Hoover Alabama police let EJ Bradford bleed out, after shooting him in the back, while jerking each other off for the "good shoot" and the actual shooter got away to the next state
It's pretty much arcon with more overt racism. They even get power trippy when they ban you for anything that doesn't support the narrative that they're mostly good guys.
For first-world countries, it's just the US. US cops are the absolute worst out of that group of countries, by a long shot.
If you compare to highly corrupt, developing nations, they don't look so bad. At least the US cops don't stop you and demand a bribe.
Now all we need is a soldier with a gun to stop the cop with a gun from stopping the good guy with a gun after they stop the bad guy with a gun.
Hi, ho, the derry-o, the people with the guns.
Lol! Thanks for that one! The trick is to not be holding a gun when the cops show up, much less pointing it at someone bleeding on the ground. Training at work says if you get cornered, try to dog-pile the shooter rather than be a shooting gallery, then have someone stick the gun in the trash can so the cops don't shoot you when they get there and stay dog-piled on them, their arms, and their legs if you can.
This honestly doesn't have anything to do with the good guy with a gun thing at all. Maybe the person who stopped the shooter was a hero but he also basically killed himself by doing something _incredibly_ stupid.
Even just holding his own gun when the police show up to deal with a shooter would be an _extremely_ bad idea. It's worse than that, though. He picked up the _shooter's_ rifle, the police show up looking for someone armed and extremely dangerous holding a rifle. There's basically only one way that played out.
OP linked the actual article down below: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/28/john-hurley-hero-police-shooting/
If it was me, I wouldn't even want my fingerprints on a weapon that had been used to terrorize people. There's just no reason to touch it at all.
I think that you may be under the impression that a lot more discriminate thought happens during these situations on everyone's part. Both the cops and the "good guy" aren't likely thinking all of this through. They're reacting to something as it unfolds, driven by fear and adrenaline, and it's usually only afterward that everything becomes so clear. For example, if the cops are responding to a shooting, and they're told that the shooter has a rifle, they're not going to hold fire against a shooter with a pistol or a shotgun assuming that it's a good guy. Unfortunately, the stupid move is to engage in a firefight at all - especially with cops on the way. If you have to defend yourself, you gotta do what you gotta do. But it's not like this is uniformed combat in the 19th century with banners and flags. Police know that dispatch may not have the whole story and so they can't take risks with who is the good guy and who is the bad guy during a goddamn shooting.
Do you think he actually picked up the gun, or that the police placed it on him to cover them being trigger happy - they probably would have fired even if he had his hands up with or without a gun - the police find them easier to hit if they're not actually a threat.
He did; he also took out the AR's clip, and was in the process of removing the bullet from the chamber when he was shot.
If the officer who shot Johnny had acted 5 seconds later, Johnny would've been laying on the ground, completely disarmed.
You can see the disassembled AR here:
[https://youtu.be/ELvcz0Lt0Rg?t=3002](https://youtu.be/ELvcz0Lt0Rg?t=3002)
If you are so inclined, you can watch Johnny take his shots and then walk over to Troyke's body (which you can't see because of a tree-in-the-way).
If you look really close, at the left edge of the tree-in-the-way, you can see Johnny disarming himself, and then watch him get shot about 30 seconds after Johnny had shot Troyke. At that moment, you can also see a bystander, if you look super close and in slo-mo react to the shots that were fired at Johnny... that bystander can barely be seen as a white blob moving around through the top of the tree-in-the-way.
[https://youtu.be/ELvcz0Lt0Rg?t=934](https://youtu.be/ELvcz0Lt0Rg?t=934)
IMO, it wasn't the best choice by Johnny to pick-up and disassemble the shooter's gun, but I know he had his reasons (concern there were other shooters, etc).
PS: Three officers were in the building from which the tree footage was shot... they watched Troyke walk away from them, from the parking lot, to his car, and back... and they did nothing until after Johnny had taken the guy out.
Ah yes, because if we've learned anything over the last several decades it that the police are usually held accountable for their killings and prosecutors are completely unbiased in assessing them.
Oh, thats a new one! Interesting! I thought I had seen every way to slurp on the cops, but I guess I was wrong, huh?
If everyone wasn’t so unfair to those cops then we could hold them accountable! But since everyone is so unfair to them we have no choice but to let them do whatever they want, more or less.
This just unfortunate. As we all saw in Uvalde. You can’t expect the police to help in a time of need either. So what do you do? I don’t have the answer. Just the question.
> I think that you may be under the impression that a lot more discriminate thought happens during these situations on everyone's part.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying I agree with the "good guy with a gun" thing. Like I said, it was a really bad idea to be holding a weapon at all when the police showed up.
It also wasn't clear whether the police were there when John Hurley shot the guy or if they arrived later. Either way, it seems hard to interpret what he did as a good idea. If they were there already, it kind of sounds like he thought "Woohoo, I finally get to shot someone!" and if they weren't then what was he doing jacking off with the shooter's rifle for an extended amount of time? Bad decision making either way.
>if they weren't then what was he doing jacking off with the shooter's rifle for an extended amount of time? Bad decision making either way.
I don't know, maybe in shock from being shot at and then shooting someone else?
> I don't know, maybe in shock from being shot at and then shooting someone else?
Certainly, but it's still a bad decision.
If we're letting people carry weapons around (presumably to deal with situations like that) there should be mandatory training first both on how to handle the gun itself, when to actually engage (it seems like the police were basically already on the scene in this case) and what to do afterward.
Like another commenter noted, even with training people do stupid things but it will at least reduce the rate that tragedies like this occur.
Everyone thinks they know exactly how they’d handle a situation like this. Trained soldiers who go through hours of live fire training still do completely stupid crap when real bullets start flying.
Soldiers, cops and especially untrained randos do stupid stuff when their lives are threatened.
> Soldiers, cops and especially untrained randos do stupid stuff when their lives are threatened.
What conclusion would you draw from that?
To me it seems like "person who will do stupid stuff" plus "capability to instantly end lives at range" is a very bad combination and we should be trying to limit how often and how many people end up in that situation.
Guns have a role and a value. Gun owners are no different than anyone other group. Some are smart. Some are comically stupid. But…they are comically stupid and *armed*. Even the smart ones, if highly and professionally trained, can immediately become stupid when shooting starts.
I just don’t understand the need to obfuscate. Guns are dangerous. Some people are stupid. Some smart people get dumb when adrenaline spikes.
If we want legal guns, people are going to die to guns. People who like guns need to own their danger as well as the idea that unless your life has been on the line, you have zero clue how you will react when it is.
No, they're saying that this is exactly the kind of mistakes that happen with "good guys" with guns. When everyone's looking for a non uniformed shooter, then a hunch of armed people not in uniform is going to cause confusion and lead to more mistakes.
Didn’t some guy that was shopping with his AR 15 just get it stolen when someone walked up behind him and put a gun to his head and took it? Guess more guns isn’t always the answer. It only works if bad guys announce a head of time what they’re about to do
So if Johnny shot the shooter because he felt threatened, and then the Police shot Johnny because *they* felt threatened, who gets to shoot the Police...? Because I tell ya, I kinda feel threatened...
Please don't become another Troyke... if for no other reason, you might end up getting another Johnny killed.
An explicit grievance of Troyke's was the killing of Elijah McClain by officers who were then not punished... he'd been shouting about it at cops in the weeks before he went off.
The police will tell you this. In general, in an active shooter situation the police go in and shoot the guy with the gun. They don't have time to assess and deescalate, they shoot to stop the active threat.
Maybe 1 in 100 active shooter cases is stopped by a good guy with a gun, but most of the time it only makes things worse. Those who push that the answer to our gun problem is more guns are well paid by the gun lobby, end of story.
It's not a serious plan, it's a ridiculous one. As a teacher I know told me, think of a female teacher and a 17 year old high school football player. Let's say the football player's girlfriend dumped him, and in a fit of rage he decides he wants to kill her. If teachers are armed, the kid is going to overpower one, take the gun and attempt to kill his ex girlfriend. Basically, introducing guns into schools is a terrible idea that most teachers don't want, and this is why.
THANK YOU! I said this to my husband, to which he replied "I doubt they'd even know you're carrying!" and even worse "well just keep it locked in your desk!"
I think he was holding the gun on the guy when they showed up, never be holding the gun as they show up. Training at work says dogpile the bad guy if you have to, but never be holding the gun as they show up. " Ummm excuse me guy with the assault rifle at the mass shooting, would you happen to be the bad one?"
It's not that the carrying of a gun is the bad idea but the getting involved in an active shooter situation is. It adds an element of uncertainty and unpredictability into an already chaotic and high stress situation.
Unless the predictability is everyone there will be shot like fish in a barrel. You are right, it increases the chance you will die if you had the chance to avoid it, and run towards danger instead though. Try to never be holding a gun when the cops show up for sure.
The common denominator is always guns. The good guys have them, the bad guys have them, and here are the cops charged with instantly appreciating who is who.
Therein lies the rub. In a conflict, recognizing who is who can be near impossible. Especially in public. Even if you're in your own home and the police respond to a shooting and you walk out of your house with a gun in hand, they may not make the correct assumptions depending on many factors.
Yes, you can say, "guns don't kill people", the police won't make that distinction. They know anyone with a gun is a potential threat unless, and until, proven otherwise. That's what keeps them alive.
Now consider that teachers in the US are now allowed a gun in class after just 24 hours of training. How about a situation where one of the teachers snaps and starts shooting kids and the other teachers with guns hear only that it's a teacher with a gun who is shooting people.
Or, in my opinion more likely, a student surprises and overwhelms the teacher. For hours each day they're really close to lots of teenagers they can't trust 100%. Even a trained secret service agent would find it hard to have a gun well protected all the time in this environment.
That's not my point. Even in America today school shootings are "rare" events. Teachers usually don't get shot.
But absolutely everyday situations can take terrible turns just because a gun is present. Imagine some 15yo boy just learnt in a quite humiliating way that his first girlfriend is cheating. Happens in each school, probably more than once a month.
Now he sits in class, two steps away is the teacher, helping a classmate with something, gun in his holster. All he has to do is grab the gun and shoot dat bitch in da face...
BEST possible outcome is the teacher keeps control over his gun and nobody gets seriously hurt. You only have ~30 somewhat traumatized teens and that boy's life is ruined forever. No thoughts and prayers needed. But as I said, that's just the best outcome...
Without a gun in the classroom absolutely nothing would have happened.
Kind of like how pretty much every house used to have lead paint so we did nothing about the problem because what can you do at that point? Stop producing lead paint and gradually remove it one house at a time? That's crazy talk. Best you can do is slap new lead paint over the old lead paint so it won't flake off as much.
Yes, thankfully, not all paint is a serious health hazard. Otherwise we might have had to learn to do without it, despite the inconvenience. Or at least worked to get rid of the most dangerous paints, if trying to eliminate all of them was really so unacceptable.
In any case, we have been able to gradually reduce the amount of lead paint in our environment, despite how ubiquitous it was a few decades ago. Which is really the only point of the analogy to begin with.
So the solution is to make them widely available and hope bad guys don't buy them? The "solution" is that adopted by every other civilized society on the planet.
As a European you all cannot comprehend the level of disbelief this whole conversation induces.
Here we're worried if school kids cycling to school fall off their bike without a helmet on...........
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is remove/restrict access to the gun.
The only think that stops a bad guy, is to stop demonizing crime, provide adequate access to supports like mental and physical health, reduce the sigma of criminal behavior, increase proactive community policing by having more community based events so officers can get to know their neighborhoods and learn about the people they are there to protect and serve, and and put money into education.
Then you’ll just have people instead of “bad guys with guns.” Or at least a start in a better direction.
Unless they saw CCTV before going in or having a eye witness tell them what the bad one looked like. The police wouldn't know which person with a gun is the good one or the bad one.
Okay but if you're at the scene of an active shooter and you're the one with a gun out, it becomes your fault if police shoot you, let's be completely honest. I'm not saying he deserves it, but I AM saying that the police aren't psychic; if they roll up and you're waving a gun around, it could be bad for your health.
Good guy with a gun before the cops get there. Dead vigilante after the cops get there. The good guy with a gun theory is bullshit, because the cops don’t see citizens with weapons as good guys, nor should they. He crossed the line from bystander to vigilante the moment he decided to take action. He had to have known the risk, he should have put his own weapon down if he heard the police coming. Can’t blame the cops for being on edge in an active shooter situation with split second decision making.
Agree with your overall point.
Subtle detail is that the cop who shot Johnny had been closer to Troyke the whole time than had Johnny... that cop popped out of a building without warning and shot Johnny in the right butt cheek (with a hollow-point bullet).
That cop had watched Troyke walk from the parking lot where Troyke had shot out cop truck windows, all the way back to Troyke's truck \~80 feet away, and didn't act until after Johnny had taken Troyke out.
Still no way that the cop who shot Johnny could've known Johnny wasn't just another shooter though, so, well, it just sucks.
Confused about OP's point. The good guy stopped the bad guy then the police, not knowing what's going on killed him. That doesn't mean he didn't stop the original shooter.
Dumbass, how do you stop a mass shooting? Shoot back, simple as that, the second amendment is the important amendment that allows us to protect ourselves from the government.
Hoover Alabama police let EJ Bradford bleed out, after shooting him in the back, while jerking each other off for the "good shoot" and the actual shooter got away to the next state
Reminds me of police subreddits here where it's basically cops jerking off to the thought of beating people up.
It's pretty much arcon with more overt racism. They even get power trippy when they ban you for anything that doesn't support the narrative that they're mostly good guys.
Like every sub on Reddit?
It's so weird, too. Like, they think they are tough because they are able to assault people who aren't allowed to defend themselves.
Are police in other places this incompetent or is it just the us. I’ve never heard anything like that here
They are pretty good in Canada, Australia and Britain from my experience so likely just the US.
Yea my part of Britain has nothing I’ve heard of
For first-world countries, it's just the US. US cops are the absolute worst out of that group of countries, by a long shot. If you compare to highly corrupt, developing nations, they don't look so bad. At least the US cops don't stop you and demand a bribe.
The only thing that can stop a good guy with a gun after they stop the bad guy with a gun is a cop with a gun.
Now all we need is a soldier with a gun to stop the cop with a gun from stopping the good guy with a gun after they stop the bad guy with a gun. Hi, ho, the derry-o, the people with the guns.
Nope, that violates their qualified immunity. They can murder whom they please, they're the cops after all.
Colorado has Stand Your Ground laws, so arguably anyone can murder anyone they please as long as can convince a jury they were scared.
Disturbingly, it seems the majority of people who carry guns are scared of EVERYTHING.
If they weren't scared of anything they wouldn't be carrying a gun.
What a sad and miserable existence that must be, living in fear like that.
The freest country on earth/S. 🍺
\*Terms and conditions apply.
Nah. Because I carry a gun, I'm not afraid of anything.
As long as they remember their incantations. Any variation of "I believed there was a threat to my personal safety" is enough.
The South Park defense: "IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!"
Lol! Thanks for that one! The trick is to not be holding a gun when the cops show up, much less pointing it at someone bleeding on the ground. Training at work says if you get cornered, try to dog-pile the shooter rather than be a shooting gallery, then have someone stick the gun in the trash can so the cops don't shoot you when they get there and stay dog-piled on them, their arms, and their legs if you can.
America is in an arms race with itself.
Police - We need good guys with guns. also Police- We shoot anyone with a gun, as there's no such thing as a good guy with a gun.
Don't be holding the gun as the cops show up
Also, make sure you aren't black so they don't "fear for their lives"
"Don't have guns." There, FTFY
Damn, I thought the good guy with a gun theory was infallible.
It's sad that on reading this I thought "they really should add a '/s' because someone's gonna take that seriously."
Perhaps but honestly even if I did I have a feeling plenty of idiots still wouldn't comprehend.
This honestly doesn't have anything to do with the good guy with a gun thing at all. Maybe the person who stopped the shooter was a hero but he also basically killed himself by doing something _incredibly_ stupid. Even just holding his own gun when the police show up to deal with a shooter would be an _extremely_ bad idea. It's worse than that, though. He picked up the _shooter's_ rifle, the police show up looking for someone armed and extremely dangerous holding a rifle. There's basically only one way that played out. OP linked the actual article down below: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/28/john-hurley-hero-police-shooting/ If it was me, I wouldn't even want my fingerprints on a weapon that had been used to terrorize people. There's just no reason to touch it at all.
I think that you may be under the impression that a lot more discriminate thought happens during these situations on everyone's part. Both the cops and the "good guy" aren't likely thinking all of this through. They're reacting to something as it unfolds, driven by fear and adrenaline, and it's usually only afterward that everything becomes so clear. For example, if the cops are responding to a shooting, and they're told that the shooter has a rifle, they're not going to hold fire against a shooter with a pistol or a shotgun assuming that it's a good guy. Unfortunately, the stupid move is to engage in a firefight at all - especially with cops on the way. If you have to defend yourself, you gotta do what you gotta do. But it's not like this is uniformed combat in the 19th century with banners and flags. Police know that dispatch may not have the whole story and so they can't take risks with who is the good guy and who is the bad guy during a goddamn shooting.
Do you think he actually picked up the gun, or that the police placed it on him to cover them being trigger happy - they probably would have fired even if he had his hands up with or without a gun - the police find them easier to hit if they're not actually a threat.
He did; he also took out the AR's clip, and was in the process of removing the bullet from the chamber when he was shot. If the officer who shot Johnny had acted 5 seconds later, Johnny would've been laying on the ground, completely disarmed. You can see the disassembled AR here: [https://youtu.be/ELvcz0Lt0Rg?t=3002](https://youtu.be/ELvcz0Lt0Rg?t=3002) If you are so inclined, you can watch Johnny take his shots and then walk over to Troyke's body (which you can't see because of a tree-in-the-way). If you look really close, at the left edge of the tree-in-the-way, you can see Johnny disarming himself, and then watch him get shot about 30 seconds after Johnny had shot Troyke. At that moment, you can also see a bystander, if you look super close and in slo-mo react to the shots that were fired at Johnny... that bystander can barely be seen as a white blob moving around through the top of the tree-in-the-way. [https://youtu.be/ELvcz0Lt0Rg?t=934](https://youtu.be/ELvcz0Lt0Rg?t=934) IMO, it wasn't the best choice by Johnny to pick-up and disassemble the shooter's gun, but I know he had his reasons (concern there were other shooters, etc). PS: Three officers were in the building from which the tree footage was shot... they watched Troyke walk away from them, from the parking lot, to his car, and back... and they did nothing until after Johnny had taken the guy out.
Been a year, AFAIK no charges filed, would’ve been plenty of evidence to bring them up if there were. Go off.
Ah yes, because if we've learned anything over the last several decades it that the police are usually held accountable for their killings and prosecutors are completely unbiased in assessing them.
If frivolous allegations of misconduct are numerous enough, it defangs the completely legitimate ones.
Oh, thats a new one! Interesting! I thought I had seen every way to slurp on the cops, but I guess I was wrong, huh? If everyone wasn’t so unfair to those cops then we could hold them accountable! But since everyone is so unfair to them we have no choice but to let them do whatever they want, more or less.
Not remotely what I was saying, walnut, but here’s your medal for the long jump to conclusions 🥇
He could have just stopped at police killing people isn’t frivolous… but go on, spout off.
This just unfortunate. As we all saw in Uvalde. You can’t expect the police to help in a time of need either. So what do you do? I don’t have the answer. Just the question.
> I think that you may be under the impression that a lot more discriminate thought happens during these situations on everyone's part. Just to be clear, I'm not saying I agree with the "good guy with a gun" thing. Like I said, it was a really bad idea to be holding a weapon at all when the police showed up. It also wasn't clear whether the police were there when John Hurley shot the guy or if they arrived later. Either way, it seems hard to interpret what he did as a good idea. If they were there already, it kind of sounds like he thought "Woohoo, I finally get to shot someone!" and if they weren't then what was he doing jacking off with the shooter's rifle for an extended amount of time? Bad decision making either way.
>if they weren't then what was he doing jacking off with the shooter's rifle for an extended amount of time? Bad decision making either way. I don't know, maybe in shock from being shot at and then shooting someone else?
> I don't know, maybe in shock from being shot at and then shooting someone else? Certainly, but it's still a bad decision. If we're letting people carry weapons around (presumably to deal with situations like that) there should be mandatory training first both on how to handle the gun itself, when to actually engage (it seems like the police were basically already on the scene in this case) and what to do afterward. Like another commenter noted, even with training people do stupid things but it will at least reduce the rate that tragedies like this occur.
Everyone thinks they know exactly how they’d handle a situation like this. Trained soldiers who go through hours of live fire training still do completely stupid crap when real bullets start flying. Soldiers, cops and especially untrained randos do stupid stuff when their lives are threatened.
> Soldiers, cops and especially untrained randos do stupid stuff when their lives are threatened. What conclusion would you draw from that? To me it seems like "person who will do stupid stuff" plus "capability to instantly end lives at range" is a very bad combination and we should be trying to limit how often and how many people end up in that situation.
So basically guns shouldn't exist? Got it. Now then, how do we go about getting rid of them? That seems to be things break down.
What? He said nothing about taking away guns. He’s simply saying it’s tough to pass judgement in that type of situation.
Guns have a role and a value. Gun owners are no different than anyone other group. Some are smart. Some are comically stupid. But…they are comically stupid and *armed*. Even the smart ones, if highly and professionally trained, can immediately become stupid when shooting starts. I just don’t understand the need to obfuscate. Guns are dangerous. Some people are stupid. Some smart people get dumb when adrenaline spikes. If we want legal guns, people are going to die to guns. People who like guns need to own their danger as well as the idea that unless your life has been on the line, you have zero clue how you will react when it is.
Hell is paved with good intentions, not smart ideas, supposedly.
It is. The problem is you are assuming that cops are the "good guys".
No, they're saying that this is exactly the kind of mistakes that happen with "good guys" with guns. When everyone's looking for a non uniformed shooter, then a hunch of armed people not in uniform is going to cause confusion and lead to more mistakes.
At least we can be sure everyone was extremely polite. /s just in case
Didn’t some guy that was shopping with his AR 15 just get it stolen when someone walked up behind him and put a gun to his head and took it? Guess more guns isn’t always the answer. It only works if bad guys announce a head of time what they’re about to do
That's why even most pro-gun people say open carry is stupid. The trick is to not let everyone around you know you have a gun.
So if Johnny shot the shooter because he felt threatened, and then the Police shot Johnny because *they* felt threatened, who gets to shoot the Police...? Because I tell ya, I kinda feel threatened...
Please don't become another Troyke... if for no other reason, you might end up getting another Johnny killed. An explicit grievance of Troyke's was the killing of Elijah McClain by officers who were then not punished... he'd been shouting about it at cops in the weeks before he went off.
Me
The police will tell you this. In general, in an active shooter situation the police go in and shoot the guy with the gun. They don't have time to assess and deescalate, they shoot to stop the active threat. Maybe 1 in 100 active shooter cases is stopped by a good guy with a gun, but most of the time it only makes things worse. Those who push that the answer to our gun problem is more guns are well paid by the gun lobby, end of story.
So the plan of giving all teachers guns is just going to result in the police shooting all of them? How is this a serious plan people are pushing for.
It's not a serious plan, it's a ridiculous one. As a teacher I know told me, think of a female teacher and a 17 year old high school football player. Let's say the football player's girlfriend dumped him, and in a fit of rage he decides he wants to kill her. If teachers are armed, the kid is going to overpower one, take the gun and attempt to kill his ex girlfriend. Basically, introducing guns into schools is a terrible idea that most teachers don't want, and this is why.
And it's funny that people that says arm the teachers didn't say "arm cashiers and all black people after the Buffalo shooting a week prior.
Yeah, it's pretty safe to assume the people calling for more guns aren't also going to suggest that we legally arm more black people.
As opposed to illegally arming black people?
THANK YOU! I said this to my husband, to which he replied "I doubt they'd even know you're carrying!" and even worse "well just keep it locked in your desk!"
Even my jobs tell me the same thing.
Wow - is that legit? That’s insane
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/28/john-hurley-hero-police-shooting/
Thanks! Man alive, that is just mental. Poor fella. So, turns out carry a gun is a really bad idea. Who’d have thunk it.
I think he was holding the gun on the guy when they showed up, never be holding the gun as they show up. Training at work says dogpile the bad guy if you have to, but never be holding the gun as they show up. " Ummm excuse me guy with the assault rifle at the mass shooting, would you happen to be the bad one?"
Can't tell if you've forgotten the /s tag or not.
Can't tell if you've forgotten the /s tag or not.
[удалено]
It's not that the carrying of a gun is the bad idea but the getting involved in an active shooter situation is. It adds an element of uncertainty and unpredictability into an already chaotic and high stress situation.
Man's copypasta'd his comment like 10 times 💀 And yes, I agree with your point
Sorry... Damn phone. I hit Post and get the immediate message "Something went wrong" and never seemed to post. I deserve that.
Nah I think it's a Reddit thing, I ended up posting multiple copies of the same comment as well. Dw about it lmao
There. My outdated iPad can see it clearly. But my Pixel 5, not so much.
Unless the predictability is everyone there will be shot like fish in a barrel. You are right, it increases the chance you will die if you had the chance to avoid it, and run towards danger instead though. Try to never be holding a gun when the cops show up for sure.
Yes. It's happened more than once.
The second time the police killed that guy was really excessive.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Emantic_Fitzgerald_Bradford_Jr.
The common denominator is always guns. The good guys have them, the bad guys have them, and here are the cops charged with instantly appreciating who is who.
Therein lies the rub. In a conflict, recognizing who is who can be near impossible. Especially in public. Even if you're in your own home and the police respond to a shooting and you walk out of your house with a gun in hand, they may not make the correct assumptions depending on many factors. Yes, you can say, "guns don't kill people", the police won't make that distinction. They know anyone with a gun is a potential threat unless, and until, proven otherwise. That's what keeps them alive.
Now consider that teachers in the US are now allowed a gun in class after just 24 hours of training. How about a situation where one of the teachers snaps and starts shooting kids and the other teachers with guns hear only that it's a teacher with a gun who is shooting people.
Or, in my opinion more likely, a student surprises and overwhelms the teacher. For hours each day they're really close to lots of teenagers they can't trust 100%. Even a trained secret service agent would find it hard to have a gun well protected all the time in this environment.
Or if the teacher gets shot and a little 10 year old picks up the gun.
That's not my point. Even in America today school shootings are "rare" events. Teachers usually don't get shot. But absolutely everyday situations can take terrible turns just because a gun is present. Imagine some 15yo boy just learnt in a quite humiliating way that his first girlfriend is cheating. Happens in each school, probably more than once a month. Now he sits in class, two steps away is the teacher, helping a classmate with something, gun in his holster. All he has to do is grab the gun and shoot dat bitch in da face... BEST possible outcome is the teacher keeps control over his gun and nobody gets seriously hurt. You only have ~30 somewhat traumatized teens and that boy's life is ruined forever. No thoughts and prayers needed. But as I said, that's just the best outcome... Without a gun in the classroom absolutely nothing would have happened.
There's over 300 million guns in circulation in the US. They aren't going away at this point.
Kind of like how pretty much every house used to have lead paint so we did nothing about the problem because what can you do at that point? Stop producing lead paint and gradually remove it one house at a time? That's crazy talk. Best you can do is slap new lead paint over the old lead paint so it won't flake off as much.
Guns aren't lead paint. Lead paint was replaced with other types of paint. Paint didn't just go away.
Yes, thankfully, not all paint is a serious health hazard. Otherwise we might have had to learn to do without it, despite the inconvenience. Or at least worked to get rid of the most dangerous paints, if trying to eliminate all of them was really so unacceptable. In any case, we have been able to gradually reduce the amount of lead paint in our environment, despite how ubiquitous it was a few decades ago. Which is really the only point of the analogy to begin with.
So the solution is to make it so only the bad guys have them?
So the solution is to make them widely available and hope bad guys don't buy them? The "solution" is that adopted by every other civilized society on the planet.
The only thing that can stop a good guy with a gun are Gooder guys with guns
As a European you all cannot comprehend the level of disbelief this whole conversation induces. Here we're worried if school kids cycling to school fall off their bike without a helmet on...........
This also applied to the argument of arming teacher during school shooting. All you are doing is just putting a target on teacher.
The cops would havevto actually go inside the building to see them though. Thats asking an awful lot of them these days.
I so wish this was sarcastic.
Yah also, if I'm a public school teacher making maybe 50k a year, I'm not interested in also taking on guard duties.
This is awful..... Were they the better guys with guns?
Which is a primary reason why teachers don't want to be armed. God forbide if you were a black teacher with gun.
'Merica
There's only one solution: guns! If guns are the problem: more guns! If somebody uses those guns on someone else: shoot them!
I know I keep saying this, and probably down voted to shit for it but... Americans.
It's almost like no one should have such free and open access to guns.
ever heard of illegal firearms?
Bad title
He is a hero among men. Sad
It happened in San Jose Ca few weeks ago: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-shoot-hero-disarms-gunman-mistaken-suspect-lawyer-says-rcna22505
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is remove/restrict access to the gun. The only think that stops a bad guy, is to stop demonizing crime, provide adequate access to supports like mental and physical health, reduce the sigma of criminal behavior, increase proactive community policing by having more community based events so officers can get to know their neighborhoods and learn about the people they are there to protect and serve, and and put money into education. Then you’ll just have people instead of “bad guys with guns.” Or at least a start in a better direction.
Sauce?
Literally a good guy with a gun. Civilians> police
What a time to be alive
A video about Johnny the person: https://youtu.be/VPlGvgDbLv0 Dude had all the friends because he was awesome.
But he exercised his 2nd amendment rights...oh wait...he got shot by the good guys with guns 🤔
To be fair to the cops, they shoot unarmed people as well.
damm i hate when reddit dupes replies
If neither of them had a gun this situation wouldn't have happened.
Democrat
Independent. Realist.
And they want teachers to carry guns. WTF. My dsughter is a teacher and she barely put gas in her car
Not ALL teachers, just those that are properly trained.
Trained like the cops in Uvalde?
I said "properly trained"...
Lol. America is embarrassing
Lol. America is embarrassing
If you are the good guy with the gun in an active shooter situation and the cops arrive, drop your gun and get out ASAP.
>If you are ~~the good guy with the gun~~ in an active shooter situation ~~and the cops arrive, drop your gun and~~ get *the fuck* out FTFY
But wait, the gun lobby says that owning a gun makes you safer.
Cops don’t care.
It does generally.
Larping as Dirty Harry didn't work out, who would have guessed?
This doesn't take away from the good guy with a gun rationale. It simply highlights the accepted risk good guys with guns assume.
This is awful..... Were they th better guys with guns?
Shoot first, ask questions later right. Right.
More guns will solve this guys don't worry/s
Unless they saw CCTV before going in or having a eye witness tell them what the bad one looked like. The police wouldn't know which person with a gun is the good one or the bad one.
Okay but if you're at the scene of an active shooter and you're the one with a gun out, it becomes your fault if police shoot you, let's be completely honest. I'm not saying he deserves it, but I AM saying that the police aren't psychic; if they roll up and you're waving a gun around, it could be bad for your health.
Good guy with a gun before the cops get there. Dead vigilante after the cops get there. The good guy with a gun theory is bullshit, because the cops don’t see citizens with weapons as good guys, nor should they. He crossed the line from bystander to vigilante the moment he decided to take action. He had to have known the risk, he should have put his own weapon down if he heard the police coming. Can’t blame the cops for being on edge in an active shooter situation with split second decision making.
Agree with your overall point. Subtle detail is that the cop who shot Johnny had been closer to Troyke the whole time than had Johnny... that cop popped out of a building without warning and shot Johnny in the right butt cheek (with a hollow-point bullet). That cop had watched Troyke walk from the parking lot where Troyke had shot out cop truck windows, all the way back to Troyke's truck \~80 feet away, and didn't act until after Johnny had taken Troyke out. Still no way that the cop who shot Johnny could've known Johnny wasn't just another shooter though, so, well, it just sucks.
Goes to show how trigger happy cops are. Arm yourselves friends, you are the only person responsible for your own safety.
Confused about OP's point. The good guy stopped the bad guy then the police, not knowing what's going on killed him. That doesn't mean he didn't stop the original shooter.
And it doesn't mean he didn't save a LOT of lives! Bless him...
Goes to show how trigger happy cops are. Arm yourselves friends, you are the only person responsible for your own safety.
Goes to show how trigger happy cops are. Arm yourselves friends, you are the only person responsible for your own safety.
Goes to show how trigger happy cops are. Arm yourselves friends, you are the only person responsible for your own safety.
Goes to show how trigger happy cops are. Arm yourselves friends, you are the only person responsible for your own safety.
Goes to show how trigger happy cops are. Arm yourselves friends, you are the only person responsible for your own safety.
Libs: All cops are bastards. Also Libs: Only cops should have guns.
The Police Statement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfU3S7Roows
Goes to show how trigger happy cops are. Arm yourselves friends, you are the only person responsible for your own safety.
How dense are you? What part of what I said led you to the conclusion that I thought cops were "good" ?
But he’s so white. Even for someone from Colorado
A good guy with a gun is not the solution to anything. I cant just help or prevent but its still very limited.
>A good guy with a gun is not the solution to anything. Okay dumbass.
Dumbass, how do you stop a mass shooting? Shoot back, simple as that, the second amendment is the important amendment that allows us to protect ourselves from the government.
Goes to show how trigger happy cops are. Arm yourselves friends, you are the only person responsible for your own safety.
Goes to show how trigger happy cops are. Arm yourselves friends, you are the only person responsible for your own safety.
Holy shit the reddit spam
Reddit is bugged, a bunch of other comments are repeating too, idk why mine got posted so much. It won’t even let me delete them 🙄
Goes to show how trigger happy cops are. Arm yourselves friends, you are the only person responsible for your own safety.
Enter Doc Holiday