Indiana Mall Shooting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So OP thinks the answer is to assume civilians will just get into firefights.

That’s totally reasonable.

The answer is always more guns!

Actually the answer is more laws to add to the 20,000 already on the books.

Might want to revisit those laws because they aren’t working.

Yeah, maybe we need to pass one to make murder illegal. Oh wait . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed. If I was a battered spouse and my ex was coming at me with a knife, an assault rifle would stop him before he got too close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 utterly nasty reaponse

[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.

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

So you are serious and saying if you kill someone, you will never think again about it? That would be psychopathic.

https://www.mlive.com/news/2012/06/experts_the_psychological_afte.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed. If I was a battered spouse and my ex was coming at me with a knife, an assault rifle would stop him before he got too close.

Until he disarms you because this a stupid scenario.

[Anonymous]

Why can’t liberals just acknowledge that the mall had too many doors and didn’t have retired military and law enforcement guarding the one entrance with metal detectors. We also need armed clerks in each store. Why do they hate us?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

So you are serious and saying if you kill someone, you will never think again about it? That would be psychopathic.

https://www.mlive.com/news/2012/06/experts_the_psychological_afte.html

Sure you'd think about it again. Probably a lot. But there would be no need for remorse for killing a MURDERER. Get a clue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that the FOX News headline considers the person a "good Samaritan" while the rest of the regular news outlets identify the person as a witness. Semantics matter to the audience for sure.

MSNBC also called him a good samaritan.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/indiana-police-give-timeline-of-mall-shooting-name-good-samaritan-who-killed-suspect-144297541866

[Anonymous]

Too bad little kids can't carry at school, then they could just good samaritan their way out of school shootings.

[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.

To nutty gun control activists like pp, ANYONE with a gun is a bad guy, it seems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t liberals just acknowledge that the mall had too many doors and didn’t have retired military and law enforcement guarding the one entrance with metal detectors. We also need armed clerks in each store. Why do they hate us?

Innit just the weirdest thing, how the American right wing which constantly natters about being for "freedom" and being against "big gubmint" and "police state" is literally advocating for so much less freedom, our communities filled with armed guards, fortifications and limited, secured points of entry and exit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t liberals just acknowledge that the mall had too many doors and didn’t have retired military and law enforcement guarding the one entrance with metal detectors. We also need armed clerks in each store. Why do they hate us?

Innit just the weirdest thing, how the American right wing which constantly natters about being for "freedom" and being against "big gubmint" and "police state" is literally advocating for so much less freedom, our communities filled with armed guards, fortifications and limited, secured points of entry and exit?

Someone does not understand sarcasm... ^^^

[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.

You are wrong. There have been rapists and murderers since the beginning of time. If a person commits a violent act of that degree, then put them away, so he or she can't harm other innocent victims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mall policy was to not even have a gun because of previous shootings. So yes...he probably saved lives, but this 22 year old cowboy is just as likely to be a menace as he seems to think rules don't apply to him.

I would also like to point out that I'd rather have no guns than some hotheaded, untrained 22 year old firing wildly and getting lucky.

Is this really what we want? Gunfights in malls?!

How about no crime and murder? … oh wait … you mean people will do this despite laws … you don’t say. We need more armed citizens. We need these people to pay for their misdeeds. Immediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that the FOX News headline considers the person a "good Samaritan" while the rest of the regular news outlets identify the person as a witness. Semantics matter to the audience for sure.

MSNBC also called him a good samaritan.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/indiana-police-give-timeline-of-mall-shooting-name-good-samaritan-who-killed-suspect-144297541866

There’s absolutely nothing “good” about him. He was carrying a gun illegally in the mall, which prohibited guns. He shouldn’t have had the gun. He’s a criminal. Period. He’s just as bad as the shooter - the shooter that HE murdered, btw. He’s a criminal every but a much as the other guy. He needs to be charged with murder.