Once again, another gunman with a rifle kills 3 at a mall in Indianapolis.

[imanamerican63]

Story just breaking on ABC News.

This happened about two hours ago. The gunman was killed in a shootout with a man who was armed himself.

I can hear it now from gun nuts and the nimrod NRAers? “We love those who carry guns to protect your own town”?

[Walleye]

1. Three dead. The good guy gunman didn't exactly protect everybody

[imanamerican63]

2. Yep, I agree! The Wild West theory is in effect!

[Nevilledog]

3. *just* read this

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

Justin Kollar
@kollarjustin
·
Follow
The term, “Good Samaritan” came from a Bible passage of a man from Samaria who stopped on the side of the road to help a man who was injured and ignored.

I cannot believe we live in a world where the term can equally apply to someone *killing* someone… my God.

Max Lewis
@MaxLewisTV
#UPDATE: Greenwood Chief Jim Ison says 4 are dead in this shooting at the Greenwood Park Mall, including the shooter. Two others at Eskenazi. Ison says a good samaritan witnessed the shooting and shot the shooter.
5:49 PM · Jul 17, 2022 from Indianapolis, IN

[Walleye]

4. Oh yes that was glaring. I recoiled at the term

[Nevilledog]

5. 👇

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

Mark Follman
@markfollman
·
Follow
The mass shooting Sunday evening at Greenwood Park Mall in Indiana was not "foiled" for the three victims murdered and two others wounded by the gunman
Image
7:10 PM · Jul 17, 2022

[Nevilledog]

7. And THIS

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

Shannon Watts
@shannonrwatts
·
Follow
I don’t know who needs to hear this but when a 22-year-old illegally brings a loaded gun into a mall and kills a mass shooter armed with an AR-15 after he already killed three people and wounded others is not a ringing endorsement of our implementation of the Second Amendment.
7:27 PM · Jul 17, 2022

Guess that's what's being reported locally

[Straw Man]

15. This?

I don’t know who needs to hear this but when a 22-year-old illegally brings a loaded gun into a mall and kills a mass shooter armed with an AR-15 after he already killed three people and wounded others is not a ringing endorsement of our implementation of the Second Amendment.

Illegally? The person had a concealed-carry permit. Oh, because the mall bans firearms? That apparently didn't do much to deter the killer, did it. Let's talk about useless laws, shall we?

And the "already" tries to portray this heroic effort as a failure. Apparently she believes that armed self-defense is supposed to be initiated before an assault begins: the old "pre-crime" theory. Ridiculous.

[Nevilledog]

16. Nice name.

I'm gonna put you down as being okay with people carrying guns where they're not allowed. Guns everywhere, all the time.

[Straw Man]

17. Thanks.

I'm going to ask you for the rationale by which you determine where guns should and should not be carried and how the situation would have been better if the man who stopped this mass killing had not been carrying a gun.

[Nevilledog]

18. I don't engage with people who are going to defend guns uncritically.

If you can't see the problem with the flooding of guns into public places we're never gonna agree on anything.

[Straw Man]

19. Uncritically?

On the contrary, I think anyone who carries a gun in public should be educated on when to use it and when not to use it, as well as highly trained on how to use it. There is a lot to criticize in the cavalier attitude toward guns and their use that I see in much of the American public.

One person with one gun stopped this killing spree. I would hardly call that "flooding." And while I don't give much credence to people who attack guns uncritically, I'm happy to engage with them. This is, after all, a discussion board, not an echo chamber.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Here's a novel idea. How about banning guns in public?

That's how most other countries do it, and it works. There's something very sick about US culture where guns are rarely regulated because freedom and all that stuff, but women are banned from making their own reproductive choices....

*on edit - let's forget about banning them in public. How about this for an idea? Introduce gun restrictions, including banning of ownership of assault weapons, a buy-back scheme, only allow those who have a legitimate purpose (eg farmers, police, members of gun clubs) to own them. It worked in other countries, though I suspect what came so easily elsewhere will be fought tooth and nail by mouth-breathing morons who think their freedom to wield high powered weapons is far more important than the lives of anyone else, including small children....

[Straw Man]

29. Those bans would mean nothing to those who wish to commit mass murder.

Aren't they the people whom we're trying to control?

[Mad_Machine76]

38. By that logic

why have any rules/laws at all? Rules and laws are designed to establish norms and ensure safety and stability for a collective group of people (i.e. visitors to the mall). They will not and cannot prevent every single person from harming others or being harmed, but I'm fairly certain that most people don't want to live in a real anarchic society where any place can become a shooting gallery.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. The basic purpose of a law is be a clear and definitive criteria...

...in a criminal trial.

For those of us lawful folks with self-control laws operate somewhere between the idea of the serving suggestion on the side of package and extremely wise comments on behavior. They don't "control" anyone.

[Straw Man]

43. Simple logic.

By that logic

why have any rules/laws at all? Rules and laws are designed to establish norms and ensure safety and stability for a collective group of people (i.e. visitors to the mall).

Certain acts are evil in and of themselves (malum in se), such as robbery, rape, kidnapping, and murder. The need for such laws is inarguable. Other acts that are not malum in se are banned in the hope of making the truly heinous acts more difficult if not impossible. A gun ban in a courtroom would be of that character, and it can be effectively carried out with metal detectors and guards at entryways. A gun ban in a place with unrestricted access -- like a mall -- has no chance of success since anyone bound on committing mass murder would scoff at such a prohibition. It is therefore a useless gesture that only affects those whom one need not fear anyway.

Do you honestly wish that the person who stopped this mass killing had not been carrying a pistol that day?

[Mad_Machine76]

44. I don't like the idea of people carrying guns around in public spaces (concealed or not)

Am I glad that the killer only killed 4 people before somebody else intervened? Yeah. but things like this usually only add to the glorification of guns and vigilantism JMHO and it worries me. Now, Simon Malls is probably going to be attacked and pressured (I'm already seeing it on local news pages- I live very near Greenwood and visit that mall a lot) into ignoring the fact that this guy had a gun against policy and/or dropping its ban on weapons in the mall because more guns in more places is always the only answer most of our elected officials (certainly those in Indiana) believe in and promote.

[Straw Man]

45. There are a lot of behaviors I don't like ...

... but I tolerate them if they are not doing demonstrable harm to the public. Concealed carry does not lead to Wild-West-style shootouts, despite all the dire warnings of Shannon Watts, et al. Open carry in public spaces is disruptive and creates a threatening environment, IMO, and could be regulated without infringing on anyone's rights.

I would hazard a guess that you have already been surrounded by concealed carriers when visiting that mall, despite prohibitions against it. In many states, carry in a prohibited location is only a trespassing misdemeanor, and often will not even be charged if the carrier leaves the premises after being warned.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

41. In your opinion...

...would the "flooding of guns into public places" statement constitute a straw man argument?

[Straw Man]

42. Why yes, ...

... yes it would.

[obamanut2012]

24. I can't sleep and am teadibg that exchange

Wow thst person you are responding to is... something else.

[thatdemguy]

36. From what I saw in Indiana the signs saying no guns allowed are not enforcable

They can put up the signs but its still legal to carry a gun there.

[rockfordfile]

20. Guns should always be banned from Malls that's just common sense.

Malls should increase their security, particularly in these times. Because of un-American right-wing pos.

Good the gun nut AR-15 loser was taken out. Again guns should always be banned from Malls or any other places like that. It's stupid as hell to wait for a person to start killing to do something about it.

[Straw Man]

21. Common sense.

Again guns should always be banned from Malls or any other places like that. It's stupid as hell to wait for a person to start killing to do something about it.

The only effect of banning guns from this particular mall would have been to let the killer carry on with his spree unmolested. Is that the desired outcome?

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Maybe you need to look further than just one mall. A nationwide ban n/t

[Straw Man]

26. A ban on what?

All firearms?

[Violet_Crumble]

27. No. A ban similar to that in other countries n/t

[Straw Man]

30. What other countries?

Clearly we have a violence problem in this country, but if you believe it begins and ends with guns, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Let's start with Australia and New Zealand...

There's more after that, but let's not overload things when you're researching

[Straw Man]

33. Completely different societies ...

... with completely different problems, and, in the case of Australia, plenty of violent crime since their bans took effect. What's relevant is the crimes committed after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, which prompted the new gun laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

The net effect of the gun laws in Australia is unclear. See this study for more info:

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html

Furthermore, the gun culture in those countries was never as culturally and politically entrenched as it is here. Attempts to impose their restrictions on the American public would drive a massive wedge into an already painfully divided populace. And for what? To make a tiny dent in the homicide figures? You realize, I'm sure, that the horrific mass killings that fill up the news cycle for weeks afterward are just a drop in the bucket of American gun crime. Rifles, of which assault rifles are just a subset, account for fewer than 500 killings per year out of a total of roughly 45,000. Yet to hear the hue and cry, banning assault rifles is imperative.

Our problem with violence is the result of disparities in education, opportunity, and, let's face it, wealth. Racism, classism, sexism, and the whole can of reactionary worms are the fertile ground from which it springs. So you can spare me the glib condescension with which you proclaim your facile solutions. The world is much more varied and complex than you would like to think it is.

[obamanut2012]

25. I can't believe I am reading this here

I thought I was on Reddit, not DU.

The fact you can defend all of this NOW, IN 2022, shows us all we need to know about you.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Try checking the posting history for a bit of an eye-opener...

It's guns, guns, guns, 24/7...

[Straw Man]

34. It's the only issue on which I dissent with the prevailing "wisdom" here.

As a consequence, I find myself frequently drawn into exchanges like this one. Is that a problem?

[Straw Man]

31. I realize that it's a dissenting view here.

But I think it's necessary. If we are in fact descending into civil war in this country, why would you want the left to be disarmed?

[former9thward]

11. He protected those who were not shot if he had not been there and acted.

By the standard you made then no one can be protected by anyone.

[Walleye]

12. I'm glad he got the guy. But he didn't exactly prevent murder altogether

If neither one of them had guns, everybody would still be alive

[former9thward]

14. Law enforcement do not prevent murders for the most part.

By that standard then we would get rid of any of them.

[Norbert]

13. And the thoughts and prayers didn't seem to help much, as usual.

[dhol82]

6. Way to go! Shoot out at the OK corral

[gldstwmn]

8. If you have enough mass shootings then there's bound to be another person that is armed

once in a while especially in Indiana. Ban assault weapons now.

[yagotme]

9. Are you expecting a "Minority Report" capability from a gun owner?

Currently illegal. Can't defend against a shooter until he starts shooting.

[48656c6c6f20]

10. Ahh come on now, just another Glorious day in GunMurka

Just wait and they'll come out of the darkness and tell you so

[gulliver]

35. Did the "hero" politically support the right of the killer to have his rifle?

That would make the hero, in fact, an accessory before the fact. I don't know the facts of this case, but a "good guy with a gun" who is against sensible gun control is automatically not a good guy. We don't praise someone who votes to legalize arson just because they show up with a hose at a fire that wouldn't have happened but for their own actions.

[Straw Man]

37. Irrelevant and absurd.

Did the "hero" politically support the right of the killer to have his rifle?

That would make the hero, in fact, an accessory before the fact.

Not in any legal or moral sense, no, it wouldn't.

I don't know the facts of this case, but a "good guy with a gun" who is against sensible gun control is automatically not a good guy.

No you don't, but don't let that stop you. Thousands don't. And I think you'll find that the word "sensible" is subject to varied interpretations.

We don't praise someone who votes to legalize arson just because they show up with a hose at a fire that wouldn't have happened but for their own actions.

That analogy fails spectacularly. Whatever his beliefs about gun control, I'm sure the person who intervened in the mall shooting wouldn't vote to legalize murder.

Hyperbole is not your friend.

[sarisataka]

39. So if it is two Catch-22s

Does that make it a Catch-44?