Indiana Mall Shooting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The answer is make it hard for potential criminals to get their hands on a gun.

Rs would never go for this since more than half their constituents would be barred from getting a gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not our guns, it's our sons.

Then why does this barely happen in other countries? Are their sons superior?

They just don't have guns, and don't worship men with guns.

Not entirely true. There are countries with high ownership of certain types of guns, but they put other restrictions in place. Switzerland, for example, has fairly high civilian gun ownership, but restricts ammunition purchases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The answer is make it hard for potential criminals to get their hands on a gun.

And to keep anyone convicted of murder, rape or violent torture to be kept in prison for life with no parole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not our guns, it's our sons.

Then why does this barely happen in other countries? Are their sons superior?

They just don't have guns, and don't worship men with guns.

Countries with high firearm ownership rates, or countries with weak governments don't have mass shootings like we do.

That would indicate to me that some other issue is at play.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Appears to be a tragedy that could have been a lot worse. Having a gun carrying hero, will certainly complicate the political debate. Is there any answer?

Has it been proven conclusively that this “Good Samaritan with a gun” didn’t actually shoot any of the the victims themselves in the crossfire?

No. No it hasn’t.

Therefore let’s call this guy what he is - a potential mass shooter himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So a good guy with a gun wasn’t able to prevent the deaths of two innocent people, and this is supposed to complicate the debate about easy access to guns?

Exactly

How is this anything BUT a complete failure of “good guy with a gun”. Two people still died. That’s a total failure in my book. Why didn’t he stop it sooner? Before anyone was killed?

Failure.


Pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP sorry about all the typos.
I wonder how the Good Samaritan feels about it all. At some
Point it is going to hit home that he took the life of another human. Wonder if he was pro- life and how he reconciles that. I am glad I’m not him.

Considering he, according to the article in WaPo, most likely saved many lives, I hope he feels amazing and heroic. Which he is. Doesn’t get any more prolife than this.

We don’t know that he saved *any* lives. Let alone *many* lives.

All he did was allow two people to die. He’s a loser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is make it hard for potential criminals to get their hands on a gun.

And to keep anyone convicted of murder, rape or violent torture to be kept in prison for life with no parole.

Nope, sorry. That’s a hard “no” for me.

Get rid of the guns, and then we don’t need to worry about keeping people in prison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP sorry about all the typos.
I wonder how the Good Samaritan feels about it all. At some
Point it is going to hit home that he took the life of another human. Wonder if he was pro- life and how he reconciles that. I am glad I’m not him.

You can't be serious. He killed someone who was killing OTHERS. There's nothing to "reconcile" here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s sad how hard the pro-gun people are working to gloss over the facts that two people died needlessly because of their gun lust.

If the shooter didn't have a gun, then this tragedy wouldn't have happened.

I just came back from the UK. Not once did I worry about a shooting, and we went all over the country, to many touristy places.

In the US, I think about a shooting at church, movie theater, mall, school, any business, driving, and now parades, apparently. The US is not a safe place anymore.

And yes, we are going to move to the UK just as soon as the kids are done with their schooling. Spouse is from there.

And there you can worry about being stabbed or deliberately run over with a vehicle. Enjoy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is make it hard for potential criminals to get their hands on a gun.

And to keep anyone convicted of murder, rape or violent torture to be kept in prison for life with no parole.

+ a million
But this will not compute with Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Appears to be a tragedy that could have been a lot worse. Having a gun carrying hero, will certainly complicate the political debate. Is there any answer?

Has it been proven conclusively that this “Good Samaritan with a gun” didn’t actually shoot any of the the victims themselves in the crossfire?

No. No it hasn’t.

Therefore let’s call this guy what he is - a potential mass shooter himself.

OMG. What a sicko you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s sad how hard the pro-gun people are working to gloss over the facts that two people died needlessly because of their gun lust.

If the shooter didn't have a gun, then this tragedy wouldn't have happened.

I just came back from the UK. Not once did I worry about a shooting, and we went all over the country, to many touristy places.

In the US, I think about a shooting at church, movie theater, mall, school, any business, driving, and now parades, apparently. The US is not a safe place anymore.

And yes, we are going to move to the UK just as soon as the kids are done with their schooling. Spouse is from there.

And there you can worry about being stabbed or deliberately run over with a vehicle. Enjoy.

Geeeee ........do I want to be up against an assault rifle or a knife? What a tough choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is make it hard for potential criminals to get their hands on a gun.

And to keep anyone convicted of murder, rape or violent torture to be kept in prison for life with no parole.

Nope, sorry. That’s a hard “no” for me.

Get rid of the guns, and then we don’t need to worry about keeping people in prison.

Eh, so getting rid of guns can help the mass shooting situation (I’m pretty sure mass shooters don’t usually have lengthy criminal records),, but it’s not going to prevent murder or rape, so you can keep those guys in prison. Maybe not for life without parole, but for a long time.