[Mod Edit] Political Stuff below the jump [Mod Edit]

"PartyPooper2012" (PartyPooper2012) 06/30/2016 at 10:12 • Filed to: None

9

68

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Ash78, voting early and often > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 10:18

3

Wow...thanks for sharing. I have yet to start carrying, even though I’m licensed. Sometimes it’s good to know the law might at least make the bad guys think twice before doing something like this. Situations like Pulse are the proverbial "fish in a barrel" for shooters, which is a horrible thought.

R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 10:19

11

Why would any media outlet cover this? It does not suit any agenda or pull at any emotions

PartyPooper2012 > R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet 06/30/2016 at 10:20

2

Sure it does. Pulled on my emotions. I am glad to see proper use of firearms in this country

PartyPooper2012 > Ash78, voting early and often 06/30/2016 at 10:21

4

Thanks for being a responsible gun owner. Simple fact that you’ve thought twice before carrying implies you have some sense.

Ash78, voting early and often > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 10:25

1

Well that, plus the Glock 19 is a PITA to conceal well, especially in the summer :D (but seriously, I have young kids and my probability of an accident vs. an actual need is a little too high right now. When they're a little older, though...)

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet 06/30/2016 at 10:26

1

Got to keep the narrative going not matter what...

Party-vi > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 10:27

9

It’s not a mass shooting. Definition is four or more people being killed not including the shooter per the FBI, or 10 people injured.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 10:27

1

It’s the same place as the coverage of that Seattle nightclub attempted arson, and any and all other events that only barely *didn’t* happen. “It’s interesting when people die”, after all, and the required ingredients for executing the frenzy to script that week - death, firearm, vaguely plausible avenue of blame - were not all there.

R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 10:30

0

Treat. Never. Keep. Keep. Know.

Tekamul > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 10:32

8

This is neither a mass shooting nor a terrorist attack. It is not a random act of violence. It is an argument that escelated into life threatening violence because one or more people were armed with guns.

Is this really the example you want spread far and wide?

R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet > Ash78, voting early and often 06/30/2016 at 10:32

1

You’re welcome:

http://www.usacarry.com/glock-manual-s…

Tripper > Party-vi 06/30/2016 at 10:33

3

What kind of knife are you using to split those hairs?

PartyPooper2012 > Tekamul 06/30/2016 at 10:33

2

actually yes. Man acted in self defense vs laying down and taking a bullet to the head. In the act, he saved number of people from getting shot or killed.

PartyPooper2012 > Party-vi 06/30/2016 at 10:36

7

you’re right. We should have waited for him to shoot another person before it could be classified as mass.

Party-vi > Tripper 06/30/2016 at 10:36

14

What kind of meat are you going to cure with all that salt? 3 people injured does not equal a mass shooting. Some blogger is trying to rile up his readers by suggesting this story should receive as much coverage as the hate-fueled deaths of 49 people.

Tekamul > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 10:38

6

Or, you know, if neither had the ability to casually own a gun (again, we’re not talking about a hell-bent terrorist, just a shitty guy with a bad attitude) there would have been 0 shots fired.

Berang > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 10:38

4

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Is the author of the article really so stupid they don’t understand that the event they’re writing about perfectly illustrates the point he’s trying to undermine? Talk about being a cocky sucker.

Berang > Party-vi 06/30/2016 at 10:41

8

It’s funny how the gun nuts want to change the definition of “mass shooting” to involve larger and larger numbers of victims, until the one crime in a million comes along where somebody with a gun does something other than kill themselves or others.

PartyPooper2012 > Tekamul 06/30/2016 at 10:41

3

Let’s abandon 2nd amendment.

Hell, let’s abandon 1st amendment also. Why should a person who isn’t allowed to fly, be able to speak freely?

Before we know, we are all in shackles splitting rocks for the greater good of the overlord.

Tripper > Party-vi 06/30/2016 at 10:44

4

Jerky obvi. Not arguing that it should receive as much coverage as the Pulse incident. However, it’s not often that you see any coverage on an incident like this or if you do it’s only in the wake of a more serious incident. So why immediately discredit it? The guy stopped some people from being killed.

I have also never heard of a blogger trying to rile up their readers before, ever.

Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 10:48

8

Probably because there have been a lot of coverage about that “responsible gun owner” Texan woman shooting her two kids?

Guys, you really shouldn’t feel the need to CC. I’m all for guns for hunting and target practice, but in between those events they should be locked in a gun safe that is bolted to the floor. That and some good legislation that would require both a background check that flags any worldwide violent offences, and a mandatory mental health evaluation before issued a gun license (that you should be required to possess in order to purchase a gun) and the states might be finally in a good place as far as gun violence goes.

there is something like a 1 in 4 chance that a gun will be stolen before it is used in a justified defence, couple that with people being able to buy guns willy nilly and you have a ton of guns floating around with people that shouldn’t have had them.

Mercedes Streeter > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 10:50

10

Holy pandering Batman!

The bouncer (off duty cop) at Pulse had a gun, couldn’t stop the shooter. This is an invalid argument. Having a gun doesn’t inherently guarantee safety at all.

Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 10:50

6

Difference being 2nd amendment wouldn’t impact your daily life.

We get by pretty well in Canada without a second ammendment.

-this space for rent- > Party-vi 06/30/2016 at 10:52

3

Because it was stopped before it became one.

Berang > Tripper 06/30/2016 at 10:53

2

Actually, we don’t know if he stopped anybody from being killed. Read the original article instead of the fear mongering, propaganda piece, and one has to jump to the conclusion that the shooter was stopped from a bullet wound in the leg.

PartyPooper2012 > Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. 06/30/2016 at 11:00

0

You’re so oblivious. Tell me, oh wise one. How do you all protect yourselves from rouge moose or black/brown bear? Do you exercise your law to talk them gently out of killing you?

Not all guns are used to shoot at humans. Some are used for sports, some are for hunting. Some are for self defense... be it a shooter or a moose.

PartyPooper2012 > Mercedes Streeter 06/30/2016 at 11:02

1

It’s not exactly an invalid argument. Between the bouncer and one or more carriers, someone would have stopped him eventually. Otherwise, one more shot person and this is a mass shooting

Berang > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 11:02

2

So reading the original article, it’s not clear whether the responsible gun owner saved anybody, including himself, from the irresponsible gun owner.

Bad guy gun owner fires shots into a crowd. Hits three people. One of them fires back and hits bad guy gun owner.

For all we know bad guy gun owner was out of ammo when he got shot. For all we know he wasn’t out of ammo and continued firing after getting shot. There’s nothing in the story that says he stopped because he was shot. ¯\_()_/¯

I’m not saying it’s implausible, just that from what info is given, it’s not known.

But the article you linked to illustrates how easy it is to manufacture propaganda by using facts as a starting place to jump to conclusions that suit one’s agenda.

PartyPooper2012 > Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. 06/30/2016 at 11:04

3

I have no reason to change your mind as to how you use your gun. But similarly, you have no reason to change my mind as to how I use mine.

Should I use it for self defense once in my lifetime, it is enough justification to CC it all my life

PartyPooper2012 > Berang 06/30/2016 at 11:06

0

Whatever the reason was, getting shot may have contributed to him stopping the shootings and that’s a good enough story

Berang > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 11:12

2

Or it may not have.

It’s still newsworthy, in the sense that it’s story that’s interesting. But it doesn’t prove anything about using guns other than assholes shoot first, and not assholes don’t shoot until shot at.

BigBlock440 > Mercedes Streeter 06/30/2016 at 11:14

3

It’s an invalid argument because it’s not a 100% guarantee? Not having one is a 100% guarantee though...

PartyPooper2012 > Berang 06/30/2016 at 11:14

0

Who would be the asshole if the good guy shot first at the mass shooter before he shot?

Well, the young man was just carrying his AR-15 from church. Was only checking his aim when shot by a bystander trying to get into a club

BorkBorkBjork > Tekamul 06/30/2016 at 11:18

4

And if I had wheels, I’d be a wagon.

There are hundreds of millions of guns in the United States. Eliminating the individuals ability to own a firearm would be the greatest single cultural and political change in the US since the Civil War, and it would likely be just a bloody.

Berang > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 11:21

1

The first person to shoot. Unless, the other guy said “I’m going to shoot you/those people” first. One can’t just shoot people because they’re scared.

Gamecat235 > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 11:22

2

The author of the story makes a LOT of presumptions, but chief among them is that the person who returned fire hadn’t been drinking. I’m not going to try to dispute who did what, but I will definitively say that if he had been drinking, I disagree with every action leading up to his returning fire. Vehemently, and even if he was otherwise legally carrying, he should be investigated for operating a firearm while drinking.

Also, the bias in the reporting (I know, but still, at least try to hide it) is unreal.

That said, sure, responsible carrying + training + situational assessment can, for some circumstances, change the game for the better for everyone involved.

Mercedes Streeter > BigBlock440 06/30/2016 at 11:23

5

It’s an invalid argument because the rhetoric is “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”

When well, maybe ensuring the bad guy can’t get a gun is a better approach then arming everyone with a gun??

Mercedes Streeter > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 11:27

5

And again, there was a SWAT team outside and a cop inside, the guy still successfully murdered 49 and injured more. It’s a dark nightclub, it’s asinine to think the solution is “more bullets flying in the other direction” instead of “maybe unhinged assholes shouldn’t own a gun, therefore we should probably make it harder to get that hardware"

HammerheadFistpunch > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 11:29

3

FYI - Political posts are fine here, but please announce it as political in the title and put the content after a picture as per the rules.

PartyPooper2012 > HammerheadFistpunch 06/30/2016 at 11:31

1

nothing about the post is political.

HammerheadFistpunch > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 11:32

12

Everything about the post is political. Please follow the rules.

Party-vi > -this space for rent- 06/30/2016 at 11:51

1

In that case why not say the CWP holder stopped a murder-suicide since that didn’t happen either? Hell let’s say the genocide of Playoffz patrons was thwarted since that didn’t happen too.

Tripper > Berang 06/30/2016 at 11:53

0

I read the original article and a few others. The original article is just the opposite of the one on the gun blog. The one on the gun blog assumes he was a hero, and the other is doing its best not to mention the concealed carry guy. Another article says concealed carry guy was shot (not shot at) and returned fire. I’m willing to bet that what really happened was somewhere in the middle. Every article makes it seem as if the concealed carry guy clipping the assailant in the leg is what stopped the shooting. Even if that is not the case, immediately calling BS is no better than the article on the gun blog fluffing him up as a hero.

Party-vi > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 11:54

1

No. We should have waited for him to actually kill either 4 people or shoot an additional 9 people, because that’s the correct classification. Stating a mass shooting was prevented is sensationalism and pandering to his audience. Bob Owens is as bad as any writer on Gawker staff.

PartyPooper2012 > Party-vi 06/30/2016 at 11:55

0

Well, I protest this sort of logic. One person being shot is one too many. Fuck classification.

And fuck my posts being hacked.

qbeezy > Berang 06/30/2016 at 11:57

1

Exactly you can’t shoot someone because they may mass shoot or may Rob or steal.

Party-vi > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 11:58

3

I mean, hacked is a strong word. More like your post was edited to reflect the shit show of commenting going on in here.

Also I agree that anyone being shot is too many, and I agree the CWP holder more than likely helped bring this situation to a close, but I can still disagree with how Bob Owens wrote his article.

qbeezy > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 12:01

1

On a side note, I wonder how man Oppos lived or live in an unsafe neighborhood. Carrying a gun or weapon is a way of life when people come and kick you door or window in.

PartyPooper2012 > Party-vi 06/30/2016 at 12:02

0

When do my words get edited to reflect the shit show of commenting going on in this country?

OPPOsaurus WRX > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 12:07

1

i think the big difference here is this guy didn’t walk into the bar intending to take out as many people as possible. It sounds more like some drunk asshole couldn’t handle losing an argument and lost his shit. I hope he got shot in the testicles.

PartyPooper2012 > qbeezy 06/30/2016 at 12:07

0

I don’t ever want to live in an area where I have to carry as a way of life.

My family and I left a country where being of a different religion was illegally punishable by death. I don’t want to carry as a way of life. But you best believe I will carry if I must and I want to do so legally

qbeezy > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 12:09

0

Yeah I completely understand. I remember when I was 8+-10 y/o and I had to take the machete with me a few times. Loose dogs. People up to no good. Just knowing where it was when i was left alone. Thinking back, it sounds bad, but something sounding bad was for protection.

PartyPooper2012 > qbeezy 06/30/2016 at 12:12

0

Stick or even in your case a machete would have only angered the wild dogs. I understand your reasoning. It sucks to be in that situation... but what’s the alternative? Let bad things happen to you? That’s not an option.

JQJ213- Now With An Extra Cylinder! > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 12:13

3

Here’s an issue I have. Why did the guy have his gun in the first place ? You are NOT allowed to concealed carry at any bar or nightclub.

And the media remained silent because compared to mass tragedys, a few people grazed by a bullet isn’t headline worthy. I’m in the south. I hear gunshots going off quite often. I’m sure injuries have happened,none of which make the news.

Sometimes there are just bad people in the world. That’s the bottom line.

Maybe we wouldn’t need good guys with guns if bad guys didn’t have them in the first place...

PartyPooper2012 > JQJ213- Now With An Extra Cylinder! 06/30/2016 at 12:16

0

I don’t know, but from what I recall in reading that story nothing said anything about him being in a club. Passer by? Stopped to talk to a friend?

I used to work at a club doing valet parking. Some people just wanted to chat with me. Others were dropping people off or picking people up. Deliveries. There are lots of things happening outside the club that may have nothing to do with being inside it.

-this space for rent- > Party-vi 06/30/2016 at 12:19

0

He probably did. Why do you hate heroes?

Party-vi > -this space for rent- 06/30/2016 at 12:21

2

Because I’m a terrible person.

Party-vi > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 12:22

0

Oppositelock isn’t that popular.

qbeezy > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 12:22

0

I think part of the problem people have with the gun situation is that they don’t understand and can’t understand that every situation is different. You may not need weapons in your situation, but others may. That didn’t disqualify their opinions.

PartyPooper2012 > Party-vi 06/30/2016 at 12:27

0

popular enough. whatever. I didn’t follow fine print no one ever reads. my bad. Hack my shit all you want. This game can only be won by not playing

Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 12:28

3

Well bear spray is well known to be the best defence against a bear and other wildlife, so no guns needed there.

pauljones > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 12:35

4

When you start your own blog and run it however you deem fit. In the meantime, Oppositelock is our blog. We are allowed to run it as we deem fit.

We can’t change your mind on how you might run your own hypothetical blog, and you can’t change our mind on how we run our actual blog.

PartyPooper2012 > pauljones 06/30/2016 at 12:37

0

true. my apologies

Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. > PartyPooper2012 06/30/2016 at 12:39

3

If that makes you sleep at night, fine, just know that you have a higher chance of injuring yourself or others accidentally than you do of protecting yourself from an assailant.

Luc - The Acadian Oppo > Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. 06/30/2016 at 13:46

2

I was thinking the same thing. Their thinking is that without a gun we’d all be dead. But in my 31 years of life I’ve never once needed any sort of protection from human or animal. To be honest I’ve never even shot a gun other than a BB gun.

The odds of getting attacked by a moose/bear is so slim that the thought of carrying a piece to protect myself against it is fucking ridiculous.

It’s the same as saying I live in the nevada desert but I’m gonna wear a flotation life jacket 24/7 because you never know, it could flood.

Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. > Luc - The Acadian Oppo 06/30/2016 at 13:59

2

Hell, I knew a person who got killed by a black bear sow while hunting deer, half the time you just are along for the ride if you are attacked by an animal that powerful/angry. Keep in mind this was the same person who helped teach my Alberta hunter’s education course and spent most of his free time in the outdoors. Sometimes you are just Capital-F F#cked

Tekamul > BorkBorkBjork 06/30/2016 at 14:43

2

I would think it would be closer to the implementation of the 18th amendment.

Also, I’m not the one talking about tossing the 2nd amendment, the party pooper was. There’s a difference between banning something, and allowing for ‘casual’ ownership. Cars are not easily owned. Land is not easily owned. Hell, in most towns and cities dogs are not easily owned. They all require a form of gov’t tracking.

Xyl0c41n3 > Tekamul 07/01/2016 at 19:43

0

Get outta here with that logic of yours!

Heh.