DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Mass Shootings Continued

It looks like there was one in IN and it was stopped by someone legally carrying. I believe IN just went permitless carry recently, that might only be permitless open carry though. I will need to have a look.

https://apnews.com/article/indiana-mall-shooting-345348912b288dce656083b2422c2fde

Indiana shopping mall shooter shot dead by armed 'good Samaritan,' police say
Multiple law enforcement agencies responded to the scene

At least four people, including the shooter, are dead and others are injured following a shooting at a shopping mall in the suburbs of Indianapolis, according to local reports.

Greenwood Chief James Ison said "a good Samaritan with a handgun" at the scene killed the shooter. He said two others were wounded and are being treated in area hospitals.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/indiana-shopping-mall-shooting-police

Another good guy with a gun saves the rest of us from the bad guy.
Thankyou fella.

Well, you finally found one.

FIFY

Another one. https://www.yahoo.com/news/customer-shoots-robbery-suspect-holding-152301150.html

So the good guy with a gun wild west is a celebrated solution (small minds)... Meanwhile, almost 400 cops crapped the bed in Uvalde (snafu)... Any real gun control is off the table because the lunatics control the asylum (wackadoodle)... And the only thing the right wants is more guns and more babies to kill. What could possibly go wrong?

Just think if the teacher in the classroom had been armed and took down the shooter while the cops stood outside sanitizing their hands.

Wackadoodle is thinking it is about "more guns". There's plenty of guns, I want guns in the hands of people so they can defend themselves when the people sworn to do so refuse and stand listening to a slighter for 70+ minutes. That is what went wrong.

Having a gun ready to defend ones' self is not a guarantee you will be successful. Not having one when you need it would seem to reduce one's odds significantly.

Interesting site:

https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/

What the media never reports is how a gun stopped a situation, even without shots fired. I had that experience, here at my house. No cameras came around though.

Glad you are ok.

It appears IN went permitless carry on July 1 and the guy that ended this was carrying permitless. I understand the mall had a "no guns" sign, but they do not have force of law in IN, you can only be asked to leave and if you don't you are guilty of trespass. In light of stopping the shooting the mall and management company have thanked the young lad that stopped the nonsense.

Shannon Watts is inconsolable.

Look at statistics. Good guys with guns don't stop bad guys with guns.

Poor argument because the numbers show how rare that happens.

So just go back to lying so SB can like you.

SB you and Alex Jones.

There are places for you under rocks.

The statistics do show that in mass shootings the bad guy more often than not ends it, either by walking away (rarely) or ending themselves. Ending themselves is usually after they meet resistance, either civilian or police.

I actually read an article this afternoon about this, and in the comments, people were saying "he's no hero. He illegally carried a gun into a place he couldn't". But, not one word about the guy that carried a rifle and started shooting people. Weird, isn't it?

They won't let the truth get in the way of the agenda.

j/c

The truth is something many wish to avoid. You see, a lot of people have no problem with people who are proficient with firearms carrying guns. In a situation like this one they would be well prepared to deal with the situation like this man did. That's a wonderful thing. What isn't wonderful is claiming that anyone who is 18 can go out and buy a firearm and stick it into their belt and carry. That's a dangerous precedent. In a crowded mall such as this many innocent people could get shot and killed by a wanna be hero that can't hit the broad side of a barn. Be careful what you wish for. These people were lucky.



I can see the ad for a gun store now.

"Come on down to Big Larry's Gun Emporium! You want to strap a gun on and play tough guy? No shooting experience? Never shot a gun before? No Problem! That stupidity is legal now! So come on down today!"

Hopefully the next time this happens the person pulling out the gun knows what they're doing too.

I've not seen a report one way or the other on what training Dicken had.

Training and qualification should never been required by the government for the exercise of a right. That does not mean training is useless or that people should avoid it, but it should not be required for the exercise of a right.

It does seem this time the person stopping the the shooter knew what they were doing and reacted appropriately.

It does seem this man had the proper qualifications. I would think the party of personal responsibility would want everyone carrying a gun in public to be qualified as well. If not this outcome could have easily been very different. I didn't realize the right to own or purchase a gun included the right to carry one around in public even if you don't have a clue how to handle one.

Of course you didn't realize that. The party of "the government will protect me" keeps saying it isn't. The word "bear" means to carry on one's person. It is part of the right protected by the second amendment.

Personal responsibility is not the same as a government mandate. I have said, and I will say it again so you will ignore it again, I believe everyone carrying should get training, I just don't believe the government should mandate what training you should get.


Please reread both the Heller vs DC and NYSRPA vs Bruen before you try any lame arguments about what means what. Not realizing "the right to own or purchase included the right to carry one" indicates you really do not understand what the right entails.

You always insist on glossing over the "well regulated militia" part as if if it doesn't provide context. A well regulated militia would infer training.

Tell me you've never read Heller vs DC without telling me you've never read Heller vs DC.

So how does a court ruling change what the Constitution says about a well regulated militia? I still find it odd how you will cite federal court rulings that limit states ability to govern themselves when it suits your purpose yet rally states rights when it also suits your purpose.

The issue is quite simple. You either promote that those walking around in our society carrying firearms be qualified to do so for the safety of all or you don't. You either expect that a certain level of accountability and responsibility be required or you don't. Obviously you find that unacceptable. So be it. Stating court rulings based on when Americans carried single shot muskets and single shot revolvers almost 150 years ago doesn't really bolster your case.

Again. Read Heller vs DC. They did a nice job of breaking it down. I have explained it to you in the past but you ignore that explanation.

You get caught up in the perfatory clause and ignore the operative clause.

You use a court ruling as an excuse to avoid accountability for those walking around in society carrying guns. What the constitution says is very clear. A well regulated militia.

No, I use a court ruling that explains things in depth. You refuse to read it because it does not mesh with you idea that the government is the fountain of you rights.


Are you in a militia? Have you turned in your guns? Yeah, didn't think so.

No, I, even though I already had used firearms from a young age, took a CCW class to have the right to carry a firearm. Something that all people who believe in the responsible carrying of firearms in public should support. It's a method of regulating that those in our society who are walking around carrying guns have a minimum amount of knowledge to help everyone around them be safer. I don't believe that the government is the fountain of our rights. I do however feel it's the government's responsibility to use common sense as it pertains to the safety of society as a whole. Supporting that any yahoo that's 18 can just walk around carrying a firearm with no required training or known ability to handle that weapon is the exact type of thing government should be making sure doesn't happen. But then you have people thinking anyone who isn't a felon should have the ability to be walking around carrying one with no regard for the safety of others.

Oh I see you issue now.

Not any yahoo can. People who are prohibited can't. You'd know that if you read Heller or NYSRPA.

So people should get training is a statement you ignore (gotta have that fight). Government mandates have led to out and out bans. No other fundamental right requires training and qualification testing. None.

Common sense is a cop out. And, frankly, you might realize that if you would actually read the opinions of the court. But you wont.

To this point there has been no "fight". Just two people exchanging opposing viewpoints. But you can spin that any direction you so choose. I in no way support any ban on weapons. I in no way support government overreach which has happened in some states. None of which has been any part of this discussion up to this juncture. Yet I'm the one who continues to get blamed for moving the goal posts. I have no reason to read any court decisions that directly rules against what the constitution outright states. Well regulated.

I do however understand that someone who thinks anyone that has zero training in the handling or discharge of a gun should be walking around in public carrying one would disagree and how using common sense in such a matter would be considered a cop out from their perspective.

You've continued to not read the SCOTUS opinions, doing so willfully so you can continue an incorrect argument. "Well regulated" was know to mean well prepared. I have explained this in the past, you have ignored it. Understand that the founders understood more than muskets has been explained in the past, you have ignored it

Do you understand you are the "yahoo" you are referring to? Maybe you do and that scares you. You are not special. You are not exceptional. You are just some average yahoo. That is part of the point, everyone (even some average yahoo like you) has the right to KEEP and the right to BEAR arms. As long as your reasoning for doing so is constitutional conduct the constitution would protect it. (You'd understand that if you read NYSRPA).

You mentioned doing a TN training class. Good on you. Even if you have the enhanced permit and did the 8 hour class you are likely unprepared. Have you done any force on force training? Should it be required? Did you have to prove proficiency weak hand?

You never were able to answer what training should be required other than a hand wavy "some basic training that shows you understand how to operate a handgun" or similar. This could be accomplished with a 10 minute video, but you wouldn't accept that. Why don't you lay out what you think should be required, and be specific. Quit hand waving and using words like "common sense". Those mean nothing.

Training and qualifications are used to ban people. Tell people in HI that cannot get a permit at all how wonderful it is to require training. MD requires a 16 hour course and 25 shots to be able to apply. Tell the people in Baltimore City how well government required training (and denials until recently without a good and substantial reason) keeps people safe.

Again, I should not be REQUIRED to show training or qualification to exercise a fundamental right, a right that is protected federally (really one of the few things the federal government was supposed to take care of and they messed that right up).

I don't need to prove training in law before I can have my right to due process. I don't need to prove I can think critically before I get to speak or redress my government.

Again, and try not to miss this again, people SHOULD get training. It is their lives they may save with understanding the dynamics of a force on force situation. But no one should be compelled to by the government to have any requirement to exercise the right to keep and bear unless they have given that right away through felonious action. And yes, that right should be restorable as well.

I tend to agree with the philosophy contained in Heller, but no one has really tried to set up a law that establishes different classifications for gun ownership.

To my mind pseudo military weapons like the AR-15 and AK-47 would require a different classification for the gun owner.

I know the 2nd amendment zealots will point to the fundamental right, but I think it is pretty apparent that these weapons more closely represent their military counterparts, than their civilian ones.

Even Scallia noted that it was appropriate for guns to be limited in certain places, and we know that all military weapons are not available to civilians. There are limitations on any right.

So classify the gun, limit the magazine, and for everyones sake, limit or ban the hollow point bullets that are used.

The dude is a hero for sure. That being said did the active shooter have an AR? Regardless, the good guy obviously didn’t need a AR to take the bad guy out. So ban the AR. Easy peasy.

How would you define the NFA and Hughes amendments putting machine guns mostly out of reach? These did establish different classifications for ownership.

In regards to hollow points, shootings in condensed areas like urban housing should would much more dangerous with ball ammunition. Hallow points do not penetrate building material like ball ammunition does. Most of these mass shootings use ball ammunition as well.

Dicken put 8 of 10 rounds on target, starting from 50 yards out while directing people to safety and did so in roughly 15 seconds. It was an exceptional bit of shooting, and he seems to have had his grandfather to thank for his "training".

Most firearm experts will tell you that hand guns are close quarters weapons but the best gun to have in a shooting is the one you have, not the one you wish you had.

I'm speculating the first two shots were the ones that missed, given that distance, but holy cow, if he hit on those rounds, adrenaline pumping, from 50 yards out with a handgun...that's pretty impressive, at least for a noob like me.

uh. not sure if you know this or not... Americans have been consistently walking around society carrying guns since before we were a county.

The reading I have done suggest the first shot hit. A news video I saw suggested he braced against a column in the food court to make the first shot. I wonder if he assumed the first would be the last. Sometimes bad guys need a lot of persuasion to stop moving about.

That's nuts.

Man I wish Frank defended the lives of kids as much as he defends the guns used to kill them.

That’s some real brain dead priorities right there.

But as I’ve said before. Conservatives are selfish. They only care about things that directly affect them. If anybody else is suffering, be he’s not, then he clearly doesn’t care.

Honestly I wonder what would make Frank cry more. The death of a child lost in gun violence, or his gun being stolen.

It’s sad that I’m not even joking. I really do wonder. You dudes who go this hard in the paint over a gun already tells me you can’t be trusted by society with the power of said gun.

Slavery could be brought back, and Frank won’t care as long as he has his gun and nobody bothers him.

Honestly, I think that's wonderful that this guy was able to stop the killing.... Of course, 376 police officers couldn't take one shooter down in Uvalde.....

As if one compensates for the other...

C'mon bro, at least be intellectually honest. I have never once said I wanted kids (or anyone else) to be killed. That's really a brain dead assertion to make, and lazy to boot.

There is no reason why people's rights to keep and bear arms can't be protected while still protecting everyone (see, it isn't just children that get killed by people using guns).

I go "hard in the paint" over freedoms and rights. Telling me I can't be trusted because I believe in the right to self defense and know that a gun is the best tool for that is crazy. It is the typical "only a nut would want to own a gun and no nuts should own guns" paradox crap.

I am not even sure how you got to slavery (other than a crackpot emotional argument that is complete horse poop), but that is not congruent with personal freedom either. You are aware that slaves were forbidden to touch arms right? You know, to keep them slaves.

You can continue to spout the Bloomberg-Giffords-Brady-MommiesWantingSomeAction propaganda but keep in mind they want you disarmed while surrounding themselves with armed people.

So bro, next time try to at least be honest.