Indiana Mall Shooting

[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 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.

We'll see if that happens.

If you were actually there, you might not think the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Uvalde was a failure. A complete and total fail that resulted in a tremendous loss of innocent lives. There was nothing successful about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP: YOU're the liar. There are plenty of exceptions to the federal prohibition - most notably the "boyfriend loophole." Abusers with misdemeanor DV convictions who are not spouses, cohabitants, or parents-in-common are not prevented federally from firearm use/possession. Also, only people with ACTIVE protective orders are prevented from use/possession - people with criminal convictions for VIOLATING protective orders can buy guns all day long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry. You're not getting it.

[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

Would you just stop repeating this lie. You are spewing crap.
Had he shot an innocent bystander, we would have definitely heard about it from eye witnesses.
He was there. The police weren't. No telling how many others this sicko would have killed had the good guy not taken him down.

He not only cornered the shooter, risked his life and took him down, but he was motioning to people in the food court to the exit while he did this.
And, he is only 22 years old. A hero. Despite the lies you want to spew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP: YOU're the liar. There are plenty of exceptions to the federal prohibition - most notably the "boyfriend loophole." Abusers with misdemeanor DV convictions who are not spouses, cohabitants, or parents-in-common are not prevented federally from firearm use/possession. Also, only people with ACTIVE protective orders are prevented from use/possession - people with criminal convictions for VIOLATING protective orders can buy guns all day long.

Sorry, but you’re flat out wrong (or lying?). Anyone with a DV conviction, regardless of who it was against, is prohibited by the Lautenberg law. Period.

And if a protective order was sought out in retaliation or in bad faith as part of a divorce strategy, that person should have their rights restored. Many divorce attorneys will seek protective orders as a matter of routine, just to set up a scenario where the opposing party can be charged with violating it, simply because it helps with the case/child custody. It’s an abuse of law, and it happens regularly. I’ve seen it dozens of times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP: YOU're the liar. There are plenty of exceptions to the federal prohibition - most notably the "boyfriend loophole." Abusers with misdemeanor DV convictions who are not spouses, cohabitants, or parents-in-common are not prevented federally from firearm use/possession. Also, only people with ACTIVE protective orders are prevented from use/possession - people with criminal convictions for VIOLATING protective orders can buy guns all day long.

Sorry, but you’re flat out wrong (or lying?). Anyone with a DV conviction, regardless of who it was against, is prohibited by the Lautenberg law. Period.

And if a protective order was sought out in retaliation or in bad faith as part of a divorce strategy, that person should have their rights restored. Many divorce attorneys will seek protective orders as a matter of routine, just to set up a scenario where the opposing party can be charged with violating it, simply because it helps with the case/child custody. It’s an abuse of law, and it happens regularly. I’ve seen it dozens of times.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Period. Lautenberg DOES NOT APPLY to all people with a DV conviction. The definition of "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" (MCDV) is found in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33).

To be considered MCDV, the crime must be:

A crime that is considered to be a misdemeanor under federal, state, or tribal law
A crime that has--as an element--the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon
The crime is committed against a current / former spouse, a parent or guardian, or against a close family member with whom the victim is living or has lived in the past.

Boyfriends, and lots of other people, can buy guns if they didn't live with the victim. If the charge was DV Stalking, or DV Terrorizing, or DV Reckless Conduct, the conviction may not result in firearms restrictions.

--- And sure, lots of people who have been served Protection Orders didn't do much, or anything, wrong. But people who VIOLATE the Order have done something wrong. People who have violated the Protective Order with violence can still get guns. Truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP: YOU're the liar. There are plenty of exceptions to the federal prohibition - most notably the "boyfriend loophole." Abusers with misdemeanor DV convictions who are not spouses, cohabitants, or parents-in-common are not prevented federally from firearm use/possession. Also, only people with ACTIVE protective orders are prevented from use/possession - people with criminal convictions for VIOLATING protective orders can buy guns all day long.

DP

The background checks for red flags around domestic disturbance issues and history of violent behavior issues are nowhere near deep or comprehensive enough. The Uvalde and Highland Park shooting proved that when they allowed those shooters to buy guns.

The background checks for red flags around mental health issues are nowhere near deep or comprehensive enough. The Virginia Tech shooting proved that.

And, none of these background checks even begin to cover legal private sales and private transfers in many jurisdictions.

Anyone who says otherwise, tries to claim that the current system and current laws are fine is flat-out lying. They are not fine. They need to be bolstered, and need to be made mandatory for every gun transfer of any kind. And no, I'm not an "anti-gun nut" - I have owned guns and hunted since I was a teen, and come from a long line in a military family where we've all served our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP: YOU're the liar. There are plenty of exceptions to the federal prohibition - most notably the "boyfriend loophole." Abusers with misdemeanor DV convictions who are not spouses, cohabitants, or parents-in-common are not prevented federally from firearm use/possession. Also, only people with ACTIVE protective orders are prevented from use/possession - people with criminal convictions for VIOLATING protective orders can buy guns all day long.

Sorry, but you’re flat out wrong (or lying?). Anyone with a DV conviction, regardless of who it was against, is prohibited by the Lautenberg law. Period.

And if a protective order was sought out in retaliation or in bad faith as part of a divorce strategy, that person should have their rights restored. Many divorce attorneys will seek protective orders as a matter of routine, just to set up a scenario where the opposing party can be charged with violating it, simply because it helps with the case/child custody. It’s an abuse of law, and it happens regularly. I’ve seen it dozens of times.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Period. Lautenberg DOES NOT APPLY to all people with a DV conviction. The definition of "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" (MCDV) is found in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33).

To be considered MCDV, the crime must be:

A crime that is considered to be a misdemeanor under federal, state, or tribal law
A crime that has--as an element--the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon
The crime is committed against a current / former spouse, a parent or guardian, or against a close family member with whom the victim is living or has lived in the past.

Boyfriends, and lots of other people, can buy guns if they didn't live with the victim. If the charge was DV Stalking, or DV Terrorizing, or DV Reckless Conduct, the conviction may not result in firearms restrictions.

--- And sure, lots of people who have been served Protection Orders didn't do much, or anything, wrong. But people who VIOLATE the Order have done something wrong. People who have violated the Protective Order with violence can still get guns. Truth.

I can think of at least half a dozen of my friends that would deliberately file a complaint (an exaggerated one, I mean) against former boyfriends who they’re still angry at for one reason or another. This would be ripe for abuse.

But maybe that’s the intent of the law…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP: YOU're the liar. There are plenty of exceptions to the federal prohibition - most notably the "boyfriend loophole." Abusers with misdemeanor DV convictions who are not spouses, cohabitants, or parents-in-common are not prevented federally from firearm use/possession. Also, only people with ACTIVE protective orders are prevented from use/possession - people with criminal convictions for VIOLATING protective orders can buy guns all day long.

Sorry, but you’re flat out wrong (or lying?). Anyone with a DV conviction, regardless of who it was against, is prohibited by the Lautenberg law. Period.

And if a protective order was sought out in retaliation or in bad faith as part of a divorce strategy, that person should have their rights restored. Many divorce attorneys will seek protective orders as a matter of routine, just to set up a scenario where the opposing party can be charged with violating it, simply because it helps with the case/child custody. It’s an abuse of law, and it happens regularly. I’ve seen it dozens of times.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Period. Lautenberg DOES NOT APPLY to all people with a DV conviction. The definition of "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" (MCDV) is found in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33).

To be considered MCDV, the crime must be:

A crime that is considered to be a misdemeanor under federal, state, or tribal law
A crime that has--as an element--the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon
The crime is committed against a current / former spouse, a parent or guardian, or against a close family member with whom the victim is living or has lived in the past.

Boyfriends, and lots of other people, can buy guns if they didn't live with the victim. If the charge was DV Stalking, or DV Terrorizing, or DV Reckless Conduct, the conviction may not result in firearms restrictions.

--- And sure, lots of people who have been served Protection Orders didn't do much, or anything, wrong. But people who VIOLATE the Order have done something wrong. People who have violated the Protective Order with violence can still get guns. Truth.

I can think of at least half a dozen of my friends that would deliberately file a complaint (an exaggerated one, I mean) against former boyfriends who they’re still angry at for one reason or another. This would be ripe for abuse.

But maybe that’s the intent of the law…

It’s the Conviction that leads to firearms restrictions, not the accusation. Speaking as a criminal defense lawyer who makes a living defending accused abusers, if they’re convicted, your friends’ angry accusations are probably based in truth. Also, you need new friends.

[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.

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.

So by following logically with your statement....he should have shot the guy BEFORE he pulled out a gun and shot anyone else? How would he have known he was going to shoot anyone?

Bizarre statement you made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow.

Just freakin’ wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow.

Just freakin’ wow.

Yeah. Some of the people here are just sick. Very sick.
To them.... the ends justify the means. Sad.

[Anonymous]

15 seconds. Damn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow.

Just freakin’ wow.

Yeah. Some of the people here are just sick. Very sick.
To them.... the ends justify the means. Sad.

NP. Doesn’t the same go for the gun nuts? Mass shootings and all those lives sacrificed are worth it as long their right to carry with few or no restrictions. They won’t say it quite so boldly, but it’s true.