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
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?!
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.![]()
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.
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.
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.