Negligent cop resonse containment thread: all criticism of cops in Uvalde goes here

#27
#27
Grand Vol said:
Modified mags?

Do tell...
Click to expand...
When in reality all that happened was removal of a plug from a standard capacity magazine to reduce the number it could hold in New York. Once again a law that’s completely worthless and only limits the law abiding citizens. Like the stupid ass assault rifle ban.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, NorthDallas40, DC_Vol and 2 others
#29
#29
I’m trying to figure why every left leaning person on my Twitter feed is turning this negligent cop thing into a right vs. left thing. It’s like they’re calling all cops republicans and somehow placing on a particular side. It’s pathetic really. Not surprising, but pathetic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, 508mikey and Rickyvol77
#30
#30
RDU VOL#14 said:
I’m trying to figure why every left leaning person on my Twitter feed is turning this negligent cop thing into a right vs. left thing. It’s like they’re calling all cops republicans and somehow placing on a particular side. It’s pathetic really. Not surprising, but pathetic.
Click to expand...
Someone posted on my feed that the police did this because they were Hispanic kids. And I’m like 90% of the people in this town including the police are Hispanic
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, InVOLuntary, TrumpedUpVol and 4 others
#32
#32
Rickyvol77 said:
Someone posted on my feed that the police did this because they were Hispanic kids. And I’m like 90% of the people in this town including the police are Hispanic
Click to expand...
I saw something similar. Some girl was whining of how this reeked of racism. My thoughts were the same as yours. I think there are some things that need to change, but people need to stop pretending it’s only a gun issue. It’s not .
 
  • Like
Reactions: 508mikey and Rickyvol77
#33
#33
lawgator1 said:
With a few thousand rounds, modified magazines, plus full body armor? In a routine officer's patrol car?

GTFO
Click to expand...

WTF is a modified magazine?

Why does a trained officer need a few thousand rounds to take out an untrained perp? Besides in 90% of the country a 2nd/3rd/4th officer would be on scene within a couple minutes.

I’d think most police today have tactical vests in their cars.

WTF am I arguing with a subject illiterate political hack?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, GroverCleveland, Redleg68 and 5 others
#34
#34
RDU VOL#14 said:
I’m trying to figure why every left leaning person on my Twitter feed is turning this negligent cop thing into a right vs. left thing. It’s like they’re calling all cops republicans and somehow placing on a particular side. It’s pathetic really. Not surprising, but pathetic.
Click to expand...


That makes no sense.

What does make sense is to separate these issues logically:

A. If the police could have responded better or more quickly, that should carefully be examined to that this agency and others can be better prepared when, unfortunately as it inevitably will this occurs again.

BUT RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE FROM WHETHER THIS YOUNG MAN SHOULD HAVE HAD THE ACCESS HE DID HAVE TO GUNS.

B. It seems like everyone, save a few diehards, agrees that this young man should not have been able to buy such weaponry. At least not as easily as he did. We can debate whether gun sales of al types to all persons ought to be more strictly regulated, or whether his prior threats make him unique such that we ought to focus restrictions on his particular situation.

BUT WHAT WE CANNOT DO IS ALLOW ADVOCATES ON EITHER SIDE TO CONFUSE A WITH B.

They are separate issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RDU VOL#14
#35
#35
hog88 said:
WTF is a modified magazine?

Why does a trained officer need a few thousand rounds to take out an untrained perp? Besides in 90% of the country a 2nd/3rd/4th officer would be on scene within a couple minutes.

I’d think most police today have tactical vests in their cars.

WTF am I arguing with a subject illiterate political hack?
Click to expand...

I'd take my shotgun at 20 feet or less against that guy's AR-15 any day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Redleg68
#36
#36
hog88 said:
WTF is a modified magazine?

Why does a trained officer need a few thousand rounds to take out an untrained perp? Besides in 90% of the country a 2nd/3rd/4th officer would be on scene within a couple minutes.

I’d think most police today have tactical vests in their cars.

WTF am I arguing with a subject illiterate political hack?
Click to expand...


Re modified magazine, I'm sorry, you are correct. My mistake.

Re tactical vests: I don't think that's the same thing as being reported as to the shooter but am not sure on that.
 
#37
#37
VolStrom said:
I'd take my shotgun at 20 feet or less against that guy's AR-15 any day.
Click to expand...


This isn't a western where you walk ten paces, turn and fire. He's getting to you way before you are 20 feet away with a shotgun.

giphy.gif
 
#42
#42
hndog609 said:
How far do you think the engagement distance was in this encounter?
Click to expand...

Varied from what I read.

But that is not what we are talking about. Somehow you expect to get within 20 feet of him carrying a shotgun. Unless you are planning on hiding in that particular schoolroom's closet every day, waiting for this exact scenario, don't see how that happens.
 
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
Varied from what I read.

But that is not what we are talking about. Somehow you expect to get within 20 feet of him carrying a shotgun. Unless you are planning on hiding in that particular schoolroom's closet every day, waiting for this exact scenario, don't see how that happens.
Click to expand...

It's what we're talking about when discussing CQB distances, which we clearly are in this case. 20' is basically 7 yards so in an indoor scenario the point stands. What you may not be grasping is that with combat buckshot loads 20' or 20 yards the result would be the same, just a wider dispersal pattern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
Make no mistake, these are completely different issues. A faster police response might have saved, what, half the victims? Ok, then cut the death toll in half. Good point. And we need to have a discussion about the negligent police response.

But that should not be used to distract form the questions about firearm access. Thus, all posts blaming the police should be placed in this thread. Where they can sensibly be debated and not pollute the main discussion over firearms.
Click to expand...
Merge..
To Protect and to Serve II
 
#47
#47
lawgator1 said:
It is clear that we have many posters and a lot of media who are either too dumb to see the difference in the issues or are purposefully manipulating those who are by trying to distract from questions about how the shooter became so heavily armed with the firepower he managed.

Make no mistake, these are completely different issues. A faster police response might have saved, what, half the victims? Ok, then cut the death toll in half. Good point. And we need to have a discussion about the negligent police response.

But that should not be used to distract form the questions about firearm access. Thus, all posts blaming the police should be placed in this thread. Where they can sensibly be debated and not pollute the main discussion over firearms.

You are welcome for this thread.
Click to expand...
Why is a separate thread necessary?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#49
#49
lawgator1 said:
So that people who want to criticize the police response have a place to do so freely and openly, but without causing it to distract their more simple minded brethren from the gun control issues.
Click to expand...
What? The thread is about the shooting and you've derailed it with gun control. The cowardly police are more on topic than gun control
 
  • Like
Reactions: hUTch2002, TrumpedUpVol, 508mikey and 1 other person
#50
#50
lawgator1 said:
That makes no sense.

What does make sense is to separate these issues logically:

A. If the police could have responded better or more quickly, that should carefully be examined to that this agency and others can be better prepared when, unfortunately as it inevitably will this occurs again.

BUT RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE FROM WHETHER THIS YOUNG MAN SHOULD HAVE HAD THE ACCESS HE DID HAVE TO GUNS.

B. It seems like everyone, save a few diehards, agrees that this young man should not have been able to buy such weaponry. At least not as easily as he did. We can debate whether gun sales of al types to all persons ought to be more strictly regulated, or whether his prior threats make him unique such that we ought to focus restrictions on his particular situation.

BUT WHAT WE CANNOT DO IS ALLOW ADVOCATES ON EITHER SIDE TO CONFUSE A WITH B.

They are separate issues.
Click to expand...
I’m with you on this.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top