Armed Subject Reported at Texas Walmart, Police Say - Polidicks

[quote] Authorities in Amarillo, Texas, are investigating reports of an armed subject inside a Walmart along I-27. The subject may have hostages, according to the Amarillo Police Department. Police are asking people to avoid the area so officers can focus on the scene. [/quote] Ongoing situation, SWAT has been called and is on the way. [url]http://abcnews.go.com/US/armed-subject-reported-texas-walmart-police/story?id=39848693[/url]

God dammit, it's been two days.

Just heard this on the radio. Hopefully the SWAT team can end this as fast as possible.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50520643]God dammit, it's been two days.[/QUOTE] It could just be some right-winger trying to protest open carry or gun laws by doing this. There haven't been any reported injuries.

Could be literally anything. I doubt its some big hostage crisis. Probably just some shithead dispute in the store. [editline]14th June 2016[/editline] Not too long ago my local Walmart had a guy pull a gun after he was caught shoplifting.

[QUOTE=The Rifleman;50520628]Ongoing situation, SWAT has been called and is on the way. [url]http://abcnews.go.com/US/armed-subject-reported-texas-walmart-police/story?id=39848693[/url][/QUOTE] I feel like I have seen this before. in Las Vegas

Honestly, with how Obama is ramping up his cunting and bantering, it could be some guys open carrying. Not to mention a recent case stated that concealed carry is not covered by the 2nd Amendment, so could be someone protesting that and proving that open carry would cause more issues then concealed carry. Loading Tweet... [URL]https://twitter.com/AmarilloPD/status/742768160042942467[/URL] Calling it now, one of the recent refugees from California just saw someone with a gun for the first time in their lives and had a stroke. That or someone from "Moms Against Fun" is wasting police resources and time because someone open carrying was triggering them.

APD twitter says their SWAT team shot and killed the suspect. Hostages are safe and sound, it seems. Source: [url]https://twitter.com/AmarilloPD/status/742774363145932800[/url]

Good job, LEOs. Hopefully more situations can be dealt with in this quick of a manner. It's depressing that people are trying to spark shit constantly, and are making life harder for just about everyone.

That was fast. Good.

even more fuel for lefty gun grabbers to plaster all over social media great

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50520643]God dammit, it's been two days.[/QUOTE] Since there is a mass shooting in the US almost every day I am not that surprised holy fuck I am a cynic mofo [editline]14th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50520848]Honestly, with how Obama is ramping up his cunting and bantering, it could be some guys open carrying. Not to mention a recent case stated that concealed carry is not covered by the 2nd Amendment, so could be someone protesting that and proving that open carry would cause more issues then concealed carry. Loading Tweet... [URL]https://twitter.com/AmarilloPD/status/742768160042942467[/URL] Calling it now, one of the recent refugees from California just saw someone with a gun for the first time in their lives and had a stroke. That or someone from "Moms Against Fun" is wasting police resources and time because someone open carrying was triggering them.[/QUOTE] What the fuck dude what the fuck why would you make that post

[QUOTE=Killuah;50521030]Since there is a mass shooting in the US almost every day I am not that surprised holy fuck I am a cynic mofo[/QUOTE] The definition of mass shooting in the US is if 4 people are shot. Not killed, just shot. It's a bit misleading honestly. It also excludes gang related and all members of a family from counting. Then there's a completely different definition that does and only counts deaths I hate how they're going to want to go for another assault weapons ban (As if any weapon isn't an assault weapon?) when in 98% of gun related shootings, it's a hand gun. More attacks are committed with baseball bats than assault rifles. If they really cared about curbing gun violence they'd go after handguns, but they never do

I'm absolutely pro-gun rights but is it actually a serious notion that the left is actually pushing for gun-grabs? I thought it was a push for more strict rules on purchasing guns? I feel like the only people ever talking about someone taking away the guns are conservatives.

[QUOTE=hippowombat;50521041]I'm absolutely pro-gun rights but is it actually a serious notion that the left is actually pushing for gun-grabs? I thought it was a push for more strict rules on purchasing guns? I feel like the only people ever talking about someone taking away the guns are conservatives.[/QUOTE] dunno if it's gonna be a literal gun grab but it's still shitty and unnecessary [url]https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ban-ar-15-civilian-ownership[/url]

[QUOTE=hippowombat;50521041]I'm absolutely pro-gun rights but is it actually a serious notion that the left is actually pushing for gun-grabs? I thought it was a push for more strict rules on purchasing guns? I feel like the only people ever talking about someone taking away the guns are conservatives.[/QUOTE] Clinton is calling for a ban on "assault weapons".

[QUOTE=srobins;50521085]Clinton is calling for a ban on "assault weapons".[/QUOTE] Because the first AWB worked ~so~ well at stopping gun crime. Gotta get those scary black plastic accessories off the streets. I would at least respect an attempt at effective gun legislation, but the AWB was a joke that revolved around a made up political term that didn't do shit to stop crime. Literally any other policy would make more sense. Buy backs, requirements for gun-safes, gun registry, longer waiting period after purchasing, psych evals, harder background checks, requiring IDs similar to an LTC to purchase, banning handguns, banning semi-auto handguns, etc, etc, etc, etc. I wouldn't necessarily agree with some of those, but shit at least it would be an attempt at some real legislation. But no, they went with inventing a class of gun that sounded scary, categorized everything that looks scary under it, and then banned it for 10 years. It didn't stop crime, and didn't hinder the ability to commit mass shootings with semi-automatic rifles like we saw in Columbine. Proponents are either willfully ignorant about the thing they're trying to legislate, or don't truly care about gun violence and just want votes from people that are outraged by guns in general. I'm willing to bet it's both. [I]We made up a thing and then banned it, good work guys.[/I]

[QUOTE=upsideonion;50521020]even more fuel for lefty gun grabbers to plaster all over social media great[/QUOTE] Yeah this should just be completely ignored.

[QUOTE=Scot;50521139]Yeah this should just be completely ignored.[/QUOTE] why?

[QUOTE=upsideonion;50521020]even more fuel for lefty gun grabbers to plaster all over social media great[/QUOTE] is this the first thing you think when you hear news of people being shot and killed?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50521173]is this the first thing you think when you hear news of people being shot and killed?[/QUOTE] yes because all i hear for a week after a shooting is how bad guns are you always bring up the most autistic shit on anything gun-related

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50521173]is this the first thing you think when you hear news of people being shot and killed?[/QUOTE] Who cares? What a stupid and insulting response. As if anybody actually gives a shit about some idiot gunman getting shot. Nobody is allowed to say anything unless it's anti-gun, otherwise the fake compassion squad will call you out with a pretentious post like this. If your first reaction is "let's ban guns", you're all good, but if your response is the opposite, you're a sociopath and you should be crying solemn tears for a stranger you've never met. Give me a break.

[QUOTE=srobins;50521085]Clinton is calling for a ban on "assault weapons".[/QUOTE] Because that's ever gonna float with the American population. If she said that with any form of a serious tone she'd lose the election.

[QUOTE=pentium;50521323]Because that's ever gonna float with the American population. If she said that with any form of a serious tone she'd lose the election.[/QUOTE] She's very serious lol, get ready for President Trump at this rate.

[QUOTE=upsideonion;50521232]yes because all i hear for a week after a shooting is how bad guns are[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=srobins;50521276]Who cares? What a stupid and insulting response. As if anybody actually gives a shit about some idiot gunman getting shot. Nobody is allowed to say anything unless it's anti-gun, otherwise the fake compassion squad will call you out with a pretentious post like this. If your first reaction is "let's ban guns", you're all good, but if your response is the opposite, you're a sociopath and you should be crying solemn tears for a stranger you've never met. Give me a break.[/QUOTE] to be honest i more often hear the opposite. there are many people with the opinion that if only there had been more people carrying guns then mass shootings would be less common and less damaging literally every single time one of these mass shootings happens, you have loads of people arguing that more guns are needed and that any attempt to put in restrictions upon firearms is tantamount to treason [editline]14th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=srobins;50521341]She's very serious lol, get ready for President Trump at this rate.[/QUOTE] how depressing that a man who advocates torture, banning people from the country on account of their religion, overturning gay marriage, who believes that global warming was invented by the chinese, and that vaccines cause autism, is somehow a preferable choice

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50521357]literally every single time one of these mass shootings happens, you have loads of people arguing that more guns are needed and that any attempt to put in restrictions upon firearms is tantamount to treason[/QUOTE] This is irrelevant to why I responded to you in the first place. Shaming somebody for talking about politics instead of mourning the loss of some guy nobody knows or cares about is a disingenuous and condescending way of shutting down anybody that expresses concern over gun rights. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;50521357]how depressing that a man who advocates torture, banning people from the country on account of their religion, overturning gay marriage, who believes that global warming was invented by the chinese, and that vaccines cause autism, is somehow a preferable choice[/QUOTE] I never said he was preferable but whatever, do your thing.

Snip, late

:snip:

[QUOTE=srobins;50521475]This is irrelevant to why I responded to you in the first place. Shaming somebody for talking about politics instead of mourning the loss of some guy nobody knows or cares about is a disingenuous and condescending way of shutting down anybody that expresses concern over gun rights.[/QUOTE] it's more the fact it's a deeply hypocritical and paranoid post gun rights are more entrenched than ever, with an extremely powerful lobby that helps to keep it that way. whenever any kind of shooting takes place and people express concern about gun legislation - suddenly it's all shut down by a near-rabid opposition which thinks a vast and powerful movement of "gun-grabbers" is coming to get rid of firearms. if anything, there's more pro-gun than anti-gun people around nobody is coming to take guns because there's barely any traction for it in the first place. obama tried for years and little has come of it. it's a deeply touchy issue and unless the democrats somehow take the presidency and both houses, they still have to deal with a slow and cumbersome political system that will delay and water down any kind of gun legislation. it's a deeply baffling thing in how it's actually turned around to make out that somehow gun rights and pro-gun people are under attack and on the defensive retreat when the reality is more the opposite case. gun rights are expanding constantly in america and have been for years now

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50521564]nobody is coming to take guns because there's barely any traction for it in the first place. obama tried for years and little has come of it. it's a deeply touchy issue and unless the democrats somehow take the presidency and both houses, they still have to deal with a slow and cumbersome political system that will delay and water down any kind of gun legislation.[/QUOTE] I guess we're just moving past your fake moral indignation so I'll take it that you implicitly admit that was a stupid post to make. Regarding this excerpt.. I wonder [I]why[/I] Obama's attempts at gun control have failed? I wonder [I]why[/I] Clinton's call for an assault weapons ban will likely fail? Because people express opinions contrary and make it clear that they do not want that type of policy enacted. It's so unbelievably ironic you would call his reaction "paranoid" (and hypocritical? I feel like you threw that word in as a force of habit because I don't see anything remotely hypocritical about his post..) for reacting to what you presume to be a non-existent threat, yet then [I]specifically point out Obama has been trying to restrict gun rights for years.[/I] This all of course coming after you had already acknowledged my post which points out that Hillary Clinton is already calling for a total ban on assault weapons. As for "gun rights are expanding constantly in america".. How are gun rights expanding? As a person who actually lives in America I'm excited to hear what surprising third-party information you have in the UK that us Americans don't know about regarding our gun rights.