269
Boy injured in Osteen church shooting lost ‘portion of his frontal lobe’
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
269 points (95.9% liked)
News
23267 readers
3036 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You're talking about the woman wearing a trench coat who entered the church and started shooting, right? In this case she's a criminal, not the "good guy with a gun".
You're still blaming the general population of gun owners for something the police did, lmao.
EDIT: My point is, the parent-commenter is calling the off-duty cops the "good guys with guns", but they're not because they're police officers (and let's be real, even if there was no 2nd amendment, cops would still be able to carry while off-duty).
You could argue that the woman who did the shooting was a "good guy with a gun" before the incident, but that's irrelevant to what I'm saying because I'm responding to the person calling the off-duty cops the "good guys with guns".
I find it hard to come up with a simpler description of a cop.
I wouldn't say cops are good guys.
If you're being sarcastic like that...
Am I saying anything about the general population's right to own a gun? Am I even implying anything about it? No. Nor am I equating the shooter to the "good guy with a gun", or saying that anybody other than the cops directly had anything to do with the child being shot.
What I am pointing out though is that either this woman came into legal and rightful possession of a gun, or otherwise obtained it illegally, both of which are relevant to a conversation on gun control.
No, but the user I first replied to is by saying that "off-duty cops" are "good guys with guns"- they're not the same. Your response was seemingly backing up the parent-commenters comment, making me think that you were agreeing with them.
Agreed 100%, but again the parent commenter didn't mention anything about the woman, they mentioned the off-duty cops that they called "good guys with guns" that shot the 7-year old.
So yes, I will agree that the woman had legal possession of a gun and committed a crime with it, that IS relevant to a conversation on gun control.
However, the off-duty cops shooting the 7-year old is NOT relevant to a conversation on gun control because they are cops.
Right. Because they didn't have guns and weren't shooting? Because then the victims don't exist? Because they had more Range time? Because they were trained in high-stress situations and extremely familiar with their weapons?
This all sounds like me challenging Tony Hawke to a freestyle competition.
Because they are cops, not civilian gun owners. Again, even if there was no second amendment, I guarantee cops would still be able to carry while off-duty. I'm saying the cops who shot the kid shouldn't be wrapped with civilian gun owners because they aren't civilian gun owners.
If the cops directly shot the child without there being the presence of a firearm near the child, then that would be a fairly different conversation. And yeah, the parent comment may have assumed the "good guy with the gun" was not a cop, but instead a citizen. However, with these being cops, and their decision to shoot spawning from a citizen with a firearm who had intent to use that firearm to harm innocent people, it is still valid for there to be a gun control debate, because if you take her gun out of the equation, there likely was not going to be a police initiated shooting in this situation.