r/CCW • u/AnszaKalltiern TX G19.5/p365 XL • 2d ago
News Ho Ho Ho, Merry Christmas! Four armed 12-14 year olds attempt to rob Houston man at gunpoint Christmas night; 3 of the armed robbers hospitalized, 4th arrested.
https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2024/12/26/young-kids-shot-trying-to-rob-man-at-gunpoint-in-north-harris-county-on-christmas-night/165
u/LynchSyndromedotmil 2d ago
Post in /r/news got locked in under an hour 🤔
87
u/AnszaKalltiern TX G19.5/p365 XL 2d ago edited 1d ago
Edit: It looks like the post was removed for being a repost. Another post that utilized the same story albeit with a different method to present the link was posted previous to the removed post by up to 1 hour. That original post remains unlocked.
I noticed that as well.
The post doesn't violate any of that subreddit's rules, and no moderation comment was made as to why it was removed. That means the post just goes against the mod's own internal narrative and can't be allowed to make the front page.Love or hate it, at least the mods here generally state a reason for a post or comment removal.
67
u/doom_z 2d ago
r/news is notorious for crap like this. For such a broad subreddit they’re pretty particular with what they “allow” to be talked about.
85
u/TheAGolds 2d ago
I got permabanned there for saying how criminals in San Francisco have no fear because they can walk into stores and steal up to a certain amount without being chased… on a thread about a grocery store closing in San Francisco due to high crime
22
15
18
u/AnszaKalltiern TX G19.5/p365 XL 2d ago
Prop 36 sends its regards.
Lots of surprised thieves in California these days, no doubt.
1
8
2d ago
[deleted]
5
u/AnszaKalltiern TX G19.5/p365 XL 1d ago
Removing posts without justification is harassment - no ifs ands or buts. PERIOD.
Well, in this case, it seems we were incorrect as the post is a repost, which does violate r/news rules. Would have snipped this comment thread in the bud had that been stated for it being locked, however.
3
u/Paladin_3 1d ago edited 1d ago
We can complain about it all day long or recognize it for what it is. Reddit is a private platform for discussion. The owners have the right to directly control or give control to mods who regulate it based on whatever criteria they determine. There is no freedom of speech inside other people's homes, or in their businesses, or on platforms that someone else provides for you. They don't have to be fair or avoid what you might consider harassment for your opinion. They can kick you out without any reason whatsoever, so long as it's not for being in a legally protected class. And good luck proving that when you're posting anonymously.
You've really only got a couple of choices, comply with their guidelines, walk away from the platform and don't post here, or you could even go ahead and fund your own discussion platform where you make the rules to be more fair to everyone and try to get some of their business away from them.
I guess you could also go shout your opinions to the wind. Personally, I favor the approach of trying to play nice and by the mods rules while still attempting to get something of my message out. If you can state your position without violating their rules, you stand a much better chance of getting your point across than you do if you go in hot and hard to give them an excuse to ban you.
In other words, pretend you actually like the people and you're trying to truly change their opinion. Too often, we only show our disdain for the other side and then are amazed that they won't listen to us.
2
u/East-Independent6778 1d ago
The problem is you can’t really “fund your own discussion platform” because they will bully advertisers to leave the platform until it dies. They are doing this right now with Rumble. We don’t have enough corporations willing to stand up to the bullying to be able to support a true free speech platform.
-1
u/Paladin_3 1d ago edited 1d ago
That doesn't change the fact that it's somebody else's platform that they paid for, that they developed, and that they have every right set whatever reasonable or unreasonable conditions of use they want. We're talking about basic property rights here.
True freedom of speech only exists in the public forum, and that's only freedom from being persecuted by your government for your speech. You don't have the right to go into somebody else's home and start spouting your nonsense, just like you don't have the right to go on to a private platform owned by others and demand they allow you to say whatever you want.
And advertisers have every right to use the power of their advertising dollar to support whatever venue they choose. Just like you have the right to shop with them or not and use that power to try and persuade their political views. Just ask budweiser.
It's hilarious how people jump up and down and scream about their rights but then they don't think anybody else has the right to tell him to shut the f*** up or get the f*** off their private platform.
0
u/East-Independent6778 1d ago
I agree if it is a true private platform, but they are slowly becoming state sponsored media. The FBI actively removed content on the Hunter Biden laptop in 2020, which is a direct violation of free speech. The minute the government gets involved, it’s no longer a private platform.
-1
u/Paladin_3 1d ago edited 1d ago
There's a huge difference between the government pressuring a private company and that company capitulating, and the government actively creating, fully funding, and that private property now becoming a public entity. You really seem to be exercising some mental gymnastics in order to find some way that you can force a private platform to host your opinion. I can only imagine what kind of outrage there would be if we had the same kind of infringements attempted on our Second Amendment rights.
I honestly never thought I'd have to argue with gun owners about private property rights and how important it is that they be preserved. If reddit, Facebook, and X don't have the right to control their own property, how will any of us have any property rights over the things we own? Honestly, you should be ashamed of your hypocrisy.
0
u/East-Independent6778 1d ago
No, there isn’t. YouTube, Google, Facebook, etc. have become more than just cat videos and memes. The vast majority of young people get their news from these services which are actively censoring conservative viewpoints, sometimes at the request of the government. They are the “town halls” of today, and should not receive the protections under section 230. Letting activist corporations decide what news we see or don’t see is how we end up in a single party state.
-1
u/Paladin_3 1d ago
Those social media platforms are private property, and I can't believe you're advocating that control of those be taken away from the owners and given to somebody else so that it can be, what, more "fair?" Who's going to decide what's fair? You? Me? The government?
How about we let the people who own the newspapers, social media platforms, magazines, and news stations decide what they're going to publish? And if you don't like their message, then don't tune in and go find a news source you agree with.
As soon as we try to mandate who doesn't doesn't get a voice, we open it up to far more censorship and we totally steal control of people's private property away from them. If you can't see the evil that'll open this country up to then you're blind.
I can only imagine if Facebook and Reddit were predominantly conservative and censoring liberal voices you'd have zero problem with it. Can't you see empowering the government to have that kind of control is in nobody's best interests.
→ More replies (0)5
210
u/playingtherole 2d ago
2
u/JupiterPhase 15h ago
Funny enough, Sheriff Javier Salazar is a huge cuck and would push for an arrest if this happened in SA
43
19
u/abrokenbananaa 1d ago
I was playing with legos at 12. What an utter failure of the parents and our society as a whole
113
u/KTownOG 2d ago
F those kids and their parents. Both should be held accountable. Those kids should be tried as adults and their parents should also get the same punishment.
39
u/AnszaKalltiern TX G19.5/p365 XL 2d ago
You'd think people would learn that attempting armed robbery in Houston with a fake gun ain't gonna cut it.
5
2
23
46
u/G3th_Inf1ltrator NC | MR920 | AIWB 2d ago
The more you fuck around, the more you’re gonna find out
29
u/AngryAccountant31 1d ago
All this does is make me question if one 10 round magazine is really enough
4
2
u/Insanity8016 1d ago
G43X I presume?
2
u/AngryAccountant31 1d ago
P30SK. I have zero faith in trigger safeties.
1
u/Insanity8016 1d ago
Interesting carry. I assume that you’re not a fan of the striker fire SIGs either.
1
u/AngryAccountant31 1d ago
While I like how the P365 looks, striker fired makes me nervous. And I can’t stand how the P238 looks.
1
u/Insanity8016 1d ago
Well then definitely don’t look into the P320.
2
u/AngryAccountant31 1d ago
I heard they fixed the M17/18 drop safety problem. Which makes sense if they want to keep that military contract. Meanwhile, I dropped a revolver directly on the hammer and it only broke the spur off without firing.
1
u/Insanity8016 1d ago
Yea, I heard that they “fixed” it too. The military contract uses external safeties but tbh I wouldn’t trust the P320 line at all.
21
13
21
u/PleaseHold50 1d ago
Set some Google alerts for when these brats go on to murder someone.
Oh, wait, you won't be able to, because the names of the robbers are being withheld. 🙄 So they revert to being first time offenders/future MIT students when they do kill someone.
32
u/Attorney714 2d ago
The only bad news would be those scumbag juvenile delinquents surviving without permanent injuries.
6
u/Neutral_Chaoss 1d ago
I really hope the victim doesn't face charges. There is no way to tell if that is a real firearm or not. In my old city (Chicago) kids rob people just like this. Only they use real firearms and shoot the victim(s)
8
2
5
1
1
0
u/EndorAG5757 17h ago
Let me guess, none of the criminals have a father around?
1
184
u/IG4651 2d ago
In before the same guy comes in and say “BB guns”