Indianapolis Mall Shooter Killed by Good Samaritan

That's up to the tax payers of Uvalde. I'm sure they are very keen to provide more funding

 

The right has its hero and the left can hail another mass shooting, gladly counting the shooter as a victim to make the minimum body count. A conuesseur's shooting.

If we want to stop these things, we're gonna have to get rid of all these tight knit communities where every day's the 4th of July, everybody treats everybody right, and nobody could imagine such a thing happening. That's the one common thread in all of these incidents if you listen to how they always talk about themselves afterward.

 

I'm sure the 3 innocent people that died are just thrilled that the shooter was subsequently shot by yet another person armed in public. Alas, the good guys lost this battle 3-1.

The proposed "more guns" solution to mass shootings in just batshit crazy.

 

I'm not taking a position on his joke. Just pointing it out.

As for this conversation, gun control is an area that my moderate side can lean left most often, but this guy is a hero. That was the point of the thread.

Yes the deaths were tragedies that will shatter lives forever, but this dude saved more from having that fate.

Hero.

 

Gotcha game? Didn't you just try to pull that while citing 1 gun death in Japan as some sort of gotcha that gun control doesn't work?

 

Which is why even though I am so not a gun guy, I fear stricter gun laws may not matter.

The gun free zones of malls and schools arent really stoping anyone

 

No the 10 others he would have killed are the ones "thrilled".

I swear some of you sound like the good dude mowed him down with an AK.

He had a legal handgun. He used it for the very reason he owns it.

I want certain weapons banned and tighter background and mental health checks. I want my wifes family to stop talking about guns at dinner like they are collectable playing cards.

But this HERO did it all the right way.

Admit that and then move on to the bigger solution.

 

3 innocent correct?

 

Your question was do I want to increase funding for more police training in Uvalde by sending this armed citizen down to train them. As if that dumb question required a serious answer.

But why does my answer matter, I live in Florida? But sure, Uvalde can increase funding if they want. It already makes up 40% of the towns budget. I say increase it to 95%. Or, as you pointed out, armed citizens are more effective. So maybe slash it to 0%. Don't care.

 

Yes. Corrected.

 

This seems to be his thing now. Ask a rhetorical/stupid question and badger for an answer to imply you're being evasive.

 

The hero's approach or weapon of choice is not material to my point. Nor did I comment it.

Others countries (and the USA) have successfully demonstrated that the best approach to reducing mass shootings is reduce access to firearms.

The "more guns" solution didn't stop the 5 people from being shot, including another kid. More guns may actually result in an increase in singleton shootings like the road rage incident we saw yesterday.

 

I answered your question. @pkaib01 was right. I guess this your game to entertain yourself. Enjoy.

 

The lack of self awareness is appalling

 

What moronic question of yours did he not answer?

The Uvalde police failed to follow their training. First responder goes in immediately. If taken down, the second responder goes in. And so on. They knew their training and failed by cowardice, not tactics. What other tactics could the good samaritan have shared?

BTW... a open air mass shooter scenario is by definition different than a barricaded shooter with child hostages. I'm sure that's obvious to all.

 

"But sure, Uvalde can increase funding if they want. It already makes up 40% of the towns budget. I say increase it to 95%. Or, as you pointed out, armed citizens are more effective. So maybe slash it to 0%. Don't care"

Here you go, again.

 

Hmmmmmm. The question needs to be asked how many people would be dead if no one had a gun?