Good Samaritan Takes Down Active Shooter

[autigeremt 6,562]

https://apple.news/AX3cdwxpeQJa175dDd45eNQ 

[SLAG-91 1,483]

Composure under immense pressure. Young man is a hero, and no doubt saved lives by acting so quickly and decisively.

He's going to get a lot of negative attention from the usual suspects, and I hope he's being prepared for it.

"Neutralized"...a much more polite word than I would have used for the assassin.

[SaltyTiger 7,761]

In the past one knew relatively safety by “picking and choosing” where you go. Not so much today. So glad this young was around.

[CoffeeTiger 5,082]

Good on him, he was prepared to handle the moment and likely saved a lot of lives and hurt. Hope he's rewarded, and I don't see why anyone would criticize him for anything. 

At the end of the day though, it doesn't help the 3 innocents that were killed before the good guy with a gun could act though. 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,762]

4 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

At the end of the day though, it doesn't help the 3 innocents that were killed before the good guy with a gun could act though.

If the good guy with a gun acted before the shooting started he would be charged with murder.  Get real.

[CoffeeTiger 5,082]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If the good guy with a gun acted before the shooting started he would be charged with murder.  Get real.

Correct, thanks for making my point. 

No matter how many good guys with guns there are at any one place, as long as widespread gun ownership and lax carry laws exist the shooter will always have the initiative and ability to cause death and destruction before any defensive actions can be taken against him. 

 

"YAY, THE 2nd AMENDMENT SAVED THE DAY! WAY TO GO GOOD GUY WITH GUN" 

Sure....but like I said...doesn't help those 3 people who were dead before anyone else even knew what was happening. 

It's not an example of an American success...it's just another needless American gun tragedy. 

Edited July 20, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[I_M4_AU 7,762]

2 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Correct, thanks for making my point. 

No matter how many good guys with guns there are at any one place, as long as widespread gun ownership and lax carry laws exist the shooter will always have the initiative and ability to cause death and destruction before any defensive actions can be taken against him. 

 

"YAY, THE 2nd AMENDMENT SAVED THE DAY! WAY TO GO GOOD GUY WITH GUN" 

Sure....but like I said...doesn't help those 3 people who were dead before anyone else even knew what was happening. 

You know back in the Wild, Wild West there were people that preemptively shot people under the guise of defending themselves.  The law has evolved to what it is now.  Is your point that someone has to die before a good guy with a gun can save the day?  This is how the law works, intent is why the shooter has to shoot first.

The law is reactive in most cases.  Please advise what would be a better way to handle this situation.

Would more lives be saved if they waited until the local police showed up to do their job.

No matter how you spin it, the young man saved lives.

The shooter was obviously disturbed, it wasn’t the gun, it never is the gun, it’s the shooter that kills 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

We need more guns, more powerful guns, higher capacity magazines in our society.

The message of the NRA, the Republican Party, is clear.  The results are clear.

Open carry, "constitutional carry" are next.  We will only be safe when,,, we are all armed.

 

Profound stupidity. 

 

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,082]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You know back in the Wild, Wild West there were people that preemptively shot people under the guise of defending themselves.  The law has evolved to what it is now.  Is your point that someone has to die before a good guy with a gun can save the day?  This is how the law works, intent is why the shooter has to shoot first.

 

Too bad American Gun culture and the 2nd Amendment haven't evolved any since the wild wild west. 

 

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The law is reactive in most cases.  Please advise what would be a better way to handle this situation.

Would more lives be saved if they waited until the local police showed up to do their job.

No matter how you spin it, the young man saved lives.

I directly said the shooter saved lives. I'm not spinning anything. 

A better way would be more restrictive gun laws. 

I'm not criticizing the good guy shooter. Look back at my original post. I'm criticizing American gun laws. 

 

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The shooter was obviously disturbed, it wasn’t the gun, it never is the gun, it’s the shooter that kills 

 

Yes, it is the gun.

Other countries have people with mental problems, but don't have guns 

They don't have shootings like these.

You don't have to worry about being shot while walking in a mall or going to school or walking down the street. 

 

Edited July 20, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[TexasTiger 12,800]

19 hours ago, autigeremt said:

https://apple.news/AX3cdwxpeQJa175dDd45eNQ 

I think he’s actually an Indianian.

[I_M4_AU 7,762]

9 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Too bad American Gun culture and the 2nd Amendment haven't evolved any since the wild wild west. 

Gun owners of today seldom open carry as they did in 1865, of course the gun culture has changed.  The 2nd Amendment should not evolve as it clearly states: “Shall not be infringed”.

14 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I directly said the shooter saved lives. I'm not spinning anything. 

A better way would be more restrictive gun laws. 

I'm not criticizing the good guy shooter. Look back at my original post. I'm criticizing American gun laws. 

Of course you are spinning, you are emphasizing the three deaths over lives saved,

What restrictive gun laws?  We have restrictive gun laws that didn’t prevent this shooting.  If you are talking about a *assault weapon ban*, that is what they are taking about today in Congress.  If they do ban this weapon; what do they do with the millions of *assault weapons* already in circulation?  Do they confiscated them, pay the owner for them, or just forcibly take them at gun (AR-15) point?

it’s not the gun as demonstrated by the two different personalities involved in this particular shooting.

[I_M4_AU 7,762]

28 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

We need more guns, more powerful guns, higher capacity magazines in our society.

The message of the NRA, the Republican Party, is clear.  The results are clear.

Open carry, "constitutional carry" are next.  We will only be safe when,,, we are all armed.

 

Profound stupidity. 

 

 

The 2nd Amendment does not require a citizen to bear arms, it allows people who feel the need to bear arms do so.  If you don’t feel you need to bear arms in your situation, by all means don’t.

That is profound stupidity.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

The 2nd Amendment does not require a citizen to bear arms, it allows people who feel the need to bear arms do so.  If you don’t feel you need to bear arms in your situation, by all means don’t.

That is profound stupidity.

Didn't work in the old west, certainly won't work today.  If you want violence, that is exactly what you are getting and, will certainly get more of.  The trend is clear.

[I_M4_AU 7,762]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

Didn't work in the old west, certainly won't work today.  If you want violence, that is exactly what you are getting and, will certainly get more of.  The trend is clear.

Of course things have changed from the old West until now because is didn’t work.  The gun culture has changed.  The violence is coming from the criminals and deranged people that act out with a gun in their hands.  The law abiding citizens are at risk and police are being overwhelmed.  Do you think taking guns away from the good guys are going to stop the bad guys?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

Of course things have changed from the old West until now because is didn’t work.  The gun culture has changed.  The violence is coming from the criminals and deranged people that act out with a gun in their hands.  The law abiding citizens are at risk and police are being overwhelmed.  Do you think taking guns away from the good guys are going to stop the bad guys?

That is not the issue.  The issue is pumping more and, more powerful weapons into society.  Don't play dumb.

[I_M4_AU 7,762]

3 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

That is not the issue.  The issue is pumping more and, more powerful weapons into society.  Don't play dumb.

Actually, you are the one playing dumb.  Crime is rising all over and the police are overwhelmed, while being criticized for every action they take.  In Minneapolis a man was killed after shooting into an apartment building with a mother and two children inside after 6 hours of negotiations and the press are asking question of the police.

https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2022/07/18/andrew-tekle-sundberg-minneapolis-police-shooting

Starbucks is closing stores because of safety concerns:

Starbucks will close 16 U.S. stores, mostly on the West Coast, by the end of July because of safety concerns, according to the company. Most of the stores set to close are in the Los Angeles and Seattle metro areas.

“We’ve had to make the difficult decision to close some locations that have a particularly high volume of challenging incidents that make it unsafe for us to operate,” a Starbucks spokesperson told CNBC.

The map below shows the six stores in California and the six in Washington State that will close. The coffee chain will also close two stores in Portland, Oregon, one store in Philadelphia and another in Washington, D.C., also for safety.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/14/starbucks-is-set-to-close-these-16-us-stores-over-safety-concerns.html

Notice these stores are in areas where crime is rampant and the government is lax on crime.  No coincidence.

The last resort is for citizens to defend themselves and some politicians want to take that ability away from the law abiding,

 

[autigeremt 6,562]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

That is not the issue.  The issue is pumping more and, more powerful weapons into society.  Don't play dumb.

The most powerful weapons do not include guns. Man made is still king (Oklahoma City). 

[autigeremt 6,562]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

That is not the issue.  The issue is pumping more and, more powerful weapons into society.  Don't play dumb.

#trained 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Actually, you are the one playing dumb.  Crime is rising all over and the police are overwhelmed, while being criticized for every action they take.  In Minneapolis a man was killed after shooting into an apartment building with a mother and two children inside after 6 hours of negotiations and the press are asking question of the police.

https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2022/07/18/andrew-tekle-sundberg-minneapolis-police-shooting

Starbucks is closing stores because of safety concerns:

Starbucks will close 16 U.S. stores, mostly on the West Coast, by the end of July because of safety concerns, according to the company. Most of the stores set to close are in the Los Angeles and Seattle metro areas.

“We’ve had to make the difficult decision to close some locations that have a particularly high volume of challenging incidents that make it unsafe for us to operate,” a Starbucks spokesperson told CNBC.

The map below shows the six stores in California and the six in Washington State that will close. The coffee chain will also close two stores in Portland, Oregon, one store in Philadelphia and another in Washington, D.C., also for safety.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/14/starbucks-is-set-to-close-these-16-us-stores-over-safety-concerns.html

Notice these stores are in areas where crime is rampant and the government is lax on crime.  No coincidence.

The last resort is for citizens to defend themselves and some politicians want to take that ability away from the law abiding,

 

Just wait.  It is going to get worse.   We need to address the causes.  We need to limit the damage that can be done.

Assault weapons are part of the problem, not the solution.

[Didba 5,256]

13 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

If the good guy with a gun acted before the shooting started he would be charged with murder.  Get real.

Yeah and get off on self-defense if the perp brandished a gun at people. Get real.

[CoffeeTiger 5,082]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/us/arlene-alvarez-9-year-old-shooting/index.html

Unfortunately, the situation didn't turn out so well in this case in Texas. 

 

A "Good guy with a gun" decided to open fire on a fleeing burglar that was running away after robbing him at an ATM, he missed the burglar and instead shot and killed a 9 year old girl in a nearby car. The suspect got away and their identity is unknown. 

Texas grand jury declined to charge the man with any crimes because the man claims he believed he heard the burglar fire shots as he was fleeing, which is why he says he fired.  

 

Strongly disagree with this decision. Even if a person is shooting in what they believe or say  to be self defense, they still have to be responsible for where their bullets go and the consequences of their actions. He should have been charged at least with manslaughter or reckless endangerment. 

The idea that a Texas jury decided that the man who shot and killed a 9 year old girl has no criminal liability is shocking to me. 

 

 

 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

He’s going to have a civil liability….a hell of a civil one. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

20 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/us/arlene-alvarez-9-year-old-shooting/index.html

Unfortunately, the situation didn't turn out so well in this case in Texas. 

 

A "Good guy with a gun" decided to open fire on a fleeing burglar that was running away after robbing him at an ATM, he missed the burglar and instead shot and killed a 9 year old girl in a nearby car. The suspect got away and their identity is unknown. 

Texas grand jury declined to charge the man with any crimes because the man claims he believed he heard the burglar fire shots as he was fleeing, which is why he says he fired.  

 

Strongly disagree with this decision. Even if a person is shooting in what they believe or say  to be self defense, they still have to be responsible for where their bullets go and the consequences of their actions. He should have been charged at least with manslaughter or reckless endangerment. 

The idea that a Texas jury decided that the man who shot and killed a 9 year old girl has no criminal liability is shocking to me. 

 

 

 

 

Children must die in order to protect the 2nd amendment.  The Federalist Society, the Republican Party, the NRA have spoken.

We must have "constitutional carry" in order to have a more peaceful society.  More guns is the key.

 

This is stupidity on a level with attempting to put out a fire with gasoline.  It's not the stupidity that I have a problem with though,,, it's the inhumanity.

[CoffeeTiger 5,082]

On 7/23/2022 at 12:19 PM, icanthearyou said:

Children must die in order to protect the 2nd amendment.  The Federalist Society, the Republican Party, the NRA have spoken.

We must have "constitutional carry" in order to have a more peaceful society.  More guns is the key.

 

This is stupidity on a level with attempting to put out a fire with gasoline.  It's not the stupidity that I have a problem with though,,, it's the inhumanity.

 

The Right celebrates that ONLY  3 people died and that another gun saved the day, everyone else just looks at it and thinks....why did 3 people just enjoying a trip to the mall have to die to begin with? Why does America allow stuff like this to happen on such a regular basis? 

[I_M4_AU 7,762]

27 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

The Right celebrates that ONLY  3 people died and that another gun saved the day, everyone else just looks at it and thinks....why did 3 people just enjoying a trip to the mall have to die to begin with? Why does America allow stuff like this to happen on such a regular basis? 

If it wasn’t for that pesky US Constitution you could live in a Utopia.  Change the constitution (very hard to do) or work around it without trying to undermined the intent.  How many times have stated down this?  Deal with the Constitution as written.

I understand the White House is going to change the definition of *recession* to protect their failed policies. This is how the left does to try to make them sound sane.  What is the definition of a Woman?  It did recently change.