…whether or not the allegedly well-intentioned reformers of Moms Demand Action and GunFreeZone.net are aware of it, they are flirting with disaster. On the surface, Ann Marie’s grubby little hope that police will eventually “have a run in with one of these clowns” may appear to be less threatening than was Ronald Ritchie’s fatal mendacity. But, if Marie were successful, the end result would likely be the same. There is no kind way of putting this, I’m afraid: Ultimately, what we are seeing on the fringes of the gun-control movement is the suggestion that American citizens be “SWATted” for their choices — that, in the name of a political disagreement, one party calls the cops on another and, under false pretenses, puts them in harm’s way. Is this reconcilable with “common sense” change?

“You’re putting the police in a situation where to the best of their knowledge the call is coming from inside the house,” Owens explains. “In the worst case, the perpetrator will say, ‘I’ve killed my wife and kids; come get me if you can.’” In other instances, he will exaggerate or twist the truth to lure authorities into a situation that is not at all as it has been described. In all cases, however, the intention is the same: To harm or to scare the target. Real-world examples abound.

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on October 02, 2014, 09:25:07 PM

That would only make sense if SWAT didn't have guns either.

SWAT teams have a tradition of shooting first and asking questions later

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on October 02, 2014, 10:13:25 PM

Quote from: RustingFloor on October 02, 2014, 09:43:41 PM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on October 02, 2014, 09:25:07 PM

That would only make sense if SWAT didn't have guns either.

SWAT teams have a tradition of shooting first and asking questions later

But guns are violent and homicidal, SWAT should put themselves above them.

So you want a squad full of Batmen?

Awesome.

So, not more than a few days ago you were vehemently defending the conservative pro-gun crowd, telling me that a few racist morons on a patriotic facebook page are absolutely not representative for your typical gun owner. But now, you seem to have absolutely no issues with condemning a whole bunch of organizations and basically the entire "anti-gun" crowd based on the Facebook comments by a few deluded soccer moms?

Kinder please. Your bias is showing, hard. If you'd actually read the article a little more carefully, you'd learn that none of the organizations mentioned support or even approve of the practice of SWATing. This entire "news" article is based on nothing but a few morons making inappropriate comments on Facebook, and would be absolutely no different from a liberal website having an article entitled "NRA supports Muslim genocide" based on nothing but the handful of racist remarks that I quoted from the American Patriots Facebook page.

Hypocrisy isn't a nice thing.

Apart from a website called "bearingarms.com" which is clearly biased, do you have any other sources proving this? Any proof at all of a large amount of people making false calls to the police specifically to scare or endanger gun owners?

Quote from: Kinder_ on October 03, 2014, 07:51:13 AM

Quote from: challengerX on October 03, 2014, 03:48:29 AM

Apart from a website called "bearingarms.com" which is clearly biased, do you have any other sources proving this? Any proof at all of a large amount of people making false calls to the police specifically to scare or endanger gun owners?

I do have proof, look at the website I posted. This site is well known for accuracy of knowledge of firearms because it is being operated by firearms owners. Want bias? Go to CNN, MSNBC, and HuffPost

So nothing other than an extremely pro gun website? If you don't think that's biased, you're wrong.

A couple of sources and stories proving this is real and I'll believe it, for now it's about as credible as a supermarket tabloid.

Quote from: Kinder_ on October 03, 2014, 08:10:06 AM

Quote from: challengerX on October 03, 2014, 07:53:25 AM

Quote from: Kinder_ on October 03, 2014, 07:51:13 AM

Quote from: challengerX on October 03, 2014, 03:48:29 AM

Apart from a website called "bearingarms.com" which is clearly biased, do you have any other sources proving this? Any proof at all of a large amount of people making false calls to the police specifically to scare or endanger gun owners?

I do have proof, look at the website I posted. This site is well known for accuracy of knowledge of firearms because it is being operated by firearms owners. Want bias? Go to CNN, MSNBC, and HuffPost

So nothing other than an extremely pro gun website? If you don't think that's biased, you're wrong.

A couple of sources and stories proving this is real and I'll believe it, for now it's about as credible as a supermarket tabloid.

How about a few primary sources, straight from people like these?


And you want other sources, here's a couple. Don't go moving the goal posts either. You wanted some, you got some

http://concealednation.org/2014/10/moms-demand-action-followers-are-violent-and-crazy-just-read-their-reaction-comments/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389441/moms-demand-swatting-charles-c-w-cooke

http://www.examiner.com/article/anti-gun-women-continue-to-corroborate-progressive-contradiction

These sites are extremely right wing and incredibly biased, as well as unprofessional. And it seems to me a few Twitter comments of people talking shit doesn't exactly corroborate with your supposed claim of widespread usage of what would appear almost as a terror tactic.

It's being exaggerated. If people really do this and there's actual proof apart from the one cat who got the man in Walmart killed, I'll believe it. For now it's distortion of the truth, misinformation, and fear mongering.