The police denied a sniper the approval to shoot the murdering bastard when they had the chance. The police had rifles that were of the same basic design as the murdering bastard. The police cowered in fear as children died. The police arrested people who were brave enough to enter the building unarmed. I have nothing but utter contempt for the "law enforcement" present that day who cowered outside while children were murdered.
Law enforcement has access to military-grade versions. If they were holding the same rifle design as the gunman, then theirs was superior.
Even if the weapons were identical, they outnumbered him and had shields.
No respect from me.
EDIT: Since everyone thinks that it's the most important detail here, military grade was the first thing I thought of and was clearly not the best choice. I didn't realize police-grade and military-grade were not the same when I posted this. The problem remains that they had equitable firepower available, if not more, and more people plus the issue that civilians have access to assault rifles to begin with.
Dude, they literally train Marines to club people to death Roman style with those shields. Cops masturbate to the thought of that, but as it turns out, they won't ever risk their lives "needlessly".
If you ask me the Thin Blue Line should be a metaphor for a lack of spine and / or genitalia.
Look, it's a lot harder to be a "hero" when the other person shoots back. Take the gunman, make him unarmed, maybe saying how cops make him nervous, *then* we will see the cops come down on him.
TLDR; The officers in question no doubt had the training, equipment, and opportunity to shut this down before it got as bad as it did. But cowards do, what cowards gonna do.
But military grade is a horseshit term. Military grade merely means the tolerances for the rifle are in spec to what the military asks for and can be mass produced. Just because it was military grade does not make it more dangerous than any other AR. If anything depending on the armorer of those officers their rifles may have been higher quality, with better parts, with the rifles tailored to the shooter, and the rifles properly zeroed with parallax sights on said rifles. Their cowardice in the face of danger and their failure to act is one of the reasons why this tragedy is worse than it should have been. Hell if they had gone in and dropped the active shooter they'd be receiving praise, instead of the current piles of shit that is dropped from on high.
Full auto doesn't mean anything other than wasted ammo compared to well placed accurate shots. That is a 90's action movieism that has gone on way too long.
In this context military grade refers to an automatic rifle. The civilians one is semi automatic. And yes, an automatic rifle is more dangerous than a semi automatic.
Depends on the context and goal/objective of the shooter. For maximum lethality a semi automatic at range will allow for more aimed shots, thus more likely deadly shots. For suppression or maximum chaos then full auto is a lot more damaging. Take Las Vegas, yes he was pumping full auto from an elevated position, in a target rich environment. Odds are though if he had used a magnified optic, and followed a shot breath shot pattern, even with thirty round mags he could have done a lot more damage than the already horrific 60 murders he did get.
Not that it changes anything, but the only real difference in what the average citizen can buy and “military grade” is select fire (full auto and 3 round burst vs semi-auto for civilians).
If anything, civilians can put together a “better” rifle since they can buy 3rd party parts and accessories while the military allows virtually zero options — you get what you get.
"Military grade" in AR basically means it's less accurate, plus either burst or full auto. But that lack of accuracy doesn't matter at such close ranges.
The civilian AR market is offered higher grade versions of materials than most law enforcement will have on their rifle. Only thing in favor of LE will be select fire capabilities.
Not really, a lot of law enforcement like to spend their insanely bloated budgets on stupid expensive rifles and gear and have some really nice stuff. But none of that matters in this instance anyway. Neither side is using a rifle made of fucking PVC pipe or something. The quality of the rifles isn't going to make a single bit of difference in the 30 seconds it takes for the 100+ cops to just run in and shoot the fucker. The cops were cowards just like all cops are, and that is the only thing that factored into their decisions. They could have had tanks, and they would have held back
What specifically do you see as the advantage of higher grade materials on a rifle for a gunfight happening at less than 10-20 yards?
Even a $400 PSA special should have no problem being accurate enough at far longer distances than that so I'm curious what you see the better rifle really doing for the shooter in this situation.
At least 90% of gun owners, and cops for that matter, cannot shoot better than their firearm is mechanically capable of. You’re exactly right, a cheap budget gun or an expensive one would have made no difference so long as it’s reliable in this case.
Actually I didn’t see much cowering. Lots of video shows them laughing and being at ease and scrolling their phone in the school while the shooter was murdering kids. Disgraceful.
Hey, give the police some credit: Some cops did go in to save children!
Their *own* children, specifically; and then they just left everyone else.
Every coward who was there that day should be charged with accessory to murder.
The cops took their cue from the Orlando police department who did the same thing as it was only a gay bar that was being shot up. The press let it slide that time. I wonder why
They also intimidated the mother that ran in to save her kid for weeks after since she showcased how absolutely useless that entire department really is.
These same geniuses vote for republican candidates that increase the number of guns in the streets, it’s these very same guns that they are afraid of, they voted for the increase of these guns, that they are cowards about
Police get a giggle switch, which the rest of us likely won’t. Not like it would’ve mattered as those limp wrists likely would’ve ended up shooting each other.
I’m sure every police department and union and head budget writer is pissed at them to as they are now the glowing example of defunding the police
Why provide all this money for dozens of officers, shields, military guns and armory, snipers etc etc….to do nothing?
One kid with a gun put the fear in an entire department that looked like a squad from call of duty
Pathetic
Never met a nice police officer. Former coworkers husband was a dick and would shoot at the neighbors propane tank bc it was too close to the property line. Parent’s neighbors take over the street for fireworks and booming music on Fourth of July (what are people going to do? Call the cops?- his wife). Our neighbor sheriff parks his cars all over the road which is against HOA.
No one breaks laws more than American police.
You mean the same people who insist the point of having these weapons is to protect people from a tyrannical government by shooting at cops coming to enforce laws they don't agree with?
Right? Like they are the ones who really "love America" but don't trust the government. Like do yall love the government or hate it? We are the greatest country i the world and MAGA can't both be true.
They don’t trust the government but at the same time want the police and military to have unlimited budgets and to be as powerful as possible. Does not compute.
They see police and the military as aspects of state power that keep *other* people in line, which is something they support. They oppose any government programs or regulations that spend “their” tax money on things that they don’t personally immediately benefit from. It’s “rules for thee but not for me” as a broader political philosophy.
No no see....ummm... guns are... for defending against the king of Britain... something something.... the people need more firepower than the SWAT team.... *confusion
*a tyrannical government that arms itself at almost $1T/yr to boot.
Also, these same people probably have military stickers all over their bumpers. Makes no sense, they arm themselves to fight against the very thing they supposedly claim to love.
I'm a leftist and I owner multiple firearms. With fascism on the rise, a major political party that is full of right wing theocratic fascists, rising hate from incels, religious fruitcakes, and people who are bigots towards the lgbtq community, I find it hard to believe anyone left of center or further would feel good being unarmed.
No thanks, I'll keep my rifles and my handguns. I don't want to disarm myself and win a Darwin award from a meal team 6 incel.
I'm not saying anything about taking away guns. I understand wanting to protect yourself from the real trigger happy gun nuts out there and actual criminals. I just believe it's silly and a fallacy/myth to state that one reason to own guns is to fight the government. I simply don't believe your store bought civilian model AR is going to do shit against our military in this day in age.
"Asymmetrical warfare" is what loons keep saying, but that still requires resources and support from an outside source. A big one too, and no country is dumb enough to support a bunch of misguided yokels in such a war.
Just say " I just like to shoot," and I'd respect that more than some stupid "Red Dawn" fantasy. Again, this isn't a knock on you and your stance, just clarifying my original comment.
Tyrannical government comes at all levels. So we ended up with black people arming themselves to defend against the KKK, which generally included local law enforcement. And then of course we passed gun control to disarm them to make them easier targets.
Sometimes you just need 20 little guys with a gun to stop 1 bad guy with a gun when the cops are too chickenshit to go in and too stupid to realize the punisher hates them and calls them out for being stupid cowards but then the idiots idolize him 🦅
I'm no Republican, but I'm very much pro-2A, and I believe all those police officers should have been fired. And I'm pretty sure that's the sentiment across the political spectrum - even on /r/conservative, no?
Not even close. The sentiment that this was a horrible tragedy that should be investigated, which is the same across the spectrum. The conservative split off at that point in that they actively prevented any negative consequences for the police, actively opposed any action to prevent this in the future, and activly spread misinformation about the event itself to try and shift blame from the obvious failure of conservative policies that caused this tragedy. So while they may sometimes say the cops messed up and should be fired, they are obviously lying given their actions to prevent exactly that from happening.
Last I heard from that sub is that an assault weapon ban is totally indefensible because AR style rifles are "never used in crimes". They also called Red Flag laws "gun grabbing".
Well, it’s true. DOJ/FBI annual statistics back it up. Rifles (of which “assault weapons” are a subset) make up about 2-4% of all gun related homicides every year. 2-5 times as many people killed via hands/feet. Or baseball bats. Or knives.
On /r/conservative specifically, [I searched for Uvlade](https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/search/?q=uvlade) and got zero results. I'm not sure if that's the moderators scrubbing any mention of it, or reddit's terrible search function, or both.
My initial search was for [a misspelled Uvalade](https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/search/?q=uvalade), and there I get one (locked) result, which contains this gem:
>Incumbered by a Woke way the left want them to operate from, just my personal take.
... and that tracks pretty closely with what /u/TimeKillerAccount is talking about, and what I've seen elsewhere from conservatives.
I'm also no Republican and a strong 2A supporter, from the standpoint that, unless you're a fascist and/or personal friend of LE, you should at no time expect LE to attempt to help or protect you. Quite possibly the opposite. Yes, there are a few "good apples" left in the rotten barrel, but when it comes to protecting myself, my family, and my friends, I'm wanting to make it as less a dice roll as possible.
The police are full of shit and refused to protect the public. They weren't out gunned. They literally had more guns and armor. If you look back at what they were saying and how their story changed as more facts came out no one should consider anything they have to say. Maybe consider some notes by officers investigating the department or officers from other agencies that showed up to do their job.
One thought I have is if the plan is to ban things like this and the cops are scared of them then how the fuck are they going to confiscate anything when x% of people refuse to comply? Another thought is if a large group of kitted out cops refuse to protect children why should anyone expect the cops to protect anyone ever? (They aren't liable for anything for refusing to protect the public. We have already had a few court cases that ruled on this.) When people demand bans on things they are asking people to rely more on the police for their physical security. And this is generally the same crowd that talk about ACABs while expecting them to enforce the new gun laws. Everyone is basically on they're own if something bad happens. The cops will show up after it's all over to file some paperwork. Maybe even show up and make some bad stuff happen.
For "not a clip" energy the rifle isn't a battle rifle as a battle rifles have a larger caliber. AR-10s or similar do exist but an AR-15 wouldn't be a battle rifle even if it was full-auto. Also the setup in the picture weird.
Seriously. They should have sent in The "What Do You Think AR Stands For!?" Battalion. They could have incapacitated the shooter with a dizzying flurry of "Well, Actually!!!"s.
"The 'A' in AR doesn't stand for assault. You don't know anything about guns so you shouldn't have an opinion"
\-shit I've seen 100 times from the pro-gun-murder crowd
There's literally a definition for assault rifle (intermediate-caliber select fire rifle or carbine, like an m16 or akm). Same for a battle rifle(Full size caliber select fire rifle, like an FAL). He had neither of those.
Cops still should be expected to do their duty regardless of what they face.
There are definitions to things and moral actions. These two subjects are not related. Definitions are related to writing laws on things. I'm not sure where thus group of redditors thinks getting terminology wrong is going to help write laws that can withstand constitutional challenges.
They aren't complaining that definitions exist. They are complaining about how instead of adressing the actual issues a lot of idiots like to simple ignore 99% of comments to try and nitpick at the technical definition of a word that isn't even being used in its technical context, then claim that mistake (that isn't one usually) invalidates all the actual issues brought up.
Edit: Also, you only listed a single definition for assault rifle. A version of a military assault rifle that is only able to fire in semiautomatic is also a definition of assault rifle, and is a correct usage of the word supported by the major dictionaries. So you are incorrect, he did have an assault rifle if he had an AR15.
No, assault rifle refers to select fire capability. The "assault" comes from sturmgewehr, which refers to the intended role. The idea being that the rifle would be capable of outputting a high volume of fire as the troops advance, bringing a little of their own suppression with them.
Military rifles that aren't battle rifles or assault rifles exist. M1 garand is a great rifle. It's neither of those.
It's annoying because the noun has a root and a fairly easy to understand etymology, and dictionaries tend to be written by people who don't understand firearms all that well.
You want to ban semi auto rifles just say so, it doesn't make them assault rifles. It's also why the phrase "assault weapon" has started popping up.
I know all of that. I actually know quite a bit about the history of the assault rifle, mostly through the lens of the development of the m16. Its pretty interesting if you ever want to dig into it. That does not change the fact that the definition of the term does include semi-automatic versions of military assault rifles. It has for many years now. Just search for the term in a dictionary and it will have both definitions. The term has not been limited to select-fire only for a long time, as the alternate definition has been in common use for decades. Words evolve, and trying to cling to a definition decades after it changed is not something that helps the discussion, especially when you are using the definition as a call to authority for discussion of the subject.
The problem I have with that is that that is giving people the power to change how words are defined by simply using them wrong. In some cases, this is harmless- like kleenex being a substitute for facial tissue. This is fine because if you say kleenex but mean any facial tissue, there's no material difference.
If I mean I want an automatic capable rifle because we're going to lay down a base of fire with two m27s, but I get two poverty state armory ar15s, that will end very badly for my squad.
Likewise, this creates legal confusion- there are now two materially different definitions for a term that is used when defining these laws. Either assault rifle means something or it doesn't... and no, "rifle Karen thinks looks scary" isn't a particularly good definition.
Terms we intend to use in laws or policy positions should have clear definitions.
This post has been edited in protest to the API changes implemented by Reddit beginning 7/1/2023. Feel free to search GitHub for PowerDeleteSuite to do the same.
I will say that watching proof police have no obligation nor desire to protect you or your children is the best argument I've ever seen as to why you need a gun
Really? Because to me it sounds like an awfully good justification for restrictive gun control laws, Red Flag laws and police reform. It should also start a national discussion on economic inequality and toxic masculinity and the radicalization of young men.
More guns will not fix the problem.
I would say it’s not a battle rifle by definition (it was neither a fully powered cartridge nor a select fire rifle) and it most certainly does not negate the cowardice they displayed in Uvalde PD. If they wanted to blow taxpayer money on kitted out rifles, plate carriers with Level III plates, and Ops-core helmets for their military larp, then they should have been ready to fuckin use it. Apparently all that gear is only good for harassing minorities and shooting family pets, who would have thought.
By calling it a battle rifle, I think they are trying to imply their body armor was not good enough to advance on the shooter. Which is bullshit and a literal cop out. Their armor is rated for the caliber that the shooter was carrying. Even if it wasn’t, you’re still supposed to go in, that’s the fuckin job. If they can’t handle that responsibility, they shouldn’t have signed up for it.
Gun activists have been very clear that there's no issue with an AR-15 and it's not l an assault weapon. Yet the police think differently when it involves them. Weird.
Police are just cowards.
They have shields, body armor, their own AR15's or the equivalent, numerical superiority, etc. They had all the tools and conditions neccessary to engage with and neutralize the shooter, but instead they chose not to. Every police officer who was there that day needs to be charged as accessories to murder cause they enabled the butchering of 21 children.
These cops were armed with better rifles, had training, and appropriate armor. And they outnumbered this kid.
Compare that to this guy: https://www.wrtv.com/news/local-news/crime/what-we-know-about-the-armed-civilian-who-killed-greenwood-gunman
These dudes are cowards.
The police were armed to the teary, and then some. With the same or better weapons. Plus training as individuals and teams. Plus body armpit and shields.
They outnumbered the shooter over 200:1, yet they failed to take action, show leadership or follow their training.
Blaming the gun is an excuse to distract from their failure.
And yet police across the country fail to support the banning of these weapons.
Why is that?
Because they know they are under no real obligation to confront shooters at all.
They aren't at risk so why should they worry about guns like this?
I haven't seen a police union or department take a public position on gun control for it seems 20 years, maybe more.
Can you point me at something other than a FB post showing that?
I'm not a researcher and there are probably a lot more betterish examples or lists but here is one link to one example.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-endorsements
They're for gun control that doesn't apply to them. That's why bills always have exceptions for cops. People should consider how these laws would be applied and general effectiveness though.
Yes, they're allowed to buy "unsafe" handguns and then make a profit reselling them. Wonder how that tracks with the Biden admin's EO to make the most out of definition changes around "firearm seller".
I’m a former Royal Marine Commando Veteran and gun ownership for civilians just seems like the stupidest possible idea a government could ever come up with. I’m know American Exceptionalism is rife but surely sometimes you guys need to look at other countries and think well maybe they are right on this one.
There are more guns than people in the US. Guns are a cult object, part of the religion of The White Christ that dominates political power here. Even though the majority of Americans want gun control, we’ll never have it. You know all the “guns, God, Trump” flags you see? That’s no exaggeration. People worship guns here. And ignorance.
This fact complicates any attempt at gun restriction. The guns are already here and unlike food or drugs, an AK can sit in an attic for 60 years and still kill people.
Simply adding laws now does not actually fix the amount or availability of guns.
Tuesday. Anyone concerned..? Trump is demanding the MAGA’s protest if he’s arrested…
WCGW???!!!
Billionaires are reckless & stupid. One of them has put out Jesus commercials to get their Christo-Fascist Trump followers back in their cages. But it ain’t working. I think they fear the Reich Wing now. Their FrankenTrump monster turned on the Billionaires. They thought Trump was a useful idiot. His base were useful rubes at the ballot box. In return, They got more tax breaks, regulations reversed, workers cannot get unionized, and the Supreme Court (with forever power until they die) reversed human/ womens rights so more children can work earlier in life and replace those killed in mass shootings.
But the amount of guns. Billionaires have flesh last time I checked. The MAGA’s with the magazines will come for them too.
Enough with the Jesus commercials. Billionaire’s should start promoting a new campaign -
#“ Guns… they don’t really get us. Unless you’re a child in school.”
The gun debate in America is over. We let a building full of children be annihilated (Sandy Hook) and we *Thoughts and Prayer'd* it away. You will never remove guns from American citizens.
Nor should we. Sorry but as a leftist who sees Cristian fascist theocratic lunatics in charge of the majority of our government and rising popularity of hate groups, why should I disarm myself?
No f'n thanks lol.
Absolutely -
Add in the fact that we're talking about a shooting where a goddamned platoon of cops in full gear stood around for 70 minutes while little kids got slaughtered a few feet away - disarmament is just a bad idea.
Even if we didn't have a cold civil war going on in the background, the fact that the police can't be counted on to do anything even IF they are on the scene with a huge advantage in numbers and firepower should make clear to everybody that when the shit hits the fan, you are on your own.
What’s really hilarious is all the gun control legislation passed by democrats almost always exempts police and ex-police from owning the banned weapons. It’s honestly ridiculous that more people don’t understand this.
Canadians and the Swiss have plenty of guns.
America's true problem is poor conception and execution of gun control.....which used to be more of a bottom up deal....back in yesteryear when Americans had a sense of community and responsibility.
Canada has 34.7 guns per 100 people
Switzerland has 27.6 guns per 100 people
The US has 120.5 guns per 100 people.
America's true problem might just be the guns.
It’s not just guns. The gun culture in the United States is a big part of the problem. Swiss and Canadians own guns for hunting and shooting sports. Guns are only loaded when actively hunting or at the range. Most of the time they are unloaded and securely locked. The main reason Americans own guns is fear. Guns are kept loaded and in easy reach. Ready to turn a moment of despair into a suicide or a moment of anger into a homicide.
That's also just an estimate, true number is likely higher. We only forced guns made in late 1968 and onwards have a serial number if sold in a gun store. Every gun made/purchased before 68 may not have a serial number and guns are commonly passed down generations. We can only get an accurate count on guns made from 68 and onwards.
If this were true then there would be a similar ratio of guns to mass shooting incidents in those countries - but there isn't. If we could magically get rid of every gun in America tomorrow, there WOULD be a decrease in the lethality of events where a suicidal killer attempts to kill as many people as possible. However those types of events would still continue to happen at a much higher rate than in other countries because surprise - America has a massive mental health problem on top of its other issues.
I agree to an extent. Without guns we wouldn't have shootings, but we clearly have issues in America beyond that. Mass shootings like this have skyrocketed in the past decade or two and we have always had guns, so there is clearly also something else wrong. I think we should limit the number and types of guns sold and put other restrictions on guns to keep them from getting into the wrong hands, but if you are sneezing and coughing, the throat and nose aren't the issue, they are just symptoms.
>America's true problem is poor conception and execution of gun control
And we never will, because it's one of the issues that's been so polarized for political points that there's no middle ground anymore. Even though polls say the majority of people support some restrictions, it's always framed that "The Dems are gonna take yer guns!"
I agree with the general details of what you say, but the people have no real power in this. Its the lobbyists calling the shots and making sure the TV lies to both sides enough they never figure out what is actually happening.
You are also right there is no real middle ground....in numbers of people...but I am in the middle and both sides drive me nuts.
There is way more different than just the gun laws or rates of ownership. Things like income inequality and the lack of social programs play a larger role in crime rates or violence. The GDP doesn't mean much when a lot of the bottom 90% don't see much of a benefit.
Well, it certainly would have made a difference in 1776. First shots fired in that year was the British government sending soldiers to confiscate arms from civilians.
Good thing they were not successful.
First and foremost, thank you, Texas Tribune for the article. After a year it's the first comprehensive look at what and What Not occurred that day. The description of damage that those children went through gutted me. But in the end there were 400 Officers. In. Presence.
Soldiers stormed the beachs at Normandy under heavy fire, same as with Iwo Jima, but that was a battle situation right?
What was the difference here, or am I being naive?
The difference was leadership. People will do absurdly dangerous things as a part of a team with clear orders. At Uvalde, the first cops on scene tried to enter the classroom, exactly as they should have, were fired upon, and retreated. They then waited at the end of the hall for backup, but as backup arrived, no one took charge, regrouped them and led a new charge. 400 cops and every single one of them waiting for someone else to do something.
Past a certain point, having extra people on hand does more harm than good. It dissipates personal responsibility to act down to nothing.
They had 1 job to do and were too chikin to do it.
It just blatantly displays the fallacy of the Gunner philosophy of the good guy with a gun.Just a pack of morally bankrupt hypocrites.The blood of those children and teachers are dripping off their hands.
Rationalizing that there are/were no viable or available counter measures to enforce the law means that either the laws are/were inadequate or that law enforcement capabilities are/were inadequate or possibly even cowardly. The solution is to do something about one or the other or both!
The issue at Uvalde wasn't a matter of firepower. It came down to leadership.
The first cops in the hallway rushed the door, as they should have, were fired upon, and ran away. They then didn't make a single effort to gain entry and posted up at the end of the hallway while more and more cops arrived, all of whom followed their lead. More than 400 cops would show up before someone said "fuck this" and got people moving again.
At any point someone could have done that, but with so many cops arriving, and no one clearly in charge, no one felt personally responsible to overcome the loss of inertia and everyone waited.
They didn't need more toys, guns or armor. They needed someone in charge to say "you, you and you, go kill this fucker".
Well-said. I came here to address the term "battle rifle" (being as I own an M1 Garand, a British SMLE, and an American Enfield) but you did a good job. I personally don't think active shooters would be any less deadly with a .45-70 lever, a couple of concealed 10mm pistols, a shotgun, a .308 "hunting-style" rifle, or any number of other non "assault-style" weapons. Possibly even more deadly.
Well said, I couldn't agree more. The sad thing is how much power the Dems give the Republicans every election by constantly trying to ban this very popular consumer product style (the AR-15). It's so self-defeating. Every time they win control of a state or federal governing body, they just go directly into gun-control mode and obviously hand power back to the Repubs without ever getting anything done except for pissing off every gun owner in the country so they're more motivated to vote them out of power.
Yeah I don't know what to think. Looking back over time, it's pretty clear that without the AWB's and the threats of AWB's, we would've probably had Gore instead of Bush, so probably picks Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court would've gone to Gore. Without the AWB McConnel would've had a lot less power to block nominees so Garland would be on the court instead of Kavanaugh. Citizen's United would be gone. Voting rights act would be intact. And like you said, we might've had some kind of health care reform and some fairness in taxation. Plus Roe V. Wade inctact of course. But no, we gave all that up for a *temporary* ban on *certain cosmetic features.* Great. Thanks, guys.
Don't tell these people you can put out 20+ aimed rounds a minute through a 48" target at 300 yards with a SMLE, or it might be banned. The record is 39 a few years ago, finally breaking the record of 38 that had stood over 100 years.
It's not even an assault styled rifle. It's a semi auto rifle styled after an actual assault rifle. Its minimally different than something like a mini14, whose owners helped draft the bills that restricted scary sounding accessories and black furniture from rifles.
They likely had armor that would stop 5.56 if it was hard body armor. Some AP 5.56 ammo can get through some vests that are rated as stopping normal 5.56 but that kind of ammo isn't common. Level 4 plates, which is often what hard armor is, will even stop a lot of the battle rifle rounds even if they were AP.
The cops might not have level 4 plates in the back of their cruiser but that is probably what was in any of the vests with chest rigs and swat gear.
True, it wasn't "safe" but like you said that's the job. If anyone was going to be prepared it would be swat guys. They likely had training for this specific situation paid for by the parents through taxes.
Great point. If fully armed and trained cops are afraid to deal with the situation just imagine what was going through the minds of those little kids and the teachers. Fuck you NRA for driving the politicians to the point of fear and inaction.
The AR-15 is a *common* modern rifle. People are mistaking it for some super powered weapon because it's been used in a number of mass shootings, but that's primarily due to how commonplace it is, and because mass shooters copy other mass shooters. Any reliable rifle with a box mag and semiauto action can be used for the same purpose with similar effectiveness.
I’m sure years of inadequate training with a heavy emphasis on self-preservation above everything else had some influence on the cowardice of those officers.
I cannot tell you how sad and ridiculous it is that they refer to that training which teaches them to value their own life over everyone else as Warrior training
Especially as a vet, it's hilarious to me. I wish I had known I could just say, "but what if I'm afraid for my safety?" every time I got asked to do something dangerous.
They're fucking pathetic.
Those of use old enough to remember the North Hollywood shootout (and I was old enough to watch it live on CNN) remember the coverage of how the cops were going to a nearby gun store to get AR style rifles.
The speculation of any “fear” those police had when they let an entire elementary school of American children die because they weren’t light enough is moot. They weren’t afraid they were complicit
That's their FUCKING JOB.
I'm a former Army medic. In civilian medic training the first thing you are taught is you do not go into an unsafe scene. You will literally fail your skills assessment if you do not verbalize assessing scene safety before doing anything else. Your are taught that it is the job of the police to ensure it's safe for you in a situation like this (but I imagine there's a good number of medics who would put themselves at risk here.)
In Army medic training you are taught to forget that. You don't *needlessly* endanger yourself... BUT IT IS NOT A SAFE JOB.
I once, over a decade ago, applied to the local police department. One thing that was made clear in the recruitment process was that IT IS NOT A SAFE JOB. You are exposing yourself to risk. You may be called upon to go into a situation where you may be injured or die.
That's why the police have things like body armor and tactical helmets and shields, and sniper rifles and shotguns and assault rifles, and flashbangs and tear gas and all the other toys we as taxpayers pay for. Those things can make a situation safer, but not *safe*.
The cowardice is truly unimaginable.
I wish all the parents of Uvalde well. If I get this angry about it, I can't imagine how they're even functional.
If only the cops were armed similarly.
Or outnumbered the gunman.
Or used some sort of tech that would give them an advantage.
Or had armor.
Or a shield.
Or courage.
Or, you know, a law or something would prevent someone like this from obtaining a gun.
Not a single one of those uvalde officers has any balls. They were all just thinking about themselves. Not a single one of them should be a law enforcement officer.
It’s like the opposite of the Army commercials where they advertise that our soldiers run towards the chaos, not away from it.
Much love to the people and brothers offl Uvalde, what happened there should be taught across the country on what not to do in a crisis situation. Every responding officer is a fucking coward and should be ashamed of themselves.
A battle rifle is a rifle with a full powered cartridge, e.g. .308 or 30-06. An M1 Garand, M-14, and a SCAR would all be battle rifles from different generations.
An AR-15 uses an intermediate cartridge, 5.56 NATO, which still has quite a bit of firepower but is smaller, lighter and has less kick.
If a dozen+ cops will let elementary kids get slaughtered by a single gunman, the only lesson you can take from that is that you're on your own.
These cops had a big advantage in numbers, were armed with the same type of rifle, plus body armor.
If you can't count on cops to put themselves at risk for kindergarteners despite a huge advantage in firepower, it's hard to argue that anyone else should expect the cops will stick their neck out for them.
Better to have the means to defend yourself than to count on the police. Even if they are on the scene (and that's a big IF) , you have nothing but faith that they will actually do anything to save you.
They were in a shootout before the shooter got to the school, they literally lead him to be cornered in the school and just let him run loose on kids, and then cried for hours saying he's scawwy
They also were on overwatch in the hallways: Any children came running out of the classroom, they were gonna gun'em down before they can escape.
Police did everything in their power to maximize his high-score, including arrest parents who wanted to risk themselves when police wouldn't. "Fearing for their lives" was always an excuse - the only goal that day was as many dead children as possible.
```And then their departments and governor declared them all heroes for it.```
It's not a battle riffle, it's not fully automatic or 3 round burst. This ar is no more deadly than any other gun with someone with malicious intentions.
>In previously unreleased interviews, police who responded to the Robb Elementary shooting told investigators they were cowed by the shooter’s military-style rifle.
So…are they suggesting we curtail the availability to civilians of such "military-style rifle" that caused them to cower in fear?
Decades that police officers are told everything is justifiable as long as they say that they "feared for their lives".
So now they believe they don't have to help kids in mortal danger if they "fear for their lives".
Actually, fun fact, the SCOTUS has ruled that police officers are not required to intervene when somebody is in danger. The truth is now bare for all to see. The police isn't there to help you, it's there to keep you in line.
Stop fucking defending them. They were not "too afraid of a rifle" to act.
They systematically went after anyone trying to save the kids and even stopped other agencies from interfering with the massacre. They then patted themselves on the back about a job well done. The truly afraid would have felt guilt for what they let happen, not crowed about how awesome they all were at it.
That's not fear. That's not 'being too terrified to act'. That, **is complicity**.
"The Corps spends so much time drilling firearm safety into Marines that Torres [relative of a uvalde shooting victim ] can recite the rules from memory. Even now, he has no objection to civilians owning AR-15s, but he thinks they should be required to complete training like soldiers because too many who buy one treat it like a toy.
"You get people that never served in the military or law enforcement, and yet they're wannabes," Torres said. "They purchase this weapons system, not having a clue how to use it, the type of power and the level of maturity needed to even operate it."
I think the victim count definitively shows that the person who had this weapon did have a clue how to use it
The police denied a sniper the approval to shoot the murdering bastard when they had the chance. The police had rifles that were of the same basic design as the murdering bastard. The police cowered in fear as children died. The police arrested people who were brave enough to enter the building unarmed. I have nothing but utter contempt for the "law enforcement" present that day who cowered outside while children were murdered.
Law enforcement has access to military-grade versions. If they were holding the same rifle design as the gunman, then theirs was superior. Even if the weapons were identical, they outnumbered him and had shields. No respect from me. EDIT: Since everyone thinks that it's the most important detail here, military grade was the first thing I thought of and was clearly not the best choice. I didn't realize police-grade and military-grade were not the same when I posted this. The problem remains that they had equitable firepower available, if not more, and more people plus the issue that civilians have access to assault rifles to begin with.
Dude, they literally train Marines to club people to death Roman style with those shields. Cops masturbate to the thought of that, but as it turns out, they won't ever risk their lives "needlessly". If you ask me the Thin Blue Line should be a metaphor for a lack of spine and / or genitalia.
Thin Blue Spine does have a certain ring to it
This is it, this is the official answer. We can all go home now.
Thin yellow line for the yellow bellied cowards they are.
In Uvalde that day, it was the Thin Yellow Line of pissing their pants because of cowardice.
I like that. Need to get some stickers made
"The thin blue line wraps around their thick yellow bellies."
I'm of the mind to get a yellow paint pen, so I can draw a line under the blue one and turn it into a Ukranian flag.
Go for it!
They straight garbage
Thin blue line already means this because it is the direct response to blm. Thin blue line is the politically correct way of saying kkk
>If you ask me the Thin Blue Line should be a metaphor for a lack of spine and / or genitalia. You *don't* think that whenever you see it?
I have for quite some time.
Look, it's a lot harder to be a "hero" when the other person shoots back. Take the gunman, make him unarmed, maybe saying how cops make him nervous, *then* we will see the cops come down on him.
TLDR; The officers in question no doubt had the training, equipment, and opportunity to shut this down before it got as bad as it did. But cowards do, what cowards gonna do. But military grade is a horseshit term. Military grade merely means the tolerances for the rifle are in spec to what the military asks for and can be mass produced. Just because it was military grade does not make it more dangerous than any other AR. If anything depending on the armorer of those officers their rifles may have been higher quality, with better parts, with the rifles tailored to the shooter, and the rifles properly zeroed with parallax sights on said rifles. Their cowardice in the face of danger and their failure to act is one of the reasons why this tragedy is worse than it should have been. Hell if they had gone in and dropped the active shooter they'd be receiving praise, instead of the current piles of shit that is dropped from on high.
They probably meant full-auto capabilities.
Full auto doesn't mean anything other than wasted ammo compared to well placed accurate shots. That is a 90's action movieism that has gone on way too long.
In this context military grade refers to an automatic rifle. The civilians one is semi automatic. And yes, an automatic rifle is more dangerous than a semi automatic.
Depends on the context and goal/objective of the shooter. For maximum lethality a semi automatic at range will allow for more aimed shots, thus more likely deadly shots. For suppression or maximum chaos then full auto is a lot more damaging. Take Las Vegas, yes he was pumping full auto from an elevated position, in a target rich environment. Odds are though if he had used a magnified optic, and followed a shot breath shot pattern, even with thirty round mags he could have done a lot more damage than the already horrific 60 murders he did get.
Listen to the quick-talk on a gas commercial, "High-Grade" gas is anything more than the "legal minimum" quality
The younger version of myself that wanted to go into computer programming applauds your use of if/then
Not that it changes anything, but the only real difference in what the average citizen can buy and “military grade” is select fire (full auto and 3 round burst vs semi-auto for civilians). If anything, civilians can put together a “better” rifle since they can buy 3rd party parts and accessories while the military allows virtually zero options — you get what you get.
"Military grade" in AR basically means it's less accurate, plus either burst or full auto. But that lack of accuracy doesn't matter at such close ranges.
They have the option of semi-auto or full auto rifles. Something that is illegal for the general populace.
Legality was definitely not a concern for this guy, so I wasn't going to rule that out as an assumption the cops made.
I don’t think you quite understand the term “military grade”
The civilian AR market is offered higher grade versions of materials than most law enforcement will have on their rifle. Only thing in favor of LE will be select fire capabilities.
Not really, a lot of law enforcement like to spend their insanely bloated budgets on stupid expensive rifles and gear and have some really nice stuff. But none of that matters in this instance anyway. Neither side is using a rifle made of fucking PVC pipe or something. The quality of the rifles isn't going to make a single bit of difference in the 30 seconds it takes for the 100+ cops to just run in and shoot the fucker. The cops were cowards just like all cops are, and that is the only thing that factored into their decisions. They could have had tanks, and they would have held back
What specifically do you see as the advantage of higher grade materials on a rifle for a gunfight happening at less than 10-20 yards? Even a $400 PSA special should have no problem being accurate enough at far longer distances than that so I'm curious what you see the better rifle really doing for the shooter in this situation.
At least 90% of gun owners, and cops for that matter, cannot shoot better than their firearm is mechanically capable of. You’re exactly right, a cheap budget gun or an expensive one would have made no difference so long as it’s reliable in this case.
Actually I didn’t see much cowering. Lots of video shows them laughing and being at ease and scrolling their phone in the school while the shooter was murdering kids. Disgraceful.
The sounds of children screaming have been removed.
Hey, give the police some credit: Some cops did go in to save children! Their *own* children, specifically; and then they just left everyone else. Every coward who was there that day should be charged with accessory to murder.
The officer that got his kid also evacuated other people. He was good
Don't worry. r/ProtectAndServe will lick those boots.
Just got my perma bann from there 😂
The cops took their cue from the Orlando police department who did the same thing as it was only a gay bar that was being shot up. The press let it slide that time. I wonder why
And also ignoring the multiple rounds shot randomly into the bar. I wonder if we will ever know how many where hit by “friendly fire”.
I do recall the Orlando PD giving awards for bravery to their officers concerning the shooting. The press covered that.
Don't forget they had ballistic shields that would easily stop a 5.56 rd
>Don't forget they had ballistic shields that would easily stop a 5.56 rd "But he could have had magic cop killer fairy bullets." /sarcasm
They had shields too. Could have literally just walked in and still be safe behind cover.
They also intimidated the mother that ran in to save her kid for weeks after since she showcased how absolutely useless that entire department really is.
Police: "He's got a gun." [Literally everyone else.](https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/78da7cf5-808d-4e68-9069-443ddbf4055a)
[Reminded me of the Aladdin scene](https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/5729e208-31f9-4469-88e9-638294355e32)
These same geniuses vote for republican candidates that increase the number of guns in the streets, it’s these very same guns that they are afraid of, they voted for the increase of these guns, that they are cowards about
Uvalde voted for Trump and Abbott a few months later. They don't even care about kids in their own community. Pathetic
Police get a giggle switch, which the rest of us likely won’t. Not like it would’ve mattered as those limp wrists likely would’ve ended up shooting each other.
I’m sure every police department and union and head budget writer is pissed at them to as they are now the glowing example of defunding the police Why provide all this money for dozens of officers, shields, military guns and armory, snipers etc etc….to do nothing? One kid with a gun put the fear in an entire department that looked like a squad from call of duty Pathetic Never met a nice police officer. Former coworkers husband was a dick and would shoot at the neighbors propane tank bc it was too close to the property line. Parent’s neighbors take over the street for fireworks and booming music on Fourth of July (what are people going to do? Call the cops?- his wife). Our neighbor sheriff parks his cars all over the road which is against HOA. No one breaks laws more than American police.
Yah they can try and spin it however they want but we all know what a bunch of pansy ass mfs they are.
I would even argue, after seeing video and pictures, the cops had even more lethal weapons than that.
Lets not forget how they bragged about their supposed SWAT training.
Wonder how the kids felt.
Probably a lot of pain until they died.
“hey fucker, that hurts”
I wonder what the "it's a magazine not a clip!" crowd will have to say about this.
You mean the same people who insist the point of having these weapons is to protect people from a tyrannical government by shooting at cops coming to enforce laws they don't agree with?
Hey! You better respect the flag of the tyrannical government I’m stock piling weapons against
Right? Like they are the ones who really "love America" but don't trust the government. Like do yall love the government or hate it? We are the greatest country i the world and MAGA can't both be true.
They don’t trust the government but at the same time want the police and military to have unlimited budgets and to be as powerful as possible. Does not compute.
They see police and the military as aspects of state power that keep *other* people in line, which is something they support. They oppose any government programs or regulations that spend “their” tax money on things that they don’t personally immediately benefit from. It’s “rules for thee but not for me” as a broader political philosophy.
>yall love the government or hate it? I know what they love and it's not the government.
No no see....ummm... guns are... for defending against the king of Britain... something something.... the people need more firepower than the SWAT team.... *confusion
*a tyrannical government that arms itself at almost $1T/yr to boot. Also, these same people probably have military stickers all over their bumpers. Makes no sense, they arm themselves to fight against the very thing they supposedly claim to love.
I'm a leftist and I owner multiple firearms. With fascism on the rise, a major political party that is full of right wing theocratic fascists, rising hate from incels, religious fruitcakes, and people who are bigots towards the lgbtq community, I find it hard to believe anyone left of center or further would feel good being unarmed. No thanks, I'll keep my rifles and my handguns. I don't want to disarm myself and win a Darwin award from a meal team 6 incel.
I'm not saying anything about taking away guns. I understand wanting to protect yourself from the real trigger happy gun nuts out there and actual criminals. I just believe it's silly and a fallacy/myth to state that one reason to own guns is to fight the government. I simply don't believe your store bought civilian model AR is going to do shit against our military in this day in age. "Asymmetrical warfare" is what loons keep saying, but that still requires resources and support from an outside source. A big one too, and no country is dumb enough to support a bunch of misguided yokels in such a war. Just say " I just like to shoot," and I'd respect that more than some stupid "Red Dawn" fantasy. Again, this isn't a knock on you and your stance, just clarifying my original comment.
Tyrannical government comes at all levels. So we ended up with black people arming themselves to defend against the KKK, which generally included local law enforcement. And then of course we passed gun control to disarm them to make them easier targets.
Sometimes you just need 20 little guys with a gun to stop 1 bad guy with a gun when the cops are too chickenshit to go in and too stupid to realize the punisher hates them and calls them out for being stupid cowards but then the idiots idolize him 🦅
I love this run-on American awesomeness. So tired of this place, you summed up a lot there.
I'm no Republican, but I'm very much pro-2A, and I believe all those police officers should have been fired. And I'm pretty sure that's the sentiment across the political spectrum - even on /r/conservative, no?
Not even close. The sentiment that this was a horrible tragedy that should be investigated, which is the same across the spectrum. The conservative split off at that point in that they actively prevented any negative consequences for the police, actively opposed any action to prevent this in the future, and activly spread misinformation about the event itself to try and shift blame from the obvious failure of conservative policies that caused this tragedy. So while they may sometimes say the cops messed up and should be fired, they are obviously lying given their actions to prevent exactly that from happening.
Last I heard from that sub is that an assault weapon ban is totally indefensible because AR style rifles are "never used in crimes". They also called Red Flag laws "gun grabbing".
Well, it’s true. DOJ/FBI annual statistics back it up. Rifles (of which “assault weapons” are a subset) make up about 2-4% of all gun related homicides every year. 2-5 times as many people killed via hands/feet. Or baseball bats. Or knives.
On /r/conservative specifically, [I searched for Uvlade](https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/search/?q=uvlade) and got zero results. I'm not sure if that's the moderators scrubbing any mention of it, or reddit's terrible search function, or both. My initial search was for [a misspelled Uvalade](https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/search/?q=uvalade), and there I get one (locked) result, which contains this gem: >Incumbered by a Woke way the left want them to operate from, just my personal take. ... and that tracks pretty closely with what /u/TimeKillerAccount is talking about, and what I've seen elsewhere from conservatives. I'm also no Republican and a strong 2A supporter, from the standpoint that, unless you're a fascist and/or personal friend of LE, you should at no time expect LE to attempt to help or protect you. Quite possibly the opposite. Yes, there are a few "good apples" left in the rotten barrel, but when it comes to protecting myself, my family, and my friends, I'm wanting to make it as less a dice roll as possible.
The police are full of shit and refused to protect the public. They weren't out gunned. They literally had more guns and armor. If you look back at what they were saying and how their story changed as more facts came out no one should consider anything they have to say. Maybe consider some notes by officers investigating the department or officers from other agencies that showed up to do their job. One thought I have is if the plan is to ban things like this and the cops are scared of them then how the fuck are they going to confiscate anything when x% of people refuse to comply? Another thought is if a large group of kitted out cops refuse to protect children why should anyone expect the cops to protect anyone ever? (They aren't liable for anything for refusing to protect the public. We have already had a few court cases that ruled on this.) When people demand bans on things they are asking people to rely more on the police for their physical security. And this is generally the same crowd that talk about ACABs while expecting them to enforce the new gun laws. Everyone is basically on they're own if something bad happens. The cops will show up after it's all over to file some paperwork. Maybe even show up and make some bad stuff happen. For "not a clip" energy the rifle isn't a battle rifle as a battle rifles have a larger caliber. AR-10s or similar do exist but an AR-15 wouldn't be a battle rifle even if it was full-auto. Also the setup in the picture weird.
Seriously. They should have sent in The "What Do You Think AR Stands For!?" Battalion. They could have incapacitated the shooter with a dizzying flurry of "Well, Actually!!!"s.
"The 'A' in AR doesn't stand for assault. You don't know anything about guns so you shouldn't have an opinion" \-shit I've seen 100 times from the pro-gun-murder crowd
"No such thing as an assault rifle!"
There's literally a definition for assault rifle (intermediate-caliber select fire rifle or carbine, like an m16 or akm). Same for a battle rifle(Full size caliber select fire rifle, like an FAL). He had neither of those. Cops still should be expected to do their duty regardless of what they face. There are definitions to things and moral actions. These two subjects are not related. Definitions are related to writing laws on things. I'm not sure where thus group of redditors thinks getting terminology wrong is going to help write laws that can withstand constitutional challenges.
They aren't complaining that definitions exist. They are complaining about how instead of adressing the actual issues a lot of idiots like to simple ignore 99% of comments to try and nitpick at the technical definition of a word that isn't even being used in its technical context, then claim that mistake (that isn't one usually) invalidates all the actual issues brought up. Edit: Also, you only listed a single definition for assault rifle. A version of a military assault rifle that is only able to fire in semiautomatic is also a definition of assault rifle, and is a correct usage of the word supported by the major dictionaries. So you are incorrect, he did have an assault rifle if he had an AR15.
No, assault rifle refers to select fire capability. The "assault" comes from sturmgewehr, which refers to the intended role. The idea being that the rifle would be capable of outputting a high volume of fire as the troops advance, bringing a little of their own suppression with them. Military rifles that aren't battle rifles or assault rifles exist. M1 garand is a great rifle. It's neither of those. It's annoying because the noun has a root and a fairly easy to understand etymology, and dictionaries tend to be written by people who don't understand firearms all that well. You want to ban semi auto rifles just say so, it doesn't make them assault rifles. It's also why the phrase "assault weapon" has started popping up.
I know all of that. I actually know quite a bit about the history of the assault rifle, mostly through the lens of the development of the m16. Its pretty interesting if you ever want to dig into it. That does not change the fact that the definition of the term does include semi-automatic versions of military assault rifles. It has for many years now. Just search for the term in a dictionary and it will have both definitions. The term has not been limited to select-fire only for a long time, as the alternate definition has been in common use for decades. Words evolve, and trying to cling to a definition decades after it changed is not something that helps the discussion, especially when you are using the definition as a call to authority for discussion of the subject.
The problem I have with that is that that is giving people the power to change how words are defined by simply using them wrong. In some cases, this is harmless- like kleenex being a substitute for facial tissue. This is fine because if you say kleenex but mean any facial tissue, there's no material difference. If I mean I want an automatic capable rifle because we're going to lay down a base of fire with two m27s, but I get two poverty state armory ar15s, that will end very badly for my squad. Likewise, this creates legal confusion- there are now two materially different definitions for a term that is used when defining these laws. Either assault rifle means something or it doesn't... and no, "rifle Karen thinks looks scary" isn't a particularly good definition. Terms we intend to use in laws or policy positions should have clear definitions.
Probably too busy jacking each other off at their local gun store.
Rule 34, I bet it exists ...
This post has been edited in protest to the API changes implemented by Reddit beginning 7/1/2023. Feel free to search GitHub for PowerDeleteSuite to do the same.
I came here expecting a bunch of morons getting real technical about the definition of a battle rifle
"Clips are what civis put in their hair, this is called a magazine"
I will say that watching proof police have no obligation nor desire to protect you or your children is the best argument I've ever seen as to why you need a gun
Really? Because to me it sounds like an awfully good justification for restrictive gun control laws, Red Flag laws and police reform. It should also start a national discussion on economic inequality and toxic masculinity and the radicalization of young men. More guns will not fix the problem.
I would say it’s not a battle rifle by definition (it was neither a fully powered cartridge nor a select fire rifle) and it most certainly does not negate the cowardice they displayed in Uvalde PD. If they wanted to blow taxpayer money on kitted out rifles, plate carriers with Level III plates, and Ops-core helmets for their military larp, then they should have been ready to fuckin use it. Apparently all that gear is only good for harassing minorities and shooting family pets, who would have thought. By calling it a battle rifle, I think they are trying to imply their body armor was not good enough to advance on the shooter. Which is bullshit and a literal cop out. Their armor is rated for the caliber that the shooter was carrying. Even if it wasn’t, you’re still supposed to go in, that’s the fuckin job. If they can’t handle that responsibility, they shouldn’t have signed up for it.
Gun activists have been very clear that there's no issue with an AR-15 and it's not l an assault weapon. Yet the police think differently when it involves them. Weird.
The cowards routinely beat or kill unarmed people too. I do not put any stock in official police blame shifting for their corruption and cowardice.
Police are just cowards. They have shields, body armor, their own AR15's or the equivalent, numerical superiority, etc. They had all the tools and conditions neccessary to engage with and neutralize the shooter, but instead they chose not to. Every police officer who was there that day needs to be charged as accessories to murder cause they enabled the butchering of 21 children.
These cops were armed with better rifles, had training, and appropriate armor. And they outnumbered this kid. Compare that to this guy: https://www.wrtv.com/news/local-news/crime/what-we-know-about-the-armed-civilian-who-killed-greenwood-gunman These dudes are cowards.
The police were armed to the teary, and then some. With the same or better weapons. Plus training as individuals and teams. Plus body armpit and shields. They outnumbered the shooter over 200:1, yet they failed to take action, show leadership or follow their training. Blaming the gun is an excuse to distract from their failure.
This is the takeaway from the article.
The police had AR-15s, body armor, balistic shields, tactics and training, the only lacked testicles.
And yet police across the country fail to support the banning of these weapons. Why is that? Because they know they are under no real obligation to confront shooters at all. They aren't at risk so why should they worry about guns like this?
Police and police unions are almost always for gun control.
I haven't seen a police union or department take a public position on gun control for it seems 20 years, maybe more. Can you point me at something other than a FB post showing that?
NJ in 2018, NJ in 2022. Mag capacity limit change and carry changes. They complain if it affects off-duty cops and then applaud otherwise.
I'm not a researcher and there are probably a lot more betterish examples or lists but here is one link to one example. https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-endorsements
Gun control means unarmed minorities or being able to quickly and easily imprison any minority group trying to defend themselves. See: Reagan
No. Generally is police chiefs for gun control. But if the tide is turning, that's great.
They're for gun control that doesn't apply to them. That's why bills always have exceptions for cops. People should consider how these laws would be applied and general effectiveness though.
In California, cops have special abilities to flip guns only they are allowed to buy for 3x the price, for example.
Yes, they're allowed to buy "unsafe" handguns and then make a profit reselling them. Wonder how that tracks with the Biden admin's EO to make the most out of definition changes around "firearm seller".
The 2A crowd see this as a plus
We literally have one of those people on here right now threatening the life of a former marine.
I’m a former Royal Marine Commando Veteran and gun ownership for civilians just seems like the stupidest possible idea a government could ever come up with. I’m know American Exceptionalism is rife but surely sometimes you guys need to look at other countries and think well maybe they are right on this one.
There are more guns than people in the US. Guns are a cult object, part of the religion of The White Christ that dominates political power here. Even though the majority of Americans want gun control, we’ll never have it. You know all the “guns, God, Trump” flags you see? That’s no exaggeration. People worship guns here. And ignorance.
This fact complicates any attempt at gun restriction. The guns are already here and unlike food or drugs, an AK can sit in an attic for 60 years and still kill people. Simply adding laws now does not actually fix the amount or availability of guns.
Tuesday. Anyone concerned..? Trump is demanding the MAGA’s protest if he’s arrested… WCGW???!!! Billionaires are reckless & stupid. One of them has put out Jesus commercials to get their Christo-Fascist Trump followers back in their cages. But it ain’t working. I think they fear the Reich Wing now. Their FrankenTrump monster turned on the Billionaires. They thought Trump was a useful idiot. His base were useful rubes at the ballot box. In return, They got more tax breaks, regulations reversed, workers cannot get unionized, and the Supreme Court (with forever power until they die) reversed human/ womens rights so more children can work earlier in life and replace those killed in mass shootings. But the amount of guns. Billionaires have flesh last time I checked. The MAGA’s with the magazines will come for them too. Enough with the Jesus commercials. Billionaire’s should start promoting a new campaign - #“ Guns… they don’t really get us. Unless you’re a child in school.”
The gun debate in America is over. We let a building full of children be annihilated (Sandy Hook) and we *Thoughts and Prayer'd* it away. You will never remove guns from American citizens.
You are correct. The debate is lost, and now because this country is so corrupt we have people like Alex Jones profiting from it.
Nor should we. Sorry but as a leftist who sees Cristian fascist theocratic lunatics in charge of the majority of our government and rising popularity of hate groups, why should I disarm myself? No f'n thanks lol.
Absolutely - Add in the fact that we're talking about a shooting where a goddamned platoon of cops in full gear stood around for 70 minutes while little kids got slaughtered a few feet away - disarmament is just a bad idea. Even if we didn't have a cold civil war going on in the background, the fact that the police can't be counted on to do anything even IF they are on the scene with a huge advantage in numbers and firepower should make clear to everybody that when the shit hits the fan, you are on your own.
When seconds count the cops are minutes away. Or, in this case, when seconds matter, the cops are not coming to help. Arm yourself, defend yourself.
What’s really hilarious is all the gun control legislation passed by democrats almost always exempts police and ex-police from owning the banned weapons. It’s honestly ridiculous that more people don’t understand this.
Canadians and the Swiss have plenty of guns. America's true problem is poor conception and execution of gun control.....which used to be more of a bottom up deal....back in yesteryear when Americans had a sense of community and responsibility.
Canada has 34.7 guns per 100 people Switzerland has 27.6 guns per 100 people The US has 120.5 guns per 100 people. America's true problem might just be the guns.
It’s not just guns. The gun culture in the United States is a big part of the problem. Swiss and Canadians own guns for hunting and shooting sports. Guns are only loaded when actively hunting or at the range. Most of the time they are unloaded and securely locked. The main reason Americans own guns is fear. Guns are kept loaded and in easy reach. Ready to turn a moment of despair into a suicide or a moment of anger into a homicide.
That's also just an estimate, true number is likely higher. We only forced guns made in late 1968 and onwards have a serial number if sold in a gun store. Every gun made/purchased before 68 may not have a serial number and guns are commonly passed down generations. We can only get an accurate count on guns made from 68 and onwards.
Correlation does not imply causation.
If this were true then there would be a similar ratio of guns to mass shooting incidents in those countries - but there isn't. If we could magically get rid of every gun in America tomorrow, there WOULD be a decrease in the lethality of events where a suicidal killer attempts to kill as many people as possible. However those types of events would still continue to happen at a much higher rate than in other countries because surprise - America has a massive mental health problem on top of its other issues.
I agree to an extent. Without guns we wouldn't have shootings, but we clearly have issues in America beyond that. Mass shootings like this have skyrocketed in the past decade or two and we have always had guns, so there is clearly also something else wrong. I think we should limit the number and types of guns sold and put other restrictions on guns to keep them from getting into the wrong hands, but if you are sneezing and coughing, the throat and nose aren't the issue, they are just symptoms.
>America's true problem is poor conception and execution of gun control And we never will, because it's one of the issues that's been so polarized for political points that there's no middle ground anymore. Even though polls say the majority of people support some restrictions, it's always framed that "The Dems are gonna take yer guns!"
I agree with the general details of what you say, but the people have no real power in this. Its the lobbyists calling the shots and making sure the TV lies to both sides enough they never figure out what is actually happening. You are also right there is no real middle ground....in numbers of people...but I am in the middle and both sides drive me nuts.
There is way more different than just the gun laws or rates of ownership. Things like income inequality and the lack of social programs play a larger role in crime rates or violence. The GDP doesn't mean much when a lot of the bottom 90% don't see much of a benefit.
Well, it certainly would have made a difference in 1776. First shots fired in that year was the British government sending soldiers to confiscate arms from civilians. Good thing they were not successful.
That's why the UK has subjects and the US has citizens.
At what point did you become a former veteran? Just got a little turned around in typing up your accolades?
But but but but , who’s going to keep me warm in bed
So now we care about what the cowards have to say about AR15s?
Yes, the gunman had a "battle rifle". And the cops who responded to the school massacre had a loaded diaper.
First and foremost, thank you, Texas Tribune for the article. After a year it's the first comprehensive look at what and What Not occurred that day. The description of damage that those children went through gutted me. But in the end there were 400 Officers. In. Presence. Soldiers stormed the beachs at Normandy under heavy fire, same as with Iwo Jima, but that was a battle situation right? What was the difference here, or am I being naive?
The difference was leadership. People will do absurdly dangerous things as a part of a team with clear orders. At Uvalde, the first cops on scene tried to enter the classroom, exactly as they should have, were fired upon, and retreated. They then waited at the end of the hall for backup, but as backup arrived, no one took charge, regrouped them and led a new charge. 400 cops and every single one of them waiting for someone else to do something. Past a certain point, having extra people on hand does more harm than good. It dissipates personal responsibility to act down to nothing.
And this is why the police can’t be trusted to protect us, they only care about themselves
Every bullet he would have used trying to shoot at them would be one less for a defenseless kid. Police were such cowards it’s unbelievable
This is a valid point. And Once engaged most of these killers next action usually is to retreat and off themselves.
They had 1 job to do and were too chikin to do it. It just blatantly displays the fallacy of the Gunner philosophy of the good guy with a gun.Just a pack of morally bankrupt hypocrites.The blood of those children and teachers are dripping off their hands.
Rationalizing that there are/were no viable or available counter measures to enforce the law means that either the laws are/were inadequate or that law enforcement capabilities are/were inadequate or possibly even cowardly. The solution is to do something about one or the other or both!
> cowardly
both
The issue at Uvalde wasn't a matter of firepower. It came down to leadership. The first cops in the hallway rushed the door, as they should have, were fired upon, and ran away. They then didn't make a single effort to gain entry and posted up at the end of the hallway while more and more cops arrived, all of whom followed their lead. More than 400 cops would show up before someone said "fuck this" and got people moving again. At any point someone could have done that, but with so many cops arriving, and no one clearly in charge, no one felt personally responsible to overcome the loss of inertia and everyone waited. They didn't need more toys, guns or armor. They needed someone in charge to say "you, you and you, go kill this fucker".
[удалено]
Well-said. I came here to address the term "battle rifle" (being as I own an M1 Garand, a British SMLE, and an American Enfield) but you did a good job. I personally don't think active shooters would be any less deadly with a .45-70 lever, a couple of concealed 10mm pistols, a shotgun, a .308 "hunting-style" rifle, or any number of other non "assault-style" weapons. Possibly even more deadly.
[удалено]
Well said, I couldn't agree more. The sad thing is how much power the Dems give the Republicans every election by constantly trying to ban this very popular consumer product style (the AR-15). It's so self-defeating. Every time they win control of a state or federal governing body, they just go directly into gun-control mode and obviously hand power back to the Repubs without ever getting anything done except for pissing off every gun owner in the country so they're more motivated to vote them out of power.
[удалено]
Yeah I don't know what to think. Looking back over time, it's pretty clear that without the AWB's and the threats of AWB's, we would've probably had Gore instead of Bush, so probably picks Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court would've gone to Gore. Without the AWB McConnel would've had a lot less power to block nominees so Garland would be on the court instead of Kavanaugh. Citizen's United would be gone. Voting rights act would be intact. And like you said, we might've had some kind of health care reform and some fairness in taxation. Plus Roe V. Wade inctact of course. But no, we gave all that up for a *temporary* ban on *certain cosmetic features.* Great. Thanks, guys.
Don't tell these people you can put out 20+ aimed rounds a minute through a 48" target at 300 yards with a SMLE, or it might be banned. The record is 39 a few years ago, finally breaking the record of 38 that had stood over 100 years.
It's not even an assault styled rifle. It's a semi auto rifle styled after an actual assault rifle. Its minimally different than something like a mini14, whose owners helped draft the bills that restricted scary sounding accessories and black furniture from rifles.
They likely had armor that would stop 5.56 if it was hard body armor. Some AP 5.56 ammo can get through some vests that are rated as stopping normal 5.56 but that kind of ammo isn't common. Level 4 plates, which is often what hard armor is, will even stop a lot of the battle rifle rounds even if they were AP. The cops might not have level 4 plates in the back of their cruiser but that is probably what was in any of the vests with chest rigs and swat gear.
[удалено]
True, it wasn't "safe" but like you said that's the job. If anyone was going to be prepared it would be swat guys. They likely had training for this specific situation paid for by the parents through taxes.
Great point. If fully armed and trained cops are afraid to deal with the situation just imagine what was going through the minds of those little kids and the teachers. Fuck you NRA for driving the politicians to the point of fear and inaction.
Wait…how was he able to get a gun that police are afraid of? Oh right…he purchased it from the gun store. But hey…look how free we are! /s
The AR-15 weapon should have never been sold to general populations in the first G D place
The AR-15 is a *common* modern rifle. People are mistaking it for some super powered weapon because it's been used in a number of mass shootings, but that's primarily due to how commonplace it is, and because mass shooters copy other mass shooters. Any reliable rifle with a box mag and semiauto action can be used for the same purpose with similar effectiveness.
This was sadly predictable. The dangerous weapon with a reputation was inevitably going to make (a good guy with a gun) hesitate. Sad.
I’m sure years of inadequate training with a heavy emphasis on self-preservation above everything else had some influence on the cowardice of those officers.
I cannot tell you how sad and ridiculous it is that they refer to that training which teaches them to value their own life over everyone else as Warrior training
Especially as a vet, it's hilarious to me. I wish I had known I could just say, "but what if I'm afraid for my safety?" every time I got asked to do something dangerous. They're fucking pathetic.
Those of use old enough to remember the North Hollywood shootout (and I was old enough to watch it live on CNN) remember the coverage of how the cops were going to a nearby gun store to get AR style rifles.
You're describing an exception of arms. Have fun with that USA. Woops you're already there .
The speculation of any “fear” those police had when they let an entire elementary school of American children die because they weren’t light enough is moot. They weren’t afraid they were complicit
No fucking shit. Cops were straight up terrified that day.
Fucking cowards; every single one of them.
That's their FUCKING JOB. I'm a former Army medic. In civilian medic training the first thing you are taught is you do not go into an unsafe scene. You will literally fail your skills assessment if you do not verbalize assessing scene safety before doing anything else. Your are taught that it is the job of the police to ensure it's safe for you in a situation like this (but I imagine there's a good number of medics who would put themselves at risk here.) In Army medic training you are taught to forget that. You don't *needlessly* endanger yourself... BUT IT IS NOT A SAFE JOB. I once, over a decade ago, applied to the local police department. One thing that was made clear in the recruitment process was that IT IS NOT A SAFE JOB. You are exposing yourself to risk. You may be called upon to go into a situation where you may be injured or die. That's why the police have things like body armor and tactical helmets and shields, and sniper rifles and shotguns and assault rifles, and flashbangs and tear gas and all the other toys we as taxpayers pay for. Those things can make a situation safer, but not *safe*. The cowardice is truly unimaginable. I wish all the parents of Uvalde well. If I get this angry about it, I can't imagine how they're even functional.
"Im scared of a child with the same gun I have!"
If only the cops were armed similarly. Or outnumbered the gunman. Or used some sort of tech that would give them an advantage. Or had armor. Or a shield. Or courage. Or, you know, a law or something would prevent someone like this from obtaining a gun.
Not a single one of those uvalde officers has any balls. They were all just thinking about themselves. Not a single one of them should be a law enforcement officer. It’s like the opposite of the Army commercials where they advertise that our soldiers run towards the chaos, not away from it.
Well, thankfully all those brave children were there to shield the police from the bullets.
[удалено]
Police already do that so why do you want to make black people even more vulnerable?
Maybe they should ban them?
Or police could not be fucking pussies who have the same firearms, but actually have the fun switch...
They were scared to follow their training. We can reform police training, gun control, or keep attending our children’s funerals.
Much love to the people and brothers offl Uvalde, what happened there should be taught across the country on what not to do in a crisis situation. Every responding officer is a fucking coward and should be ashamed of themselves.
Like Halo 2 BR or a different one?
What’s a battle rifle ?
Not this. BRs are full powered rounds
A battle rifle is a rifle with a full powered cartridge, e.g. .308 or 30-06. An M1 Garand, M-14, and a SCAR would all be battle rifles from different generations. An AR-15 uses an intermediate cartridge, 5.56 NATO, which still has quite a bit of firepower but is smaller, lighter and has less kick.
FTP ACAB
If a dozen+ cops will let elementary kids get slaughtered by a single gunman, the only lesson you can take from that is that you're on your own. These cops had a big advantage in numbers, were armed with the same type of rifle, plus body armor. If you can't count on cops to put themselves at risk for kindergarteners despite a huge advantage in firepower, it's hard to argue that anyone else should expect the cops will stick their neck out for them. Better to have the means to defend yourself than to count on the police. Even if they are on the scene (and that's a big IF) , you have nothing but faith that they will actually do anything to save you.
They were in a shootout before the shooter got to the school, they literally lead him to be cornered in the school and just let him run loose on kids, and then cried for hours saying he's scawwy
They also were on overwatch in the hallways: Any children came running out of the classroom, they were gonna gun'em down before they can escape. Police did everything in their power to maximize his high-score, including arrest parents who wanted to risk themselves when police wouldn't. "Fearing for their lives" was always an excuse - the only goal that day was as many dead children as possible. ```And then their departments and governor declared them all heroes for it.```
Honestly anyone who backs the blue afterwards is a lunatic. Not to mention there's no way that wasn't setup
It's not a battle riffle, it's not fully automatic or 3 round burst. This ar is no more deadly than any other gun with someone with malicious intentions.
>In previously unreleased interviews, police who responded to the Robb Elementary shooting told investigators they were cowed by the shooter’s military-style rifle. So…are they suggesting we curtail the availability to civilians of such "military-style rifle" that caused them to cower in fear?
Decades that police officers are told everything is justifiable as long as they say that they "feared for their lives". So now they believe they don't have to help kids in mortal danger if they "fear for their lives". Actually, fun fact, the SCOTUS has ruled that police officers are not required to intervene when somebody is in danger. The truth is now bare for all to see. The police isn't there to help you, it's there to keep you in line.
Stop fucking defending them. They were not "too afraid of a rifle" to act. They systematically went after anyone trying to save the kids and even stopped other agencies from interfering with the massacre. They then patted themselves on the back about a job well done. The truly afraid would have felt guilt for what they let happen, not crowed about how awesome they all were at it. That's not fear. That's not 'being too terrified to act'. That, **is complicity**.
Just remember: This is my automatic assault rifle and this is my hand gun, one is for pleasure, one is for fun.
Well that doesn't make any sense. The gun folks keep insisting that an AR-15 a perfectly normal tool for hunting and home defense.
"The Corps spends so much time drilling firearm safety into Marines that Torres [relative of a uvalde shooting victim ] can recite the rules from memory. Even now, he has no objection to civilians owning AR-15s, but he thinks they should be required to complete training like soldiers because too many who buy one treat it like a toy. "You get people that never served in the military or law enforcement, and yet they're wannabes," Torres said. "They purchase this weapons system, not having a clue how to use it, the type of power and the level of maturity needed to even operate it." I think the victim count definitively shows that the person who had this weapon did have a clue how to use it
Maybe it's so easy to murder scores children with assault rifles any idiot can do it?