Rank #5842 on CommentsLevel 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
OfflineSend mail to theXsjados Block theXsjados Invite theXsjados to be your friend
- Views: 32303These guys hate themselves
642 105 Total: +537
- Views: 3791Too far you say?
63 4 Total: +59
- Views: 1651The Great and Powerful Trixie!
46 2 Total: +44
- Views: 4758Felix 20% Cooler
106 67 Total: +39
- Views: 2494Final Form
37 13 Total: +24
- Views: 647How Encouraging
13 6 Total: +7
- Views: 3517My gif contribution
49 3 Total: +46
latest user's comments
|#44 - Pictured is the FMG9, a folding submachine gun... it can fit i…||01/23/2015 on 2edgy4u||+2|
|#41 - *sarcasm* So being able to perfectly survail everyone and able…||01/23/2015 on 2edgy4u||+1|
|#38 - *sarcasm* Yeah... random shooters don't work in teams or have …||01/23/2015 on 2edgy4u||+2|
|#36 - The 'suspicious' man with a duffle bag that is the hypothetica…||01/23/2015 on 2edgy4u||+3|
|#35 - The moment that guard taps them on the shoulder is when the bl…||01/23/2015 on 2edgy4u||+1|
|#34 - Do you even do any research? What do you think hunting rifles … [+] (1 new reply)||01/23/2015 on 2edgy4u||+2|
|#4 - The point is not so irritate kids or disgruntled teens don't s… [+] (35 new replies)||01/23/2015 on 2edgy4u||+13|
#8 - anonymous (01/23/2015) [-]
This picture is not them laughing at the fact society says 'no guns allowed' and they're breaking that rule. They're laughing at the fact that everyone in the building has followed society's norms and will therefore be unable to retaliate effectively.
#95 - innocentbabies (01/24/2015) [-]
The only way to save people in that situation is to keep them from getting shot at. If you turn it into a firefight, you're just increasing the amount of bullets flying. There's no time for aimed fire in close quarters combat, you hide behind something and shoot at the other guy to keep him from shooting at you. Guns have a place, but they're offensive, not defensive. If you want to save lives, get people away from the lunatics with guns, don't convince them that they can safely hold their ground and fight back. Besides that, if everyone has guns and a fight breaks out, how do people who are trying to help know who to shoot at? Gunfights are chaotic.
#26 - TheMather (01/23/2015) [-]
Military-grade submachineguns are chambered with rifle rounds. You'll have to go deep, deep into the black market to find anything that doesn't use pistol rounds.
And no, they don't have to be super guards, they just have to have enough training not to fuck up. Aim for the chest, one round should be enough to stop anyone that isn't used to combat. If he's firing at civilians, don't shout to grab his attention, just shoot the fucker. Chances are they'll never take a single bullet unless someone decides to target them first.
And most security companies in employ of big customers are fucking massive, like Securitas.
#86 - kilotech (01/23/2015) [-]
a submachine gun is any weapon chambered in pistol rounds capable of using fully automatic or burst fire, if it's semi auto it's not an SMG, it's a pistol, if it's using rifle rounds it's not an SMG, it's a rifle. if you can't get basic concepts of firearms you shouldn't be talking about them
#34 - theXsjados (01/23/2015) [-]
Do you even do any research? What do you think hunting rifles and the AR-15 use? The Ak47 generally uses 7.62x39 rounds and I can have 500 of them mailed to my house within a few days for $100, or 22 cents per round, which is cheaper than 9mm ammo.
California is also one of, if not the only, state with a specific ban on 50 caliber rifles. THE ONLY STATE WITH A BAN. That means you can buy a 50 caliber rifle LEGALLY in most other states. You don't get more 'military-grade high powered' than a 50 caliber.
What is banned are the high penetration explosive rounds that can pierce 6 feet of concrete and brick and then set off an explosive after exiting the other side of the wall.
#27 - blakeserene (01/23/2015) [-]
Lol let me tell you about securitas. They worked on my college campus. It was a gun free zone. Guess what? That applied to them too. They weren't legally allowed to have a firearm on them while on school grounds. So tell me more about companies like Securitas, because they have to obey those rules too. And I'm not concerned with one person. A three man team like what happened in France is what I am worried about. Get a group of just a few criminals together and they become an effective force. Doesn't take much to get into the military grade weapons. It's just as easy to get illegal military weapons as it is to get civ weapons.
#28 - TheMather (01/23/2015) [-]
They had to obey it because the regulations were above them. They weren't in charge of security there, just tasked with enforcing it. When they're in charge, they make the rules.
And random shooters don't work in teams. They attacked Charlie Hebdo in a team because that was a targeted attack, they weren't after random civilians.
Russian weapons are easy to obtain, Chinese weapons are easy to obtain, Israeli, American, Swiss, German and Belgian weapons are not. And the former two are way behind, they are the ones that chamber pistol rounds.
#38 - theXsjados (01/23/2015) [-]
Yeah... the Columbine shooters, plural, were two uncooperative individuals with completely separate agendas who happened to plan things ahead, like planting a bomb miles away to distract the police, were completely separate from one another and didn't work together in any effective way. *end sarcasm*
#10 - TheMather (01/23/2015) [-]
You don't. You see a weapon; you throw them out or detain them and alert the police depending on what level of jurisdiction you have.
This adds a level of security because it gives you a chance to stop them before they hurt anyone. To allow the showing of intent in favor of waiting for an attempt is just stupid.
#12 - TheMather (01/23/2015) [-]
Yes, and guess what? You have to pull the weapon out of hiding before you can use it. Security guard see someone looking around shiftily while reaching into their jacket/bag? Tap them on the shoulder and bring them aside.
Also concealment is not always perfect; see a holster on the inside of someone's jacket? Stop them.
It won't catch everyone, but it will catch some, and it'll prevent anyone from bringing large weapons. And that is better than catching none.
#35 - theXsjados (01/23/2015) [-]
The moment that guard taps them on the shoulder is when the blood bath will begin. You are very naive.
PERHAPS spotting a gun on a gunman and taking him aside before he starts shooting will defuse SOME situations. Very rarely. Compare it to suicide; talking down someone who is suicidal SOMETIMES works, but on the other end of the spectrum you have people you have to forcible stop from killing themselves. You have to yank them off the ledge, or overwhelm them with force. And everyday we fail to stop many, many people from killing themselves. Just like suicide, shooting up a public area is a premeditated, and deliberate action of someone who feels as if society has failed them, or they're too mentally disturbed to be helped.
If we detect the warning signs we might be able to talk them down. And while they are hesitating moments before pulling out the guns to start off their attack we might have the opportunity to talk them down; but once they've decided they are going to do what they are going to do the most we can do to stop it is to use deadly force.
An unarmed guard MIGHT be able to diffuse a horrible situation, but it's not foolproof and that unarmed guard will PROBABLY just end up being the first victim.
#13 - blakeserene (01/23/2015) [-]
Yeah because people are all going to trained to recognize those things right? There will always just happen to be a cop around. And Bags and other such things couldn't hide a large gun. And he's totes gonna wait for the cops to arrive after pulling hiss gun and not shoot immediately. Yeah he'll TOTALLY wait the fifteen minutes for the authorities to show up.
#18 - TheMather (01/23/2015) [-]
Look, you won't get over a 10 thousand in a mall even during a large convention. Even a large mall is lucky to get that many in a day. At most you'll have one or two thousand shoppers in a huge mall during the busy hours. And in the same mall you'll have maybe 150-200 cameras divided over several security sectors. With probably 5-10 guards assigned to each sector.
Should the entire mall riot at once, then no you won't have enough guards, but you have more than enough guards and equipment to keep surveillance of everyone and take care of any troublemakers.
#41 - theXsjados (01/23/2015) [-]
*sarcasm* So being able to perfectly survail everyone and able to detect even the most inconspicuous of criminals is why shoplifting is no longer a major problem. The NASP doesn't say there's 27 million shoplifters in the US... we caught them all *end sarcasm*
The fact is, if major corporations could actually implement a system as efficient as you are describing in a manner that isn't counter productive to profit then they would have already. They haven't; because it's too expensive and impractical. Having a security force so strong that you can literally see a guard everywhere you look would drive off customers (no one likes being watched, even if it's for their own good).
#22 - TheMather (01/23/2015) [-]
Yeah. Walk in with a large bag or a bulky duster coat. Sure the camera operators won't keep a close eye on you because that's not suspicious at all, right?
He'll walk to a remote area, pull out the gun and the first people he'll see are a squad of guards wearing bullet-proof armor after being alerted by a camera operator.
#23 - blakeserene (01/23/2015) [-]
Doesn't have to be bulky. Most submachine guns can be easily concealed under a light jacket or hoodie. And they get more compact with every iteration. Could hide one in a purse. And you're assuming that a guy, who's probably bored out of his head, to be watching every camera at the same time, and miss nothing. Even watching two different cameras is difficult, especially with hundreds of people moving in and out of view. It gives me a headache just thinking about the strain.
#24 - TheMather (01/23/2015) [-]
>Fully automatic rifle
Yes, a submachine gun is more of a threat than a pistol. With one might actually be able to kill a few people before a guard shoots him dead.
And guess what, camera operators tend to be trained for their job, and if they notice anyone suspicious, they'll pay attention to where they are at any given time in case they try something funny.
#130 - ARRRGGGG (01/24/2015) [-]
Lol dude do you know what you're talking about? Seriously, do you have any expertise on this subject? Because I've worked security before and I can safely say that it is nowhere near as good as you think it is. 5-10 guards PER SECTOR in a MALL? You won't even get 5 guards period. There's like 2-3 walking around and that's it. There will be a few people watching the cameras. Not an entire crew like you think. And they typically aren't highly paid or highly trained either. They aren't viewing through HD monitors and the cameras aren't amazing quality either. The result is you'd need to enter the mall guns blazing for them to really notice anything.
My next point is you also highly overrate a typical security personnel. They aren't highly paid or motivated (who would risk their life to keep a low paying job that they likely don't care much about?) and have at best a minimal understanding of how to handle a situation like a mass shooting. Their training probably ends there with the instructions "call the cops" because I know mine did. A security guard is also not always armed and even if they were, they would have minimal training with their firearm unless they go shooting on their free time. You're gonna expect that guy to instantly whip out his pistol and plant some shots in a guy's chest? No, because he's not some rock hard killer. Honestly, the best outcome for that scenario would be the guard getting the fuck out of there and getting the police.
Lastly, HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO SEARCH EVERY PERSON IN A MALL??? Hell, even just a cursory glance over every patron entering would take several times more personnel than the security staff actually has (and that's without searching anyone). And if you only had 2 seconds to look me over then I guarantee you I could hide a small weapon with just a hoodie and jeans. Disneyland only has one entrance and yet they need 8-10 people in order to do a quick 5 second search of everyone's bags (not including their person). Your typical mall has dozens of entrances.
#36 - theXsjados (01/23/2015) [-]
The picture is a Thompson, aka the Tommy Gun, concealed inside of a violin case. The frames of the newer rifles, pistols, and submachine guns of today are thin enough to hide in a briefcase. Are your hypothetical, infallible, super guards going to stop individuals wearing business clothes and search their suitcases?
If someone put on a suit they bought from GoodWill for $5 and slipped a .45 into a briefcase with 4 or 5 magazines of ammo they could easily get into your super-mall-cop mall undetected.
#25 - blakeserene (01/23/2015) [-]
Submachine guns today are chambered with rifle grade rounds. The whole point of submachine guns to have the firepower of a rifle compacted to the size of a pistol frame. And I still think your five to ten highly trained, well equipped, "super guards" are something more akin to military police than guards. Bullet proof ARMOR? Maybe a vest. And you think the guards will have anything more than pistols? And they might have a second clip if things go well. Plus five to ten PER SECTOR? Even if we're talking just a medium sized mall, that could easily be a hundred guards. You'd need to be a super wealthy organization to be providing that kind of salary on top of all this equipment and training they are getting.
And even if ALL of this is possible, you basically have a standing military sized group acting as "guards". You don't think that's a bit extreme? Because to me, that sounds like a totalitarian military regime.
|#81 - Pay terms depends on State, but unless you hold a government p…||01/22/2015 on Can't Think of a Title||0|
|#53 - Would you rather be judged by someone in a political position …||01/22/2015 on Can't Think of a Title||+1|
|#51 - Some juries get payed as much as $47 a day, and the federal ju… [+] (2 new replies)||01/22/2015 on Can't Think of a Title||0|
#74 - anonymous (01/22/2015) [-]
If you have an employer paying you for missing work, then you won't receive any money unless the trial runs for several days, and you are only paid after three or four days. If you don't, then you get about 15 dollars a day for the first few days, then 30 per day after that. Most trials only last one to three days.
#81 - theXsjados (01/22/2015) [-]
Pay terms depends on State, but unless you hold a government position then the state pays you as well as your employer, if you employer so chooses to do so. Employers may not pay you, if the law does not require them to, or they can make you use a sick/vacation days if you want to get paid, it is their choice, but it does not affect payment from the Government for jury duty unless Government is you employer in the first place (in which case you get normal pay, which would be better than jury pay anyways).
Whatever your is state they pay $15 after the 3rd or 4th day, but most states pay after the first, and for amounts greater than $15. Federal is the highest paying at $40 for the first day, plus accommodations, and $50 every day after, plus accommodations. Accommodations being parking, transit, and lodging.
Every state is different. My state, Connecticut, requires full time employers to pay for the first 5 days, which is a bit different, but basically amounts for $80+, but puts the burden of payment on the employer. After that you get $50 per day, regardless of employment.
So in this instance you are somewhat correct but, compared to whatever you do, sitting in a jury would probably be a breeze, and you still get compensated.