Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
True.



I don't think anyone is not recognizing that this young man is a hero and undoubtedly saved many lives. Where did you get that idea from?




In this instance, yes, but the "good guy with a gun" scenario is still very rare in reality. It does not make up for the fact that less guns in the hands of civilians would lead to far fewer deaths.




The SC did exactly that after this article was written. Since then, more mass shootings have occurred. The Uvalde shooter killed 19 children and two adults with a legally bought AR15 on his 18th birthday.

It's not known yet if the Indiana mall shooter bought his gun legally yet. However, the gun he did use was a Sig Sauer model M400 5.56 caliber rifle :


https://www.indystar.com/story/news...-shooting-ar-15-style-rifle-used/65376399007/
Click to expand...

SC ruled out license requirement for concealed carry of handguns (ie what the good guy did). That does not relate to openly carrying a rifle (ie. what both of the shooters did).
 
Planigale said:
I am a bit confused here in the UK. So we have someone in possession of an illegal fire arm who has shot and killed someone, and he did not get shot by the US police? Was he white?
Click to expand...

Not an illegal firearm. Let's take it from there.
 
sarge said:
‘He was white’ is a far better explanation for why the cops did not shoot him than what you wrote.

His actions were heroic and the outcome was about as good as it gets when two guys, one bad, one violating a property owners rights, with a gun converge in a mall.
Click to expand...

Can you share your case specific workings for the highlighted claim? Please concentrate on this shooting and the circumstances surrounding it only. Don't get me wrong, it's clear that every white person in the US is a racist piece of **** and the worst police system in the free world buy into that, but I just need some case specific reckoning?
 
Brainster said:
Not against the law, just against the private policy of the mall. I am amazed at how many people don't recognize what a hero this kid is. Seriously he neutralized the shooter in 15 seconds. He put 8 out of 10 shots in the perp at 40 yards with a handgun. That would be a solid outing at the range with no fear and a stationary target.:thumbsup:

Yes it would have been better if nobody at the mall had had guns. But in this instance it was a damn good thing there was a second guy with a gun.
Click to expand...

He might be a hero. But I would not be so quick to apply that label.

First, one heroic act should not make one a hero. Too many chances the rest of a person's life is not going to be heroic.

Second, we still don't know everything. Where did all ten of the bullets end up? If there was anybody else in the general direction of the bullets were flying then the action taken will be open to question.
 
Brainster said:
Not against the law, just against the private policy of the mall. I am amazed at how many people don't recognize what a hero this kid is. Seriously he neutralized the shooter in 15 seconds. He put 8 out of 10 shots in the perp at 40 yards with a handgun. That would be a solid outing at the range with no fear and a stationary target.[emoji106]



Yes it would have been better if nobody at the mall had had guns. But in this instance it was a damn good thing there was a second guy with a gun.
Click to expand...
So the best we can expect is at least three people dead.
 
bluesjnr said:
Can you share your case specific workings for the highlighted claim? Please concentrate on this shooting and the circumstances surrounding it only. Don't get me wrong, it's clear that every white person in the US is a racist piece of **** and the worst police system in the free world buy into that, but I just need some case specific reckoning?
Click to expand...

No. Not interested in playing those types of racism denial games. There is zero doubt that had this shooter that was in a place with a hidden handgun that was posted ‘no guns’ been Black, he would have been at considerably greater risk of being shot as soon as the cops arrived.
 
Doubt said:
He might be a hero. But I would not be so quick to apply that label.

First, one heroic act should not make one a hero. Too many chances the rest of a person's life is not going to be heroic.

Second, we still don't know everything. Where did all ten of the bullets end up? If there was anybody else in the general direction of the bullets were flying then the action taken will be open to question.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the obvious…that zero guys with guns is safer than two guys with guns…I’m afraid that we have arrived at the point in the US where it is actually possible to save lives by shooting into a crowd IF it stops the gunman that was going to shoot into the crowd anyway. In other words, we now accept that killing ‘only’ 3 people is a great outcome.
 
bruto said:
Did they? I was under the impression that "shall issue" licensing was not affected.
Click to expand...

They did not. They ruled that NYC can’t deny a license to carry by placing an undue burden on average citizens to prove they need a concealed handgun for self defense.
 
sarge said:
They did not. They ruled that NYC can’t deny a license to carry by placing an undue burden on average citizens to prove they need a concealed handgun for self defense.
Click to expand...

Americans like to pretend that the world is divided into good guys and bad guys. The bad guys are assumed to be criminal masterminds that will always find a way to have a gun. The good guys are assumed to have total self control and never misuse their gun.

Reality is that gun violence is seldom planned. Arguments cause far more gun homicides than armed robbery. The presence of a loaded gun just allows easy escalation to lethal force.
 
a_unique_person said:
So the best we can expect is at least three people dead.
Click to expand...
This.

Despite a goodguywithagun, with at least three people shot dead this is yet another mass shooting. So just pile this one on the mountain of stats too.

ETA: Lucky there wasn't a second goodguywithagun, who could just as easily opened fire on the first goodguywithagun. And so on.
 
Last edited:
Kestrel said:
Americans like to pretend that the world is divided into good guys and bad guys. The bad guys are assumed to be criminal masterminds that will always find a way to have a gun. The good guys are assumed to have total self control and never misuse their gun.

Reality is that gun violence is seldom planned. Arguments cause far more gun homicides than armed robbery. The presence of a loaded gun just allows easy escalation to lethal force.
Click to expand...

I don’t see a connection between your statement and mine, which you quoted. Many Americans have the simplistic and flawed view you attribute to them, but many more do not.

Many people misunderstand just how incredibly difficult it is to alter a right specifically enumerated in our constitution. If fully 2/3rds of Americans had a strongly held opinion that guns should simply be outlawed, it would still not be enough to pass meaningful laws placing significant restrictions on gun ownership that would pass SCOTUS scrutiny. At this point, we are left with a constitutional amendment….an impossibility under our current political climate.

What you might have said and been more accurate in saying it is that many Americans are perfectly willing to accept the mass shootings we have if that’s a cost of their exercise of their 2A right - especially if occasionally ‘one of them’ (who is violating the property rights of the mall owners) shoots the mass shooter. They are, in my opinion, idiots.
 
Last edited:
Kestrel said:
Americans like to pretend that the world is divided into good guys and bad guys. The bad guys are assumed to be criminal masterminds that will always find a way to have a gun. The good guys are assumed to have total self control and never misuse their gun.

Reality is that gun violence is seldom planned. Arguments cause far more gun homicides than armed robbery. The presence of a loaded gun just allows easy escalation to lethal force.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Road rage incidents, alcohol consumption, domestic arguments, etc. are examples of times when otherwise decent people impulsively shoot someone.
 
sarge said:
I don’t see a connection between your statement and mine, which you quoted. Many Americans have the simplistic and flawed view you attribute to them, but many more do not.

Many people misunderstand just how incredibly difficult it is to alter a right specifically enumerated in our constitution. If fully 2/3rds of Americans had a strongly held opinion that guns should simply be outlawed, it would still not be enough to pass meaningful laws placing significant restrictions on gun ownership that would pass SCOTUS scrutiny. At this point, we are left with a constitutional amendment….an impossibility under our current political climate.

What you might have said and been more accurate in saying it is that many Americans are perfectly willing to accept the mass shootings we have if that’s a cost of their exercise of their 2A right - especially if occasionally ‘one of them’ (who is violating the property rights of the mall owners) shoots the mass shooter. They are, in my opinion, idiots.
Click to expand...

They feel their 'right' to have a gun is more important than people's lives. Even the mass murders of children take a back seat to their right to strap on a gun. Idiots, indeed.
 
Iowa campground killing:

Two parents and their 6-year-old daughter were fatally shot Friday at an Iowa state park, while their 9-year-old son survived the attack, officials said.

The suspected gunman was also found in the park dead from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound, authorities said.
Click to expand...

But would anyone dare take a chance to live in a society where difficult-to-acquire arms meant it was unlikely such a family would get gunned down?
 
sarge said:
Ignoring the obvious…that zero guys with guns is safer than two guys with guns…I’m afraid that we have arrived at the point in the US where it is actually possible to save lives by shooting into a crowd IF it stops the gunman that was going to shoot into the crowd anyway. In other words, we now accept that killing ‘only’ 3 people is a great outcome.
Click to expand...

You do realize that it was the perp who shot and killed those other three people, not the good guy; he only shot the person who needed shooting.
 
sarge said:
No. Not interested in playing those types of racism denial games. There is zero doubt that had this shooter that was in a place with a hidden handgun that was posted ‘no guns’ been Black, he would have been at considerably greater risk of being shot as soon as the cops arrived.
Click to expand...

He would have had a 150% probability of being shot 10,000 times.
 
Brainster said:
You do realize that it was the perp who shot and killed those other three people, not the good guy; he only shot the person who needed shooting.
Click to expand...

Yes….and it does exactly zero to make my statement any less accurate. If there had been zero guys with guns, no one would have been shot.

Your turn. You do realize that the ‘good guy with a gun’ is a statistical unicorn, yes?
 
The good guy here was only but so good. Like one toe left on the good side. He carried a gun where he was not allowed, thinking himself above the law or some kind of vigilante. That thinking can go sour real fast, statistically.
 
And how much of a good guy would he have been if the shot had missed and struck an innocent bystander? This seems more like blind luck than heroism. And then imagine multiple 'good guys' all going for their guns. I would say it would be like the Wild West but they had better gun controls back then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom