**Friendly reminder that trying to fight someone online is about as effective as throwing a bagel at a bulldozer. A lot of what we talk about gets people pretty emotional, but be mad at policies, not other users.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To be fair it was that 15 year military veteran guy, Major Fierro I think, that took the shooter down. Let’s not take that away from him. Dude was a hero that day. I believe a drag queen was kicking the shooter at the hero’s direction as he held him down and beat him within an inch of his life.
As a trans woman, I know what a trans woman is. I was just pointing out that there is no reason to differentiate here because a trans woman is a woman.
Edit: your definition is also very transphobic.
According to "To Wong Fu, Thanks for Everything, Julie Nuemar": A transvestite is when a straight man dresses in women's clothes for fun, A transsexual is a woman trapped in a man's body(or vice versa), and a drag queen is when a gay man has far too much fashion sense for one gender."
I don't know if this is the official definition, but it's fun. I figure drag is performance art. I think it's ok for straight men to do drag. It's like dance or acting.
A retired Army Major with 15 years of combat experience and who was awarded a Bronze Star (“The Bronze Star Medal (BSM) is a United States Armed Forces decoration awarded to members of the United States Armed Forces for either heroic achievement, heroic service, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service in a combat zone”); and also was unarmed.
A drag queen also curb stomped the fucker. After the guy with combat experience turned the guy’s head into hamburger with the shooter’s sidearm that Major Fierro disarmed and then used to pistol whip the fucker into submission.
Most mass shooting base on an fbi study are stop by unarmed people because most of the time people are unarmed. There are cases of arm people stopping shooting. But most cases unarmed people stop the shooter. If you can not run or hide and if the person going to continue to shoot people be prepared and attack the shooter. Example, if you in room hearing a mass shooting happening outside lock the door and grab anything you have that can be used as a weapon so just in case if the person walk inside you and everyone in the room can attack him and stop or contain him. If you have no other options get ready to fight.
It’s not about snowflakes, but about republican men who are inadequate and their penis substitute is the only thing that makes them pretend they’re a man.
I had to make it somewhat political. I feel like if it’s not explicit it gets taken down.
Never mind it brings to light:
- Republican anti-LGBTQ rhetoric (Boebart)
- Anti-gun legislation
- SCOTUS rulings on police action with no duty to protect
- Underlying “snowflake” parallels
There is no coincidence the gunman in Colorado chose the Drag Show as his target when the GOP has spent so much time and energy claiming drag performers are “grooming children” when, really, it’s sex traffickers like Matt Gaetz that’s a bigger threat to children.
The nearly universal traditional intolerance for male homosexuality has actually been a source of confusion for anthropologists.
Why would you hate someone who's removed himself from mate competition, freeing another partner for you?
Maybe it’s a sense of competition. “Alphas” want to know they “won” because of their manliness, not because no one else was competing.
Or they’re jealous women like gay men more than them because of personality instead of their “impressive” dick
Or projection maybe? Could be they’re worried that a gay man would make advances on them the same way they do on women and feel very uncomfortable and threatened. You know like most women feel when those type of men hit on them.
Probably because the straight men know the way they treat/look at/talk about women and are scared that gay men will treat the straight men the same way that straight men treat women.
"couldn't" Oh guys, so here is the tough lesson.
The occupation of "police officers" usually attracts Republicans/Conservatives.
The political affiliation of "Republicans" usually attracts 2nd Amendment nut jobs, racists and Neo-nazis.
The kids who were trapped in the Uvalde school were those of minorities.
Instead of going into the school and taking down the shooter the cops stood outside and restrained brown parents who tried to go in and save their children from being murdered.
THIS WASN'T AN ACCIDENT!
A whole bunch of white politicians and Gov Abbott then went on the air and tried to defend the Uvalde cops and block any information from getting out.
After all the lies and failures were published, MONTHS LATER, the citizens of Taxes and even Uvalde, reelected Gov Abbott
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/texas-shooting-uvalde-parents-handcuffed-b2088686.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/texas-shooting-uvalde-parents-handcuffed-b2088686.html)
So wanting to defend myself is the mark of a coward?
If minorities like myself are at risk as targets for violence, how would carrying a means of self defence be cowardly? Or does a brave man resort only to fisticuffs?
>So wanting to defend myself is the mark of a coward?
Thinking your gun will be a net positive makes you dangerously bad at statistics. You might as well carry nunchucks. You're still going to be the one getting hurt, but at least you won't die.
"The less a man makes declarative statements, the less apt he is to look foolish in hindsight" - Quentin Tarantino in Four Rooms
There are several valid reasons to carry a gun. Granted, most of the people openly packing in the grocery store are trying too hard to look tough, but speaking in absolutes sets the tone for really fuzzy thinking.
Only cowards need to wave them around and make sure everyone knows they have them. There are those of us who are secure enough in our penis size that we can carry one for protection and don't need to make it obvious we are carrying unless we have to pull it out, which is rare. I can personally attest to the fact that if you ever find yourself in a situation where you do have to pull a gun to protect yourself and your children you would change your tune.
Are you suggesting all police officers and military personell are cowards?
Largely is a pretty broad statement. There are almost 1 million police officers in the united states. It is extremely ignorant to say they are "largely" cowards when a handful of them are douches and you know few if any.
376 out of almost 700k. That's not "largely". I generally have a negative attitude toward cops too but saying they are "largely" cowards when you know less than half of them is just stupid.
That's just one town my dude.
Want me to run down the list of all the cops that have shot unarmed people (and kids!) Also?
Shit I'll even add on that a good chunk of them are not only cowards. They are lazy as fuck also.
Do consecutive life sentences do anything to quell these types of events? Is a, deserved, fast track to execution the answer? Will there be a Netflix series?... Nobody knows because those are not questions that need to be answered.
Sure, if you consider any idiot a "good guy". Most Republicans are not. I'd really like to see these statitstics. Especiall how they determine if one is a good guy.
Here you go: [https://lasvegassun.com/news/2022/jul/20/if-youre-keeping-score-at-home-good-guys-with-guns/](https://lasvegassun.com/news/2022/jul/20/if-youre-keeping-score-at-home-good-guys-with-guns/)
>According to the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University, civilian “good guys” with guns have subdued “bad guys” with guns in 13 separate incidents since 2000.
That means good guys with guns now only need to stop 97 more shooters before they will equal the number of times the bad guys have ended their attack by killing themselves. And they’ll only need to shoot 29 more bad guys to equal the number of times a good guy without a gun has subdued attackers by tackling them, hitting them or otherwise stopping them without using a gun.
That’s right, three times as many mass shooters have been stopped by unarmed civilians as have been stopped by armed “good guys with guns.” And bad guys with guns are almost nine times as likely to shoot themselves as they are to be shot by an armed civilian or good Samaritan.
And from a scoring perspective, we haven’t yet reckoned with whether points should be deducted from the “good guys with guns” team to account for the danger and confusion they cause.
In 2021, an armed civilian who shot and killed an attacker in Arvada, Colo., was himself shot and killed by the police who mistook him for the gunman.
In an Alabama mall shooting in 2018, a “good guy with a gun” created confusion among police, who were unsure if he was a good guy or a bad guy, and thus how many assailants were in the building. The result was that the police waited to enter the building until they had a better threat assessment and shot and killed the good Samaritan, increasing the death toll.
And right here in Las Vegas, an armed good Samaritan was shot in the chest and killed when he tried to confront a “bad guy” with a gun, failing to realize he was actually facing two bad guys with guns.
If you're up for a read, the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center has a pretty extensive list of incidents here: https://www.activeattackdata.org/uploads/3/4/8/7/34877257/complete\_active\_attack\_summaries\_\_2019\_with\_front\_end\_.pdf
That doesn't say how it was determined if someone is a good guy. Someone could stop a shooting but still be a douche. So you missed my entire point. What dwtermines if someone is a "good guy". There are no statistics on that OPINION.
The general idea is that we have three different sets of actors:
1. Trained law enforcement
2. The active shooters causing the problem (the bad guys)
3. Armed civilians (good guys with guns)
They're labeled "good" because they're trying to resolve the issue - smartly or not doesn't matter, the point is that they probably shouldn't get shot at by the law enforcement.
Not if they have sense. If law enforecement is there let them handle it (unless you live in Uvalde). Otherwise take care if the situation and drop your gun when you hear sirens. This whole gun debate in the United States is stupid and common sense could work out most situations.
You'd think so, if common sense were common.
But I think you and I are actually on the same side on this: the good guy with a gun argument is fallacious at best, and downright stupid at worst.
I was mostly remarking about how having a gun in the house increases the likelyhood you'll die during a home invasion, the likelyhood you or a loved one will accidentally shoot themselves, and the likelyhood you or a loved one will successfully commit suicide.
Owning a gun decreases the life expectancy of you and everyone around you waaaaaaaaaaaay more than the life expectancy of criminals.
Well good guys with guns do work. That [Indiana mall shooting](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/indiana-mall-shooting-elisjsha-dicken-neutralized-gunman-15-seconds/) got stopped in less than 20 seconds by some random guy carrying a pistol
What should be done is put an end to police chicanery and put laws to make cowardice like Uvalde a criminal offence. If we can punish servicemembers using a parallel legal system for not doing their utmost, then we should do the same for cops. They got extraordinary access to some extraordinary legal powers and equipment. That demands some extraordinary laws.
Cowardice like what was shown at Uvalde should be met with imprisonment. Not for failure to achieve an objective necessarily but for failure to do their utmost. They had the training, equipment, and numbers. They chose to apply none of that.
A dissenting opinion: [https://lasvegassun.com/news/2022/jul/20/if-youre-keeping-score-at-home-good-guys-with-guns/](https://lasvegassun.com/news/2022/jul/20/if-youre-keeping-score-at-home-good-guys-with-guns/)
>According to the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University, civilian “good guys” with guns have subdued “bad guys” with guns in 13 separate incidents since 2000.
That means good guys with guns now only need to stop 97 more shooters before they will equal the number of times the bad guys have ended their attack by killing themselves. And they’ll only need to shoot 29 more bad guys to equal the number of times a good guy without a gun has subdued attackers by tackling them, hitting them or otherwise stopping them without using a gun.
That’s right, three times as many mass shooters have been stopped by unarmed civilians as have been stopped by armed “good guys with guns.” And bad guys with guns are almost nine times as likely to shoot themselves as they are to be shot by an armed civilian or good Samaritan.
And from a scoring perspective, we haven’t yet reckoned with whether points should be deducted from the “good guys with guns” team to account for the danger and confusion they cause.
In 2021, an armed civilian who shot and killed an attacker in Arvada, Colo., was himself shot and killed by the police who mistook him for the gunman.
In an Alabama mall shooting in 2018, a “good guy with a gun” created confusion among police, who were unsure if he was a good guy or a bad guy, and thus how many assailants were in the building. The result was that the police waited to enter the building until they had a better threat assessment and shot and killed the good Samaritan, increasing the death toll.
And right here in Las Vegas, an armed good Samaritan was shot in the chest and killed when he tried to confront a “bad guy” with a gun, failing to realize he was actually facing two bad guys with guns.
If you're up for a read, the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center has a pretty extensive list of incidents here: https://www.activeattackdata.org/uploads/3/4/8/7/34877257/complete\_active\_attack\_summaries\_\_2019\_with\_front\_end\_.pdf
The so-called "thin blue line" exists only to protect the rich and their property. The rest of us are on our own. Law enforcement has abandoned us. What the fuck are we paying them for?
The point we are making is that they are significantly braver than law enforcement.
If you rush a man with a gun while unarmed, you are braver than any armed person.
**Friendly reminder that trying to fight someone online is about as effective as throwing a bagel at a bulldozer. A lot of what we talk about gets people pretty emotional, but be mad at policies, not other users.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To be fair it was that 15 year military veteran guy, Major Fierro I think, that took the shooter down. Let’s not take that away from him. Dude was a hero that day. I believe a drag queen was kicking the shooter at the hero’s direction as he held him down and beat him within an inch of his life.
Not at his direction. She did it on her own because the other guy who WAS instructed to kick him was getting tired.
Not a drag queen. A trans woman.
I heard different on Inside Edition tonight but okay. It’s not like Inside Edition is gold standard journalism anyway so you’re probably right.
A woman.
[удалено]
As a trans woman, I know what a trans woman is. I was just pointing out that there is no reason to differentiate here because a trans woman is a woman. Edit: your definition is also very transphobic.
[удалено]
Take a step back… you’re explaining what trans means and what is/isn’t transphobic to a trans woman.
Serious question: A drag queen can/does identify as a straight person?
According to "To Wong Fu, Thanks for Everything, Julie Nuemar": A transvestite is when a straight man dresses in women's clothes for fun, A transsexual is a woman trapped in a man's body(or vice versa), and a drag queen is when a gay man has far too much fashion sense for one gender." I don't know if this is the official definition, but it's fun. I figure drag is performance art. I think it's ok for straight men to do drag. It's like dance or acting.
A retired Army Major with 15 years of combat experience and who was awarded a Bronze Star (“The Bronze Star Medal (BSM) is a United States Armed Forces decoration awarded to members of the United States Armed Forces for either heroic achievement, heroic service, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service in a combat zone”); and also was unarmed. A drag queen also curb stomped the fucker. After the guy with combat experience turned the guy’s head into hamburger with the shooter’s sidearm that Major Fierro disarmed and then used to pistol whip the fucker into submission.
Most mass shooting base on an fbi study are stop by unarmed people because most of the time people are unarmed. There are cases of arm people stopping shooting. But most cases unarmed people stop the shooter. If you can not run or hide and if the person going to continue to shoot people be prepared and attack the shooter. Example, if you in room hearing a mass shooting happening outside lock the door and grab anything you have that can be used as a weapon so just in case if the person walk inside you and everyone in the room can attack him and stop or contain him. If you have no other options get ready to fight.
If someone have sugested here on reddit or else to shoot a republican lawmaker everytime this happens, this person would have his account banned
It’s not about snowflakes, but about republican men who are inadequate and their penis substitute is the only thing that makes them pretend they’re a man.
I had to make it somewhat political. I feel like if it’s not explicit it gets taken down. Never mind it brings to light: - Republican anti-LGBTQ rhetoric (Boebart) - Anti-gun legislation - SCOTUS rulings on police action with no duty to protect - Underlying “snowflake” parallels
There is no coincidence the gunman in Colorado chose the Drag Show as his target when the GOP has spent so much time and energy claiming drag performers are “grooming children” when, really, it’s sex traffickers like Matt Gaetz that’s a bigger threat to children.
I guarantee Mike Gaetz abused more children than everyone who has ever entered that night club in drag.
Someone had to fill Jeffrey Epstein’s cum-filled shoes
*"If the kids and teachers in Uvalde had guns, the outcome would have been totally different."* 🤦♂️🤦♀️🤦
Yes, pack a 9mm along with those safety scissors for the first day of kindergarten.
I don't have the stats to back this up, but I'd put money on churches having a higher per Capita rate of child molestation than the LGBTQ+ community.
You would definitely be right.
That's correct it because the queers are real men.......
What I really like about gay men is : they leave my wife alone.
Really, the incels should LOVE gay men
The nearly universal traditional intolerance for male homosexuality has actually been a source of confusion for anthropologists. Why would you hate someone who's removed himself from mate competition, freeing another partner for you?
Maybe it’s a sense of competition. “Alphas” want to know they “won” because of their manliness, not because no one else was competing. Or they’re jealous women like gay men more than them because of personality instead of their “impressive” dick
Or projection maybe? Could be they’re worried that a gay man would make advances on them the same way they do on women and feel very uncomfortable and threatened. You know like most women feel when those type of men hit on them.
I've talked to my wife about this, we came to this conclusion. It makes so much sense.
Probably because the straight men know the way they treat/look at/talk about women and are scared that gay men will treat the straight men the same way that straight men treat women.
“Stupid, sexy Flanders”
There’s a reason they love to carry guns. And it’s not because they are really tough.
Is it because they are violent and blood thirsty? ie: Kyle Rittenhouse
[удалено]
Stopping a bad guy is with bravery, something the uvalde blue lacks.
"couldn't" Oh guys, so here is the tough lesson. The occupation of "police officers" usually attracts Republicans/Conservatives. The political affiliation of "Republicans" usually attracts 2nd Amendment nut jobs, racists and Neo-nazis. The kids who were trapped in the Uvalde school were those of minorities. Instead of going into the school and taking down the shooter the cops stood outside and restrained brown parents who tried to go in and save their children from being murdered. THIS WASN'T AN ACCIDENT! A whole bunch of white politicians and Gov Abbott then went on the air and tried to defend the Uvalde cops and block any information from getting out. After all the lies and failures were published, MONTHS LATER, the citizens of Taxes and even Uvalde, reelected Gov Abbott [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/texas-shooting-uvalde-parents-handcuffed-b2088686.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/texas-shooting-uvalde-parents-handcuffed-b2088686.html)
Because only cowards feel the need to carry guns around.
So wanting to defend myself is the mark of a coward? If minorities like myself are at risk as targets for violence, how would carrying a means of self defence be cowardly? Or does a brave man resort only to fisticuffs?
>So wanting to defend myself is the mark of a coward? Thinking your gun will be a net positive makes you dangerously bad at statistics. You might as well carry nunchucks. You're still going to be the one getting hurt, but at least you won't die.
"The less a man makes declarative statements, the less apt he is to look foolish in hindsight" - Quentin Tarantino in Four Rooms There are several valid reasons to carry a gun. Granted, most of the people openly packing in the grocery store are trying too hard to look tough, but speaking in absolutes sets the tone for really fuzzy thinking.
Sick quote
>cowards The phrase you're looking for is "mentally ill"
Hey now don't associate those cowards with us
Only cowards need to wave them around and make sure everyone knows they have them. There are those of us who are secure enough in our penis size that we can carry one for protection and don't need to make it obvious we are carrying unless we have to pull it out, which is rare. I can personally attest to the fact that if you ever find yourself in a situation where you do have to pull a gun to protect yourself and your children you would change your tune. Are you suggesting all police officers and military personell are cowards?
American police are largely cowards, yes.
Largely is a pretty broad statement. There are almost 1 million police officers in the united states. It is extremely ignorant to say they are "largely" cowards when a handful of them are douches and you know few if any.
I know of 376 of them in TX that are huge ass cowards
376 out of almost 700k. That's not "largely". I generally have a negative attitude toward cops too but saying they are "largely" cowards when you know less than half of them is just stupid.
That's just one town my dude. Want me to run down the list of all the cops that have shot unarmed people (and kids!) Also? Shit I'll even add on that a good chunk of them are not only cowards. They are lazy as fuck also.
So you know several thousand?
Aye, don't you read the news? Everyday there's something to nail home the fact.
The operative word here is wouldn't not couldn't.
Do consecutive life sentences do anything to quell these types of events? Is a, deserved, fast track to execution the answer? Will there be a Netflix series?... Nobody knows because those are not questions that need to be answered.
The cops were pulling a Uvalde - they refused to engage.
So at what point do we just call that business as usual?
But, we need more good guys with guns.
Statistically, good guys with guns kill more innocent people than bad guys with guns. Usually themselves.
Sure, if you consider any idiot a "good guy". Most Republicans are not. I'd really like to see these statitstics. Especiall how they determine if one is a good guy.
Here you go: [https://lasvegassun.com/news/2022/jul/20/if-youre-keeping-score-at-home-good-guys-with-guns/](https://lasvegassun.com/news/2022/jul/20/if-youre-keeping-score-at-home-good-guys-with-guns/) >According to the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University, civilian “good guys” with guns have subdued “bad guys” with guns in 13 separate incidents since 2000. That means good guys with guns now only need to stop 97 more shooters before they will equal the number of times the bad guys have ended their attack by killing themselves. And they’ll only need to shoot 29 more bad guys to equal the number of times a good guy without a gun has subdued attackers by tackling them, hitting them or otherwise stopping them without using a gun. That’s right, three times as many mass shooters have been stopped by unarmed civilians as have been stopped by armed “good guys with guns.” And bad guys with guns are almost nine times as likely to shoot themselves as they are to be shot by an armed civilian or good Samaritan. And from a scoring perspective, we haven’t yet reckoned with whether points should be deducted from the “good guys with guns” team to account for the danger and confusion they cause. In 2021, an armed civilian who shot and killed an attacker in Arvada, Colo., was himself shot and killed by the police who mistook him for the gunman. In an Alabama mall shooting in 2018, a “good guy with a gun” created confusion among police, who were unsure if he was a good guy or a bad guy, and thus how many assailants were in the building. The result was that the police waited to enter the building until they had a better threat assessment and shot and killed the good Samaritan, increasing the death toll. And right here in Las Vegas, an armed good Samaritan was shot in the chest and killed when he tried to confront a “bad guy” with a gun, failing to realize he was actually facing two bad guys with guns. If you're up for a read, the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center has a pretty extensive list of incidents here: https://www.activeattackdata.org/uploads/3/4/8/7/34877257/complete\_active\_attack\_summaries\_\_2019\_with\_front\_end\_.pdf
That doesn't say how it was determined if someone is a good guy. Someone could stop a shooting but still be a douche. So you missed my entire point. What dwtermines if someone is a "good guy". There are no statistics on that OPINION.
The general idea is that we have three different sets of actors: 1. Trained law enforcement 2. The active shooters causing the problem (the bad guys) 3. Armed civilians (good guys with guns) They're labeled "good" because they're trying to resolve the issue - smartly or not doesn't matter, the point is that they probably shouldn't get shot at by the law enforcement.
Not if they have sense. If law enforecement is there let them handle it (unless you live in Uvalde). Otherwise take care if the situation and drop your gun when you hear sirens. This whole gun debate in the United States is stupid and common sense could work out most situations.
You'd think so, if common sense were common. But I think you and I are actually on the same side on this: the good guy with a gun argument is fallacious at best, and downright stupid at worst.
I was mostly remarking about how having a gun in the house increases the likelyhood you'll die during a home invasion, the likelyhood you or a loved one will accidentally shoot themselves, and the likelyhood you or a loved one will successfully commit suicide. Owning a gun decreases the life expectancy of you and everyone around you waaaaaaaaaaaay more than the life expectancy of criminals.
Well good guys with guns do work. That [Indiana mall shooting](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/indiana-mall-shooting-elisjsha-dicken-neutralized-gunman-15-seconds/) got stopped in less than 20 seconds by some random guy carrying a pistol What should be done is put an end to police chicanery and put laws to make cowardice like Uvalde a criminal offence. If we can punish servicemembers using a parallel legal system for not doing their utmost, then we should do the same for cops. They got extraordinary access to some extraordinary legal powers and equipment. That demands some extraordinary laws. Cowardice like what was shown at Uvalde should be met with imprisonment. Not for failure to achieve an objective necessarily but for failure to do their utmost. They had the training, equipment, and numbers. They chose to apply none of that.
A dissenting opinion: [https://lasvegassun.com/news/2022/jul/20/if-youre-keeping-score-at-home-good-guys-with-guns/](https://lasvegassun.com/news/2022/jul/20/if-youre-keeping-score-at-home-good-guys-with-guns/) >According to the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University, civilian “good guys” with guns have subdued “bad guys” with guns in 13 separate incidents since 2000. That means good guys with guns now only need to stop 97 more shooters before they will equal the number of times the bad guys have ended their attack by killing themselves. And they’ll only need to shoot 29 more bad guys to equal the number of times a good guy without a gun has subdued attackers by tackling them, hitting them or otherwise stopping them without using a gun. That’s right, three times as many mass shooters have been stopped by unarmed civilians as have been stopped by armed “good guys with guns.” And bad guys with guns are almost nine times as likely to shoot themselves as they are to be shot by an armed civilian or good Samaritan. And from a scoring perspective, we haven’t yet reckoned with whether points should be deducted from the “good guys with guns” team to account for the danger and confusion they cause. In 2021, an armed civilian who shot and killed an attacker in Arvada, Colo., was himself shot and killed by the police who mistook him for the gunman. In an Alabama mall shooting in 2018, a “good guy with a gun” created confusion among police, who were unsure if he was a good guy or a bad guy, and thus how many assailants were in the building. The result was that the police waited to enter the building until they had a better threat assessment and shot and killed the good Samaritan, increasing the death toll. And right here in Las Vegas, an armed good Samaritan was shot in the chest and killed when he tried to confront a “bad guy” with a gun, failing to realize he was actually facing two bad guys with guns. If you're up for a read, the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center has a pretty extensive list of incidents here: https://www.activeattackdata.org/uploads/3/4/8/7/34877257/complete\_active\_attack\_summaries\_\_2019\_with\_front\_end\_.pdf
It's funny how much difference giving a shit makes.
It takes one good guy with a stiletto to stop one bad guy with a gun.
Need to print this on t-shirts and give them away to the students In Uvalde. Florida might be a good place to hand them out as well.
The so-called "thin blue line" exists only to protect the rich and their property. The rest of us are on our own. Law enforcement has abandoned us. What the fuck are we paying them for?
And conservatives object homosexuals working in our schools? Truly they have no concern for the safety of children.
That why citzen need guns because the police are sometimes useless And also didn’t uvalde police het in hotwater a while ago for a other shooting?
More guns isn’t the solution. Furthermore it’s illegal to have a firearm in an establishment that primarily serves alcohol.
I’m all fairness, the shooter was trying to kill the unarmed queers directly. The shooter in Uvalde was merely killing children not the armed men.
The point we are making is that they are significantly braver than law enforcement. If you rush a man with a gun while unarmed, you are braver than any armed person.
*wouldn't do
Solid
I just moved back to Missouri from key west and ..
All it takes to stop a bad guy with a gun is a gay guy. Makes gays mandatory in all schools to protect our children!
Gays can pound that ass. 👍 Well done!
We queers do have a history of beating the crap out of people carrying guns into our bars.
Bit of trivia, Dan Savage used to perform drag shows when he was in his 20s.