New active shooter protocol

[randr]

If anyone appears in public with a military assault weapon it should be assumed they intend to use it.
A rapid head shot is warranted by law officials and any armed ciitizen can rely on "hold your ground" laws for the same.
We should not be intimidated, we have a right to react to a threat.

[Celerity]

1. qualifiers

[randr]

2. Qualify what?

Or are you implying these goons qualify. Absolutely!
If your intent is to intimidate prepare to be intimidated.

[Celerity]

3. qualifiers for your protocol

[randr]

4. Officers of the law should have every right to drop these assholes.

[grumpyduck]

6. What a bunch of assholes.

[Wounded Bear]

7. It should be illegal to open carry a long rifle inside city limits...

You could limit that to, say, any city larger than 1,000 inhabitants or something, but no need for rifles in urban areas.

[randr]

8. Change the active shooter protocol

and assume an open carry of an assault weapon is an active attempt to menace. Drop them before they do damage

[Igel]

11. So you'd be okay with cops "dropping" these men?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/07/michigan-lawmaker-armed-escort-rightwing-protest

I wouldn't.

[randr]

12. We are at war and they are killing children

Consequences are a bit challenging.

[Hav]

9. I know it sounds absurd

but the Rittenhouse case taught me that some cities/states rather allow carrying around larger and therefore visible rifles instead of concealed handguns. It's a symptom of the problem that open carry of a rifle is apparently seen as less of a security issue.

[Igel]

10. Had a roommate from Idaho.

He'd toss his rifle (or fishing tackle) in his truck and do some hunting or fishing before school.

Or plan on hunting after school. Said he once had a deer (with deer tag) in his truck during school.

Lived in a small city with more than 1k pop. 38 caliber.

It's the culture for some places. We like cultural competence.


Liberty isn't about "need". I don't "need" freedom of speech--billions have lived without it. I don't "need" freedom of association; billions have lived without it. I don't "need" to know how to read or have an education--billions have lived without it.

Same for due process, the right to vote, taxation only with representation, etc., etc. "Needs" and "wants" are orthogonal to the idea of rights and privileges.