Armed Woman Intervenes, Prevents Mass Murder

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
30,798
18,526
136
Liberals made guns political by falling into the trap of looking and acting like they are trying to ban peoples' right to self defense.
Not being well versed in types of guns tell me why one would need 6 AR-15s with magazines capable of holding 50 rounds of ammo for self defense.

You could defend yourself with a tank too, but seems impractical to me. In both cases these arms sound offensive where a handgun with a 6 round mag seems far more practical for defense.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
21,916
19,997
136
That's hilarious, and sadly true since Columbine.

The anti-gun guys should really try to understand that's also the sentiment of the self defense crowd. When it matters, there is no one else to save yourself but you.

And this applies to children being butchered in a school how exactly? Have we moved past teachers and now need to arm the actual kids?

The anti-gun guys aren't the ones with a comprehension issue here. It is not unreasonable to expect law enforcement to do their fucking jobs when they are on location. They understood the danger because some of them attempted to rescue their own children.

So no, let's focus on the dysfunction of cowards and hypocrites who through dereliction of duty allowed so much death. People outraged over small children being executed at school understand things just fine. That whole department should be fired with extreme prejudice, and I'd like to start seeing LEOs held accountable for this kind of cowardice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KompuKare

rza_757

Junior Member
May 16, 2022
18
17
36
California makes sure that innocent bystanders can never get involved. How many millions of guns do you think are owned in California? But it is almost impossible to get a permit to carry. Then there are safe storage laws and rules about gun locks and separating guns from ammunition.

Guns can be used to kill people and they can be used to stop people in the act of murder. Liberal states pass laws that try to insure that outside the home only those intending murder will be carrying. “Guns are evil and I won’t be the one who dies for lack of defense so who cares. Fuck the gun nuts.”

But I can’t believe there is a single person who fancies him or herself rational in opposition to the second amendment who would not go back in time and put a gun in their hand to save a loved one who was a murdered with a gun and shoot the murderer first.
What kills me is all these celebrities who want to outlaw guns but play in all the shoot-em-up actions movies with hundreds of people being killed...
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,813
513
136
Yes truly, we need more guns. 400M isn't enough.
We don't need MORE guns. We just need to allow people the ability to have them in vulnerable places. We have 400M guns. It is what it is. Yet in many cases we don't allow teachers the ability to receive training and be armed if they choose.

When the shootings happen, we call people who have guns (cops). We have already decided that guns is the solution. Why force the teachers to be human shields instead of protectors?
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,813
513
136
I don't want to live in a society where you must be armed to the teeth everywhere you go in order to feel reasonably safe. That's not a civilized society.

If I had to choose between arming loved ones or passing policies that make it so I don't have to arm loved ones, I'd choose the latter 100% of the time.
What policy would you pass to get rid of the couple hundred million guns in America?
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
8,900
6,237
136
We don't need MORE guns. We just need to allow people the ability to have them in vulnerable places. We have 400M guns. It is what it is. Yet in many cases we don't allow teachers the ability to receive training and be armed if they choose.

When the shootings happen, we call people who have guns (cops). We have already decided that guns is the solution. Why force the teachers to be human shields instead of protectors?
This still isn't really a solution, and it's based more on an ideal scenario than how things would work out in practice.

The fantasy is that a teacher sees a would-be mass-shooter barging into the school, caps them and saves the day. The more likely reality: as the shooter is already brandishing guns, that teacher is just the first person to die... and the attacker now has an extra weapon.
 

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
6,683
1,712
136
What policy would you pass to get rid of the couple hundred million guns in America?
You’d expect intelligent people would see what is happening and be willing to give up their guns. Nope selfish people MUH RIGHTS! MUH FREEDUMS!!!
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,267
6,828
136
You’d expect intelligent people would see what is happening and be willing to give up their guns. Nope selfish people MUH RIGHTS! MUH FREEDUMS!!!
Right, you expect people who have their guns locked up and not being used to murder people to decide to give up their guns that are locked up and not being used to murder people.

Have you ever been to the United States? Ever interacted with, say, any US citizens you don't already know and/or call family?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlawleZ

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,089
4,843
126
What kills me is all these celebrities who want to outlaw guns but play in all the shoot-em-up actions movies with hundreds of people being killed...
How many of them do you suppose also have armed bodyguards? How many politicians have taxpayer police protection?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitek and rza_757

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,089
4,843
126
Not being well versed in types of guns tell me why one would need 6 AR-15s with magazines capable of holding 50 rounds of ammo for self defense.

You could defend yourself with a tank too, but seems impractical to me. In both cases these arms sound offensive where a handgun with a 6 round mag seems far more practical for defense.
Look, I am not what I would call well versed on types of guns. It was only in the last few months I started to get interested in them. I haven’t shot one in decades. But I go through phases of learning about different things. However, I have learned a few things pertinent to your question in reflecting of what I wanted to buy:

On the topic of home defense there are myriads of choices each with plus and minus problem and tons of different opinions. I have come to the conclusion that in my opinion a shotgun would be best using shells containing pellets larger than bird shot. The disadvantage is recoil but The problem with hand guns and rifles is the issue of bullets penetrating walls and killing family or neighbors. Also you only have at ready a few rounds. But it is likely to be enough. Hand guns are, of course, handy.

Then there are all the debates about stopping power. Lots of people like the .45.

A thing that is attractive about the AR is it’s versitility. It is modular and you can build or buy one for a large number of different purposes. You can build them as rifles, as pistols, for hunting for home defense, fro long range targets, for competition. The versatility is amazing.

So nobody ultimately needs a weapon but if you want one you can use the AR platform to create one for many different purposes which is why people may own many of them and a big reason for their popularity.

I decided to go for as much accuracy as I could afford factoring in the realization that it was a stupid waste of money and a wish to have the best in compromise. I can tell you that you will need a shit load of money if you want to buy a lot of guns of quality. I think I am done.

I think in some states you can own a full auto gun in which case a 100 round mag will empty quick. People like shooting not reloading, especially in a fight. An empty gun isn’t very useful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlawleZ

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
54,534
7,164
126
All we need to do is put a freely accessible gun on every trash can, entrance, exit, bathroom, vending machine, AED, fire alarm, and fire extinguisher, and we'll finally be safe.

/s but if you needed the /s to be aware that it was sarcasm, what the ever-loving fuck is wrong with you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tsinni Dave

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
22,671
16,417
136
We don't need MORE guns. We just need to allow people the ability to have them in vulnerable places. We have 400M guns. It is what it is. Yet in many cases we don't allow teachers the ability to receive training and be armed if they choose.

When the shootings happen, we call people who have guns (cops). We have already decided that guns is the solution. Why force the teachers to be human shields instead of protectors?
We have too many guns you sick fuck
 

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
6,683
1,712
136
All we need to do is put a freely accessible gun on every trash can, entrance, exit, bathroom, vending machine, AED, fire alarm, and fire extinguisher, and we'll finally be safe.

/s but if you needed the /s to be aware that it was sarcasm, what the ever-loving fuck is wrong with you?
Has the NRA proposed vending machines yet?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HomerJS

Atari2600

Golden Member
Nov 22, 2016
1,349
1,528
136
Just making an observation; thread has a high concentration of retards in it.
 

Amol S.

Golden Member
Mar 14, 2015
1,987
513
136
And this applies to children being butchered in a school how exactly? Have we moved past teachers and now need to arm the actual kids?

The anti-gun guys aren't the ones with a comprehension issue here. It is not unreasonable to expect law enforcement to do their fucking jobs when they are on location. They understood the danger because some of them attempted to rescue their own children.

So no, let's focus on the dysfunction of cowards and hypocrites who through dereliction of duty allowed so much death. People outraged over small children being executed at school understand things just fine. That whole department should be fired with extreme prejudice, and I'd like to start seeing LEOs held accountable for this kind of cowardice.
Rubber band sling shots, kids only need rocks as ammo against shooter. One sling shot won't do anything, but 31 together? /s
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,069
3,793
136
We don't need MORE guns. We just need to allow people the ability to have them in vulnerable places. We have 400M guns. It is what it is. Yet in many cases we don't allow teachers the ability to receive training and be armed if they choose.

When the shootings happen, we call people who have guns (cops). We have already decided that guns is the solution. Why force the teachers to be human shields instead of protectors?
How do you reconcile this position with the absurd inaction of the police in Uvalde?
 
  • Like
Reactions: nakedfrog

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
54,534
7,164
126
Rubber band sling shots, kids only need rocks as ammo against shooter. One sling shot won't do anything, but 31 together? /s
A sling was good enough for David to fell Goliath, if God wanted the children to survive, they'd be able to make the shot.

/s
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,432
691
136
How do you reconcile this position with the absurd inaction of the police in Uvalde?
The cops (if not crime-ridden area) and SROs sign up thinking it'll never happen. Well, it happened, but they don't feel like they signed up for that. I think a teacher wanting access to a gun is probably more likely to defend. I've seen more heroics from unarmed teachers and students.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
22,671
16,417
136
The cops (if not crime-ridden area) and SROs sign up thinking it'll never happen. Well, it happened, but they don't feel like they signed up for that. I think a teacher wanting access to a gun is probably more likely to defend. I've seen more heroics from unarmed teachers and students.
Lol
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,069
3,793
136
The cops (if not crime-ridden area) and SROs sign up thinking it'll never happen. Well, it happened, but they don't feel like they signed up for that. I think a teacher wanting access to a gun is probably more likely to defend. I've seen more heroics from unarmed teachers and students.
1. You are literally proving the point.
2. There were, reportedly, 3 cops on scene at the time of the arrival of the shooter that were unsuccessful in preventing his access to the school.
3. Reports are these cops prevented the Border Patrol tactical response team from ... responding for quite some time.
4. Do you have any solid evidence to support a teacher who is carrying is more likely to be successful in defending against an active shooter than even the most poorly trained police officer (a somewhat inane point to even discuss honestly)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY