Yesterday I said:
The Left is going to go monkey-shit over this about how one guy with an AR-15 was able to hold off 376 cops with guns, body armor, and ballistic shields, so QED AR-15s are too dangerous for civilians to own.
Today I see this:
https://twitter.com/islivingston/status/1548732774038773763?t=TP2pFL7xIEs2cJDDC9oqCA&s=19
These people really are NPCs who operate on a very simple predictive text algorithm.
So ban em, then a “mass shooting “ will be staged with some other “full semi auto” and they will ban those. How bout we BAN fukkin criminals
Let me rephrase that tweet for accuracy: 400 officers with AR15s can’t take on one AR15.
–
Put that way, it’s clear that the problem is not the AR-15.
–
Doubly-so when you factor in the almost-mass-shooting at the Indiana mall. One guy with a pistol did what 400 officers with AR15s supposedly can’t. Again, it’s clear the problem is not the AR-15.
I put a number of comments in the discussion section of the WSJ article about the Greenwood mall shooting. In one of them I made a comment that “Few people outside law enforcement know” that there is no duty to protect. I realized as I wrote this that it’s likely true but I haven’t actually seen it stated authoritatively.
So… am I right? Do LE people, as a group, know they have no legal duty to protect? If so, perhaps that to some extent explains the sort of worthless people they have in Uvalde’s PD. It’s not just that they are chickenshit, but rather that they know that being chickenshit is legal.
Abolishing “no duty to defend” would be a good thing, and an obvious thing, and a very popular thing.
One man with an AR-15 can hold off 400 police, but can be taken down in seconds by one civilian with a concealed carry pistol (In Indiana). Clearly, we need a *lot* more people carrying concealed.
And a lot fewer cops since they are apparently less than worthless.