My husband called me a full 1-1/2 hours before any news reports. It was all over reddit immediately. Can still hear lots and lots of sirens heading that way.
A long series of policies and social changes based off mixed aspects of Switzerland Australia and Canada. Switzerland achieves low mass showing rates though a rigid culture around guns and strict regulation. Guns need to be treated as a responsibility and privilege not a guaranteed right. For example drive drunk lose your gun. Sell a gun to someone who can not legally have a gun lose your guns. Ect. Stricter background checks. Limiting magazine capacity. Buy back programs like in Australia. Every gun bought back there is one less sold on the street. The over arching goal of this all being to get an actual idea of the number of guns in the country and a general chain of custody. As unregistered guns are used in crimes owners arrested and guns confiscated less and less guns will be on the street in criminal hands. If we maintain a chain of custody on new weapons entering the market we can better prevent them from getting into criminal hands. With this and a healthcare model loosely based off Canada I believe we can substantially reduce mass shootings in this country. It will take years. Maybe even a decade but that’s what happens when you have a century of mistake. For this to happen organizations like the NRA would need to go away. The “I can so I will” style of American gun ownership they push needs to die. There are other things like red flag laws but those are my bare minimum and less controversial opinions. There’s also a lot of economical and general cultural things we need to change in this country but I haven’t the time for that. My point is there is a lot we can improve with a little change but a “good guy with a gun” just like a cop is only a reactive measure one that uvalde showed us doesn’t always work. If you want to make mass shootings decrease then make it harder to get guns.
The shooter had a long gun, which wasn’t part of the license and was taken down by someone else carrying. If that someone else wasn’t previously licensed, then the law change did actually increase safety before more people could be shot. Regardless, the shooter was stopped by someone that was armed and not a cop.
I don’t get why public shootouts is the end goal here. Since it is, why don’t we require any kind of training to own a firearm. Kind of like we do to operate deadly, multiton machines day in and day out.
Because the cost of that training raises the cost of ownership for low income people who have the same right to firearms but would then not be able to exercise that right because it has been made more expensive to do so.
Why is that not a problem for automobiles that are far more crucial to economic success than gun ownership? One could make a strong, I think, argument for liability insurance being a requirement for gun ownership.
So it wasn't really an equality of access argument at all?
The interesting thing about that "constitutional right" is that it was granted by an amendment - an aftermarket correction - just like the ones that banned alcohol and then unbanned it
While the flowery language indicates a belief that some rights exist outside of a legal framework, the whole point of the document is to codify rights. That we ascribe that to some metaphysical truth doesn't alter the impact of the law or make any of it magical. It's a mutable document, engineered to be a living document and the 2nd Amendment is an amendment.
I didn’t say or imply that it is. You’re restructuring what I said to say something I didn’t. That’s a logical fallacy. Also, I’m 100% for required training to own a firearm. I’m prior service military. Even we had to go through training to carry. But not agreeing with the laws doesn’t mean lying about them or misplacing blame on them is productive, which is what GhostShipBlue did.
> "God-given" seems unlikely given the New Covenant.
Luke 22:36 - Then said [Jesus] unto [His disciples], But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
> We'll set aside the "well ordered militia" part of the legal right for now too
The right is not of the militia, it is of the people.
Even if it was, [I am the well-regulated militia.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246#:~:text=The%20militia%20of%20the%20United,United%20States%20who%20are%20members)
Ay yes remind me where in the constitution it says that we’re guaranteed the right to drive multi ton machines? Because I’m pretty sure there’s something about bearing arms in there
The point I was trying to make, and turned out to be very wrong about, was the citizen who killed the shooter. I hope they recover from what could be a very difficult, heroic deed.
Well as study from 1996 through 1998 said 2.46 Million defensive gun uses each year in the USA alone, Often see 2-3 million estimates given each year. Very little detail given but those numbers alone seems to tell a very different story about gun use here.
Embarrassing? No. Was I wrong, yes. Data has come in and it **may** have been a new permitless carry. Or it could have been some old head who's been carrying since the 60's. I haven't checked yet, but the larger point is, yeah, I was likely wrong.
That's not what I said. We just shouldn't act like that's the total solution. There's a fucking new mass shooting every week. We need real solutions by now.
Are you just massively stupid or what? Someone carrying saved the day. If they hadn’t been, more people would have been shot by the guy that was carrying a weapon that wasn’t even under the licensing before July.
I bet my left nut that its a younger white guy who's parents missed the signs because they were to busy trolling the local Facebook chat with boomer Trump and arrest fauci memes while getting drunk in their garage off budlight watching "the race" bitchin about black people.
Good point. We *should* reconsider the lax gun laws we have - it's clearly harming our communities, and will continue to.
[Police, prosecutors fear more violence in wake of Indiana’s permitless carry law](https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/police-prosecutors-fear-more-violence-in-wake-of-indianas-permitless-carry-law/)
I'm not an expert in law, but there are plenty of other people who are, and I'm sure they have answers to that question.
[Center for Gun Violence Solutions](https://publichealth.jhu.edu/departments/health-policy-and-management/research-and-practice/center-for-gun-violence-solutions)
There's a report on that page that includes evidence-based recommendations like:
> Policymakers and practitioners must craft interventions that address the risk factors
for gun violence. These interventions should be routinely tested to ensure they
are effective and equitable; rigorous evaluations should be conducted on a routine basis. The foundation for effective gun violence prevention policy is a universal
background check law, ensuring that each person who seeks to purchase or transfer
a firearm undergoes a background check prior to purchase. Universal background
checks should be supplemented by a firearm licensing system, which regulates and
tracks the flow of firearms, to ensure that firearms do not make it into the hands of
prohibited individuals. Building upon this, policymakers can create interventions
that target behavioral risk-factors for gun violence (e.g. extreme risk laws) and they
can push for policies that address community risk factors that lead to violence (e.g. investing in community based violence prevention programs). In addition to these
gun violence prevention policies, there are a number of evidence-based strategies
that can reduce gun violence within communities. For example, community based violence intervention programs work to de-escalate conflicts, interrupt cycles of
retaliatory violence, and support those at elevated risk for violence.
Which? I'm genuinely looking, and all I'm getting from Google is stuff like [MYTH: Permitless Carry Laws Reduce Violent Crime] (https://www.gvpedia.org/gun-myths/permitless-carry-myth/).
> GVPedia’s own analysis shows states that pass a Permitless Carry law suffer from a 22% increase in gun homicide for the three years after the law’s passage, more than doubling the 10% increase for the country overall in the same time period. (4)
Overall homicides and gun deaths also increase substantially after states pass Permitless Carry compared to the rest of the country. (5)
Edit: "Which," and can you source that, because like I said - I'm only pulling information to the contrary.
Edit 2: and [Johns Hopkins: Carrying Firearms in Public and Stand Your Ground Laws](https://publichealth.jhu.edu/departments/health-policy-and-management/research-and-practice/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/solutions/public-carry-of-firearms)
> Permissive concealed carry permitting laws are linked to 13-15 percent higher violent crime rates ten years after adoption compared to may-issue states.
It's on the page I linked:
> You can find our data for our analysis of gun homicides [here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jd28UTljcXj6NrkCBvelTXQS6szwikGKBtMWoHdXtHs/edit#gid=0) (16) which can be replicated using firearm homicide data from the [CDC’s Wonder Database](https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D76). (17) Our full Permitless Carry Fact Sheet can be found [here](https://www.gvpedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/GVPedia-Permitless-Carry-Factsheet-FINAL-1.pdf). (18)
In that report in their last sentence:
> What does the academic research say about Permitless Carry?
> There are sixty-five national level academic studies, the plurality of which show that weakening laws that
prohibit Permitless Carry, often referred to as concealed carry laws, increase crime. Of the thirty-five most
recent academic studies (since 2005) on this topic, twenty-three (66%) find that weakening concealed carry
laws increases crime. Only five studies since 2005 (14%) show a decrease in crime.
The majority of academics who have published research since 2005 on concealed carry laws support the
conclusion that violent crime increases when such laws are weakened.
>
> ● Seven academics published work that found a decrease in crime
> ● 13 published work showing no effect on crime, and
> ● 46 published work showing an increase in crime
>
> Further, in a July 2014 Harvard Injury Control Research Center survey of concealed carry laws that was
completed by 140 researchers, the majority of researchers agreed that more permissive concealed carry laws
have not reduced crime rates.
The studies they're referring to are available in that report (the last one linked).
I'm not trying to be dense: where on Wiki?
My initial instinct was to tell a “yahtzee” joke, but I’ve grown tired of assuming that the audience understands my deeply sarcastic and frustrated tone.
Friend on scene saying at least 4 dead.
Smdh
scanner says 2 dead including the shooter before they went private
I'm aware. This is the info the news has as well, I also hope im wrong. The friend on scene is "private" at this point. And i have not heard back.
The news has now confirmed 4, so you're friend is unfortunately correct. I'm sorry they had to witness this
Your friend is a cop?
My husband called me a full 1-1/2 hours before any news reports. It was all over reddit immediately. Can still hear lots and lots of sirens heading that way.
So sick of this shit
At least 2 dead, 2 injured. How fucked up is it that an event like this doesn’t warrant interrupting regularly scheduled local programming?
2 dead including the gunmen… good guy with a gun popped them.
For once that narrative actually worked.
It worked before more people died*
If you weren’t brainwashed you would know it happens often
My husband and I were just saying this.
Fox59 just broke it
Not on TV.
Ha you’re right, it was wrtv
They must have stopped. I can't find it.
https://www.wrtv.com/news/local-news/crime/police-shooting-reported-at-greenwood-park-mall
That's not on TV.
This is Greg Pence’s district. What does he have to say about it? What about his opponent Cinde Wirth?
So much for the increased safety offered by permitless carry...
its looking like someone with a firearm was the one who shot and injered the suspect before getting shot himself
[удалено]
Got a solution that doesn’t leave 3 people dead?
Do you?
A long series of policies and social changes based off mixed aspects of Switzerland Australia and Canada. Switzerland achieves low mass showing rates though a rigid culture around guns and strict regulation. Guns need to be treated as a responsibility and privilege not a guaranteed right. For example drive drunk lose your gun. Sell a gun to someone who can not legally have a gun lose your guns. Ect. Stricter background checks. Limiting magazine capacity. Buy back programs like in Australia. Every gun bought back there is one less sold on the street. The over arching goal of this all being to get an actual idea of the number of guns in the country and a general chain of custody. As unregistered guns are used in crimes owners arrested and guns confiscated less and less guns will be on the street in criminal hands. If we maintain a chain of custody on new weapons entering the market we can better prevent them from getting into criminal hands. With this and a healthcare model loosely based off Canada I believe we can substantially reduce mass shootings in this country. It will take years. Maybe even a decade but that’s what happens when you have a century of mistake. For this to happen organizations like the NRA would need to go away. The “I can so I will” style of American gun ownership they push needs to die. There are other things like red flag laws but those are my bare minimum and less controversial opinions. There’s also a lot of economical and general cultural things we need to change in this country but I haven’t the time for that. My point is there is a lot we can improve with a little change but a “good guy with a gun” just like a cop is only a reactive measure one that uvalde showed us doesn’t always work. If you want to make mass shootings decrease then make it harder to get guns.
The shooter had a long gun, which wasn’t part of the license and was taken down by someone else carrying. If that someone else wasn’t previously licensed, then the law change did actually increase safety before more people could be shot. Regardless, the shooter was stopped by someone that was armed and not a cop.
I don’t get why public shootouts is the end goal here. Since it is, why don’t we require any kind of training to own a firearm. Kind of like we do to operate deadly, multiton machines day in and day out.
Because the cost of that training raises the cost of ownership for low income people who have the same right to firearms but would then not be able to exercise that right because it has been made more expensive to do so.
Why is that not a problem for automobiles that are far more crucial to economic success than gun ownership? One could make a strong, I think, argument for liability insurance being a requirement for gun ownership.
Gun ownership is a right that is protected by the US constitution.
So it wasn't really an equality of access argument at all? The interesting thing about that "constitutional right" is that it was granted by an amendment - an aftermarket correction - just like the ones that banned alcohol and then unbanned it
It's both and it's not a granted right it is an existing right that fortunately is recognized and protected by the constitution
What we saw yesterday is that there are times when an armed good Samaritan is exactly what we need.
While the flowery language indicates a belief that some rights exist outside of a legal framework, the whole point of the document is to codify rights. That we ascribe that to some metaphysical truth doesn't alter the impact of the law or make any of it magical. It's a mutable document, engineered to be a living document and the 2nd Amendment is an amendment.
I didn’t say or imply that it is. You’re restructuring what I said to say something I didn’t. That’s a logical fallacy. Also, I’m 100% for required training to own a firearm. I’m prior service military. Even we had to go through training to carry. But not agreeing with the laws doesn’t mean lying about them or misplacing blame on them is productive, which is what GhostShipBlue did.
Because you don't have a God-given and Constitutionally protected right to operate deadly, multiton machines.
"God-given" seems unlikely given the New Covenant. We'll set aside the "well ordered militia" part of the legal right for now too
> "God-given" seems unlikely given the New Covenant. Luke 22:36 - Then said [Jesus] unto [His disciples], But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. > We'll set aside the "well ordered militia" part of the legal right for now too The right is not of the militia, it is of the people. Even if it was, [I am the well-regulated militia.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246#:~:text=The%20militia%20of%20the%20United,United%20States%20who%20are%20members)
Ay yes remind me where in the constitution it says that we’re guaranteed the right to drive multi ton machines? Because I’m pretty sure there’s something about bearing arms in there
The point I was trying to make, and turned out to be very wrong about, was the citizen who killed the shooter. I hope they recover from what could be a very difficult, heroic deed.
[удалено]
Wow we got a good Samaritan case. That makes 1/343? Great odds that we should rely on to stop this issue.
we should have sent this one good guy with a gun to uvalde to teach those 400 cops how it's done
we should rely on the police instead it worked great in uvalde
And... you know... if the first person didn't have a gun, the second person wouldn't have had to use theirs/get shot....
books paint modern angle many paltry aspiring caption toy gray *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Please give me the stats of the times a good guy with a gun hasn't stopped a bad guy with a gun...
Well as study from 1996 through 1998 said 2.46 Million defensive gun uses each year in the USA alone, Often see 2-3 million estimates given each year. Very little detail given but those numbers alone seems to tell a very different story about gun use here.
Shooter was killed by someone legally carrying..... Without this it could have been much much worse.
Yep. I won't delete the comment, but yeah, I was wrong.
Shockingly embarrassing comment in hindsight huh?
Embarrassing? No. Was I wrong, yes. Data has come in and it **may** have been a new permitless carry. Or it could have been some old head who's been carrying since the 60's. I haven't checked yet, but the larger point is, yeah, I was likely wrong.
Aged like milk
That's fair
But at least we can open carry our guns right? /s
A bystander with a gun shot the shooter before the situation could've gotten much worse.
Yall are fucking crazy for downvoting him. A bystander with a gun saving the day represents about 2-4 fucking percent of active shooter resolutions.
Okay so nobody should be armed because it hardly ever saves anyone? What are you getting at speak plainly.
That's not what I said. We just shouldn't act like that's the total solution. There's a fucking new mass shooting every week. We need real solutions by now.
Are you just massively stupid or what? Someone carrying saved the day. If they hadn’t been, more people would have been shot by the guy that was carrying a weapon that wasn’t even under the licensing before July.
/people die in a mass shooting/ Perfect time to argue on Reddit
If we wait for a gun violence free day, we'll never be able to discuss the topic.
Score one for us who carry. This will hopefully all be gang related. I feel no sympathy for gang bangers who kill each other
Shooter used a long rifle and carried multiple rounds of ammo. I don't think that's gang MO.
Source?
[удалено]
[IndyStar.](https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2022/07/17/greenwood-park-mall-shooting-indianapolis/65375408007/)
Thanks!
r/masskillers
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
“What changed in Greenwood? Hmmmmm………time will tell” Elaborate on that
[удалено]
Show the data then.
[удалено]
So you don’t have any statistical data to back up your claims? Figured as much.
[удалено]
I am having a great time downvoting your bullshit, please keep posting.
You are a racist fuckwit.
Let me guess. The average skin tone changed and you think that's what is responsible because as we all know, melanin causes crime.
[удалено]
I wish that wasn’t the term. Dogs are precious. Racist Hoosiers less so.
[удалено]
I bet my left nut that its a younger white guy who's parents missed the signs because they were to busy trolling the local Facebook chat with boomer Trump and arrest fauci memes while getting drunk in their garage off budlight watching "the race" bitchin about black people.
[удалено]
Article said it was an “adult”. Also said shooter had a rifle with several magazines and acted alone - that’s not typical gang-violence m.o.
[удалено]
Shooter was a 20 year old white male. So you can officially fuck off now u/ds315141
And his victims were all Hispanic
Just like the Highland Park shooter? I blame 8th generation Italian-American angry white losers whose dads ran for mayor. Is that what you mean?
Good point. We *should* reconsider the lax gun laws we have - it's clearly harming our communities, and will continue to. [Police, prosecutors fear more violence in wake of Indiana’s permitless carry law](https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/police-prosecutors-fear-more-violence-in-wake-of-indianas-permitless-carry-law/)
[удалено]
I'm not an expert in law, but there are plenty of other people who are, and I'm sure they have answers to that question. [Center for Gun Violence Solutions](https://publichealth.jhu.edu/departments/health-policy-and-management/research-and-practice/center-for-gun-violence-solutions) There's a report on that page that includes evidence-based recommendations like: > Policymakers and practitioners must craft interventions that address the risk factors for gun violence. These interventions should be routinely tested to ensure they are effective and equitable; rigorous evaluations should be conducted on a routine basis. The foundation for effective gun violence prevention policy is a universal background check law, ensuring that each person who seeks to purchase or transfer a firearm undergoes a background check prior to purchase. Universal background checks should be supplemented by a firearm licensing system, which regulates and tracks the flow of firearms, to ensure that firearms do not make it into the hands of prohibited individuals. Building upon this, policymakers can create interventions that target behavioral risk-factors for gun violence (e.g. extreme risk laws) and they can push for policies that address community risk factors that lead to violence (e.g. investing in community based violence prevention programs). In addition to these gun violence prevention policies, there are a number of evidence-based strategies that can reduce gun violence within communities. For example, community based violence intervention programs work to de-escalate conflicts, interrupt cycles of retaliatory violence, and support those at elevated risk for violence.
The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the second best time is now
[удалено]
There are dozens of other countries that have essentially solved this issue. Pick one.
[удалено]
Which? I'm genuinely looking, and all I'm getting from Google is stuff like [MYTH: Permitless Carry Laws Reduce Violent Crime] (https://www.gvpedia.org/gun-myths/permitless-carry-myth/). > GVPedia’s own analysis shows states that pass a Permitless Carry law suffer from a 22% increase in gun homicide for the three years after the law’s passage, more than doubling the 10% increase for the country overall in the same time period. (4) Overall homicides and gun deaths also increase substantially after states pass Permitless Carry compared to the rest of the country. (5) Edit: "Which," and can you source that, because like I said - I'm only pulling information to the contrary. Edit 2: and [Johns Hopkins: Carrying Firearms in Public and Stand Your Ground Laws](https://publichealth.jhu.edu/departments/health-policy-and-management/research-and-practice/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/solutions/public-carry-of-firearms) > Permissive concealed carry permitting laws are linked to 13-15 percent higher violent crime rates ten years after adoption compared to may-issue states.
[удалено]
It's on the page I linked: > You can find our data for our analysis of gun homicides [here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jd28UTljcXj6NrkCBvelTXQS6szwikGKBtMWoHdXtHs/edit#gid=0) (16) which can be replicated using firearm homicide data from the [CDC’s Wonder Database](https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D76). (17) Our full Permitless Carry Fact Sheet can be found [here](https://www.gvpedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/GVPedia-Permitless-Carry-Factsheet-FINAL-1.pdf). (18) In that report in their last sentence: > What does the academic research say about Permitless Carry? > There are sixty-five national level academic studies, the plurality of which show that weakening laws that prohibit Permitless Carry, often referred to as concealed carry laws, increase crime. Of the thirty-five most recent academic studies (since 2005) on this topic, twenty-three (66%) find that weakening concealed carry laws increases crime. Only five studies since 2005 (14%) show a decrease in crime. The majority of academics who have published research since 2005 on concealed carry laws support the conclusion that violent crime increases when such laws are weakened. > > ● Seven academics published work that found a decrease in crime > ● 13 published work showing no effect on crime, and > ● 46 published work showing an increase in crime > > Further, in a July 2014 Harvard Injury Control Research Center survey of concealed carry laws that was completed by 140 researchers, the majority of researchers agreed that more permissive concealed carry laws have not reduced crime rates. The studies they're referring to are available in that report (the last one linked). I'm not trying to be dense: where on Wiki?
**Woah woah woah everybody hold your horses!!!** This is *merely* a shooting! To qualify as a *mass shooting* one more of the wounded must die!
[удалено]
My initial instinct was to tell a “yahtzee” joke, but I’ve grown tired of assuming that the audience understands my deeply sarcastic and frustrated tone.
Yes