Indiana Mall Shooting

[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.

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?

Honey, you sound unhinged. Please - don't EVER get a firearm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

^^ This exemplifies the firearm "expertise" on DCUM.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/oct/02/difference-between-automatic-and-semi-automatic-we/

[Anonymous]

What needs to happen is that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and the local-state-federal judiciaries need to enforce the laws on the books. Without fail, almost every single shooter is crazy, on a SSRI, seeing a shrink, has had prior brushes with law enforcement AND is known to the FBI.

The problem isn't guns as if that were the case, we'd be having multiple daily mass shootings. The problem is crazy people with guns, who should have LEGALLY never had the firearm to start with.

There is a very dark plan playing out under the surface. If you don't think for a second that many of these shootings are allowed to happen by law enforcement - in particular the Feds - in order to push a gun control agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What needs to happen is that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and the local-state-federal judiciaries need to enforce the laws on the books. Without fail, almost every single shooter is crazy, on a SSRI, seeing a shrink, has had prior brushes with law enforcement AND is known to the FBI.

The problem isn't guns as if that were the case, we'd be having multiple daily mass shootings. The problem is crazy people with guns, who should have LEGALLY never had the firearm to start with.

There is a very dark plan playing out under the surface. If you don't think for a second that many of these shootings are allowed to happen by law enforcement - in particular the Feds - in order to push a gun control agenda.

Who cares? I want guns banned. All of them. I don’t care what kind. If mass shootings are what make that possible, then bring on the mass shootings. Eventually we’ll get fed up enough and take the guns. Until then, the more mass shootings the better.

And I’m not the least bit ashamed of saying that.

[Anonymous]

I live in Indiana - about an hour north of this mall. I'm not "pro-gun" and I'm not a fan of Indiana's carry law at all. I don't like the idea of good guy vs bad guy shoot outs in public places.

That said, I'm glad that this particular guy was at that mall at that time. It took him 15 seconds to kill the shooter. The shooter who apparently had been so abused as a child that his older brother fought his mom for custody.

How long would it have taken the police? How many people would have been murdered?

So, I'm typically a no go with regular people (hopefully not crazy people) carrying guns. Unless of course I'm with my kid at a food court and there's an active shooter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in Indiana - about an hour north of this mall. I'm not "pro-gun" and I'm not a fan of Indiana's carry law at all. I don't like the idea of good guy vs bad guy shoot outs in public places.

That said, I'm glad that this particular guy was at that mall at that time. It took him 15 seconds to kill the shooter. The shooter who apparently had been so abused as a child that his older brother fought his mom for custody.

How long would it have taken the police? How many people would have been murdered?

So, I'm typically a no go with regular people (hopefully not crazy people) carrying guns. Unless of course I'm with my kid at a food court and there's an active shooter.

It was a matter for the police to handle. Not some junior rambo small dick incel. He probably accidentally shot at least one or more of the victims while trying to shoot the other guy. The police are covering it up because cops tend to be gun nutters themselves

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Indiana - about an hour north of this mall. I'm not "pro-gun" and I'm not a fan of Indiana's carry law at all. I don't like the idea of good guy vs bad guy shoot outs in public places.

That said, I'm glad that this particular guy was at that mall at that time. It took him 15 seconds to kill the shooter. The shooter who apparently had been so abused as a child that his older brother fought his mom for custody.

How long would it have taken the police? How many people would have been murdered?

So, I'm typically a no go with regular people (hopefully not crazy people) carrying guns. Unless of course I'm with my kid at a food court and there's an active shooter.

It was a matter for the police to handle. Not some junior rambo small dick incel. He probably accidentally shot at least one or more of the victims while trying to shoot the other guy. The police are covering it up because cops tend to be gun nutters themselves

Yes, it should be a matter for the police. But the police weren't there. This guy was. Uvalde was a matter for the police too.

[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?

Hasn't the Texas shooting pretty much dispensed the "good guy with a gun" theory? It has for me. GMAFB.

[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?

Hasn't the Texas shooting pretty much dispensed the "good guy with a gun" theory? It has for me. GMAFB.

It certainly has dispensed with the idea that the police will protect you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Indiana - about an hour north of this mall. I'm not "pro-gun" and I'm not a fan of Indiana's carry law at all. I don't like the idea of good guy vs bad guy shoot outs in public places.

That said, I'm glad that this particular guy was at that mall at that time. It took him 15 seconds to kill the shooter. The shooter who apparently had been so abused as a child that his older brother fought his mom for custody.

How long would it have taken the police? How many people would have been murdered?

So, I'm typically a no go with regular people (hopefully not crazy people) carrying guns. Unless of course I'm with my kid at a food court and there's an active shooter.

It was a matter for the police to handle. Not some junior rambo small dick incel. He probably accidentally shot at least one or more of the victims while trying to shoot the other guy. The police are covering it up because cops tend to be gun nutters themselves

Yes, it should be a matter for the police. But the police weren't there. This guy was. Uvalde was a matter for the police too.

And the police STOPPED it. They killed the shooter and prevented any further loss of lives outside that one room where they had him contained.

I’d call that a success. Much better than the idiot in the mall, who could’ve shot god only knows how many people while trying to be the hero.

[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 I were in the mall and this happened to me you can bet your a** I’d be suing this loser for every penny he has. Putting me/my family in the middle of a gun battle like that.

If someone starts shooting, I can run away. But if someone else starts shooting AT them, what am I supposed to do then? I’m stuck in the middle. And “Mr. I-have-a-thumb-dick-so-I-carry-a-gun” vigilante has now blocked my escape route so he can have a Hollywood Wild West shootout.


Yeah, I’d be suing him fully into bankruptcy.

[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.

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?

Honey, you sound unhinged. Please - don't EVER get a firearm.

I won’t. And that’s why I want YOUR firearm taken away, too. I believe in fair fights.

[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.

oh honey, your abusive spouse would have a gun, not a knife. In red states, abusers can buy guns. Enjoy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

oh honey, your abusive spouse would have a gun, not a knife. In red states, abusers can buy guns. Enjoy!

Seriously? Is that true?

Wow.

How come that’s not a federal law? That seems like a no-brainer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

oh honey, your abusive spouse would have a gun, not a knife. In red states, abusers can buy guns. Enjoy!

Seriously? Is that true?

Wow.

How come that’s not a federal law? That seems like a no-brainer.

Of course it’s NOT true. It’s just another lie posted here by the anti-gun zealots. Because they assume you’re gullible and won’t know any better.

Domestic abusers and people with protective orders against them, or anyone with a conviction (even misdemeanor) for any type of domestic violence, have been federally prohibited from buying, owning or possessing any kind of firearm since 1994. 22 years ago. It’s called the Lautenberg Amendment (it was attached the crime bill in 1993). It’s been federal law on the books for a generation now.


Why do they lie about stuff like this?