The gun violence training hero we needed!

[shoengine]

Thanks Pooh Bear!

MSN

Read More

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I read somewhere that they had a special LEO ONLY version for the Uvalde School District titled "Run, Hide, Fight Subpoenas"

But that might have been a rumor

 

[Jay Walk]

Here's a real Gun Violence Hero.

Reminds me of Michael Douglas in the movie Falling Down.

 

[Koda]

the transit company says he didn't properly deescalate the situation and they don't want -anyone- carrying guns on their buses

sick company CEO doesnt even care about his employee life

 

[Knobgoblin]

the transit company says he didn't properly deescalate the situation and they don't want -anyone- carrying guns on their buses

sick company CEO doesnt even care about his employee life

Interim ceo.

Lol

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

Fist violence, knife violence, blunt object violence. They all sound pretty stupid, right? Well gun violence sounds just as stupid.

 

[nammac]

Here's a real Gun Violence Hero.

Reminds me of Michael Douglas in the movie Falling Down.

Hmmmm. Driver is off the job? Seems that transit authority might want to be careful, that driver might have a case where his employer was negligent in keeping him safe. And as a result felt compelled to carry himself. Deep pockets there, just saying.

 

[titsonritz]

 

[titsonritz]

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Oh bother...What to do when the pooh hits the fan....
Andy

 

[Stomper]

Oh bother...What to do when the pooh hits the fan....
Andy

Hey, that reminds me…..


What sound does Pooh make when you throw it into a fan?






MARINE!!










Go Army!!

 

[nwslopoke]

Thanks Pooh Bear!

MSN

Considering other aspects schools are teaching kids, any actual gun safety is a good thing. It's also rich that California governor, Gavin "Bang you wife" Newsome talking about school safety, while criminals roam free.

All this fear driven over guns just drives panic and people lose the ability to think clearly and make a plan. People at opposite ends of a mall will lock themselves, unarmed, in a room instead of leaving the mall.

 

[Stomper]

Considering other aspects schools are teaching kids, any actual gun safety is a good thing. It's also rich that California governor, Gavin "Bang you wife" Newsome talking about school safety, while criminals roam free.

All this fear driven over guns just drives panic and people lose the ability to think clearly and make a plan. People at opposite ends of a mall will lock themselves, unarmed, in a room instead of leaving the mall.

Welp, the process of natural selection isn't always a simple case of, "walking on known active train tracks while wearing earbuds listening to loud music and getting run over by a train from behind" (which literally happened in my town a few months ago)….





It can also be a sophisticated and diabolical process at times.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Its all well and good until....
Pooh Bear gets a rumbly in his tumbly...and starts craving a ham on rye sandwich. ...
Poor piglet.
Andy

 

[JeremyK]

the transit company says he didn't properly deescalate the situation and they don't want -anyone- carrying guns on their buses

sick company CEO doesnt even care about his employee life

That manager-type with the glasses enrages me... "we don't want ANYONE carrying weapons on the bus".... yeah cool dude, that's not going to stop criminals from doing so. Fu(king clueless office dork...

 

[Certaindeaf]

Thanks Pooh Bear!

MSN

Fret: To out-snowflake a snowflake.
Nothing to see here but fabricated fretting about fretting, oh my!

 

[washagonian]

Hmmmm. Driver is off the job? Seems that transit authority might want to be careful, that driver might have a case where his employer was negligent in keeping him safe. And as a result felt compelled to carry himself. Deep pockets there, just saying.

@nammac has a very interesting point and it's something I've been thinking about a lot in the last couple of years, but I have not seen anything about it in general discussions or surfacing on YouTube or as a legal case. And that point is:

If an entity like a business or corporation (like a transit company, hospital, community college, etc.) passes a policy prohibiting me from carrying my concealed firearm on their controlled property (even though I have a CHL), does that mean that the entity has assumed even more responsibility for my safety and protecting me from violence, since they have removed my ability to do so?

This seems to be an especially poignant question if the entity (college, department store, etc.) has security staff present and on duty. Even more so if those staff members are armed. I noticed since the first of the year that several Home Depot stores in the Portland metro area have started using ARMED security officers.

It seems that the concept - "known or should have known" is operative here. By having security, especially armed security, that entity is demonstrating that they "know" that violence is a possibility.

So, if a shooting or other violent behavior occurs and I am injured or killed, did that store or college or business increase their liability by prohibiting me from having the tools I am legally allow to have to defend and protect myself? I know I may be dead, but will my family, and the families of other victims, be able to garner such a significant financial settlement that it makes sense from a risk management point of view for the entity to NOT prohibit licensed individuals from carrying on their property. I.e., the financial risk of a liability lawsuit is greater than the risk posed by a legally armed citizen present on their property.

It seems to me like that would be a pretty solid argument. But I just don't see any situations like that happening, or even the topic being discussed.

Am I missing something. (Probably. My "rocket-science" brain is not always the sharpest on the block.)

Anyway - FWIW.

(Opps, sorry for the acronym. For What It's Worth. Also, Fair Well Itinerant Wanderers.)

 

[Knobgoblin]

@nammac has a very interesting point and it's something I've been thinking about a lot in the last couple of years, but I have not seen anything about it in general discussions or surfacing on YouTube or as a legal case. And that point is:

If an entity like a business or corporation (like a transit company, hospital, community college, etc.) passes a policy prohibiting me from carrying my concealed firearm on their controlled property (even though I have a CHL), does that mean that the entity has assumed even more responsibility for my safety and protecting me from violence, since they have removed my ability to do so?

This seems to be an especially poignant question if the entity (college, department store, etc.) has security staff present and on duty. Even more so if those staff members are armed. I noticed since the first of the year that several Home Depot stores in the Portland metro area have started using ARMED security officers.

It seems that the concept - "known or should have known" is operative here. By having security, especially armed security, that entity is demonstrating that they "know" that violence is a possibility.

So, if a shooting or other violent behavior occurs and I am injured or killed, did that store or college or business increase their liability by prohibiting me from having the tools I am legally allow to have to defend and protect myself? I know I may be dead, but will my family, and the families of other victims, be able to garner such a significant financial settlement that it makes sense from a risk management point of view for the entity to NOT prohibit licensed individuals from carrying on their property. I.e., the financial risk of a liability lawsuit is greater than the risk posed by a legally armed citizen present on their property.

It seems to me like that would be a pretty solid argument. But I just don't see any situations like that happening, or even the topic being discussed.

Am I missing something. (Probably. My "rocket-science" brain is not always the sharpest on the block.)

Anyway - FWIW.

(Opps, sorry for the acronym. For What It's Worth. Also, Fair Well Itinerant Wanderers.)

RKBA

 

[bradsteen]

@nammac has a very interesting point and it's something I've been thinking about a lot in the last couple of years, but I have not seen anything about it in general discussions or surfacing on YouTube or as a legal case. And that point is:

If an entity like a business or corporation (like a transit company, hospital, community college, etc.) passes a policy prohibiting me from carrying my concealed firearm on their controlled property (even though I have a CHL), does that mean that the entity has assumed even more responsibility for my safety and protecting me from violence, since they have removed my ability to do so?

This seems to be an especially poignant question if the entity (college, department store, etc.) has security staff present and on duty. Even more so if those staff members are armed. I noticed since the first of the year that several Home Depot stores in the Portland metro area have started using ARMED security officers.

It seems that the concept - "known or should have known" is operative here. By having security, especially armed security, that entity is demonstrating that they "know" that violence is a possibility.

So, if a shooting or other violent behavior occurs and I am injured or killed, did that store or college or business increase their liability by prohibiting me from having the tools I am legally allow to have to defend and protect myself? I know I may be dead, but will my family, and the families of other victims, be able to garner such a significant financial settlement that it makes sense from a risk management point of view for the entity to NOT prohibit licensed individuals from carrying on their property. I.e., the financial risk of a liability lawsuit is greater than the risk posed by a legally armed citizen present on their property.

It seems to me like that would be a pretty solid argument. But I just don't see any situations like that happening, or even the topic being discussed.

Am I missing something. (Probably. My "rocket-science" brain is not always the sharpest on the block.)

Anyway - FWIW.

(Opps, sorry for the acronym. For What It's Worth. Also, Fair Well Itinerant Wanderers.)

I suspect it would be a hard sell from the standpoint of private property rights. The defendants would say "nobody is forcing you to go to our store; we have the right to set policy for our private property". However, like you said, the presence of armed guards could be construed as acknowledgement of a potential threat, and it could be argued that it is a case of discrimination - the store isn't upset about guns being in the store, just guns carried by certain people. It would be interesting to see that one fought out in civil litigation, especially if the plaintiff is a firearms instructor or other highly trained person, as it would dampen the "training" argument they would undoubtedly use.

 

[Xaevian]

I suspect it would be a hard sell from the standpoint of private property rights. The defendants would say "nobody is forcing you to go to our store; we have the right to set policy for our private property". However, like you said, the presence of armed guards could be construed as acknowledgement of a potential threat, and it could be argued that it is a case of discrimination - the store isn't upset about guns being in the store, just guns carried by certain people. It would be interesting to see that one fought out in civil litigation, especially if the plaintiff is a firearms instructor or other highly trained person, as it would dampen the "training" argument they would undoubtedly use.

They set the policy of no firearms allowed. They were negligent in enforcing that policy.