Are We Supposed To Harden Walmarts and Grocery Stores, Too?

[candycorn]

The guntards seem to think the solution to mass shootings has something to do with doors and putting cops in schools.

Well, the cops completely failed at Parkland and Uvalde. In fact, the cop who fucked up at Parkland was fired, but then he sued and got his job back...with back pay.

So much for "the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun".

The guntards are also ignoring the fact that just a few days before the Uvalde, a white replacement bleever mass shooter took out a bunch of black people at a grocery store.

They also ignore the fact a white replacement bleever traveled hours to kill a bunch of Mexicans at a Wal-mart in El Paso.


We cannot harden every grocery story, Wal-Mart, mall, or other gathering places.


Duh!

I support hardening schools because politically it is the only thing I forecast that can be done at the federal level. It’s better than thoughts and prayers. Not much better but still better

 

[Flopper]

If two people are shooting at each other and one has armor and the other one doesn't, it matters not if he had an AR or a .22 handgun. The unarmored shooter is going to lose.

I guess we could require the public to wear body armor as protection against firearms. Of course we all know of the more logical requirement.

 

[candycorn]

There're about 140,000 of them. However it is not just schools but retail establishments, churches, and just about every public place. Turning everyplace people gather into a fortress is not the answer because we can not protect ourselves from ourselves.

True. The only difference I would argue is this: a 13 y/o makes a choice to go to TJ Maxx or Lululemon. They are required by law to be at school. No one should have to worry about mass shootings but that is where the NRA and their politicians have put us.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I guess we could require the public to wear body armor as protection against firearms. Of course we all know of the more logical requirement.

That point sure flew right over your head, so let me reiterate: The guard at the store was killed because he didn't have body armor like the attacker did. According to reports, he did shoot the attacker. The poster I responded to was trying to say the reason the guard was killed was because of the type of weapon the attacker used, not the body armor.

In other words, the good guy with a gun didn't stand a chance.

 

[BrokeLoser]

The guntards seem to think the solution to mass shootings has something to do with doors and putting cops in schools.

Well, the cops completely failed at Parkland and Uvalde. In fact, the cop who fucked up at Parkland was fired, but then he sued and got his job back...with back pay.

So much for "the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun".

The guntards are also ignoring the fact that just a few days before the Uvalde, a white replacement bleever mass shooter took out a bunch of black people at a grocery store.

They also ignore the fact a white replacement bleever traveled hours to kill a bunch of Mexicans at a Wal-mart in El Paso.


We cannot harden every grocery story, Wal-Mart, mall, or other gathering places.


Duh!

Yep. Online only. No more putting your nasty finger nail print in the tomatoes. You get what they give you when you pick up your box.

That is the Republican Plan

Harden….

Schools
Supermarkets
WalMarts
Churches
Concerts
Shopping Malls
Movie Theaters
Restaurants
Ball Fields

Anywhere a shooter may pick

And they will bitch about it when implimented.

Don't forget "red flag" laws. That is when they can prevent certain people from attaining a firearm. You know, like the mentally ill, convicted felons--oh wait, scratch that, Amy Coney Barret shot that down. Those convicted of domestic violence, transgender, gay, and transexuals. You know, kind of like Hitler did. Republicans will prevent their enemies from attaining firearms legally first, and then they will round them up and send them to work camps.

If Bret buys an AR15, nobody will mess with him

The Buffalo Tops super market that the white supremacist decided to shoot up did have an armed security guard.

That wasn’t enough when we allow 18-year-old psychopaths to legally purchase AR-15 rifles.

Obviously we need to provide an individual armed guard for all shoppers, all children at school, and anyone who works at those places.

And hospitals. And malls. And restaurants. And nightclubs.

There. Easy peasy. Freedom.

Hahaha…does it completely escape you people….armed security at malls, grocery stores and the like is only needed in blue shitholes full of dark Democrats. This shit is your baby, own it…it’s what you have created. Because because because….”our diversity is our strength”

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ok. So what are you suggesting? It's not enough for us to have hardened targets, but now they need to have body armor and AR-15s as well?

Not suggesting it at all. But your allegation of the type of weapon the attacker used has nothing to do with why the guard was shot and killed, nor why his defense of the patrons of the store was not productive enough. Any unarmored attacker would have been killed by the good guy with a gun.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Not suggesting it at all. But your allegation of the type of weapon the attacker used has nothing to do with why the guard was shot and killed, nor why his defense of the patrons of the store was not productive enough. Any unarmored attacker would have been killed by the good guy with a gun.

Sure made it easier to kill a bunch of people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure made it easier to kill a bunch of people.

An AR is a semi-automatic gun, just like many .38's, .45's and even 9mm. The kind of gun had nothing to do with the easy of killing people. They all fire the same exact way.

 

[XponentialChaos]

An AR is a semi-automatic gun, just like many .38's, .45's and even 9mm. The kind of gun had nothing to do with the easy of killing people. They all fire the same exact way.

He chose his firearms -- including a semiautomatic rifle and a shotgun -- because “there are very few weapons that are easier to use and more effective at killing than firearms, especially the Bushmaster XM-15 I will be using,” he wrote.

His own words.

 

[Missourian]

Many are simultaneously talking about registration and assault weapons bans, so the logical conclusion is they want to first make all guns registered, so that they can then more easily confiscate later.

And yes, the "assault rifle" ban is essentially wanting to take away ALL firearms.
Why?
Because if you knew anything about firearms, you would know that the .223 of ARs is about the single weakest bullet used in any rifle.
If you can ban that, then you can and will ban all firearms.
Pistols I can almost see banning because they are so easy conceal.
But there is no excuse for ever banning any rifle, ever.

People should be glad that these school shooters are using assault rifles instead of explosives, arson, toxins, etc., that could easily kill 10 times as many, and not even get caught.

You know, for one of these threads I was researching the young mass shooters to make sure I remembered correctly that they ALL passed background checks in every instance that they purchased the firearm...except the first...Columbine.

I ran across something I didn't know...

The Joker in Aurora had 30 homemade grenades and successfully rigged his apartment with explosives.

From CNN... Archived of course...

https://web.archive.org/web/20210325133304/https://www.cnn.com/2012/07/24/justice/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html

 

[BrokeLoser]

I guess we could require the public to wear body armor as protection against firearms. Of course we all know of the more logical requirement.

Definitely….you should require the public to wear body armor in all “diverse” blue shitholes…because “our diversity is our strength”.

 

[Flopper]

I support hardening schools because politically it is the only thing I forecast that can be done at the federal level. It’s better than thoughts and prayers. Not much better but still better

I think the problem will eventually solve itself as the number of guns keep increasing and arms manufactures keep increase the kill power of guns and ammunition, the high court will stop ignoring the first phrase of the 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". When firearms in hands of public threaten the security of the country, and very few owners of guns are members of a well regulated militia, then what is justification of the right to bear arms.

 

[Flopper]

You know, for one of these threads I was researching the young mass shooters to make sure I remembered correctly that they ALL passed background checks in every instance that they purchased the firearm...except the first...Columbine.

I ran across something I didn't know...

The Joker in Aurora had 30 homemade grenades and successfully rigged his apartment with explosives.

From CNN... Archived of course...

https://web.archive.org/web/20210325133304/https://www.cnn.com/2012/07/24/justice/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html

An that is the purpose of the red flag law that permits variously police, family members, coworkers, and others to petition a state courts to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who they believe may present a danger to others or themselves.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I think the problem will eventually solve itself as the number of guns keep increasing and arms manufactures keep increase the kill power of guns and ammunition, the high court will stop ignoring the first phrase of the 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". When firearms in hands of public threaten the security of the country, and very few owners of guns are members of a well regulated militia, then what is justification of the right to bear arms.

The problem you have is….our great founders were referring to We The Armed People as that well regulated militia that scares you.
This is evidenced by the third and fourth phrase.
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

[Flopper]

That point sure flew right over your head, so let me reiterate: The guard at the store was killed because he didn't have body armor like the attacker did. According to reports, he did shoot the attacker. The poster I responded to was trying to say the reason the guard was killed was because of the type of weapon the attacker used, not the body armor.

In other words, the good guy with a gun didn't stand a chance.

So good guys with guns should wear body armor.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

An that is the purpose of the red flag law that permits variously police, family members, coworkers, and others to petition a state courts to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who they believe may present a danger to others or themselves.

And what expertise" do these people have to make such a decision. I don't know about you, but I have had my outs with coworkers, family members and ex-girlfriends who would have loved to see me not get a gun for personal reasons unrelated to a threat on my behalf.

You leftists hate the idea of being considered innocent until proven guilty, but until that time comes where you can change that, it's still the law of the land.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So good guys with guns should wear body armor.

Did I say that?

 

[Rigby5]

Everybody is not packing in Israel. It's very hard to get a gun permit there. You have to show a good reason.

Wrong.
The only reason why we have a higher per capita gun ownership is collectors.
Two thirds of the population in Israel is Arab and not allowed to have guns.
Half the Jewish population is women and they don't want them.
And of course Jewish children are not allowed firearms.
So then YES, about every Jewish male is packing in Israel.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think the problem will eventually solve itself as the number of guns keep increasing and arms manufactures keep increase the kill power of guns and ammunition, the high court will stop ignoring the first phrase of the 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". When firearms in hands of public threaten the security of the country, and very few owners of guns are members of a well regulated militia, then what is justification of the right to bear arms.

Back in the day we had no military like we have today. Today when you join the military, the state provides you with weapons. Back in the day they didn't for a militia. If you were called to duty, you not only had to bring your own gun, but your own ammo as well. What good would a militia be if the government was permitted to disarm the entire society?

Believe it or not, people back then didn't have police departments, cell phones or Walmart to buy food. They had bad guys just like we do today, and had to defend themselves against bad guys or hostile Indian tribes. They had to hunt for their own meat to feed themselves and their family. The government being able to disarm everybody outside a militia would have meant sure death for many of them.

The founders (and their writings) demonstrate their amendment was not just for militia members. How would a widow stop coyotes, foxes or wolves from killing their chickens without firearms?

 

[Rigby5]

I support hardening schools because politically it is the only thing I forecast that can be done at the federal level. It’s better than thoughts and prayers. Not much better but still better

Wrong.
The whole point is that NOTHING should or legally can be done federally.
Hardening schools is local, so legal.