Indiana Mall Shooting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If instead of giving a knee JERK response, you read the article, you would have found out that, YES. Police, service people and civilians typically suffer from depression and PTSD regardless of the circumstances. This is most because thou shalt not kill is so very ingrained in most of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are a nut. Thank goodness he was exercising his Constitutional right to carry even though the mall's policy was against firearms.
Even the police chief said he was a hero and was legally carrying.

[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.

Had you watched the press briefing or read accounts of it, you would not be spouting falsehoods.
The police chief has a recording of the entire incident. So, yes, it has been proved conclusively that the good guy with the gun took down the bad guy with a gun and nobody else.

[Anonymous]

Ban automatic weapons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are a nut. Thank goodness he was exercising his Constitutional right to carry even though the mall's policy was against firearms.
Even the police chief said he was a hero and was legally carrying.

Agree, your a moron.

He saved probably 10-20 lives by killing the shooter. All those people are Alice because of him! Not police who showed up later.

This is symbolic of gun laws. You ban guns from places like malls, schools, certain cities. Normal people abide by the laws and we are sitting ducks for the criminals that Just go in there with a gun to kill anyone anyways. Not like the shooter said, aw crap. I’m not allowed to bring in a gun to the mall to kill people?

If you were one of the people in the mall and this guy saved your life, you wouldn’t be so sick and twisted to call him a criminal as well.

[Anonymous]

Alive….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ban automatic weapons.

The shooter didn't use an automatic weapon. He used a semi-auto AR-15. We need to strictly regulate AR-15s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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... ^^^

Ironic to say "doesn't understand sarcasm," considering that this post wasn't a rebuttal, but instead more sarcasm aligned to the prior sarcastic post.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are a nut. Thank goodness he was exercising his Constitutional right to carry even though the mall's policy was against firearms.
Even the police chief said he was a hero and was legally carrying.

Agree, your a moron.

He saved probably 10-20 lives by killing the shooter. All those people are Alice because of him! Not police who showed up later.

This is symbolic of gun laws. You ban guns from places like malls, schools, certain cities. Normal people abide by the laws and we are sitting ducks for the criminals that Just go in there with a gun to kill anyone anyways. Not like the shooter said, aw crap. I’m not allowed to bring in a gun to the mall to kill people?

If you were one of the people in the mall and this guy saved your life, you wouldn’t be so sick and twisted to call him a criminal as well.

If malls allowed everyone to carry guns, there would be more deaths from wild west type duels between armed carriers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are a nut. Thank goodness he was exercising his Constitutional right to carry even though the mall's policy was against firearms.
Even the police chief said he was a hero and was legally carrying.

Agree, your a moron.

He saved probably 10-20 lives by killing the shooter. All those people are Alice because of him! Not police who showed up later.

This is symbolic of gun laws. You ban guns from places like malls, schools, certain cities. Normal people abide by the laws and we are sitting ducks for the criminals that Just go in there with a gun to kill anyone anyways. Not like the shooter said, aw crap. I’m not allowed to bring in a gun to the mall to kill people?

If you were one of the people in the mall and this guy saved your life, you wouldn’t be so sick and twisted to call him a criminal as well.

If malls allowed everyone to carry guns, there would be more deaths from wild west type duels between armed carriers.

BS.
There would be many people who would choose not to carry.
And, citizens who do choose to carry - legally - are simply not itching for a fight. They carry for self defense.
You just don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are a nut. Thank goodness he was exercising his Constitutional right to carry even though the mall's policy was against firearms.
Even the police chief said he was a hero and was legally carrying.

Agree, your a moron.

He saved probably 10-20 lives by killing the shooter. All those people are Alice because of him! Not police who showed up later.

This is symbolic of gun laws. You ban guns from places like malls, schools, certain cities. Normal people abide by the laws and we are sitting ducks for the criminals that Just go in there with a gun to kill anyone anyways. Not like the shooter said, aw crap. I’m not allowed to bring in a gun to the mall to kill people?

If you were one of the people in the mall and this guy saved your life, you wouldn’t be so sick and twisted to call him a criminal as well.

If malls allowed everyone to carry guns, there would be more deaths from wild west type duels between armed carriers.

BS.
There would be many people who would choose not to carry.
And, citizens who do choose to carry - legally - are simply not itching for a fight. They carry for self defense.
You just don't get it.

Neither do you. You probably don't have to deal with a 2 year old regularly. Moms cannot carry guns around all the time and expect there to be no accidents. Nor can any of these people be a match for a gunman. You don't have the same fear because you are more even with the gunman. This is why teachers carrying guns is utterly stupid. They have other responsibilities and too many people who can't defend themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are a nut. Thank goodness he was exercising his Constitutional right to carry even though the mall's policy was against firearms.
Even the police chief said he was a hero and was legally carrying.

So many crazies in this country. Who'd have thought it was a good idea to have more guns than people? There's a reason that people in other countries think that Americans are stupid. Sad to say, I agree with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are a nut. Thank goodness he was exercising his Constitutional right to carry even though the mall's policy was against firearms.
Even the police chief said he was a hero and was legally carrying.

Agree, your a moron.

He saved probably 10-20 lives by killing the shooter. All those people are Alice because of him! Not police who showed up later.

This is symbolic of gun laws. You ban guns from places like malls, schools, certain cities. Normal people abide by the laws and we are sitting ducks for the criminals that Just go in there with a gun to kill anyone anyways. Not like the shooter said, aw crap. I’m not allowed to bring in a gun to the mall to kill people?

If you were one of the people in the mall and this guy saved your life, you wouldn’t be so sick and twisted to call him a criminal as well.

If malls allowed everyone to carry guns, there would be more deaths from wild west type duels between armed carriers.

BS.
There would be many people who would choose not to carry.
And, citizens who do choose to carry - legally - are simply not itching for a fight. They carry for self defense.
You just don't get it.

Neither do you. You probably don't have to deal with a 2 year old regularly. Moms cannot carry guns around all the time and expect there to be no accidents. Nor can any of these people be a match for a gunman. You don't have the same fear because you are more even with the gunman. This is why teachers carrying guns is utterly stupid. They have other responsibilities and too many people who can't defend themselves.

Toddlers can be a menace.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna277071

https://fox8.com/news/1-year-old-accidentally-shoots-mom-baby-in-walmart-parking-lot/amp/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are a nut. Thank goodness he was exercising his Constitutional right to carry even though the mall's policy was against firearms.
Even the police chief said he was a hero and was legally carrying.

Agree, your a moron.

He saved probably 10-20 lives by killing the shooter. All those people are Alice because of him! Not police who showed up later.

This is symbolic of gun laws. You ban guns from places like malls, schools, certain cities. Normal people abide by the laws and we are sitting ducks for the criminals that Just go in there with a gun to kill anyone anyways. Not like the shooter said, aw crap. I’m not allowed to bring in a gun to the mall to kill people?

If you were one of the people in the mall and this guy saved your life, you wouldn’t be so sick and twisted to call him a criminal as well.

If malls allowed everyone to carry guns, there would be more deaths from wild west type duels between armed carriers.

This.

If I had a gun, I’d probably be shooting multiple people a day. I get into arguments with strangers all the time, like daily. If everyone had a gun on them there’d be shootouts happening all the time like the Wild West.

The worst I can do to you right now is yell profanities at you or maybe pepper spray you ( I have lots of times). Do you REALLY want me to have a gun so I can shoot you instead the next time you piss me off?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ban automatic weapons.

The shooter didn't use an automatic weapon. He used a semi-auto AR-15.

Automatic and semiautomatic are the same thing, dummy