General Mass Shooting Thread (originally Las Vegas Strip)

[TheGreatBuzz]

Quote

GREENWOOD, Ind. — Three people were fatally shot and two were injured Sunday evening at an Indiana mall after a man with a rifle opened fire in a food court and an armed civilian shot and killed him, police said.

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/17/1111973024/3-people-fatally-shot-indiana-mall

 

The good guy with a gun theory works out sometimes.

Quote

A 22-year-old from nearby Bartholomew County who was legally carrying a firearm at the mall shot and killed the gunman, Ison said at a news conference.

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

“Works out” means only 3 dead.  Tremendous success!

[mistertim]

8 minutes ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

“Works out” means only 3 dead.  Tremendous success!

 

I get your point, but to be fair, if he hadn't been taken out it could have been 20 people instead of 3 for all we know.

 

That being said, the right is now going to scream at the top of their lungs that this one instance is 100% proof that the "good with with a gun" theory has now been completely validated, while ignoring the statistics that say it almost is never the case.

Edited July 18, 2022 by mistertim

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

I get your point, but to be fair, if he hadn't been taken out it could have been 20 people instead of 3 for all we know.

 

That being said, the right is now going to scream at the top of their lungs that this one instance is 100% proof that the "good with with a gun" theory has now been completely validated, while ignoring the statistics that say it almost is never the case.

 

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that what you say.  Just saying it does happen which some seem to refuse.

[Corcaigh]

1 hour ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that what you say.  Just saying it does happen which some seem to refuse.

I accept that preventing a mass shooting can happen.  But most shootings are targeted, not mass shootings. More guns also means more bystanders get hit. And it also happens that the good guy with a gun is shot by police when they arrive.

[Dan T.]

Good news! Just four people dead in the food court of an American shopping mall! It was only a brief shootout!  Only four dead and two wounded! Minor carnage! Hooray America! Hooray NRA! Hooray politicians who pose with their firearms like gun fetishists! 

 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2022 by Dan T.

[Dan T.]

Here's a paragraph from Texas Tribune reporter Zach Despart's piece on the Uvalde shooting investigation (underline added):

 

In total, 376 law enforcement officers — a force larger than the garrison that defended the Alamo — descended upon the school in a chaotic, uncoordinated scene that lasted for more than an hour. The group was devoid of clear leadership, basic communications and sufficient urgency to take down the gunman, the report says.

 

 

...Written for his Texas audience. Well done.

 

Uvalde shooting report by TX House obtained by Texas Tribune | wfaa.com

 

Edited July 18, 2022 by Dan T.

[bcl05]

This country, most especially the gun advocacy crowd, has conflated emergency response with public safety.   Instead of preventing tragedy by removing dangerous weapons, we need more weapons out there to respond when tragedy "inevitably" comes.  It's stupid, backwards, and killing people.    

[Captain Wiggles]

4 minutes ago, bcl05 said:

This country, most especially the gun advocacy crowd, has conflated emergency response with public safety.   Instead of preventing tragedy by removing dangerous weapons, we need more weapons out there to respond when tragedy "inevitably" comes.  It's stupid, backwards, and killing people.    

 

Conservatives did basically the same thing with the coronavirus vaccine. Public safety is for the libtard cucks what live in cities. I have a gun and an immune system. I can take on any and all challengers. 🤪

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 hours ago, Dan T. said:

Here's a paragraph from Texas Tribune reporter Zach Despart's piece on the Uvalde shooting investigation (underline added):

 

In total, 376 law enforcement officers — a force larger than the garrison that defended the Alamo — descended upon the school in a chaotic, uncoordinated scene that lasted for more than an hour. The group was devoid of clear leadership, basic communications and sufficient urgency to take down the gunman, the report says.

 

 

...Written for his Texas audience. Well done.

 

Uvalde shooting report by TX House obtained by Texas Tribune | wfaa.com

 

 

I'm interested to hear more about this and how their response may have/did differ from their SOP.  I know in the EMS field, we were taught you don't go charging to the scene without being directed because that can cause more chaos than offsets any help you may provide.  Like why did 400 officers need to respond to what was essently one shooter?

 

I know we were told a story about a mass causality incident where the initial ambulances lost their patients because they were caught in traffic caused by all the emergency vehicles trying to respond.

 

 

Edited July 18, 2022 by The Almighty Buzz
Fixed important word

[GhostofSparta]

3 hours ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

Like why did 400 officers need to respond to what was essently one shooter?

For all that sweet, sweet overtime pay, baby.

[Jabbyrwock]

10 hours ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

The good guy with a gun theory works out sometimes.

 

So does the "dont worry, I can pull out in time" theory.  Probably not the best basis for policy tho.

[tshile]

4 hours ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

I'm interested to hear more about this and how their response may have/did differ from their SOP.  I know in the EMS field, we were taught you don't go charging to the scene without being directed because that can cause more chaos than offsets any help you may provide.  Like why did 400 officers need to respond to what was essently one shooter?

 

I know we were told a story about a mass causality incident where the initial ambulances lost their patients because they were caught in traffic caused by all the emergency vehicles trying to respond.

 

 

Law enforcement started changing these tactics in the 90’s. I’m the 2000’s it was well understood what the new procedure was. And the core emphasis was “do not wait for backup”. It’s like the first thing they say, the last thing they say, and what they say in between each step. The lesson learned long ago was literally do not wait. 

 

it sounds like that department is run by morons. With the guy at the top being king moron. 
 

He had their policy that incident command, for a critical situation, be their administration building. In an age where setting up a command center is core to responding to a large critical situation and making sure someone is making quality decision and that they can be carried out, this moron decided they should move it back to their admin office. Ie: not set up a command center. “Our commend center plan is to not have a command center” is basically what their idea is. 
 

that many people showed up cause the call went out for a school shooting and everyone with a gun and a badge dropped what they were doing to go help. I’ve never personally witnessed that with a shooting but I watched it firsthand with firefighters on 9/11. It’s just what you do. Even off duty people that happen to be listening and catch the radio call (we had ours on in the house a lot growing up)
 

and ironically it probably contributed immensely to the hour long wait since, by design, they had no one the ground leadership empowered to call all the shots.  And there were hundreds of people there, plus EMS and Fire. And NO ONE on the ground taking charge. Which - I mean anyone trained in first response understands that a large group of people standing around an emergency will do nothing thinking surely someone else is taking care of it.   There’s a whole part of the training that simply about understanding how to direct people. Because they’ll just stand there. It’s insane. 
 

Which isn’t their fault (the fact they were there and it contributed to the mess) - to be clear - its absolutely the fault of the idiots that ran that department and the policies and decisions they made. They should all lose their jobs immediately. 
 

it’s not a coincidence shortly after the incident their department went silent on the whole thing and started acting like douchebags. It’s cause they got caught being incompetent and started trying to figure out how to cover their asses. 

Edited July 19, 2022 by tshile

[Larry]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

Law enforcement started changing these tactics in the 90’s. I’m the 2000’s it was well understood what the new procedure was. And the core emphasis was “do not wait for backup”. It’s like the first thing they say, the last thing they say, and what they say in between each step. The lesson learned long ago was literally do not wait.

 

During the Las Vegas shooting, there was a lot of criticism that the cops took like 4 hours to enter the hotel room.  

 

And one of the board's experts came in and defended this.  Said that the current rule was that if there's shooting going on, then the first unit on scene goes in immediately.  But, if there's no gunfire when they show up, you wait till you have overwhelming force.  (And in the case of Las Vegas, the shooter had shot himself as soon as he saw a cop in the hotel corridor.)  

 

(Now, granted, in the case of Uvalde, it sounds like there was shooting still going on.  Although the impression I get is that there was very little.  Like, four shots over the period of one hour?)

[TheGreatBuzz]

Quote

Students in a Dallas school district must wear clear backpacks after Uvalde shooting.

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/19/1112211589/dallas-schools-clear-backpacks?utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

 

 

[Ball Security]

19 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/19/1112211589/dallas-schools-clear-backpacks?utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

 

 

Shouldn’t parents have the right to choose their kids’ backpacks?  Where’s their freedom?

[China]

31 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/19/1112211589/dallas-schools-clear-backpacks?utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

 

 

 

Clear?  They should all have these.

[skinsmarydu]

That's standard everywhere here in ATL, I think. 

[tshile]

7 hours ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/19/1112211589/dallas-schools-clear-backpacks?utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

 

 

Seems dumb considering a student didn’t bring it in in a backpack….

[CousinsCowgirl84]

7 hours ago, Ball Security said:

Shouldn’t parents have the right to choose their kids’ backpacks?  Where’s their freedom?

Any color as long as it’s clear. I mean if it will keep kids safer who cares what color it is.. though I bet that company that makes bulletproof backpacks is opposed to this.

23 hours ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

So does the "dont worry, I can pull out in time" theory.  Probably not the best basis for policy tho.

Metaphor hall of fame…

[Bang]

Look, this is a huge invasion of privacy, but if they require the deranged lunatic asshole who barges into the school and massacres everyone to ALSO have a clear backpack so they can see his weapon first..  I guess i can live with it.
 

 

Say, severed leg? Femoral artery spouting like a fire hydrant?
Here's a ****ing band-aid.

 

This country is too stupid to survive.

 

~Bang

Edited July 19, 2022 by Bang

[Larry]

1)  Obviously, the problem here is too much privacy.  

 

2)  And don't you even think of proposing that we keep track of who owns which guns, you commie gun-grabber.  

[Renegade7]

Is it possible this doesn't happen inside inner city schools because they have metal detectors and actually take physical security seriously?

 

Nah...couldn't be that...plus they are so scared of being in a school that looks like a jail. How do they not cower in fear jus trying to graduate?

 

🤔

[Califan007 The Constipated]

On 7/18/2022 at 7:55 AM, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that what you say.  Just saying it does happen which some seem to refuse.

 

I've not heard anyone say it has never happened.

 

I've heard a ton of people say relying on it instead of gun control and thinking we need to put more guns in the hands of the public is an asinine solution. Which it is.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Post this again lol...