Across the country, states require more training to prepare students and teachers for mass shootings than for those expected to protect them. The differences were clear in Uvalde, where children and officers waited on opposite sides of the door.
Time and time again: They’ll gladly act when they can use overwhelming force. But when they are up against a similarly armed individual (ar-15 firing similar rounds to the military, body armor, etc), they cower in fear. Sometimes SWAT will actually act, but usually in situations where they can more or less level the building with tanks and explosives.
Its one of the best arguments for gun control. Because if we didn’t have ready access to assault rifles that were literally designed for military purposes and that fire one of the nastier rounds in existence*, then maybe “a good guy with a gun” would have any effect at all.
And just in case anyone thinks bump stocks or illegal modifications will let them stand up to the army: the army has “real” tanks, air support, drones, and a lot more explosives per soldier. You won’t stand a chance and, if anything, a concealable pistol chambered for one of the small caliber/high velocity rounds is more effective for a resistance force.
It’s so odd to see people putting words and ideas in my mouth. OTOH, I’m used to it.
No one thinks they can fight the military, no one has these bizarre fantasies. At least not among us “normal” gun nuts. I consume a fair deal of gun content on YouTube, and while I may be biased because I shy away from the right-wingers, I get not a single whiff of what you’re talking about.
Can’t find my old post in /r/liberalgunowners, but no one imagines a toe-to-toe fight. The US military, and even the cops, depend on civilian smarts, labor and supply chains. And those are easily disrupted. People point to Vietnam and Afghanistan as examples of poorly armed locals successfully fighting back. And those fights weren’t in our literal backyards among our neighbors!
But to bring it closer to home; What does this particular lib do when the local Brown Shirts come knocking to disarm me “for my own good”? That seems a very real thing to me. So do I lay down and get on the train later? Or… what?
Thought experiment; Let’s magically take every gun from every citizen excepting cops and military. How long you think until the GOP drops the hammer and goes full-on fascist? Deterrence is a thing. MAD got me through the 70s and 80s.
As to your link on the lethality of AR-15 rounds, paywalled, but I’m familiar. .223 or 5.56 rounds are tiny and hella fast. (My smart-assed take here: https://imgur.com/a/kolUESz.) The article’s take is for people unfamiliar with the horrific damage rounds of all sorts impart. tl;dr: Bullets don’t punch holes like an icepick. Shoot an empty vs. full can of beer with a .22, you’ll get it quick. A bullet is the response of last resort.
(And BTW, an AR-15 is illegal to hunt with in some states because the round is not lethal enough for a clean kill.)
And yes, the AR-15 is a military rifle. The title, and possibly the poster (don’t know his work), is revolting, but none the less, this is a solid history lesson. I had not thought all that through, but yes, the US civilian has always had better arms than the US military. The “military rifle/round” argument falls flat with me.
Look at it through a modern, more liberal lens and say, “I sure wish the cops could outgun us all! They’re perfectly trustworthy utilizing deadly force!”
Time and time again: They’ll gladly act when they can use overwhelming force. But when they are up against a similarly armed individual (ar-15 firing similar rounds to the military, body armor, etc), they cower in fear.
You mean twice? Uvalde and Cloward? I can think of other times where regular street cops did in fact charge in right away even in the face of killers armed with AR-15s.
Because if we didn’t have ready access to assault rifles that were literally designed for military purposes and that fire one of the nastier rounds in existence
The .223 / 5.56mm isn’t even CLOSE to one of the nastier rounds in existence. It’s an intermediate cartridge with low power relative to real rifle calibers like the 7.62, .308, or 30-06. At 100 yards or less, the distance most mass shootings take place, even a 12 Gauge shotgun is vastly more destructive.
…then maybe “a good guy with a gun” would have any effect at all.
Plenty of “Good Guys with a Gun” have ended shooters armed with shotguns and rifles. The issue isn’t one of weaponary but of numbers, there just AREN’T that many overall and the odds of there being one in the right place at the right time are nearly zero. They can be amazingly effective when it happens though.
And just in case anyone thinks bump stocks or illegal modifications will let them stand up to the army: the army has “real” tanks, air support, drones, and a lot more explosives per soldier.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Syria…the list of conflicts that show this to be false as very long. Full Auto fire, whether through illegal modification or Bump Stock is stupid anyway and even the US Military has put controls on its use.
…a concealable pistol chambered for one of the small caliber/high velocity rounds is more effective for a resistance force.
It’s so great that it’s commonly used by literally no resistance force anywhere in the world. It is commonly used by Concealed Carry Weapons Permit holders though…like the one in the link up above.
Nah, it’s the loud opinion in these threads that all gun owners hate children or something because they don’t support “common sense gun control.” Nuanced discussion isn’t allowed, only name calling group hate against gun owners is.
I feel ya. We can’t talk in forums like this because of posts like OP’s. Nothing will get better, only more polarized, and ironically, more death.
I think the issue is that liberals have an ignorant view of guns and gun owners. I used to, and ignorance is OK! But FFS, be willing to learn and engage. I call you on your BS, you call me on mine, we learn.
When we bring facts to the table, facts that can be argued in good faith, we’re immediately called baby killers. That’s not helpful. In fact, it’s harmful.
Time and time again: They’ll gladly act when they can use overwhelming force. But when they are up against a similarly armed individual (ar-15 firing similar rounds to the military, body armor, etc), they cower in fear. Sometimes SWAT will actually act, but usually in situations where they can more or less level the building with tanks and explosives.
Its one of the best arguments for gun control. Because if we didn’t have ready access to assault rifles that were literally designed for military purposes and that fire one of the nastier rounds in existence*, then maybe “a good guy with a gun” would have any effect at all.
And just in case anyone thinks bump stocks or illegal modifications will let them stand up to the army: the army has “real” tanks, air support, drones, and a lot more explosives per soldier. You won’t stand a chance and, if anything, a concealable pistol chambered for one of the small caliber/high velocity rounds is more effective for a resistance force.
*: If anyone hasn’t read this before, it is well worth the horror. Obviously lots of content warnings https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/ar-15-damage-to-human-body/
It’s so odd to see people putting words and ideas in my mouth. OTOH, I’m used to it.
No one thinks they can fight the military, no one has these bizarre fantasies. At least not among us “normal” gun nuts. I consume a fair deal of gun content on YouTube, and while I may be biased because I shy away from the right-wingers, I get not a single whiff of what you’re talking about.
Can’t find my old post in /r/liberalgunowners, but no one imagines a toe-to-toe fight. The US military, and even the cops, depend on civilian smarts, labor and supply chains. And those are easily disrupted. People point to Vietnam and Afghanistan as examples of poorly armed locals successfully fighting back. And those fights weren’t in our literal backyards among our neighbors!
But to bring it closer to home; What does this particular lib do when the local Brown Shirts come knocking to disarm me “for my own good”? That seems a very real thing to me. So do I lay down and get on the train later? Or… what?
Thought experiment; Let’s magically take every gun from every citizen excepting cops and military. How long you think until the GOP drops the hammer and goes full-on fascist? Deterrence is a thing. MAD got me through the 70s and 80s.
As to your link on the lethality of AR-15 rounds, paywalled, but I’m familiar. .223 or 5.56 rounds are tiny and hella fast. (My smart-assed take here: https://imgur.com/a/kolUESz.) The article’s take is for people unfamiliar with the horrific damage rounds of all sorts impart. tl;dr: Bullets don’t punch holes like an icepick. Shoot an empty vs. full can of beer with a .22, you’ll get it quick. A bullet is the response of last resort.
(And BTW, an AR-15 is illegal to hunt with in some states because the round is not lethal enough for a clean kill.)
And yes, the AR-15 is a military rifle. The title, and possibly the poster (don’t know his work), is revolting, but none the less, this is a solid history lesson. I had not thought all that through, but yes, the US civilian has always had better arms than the US military. The “military rifle/round” argument falls flat with me.
Look at it through a modern, more liberal lens and say, “I sure wish the cops could outgun us all! They’re perfectly trustworthy utilizing deadly force!”
tl;dr
I love this comedian’s take on the NRA “we can take on the military with our guns” types: https://youtu.be/WOSqCjMRXWA?si=TTFMx6fLMx_akDYl
You mean twice? Uvalde and Cloward? I can think of other times where regular street cops did in fact charge in right away even in the face of killers armed with AR-15s.
The .223 / 5.56mm isn’t even CLOSE to one of the nastier rounds in existence. It’s an intermediate cartridge with low power relative to real rifle calibers like the 7.62, .308, or 30-06. At 100 yards or less, the distance most mass shootings take place, even a 12 Gauge shotgun is vastly more destructive.
Plenty of “Good Guys with a Gun” have ended shooters armed with shotguns and rifles. The issue isn’t one of weaponary but of numbers, there just AREN’T that many overall and the odds of there being one in the right place at the right time are nearly zero. They can be amazingly effective when it happens though.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Syria…the list of conflicts that show this to be false as very long. Full Auto fire, whether through illegal modification or Bump Stock is stupid anyway and even the US Military has put controls on its use.
It’s so great that it’s commonly used by literally no resistance force anywhere in the world. It is commonly used by Concealed Carry Weapons Permit holders though…like the one in the link up above.
Nothing brings the gun nuts out quite like some dead kids.
I know its hard when someone shows up with actual data to counter false opinion but Ad Hominem is never a good response.
Nah, it’s the loud opinion in these threads that all gun owners hate children or something because they don’t support “common sense gun control.” Nuanced discussion isn’t allowed, only name calling group hate against gun owners is.
Piles of dead kids because of a complete lack of gun control
Gun nuts: Excuse me, you are using incorrect terminology and guns are actually amazing and we need more good guys with a gun
At this point? Nobody is saying the gun nuts hate children. We are increasingly worried that you are getting off on the sight of dead kids.
I feel ya. We can’t talk in forums like this because of posts like OP’s. Nothing will get better, only more polarized, and ironically, more death.
I think the issue is that liberals have an ignorant view of guns and gun owners. I used to, and ignorance is OK! But FFS, be willing to learn and engage. I call you on your BS, you call me on mine, we learn.
When we bring facts to the table, facts that can be argued in good faith, we’re immediately called baby killers. That’s not helpful. In fact, it’s harmful.