Greenwood park mall shooting (sale, crime, military)

[1AngryTaxPayer]

When people, mass shooters, get caught, we keep them alive why?

[brickpatio2018]

We need a subset of people who are trained in weapons and expected to carry them at all times, just for moments like this. It could be a volunteer service sort of like the national guard.

They could function like Air Marshals, quietly present but unnoticeable to others unless there'a a problem. That way if a shooter appears in a mall, school, or stadium, there will be a good chance that someone present will be one of those trained, armed citizens.

If say 1% of all citizens were in this National Guard meets Air Marshals service, (combined with regular citizens who carry), we might stand a chance.

[sheerbliss]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

When people, mass shooters, get caught, we keep them alive why?

Because of the Constitutional right to trial by jury--the same Constitution that contains the Second Amendment.

https://courts.uslegal.com/jury-syst...-a-jury-trial/

[indy_317]

Originally Posted by rrah

We've had an assault weapons ban before. People managed just fine. Unfortunately Bush let it expire.

Originally Posted by kayanne

I do hope you will read and learn about the meaningless term "assault weapon." Until fairly recently, I sounded a lot like you, railing against assault weapons and automatic rifles. Then I started reading about guns, and talking with gun owners, and now I know how foolish I sounded.

I don't love the huge number of guns we have in our country. But that genie is out of the bottle. It doesn't take a high IQ to figure out that any kind of gun ban, now or in the future, is not going to get guns out of the hands of the criminals who already own them.

Originally Posted by Kluch

My exact thoughts. No matter how hard we make it for people to get weapons the "bad guys" will always get access to them sooner or later.

The term "assault weapon" fits the definition, at least for me, of any magazine feed, semi-automatic rifle. Gun forums will quickly bash anyone who calls their semi-auto AR-15 an "assault weapon," but at the same time, those same posters will absolutely tell everyone if an assault is eminent, one wants a semi-auto AR-15, AK-47, etc. type firearm over a pistol for self-defense. These forums are full of the saying, "One's handgun is there to fight their way back to their rifle." There is a reason magazine fed rifles are used in the military vs handguns. If the primary arm to go on the defensive assault to defend one's self is a semi-auto rifle, then why doesn't the term "assault weapon" apply? I know, some federal definition defines that term as fully auto weapons. I guess some of us will just agree to disagree.

The first ban wasn't much of a ban at all. There were plenty of workarounds, like adding thumb-hole stocks, fixed stocks, etc. The first ban didn't just automatically ban the semi-auto feeding function of the rifle, they had to have a specific cosmetic feature, which manufactures just worked around. There were plenty of semi-auto AR-15 and AK-47 rifles available for sale during the first AWB.

While the genie might be out of the bottle, limiting an item makes it harder to get. If we ban the future sales, importation, and transfer of assault weapons, some will still find their way into the country. However, just in the Indy metro area alone, there are likely 100+ AR-15s for sale at any given time at the many gun stores just in this one area.

Like it or not, semi-auto, magazine fed rifles seem to now be the go-to weapon for these spree killings. If this trend continues, I predict that eventually non-AR owning types will vote in people who will eventually start passing laws banning semi-auto, magazine fed rifles.

I've shopped at Greenwood Park Mall hundreds of times in my life. I've eaten in that food court where the shooting took place. I'm a big supporter of people being allowed to carry reasonable means of self-defense, like handguns. If the one victim hadn't had his own gun to stop the killer, the number of people killed could've been much higher.

[censusdata]

Any update from local news on whether the Hispanic victims was deliberate or an accident in a diverse area? Either is possible.

[slowlane3]

Originally Posted by Kluch

My exact thoughts. No matter how hard we make it for people to get weapons the "bad guys" will always get access to them sooner or later.

And no matter how many traffic laws we enact, reckless people will still speed and kill thousands.

So by your reasoning, it's useless to have traffic laws, or suspend licenses of impaired drivers, because these measures aren't foolproof. I supposed "Moms against drunk driving's" secret agenda is to "Ban all Cars."

[slowlane3]

Originally Posted by rrah

For those with all the "if we ban guns....blah, blah, blah" I didn't say ban guns. I absolutely think automatic rifles do not need to be in the hands of regular citizens. We've had an assault weapons ban before. People managed just fine. Unfortunately Bush let it expire.

I'm beyond sick of the weekly/daily mass shootings that occur in this country uniquely. For all the excuses: mental health, no religion, bad families, etc. I say you must have a VERY poor opinion of the U.S. and believe those same issues don't exist in other countries. I don't think we are unique in having people with mental health issues, etc. We are unique in allowing assault weapons in the hands of anyone over 18.

If more Religion were the answer, then Sweden, Vermont, and Japan would have the most gun violence, since they're the most agnostic societies. Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen would be the least violent, since they typically pray, 5 times a day.

[kayanne]

Originally Posted by slowlane3

And no matter how many traffic laws we enact, reckless people will still speed and kill thousands.

So by your reasoning, it's useless to have traffic laws, or suspend licenses of impaired drivers, because these measures aren't foolproof. I supposed "Moms against drunk driving's" secret agenda is to "Ban all Cars."

Not a good analogy at all. People violating traffic laws do so out in plain sight, where they are easily seen by police or reported by another driver.

Criminals with illegally obtained guns are doing so secretly.

If anyone knows a way to get all the guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, I'd love to hear it. But as this point, short of a nuclear bomb wiping out our whole country, and starting over from scratch, I don't think it's possible, unfortunately.

Should we TRY to reduce gun violence? Of course! But it's annoying when people suggest measures that will only effect the responsible, law-abiding gun owners, and do absolutely nothing to reduce crime.

(BTW, I don't even like guns or own one, but what I've said here seems obvious to me.)

[MortonR]

I am a gun owner. I am not a rabid 2A proponent. I own guns for several reasons, but mainly for recreation and protection of my family and property. I do not own, nor do I see any value in owning an “assault” rifle. To me they serve no purpose, but that’s an opinion for another post.

What I think should be two requirements for anyone purchasing a firearm of any type, for any reason are:

1.) In depth training on handling a firearm. Not a $50, 4 hour class such as those for concealed carry. A real, curriculum based face time, cheeks in the seat classroom experience with validation required for completion.

2.) A requirement the firearm owners store and maintain their firearms in a safe and responsible manner.

I don’t think either of these are unrealistic or onerous. We had firearms in the house when I was growing up, and I can still recall my Dad making each one of us attend an NRA sanctioned classroom course on basic firearm safety and handling. That was an absolute before you ever got to touch a firearm in our house.

These won’t eliminate events like this one, but they’ll go a long way in reducing accidents and thefts, I believe. I believe that most firearm owners are responsible and would welcome these sorts of requirements.

RM

[sheerbliss]

Originally Posted by MortonR

I am a gun owner. I am not a rabid 2A proponent. I own guns for several reasons, but mainly for recreation and protection of my family and property. I do not own, nor do I see any value in owning an “assault” rifle. To me they serve no purpose, but that’s an opinion for another post.

What I think should be two requirements for anyone purchasing a firearm of any type, for any reason are:

1.) In depth training on handling a firearm. Not a $50, 4 hour class such as those for concealed carry. A real, curriculum based face time, cheeks in the seat classroom experience with validation required for completion.


RM

Based on what? The good Samaritan in this incident didn't meet that requirement. The vast majority of gun owners just looking to defend themselves from criminals or stalkers or crazy exes don't meet that requirement. I (a military veteran) don't meet that requirement, as Air Force basic training doesn't involve a lot of time at the shooting range. My father, who had a dealer's license and could have taught such a course, didn't meet that requirement.

There have been mass shooters who met that or a similar requirement. Such a course would only make other mass shooters more proficient, along with keeping people who don't have the time or money to overcome this barrier to entry (that's all it is) unarmed.