Anonymous #1 2w

Bystander was shot as a result of intervening which reasonably could have been avoided had the bystander been carrying a gun.

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

This assumes that in stressful active shooter situations, bystanders are going to successfully take down the shooter. It’s highly possible that in many situations more gunfire could injure more people. It also ignores that more people with guns means a higher likelihood of these attacks happening in the first place.

4

Anonymous #1 2w

Well in 37% of active shootings in 2021 armed citizens did take down the shooter

-1

Anonymous #1 2w

I'd say draw point fire is just as easy as tackle to me but it'll depend on skill

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

That statistic is from a single study from a gun rights group and its been parroted all over the conservative world and I don’t think it’s very credible

9

Anonymous #1 2w

There’s another study from a similar time period which says the rate of guns is more like 5% and half of those were security guards or off duty police. Usually attackers were stopped without guns, granted this dataset includes a small number of knife and vehicle attacks but it’s mostly shootings

3

Anonymous #1 2w

There are plenty of civilians who get more range training then your average cop or security guard

0

Anonymous #2 2w

Cars aren't cover, they're concealment. Bullet is going right through the window, the tiny sheet aluminum frame, or the tire. Engine block is your only real cover in a car. Plus she didn't engage the threat which is the bigger issue than finding cover in an active shooting

-1

Anonymous #2 2w

The guy who did engage him didn't even need a gun to stop him (although he did get shot in the process)

0

Anonymous OP 2w

Whatever. The fact is that cops conceal themselves behind cars all the time. Furthermore, *how do you know* that she didn’t engage the threat? You’re just looking at a still image.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

I mean she clearly didn't do it anywhere near fast enough if some random civilian had to step in and do her job for her.

0

Anonymous OP 2w

I don’t think the fact that an unarmed civilian successfully disarming one of two shooters proves that she did not engage either shooter. C’mon man.

5

Anonymous #2 2w

Regardless, if she had time to duck behind a car (means she knows where the shooter is and where cover would be), she had time to draw her weapon and put rounds down range. It would suck to die because of a skill issue on the part of the police.

0

Anonymous OP 2w

How do you know that she didn’t fire at one of the two shooters after the image was taken? Furthermore, how do you know whether or not whether each shooter had good cover (not just concealment) at the time of this image?

1

Anonymous OP 2w

You’re making infinite assumptions about a still image.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

If she did engage already she shouldn't be trying to retreat back to concealment, only hard cover.

0

Anonymous #2 2w

If she didn't engage prior to ducking behind the car, she wasn't quick enough to engage the threat. Either way you spin it, bad doctrine on the Aussie PD's part.

0

Anonymous OP 2w

You’re not engaging with my question. I’m asking how you know she didn’t engage *after* the photo was taken.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

I just addressed that

0

Anonymous OP 2w

Good job. Look, man, maybe she did fuck up, maybe she didn’t. It just seems like you’re looking at two still images and putting the narrative that you want on them.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

I could be proven wrong if you provided external evidence that corroborated the claims that you’re making, but you haven’t provided any.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

I don't really feel like it 🤍

0

Anonymous OP 2w

Typical conservative attitude toward critical thinking.

3

Anonymous #2 2w

I'm not a conservative

0

Anonymous OP 2w

If you’re a pro-gun leftie, I’m embarrassed to be on the same side as you.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

If it makes you feel any better I think both of you guys are plain dumb for playing into the bipartisan system in the US

0

Anonymous #2 2w

"Go team blue or whatever!" "Nuh uh this guy on TV told me to like Team red"

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

Oh, even worse. A “both sides bad” NPC.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

If you think either side is legitimately good still and isn't just the lesser of two evils, your words are going to fall on completely deaf ears man sorry.

0

Anonymous OP 2w

Nothing I’ve said so far is incompatible with my belief that the Democratic party is a lesser evil. If you hold a similar belief, why are you parroting radical cynicism slop memes?

6