This is pretty compelling evidence that a some type of ban on assault rifles and other types of guns and equipment would reduce, though not eliminate, incidents of mass shootings:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8255063ae197

Armed deputy at Florida school resigns after failing to engage shooter

I'm sure armed teachers will be MUCH more enthusiastic about running into a firefight where they will likely be outgunned.

Was just about to post this. Having armed security is nice and all but if they're unwilling to engage the shooter, it doesn't matter.

I doubt very much the pay is enough to get anything more than a deterrent.

To be fair, he's only the 2nd most disgraceful Scott Peterson on the planet.

These guys are trained to immediately engage, i bet the video is absolutely awful to watch.

Wow that was my thought too about the name. :) My next door neighbors growing up were Peterson's-no Scotts though. But they were not exactly pillars of humanity either.

Has the school resource officer changed since I went to school? The guy that I remember from my high school days might have gotten some information about gangs and drugs in the school. Nothing about that guy said he was prepared engage with someone with an automatic weapon. The same is true for the resource officer at the elementary school my wife teaches at now.

Around here they are generally cops or retired cops.

Sounds like the Florida security guard was useless, that the local police were well aware of this kid and called something like 23 times to his house and useless, the FBI was useless... I’m actually a guy in support of gun bans (especially assault rifles) but this particular case is looking pretty bad and preventable from a everything that could go wrong went wrong.. (Or at least some of the 17 deaths were preventable). I remember reading somewhere that he took an Uber. Could have been one of those first day misinformation things but seems like the uber driver might question the tactical equipment as well? I mean at the end of the day this is on the nutcase but things look way more screwed up than typical shooter starts shooting and kills a couple type cases.

I'm still very unclear on what could have been legally done. I'd love a story laying out the legal options that were available along the way.

Are they really though ? Also, say this happens anywhere else (say a bank): would any lone police officer be expected to charge towards or would protocoll demand he wait for backup ?

Sounds like a convenient scapegoat in line with the current (and very american) rhetoric of “more guns and harder, tougher, badder people standing their ground“ being the solution that is forming from up high, starting with Trump and advocated for loudly by the NRA. I mean, at least no one yet came out saying the kids could have prevented it if they were less soft or sth ...

It's pretty out there to expect anyone to engage here and acting like that is the Job they get paid for ...

It certainly sounds like his job was to engage, but as Gen. Hertling pointed out today, this sort of thing is far more common in combat than we want to admit.

Yeah I wonder how many keyboard warriors would do exactly the same thing as the security officer.

My understanding is that, yes, in general around the country, the training has changed that they should engage the shooters, because average response time of SWAT is higher than the average time these shootings span.

In this specific case, the guy’s boss said “he should have gone in.“

I have to be that guy. No one in this case had an automatic weapon. Both the officer and the killer had semi automatic weapons. One used his one did not.


That is precisely the job the officer signed up for and in fact swore an oath to do. To protect and serve the public interest at all costs, even his own life. That is Iiterally his job description.

And people keep using the word security officer and equating it with a mall security guard. Around here resource officers are full fledge pllice officers, have gone through the academy and actually have to pass a very detailed psych profile to ensure they relate to kids, and they are paid significantly more than other officers.

Isn't every single crime/murder/attack preventable in hindsight? If only, if only, if only. Life doesn't work in if only. Every event is part of a chain, inevitably, the more complex the chain (aka, life) the harder it is to break the chain that can lead to something like this. Instead of just throwing the blame ex post facto, let's work to recognize we can't prevent all bad things. Finding solutions going forward will be much more beneficial than complaining that, if only (we could have stopped it, blaming others for the failures instead), it could have been prevented.

I not sure I agree with your analogy. The bank guard might stand down and wait for backup during a robbery but I sure as hell hope he engages once they just start killing all the hostages. I mean his job is armed security guard why wouldn’t he be expected to do one of the only 1 or 2 things he is employed to do?

This is what I read today. That they were supposed to wait for SWAT (in the past), but studies found that even against the odds, going in and challenging the shooter can reduce casualties, so the job response changed.

Of course there are what ifs in any situation but there is also serious neglect from the sounds of it. I mean two police officers were suspended, they don’t even get suspended when they shoot and kill people.

Yeah generally these cowards kill themselves, this case seems unusual. So engaging and shooting back at him may have him eat his gun versus kill another ten kids?

I more meant a cop who happened to be 50 yards from the door, not someone in the building.

In any case i stand by it being the wrong discussion to prioritice here. There's a reason why people in power or with sth to loose very, very regularly focus on human error on the microlevel when things go wrong.

Training is basically beeline to the shooter, ignore all else. Pussies who shoot up schools don't react well to being shot at generally.

All anyone needs to do is look at the Federal Air Marshal and Federal Flight Deck Officer programs. The size and scope of these programs is minuscule in comparison to what they'd like to do for schools. The FFDO program continues to have funding cut, participation levels continue to shrink. The FAM program can't get anyone who actually wants to do the job. We're 17 years after 9/11, you could argue that it's been successful, but you could also argue that it's been a massive waste of money. Just depends on how you want to look at the data. Neither has been the sole deterrent for any kind of action, planned or executed, in the sky.

Where are they supposed to get the money for what they think they want? Where are they going to find enough school psychologists to provide the kind of mental support throughout the schools to attack the 'mental health' side of the equation?

They aren't. Anything they actually end up doing, either one way or the other, will be some half assed, underfunded, under participated program that's ultimately there to make you feel like they're at least doing something.

Just in terms of number of armed teachers, it's basically the size of the Marine Corps. All without any proposed extra federal funding.

One-on-one duel, are you taking the pistol or are you taking the AR-15?

If the pistol is held by a (well) trained police officer? ... It'd be pretty close. Did the officer who apprehended the suspect have backup, or any weaponry stronger than a pistol?

I don't claim I would've done anything heroic here, and generally think putting more armed people in schools will be ineffective at best and actually increase the rate at worst, but we've seen many of these school shooting incidents end with the suspect surrendering (or committing suicide) when confronted by armed resistance, even if they still had the firepower advantage.

When they arrested Cruz he was unarmed.

I fully admit that my view on the resource officer is tainted by the fact that I've only known one of them personally: Officer Jarvis Brown at Tucker High. I don't know how long he was there, but based on the time I got there ('96) and the fact that he broke his ankle breaking up a fight in 2012, it was well over a decade. He was black. Everyone called him "O.B." for Officer Brown. He knew a ton of the kids by name. Not only was he there duing the school day, but he worked security at home and away games for both football and basketball. He broke up fights. He asked kids about their grades. Many times, I saw him chew out kids who needed it. I specifically recall graduation in 2002. It was the first time I'd seen him standing on the field next to the principal and other dignitaries. Virtually every black male graduating and most of the white males didn't just shake his hand; they hugged him, and so did many of the females.

I once had a conversation with him where I praised him telling him how much I appreciated what his loving presence and firm hand of discipline when needed did for those kids, especially the many fatherless young black males. He responded something the lines of "I appreciate it, but I'm just doing my job. There's one of me in every high school in DeKalb. They all do the same stuff I do. These kids need more than just a cop." Of course, perhaps he was being overly humble; or maybe he was right and they all acted just like he did.

Point being, he's the only real frame of reference I have, and there's no scenario in the world where I can imagine O.B. standing outside of the school and doing nothing while he heard gunshots and kids screaming. None. So this revelation is absolutely unfathomable to me.

Ignorance acknowledged.



Here is where I have to be that guy. We can't act like we have not had pages of discussion on this board about the officer's right to protect his own life and make it back home to his family. We have also said that no one knows what they would do until they are actually in that position. Especially at a school like Parkland because it is not the place where anyone expects this to happen. I say that because even after this shooting, I still don't think anyone expects this to happen at their school.

Despite all of this, I am probably more in agreement with you than not. I do have the expectation that an officer would put his life on the line in most cases. However, I do have some sympathy for this particular officer in this case. Last week must have been a terrible time for him to learn that he was not about that police officer life.

yet i bet you pretty much can look up the same sort of impressions on the guy in Florida (even in the current craze it shines through that the guy was well respected, winning a couple awards as well for his interaction with "his" students i read).

Point is you can't know how you or someone else reacts and personally, even a majority of trained personnel (and remember, we are not talking about SWAT or military but someone whose job is 99% non-violent i would bet). Maybe it's different if he's in the direct vincinity and adrenalin takes over, but having to make a conscious decision to charge towards rapid gunfire as a lone person ?


And again, i think this whole angle of personal fault is entirely the wrong line of thought for having real change and improvements.


Also, if i am among the "certain highly adept individuals" he is now pulling out of his head and read this:

“You give them a little bit of a bonus, so practically for free, you have now made the school into a hardened target,” Mr. Trump said. The president estimated that 10 percent to 40 percent of school employees would be qualified to handle a weapon — he offered no data for the claim — and said he would devote federal money to training them.

I say: Hey Mr. President, fuck you very much.

I mean, it seems likely that a lot of those candidates really qualified (from actual experience, not a few gun safety courses) chose to become a teacher to not have to carry a gun.

EDIT: From here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/u...shootings.html

It's not mutually exclusive.

The cop should have gone in. Even his boss said so.

AND we need real change and improvements.

SIDE NOTE: It *does* highlight the mistake of basing gun reform initiatives on a particular incident, or on high-profile mass shootings in general. Often many who want it will fall into that trap. The rank-and-file, day-to-day, serial-domestic-abuser-kills-wife-after-multiple-arrests-but-still-got-to-keep-his-gun type stuff seems to fly completely under the radar. I don't know the numbers, but I tend to suspect that the high-publicity mass-shootings that these efforts focus on make up a tiny fraction of the fairly-easy-to-reduce-with-reasonable-compromises gun violence in America.

I don't see that being a needed disclaimer. Of course his boss said so, because otherwise it would mean his whole department (and thus he) fucked up (remember they are still in the scapegoar-lottery as well).

And it doesn't mean that his boss is right in the sense that it is a reasonable expectation/likely result of whatever training these guys receive.


EDIT: And yes, the 11.000 other gun homicides (roughly) should absolutely not be left out and neither should the 21.000 suicides commited using firearms. Numbers vary of course year by year and statistics are not always accurate, but that's about the size of it. Since 1968 alone there have been more people killed by guns domestically in the US than US soldiers in all wars in history : More Americans killed by guns since 1968 than in all U.S. wars, columnist Nicholas Kristof writes | PunditFact

and here is a plethora of stats comparing the US with other developed first world countries: America’s unique gun violence problem, explained in 17 maps and charts - Vox

For example, the US are actually not noticeably more violent than many other countries. Just waaaaay more "efficient" at it due to guns. Basically, the same sort of crimes occur with equal frequency in London as in New York or Chicago, but they end up being deadly way more often in the US.

There are also roughly equal rates of non-gun suicides in states with the lowest overall rate and those with the highest. The sole differentiator is guns. Because quite simply a suicide attempt by gun is successful pretty much every time ...

There is literally a thousand different stats you can dig up that equate to a simple result: More guns = more deaths.

Enterprise (which is also the parent company of Alamo and National), became the first major car rental agency to stop offering an NRA member discount, and the First National Bank of Omaha got rid of its NRA Visa card, all based on customer complaints.

I have sympathy for him as well. I like to think I know how I would react in that situation, but I havent lived it so I cant say for certain.

Where we probably diverge is I think the officer should be held criminally liable for his actions. If we are to excuse an officer for protecting his life and killing an unarmed suspect "accidentally" then I think we have to also hold him accountable for not engaging a suspect and doing his job.

Officer Pierre King. About 5'4" and called "Big King"...also a black school resource officer. Almost universally loved. But I watched him pull a football star aside coming out of the locker room after half time when said player showed his tail. I didnt hear what he said, but know what the message was and from 100 yards away I know he was in his face..and he got the response he wanted. Big King was at the table when that young man signed his NLOI earlier this month. The young man's mother or father couldn't be bothered to make it, but King did.

I think there was a recent Supreme Court decision on this that found that cops are not obligated to respond. I kind of agree that there should be some liability but it'd be tricky to implement.

It's what makes the armed security issue tough. You never know how people will react to real life situations. There are those in the military who no matter their training falter in combat situations. It's tough to expect the civilian population to act heroically in these situations.

Then you also have these orders and calls from a President who hid behind a doctors note when it was his time to serve. Just doesn't seem like there is an easy answer to any of this if the end result is if we're still allowing civilian access to military style weaponry.

I briefly enter this thread to make a quick comment that your story ties exceptionally well to.

One of my bigger points all week, as I keep seeing bits of "meme wisdom" regarding school security, is that among the first decision that has to be made is whether you're talking about outward facing security or inward facing security.

"O.B." seems pretty standard in my experience as far as the realistic duties of the job. It's a job that's primarily dealing with matters inside rather than outside. He may well have been outstanding at it (i.e. I'm not diminishing that possibility in the slightest) but the actual tasks involved for "school resource officers" and other nomenclature appear to be very similar in most cases.

A lot of the popular memes I'm seeing are really about an entirely different animal, but I don't think more than a tiny fraction of those eager to post 'em understand that.

Non responding cop only was making $75K a year and will now collect retirement. Seriously though, non-response should be grounds to get your retirement pulled or something.

I don't know, the guilt, and the being called a coward by lord trumpian might be enough to bury him 6 feet under prematurely.

Sounds like he wasn't the only one who wouldn't go in. The whole "armed security" solution doesn't quite work if all these armed law enforcement officers are scared to engage.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/polit...ies/index.html

I think the term "Assault Rifle" shouldn't be used anymore. Since these are just hunting rifles, we should simply refer to them as People Hunting Rifles.

Again, I don't think we really have a strong disagreement. I would say that because we have excused officers for killing unarmed suspects accidentally in order to protect his life, how can we hold an officer accountable for making the protecting of his life a priority in this case. That, however is a discussion for another thread.

OK this is bizarre.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/02/23/jo...-gun-instagram

These were just police officers though, it's not like they were highly trained teachers.

I think I see his point but it probably isn't the smartest thing to post in today's environment.

Jonathan Martin Reportedly Taken Into Custody Over Disturbing Post

I assume he means that bullied kids are more likely to commit mass murders so in other words don't be a bully. On some level I agree with him but there is probably a better way to communicate the message.

It is just locker room talk. Nothing to see here.

Yes, and that officer had no backup, and still did his job despite not knowing if he was armed or not.I don't claim I would've done better in the SRO's shoes. I understand that a lot of people (and possibly me as well) freeze when faced with a combat situation like that. But in retrospect this certainly seems like the type of kid who could've been cowed by any authority figure standing up to him, and in the moment I can't imagine very many of the people who would go in when they heard kids being shot at being worried about the relative firepower.

re: the LEO at the school, I am leaning towards the LEO not doing his duty but reserve judgement until I see the tape footage/analysis (and why won't they release that?).

I can see there would be a lot of confusion in the 4 min. And now there supposedly are other LEO that also hesitated.

I don't think the full story is out yet, I want to hear the LEO's point of view and give him/them the benefit of doubt.

But his resignation kinda points to him not doing his job.

Yup. Don't know if he has immediate family but there would be tremendous pressure/shame/guilt coming from there too.

Assuming he really is "guilty", I would put him on a suicide watch.

Some new information:

Parkland, Florida high school shooting: Suspect Nikolas Cruz had swastikas on ammunition magazines - CBS News

- Looks like hurricane glass saved a lot of lives. He was on the 3rd floor and wanted to use it as a snipers nest but couldn't break the glass.

- He had swastikas on the ammunition magazines

I'm still curious what his end game was. He ditched the gun and vest so he could get away. But he couldn't possibly think he would for good, right?

He is 19. I mean, even the average 19 year old is not exactly known for thinking through all possible angles ...

Interesting move by Dick's. Given my stance on high capacity magazines, I applaud their efforts to take steps like this even when not required by the law.

Nice move, Dick's.

I don't agree with it all but I understand and support it if we really think it will make a difference and start a trend.

• Age 21 - good
• High capacity magazines - good
• Bump stocks - crazy that this isn't even done yet
• Universal background checks - good
• Database of gun buyers/owners - good
• Close loopholes - good

Ban assault weapons - not sure what this means, devil is in the details.

Other than for magazine capacity (which is already accounted for) is there really a difference from other semi-automatic rifles? Does it really just mean we can't have semi-automatic rifles that look "tacti-cool" or allow the hookup of flashights, scope etc.

TBH, a couple other things I can live with

• Tax on guns and ammo to increase prices
• Longer wait periods (e.g. I can be in-and-out in 30 min with new AR-15). I can live with 60-90 days or longer TBH
• Required basic training and annual re-certification
• Proof there is some sort of gun safe/cabinet
• ... etc

I am encouraged by the students really taking a stand and hope it is sustained. I don't remember this happening in prior shootings, it was basically the parents. It gives me hope that the next generation will erode the NRA political influence and real change will come in next 20-30 years.

With that said, I might buy a couple more weapons now just in case ...

I hope other chains will follow suit.

Actually, I think I disagree. It might be difficult to put an "assault weapon ban" into official statute or regulations, because writing up the wording precisely to anticipate every manufacturer change or model number or whatnot would be imperfect at best. Maybe the devil is in the details if you're writing legislation (though I'm inclined to think that's overblown itself).

But if Dick's stands by the point of this statement, not that hard. Someone just looks at a potential model they might sell, and can just say "nope." Much easier.

In all honesty this post amazes me after the previous few pages, in a good way I hasten to add (other than the last sentence!).

As an outsider looking in, am I wrong in thinking this level of legislation is actually way beyond what is realistically expected by the gun control lobby?

I know it’s only one person’s voice, but they are all sensible measures that I thought NRA folk and gun owners in general would never accept? If this is the “hold your line” position, there has to be a good degree of common ground here?

This made me laugh.

Edit: I didn’t mean to make light of all of this. I just found that particular sentence funny.

Hmmm....

REPORT SHOTS FIRED GEORGIA SCHOOL: Teacher in custody after 'shots fired' report at Dalton High School; no students in danger | WSB-TV

Not going to take long for the SOROS LIBERAL DEEP STATE PAID CRISIS ACTORS CONSPIRACY folks to come out about this one, is it?

So...umm.... let's go arm more teachers?

Maybe he was looking for that gun bonus.

And given my stance on the absurdity of this sort of shit, I'll never step foot in DSG again. {shrug} Not like I spent a helluva lot of time there anyway.

As my wife (who grew up less than a half hour from there) noted earlier ... "if I had to teach in Dalton I'd probably lock myself in a room with a gun too"

I guess we can add capitalism to the list of things conservatives now oppose.

Wonder how many times we can find something like "a company should have the right to choose what kind of business they are willing to engage in" in, I don't know, maybe the gay marriage thread?

I'm certainly on the list of people who are now more likely to shop at Dick's. I always like to cancel out Jon. :)

Maybe if they were gay semi-automatic (or semi-erotic) guns. Maybe they'd be colored pink or rainbow colored.

In Jon's defense, I have been known to vote with my wallet at times too. Haven't bought Yuengling beer since they supported Trump. I won't see any movie with Mel Gibson in it. Won't buy gas at a BP station.

Isn't consumer choice rather essential to capitalism?

I'm not proposing that DSG be required to carry anything, I simply don't care to contribute to the continued existence of anyone that I have nothing but contempt left for.

How is that anti-capitalist?

Do what you want. I just think this tantrum is akin to me swearing off Kroger because they no longer sell tampons.

Yeah it was a bit of false equivalence to the gay wedding cake thing. In this case you are saying you won't shop there and in the other they are saying the service must be provided at the gun of the government. If you said they must provide guns or you will get the government involved than I see how it is the wedding cake thing.

I find your position absurd but not logically unsound. :)

Uh, yeah, I've said the same thing here many times: vote with your wallet. If you don't like someone not selling gay wedding cakes, don't shop there, and organize a boycott if you're particularly passionate about it. If you don't like someone not selling the most powerful legal weapons, don't shop there, and organize a boycott if you're particularly passionate about it. Let the free market decide.

I think a better equivalence might be if the owner of a gun shop decided they weren't going to sell anything to non-vegetarians.

Yes to the wedding cake thing, I was saying they were trying to make johns boycott of dick’s sporting goods the same as the cake thing. Jon just said he wasnt shopping there, didn’t ask for some sort of government intervention.

I disagree here as well. The point of capitalism is to give people choices on who to buy things from and allow them to make their own mind for whatever reason. I chose to pay more for a wooden welcome sign because a friend of mine starting his own business made it. I could have gone to Hobby Lobby or Michaels and paid less - so you could say I opposed capitalism there. I also don't go to a local restaurant because some people I know who worked there were treated like crap. But, it gets really good reviews and many people love it. Choosing where you shop for whatever reason you feel fit is encouraged and I think most of us do this in some manner from time to time.

All that said, I still can't fathom why even hard-line conservatives wouldn't atleast be OK with magazines that hold over 30-rounds outlawed for normal citizens (but allowed at shooting ranges).

I'm not commenting on his spending, I'm mocking his tantrum about his spending.

But, hey, I'll add it to the growing pile of new "liberal" things like football.

In case of what?

If there is serious momentum, assault weapon prices will increase and will be hard to find. Isn't that a logical assumption?

Just in case he needs to take on the military, duh!! Well regulated militia and all.

You really need to learn to keep a secret, no opsec at all.

But now that its out, not really the military, its more like the UN and/or Illuminati that I really worry about.

What are the odds that civilization breaks down a little, at a regional or national level, in our lifetimes - due to terrorism, global warming or other environmental dangers, economic collapse, war etc? Not 0%. Firearms are a pretty good little hedge against that, both for self-defense, and as a currency. I think some people do think about that as at least a secondary justification for growing their weapons stash. I only have one handgun but if I had more money and more property I might get some more weapons. I don't want to be the only unarmed guy in Idaho if Trump starts WW III or if the world loses some signficant % of its livable land and water supply in the next few decades due to global warming.

I see alot of confusion if its not defined well and it probably won't be implemented well or consistently.

We can use Dick's procurement as an example which is great but what if Walmart/BassPro/etc. procurement depts don't agree on a common definition? I think "define" it and have companies figure out if the rifle is an "assault" vs hunting/etc. weapon.

TBH, I don't know what a good definition is. Karlifornia has been trying to come up with a definition and manufacturers find a way around it.

And now Walmart.

I wonder if the age limitation can hold without some sort of legislation. I'm sure there will be legal challenges.

Walmart raises minimum age for firearm purchases to 21 - Feb. 28, 2018

I think the tax on guns and ammo is a good idea due to the amount of money guns cost citizens. Similar to why we should tax alcohol at high levels even if I enjoy a few drinks. Drunks take up a disproportionate amount of our police use.

As for the tacti-cool stuff, I don't really know what the function is of it for the general public. I guess I'd be OK with some people owning them, but I think you have to have some use in mind that's approved.

I'd also add that there should be more punishment for criminal activity involving guns. Those that use them in robberies for instance should be more harshly punished. Felons in possession should be harshly punished. Illegally carrying or storing them should face harsh punishment.

Right now the feds do almost nothing to stop illegal gun sales. That would help cut down on a lot of violent gang crime if they actually used their resources for that instead of worrying about what college coach is paying his basketball players.

Age isn't federally protected against discrimination, so as long as Wal-Mart's position is universal, and isn't arbitrary, it's fine. In the wake of a 19 year old shooting up a school, no court in the country is going to call a 21-year old age limit arbitrary. And the 2nd Amendment applies to Wal-Mart about as much as the 1st Amendment does.

Now we have to arm the students to keep the armed teachers in check who will keep the armed mass murderers in check.

I'm pretty sure I went to Dalton once. Was a bit of a culture shock. It's right by Lookout Mountain? I seem to remember there was some place that had these humongous cheeseburgers

Thom, be careful, you know he's going to double down on the thought soon.

I broke down on the interstate outside Dalton in 1994. Local tow guy charged me $450 for a 7-mile tow and overnight storage because I wouldn't pay his brother $1000 to replace my timing belt.

Fuck Dalton, Georgia.

Unrelated:

Bought the first gun I ever owned from Dick's -- a lever action .22 Henry rifle. Given what I paid for it there vs. just about anywhere else not named Cabela's, it was also the last time I set foot in a Dick's.


I think you'd be likely to find that "gun owners in general" don't really line up with the NRA and the sorts of "gun guy" rants you find on YouTube (Iraqveteran8888, MrGunsnGear, Yankee Marshall, etc.) That said, the YouTube crowd has been bending over backwards all week to denounce the soft stance of the NRA and President Trump.

My general rule is that if you find yourself to the right of the NRA on gun issues, you should probably just accept that you're no longer part of the mainstream culture. (Which is not to say that should deter them from their positions, just that they can't simultaneously claim to speak from a position of cultural authority. I like to have a balance between the left-wing gun-grabbers and right-wing gun extremists, because it gives the rest of us a reasonable place to settle somewhere in the middle.)

I hate Dick's cause their corporate HQ is adjacent to the Pittsburgh Airport. All their employees park over there and take Uber|Lyft when they go on vacation. Nothing like waiting 1hr+ in the Airport Queue to get a $5 ride and go back to the end of the line. Arguably a cab is the same price. So fuck Dick's

Well this is odd

Georgia teacher who fired gun in classroom previously told police he hired hitmen, report says

Sigh.

(tiredly flips the number on the board back to 'zero')

Nah, we are still good. This one was just domestic violence that happened to take place at school.

Yep

Nice momentum so far ... Blackrock below. Krogers owned Fred Myers, LL Bean not selling to under 21, Delta etc.

Not really sure how much of this will really help but corporate America is getting (the beginnings of) a social conscience re: guns which is good.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/02/blac...influence.html

Well the NRA and Trump had a long meeting last night, so I'm sure he's changed his mind again...

Probably 2.5 hours of massaging his ego, and closing with "so, being the greatest president of our lives, if not of all time, it is obviously your call, but we feel the status quo is probably the best strategy going forward."

Only 13 NRA members used Delta’s discount. Ending it cost the airline a $40 million tax break.

It seemed like a worthless political statement from Delta.

Go donate free flights to relatives, give money to the families for treatment, donate to mental health, give to the PAC that are anti-gun etc.

Counterpoint: the NRA felt strongly enough to tout it as a corporate partnership for their "5 million" members, even though only 13 had ever used it.