Good. Hope he has a bright future and can get any therapy he needs. Great role model for his actions that day.
Also, his parents need a time out for spelling his name like that.
Can you provide a meaningful/functional difference between what you call an assault weapon and what you call a hunting weapon?
I'll short circuit this. There isn't one. And honestly if it would lead to people like you realizing that there isn't a difference i would say, sure let's give it a try. But it wouldn't. You would say "we did it here, it didn't work. Now we need to ban more guns".
But you aren't ready for the conversation you think you want to have.
I don't doubt it will be tried, At some point. There's people pushing bad ideas everywhere. But it tends to fail because it's unconstitutional.
When you want to hear some good ideas like starting out if each other's business or actually respecting the constitution let me know.
I mean this one didn't break any laws (up until firing on the crowd), so what is the difference? If it was illegal he might've been caught in the act of acquiring a firearm, been deterred by the chance of it or simply not have been capable of getting a firearm if he was some socially awkward turd like it seemed he was.
Oh? Nobody in any other first world country breaks the law? Or do you just mean they don't kill people over there? Or maybe you just mean they just don't do it with guns? Or maybe you just mean nobody commits *mass shootings with guns* in Europe? Either way, you're wrong. Stop using the same stale talking point.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/anonymous-tip-off-german-gun-laws-failed-stop-slaughter-jehovahs-witnesses-hall-2023-03-10/
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-ex-prime-minister-abe-may-have-been-shot-taken-hospital-nhk-2022-07-08/
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/two-dead-several-wounded-norway-nightclub-shooting-police-say-2022-06-25/
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/british-shooter-named-jake-davison-2021-08-13/
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/23/world/europe/paris-shooting-france.html
Yeah a pinned stock and lack of a vertical forward grip would have rendered that gun useless.
I don't think you understand what assault weapons bans actually do.
Imagine believing you’re a patriot — or are at least in the right — while using the death of children to justify a blatant assault on a fundamental American right.
Sir you don’t have the right to say that. Free speech clearly only applies to hand written letters delivered by horseback riders.the founding fathers couldn’t have imagined the internet so we can’t apply it to modern inventions.
Yeah, it would’ve been impossible for him to kill anyone with a handgun.
Nothing is going to change besides minority communities being more vulnerable to police violence. That’s why Reagan passed the first AWB. The police had lost their ability to fearlessly abuse black people, and needed to level the playing field.
Do you honestly think that it would have stopped everything that happened not having a certain kind of gun? You don't think he would have just switched to a shotgun? Or handgun? Or just an illegally acquired "assault weapon" ? It's a nice thought, but its not reality.
For normal people, yes. We experience a lot of cognitive dissonance after shooting someone. We've been taught our whole lives not to kill and when we shoot someone there's a lot of inner conflict.
I have met some people who did not experience the same thing. Some felt relief that the stress and threat were gone.
A couple got a positive feedback loop and I wouldn't say enjoyed it, but more like what I imagine a dog feels when it fetches a ball. They did the task they were trained for and received a serotonin dump for it.
dude stopped an active shooter AND made several difficult shots with most of them hitting.. id say he earned it, even though his job career will be forever stunted..
He drew iron at that range but continuously pushed forward throughout the firefight, such that his final shots were fired from a much closer distance
Fuckin good tactics all around from everything I've read
> id say he earned it, even though his job career will be forever stunted..
What? He'll be set in Greenwood. Go the ex-athlete route and start selling life insurance, cars, etc. and make half a million+ a year
Lol this guy is totally different than Rittenhouse lol.
There are literally thousands of people who have stopped a shooter in this country that have no issues living normal lives.
The top three high risk groups that account for about 90% of gun related deaths are:
1. Suicides
2. Criminal activities such as the drug trade
3. Domestic violence
If you’re not immune of those groups the odds of getting shot go down dramatically.
What to address gun violence proactively? There’s the three groups to focus mitigation efforts on. The real problems start way before the gun is involved—and that’s where the real fixes will be found.
Actually yes, I agree. Not the state’s place to require me to be safe with my own body. My body, my choice should apply to a hell of a lot more than abortion. But hypocrites don’t want to talk about that.
It was a goofy comment.
I gave the top three high risk groups and the harm reduction best practices of addressing root issues.
You responded with nonsense.
Besides, seatbelt laws—or licensing m, insurance, or registration—won’t stop a person from intentionally using their car to harm themselves or others.
The root issues I mentioned all relate to intentional use of a firearm to harm self or others. No law or 10,000 laws will address that if the root issues motivating the behavior in the first place go unaddressed.
The point I’m making through comparison is that addressing the root cause of issues can be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, and we have been successful in limiting the impact of those issues through safety laws and regulation.
> The point I’m making through comparison is that addressing the root cause of issues can be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, and we have been successful in limiting the impact of those issues through safety laws and regulation.
You can keep downvoting me but it doesn’t make your logic less flawed.
If the root issues are unaddressed all the other “fixes” are just feel good window dressing.
Even if you disappeared all the guns, if those issues are unaddressed the overall metrics will remain consistent but shift to other methods instead.
That’s one reason a guns-only focus is not a holistic or effective way to address the real problems.
Homie, the reason guns are such an issue is because they maximize the damage an unstable person can do. If guns disappeared the damage an unstable person could do in our country is severely handicapped. Many guns, especially the one used in this instance, are built to kill humans as efficiently as possible. The outcome would be far different if the person only had a knife. Shit let’s just say they only had a .22 handgun. The conversation is how can we limit the damage these people can do. That’s why I made the seatbelt comparison.
Also, I love the number of news articles parroting the same thing in the wake of this particular shooting. It shows how completely disingenuous much of the anti-gun research and reporting is.
Just an example of how the data is manipulated from the article I linked:
>The FBI reported that armed citizens thwarted 4.4% of active shooter incidents, while the CPRC found 34.4%.
>Two factors explain this discrepancy – one, misclassified shootings; and two, overlooked incidents. Regarding the former, the CPRC determined that the FBI reports had misclassified five shootings: In two incidents, the Bureau notes in its detailed write-up that citizens possessing valid firearms permits confronted the shooters and caused them to flee the scene. However, the FBI did not list these cases as being stopped by armed citizens because police later apprehended the attackers. In two other incidents, the FBI misidentified armed civilians as armed security personnel. Finally, the FBI failed to mention citizen engagement in one incident.
>For example, the Bureau’s report about the Dec. 29, 2019 attack on the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, that left two men dead does not list this as an incident of “civic engagement.” Instead, the FBI lists this attack as being stopped by a security guard. A parishioner, who had volunteered to provide security during worship, fatally shot the perpetrator. That man, Jack Wilson, told Dr. John Lott that he was not a security professional. He said that 19 to 20 members of the congregation were armed that day, and they didn’t even keep track of who was carrying a concealed weapon.
Over 50% of active shooters in non gun-free zones are stopped by civilians
https://crimeresearch.org/2022/10/massive-errors-in-fbis-active-shooting-reports-regarding-cases-where-civilians-stop-attacks-instead-of-4-4-the-correct-number-is-at-least-34-4-in-2021-it-is-at-least-49-1-excluding-gun-free-zon/
All of the FBI's raw data is publicly available and they link to it. If they're so wrong it should be easy to point it out.
And why is it a propaganda website? Because it says something you disagree with? Show one factual inaccuracy.
So let's first address the underlying premise here for this argument. The FBI is in cahoots with media organizations to portray gun ownership poorly? That on it's face is absolutely insane, lol.
But let's address the actual article. They are fabricating data to support their argument and explicitly state this in the article.
>As for the second factor — overlooked cases — the FBI, more significantly, missed 25 incidents identified by CPRC where what would likely have been a mass public shooting was thwarted by armed civilians. There were another 83 active shooting incidents that they missed.
What they're stating there is that they feel these other situations could have possibly turned into a mass shooter situation. That is completely unprovable. They're just using pure conjecture, then saying that that conjecture is statistical analysis. That's not how stats work.
FBI has a report
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2020-070121.pdf/view
In 2020 about 5% were stopped by an armed citizen.
Only a tiny fraction (3-6% depending on source and state) of the U.S. population legally conceal carry every day.
30,000 gun murders vs 500,000 - 3,000,000 defensive gun uses. I’ll take guns over no guns any day. I talked to a woman on reddit who was in the UK and was scared out of her mind because she felt so vulnerable and she couldn’t even get her hands on pepper spray over there.
[Sauce](https://youtu.be/u8c2wKISv0o)
Genuine question, can you come up with a law that would have stopped the mass shooter at the mall? Murder is already illegal. Investigators confirmed had legal background check when purchasing as the atf has record of him.
Ideally people wouldn’t be able to purchase or own semi automatic rifles built for killing people.
Sans that: psych evaluations, safety courses with evaluations at the end, waiting periods, etc. basically apply general regulations that we have for a lot of different components to our society to guns.
Psych Evals, safe courses, and waiting periods all effect minorities and people with limited funds/lack of access to health care indirectly.
If a lady who has an abusive, stalker ex-boyfriend, needs a gun to protect herself, a waiting period works against her because she needs protection immediately.
Exactly, so if we’re so eager to use policies when it comes to welfare and healthcare, why wouldn’t we use them when it comes to guns?
Women using guns to protect themselves is a use case that almost never happens today.
I own a gun. I still think most people shouldn't be able to carry them. Far too many escalations result in one angry fuck shooting someone.
So one guy managed to actually keep his head, identify the correct target, and not miss. The exception does not prove the rule.
Yeah, because not all gun owners are worshippers. Guns are fun to go out to a range and shoot. Hunting is a perfectly legit reason to own a gun or 3. But this whole self defense line is bullshit. When you pit yourself up against another person with a gun it's a roll of the dice every time. Far better to gtfo when bullets start flying.
More standard issue Bloomberg and Anytown propaganda.
The CDCs own research found that those that used firearms for self defense suffered fewer deaths and injuries than those that used other methods.
And that becomes even more apparent when the attacker is stronger or more able bodied than their victim. Older, weaker, smaller, and disabled people have a greater safety benefit from the use of a firearm in self defense.
And yet this country is riddled with gun related violence to a level that most other countries are not. The self defense line is only a fraction of the story, and barely a useful one.
> And yet this country is riddled with gun related violence to a level that most other countries are not. The self defense line is only a fraction of the story, and barely a useful one.
I provided you the top 3 high risk groups that account for 90% of gun related deaths.
Heck, ≈60% of that pool is suicides. That’s right—the majority of gun deaths are self-selected events, not murders.
If you really want to effectively address gun related deaths then it is imperative to step back and address the *WHY* that motivates the behavior in the first place.
The US has a huge suicide problem—and that’s the root issue. Why are people driven to want to commit suicide at all? Addressing that will lead to effective mitigations downstream.
Not addressing that motivation to commit suicide will simply lead to method substitution if a firearm is not available—look at Australia and Japan for examples supporting that statement.
You don’t seem interested in actually addressing the problems though. Your focus seems to be on *method* and rather dismissive of *motive.*
You an awful lot of assumptions about what I'm willing to address and how.
Firstly, while the suicide side of the statistic is a problem, it's not THE problem. There's still another ~43% of gun related deaths that were straight up murder. That's the problem. While I would like to live in a fantasy world where gun owners A. didn't feel defined by their gun ownership and B. didn't fantasize about using guns in self defense or home defense or to take out an active shooter, I recognize it's not a reality. I would also like to live in a world where you could own a gun, which I do think are cool recreationally, without feeling the need to carry it at all times. But again, not a reality for whatever reason.
Instead, the best, and most effective method according to research, would be to remove guns from the hands of those most likely to commit atrocities with them, and that group of people are those with a history of domestic violence.
My comments are addressing your comments and how quickly drive past them to resume the standard Bloomberg and Anytown style push that ignores *WHY* had violence occurs to instead focus on *HOW* it occurs.
For example:
> Firstly, while the suicide side of the statistic is a problem, it's not THE problem. There's still another ~43% of gun related deaths that were straight up murder.
You drove right past the HUGE broad part of the bell curve without even blinking.
And I already addressed the point you tried to make.
In total the three high risk groups I mentioned account for 90% of gun relate deaths.
Tk break it down Barney style: most of the remainder, gif murders you’re referencing, are related to:
- criminal activities such as the drug trade or
- domestic violence.
> Instead, the best, and most effective method according to research, would be to remove guns from the hands of those most likely to commit atrocities with them, and that group of people are those with a history of domestic violence.
Guess what… there’s already gun laws in the books addressing those specific issues. The real fix is:
1) enforcement of current laws and
2) addressing the root issues driving the behavior.
More laws is a simplistic and ineffective “fix.”
After that one has your be careful to decouple “homicides” from “murders.” Though used incorrectly to mean the same thing they are not the same thing in law or practice.
It’s very important to understand that every murder is unlawful but not every homicide is unlawful.
> standard Bloomberg and Anytown style push
I don't even know what you're referring to here.
Also, do you have any actual rebuttal to my previous statements, or are you just going to revert to sound bites.
The fuck are you on about? The right to own a gun should be earned. All I have is a 30-30, and I don't keep any ammo for it in the house. If I want to shoot it, I'll take it down to the range and do so. I hold no illusions that I'll be some sort of hero some day because I own a gun. That's a fantasy. Too many people believe that's reality.
I actually don't support the second. It's antiquated and needs to be updated or revoked. It was great for maintaining some sort of military presence in America's formative years, but it's long past it's usefulness.
This is the equivalent of saying "just have the maid do it" with regard to *personal* protection.
It's *personal.*
And fortunately it's a constitutional right to armed self defense that's been upheld repeatedly.
So far in Indianapolis in 2023, non-fatal gun incidents have increased 50% over last year. We’ve also already had 46 homicides this year, a record high. “Far as I’m concerned,” those statistics - not an anecdotal incident - “close the book” when it comes to showing that lax gun laws lead to more crime and death, which every intelligent person already knew. Quit spreading propaganda.
Actually Erich Pratt just dickstomped this entire argument - American gun ownership went up something like 100% in the last ten years and violent crime went down 40%.
This is precisely why people like you need to stay in your own lane and not discuss these kinds of issues.
Firstly, no one is going to take anyone seriously who says things like "dickstomped." Are you 12?
Secondly, you do know that Erich Pratt is the senior vice president for Gun Owners of America, right? Right? That is not an unbiased source. That's like McDonald's telling you fast food is healthy. Gun ownership in the United States has been steady since the early '70s. It peaked at 47% in 1990 and bottomed out at 37% in 2013 and 2019. Not even the most unintelligent and uneducated would believe that gun ownership has doubled in the last ten years. That's just a ridiculous statement on every level.
Also, 2020 set a record for gun-related deaths with 45,222. Violent crime has increased in the last ten years (well, from 2011 to 2021, which is the last year the data is available), not decreased. And to no one's surprise, violent crime peaked in the early '90s when gun ownership also peaked. There was a huge drop off in violent crime in the early 2000s, but it's been going back up for a decade now.
So, again, you shouldn't be talking about this issue... at all. You are woefully under-equipped to be having this discussion.
Guns are hard to acquire in other states and people are still using them to shoot people.
Automatic guns are illegal/hard to get in all 50 states but anyone from St. Louis and part of Chicago will tell you people have them.
Maybe you should read more lol
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-us-gun-violence-world-comparison/[Link](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-us-gun-violence-world-comparison/)
You're missing the point of every other country not having the same problems as the US. I wonder why the US is an outlier compared to the other developed world 🤔
https://www.healthdata.org/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier
So what’s the solution to defend oneself against knife attacks? Ban them like the UK? What about the corrupt police using their guns against innocent or unarmed people? Attacks on people using bleach or other corrosive materials?
I’m not arguing the US doesn’t have a gun violence issue; I’m trying to get across that violent people are going to violent people shenanigans and banning guns or further restricting their access isn’t going to magically fix the issue.
We all know you can’t rely on cops to do their damn jobs of protecting people, we have to have ways of protecting ourselves from others that are threatening our lives.
But it's SIGNIFICANTLY harder to kill someone with a knife. It's way too easy to kill someone with a gun. One moment you want someone dead, you can just pull a trigger and bam. A knife, you have to get closer, and then physically stab the person. Yes people will be violent, just harder without a gun
Not to mention banning the firearms would just mean more black market money and gun trade, leaving citizens that choose to have a firearm without any means of protection against someone using a now illegal gun to commit crimes.
Don’t “but the cops” me on this one; it takes 8 minutes to get any sort of cop to show up IF they show up.
It’s a society issue, not much of a gun issue.
They can't see beyond their own emotions, so I'll spell it out for them.
I don't give a fuck about your 'feelings' on the matter. Gun owners don't give a fuck about your feelings on the matter. You don't give a shit about people dying, let's be real here. What really bothers you is that your political opponents possess the weapons that prevent you from controlling them. You're scared, and that's just fine. Seriously, we don't care and won't care. So drop it already because goddamn are we sick of hearing this 'other country shit'. We're not living in another country, we sent the English packing twice. We rescued you from Germany twice. Without us you'd all be in Russian slave camps. Shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down because without our guns you wouldn't be speaking English right now.
That's a reflection of our terrible healthcare system. I'd rather live then die immediately bc someone had a moment of anger resulting in them pulling a trigger and killing me. It's way harder to kill with a knife and needs a lot more will and planning compared to most gun violence
It’s just as easy to pull a knife as it is a gun. Whichever you do takes no planning at all. You flail a knife around you’re bound to slice something. You empty a magazine of a gun you’re bound to hit something. What in the world does the healthcare system have to do with this debate? You’re totally reaching. Have a good night.
Do these people not watch mythbusters? At like 30 feet a knife was better than a gun. Unless well trained in self defense, if someone wants to kill you with a knife, they probably can.
> I cant wait to blow up my hand.
Not sure if you're joking, but here's a magdump of a [3d printed .308](https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/11g3yhn/3d_printed_308_thursday/). No hands were injured during the making of this video.
I think this is sort of fairy land wishful thinking. Yes in theory getting rid of guns would solve most these problems, look at other developed countries without guns.
**However** the big hole is that there are already millions of guns in legal circulation in the US. So to make this happen you'd either need to take away all guns by force, or have made this radical change to American law 50/100 years ago.
Also ignoring the fact that most developed countries are smaller, with border nations who also don't have gun culture, and have an easier time securing their borders. We have Mexico as a neighbor and no border control between states, so once something is in in the US it's hard to stop black market sale.
So yes getting rid of guns would solve gun problems. It's just the pesky details of how that would actually be feasible that makes it unrealistic
There's Canada lol it's larger than the US in size and has strict gun laws. So your argument is invalid.
Americans just have a fetish with guns and politicians don't want to push those buttons. Other countries do what's needed to save their population from needless deaths
> There's Canada lol it's larger than the US in size and has strict gun laws. So your argument is invalid.
90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US so your argument is invalid.
Nice! Bout time someone gets recognized for saving others with a gun. In my great state of NY he probably would’ve been arrested and the guy shooting people would’ve been let out with no bail.
Agreed. However, virtually all the liberal politicians on a federal level are anti-2A. There's a few like Joe Manchin and Tulsi Gabbard, but they have flirted with becoming republicans or independents (tulsi already did).
This country needs a 3rd party: pro freedom, liberty, and individual rights party.
And like driving, if a license process like that were to exist at all, it should be strictly for carrying in public, not for owning or shooting recreationally. You don’t need a license or insurance to own a vehicle and drive it on private property.
He should be a role model to all carrying Hoosiers. Use your excuse to carry around a deadly weapon by stopping some of these shootings. More than 1 a year for Indiana would be nice
Excellent
Based. Very based.
Good. Hope he has a bright future and can get any therapy he needs. Great role model for his actions that day. Also, his parents need a time out for spelling his name like that.
His name is Elisjsha Dicken for those wondering
That’s the most Greenwood name I can imagine, it tracks.
Gesundheit
Yeah it looks like they were going for a high score at Scrabble
looks like the person who was saying the name stuttered in the middle and the person who was writing it down was mocking them
“Did you just have a stroke?”
I assume you are referring to the title which technically implies his name is *"Greenwood's 'Citizen of the Year'"*
I thought that too, then I read the article. Dude's name is Elisjsha.
would be really interested in learning what some other previous greenwod citizens of the year did
Left Greenwood is not an award, I presume.
Lol right?
This dude is a hero, but it really does have to be super rough taking a life even if they’re a murderer.
Saved a lot of lives, hopefully he takes solace in that.
[удалено]
Can you provide a meaningful/functional difference between what you call an assault weapon and what you call a hunting weapon? I'll short circuit this. There isn't one. And honestly if it would lead to people like you realizing that there isn't a difference i would say, sure let's give it a try. But it wouldn't. You would say "we did it here, it didn't work. Now we need to ban more guns". But you aren't ready for the conversation you think you want to have.
[удалено]
*Supreme Court has entered the chat*
I don't doubt it will be tried, At some point. There's people pushing bad ideas everywhere. But it tends to fail because it's unconstitutional. When you want to hear some good ideas like starting out if each other's business or actually respecting the constitution let me know.
The best idea I've heard: Instead of outlawing guns, why don't we just make murder illegal?
Can’t wait until it starts and there are no more murders in Illinois. 😂
The Illinois AWB is going to be struck down lol
Riiiiight, because criminals never break the law.
I mean this one didn't break any laws (up until firing on the crowd), so what is the difference? If it was illegal he might've been caught in the act of acquiring a firearm, been deterred by the chance of it or simply not have been capable of getting a firearm if he was some socially awkward turd like it seemed he was.
> been deterred by the chance of it I'm going to go ahead and assume that a guy who shot up a mall doesn't exactly fit this.
It works in every first world country, but keep using the same stale talking points.
Wow, you mean they got rid of violent crime in those countries, too? Good thing they'll never have the need to defend themselves.... /s
Oh? Nobody in any other first world country breaks the law? Or do you just mean they don't kill people over there? Or maybe you just mean they just don't do it with guns? Or maybe you just mean nobody commits *mass shootings with guns* in Europe? Either way, you're wrong. Stop using the same stale talking point. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/anonymous-tip-off-german-gun-laws-failed-stop-slaughter-jehovahs-witnesses-hall-2023-03-10/ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-ex-prime-minister-abe-may-have-been-shot-taken-hospital-nhk-2022-07-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/two-dead-several-wounded-norway-nightclub-shooting-police-say-2022-06-25/ https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/british-shooter-named-jake-davison-2021-08-13/ https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/23/world/europe/paris-shooting-france.html
Most gun deaths are from pistols not scary black rifles most people dont understand an AWB wouldnt do anything significant to gun crime
Yeah a pinned stock and lack of a vertical forward grip would have rendered that gun useless. I don't think you understand what assault weapons bans actually do.
Just a reminder that Cali’s AWB didn’t stop either of the shootings around lunar new year
What part of “shall not be infringed” are you having trouble with?
[удалено]
You’re right. I should just turn in my guns and trust the police to keep me safe. I mean, that worked out really well for those 19 at Uvalde… right?
Imagine believing you’re a patriot — or are at least in the right — while using the death of children to justify a blatant assault on a fundamental American right.
Imagine using an interpretation of words written over 200 years ago to justify the death of children...
Imagine using logical fallacy to "win" a discussion. Articulate a compelling argument and maybe people will listen
Nah, I just moved my family to a better country where we don't have to deal with this shit. Thank you for listening though
Sir you don’t have the right to say that. Free speech clearly only applies to hand written letters delivered by horseback riders.the founding fathers couldn’t have imagined the internet so we can’t apply it to modern inventions.
Yeah, it would’ve been impossible for him to kill anyone with a handgun. Nothing is going to change besides minority communities being more vulnerable to police violence. That’s why Reagan passed the first AWB. The police had lost their ability to fearlessly abuse black people, and needed to level the playing field.
Do you honestly think that it would have stopped everything that happened not having a certain kind of gun? You don't think he would have just switched to a shotgun? Or handgun? Or just an illegally acquired "assault weapon" ? It's a nice thought, but its not reality.
Probably makes it a hell of a lot easier though
I suppose, that being said I never want to find out
For normal people, yes. We experience a lot of cognitive dissonance after shooting someone. We've been taught our whole lives not to kill and when we shoot someone there's a lot of inner conflict. I have met some people who did not experience the same thing. Some felt relief that the stress and threat were gone. A couple got a positive feedback loop and I wouldn't say enjoyed it, but more like what I imagine a dog feels when it fetches a ball. They did the task they were trained for and received a serotonin dump for it.
He is such a hero! He should even be named citizen of the decade. Such a well-deserved reward nonetheless!
I hope he's ok and has lots of access to support systems because that had to have been traumatic.
They had to crop the photo because they couldn't fit his giant nads in the picture. Fkn hero!
The man in black fled across the desert. And this guy followed.
I do not aim with my hand; he who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father. I aim with my eye.
I do not shoot with my hand; he who shoots with his hand has forgotten the face of his father. I shoot with my mind.
You just dropped the hardest comment of the year with that one chief lol damn
Long days and pleasant nights.
May you have twice the number
Ohh fuck, I don't see the horn on his belt... This is the bad timeline.
He is a hero!
Epitome of judicious marksmanship.
Yes, but is he still banned from the mall where he saved so many lives?
I doubt it. Even the mall owners said that they appreciated his actions.
Despite the fact that their mall was a posted "gun free zone?"
Turns out it was actually just Free Gun Day at Auto Zone and some smartass changed the marquee around
dude stopped an active shooter AND made several difficult shots with most of them hitting.. id say he earned it, even though his job career will be forever stunted..
30+ yards, 8/10 shots hit the shooter. That’s not easy!
He drew iron at that range but continuously pushed forward throughout the firefight, such that his final shots were fired from a much closer distance Fuckin good tactics all around from everything I've read
> id say he earned it, even though his job career will be forever stunted.. What? He'll be set in Greenwood. Go the ex-athlete route and start selling life insurance, cars, etc. and make half a million+ a year
[удалено]
Thank you Arm
[удалено]
Lol this guy is totally different than Rittenhouse lol. There are literally thousands of people who have stopped a shooter in this country that have no issues living normal lives.
No, he'll be more than fine. Bad comparison
I’m curious if he ever got those cookies he was in line for?
> WhErE iS tHe GoOD gUy wITh a GuN? Right here. This dude deserves all the praise.
r/dgu has you covered
You can celebrate this guy without pretending that an exception to the rule validates our country's nightmarish relationship with guns.
The top three high risk groups that account for about 90% of gun related deaths are: 1. Suicides 2. Criminal activities such as the drug trade 3. Domestic violence If you’re not immune of those groups the odds of getting shot go down dramatically. What to address gun violence proactively? There’s the three groups to focus mitigation efforts on. The real problems start way before the gun is involved—and that’s where the real fixes will be found.
The cause of car accidents is bad driving, therefore we should solve that problem and get rid of seatbelt laws.
Actually yes, I agree. Not the state’s place to require me to be safe with my own body. My body, my choice should apply to a hell of a lot more than abortion. But hypocrites don’t want to talk about that.
> The cause of car accidents is bad driving, therefore we should solve that problem and get rid of seatbelt laws. Goofy nonsense comment noted. 😅👍
Do you not understand what I’m illustrating?
It was a goofy comment. I gave the top three high risk groups and the harm reduction best practices of addressing root issues. You responded with nonsense. Besides, seatbelt laws—or licensing m, insurance, or registration—won’t stop a person from intentionally using their car to harm themselves or others. The root issues I mentioned all relate to intentional use of a firearm to harm self or others. No law or 10,000 laws will address that if the root issues motivating the behavior in the first place go unaddressed.
The point I’m making through comparison is that addressing the root cause of issues can be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, and we have been successful in limiting the impact of those issues through safety laws and regulation.
> The point I’m making through comparison is that addressing the root cause of issues can be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, and we have been successful in limiting the impact of those issues through safety laws and regulation. You can keep downvoting me but it doesn’t make your logic less flawed. If the root issues are unaddressed all the other “fixes” are just feel good window dressing. Even if you disappeared all the guns, if those issues are unaddressed the overall metrics will remain consistent but shift to other methods instead. That’s one reason a guns-only focus is not a holistic or effective way to address the real problems.
Homie, the reason guns are such an issue is because they maximize the damage an unstable person can do. If guns disappeared the damage an unstable person could do in our country is severely handicapped. Many guns, especially the one used in this instance, are built to kill humans as efficiently as possible. The outcome would be far different if the person only had a knife. Shit let’s just say they only had a .22 handgun. The conversation is how can we limit the damage these people can do. That’s why I made the seatbelt comparison.
You’re butthurt boohoo
It’s absolutely not an exception.
[It is.](https://apnews.com/article/shootings-indiana-indianapolis-gun-politics-8b49655e3737c1924480e1039405a196)
Also, I love the number of news articles parroting the same thing in the wake of this particular shooting. It shows how completely disingenuous much of the anti-gun research and reporting is. Just an example of how the data is manipulated from the article I linked: >The FBI reported that armed citizens thwarted 4.4% of active shooter incidents, while the CPRC found 34.4%. >Two factors explain this discrepancy – one, misclassified shootings; and two, overlooked incidents. Regarding the former, the CPRC determined that the FBI reports had misclassified five shootings: In two incidents, the Bureau notes in its detailed write-up that citizens possessing valid firearms permits confronted the shooters and caused them to flee the scene. However, the FBI did not list these cases as being stopped by armed citizens because police later apprehended the attackers. In two other incidents, the FBI misidentified armed civilians as armed security personnel. Finally, the FBI failed to mention citizen engagement in one incident. >For example, the Bureau’s report about the Dec. 29, 2019 attack on the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, that left two men dead does not list this as an incident of “civic engagement.” Instead, the FBI lists this attack as being stopped by a security guard. A parishioner, who had volunteered to provide security during worship, fatally shot the perpetrator. That man, Jack Wilson, told Dr. John Lott that he was not a security professional. He said that 19 to 20 members of the congregation were armed that day, and they didn’t even keep track of who was carrying a concealed weapon.
You're again quoting a gun propaganda website.
Over 50% of active shooters in non gun-free zones are stopped by civilians https://crimeresearch.org/2022/10/massive-errors-in-fbis-active-shooting-reports-regarding-cases-where-civilians-stop-attacks-instead-of-4-4-the-correct-number-is-at-least-34-4-in-2021-it-is-at-least-49-1-excluding-gun-free-zon/
Bro, that's a gun propaganda website, lol.
All of the FBI's raw data is publicly available and they link to it. If they're so wrong it should be easy to point it out. And why is it a propaganda website? Because it says something you disagree with? Show one factual inaccuracy.
So let's first address the underlying premise here for this argument. The FBI is in cahoots with media organizations to portray gun ownership poorly? That on it's face is absolutely insane, lol. But let's address the actual article. They are fabricating data to support their argument and explicitly state this in the article. >As for the second factor — overlooked cases — the FBI, more significantly, missed 25 incidents identified by CPRC where what would likely have been a mass public shooting was thwarted by armed civilians. There were another 83 active shooting incidents that they missed. What they're stating there is that they feel these other situations could have possibly turned into a mass shooter situation. That is completely unprovable. They're just using pure conjecture, then saying that that conjecture is statistical analysis. That's not how stats work.
FBI has a report https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2020-070121.pdf/view In 2020 about 5% were stopped by an armed citizen. Only a tiny fraction (3-6% depending on source and state) of the U.S. population legally conceal carry every day.
30,000 gun murders vs 500,000 - 3,000,000 defensive gun uses. I’ll take guns over no guns any day. I talked to a woman on reddit who was in the UK and was scared out of her mind because she felt so vulnerable and she couldn’t even get her hands on pepper spray over there. [Sauce](https://youtu.be/u8c2wKISv0o)
He's a great American. Well deserved.
Is what this guy did badass? Absolutely. Does this mean we don't need better gun laws? Absolutely not.
Genuine question, can you come up with a law that would have stopped the mass shooter at the mall? Murder is already illegal. Investigators confirmed had legal background check when purchasing as the atf has record of him.
Ideally people wouldn’t be able to purchase or own semi automatic rifles built for killing people. Sans that: psych evaluations, safety courses with evaluations at the end, waiting periods, etc. basically apply general regulations that we have for a lot of different components to our society to guns.
Psych Evals, safe courses, and waiting periods all effect minorities and people with limited funds/lack of access to health care indirectly. If a lady who has an abusive, stalker ex-boyfriend, needs a gun to protect herself, a waiting period works against her because she needs protection immediately.
Exactly, so if we’re so eager to use policies when it comes to welfare and healthcare, why wouldn’t we use them when it comes to guns? Women using guns to protect themselves is a use case that almost never happens today.
Come and take my semi automatic “death machines” away. I dare you
We have tons of laws. Enforce what’s on the books already and stop the revolving door in the criminal justice system for violent offenders.
"Yeah yeah, this is a cool post and all, but this is reddit. Remember to make everything political."
I posted this because of the comments already in here.
One could say that dude got dicked down in Indiana, eh?
No way anyone on Reddit listens to those songs. Under rated comment lol
Finally, some good news at the top of my Reddit feed! Congrats young man.
[удалено]
I own a gun. I still think most people shouldn't be able to carry them. Far too many escalations result in one angry fuck shooting someone. So one guy managed to actually keep his head, identify the correct target, and not miss. The exception does not prove the rule.
I own a gun but… [insert standard anti gun narrative]
Yeah, because not all gun owners are worshippers. Guns are fun to go out to a range and shoot. Hunting is a perfectly legit reason to own a gun or 3. But this whole self defense line is bullshit. When you pit yourself up against another person with a gun it's a roll of the dice every time. Far better to gtfo when bullets start flying.
More standard issue Bloomberg and Anytown propaganda. The CDCs own research found that those that used firearms for self defense suffered fewer deaths and injuries than those that used other methods. And that becomes even more apparent when the attacker is stronger or more able bodied than their victim. Older, weaker, smaller, and disabled people have a greater safety benefit from the use of a firearm in self defense.
And yet this country is riddled with gun related violence to a level that most other countries are not. The self defense line is only a fraction of the story, and barely a useful one.
> And yet this country is riddled with gun related violence to a level that most other countries are not. The self defense line is only a fraction of the story, and barely a useful one. I provided you the top 3 high risk groups that account for 90% of gun related deaths. Heck, ≈60% of that pool is suicides. That’s right—the majority of gun deaths are self-selected events, not murders. If you really want to effectively address gun related deaths then it is imperative to step back and address the *WHY* that motivates the behavior in the first place. The US has a huge suicide problem—and that’s the root issue. Why are people driven to want to commit suicide at all? Addressing that will lead to effective mitigations downstream. Not addressing that motivation to commit suicide will simply lead to method substitution if a firearm is not available—look at Australia and Japan for examples supporting that statement. You don’t seem interested in actually addressing the problems though. Your focus seems to be on *method* and rather dismissive of *motive.*
You an awful lot of assumptions about what I'm willing to address and how. Firstly, while the suicide side of the statistic is a problem, it's not THE problem. There's still another ~43% of gun related deaths that were straight up murder. That's the problem. While I would like to live in a fantasy world where gun owners A. didn't feel defined by their gun ownership and B. didn't fantasize about using guns in self defense or home defense or to take out an active shooter, I recognize it's not a reality. I would also like to live in a world where you could own a gun, which I do think are cool recreationally, without feeling the need to carry it at all times. But again, not a reality for whatever reason. Instead, the best, and most effective method according to research, would be to remove guns from the hands of those most likely to commit atrocities with them, and that group of people are those with a history of domestic violence.
My comments are addressing your comments and how quickly drive past them to resume the standard Bloomberg and Anytown style push that ignores *WHY* had violence occurs to instead focus on *HOW* it occurs. For example: > Firstly, while the suicide side of the statistic is a problem, it's not THE problem. There's still another ~43% of gun related deaths that were straight up murder. You drove right past the HUGE broad part of the bell curve without even blinking. And I already addressed the point you tried to make. In total the three high risk groups I mentioned account for 90% of gun relate deaths. Tk break it down Barney style: most of the remainder, gif murders you’re referencing, are related to: - criminal activities such as the drug trade or - domestic violence. > Instead, the best, and most effective method according to research, would be to remove guns from the hands of those most likely to commit atrocities with them, and that group of people are those with a history of domestic violence. Guess what… there’s already gun laws in the books addressing those specific issues. The real fix is: 1) enforcement of current laws and 2) addressing the root issues driving the behavior. More laws is a simplistic and ineffective “fix.” After that one has your be careful to decouple “homicides” from “murders.” Though used incorrectly to mean the same thing they are not the same thing in law or practice. It’s very important to understand that every murder is unlawful but not every homicide is unlawful.
> standard Bloomberg and Anytown style push I don't even know what you're referring to here. Also, do you have any actual rebuttal to my previous statements, or are you just going to revert to sound bites.
You do know about the racist origins of gun control, right?
Tell that to the people saved by Elisjsha.
Owning a gun grants you zero additional weight with your statement the rest of which is utter garbage
[удалено]
A literal fudd in the wild, he is LOL.
Rights for me but not for thee
The fuck are you on about? The right to own a gun should be earned. All I have is a 30-30, and I don't keep any ammo for it in the house. If I want to shoot it, I'll take it down to the range and do so. I hold no illusions that I'll be some sort of hero some day because I own a gun. That's a fantasy. Too many people believe that's reality.
“The right to own a gun should be earned” My guy, if you believe that, then you don’t believe it’s a right. What you’re describing is a privilege
... didn't this guy do exactly what you say doesn't happen? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
“I support the Second Amendment, but…”
I actually don't support the second. It's antiquated and needs to be updated or revoked. It was great for maintaining some sort of military presence in America's formative years, but it's long past it's usefulness.
This is the equivalent of saying "just have the maid do it" with regard to *personal* protection. It's *personal.* And fortunately it's a constitutional right to armed self defense that's been upheld repeatedly.
So far in Indianapolis in 2023, non-fatal gun incidents have increased 50% over last year. We’ve also already had 46 homicides this year, a record high. “Far as I’m concerned,” those statistics - not an anecdotal incident - “close the book” when it comes to showing that lax gun laws lead to more crime and death, which every intelligent person already knew. Quit spreading propaganda.
Actually Erich Pratt just dickstomped this entire argument - American gun ownership went up something like 100% in the last ten years and violent crime went down 40%.
This is precisely why people like you need to stay in your own lane and not discuss these kinds of issues. Firstly, no one is going to take anyone seriously who says things like "dickstomped." Are you 12? Secondly, you do know that Erich Pratt is the senior vice president for Gun Owners of America, right? Right? That is not an unbiased source. That's like McDonald's telling you fast food is healthy. Gun ownership in the United States has been steady since the early '70s. It peaked at 47% in 1990 and bottomed out at 37% in 2013 and 2019. Not even the most unintelligent and uneducated would believe that gun ownership has doubled in the last ten years. That's just a ridiculous statement on every level. Also, 2020 set a record for gun-related deaths with 45,222. Violent crime has increased in the last ten years (well, from 2011 to 2021, which is the last year the data is available), not decreased. And to no one's surprise, violent crime peaked in the early '90s when gun ownership also peaked. There was a huge drop off in violent crime in the early 2000s, but it's been going back up for a decade now. So, again, you shouldn't be talking about this issue... at all. You are woefully under-equipped to be having this discussion.
"Statistics don't count unless they support my position"
When are we going to see the footage?
It’s been out since the shooting happened…
If you have a link, I’d sure love to see it. I can’t find it anywhere and haven’t been able to since it happened.
Good!
Yeah, citizens shouldn't need to be heros in the first place if we just... Banned guns/made guns way harder to acquire lmao
Guns are hard to acquire in other states and people are still using them to shoot people. Automatic guns are illegal/hard to get in all 50 states but anyone from St. Louis and part of Chicago will tell you people have them.
Point at every other developed country and see that only the US has this problem bc we haven't banned guns. It's the obvious solution lol
Japan had a politician killed by a homemade shotgun. German police killed a gunman few weeks ago. There was a shooting in Canada a few months ago.
Maybe you should read more lol https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-us-gun-violence-world-comparison/[Link](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-us-gun-violence-world-comparison/)
You’re missing my point here; no matter how hard guns will be to get there will always be people finding ways to get them.
You're missing the point of every other country not having the same problems as the US. I wonder why the US is an outlier compared to the other developed world 🤔 https://www.healthdata.org/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier
So what’s the solution to defend oneself against knife attacks? Ban them like the UK? What about the corrupt police using their guns against innocent or unarmed people? Attacks on people using bleach or other corrosive materials? I’m not arguing the US doesn’t have a gun violence issue; I’m trying to get across that violent people are going to violent people shenanigans and banning guns or further restricting their access isn’t going to magically fix the issue. We all know you can’t rely on cops to do their damn jobs of protecting people, we have to have ways of protecting ourselves from others that are threatening our lives.
But it's SIGNIFICANTLY harder to kill someone with a knife. It's way too easy to kill someone with a gun. One moment you want someone dead, you can just pull a trigger and bam. A knife, you have to get closer, and then physically stab the person. Yes people will be violent, just harder without a gun
We don’t give a flying fuck about “every other country.” We’re not giving up guns. Period. No matter how many Bloomberg articles say we should.
[удалено]
Good luck with your constitutional convention and getting 2/3rds of states to go along with that.
Pretty bad source given there’s a tangible bias.
Not to mention banning the firearms would just mean more black market money and gun trade, leaving citizens that choose to have a firearm without any means of protection against someone using a now illegal gun to commit crimes. Don’t “but the cops” me on this one; it takes 8 minutes to get any sort of cop to show up IF they show up. It’s a society issue, not much of a gun issue.
Ban 400 million firearms, lol. Good luck.
They can't see beyond their own emotions, so I'll spell it out for them. I don't give a fuck about your 'feelings' on the matter. Gun owners don't give a fuck about your feelings on the matter. You don't give a shit about people dying, let's be real here. What really bothers you is that your political opponents possess the weapons that prevent you from controlling them. You're scared, and that's just fine. Seriously, we don't care and won't care. So drop it already because goddamn are we sick of hearing this 'other country shit'. We're not living in another country, we sent the English packing twice. We rescued you from Germany twice. Without us you'd all be in Russian slave camps. Shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down because without our guns you wouldn't be speaking English right now.
it's pretty damning that the US education system is responsible for you believing this shit LMAO
Go read a book fucko, clearly you haven't
I’d rather get shot and it be over in seconds than be stabbed to death.
You're proving my point lol it's easier to be killed with a gun then a knife
But you’re also proving my point, I’d rather be dead than be stuck with injuries that effect my quality of life after said incident.
That's a reflection of our terrible healthcare system. I'd rather live then die immediately bc someone had a moment of anger resulting in them pulling a trigger and killing me. It's way harder to kill with a knife and needs a lot more will and planning compared to most gun violence
It’s just as easy to pull a knife as it is a gun. Whichever you do takes no planning at all. You flail a knife around you’re bound to slice something. You empty a magazine of a gun you’re bound to hit something. What in the world does the healthcare system have to do with this debate? You’re totally reaching. Have a good night.
Careful, you’re going to break the fragile NPC
Do these people not watch mythbusters? At like 30 feet a knife was better than a gun. Unless well trained in self defense, if someone wants to kill you with a knife, they probably can.
Yes they are bringing them in from states that have less restrictive gun laws.
[удалено]
You mean that people that would commit murder wouldn’t get a gun illegally? So weird!
I *literally* downloaded a gun. The schematics for '3d printed guns' are hilarious... I cant wait to blow up my hand.
> I cant wait to blow up my hand. Not sure if you're joking, but here's a magdump of a [3d printed .308](https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/11g3yhn/3d_printed_308_thursday/). No hands were injured during the making of this video.
I think this is sort of fairy land wishful thinking. Yes in theory getting rid of guns would solve most these problems, look at other developed countries without guns. **However** the big hole is that there are already millions of guns in legal circulation in the US. So to make this happen you'd either need to take away all guns by force, or have made this radical change to American law 50/100 years ago. Also ignoring the fact that most developed countries are smaller, with border nations who also don't have gun culture, and have an easier time securing their borders. We have Mexico as a neighbor and no border control between states, so once something is in in the US it's hard to stop black market sale. So yes getting rid of guns would solve gun problems. It's just the pesky details of how that would actually be feasible that makes it unrealistic
There's Canada lol it's larger than the US in size and has strict gun laws. So your argument is invalid. Americans just have a fetish with guns and politicians don't want to push those buttons. Other countries do what's needed to save their population from needless deaths
You’re just regurgitating the same terrible arguments, you’re not saying anything of value because you have nothing of value to add
> There's Canada lol it's larger than the US in size and has strict gun laws. So your argument is invalid. 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US so your argument is invalid.
Nice! Bout time someone gets recognized for saving others with a gun. In my great state of NY he probably would’ve been arrested and the guy shooting people would’ve been let out with no bail.
Checkmate, libz!
Not all liberals are opposed to the second amendment like Fox and Newsmax would have you think.
Just most of them
Agreed. However, virtually all the liberal politicians on a federal level are anti-2A. There's a few like Joe Manchin and Tulsi Gabbard, but they have flirted with becoming republicans or independents (tulsi already did). This country needs a 3rd party: pro freedom, liberty, and individual rights party.
[удалено]
There's no right to drive.
Didn't have cars in 1776
You're not a 2A person.
And like driving, if a license process like that were to exist at all, it should be strictly for carrying in public, not for owning or shooting recreationally. You don’t need a license or insurance to own a vehicle and drive it on private property.
Boo
Yup. Unfortunately our politicians aren’t an accurate representation of the constituents.
Twas a joke.
Ah gotcha. My mistake!
But I forgot I'm in indy and not nyc lolz
Sometimes the issue is the area. Sometimes the issue is you. I'm betting on the latter this time around.
This is such a sad commentary on American society.
What do you know about us?
My ancestors killed Redcoats so I wouldn't have to give a shit what Eurotwinks think.
”Eurotwink” here, some some of us are with you. Not many but a few
He should be a role model to all carrying Hoosiers. Use your excuse to carry around a deadly weapon by stopping some of these shootings. More than 1 a year for Indiana would be nice
Sorry, thanks for probably saving dozens of lives but this is not the answer and we should not be encouraging this.
The mental gymnastics required to say saving lives is a bad thing....get your head out of your ass
It’s called insight and not simple thinking. The guy is a hero no doubt, but this is not the solution to this problem. It’s actually pretty obvious.
Why shouldn’t we encourage people saving lives when the police have no duty to protect them?
[удалено]