'Gun-loving' GOP governor reportedly seen 'running scared for his life' from mass shooting

Wait, you mean he wasn't suddenly transformed into a good-guy action hero with a gun? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

This event only marks the beginning of his metamorphosis.

In the future, when an unsuspecting minority youth mistakenly knocks on his mansion’s gate, the transformation will be complete.
- Not until they reverse to back down the driveway and try to leave will it complete.
I'm starting to think that the gun lobby might be lying to us...
- Don't be ridiculous. They spend tens of millions of dollars a year to have other people lie to us.
  
  Remember kids, you can't buy a gun without donating to the Republican Party.

I would love to be wrong, but it's too bad one of the injured or killed weren't connected to the governor. That seems to be the only time some people give a shit.

They still don't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting

The only difference is they were a lot faster to admit it was an act of terrorism. No efforts to limit the access to firearms to prevent it in the future.
- I like how little attention this got in the news at the time. /s
They'll just say more guns and you know it.
- "Clearly, the 800 police officers that were there weren't enough. 1,600 cops would have made those villains think twice!"
- If you had a gun would you pull it? There were likely hundreds of guns there. But there was also hundreds of police officers ready to take down anyone with a gun.
- Soon with AI it will be:
  
  But what if the streets themselves had guns.
- Whimper… if only the federal government hadn’t banned sales of Milkor MGLs to the public, my relative would still be alive now.
I was reading a book about how people change their minds and this is true. Horrible trauma is one of the ways people change.

So the solution to getting republicans on the side of gun control is just… shooting at them? I can get behind that.

I mean, it worked for the Black Panthers, and they weren’t even trying to get gun control laws put in place.

For the unaware, modern gun control laws basically started with the Black Panthers. During the civil rights movement, peaceful protests would get violently busted by the cops. But people quickly noticed that heavily armed protests would have the cops politely watching from across the street. (Turns out, cops are way less likely to fire into a crowd when the entire crowd can immediately return fire.) So the Black Panthers started arming themselves, to keep the cops from shutting down their protests.

When Republican lawmakers realized that the cops weren’t going to shut down the heavily armed protests on their front lawns, they got really fucking sweaty, really fucking fast. So conservatives pushed the Mulford Act, which was (at the time) the most restrictive gun control law the country had ever seen. It was authored by Ronald Reagan (yes, the same Reagan that the right upholds as a paragon of conservative values) and endorsed by the NRA, (yes, the same NRA that lobbies for looser gun control in the wake of mass school shootings.) All because the wrong people had guns.

The goal of the Mulford Act was to criminalize gun ownership, so the cops could bust individual protesters after the fact, instead of needing to break up an entire protest as it was happening. And it basically set the stage for modern gun control laws. The cops would follow individual protesters home, and kick in their front door while they were having dinner with their family the next evening. This is ironically what led to the Black Panthers becoming so militant, as they implemented anti-espionage tactics to protect the group. Code names, so busted members wouldn’t be able to positively identify other members by name. Segmented information, so a busted member (even a high ranking member) wouldn’t be able to compromise an entire protest. Randomized meeting locations, so cops couldn’t set up stings ahead of time. Etc, etc… It took them from “the people who really like guns and peacefully protest with them for self defense” to “a full blown armed guerrilla-protest group.”
- "I don’t see any peaceful way to disarm America’s whites. There’s only one thing that’s going to save this country from itself. Same thing that always saves this country from itself. And that is African-Americans. And I know the question a lot of y’all have in your minds is, should we do it? Fuck yeah, we should do it.”
  
  “No matter what they say or how they make you feel, remember, this is your country, too. It is incumbent upon us to save our country. And you know what we have to do"
  
  "Every able-bodied African-American must register for a legal firearm. That’s the only way they’ll change the law.”
  
  -- Dave Chappelle (2019)
- And that was bad.
Didn't work when they tried it with Steve Scalise.
- Gotta be a better shot I guess

Fuckin jowls must have been all kinds of flappin.

Like a basset hound in a hurricane
- Like Pamela Anderson in Baywatch.
Once he picks up enough speed they flatten out like plane wings and he's able to get some air and fly away.
"Jowls A'Quiver: A Survival Story"

Coming to TBN this November.

So what you're saying is that he wasn't the good guy with a gun?

They never are. And by "they," I mean everyone who carries a gun for "protection," and by "never," I mean that the good guy with a gun almost never actually stops shootings.

Just look at the numbers of justifiable homicides vs the number of murders by guns in the US. The justifiable homicides are almost statistically insignificant in comparison.
- I mean that the good guy with a gun almost never actually stops shootings
  
  Last I looked, they had a lower success rate than unarmed people.
- The goal of defensive use of a gun isn't homicide, you can't compare that statistics

Clearly he forgot to bring his Good Guy Gun.

Things to do during a mas shooting:

Try to escape
If you can't escape, hide.
If you can't escape or hide, fight back.

Supporting gun ownership or even carrying a gun on your hip doesn't change that. All carrying a gun does for you in a mass shooting is mature the odds a little less terrible if it comes to option 3.

A handgun is imprecise, low-power, and difficult to aim accurately. On top of that a "good guy with a gun" has to care about collateral damage.

The purpose of carrying a handgun is personal defense, not civil defense. It's good defense against assault or a mugger. It's a good deterrent from someone who why's to harm you and walk away. It's not good for taking on an unhinged maniac that's fully intending to die.

Mass shooters are the suicide bombers of the US.

You don't get the main point of gun control. Gun control means vetting out bad people from getting the guns. Like driver's license, if you don't know how drive or regularly violated traffic regulations your license is revoked. Similarly if you have gun license, good people with proper training can get the gun. But people who don't follow laws will be banned from getting guns.
- People who don't obey laws are already banned from owning guns.

"You proclaim to love the ocean, yet you flee from the tsunami.. Curious"

[Charlie Kirk.png]

Run faster, you fuck.

I wouldn't mind slower actually
- I don't need to be the fastest on 2 feet, I just need to be faster than you trips other person

"...Governor & First Lady Parson want to thank the Missouri Highway Patrol, KCPD, and their security officers for their quick and professional actions."

For getting our own asses out of there, while leaving everyone else to fend for themselves.

"I just ran away from a mass shooting at the Chiefs parade where I saw the Missouri governor (the gun lover below) running scared for his life next to me with an army of officers protecting him," Quaife wrote"

Now that we're in election season I see political ads for Republicans running for various things on TV, almost all of them show them brandishing or firing some sort of military style assault weapon. These politicians spew bullshit about protecting kids but instead are a big reason why we now have so many dead ones .

If only he was a teacher, then he could have saved himself and everyone around him.

If Guns are so Safe why were people running AWAY from the Gun? Wouldn't the Gunman be the Safest person there?

Guns are safe. The shooters aren't. /S
- Good thing the shooter only has a range of one arm length

This strikes me as like implying that I'm hypocritical because I support gay marriage, but then turned down a man who hits on me because im not actually gay.

A person can be pro gun rights and at the same time still be afraid of an active shooter.

I’m hypocritical because I support gay marriage, but then turned down a man who hits on me because im not actually gay.

It would be ironic to loudly and repeatedly declare "If you don't want to get hit on at a bar, put on that wedding ring" and then get chased out of a bar by a bunch of married men slapping your ass.

A person can be pro gun rights and at the same time still be afraid of an active shooter.

A person who stakes their reputation on the phrase "An Armed Society Is A Polite Society" fleeing said armed society for their lack of politeness establishes a certain hypocrisy.
- A person fleeing that situation who may well be unarmed is self-preservation, not hypocrisy, regardless of their stance on guns. He is however reaping what he has helped sow. Hypocrisy is simply the wrong word. This isn't the same as being anti-abortion and then paying for your mistress to get one. Being pro-gun doesn't mean you just stand there.
- A person who stakes their reputation on the phrase “An Armed Society Is A Polite Society” fleeing said armed society for their lack of politeness establishes a certain hypocrisy.
  
  Of course not.
  
  A handgun compares to a rifle like a dagger to a sword.
Who is saying anything about hypocrisy? This is about the guy feeling the consequences for his shitty policies.
- 2 of the top 5 comments right now are attacking him for not being the "good guy with a gun" and arguably multiple people have challenged me to defend the implicit claims of hypocrisy. So I disagree the implication isn't there.
Apples to oranges argument and a straw man argument all in one. Bravo sir, brav-fucking-o. Yall never cease to amaze me.
- You could explain why, but that would actually take thought and effort and open your position up to being challenged, which is scary. I get it. Empty insults are much easier.

As much as I'm on the same page as everyone here; America's gun laws need to change, are you not allowed to be afraid of the very well known thing your hobby does? Like, being afraid of being shot doesn't make you a hypocrite for liking guns.

I don't think anyone is honestly shaming this person for being afraid.

They are shaming him for refusing to do anything about a situation that he eventually wound up in himself, and suggesting that if he's not going to do something legislatively then he damn well better do something in person, else he has failed in his duty to care for his citizenry. Which is like saying the pot is black, honestly, since politicians don't care about the citizenry.
- The GOP had a stance of good guys with guns will defend people with said guns. So voting to have the guns present and not having one and running instead of defending the people either shows he was a coward by their stance, or not one of the good guys.
- The first mistake people made was believing the GOP had their back.
Yeah but leaders have to lead and this is what happens when you allow your voters to be terrorized constantly at the expense of your own privilege. He's lucky he hasn't been tarred and feathered yet.
You think this was legal under current law?
The issue is that the most common argument against gun control is “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” So now this lawmaker has proven that he doesn’t practice what he preaches. If he truly believed a good guy with a gun was the only thing that could stop the shooter, then why not put his money where his mouth is? Surely he’d be hailed as a paragon for gun rights when he took the shooter down…

But clearly he’s a hypocrite who doesn’t actually believe what he’s saying; He only says it because the gun lobby gives him tons of money to do so.
- Gun or no gun, he's not a good guy and couldn't have stopped the bad guy...
Yeah you can be enamored by nature and its fauna, while still having a healthy fear of being attacked by animals.

I love trains but being tied to tracks while a train approaches isn't what I think of as "fun".

That said proper, responsible gun ownership like any hobby involves accounting for dangers, and also advocating for measures for people to be able to enjoy their passion safely.
Guna don't scare me but people using guns recklessly or maliciously do.
Going to the range and being afraid of criminal shooters isn't hypocritical.

Being afraid of criminal shooters and fighting against gun control reforms makes you a hypocrite and a bad person.

And there's nothing wrong innately with being a hypocrite. But you're a pretty shit person if your empathy and considerations can only extend as far as things that have threatened you personally.
- No, but open carry and being afraid of criminal shooters is though.
Being afraid of being shot does make you a hypocrite if you are against gun restrictions and regulations.

Your world view is getting people killed, you SHOULD be scared.

I'm gonna need video proof that that old dude can run.

But I was assured by every Republican ever that any gop politician is actually Steven Seagal in his prime and could stop any threat with their ankle holstered dual pistols and secret AR??

But I was assured by every Republican ever that any gop politician is actually Steven Seagal in his prime and could stop any threat with their ankle holstered dual pistols and secret AR??

Steven Seagal in his prime is admittedly a low bar.
- Under Siege was a great movie even if he did turn into a Russian stooge.
- Yeah I was just busy and drawing a blank haha
- That's crazy talk. He wasn't even a young man when he fought off these two attackers at once!
If you ask Segal, he’s still in his prime.
- I don't know what went wrong in that man's life that makes him think aging doesn't impact him.

How much do you want to bet this coward bought his tickets and paid for his travel to Las Vegas and the food and hotel and whatever else while there with state taxpayer money?

what does this have anything to do with vegas? the parade was in kansas city...
- https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/state-and-regional/missouri-s-chief-executive-heading-to-super-bowl-in-vegas-to-cheer-the-chiefs/article_0a25f328-c770-11ee-b6e7-f79d6219a991.html

Shove your arm down their throat. They can't bite through your shoulders and you can, theoretically, suffocate the leopard.

Alternatively, stay the fuck out of leopard territory.
I always thought it was unfair to associate these magestic creatures with the stupidity of the right wing. We need a new meme!
- Alternatively, there's a small subsection of the population that, thanks to Jay Grant, associate the phrase, "Beat the Leopard," with smoking marijuana.

Typical GOP chickenshit.

It's so ridiculous that in a country where social nets are so poor people go bankrupt from going to the doctor that they expect people to suddenly act like heroes and risk life and limb when a shooter pops up.

Since that's the crux of the gun-clutcher platform, yeah.
It's the entire basis for our lax gun laws. Seems appropriate to point out what an empty promise it is.

you get what you fucking deserve

Can someone tell me what GOP is? Looking to expand my Americana lore lol

Grand Old Party... another term for the Republican Party.
- As a Canadian I pronounce it gawp
Gaslight, Obstruct, Project
Grabs Only Pussy, it's from Trump's Inside Edition recording because he's taken over the RNC and Republican party and they all lick his shoes now.
- Nah, they're licking his butthole.

Fucking cowardly liars.

It's a false hope, but here's hoping it is a learning experience.

It's tough to learn something when your job depends on you not learning it.
If Sandy Hook and Uvalde weren't learning experiences, nothing will be.
- With Republicans the 'it doesn't matter unless it happens to me' seems to be a thing.

Lump ol' Governor Dumb Cop in with Senator "Sedition Solidarity Fist" Hawley as another Missouri Republican who plays tough but runs like a coward when the trouble they've stirred up comes calling for them.

Just going to post some of my copypasta I wrote that unfortunately remains timeless:

Lethal Effectiveness

To those saying "it's not the guns, it's the people!" There is a reason why shortly after the Las Vegas shooter committed one of the worst mass-shootings ever, bump-stocks became illegal. There's a reason there is increased REGULATION on fully-automatic firearms. Just look up how much damage a deranged guy in a tank that wasn't armed wreaked on San Diego.

Go either direction and see the result:

If you permit folks more power, such as easy access Abrams battle-tanks complete with depleted-uranium ammunition and various other armaments; if you permit them to have nukes, Apache helicopters, etc... You can see just how much more damage a deranged individual can inflict within the same time-frame. (But hint: these are more highly regulated or completely off-limits in the first place, and the price itself imposes an effective barrier on who can attain such weapons of war... More on this concept later).
If you LIMIT the average lethal-effectiveness the average Joe can attain to something less-than a firearm, you see the opposite trend. Less capacity to inflict mass-casualty harm in a limited time-frame. And let me be clear: I don't think too many people would opt to fight Fist vs Firearm in a surprise attack than Fist vs. Knife. We need only look to the UK to see the net-homicide rates do not carry over to stabbings.

So, sure, the person is who pulls the trigger. But what's important is how much power you're willing to put into the hands of the average deranged individual who will always have the element of surprise.

Squirt-gun scenario

Offensive Gun Uses ALWAYS have the advantage over Defensive Gun Uses.

Let's pretend we're in a game and all armed with squirt-guns (the utopian wild west, according to righties) and I just so happen to be playing the "bad guy with a squirt-gun." At any given moment, it's my interest to (a) rob you, or (b) squirt you in cold blood. Now maybe...Maybe 1 in 100 or 1,000 times I'd fumble somehow. But seeing how I have the element of surprise (and determination to use) at any given moment of any given day of any given year, and (2) you more or less must wait for me to be a threat in the first place means the defender is always at a MAJOR disadvantage. Which means it's a losing race no matter how much you saturate the market. Which is also why the Wild West was not safer and Tombstone and Dodge City implemented gun-control measures in later years.

Even if you got the drop on me in that 1 in 100 times, it doesn't matter because it still benefits the offensive individual an order-of-magnitude more. Always a losing race. I mean if I'm being mugged with or without my family, I'm just going to give them my stuff. It's meaningless compared to my life or loved ones and now I run the risk of making myself a target as opposed to my property. Do I really think I can react even if I have my firearm holstered on my side while someone else already has the draw on me? If you feel this confident, I'd love to play that game with you and and make a betting-game out of it.

If I am a mass-squirter (don't.), then a weapon with greater range of spray, more water in the reservoir, and a squeeze-and-hold would amplify my capacity to spray others. (Case-in-point: see the 1997 North Hollywood shootout)

Now you understand why our firearm-related homicides are higher than any other Western OECD nation.
Now you understand why our total homicides are an outlier among Western OECD nations.
There is no correlation with reducing homicides and firearm possession / ownership
Statistically, you and your family are more likely to survive a violent encounter by (a) fleeing, (b) hiding, (c) cooperating, and/or (d) calling law-enforcement (suddenly these Blue Lives Matter folks scatter and they Hatteeeee cops when you raise this point; funny how that is).

By mitigating the proliferation of firearms in society, you're addressing the problem from the opposite side. This has the added benefit of lowering impulse-related rage-induced homicides (e.g., bar fights, domestic disputes), reducing child-safety accidents, and suicides. It also has the added benefit of moving the illegality to a precursor to homicide and be proactive about stopping a bad guy before they harm someone, as opposed to having to wait reactively.

Supply-And-Demand

A pretty basic concept is that when supply is reduced, the cost of a product rises. The moment firearm manufacturers must cease churning out new firearms and ammunition; the mere moment (independent of gun-buyback programs, etc.) firearms would become illegal in a hypothetical... The black-market price of said firearms soars out of reach of the vast-majority of people, including the vast-majority of criminals (which overlaps with poverty and crimes made out of desperation).

If a car salesperson's job is to make it easier to impulsively buy a car, regulations serve as hoops and friction to inhibiting such an impulse-purchase. Perhaps then a teenager like the Sandy Hook shooter wouldn't just steal his mom's gun where he then probably could not navigate the black market without being caught up in a sting operation. Perhaps that's why the Uvalde shooter himself waited until he could legally purchase a firearm. Just a thought.

Conversely from the criminal side of things, sure there will be a black-market for firearms as they are everywhere. But when a Glock 18 costs $15,000 cash on the black market, these criminals are either good at doing business or not going to rob or mug you for petty cash.

Finally, if printing guns was so effective, then why aren't gun subs littered with them? Why haven't they been used in any mass shootings? They're ostensibly cheaper no less, riiighttt...?

Those questions were rhetorical. The answer: They're inferior in pretty much every way. Anyone remotely trained in engineering knows the quality of printing at a consumer level will never meet commercial or industrial tolerances and be REMOTELY affordable. Leaving aside the fact that raw materials needed to build such things are of course going to be monitored. Leaving aside the fact that one cannot print plastic ammunition with any level of reliability. I'd also love to see the likes of Lanza make his own brass, gunpowder, and gun and (a) not have anyone notice and tip off police, and (b) not have it blow up in his face.

Root Causes vs. Symptoms

Many defending guns will deflect attention from firearms to society and root-problems elsewhere. I will grant that it is not JUST the firearm; there is more to the story and the firearm is just a simple means of slowing a symptom down, not the root cause. But just like any ER doctor must treat the symptoms alongside the root causes, so too must society. Thing is, addressing the symptoms tends to be easier than addressing the root causes. And it strikes me as funny that we go, ""Well okay if you don't want to focus on the guns let's give healthcare to all, widen education, reduce stress in society!"" and they protest that as well...

...

So WHY don't these pro-gun advocates care in the wake of facts as solid as proving climate-change itself? Well it's simple in that they kind of look at guns the way they look at climate change: they value their toy that makes them feel strong over society and don't care about the future. In short, despite draping themselves in the flag they are NOT patriots. They do NOT care about their fellow Americans one iota."

Guess what. The good guys didn't have guns.

Doesn't this cowardice apply to modern day leadership in general though?

Stay strapped or get clapped. Gov. was probably lackin.

This isn't a "gotcha". I'm a big fan of classic cars but that doesn't mean I'll stand there when one is driving fast straight at me.

I mean most pro-gun arguments boil down to “guns are needed because the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with one”, so when a large proponent of this argument is thrown into a situation where he could be the “good guy with a gun” and he instead runs away because he values his own life more than protecting the lives of those around him, maybe he should stop and dwell on that thought for a minute.

Would I charge headfirst into gunfire? Absolutely not, and thats why I advocate for more gun control.
- Maybe he's just not a good guy. In fact in this day and age I would say by being Republican does indeed make him the bad guy.
- Of course, this being funny kinda hinges on him having a gun on him at the time of the incident. Just because he is a proponent of a right being available if one so chooses doesn't mean he chooses to exercise it daily, and you can't use what you don't have on you.
  
  Furthermore gun owners are under no obligation to have the hero fantasies often ascribed to them, many do it for simply self preservation who wouldn't run towards gunfire either, opting only to use it if they absolutely have to. That is a decision someone can really only make in the moment, too, many think "I'd blah blah blah," you might blah blah blah, it's an instinctual reaction.
- Perhaps he simply wasn't armed. I'm against gun control but am also not armed 24/7 either. Unlike most on the website, I've been in the situation of having to approach a shooter. Some of us still believe what we did before that after.
- I carry to protect me and mine.
  
  You and yours can make the decision to carry or not. I’m not going to go out of my way to save anyone but my own kin. The police have no legal requirement to save you and they have legal protection from liability if they shoot something they should not. A conceal and carry holder has none of that.
A gun is not a car.
- One can jump out of the way of a car, because it isn't faster than the speed of sound.
- Got any more brilliant fucking insights about tools meant for specific purposes?
I assume you're not a big fan of totally unregulated cars and I doubt you claim that the only way to stop a car crash is with another car.

Everyone should run scared for their life from a mass shooting. It's a mass shooting.

Everyone should also do what they can to minimize gun deaths in this country, obviously this guy isn't doing that, but that is unrelated to how he should act during a mass shooting.

Everyone should run scared for their life from a mass shooting.

This Private School Trains Student “Warriors” To Swarm An Active Shooter

Literally a thing Republicans were advocating right after the Uvalde Shooting, on the grounds that it was the kids' own fault for getting slaughtered.

You know how it is. This kind of thing always happens the one day you leave your AR15 home!

Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George sees the fire at the kids birthday party.

https://youtu.be/GYcySgjWGIw?si=_aT3maXLBwOH8Np8

That guy looks like a goose.

How shocking.

I am pro second amendment also, and would run from someone shooting a gun at people. What is he supposed to be doing?

Be the good guy with the gun. Isn't that the reason we need unfettered access to guns?
- I dont carry a gun, and my access to something is not why I am in favor of it being legal. Do you want legalized marijuana just because you want to use it or because you think everyone should be allowed to use it?

Was the governor armed? Or his "support for firearms" is a weapon in itself?

I don't care who he is, if he was just running for his life in a mass shooting then leave him the fuck alone. At least give him a little grace period before you start weaponizing his traumatic experience to push your beliefs.

What a brain-dead response.
- There are many real arguments you could make against me, but instead you just insult me. You aren't making yourself look very reasonable here.

Well, I don't know who this guy is but still, nobody's going to take my firearm away. You'd have to take it from my cold dead hands. If you think the government is here to help by taking away the ability to protect yourself, then you're a damn fool! They already know what you think and do, next step is to have total control.

Not the point. The fact that you can't realize that probably proves that you are the type of person that shouldn't own guns.
- The fact that you couldn't provide one point proves my arguement even further. Here, read this while you're at it:
  
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution