybody with just any rifle for the past 200+ years, especially the past 135+ years of cordite with increased velocity, have been 'outgunned.' The British were 'outgunned' too.
Nothing has changed in 135+ years other than weight ... period.
We can’t expect every damn police force in the country to be trained like a SWAT team or as these shootings are a mini- military conflict. They had no idea what his arsenal exactly was at the time of engagement. Sure… they aren’t good cops, but come on!
An AR-15 is not a weapon of war. You cannot buy an M4 or an M16 in the same way that you buy an AR15.
Can you at least have enough respect for yourself to learn even a few basic facts about that which you speak?
18-21 year-olds don’t need AR-15 rifles. Give every damn cop full body armor and machine guns.
PERIOD
An AR-15 is not a weapon of war? BULLSH*T!!!
It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic funcationality that our troops use to kill the enemy. Maybe we need to show gun fetishists like you the graphic, crime scene photographs of the human carnage caused by an AR-15 assault rifle in places like a Uvalde classroom or the streets of a Highland Park Fourth of July parade. Maybe THEN it'll start to sink in.
Can you have enough respect for yourself and your wife's safety to acknowledge what has become painfully obvious to most sane people in this country?
Typical shuckster, doubles down on his ignorance with more table-pounding and then adds a side of gaslighting. Learn the facts and make arguments based in them.
Oh, and since you brought up my wife, no one in her squad, nor anyone in her department that I’ve spoken to, have expressed any sentiment in favor of taking AR15 rifles away from law-abiding citizens.
This thread is a perfect example why the 'AR15's are Bad! Ban AR15s!' people always fall into 2 categories ...
So why are we only talking like this the last 30 years? What changed within the last 30 years?
The US Army has long concluded, especially since the '90s, when special forces started dropping it, but now formally, for all combat troops, that the M4/M16 and it's 5.56mm is combat ineffective in over 80% of engagements, and ...
Have finally replaced it ... officially!
The M4/M16 is now, officially regulated to non-combat troops for this reason ... as it was originally when it was first standardized by the USAF -- yes Air Force -- for base deterrence. The US Army and Marine Corps had a general dislike of Armalite Rifles (AR) for a reason! (even the AR10 had a lot of issues in Dutch et al. service as well)
It was never, ever designed for the general infantry, only adopted because the USAF had already standardized it. It never went through a full design-adoption phase, period. It was only because the Vietnam War pushed logistics to a new level, that it ended up being adopted.
It was small enough and with low enough recoil for Vietnamese forces to handle it, hence why it was already 'in country' before the US adopted it too.
And even auto-loading rifles 240+ years old still have many aspects that are similar, including similar energies and reloads to modern, semi-automatic pistols too.
Again, stop making this about AR-15 'style' and recognize 100% of those arguments apply to 100% of rifles ... period. That is fact, and not disputed by those who actually analyze it ... like the FBI. You are proliferating a completely and repeatedly proven false narrative.
If the .223"/5.56mm is guilty of anything, it's as the US Army repeatedly found ... it does not incapacitate (or kill for that matter) as good as nearly all other rifle cartridges (sometimes even 1/3rd or 1/5th), including nearly all that predate it.
And even larger cross-section pistol caliber carbines are very effective against civilians not wearing body armor. That's why the mob used the .45 ACP on civilians a full century ago too. In most mass shootings, like Columbine, even 9mm pistol caliber weapons in short barrels are extremely effective ... and easy to maneuver.
That's why special forces have long used them against terrorists and forces without body armor. Those are literally centuries old, including not requiring cordiate or modern powders in the last 140 years. We literally name a 'Peace Prize' after the Scandinavian who invented it too! Oh the irony (and ignorance)!
You are not only statistical ignorant like the US Mass and Social Media, but at odds with even the US military facts on the matter, stating total falsehoods.
- Firearm ****tards - They are complete ****tards on energy, physics and rifles in general, let alone don't know the laws and differences between weapons, cartridges and adoption over the last 135-200 years.
- Methodical Liars - They are purposely being dumb and lying, just like President Biden and others, making it about AR15s (and 'Assault Weapons'), because they know if they get AR15s banned, they will get everything banned, because AR15s hardly kill anyone, and definitely not any faster ... as the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) proved -- yes, FBI studies that are matter of public record, acknowledged and recorded by the US Congress!
So are all rifles for 135+ years ... unchanged! Period!
So why are we only talking like this the last 30 years? What changed within the last 30 years?
- 24x7 News
- Live Streaming
No, our troops do not use a selective fire, fully automatic (which is not even allowed for civilian ownership) .223"/5.56mm to effectively kill the enemy.
The US Army has long concluded, especially since the '90s, when special forces started dropping it, but now formally, for all combat troops, that the M4/M16 and it's 5.56mm is combat ineffective in over 80% of engagements, and ...
Have finally replaced it ... officially!
The M4/M16 is now, officially regulated to non-combat troops for this reason ... as it was originally when it was first standardized by the USAF -- yes Air Force -- for base deterrence. The US Army and Marine Corps had a general dislike of Armalite Rifles (AR) for a reason! (even the AR10 had a lot of issues in Dutch et al. service as well)
It was never, ever designed for the general infantry, only adopted because the USAF had already standardized it. It never went through a full design-adoption phase, period. It was only because the Vietnam War pushed logistics to a new level, that it ended up being adopted.
It was small enough and with low enough recoil for Vietnamese forces to handle it, hence why it was already 'in country' before the US adopted it too.
That's 100% of all rifles over the last 135 years! 100%! This is why you are utterly ignorant. Everyone with a modicum of understand of high school physics and basic firearms knowledge knows you're an idiot for making these 'only AR-15s!' type statements!
And even auto-loading rifles 240+ years old still have many aspects that are similar, including similar energies and reloads to modern, semi-automatic pistols too.
Again, stop making this about AR-15 'style' and recognize 100% of those arguments apply to 100% of rifles ... period. That is fact, and not disputed by those who actually analyze it ... like the FBI. You are proliferating a completely and repeatedly proven false narrative.
If the .223"/5.56mm is guilty of anything, it's as the US Army repeatedly found ... it does not incapacitate (or kill for that matter) as good as nearly all other rifle cartridges (sometimes even 1/3rd or 1/5th), including nearly all that predate it.
And even larger cross-section pistol caliber carbines are very effective against civilians not wearing body armor. That's why the mob used the .45 ACP on civilians a full century ago too. In most mass shootings, like Columbine, even 9mm pistol caliber weapons in short barrels are extremely effective ... and easy to maneuver.
That's why special forces have long used them against terrorists and forces without body armor. Those are literally centuries old, including not requiring cordiate or modern powders in the last 140 years. We literally name a 'Peace Prize' after the Scandinavian who invented it too! Oh the irony (and ignorance)!
Yes ... that criminals with guns will kill him and his wife, and statistically so ... almost an order of magnitude more. But AR15 'style' weapons don't kill hardly anyone in the US ... or Canada ... for that matter.
You are not only statistical ignorant like the US Mass and Social Media, but at odds with even the US military facts on the matter, stating total falsehoods.
Last edited:
Then they don't need any guns, because there's nothing special about the AR15 'style.' Nothing has changed in 135 years other than going smaller caliber and lighter, which the US military is now reversing!
They already have them ... along with APCs and other weapons and defense solutions, completely militarized! They had a freak'n well-funded SWAT team that couldn't even respond like off-duty Federal Agents.
Welcome ... to the firearm ****tardery!
The “do nothing” group led by our resident imbecile @UCFBS once again ignoring the problem and advocating innocent children and teachers slaughtered beyond recognition
Keep ignoring the problem until your own family are the ones involved. Only then, will you finally get it
CABAL!
Well.., maybe if he didn’t have a gun, we wouldn’t be discussing freaking SWAT teams for one freaking 18-21 shooter
You need guns to defend against the other guy who has guns. It’s sound logic. Believe me.
That occurs regardless of banning whatever. Just admit it ... you want all firearms banned. Either that, or you're just letting people lie to you about firearms.
You think I don't have family who have been shot? The problem has never been the firearm, but the ****tard criminal.
It's like blaming men -- whether all men or a 'style' of man -- for a rapist.
This is an overly limited and ignorant statement. Guns equalize force when it is disproportionate. Elderly and many women are at a force differential to their attackers in unarmed situations and, in many cases, only their ability to employ a firearm defensively has kept them from being the victims of a violent crime.
Why do you all hate women and the elderly so much that you want to remove their ability to protect themselves from a man with a size and reach advantage?
One firearm at home for an adult over 21 to protect their family. That’s it
I own zero. No person in my family was ever shot at or ever owned a gun. Never
Have them have one firearm at home.
Where else are the elderly and women going to defend themselves with guns? In public? No.
If that were the case, then it would be the Wild West with the older people or women dying even more. Once again, eliminate these type of weapons from use in public.
Start with any gun ownership in 18-21 year-olds, criminals, and those with mental disorders. That’s a start. However, there’s no need for ANY WEAPONS in public other than law enforcement
Last edited:
Because they are weak obviously. Survival of the fittest. When you are done patting yourself on the back for the latest strawman you beat down maybe we can have a discussion about why the particular topic is only a problem in one rich country on the globe.
If the old Andy Griffith Show had been real, I'm guessing most folks in Mayberry would have said Andy Taylor was a 'might fine' Sheriff (despite of the fact he never carried a gun.)
Now imagine Andy and Barney in today's world expected to lead a g'damn SWAT Team. Policing aint what it used to be.
Yes, and nearly all beat cops will tell you the same. Nothing stops someone with a firearm than another person with a firearm. Nothing challenges them better, especially at a distance. It's just fact. You will find few, experienced law enforcement that disagree.
That's why nearly all of law enforcement is totally against gun free zones and so many other things you will never hear in the US Mass and Social Media. The PoliceOne survey post-Sandy Hook put everyone on notice.
That's when law enforcement started actively lobbying for citizen-carry and other access. It was finally time to end the farce narratives that people like you quote. It's been 100% politics that has increased the problem, like gun free zones.
Yes, we've been defined by 'feelings' instead of 'statistics' since the '90s. Why? The fact that you think AR15 'style' weapons are any different, and are actually used by the military, is a perfect example.
'Style' != 'Function,' let alone rifles are unchanged over 135+ years. It's a simple knowledge and statistical function. And that's why people like you are ignored. Because everything you recommend makes things worse, even about breaking things, like the background check system.
Women and elderly defending themselves with firearms is a common occurrence. Calling it a strawman is a blatant lie.
Shouldn’t have to dumb it down for you, but the strawman was when you claimed I hated women and the elderly. Somehow other countries also have women and elderly and they aren’t strapped. But the idea of my 80 year old grandparents suiting up like Rambo to go grocery shopping is a noble aspiration I guess.
You want to eliminate their ability to protect themselves so there’s something other than compassion going on there.
Yeah boy, I'm SO doggone unreasonable when it comes to talking about those harmless little AR-15 assault rifles, huh? Is it further gaslighting to offer 'thoughts and prayers' to the families of the 19 Uvalde children who were mowed down by one?
If ONLY those kids would've had brought their own guns into that classroom to protect themselves. THAT's what we should be talking about, right sk8?*
The verdict is basically in after a full analysis of the video. No police officer initially wanted to take charge, say **** this, and take on the shooter directly and without hesitation. This led to a delay in saving victims that possibly were still alive
The response team was quite quick to arrive.
Most, if not all the victims were shot PRIOR TO THEIR ARRIVAL
The police officer that used his cell phone was talking to his wife, a school teacher, who said that she was dying
The response team was quite quick to arrive.
Most, if not all the victims were shot PRIOR TO THEIR ARRIVAL
The police officer that used his cell phone was talking to his wife, a school teacher, who said that she was dying
The rational idea of carry is a .380 or similar in a handbag and these are used by people of all demographics for self defense tens of thousands of times every year. You jump right to the hyperbolic “suited up like Rambo” which conveys the strong implication that you are against carry for self defense.
In the totality, @UCFBS is right, that which defines an “assault weapon” in many of these bills also eliminates almost every semi-automatic weapon on the market. So the unthinking support of “gun control” will, in reality, take away the ability for many demographics to protect themselves.
I don’t support gun control. Was merely pointing out the logical fallacies some people use to justify unlimited gun ownership. I also ignored that particular poster 6 months ago.
You don’t promote “self defense” by allowing every American to “carry a .380 or similar in a handbag.”
That’s utterly ridiculous. The amount of people dying from gun violence would be 10 x what it is now
I’m not sure how you can make any sense or draw any conclusions from his tangential, overwritten gibberish to support your argument. He’s all over the place and has no compassion for the murdered teaches, children or anyone in any of these mass shootings. He has all the red flags
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
-
Two Big 12 teams will open 2025 season in Ireland- Latest: HoopingKnight51
-
-
