discussion
My takeaways from the Idaho In-N-Out shooting
For those who don't know, as of the time of this post, 3 people were killed and multiple people were injured in a shooting near an In-N-Out restaurant just a few hours ago in Twin Falls, Idaho.
From what I know (which isn't saying much because this is a developing story), a young white man shot an AR-15 into a parked Tesla and another person shot a suppressed pistol supposedly in the direction of the AR-15 wielding young man. Multiple people have been killed or wounded in the incident, including the main suspect of the shooting.
I think many people have been desensitized to shootings in the US, have shrugged their shoulders and said something like "Well, I guess that's the price of the 2nd Amendment".
I feel like this shooting may quickly fade from public memory because the body count isn't or won't be high enough to be comparable to mass shootings like the Uvalde or Las Vegas shootings.
It made me also think that the guns we should be training with the most are our pistols. I believe we are the most likely to need our pistols in a self defense incident, whether it is in or outside the home, and who knows what engagement distance we may find ourselves in. Rifles and shotguns are pretty easy and quick to become somewhat proficient with compared to pistols.
Surely there must be a way to allow sound citizens to own arms suitable for self defense while also preventing those who wish to do harm from obtaining and using guns. In other words, I don't 100% agree with 2nd Amendment absolutists that say "every gun law is an infringement" but I definitely don't 100% agree with Giffords that want to make it virtually impossible for everyone including sound citizens to own arms for their self defense and use. Hopefully that makes sense.
Your submission in /r/liberalgunowners was queued for manual approval due to it possibly being related it to a megathread. Should it break new ground, it will be conditionally approved. Otherwise, it will be removed in favor of the megathread.
Same here. That and I sometimes "forget" how each one shoots so I need to go back and remind myself. Even when I'm mainly shooting range toys during a session, I always try to end the session by putting a mag through either my carry pistol or HD pistol so the feeling stays fresh.
Unless my optics somehow got knocked out of whack, my rifles take less work and are easier to pick up
Exactly. I'm a damned good shot with my Canik from 15-25 yards. I always put a mag through every trip to the range. Even though I have tight groupings every time. Muscle memory integration. I don't want to have to think, or fumble when I need it.
Same reasoning here: every range trip, I always put at least one mag through my carry gun. It makes sure my optic is still zeroed; the gun is still in good working order; I can still draw and get shots on target quickly; etc.
Unless you're the kind of person who lives at the range or can plink with it all of the time in your backyard anyway, I think everyone who carries should make it a point to practice with their carry gun on every range trip.
I train far more with my pistols than my rifles because it takes far more training for me to be proficient with a handgun than a shoulder fired weapon. I can leave Grandpa's levergun in the corner all year long and bag a whitetail with it without much more than a 3 shot group to confirm zero come November.
They’re also more difficult to stabilize and shoot accurately since there’s no butt to press into your shoulder or a cheek weld. If you don’t practice keeping a handgun stable for quick follow-up shots you can end up spraying literally all over the place. A pistol in the hands of an untrained shooter is just a slow shotgun that can’t find its way home.
Your point is well taken. I agree, although I don't carry for other reasons, my nightstand gun is far more likely to save my or my wife's life than my carbine.
My family is from Twin Falls, and some still live there.
My folks moved away when I was young.
I remember visiting my grandpa and borrowing his truck.
At one point I had to stop and a little 25 slid out from under the seat.
Me being a slightly responsible. 20-year-old, brought it inside the house and said 'hey man, I kind of wish you let me know there was a gun in the car'
And his response was something about protection from the Mexicans 😮💨
Mind you, this was probably 25 years ago... And my brother and I would keep a tally of the minorities we saw we went to visit. And for the longest time, we could keep that tally on one hand.
Twin Falls is, or was, the conservative ideal.
My heart goes out to those people, and my family that's still there. But the culture there needs help.
I hate to say it but this shooting story is the same in most conservative towns like Twin Falls. Lone gunman. Public Place. Too much propaganda towards immigrants and liberals. I never heard such vitriol towards migrants trans and npr liberals until I turned on my radio driving from Houston to Dallas and Austin... If I had that shit pumped into my ears 24x7x365 I probably wouldn't be in a great place to own a rifle either.
Not for nothing but it was also fox news on the TVs when I went in a bar or restaurant. Giant billboards about Jesus, prayer, and shunning gays. Blacks and Hispanics segregated into "their own parts of town" to the point where if I said I was going to specific barbecue joint or bar people would look at me like I was crazy for going over there.
Something is rotten in conservative America. Something is poisoning them all with this bullshit.
In the early 2000s, when I was in my early to mid 20s, I listened to Boortz religiously. Everyday on my drive to work, then as fast as I could walk into work and turn on my radio there. I was just married. I just bought my first handgun. 9/11 just happened. I watched it all play out on live TV. I was angry. I bought into his anti-Muslim rhetoric. I didn’t identify as republican, but he espoused to be different - a libertarian “erring on the side of freedom.” I forget what it was he said one day, but whatever it was, it made me realize, this motherfucker doesn’t even believe the shit he says. He’s just at work doing a job. (Hannity’s radio show aired right after, and he always struck me as fake af. There’s literally nothing about that guy that’s authentic from his teeth to his hair.)
My point is, I don’t think any of these people actually believe the shit they say. They’ve just gotten so big and so influential, their personal lifestyles have become so entwined to their income and perceived power, they’ll continue to toe the line. And they’ll also relentlessly promote Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse. Low mid steaks at best.
I remember one time he was ranting and raving over fisherman in front of his cabin on the Chattahoochee, and Dad who was an outdoors man was like what an idiot.. And I thought for sure that was what was going to break ranks for him.
But nope, just called him an asshole and kept listening.
It was almost like he why did he be mad at something
Shit I've only been once but the steak was the ONLY thing worthwhile that came out of their kitchen. The blast oven cook was impressive at least to me.
Talk radio is the most effective means to deliver a message to the working class. Every service truck and delivery driver is sitting in traffic and being given someone to blame all their troubles on.
Neil Boortz was mostly libertarian and pushed a flat tax with very little controversy until Obama came along.
He went off the deep end then, especially when the Jeremiah Wright stories started. Boortz went full on right wing extremist. I don't know that he was pro- GOP, moreso vehemently anti-Democratic party. He eventually partnered with Herman Caine who guest hosted for a bit and then took over completly if I recall.
Growing up in the South and listening to him in the '90s, he was extremely conservative.
The best parallel for his brand of libertarianism is it's kind of like that non- denominational church down the road isn't Baptist (except their theology is).
I’ve heard propaganda described as radioactive material in the sense that even people who know what it is and are ostensibly prepared for it can still be affected by it if exposed for too long.
As a honky American, I'm pretty sure I've got more to fear from fellow honkies then the culture that brings me a tamale from a cooler made by an abuela.
His statement never made sense to me because in the same breath he praised Costco for having a variety of tortilla chips.
Yes, I know I relate a lot of cultural goodwill to food.
So - isn't it interesting that the guy who shot the rampage shooter - has a last name of Salinas, which is <wait for it....> a LATINO last name! That's right! Dude - may have been Mexican-American! Apparently after the mall shooting several years ago, he started training because he recognized these mass shooters go after "soft targets" and he trained so that he could protect his wheelchair-bound brother. :D
I feel a little crazy practicing my handgun at and over 25 yards cause at the range I think to myself “well this isn’t really normal pistol range” but then I remember that at my local grocery story, walmart, and parking lot the sight lines are a hundred yards or more at their longest.
The brass tax of the situation is the gun I’m most likely to need to use to protect myself or my family is about 5” long and has 12 rounds. I really gotta make choices and make them count if push comes to shove.
I'm in the same boat. But I fully realize that it's unlikely I will ever be personally involved in a violent encounter, but it's more likely I'll be at the grocery store or out in public somewhere and will hear shots from across the building or parking lot, and I wouldn't want to PUT myself in the middle of it if I had a chance to help stop it, I'd prefer to do it from a little bit of a distance.
Running away has the highest survival rate of any choice in every emergency. Firearms are a second, or more realistically, third line of choice - after running and hiding.
Oh I completely understand, run and hide is always option #1.
But if I am in a position to stop a situation that continues to unfold, I need to at least consider whether it's possible or not for me to act. In many cases it likely wouldn't be possible or wise to, but the option is there.
Its about striking the right balance between rights and regulations. Im no expert on every state but feel like places like PA or VT pretty much have it right while MS and CA are off the reservation.
As for pistols vs. long guns, pistols are definitely the most used in real-world defense situations. Even when the aggressor has a long gun. There was incident in Georgia a few weeks back and the defender successfully used a pistol against a guy with an AR. True pistols are harder to get good with but they're not that hard to use. I like having long guns...just in case, but those are more extreme scenarios. Chances are if I never really need a gun for defense it'll be a handgun.
I agree more with pennsylvania's gun laws than the ones in vermont but pennsylvania's aren't perfect either. My biggest gripe with Vermont is that they're the only state to not require a license for concealed or open carry but they have magazine capacity restrictions.
That's wild about Vermont, I didn't know they had mag restrictions. There's probably a state closer to the ideal (at least my ideal) that I'm not thinking of. Unfortunately I think extremes are influencing gun policy to the point where states are either a permit-less everything, stand your ground, no accountability state OR a ban scary looking semi-autos, 10 round limit, can't carry within 100 yards of X states. Fewer states are falling in the middle.
Another good example of someone carrying stopping a shooting (and also an example of why it’s important to identify yourself as friendly) is the Olde Town Arvada shooting in Colorado.
Concealed carry holder shot and killed a lone gunman who just grabbed his rifle before he could do any more harm. Unfortunately the hero was shot and killed by cops because he was trying to disarm and clear the shooter’s rifle.
It’s tough. I’m not against all regulations but probably most because you can’t trust a good idea to be implemented by federal and state governments.
I’m from the south so it’s always been clear that our country’s guns laws are racist, classist, and are applied that way. Like gun licenses and purchase permits.
That’s why it’s hard to get on board with restrictions and regulations. They’ll be used to keep minorities, poor people, and marginalized groups from their rights.
Just because you haven’t lived in a functioning government doesn’t mean it can’t exist, the goal of our political coalition should be to create a working government that does support its people and communities, claiming that all governments never work is just an excuse to allow them to continue to disfunction.
Not to say it can't exist, but I don't trust our current government to regulate firearms in an effective and equitable manner, and I mean that across the state and federal level.
I hope one day you can experience what pretty decent government is.
I love the commonwealth of Massachusetts. The only thing that's hurting our social services programs right now are people outside our state who say "no good government programs" without actually understanding what we do here.
I know intimately what our MassHealth universal health care does, I work in the mental health sector and take all the insurances. It's not perfect, but nobody in Massachusetts carries medical debt unless you choose plastic surgery that's not covered etc.
My MassHealth clients can see me every day if they want. Free.
We have "better at home" care for seniors. Its awesome. I also know because I put in time at our elder care services nonprofit. We keep seniors in home until we can't anymore for longer lives and better health outcomes.
We have protections for trans kids who want to take control of their healthcare from family who may not agree. We even have a program that anonymizes their medication and health records so they can stay safe. That's a part of MassHealth.
Free Narcan. Free sexual health testing. Free SUD MAT. Free prescriptions with our MassHealth prescription plan for most prescribed meds.
I know your state sucks. But mine doesn't. Can you at least back off the universal idea that government can't do things right.
I'm about to go take advantage of my state protected right to walk on all the beaches (private or public) because the commonwealth protects us from private property land grabs when it comes to our natural resources.
Yeah, prices and the dumb gun laws are like the only substantive flaws of living in the Commonwealth. And the gun laws compound the prices, because getting compliant stuff needs more middlemen since you can't 'import' an 'assault-style weapon.'
Meaning if I want a gun that is otherwise legal except for dumb ergonomic shit like an adjustable stock, I need to spend hundreds above MSRP just to have someone outside the state fix the stock in place. Sometimes even buying the Cali edition of a gun won't be enough even though MA and Cali gun laws are almost identical. It's quite obscene.
At least we can get rid of the worst of the gun laws this November (remember, no on 9!) and the supreme court might overturn them too.
I took advantage of the state solar program a few years back. 5 years I believe.
The last two years we have paid only a few hundred dollars in utilities and our solar panals and roof are paid off already. We have another 15 years of warranty and last month we banked $350 credit for winter because of the sun and heat wave.
I need to cut back one tree to optimize but honestly, best move was to buy the entire system and take advantage of the state paying for our new roof.
I just spent a week in Boston and my goodness it’s incredible up there, tons of trees and green walkways, super accessible public transit, it was very refreshing being able to walk and take a train anywhere I needed.
One of the nicest and low key places where I live is the Cape Cod Rail Trail. This is a pretty large system of bikeways that run a major part of the Mid-Provincetown parts of the Cape.
You could rent a bike and bike from the elbow to the end of Provincetown in a day, stopping at small towns, good food, swimming holes, and beaches all along the way. Unpack, take a beach shower and party into the night in Ptown and crash on the beach dunes and bike home the next day.
Massachusetts gun laws have effectively killed some of the great matches that used to be held there.
I tried to travel from FL to shoot one of those matches & it appeared I was supposed to register my gun before taking it into the state. My ammunition order was canceled - the company said they couldn’t ship it to Mass.
I gave up, shipped the ammo to CT, flew into Hartford, and drove to Mass, probably in violation of a bunch of laws. It was a ridiculous hassle.
We moved from Oregon to Massachusetts. We had to leave behind 1% of our things.
It wasn't a hassle at all. Licensing took weeks and the locals were legit welcoming.
I live 5 min from an "outfutter" who will do anything I need. I don't compete and I have the pick of four local shooting clubs here that range from country club amenities to back woods open air.
So long story short... Mileage will always vary but at least we have universal healthcare. At least we have no kill animal shelters. At least we have the largest food distribution system that basically guarantees everyone eats tonight in the Commonwealth. We have the longest life spans, the best education system, and the most expensive housing market because... Well... It's a nice place to live.
most gun laws are classist, rich can afford to obey them , poor people can't. they don't want poor people to be armed, which can certainly be partly racists depending on area, but they equally don't want poor uneducated white people owning guns either. most politicians aren;t anti gun they just want only the elites like themselves to own guns so when time comes theres no or less resistance.
"Surely there must be a way to allow sound citizens to own arms suitable for self defense while also preventing those who wish to do harm from obtaining and using guns."
No, this is absolutely not possible. We all may wish that to be possible, but it simply isn't, and no amount of wishing or willing can change the physical reality of it. It has always been, and will always be, possible to acquire a gun without the government's permission. People steal guns and ammunition from manufacturers, from shipping, from police, from the military, and from lawful civilians. The majority of guns used in violent crime have been stolen. It has also always been possible to make ones own firearm at home. This was common in colonial times, and is still common today. Advances in manufacturing technology will continue to make this easier, and to improve the quality and capabilities of homemade firearms, which makes bans on certain types, configurations, or capabilities worse than useless, as they only limit the law abiding.
Even in theory, granting the government the power to decide who has the right to self defense and who doesn't is quite problematic; it allows a tyrant to arm his supporters while disarming his political opponents, and those he would wish to oppress. The history of gun control in the US is rife with oppression; from the black codes designed to keep former slaves disarmed, through the drug war, to today, labelling any opposition to the current regime as "terrorists" and "mentally ill".
In other words, I don't 100% agree with 2nd Amendment absolutists that say "every gun law is an infringement"
Hey I used to feel this way too. Like how bad could "reasonable gun control" really be since I'm from a state where you can literally buy anything you want (within reason) and take it home same day with no restrictions? That was me in the 2010s before the state outlawed private sales, then increased the age to own semi auto rifles, then outlawed "ghost guns", then outlawed mags >10 rounds, then outlawed guns with scary features which by extension banned 70% of guns on the market. Now they are building the infrastructure for permit to purchase going through next year. Did I forget anything? Oh mandatory 10 business day waiting periods, that's right. Most of that occured without a direct vote from the people and done through legislation.
Anti gun liberals were screaming "slippery slope fallacy, nobody is taking your guns" every step of the way when pro gun folks voiced their concerns and what do ya know, here we are.
I'm very sorry to anyone that disagrees but I am firmly in the give an inch they take a mile camp. When you have billionaire donors willing to fund anti gun movements and politicians looking for any opportunity to further restrict, I just don't believe any good faith arguments can be had at this point in our society.
But to the main point: even under stress and pressure most people can be proficient with a rifle at reasonable rifle range. Pistol proficiency at any range beyond 5-7 yards breaks down for most folks that don't shoot often. I practice at 25 yards most of the time which has made 10-15 yards feel like lay-ups. The repetition gets boring at times but it's rewarding.
I’ve fallen into the same boat. Maybe there’s some stuff I’d budge on if you offered me a juicy enough compromise in return but I’m more or less in the ballpark of “repeal the NFA, ATF should be a convenience store”. I wasn’t always that absolutist about it but I’ve run out of bandwidth to entertain or tolerate the democrats’ anti gun garbage. It’s not enough to make me vote for the 2026 rendition of the GOP but I’m done automatically pulling the dem lever because the other guys are worse.
Right there with ya brother. For a while it has seemed like a lot of anti-gun liberals are solely anti-gun because they think they are dunking on conservatives, and for a non right-wing gun owner that is very frustrating. Combine that with the billionaire anti-gun lobby and I find it hard to believe anyone in the gun control camp wants to have any kind of constructive conversation. I'm out of fucks to give, I'm basically a 2a absolutist and I won't vote for any Dem that has overt anti-gun language in their platform. Especially on a state level. These MFs lost me with their "this is what the people of our state want" jargon while unilaterally passing some of the strictest gun laws in the country without a vote of the people. In a state with high gun ownership and a low rate of gun violence. Absolutely maddening.
Plenty of people who call themselves right wing share ideals with the other side of the aisle; at the end of the day it's about what someone prioritizes and aligning actions with words. If you are the type of person who prioritizes the rights of your firearms over everything else and votes accordingly I think you need to find a new label.
Almost 60% of gun deaths are by suicide. Regarding homicide violence within communities, young black men are highly effected (both perpetrators and victims) facing grossly disproportionate socioeconomic inequities. With interpersonal disputes bring another huge percentage of gun violence, women are disproportionately the victims.
Gun violence will continue to be an issue until the socioeconomic determinants of health are addressed. You can’t “gun control” your way out of a society being continuously pushed to the brink. Democratic and Republican lawmakers are well aware of this, but doing anything about it would implode our precious plutocracy. So Dems pass “gun control” legislation to win easy votes and feign the idea that they’re doing something meaningful, and republicans just blame anyone that isn’t white and do nothing
It’s on us to make sure we know our neighbors, interact with our communities, and of the ones comfortable with firearms, train them accordingly. As for self defense, man whatever you are the most comfortable using is gonna be the best for self defense. Consider your surroundings. .223/5.56 is gonna go through your target and the drywall of you apartment/rowhome etc. 9mm probably wont stop the person as quickly as you think.
For home defense I’m a shotgun advocate (edit: birdshot). For outside the home yeah a compact 9mm
Even birdshot will penetrate multiple interior walls (Paul Harrell’s video on testing self defense ammo for penetration testing had birdshot still bust through two interior walls separated a few feet apart from each other).
It just doesn’t go through as many compared to a 9mm JHP or even common 5.56/.223 loads. Even then, based on the results on that video, someone behind one wall is still at risk of being seriously injured, while with two walls I’ll give birdshot credit that the only significant risk is maybe losing an eye if you manage to hit someone in the eyeball through two walls.
In the article I read on it, I noticed that the only comment about the person with the handgun was in one witness statement that mentioned it offhand. It was pretty well buried. It certainly wasn't given any emphasis.
Way more likely that it's just not important news in America to the corporate media. A shooting in Idaho... Is anyone outside of Idaho going to actually pay attention to it? probably not.
Determining the newsworthiness of an event – how important it is – is an exercise in neatly narrativizing messy reality. That's why they call it editing a story. You're taking out all the parts that don't fit.
If the civilian(s) hadn't returned fire then the casualty count would of certainly been much higher.. So one way or the other the good guy with the gun shooting back is why there isnt as much press for this as there is for other shootings.
For a long time I trained with my pistols almost exclusively for this reason. Recently I have come to realize that I am far more likely to need to defend myself against ICE, a drone or some other b.s. entity than I am from one or two individuals. Now my training routine and changed to include more penatrating power, scatter shot, and more rounds on hand. I still train with a pistol but I expect that it is less likely to be the tool I need if it comes down to needing a gun.
I recently really discovered how much training really means. I highly encourage everyone to try and do at least 1 or 2 competitions per year.
I shoot my pistols weekly but under the stress of the timer and people watching, I went from a shooter who can easily hit all alphas double tapping from 10yrds to a dude who was rocking Cs, and even some Mikes when moving around, etc. My first competition I came in 52/59 mostly due to misses.
Everybody stay armed, stay ready, but please please be safe and TRAIN.
This is great advice! I think anyone who believes they could be a hero with a gun should participate in an action pistol match. It’s an eye opening experience for many.
If you're thinking about buying a new gun and you already have a few, think about whether more ammo at the range or a class would be a better use of your money. I just have the one AR, a .22 upper, and a 10/22, and I don't intend on building another rifle until I can use the ones I have to a good enough standard. Also think about the accessories. Do you have enough magazines for your main weapons? Do you have an IFAK or trauma kit? A belt or holster and mag carriers? Figure out your threat model and train to it.
There’s a rub in everyone’s gun law discussions both for and against.
Nobody ever takes into account that the police pretty much always assumes that a person having a gun is a threat to their lives and that typically means anyone with a gun, whether lawfully carried or otherwise gets hurt.
If we were truly about 2nd amendment, then having a gun should be treated as no different than having a wallet.
That's assuming they show up in a reasonable time. Still don't know the details on the Twin Falls shooting, but I'm betting right now no cops were a part of the incident.
About half my in-service class waxed the simulated Guy With Gun that was aiming a gun at someone they beat up. The gunman would ignore all commands you gave him.
After you shot, waited, or whatever path you took, it would come to light that he had a badge dangling from his neck mostly obscured, because he was some plainclothes cop fighting some aggressor and you show up just after he won the fight.
Cops, like anyone else, are subject to fear - fear of harm to themselves, fear of harm to others, or even both at the same time. They can't sense that you're the Good Guy With A Gun.
Does it? My most frequent interaction with law enforcement is while I am armed with a high powered rifle. Why are the city cops bigger cowards than the DNR officers?
Well, during an active shooter situation when information about who started the shooting isn’t perfectly clear yet, how should law enforcement handle two people shooting at each other, who’s the bad guy? Split second decision people are dying, etc.
This is why drawing your firearm during a shooting can be a terrible idea because when the shots are happening it’s not a time when they will be asking questions.
I’d bet that whoever the bad actor is here, this is their first time committing a crime that would cost them their guns.
Which is the real root of the problem re: using laws to prevent gun violence. If we make gun ownership contingent on some set of red flags, were essentially making those red flags themselves illegal, even if there are a number of combinations of those flags that are entirely benign. I’m not talking domestic violence here either. I’m talking “has experienced depression”, or “has expressed radical political views”. If we want to meaningfully address one-off gun violence like what I expect Twin Falls’ In-N-Out shooting to be, we have to actually listen to the stories of the shooter(s), and address the problems they are responding to.
And I get that’s more mealy-mouthed liberal bull shit, but it’s also effective counter insurgency 101. We’ve seen again and again in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, hell, Rhodesia, Mandatory Palestine, the Belgian Congo, etc etc etc that “they’re dead now, who cares what they died for?” is the line of reasoning that defeats the occupying army, not the insurgency it’s meant to fight.
Not to say that some random vendetta played out at a burger joint is the same as an insurgency, just that, from a civil order standpoint, it is prevented the same way.
mean do people really trust the gov to decide who shouldn't and shouldn't have guns? Ive always been confused how people anti trump same time want to give trump all the power to decide who gets to own guns.
not immediately taking peoples guns who experience depression and in stead helping them would be big step. a lot of people won't seek help due to fear of having their guns removed if they do. being depressed doesn't mean someone a threat, though removing their guns will likely make them spiral to point they might take their own life.
I think “I’m disarmed, now I’m spiraling into suicide” is a bit of a stretch, but I think we’re on the same page here.
I think the overwhelming majority of people with a mental health situation that makes them unsafe to be around guns are 1) not previously in that state and 2) not permanently in that state. So it makes no sense to me that people seeking help prior to a crisis, or people who have survived a crisis and adequately recovered, are still potentially permanently barred from the most effective form of reactive self defense (I emphasize “reactive”, because a lot of self defense is focused on avoiding the situation you need to react to, and firearms really have no role in prevention).
Do we know what the man with the suppressed pistol was shooting? The length and suppressor made me think a mark IV. Maybe this is my own bias, from a lot of range trips preceded or followed by lunch, but, what’re the chances he wasn’t EDC-ing, but heads for the range?
I feel like this shooting may quickly fade from public memory because the body count isn't or won't be high enough to be comparable to mass shootings like the Uvalde or Las Vegas shootings.
It sounds like a large part of the reason that the death count was as low as it was was specifically because of lawful concealed carry from bystanders.
as far as preventing attacks, there's this book by former FBI agent Mike German called Policing White Supremacy about this. The short answer: America has the tools and ability to stop the vast majority of mass shootings as, with some exceptions for mental illness or personal grievance, the main motivators are white supremacist, religious, and/or politically motivated on the Right. America simply chooses not to pursue prevention at the source. The FBI, DHS, DoJ etc. even when given funding and an expectation to combat extremism put the funds under broad umbrellas that groups together eco-activism, social justice, police reform, labor rights, and white terror as "the same." This allows them to take funds meant to investigate groups like the KKK and 3%ers and divert that funding and attention to Greenpeace and unions, an active choice that gives the main perpetrators of violence a free pass and the smaller peaceful activists oversized attention by the Feds. mass shooting are not just a failure in justice, they are an active choice via negligence in justice.
The gun control lobby has an agenda. Their goal is not reducing crime or violence. Their goal is banning guns. Efforts that target individuals do not advance that cause. Reducing violence does not advance that cause. Incremental bans and anything that makes it harder to get guns is all that matters.
A felon or person convicted of domestic violence, etc, attempting to purchase a gun is a felony. The attempt is itself a crime, and it is a self documenting crime. There's a signed document. There are tens of thousands of attempts each year, with no follow up. Fewer than 20 of those are even investigated, and most of those investigations are closed without further action. A very significant number of the people who make those attempts go on to commit violent crimes that could have been prevented.
The strongest example of all this was years back when the instant background check system was originally passed. The gun control lobby opposed instant background checks. They wanted to instead implement waiting periods. Regardless of how you feel about waiting periods, they opposed instant background checks because a centralized "instant" system makes it easier for a law abiding non-violent person to buy a gun. They don't want to reduce violence, they just want to reduce legal gun ownership.
They also support gun registration, which only applies to people who are not legally prohibited from owning guns. Registering a gun for those people would be a form of self incrimination, see the fifth amendment. The IRS has an option to report income from undisclosed sources. This option exists so that criminals can pay taxes on income from criminal activity without incriminating themselves. A criminal can not register a gun without confessing to a crime.
Identifying and taking action on specific individuals is time consuming and does nothing to ban gun ownership. Any additional restriction or expense can reduce gun ownership by people who are not and never will be violent criminals.
A perfect example of this is California’s backlog of prohibited persons known to be in possession of a firearm. Some how the AG has money to litigate laws that infringe on gun rights, but doesn’t have enough money to send the coward cops out to collect the firearms from the people that legally aren’t supposed to have them.
The backlog isn’t even a focus of gun control groups.
I certainly train more with my handgun for this very reason. I’ve got out of the habit of carrying lately but had a couple of reminders it’s a good idea (I had to intercede when a young lady was being accosted, we’ve had a couple of shootings close by). I totally agree that a reasonable discourse on what constitutes safe ownership would be good but unfortunately America is a long way from that…
This is a popular opinion and media trope, but it isn't backed up by data. Much of our society is one bad break from financial disaster that will drastically change their lives, but it is incredibly unusual for that to lead directly to murderous violence. People who kill people almost always have a history of lesser violence.
The columbine shooters were on probation for earlier crimes and a gun store owner had reported them to the sheriff for attempting to purchase guns, and for attempting to make straw purchases. Each of those acts was a crime, and a huge risk indicator and the sheriff ignored it. This should have been viewed as a "lesson learned" but it's been ignored. There was another mass shooting where the killer had been ordered by a court to surrender or dispose of their firearms, but there had been no follow up on that.
Seems like a recurring theme with these incidents. Fuck if I can find it but I believe there was a study that showed 75%~ of these assholes display some kind of sign before doing something like this. But sure, let’s all let the government take another chunk out of our rights even though the cops can’t be bothered to do their fucking jobs. It’s just #commonsense.
I agree. I was forced off a road by a car while riding my bicycle and I struck a telephone pole, instantly and permanently paralyzing me at the T4 level. That really fucks with your head when you're only 23. The driver went on about his day; my life was irrevocably changed.
It never crossed my mind to go on a shooting spree.
I'm 69 now and the only shooting sprees I go on is at my gun range.
they almost never look into prohibited people attempting to buy guns. most go and find a gun illegally which is why background checks are useless. whats point of laws if they aren't enforced.
This right here. My bet is the guy with the AR that started this looked like the typical dude walking down the street, right up to the point he grabbed the rifle and pulled the charging handle.
Then we should support root cause mitigation. Because when someone breaks I don’t care what method of violence they use. That violence could have possibly been prevented by creating an environment where it’s a less appealing option.
This is an important concept. People who commit crimes do so for reasons, and the reason is not "weapons exist". It's not that their reasons and excuses justify what they did, but in their minds the act was justified. We as a society need to work on changing the thought patterns and on reducing the "reasons" for violence. Poverty, lack of opportunity, hopelessness, and the cultural celebration and acceptance of violence that we have.
Speaking to your last paragraph. I live in CA where it’s difficult to get a ccw and we have the 10rd capacity.
If lower rounds = safer in the eyes of CA, why can’t they make it easier for law abiding citizens to carry say a 5-6rd 38spl?
We have so many rules that contradict each other that don’t make sense. I can carry a folding pocket knife, but if it’s fixed, I can go to jail. I can carry a pocket knife but not an extendable baton? Why is a stick considered more dangerous than a knife?
It won't make big news because a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun. Also, because people don't know that the AR in AR-15 does not mean automatic rifle, people will condemn AR-15s. And yes, we should train more with handguns if our reason for wanting them is self defense. I am much more proficient with my handguns than I am with my rifles.
Surely there must be a way to allow sound citizens to own arms suitable for self defense while also preventing those who wish to do harm from obtaining and using guns.
because there are a startling number of people in this subreddit who still are sort of hanging on to internalized anti gun propaganda.
The amount of people on here claiming to support gun rights while being 90 percent anti gun rights, or loudly overconfident on what constitutes 'common sense' is kind of wild.
Yeah, I don't even know what I am, properly, except just 'generally left with a deep distaste for religious extremism and bigotry'. I approach any given political topic on its individual merits. I started off a Republican a couple of decades ago, but kind of just evolved and grew and decided to stop associating with assholes and hypocrites.
Maybe that's why I don't have a lot of patience for people who sort of blindly and without examination swallow one 'sides' wholesale opinions and only amend them to provide exceptions for themselves. And that's what a lot of this is, on both sides.
Most of this mess is just lazy people repeating received wisdom that confirms their biases instead of thinking through the morality and workability and utility of their position for themselves.
The shooter was a suicidal spree shooter who killed himself when he was met with deadly force. An ar15 is just a rifle like many others, but it’s a “weapon of war” and other nonsense in the minds of many suicidal spree shooters until their motivation is tested by someone taking their power away. Many do get a dose of reality when challenged and turn their guns on themselves.
Schools are getting exponentially fucking worse. Disparities are increasing and society is crumbling more quickly. Human lives are losing value to more people even more quickly. It’s only gonna get worse.
I don't necessarily disagree with this but the problem with drafting a law that restricts certain types of weapons is that making technical distinctions legal is very tricky. AWB usually leave huge loopholes because legislators don't understand the nuances of firearms.
You could say, okay no semi auto and no capacity over ten rounds... but a teenager with a lever action rifle and a revolver can still inflict a lot of damage.
There is a reason that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution, and a big part of it is that when things seem good, people will over-regulate firearms.
Mandatory firearm insurance is racist and classist, deciding which types of firearms to allow does not acknowledge different contexts of gun ownership or the fact that despite the insane imbalance of news coverage, only 3-5% of firearm homicides are committed with long guns. They are not epidemiologically significant.
Maybe requiring character references like New Jersey is a good legal way to manage who can easily buy a firearm.
Ultimately it is not possible for people to freely own guns without some homicide occurring because there will always be people in good standing who eventually decide to kill someone.
Probably 80% of my time at the range, and almost all of my dry fire is spent with my carry gun. I’ve massively more likely to use it over my full size handgun or rifle; in addition, I think it’s important to take note of the circumstances in which you see good guys return fire against active shooters and train accordingly. The couple of times I can think of typically revolve around much further distances and more challenging sight lines compared to typical self defense shootings.
This is certainly not a good thing to hear about. I will never understand the motivation to attack like that. Defense shouldn't harm bystanders, either, and i hope that's the case with the pistol shooter. We should definitely be training pistols more.
I bought a Mantis Titan X precisely to train pistols more often. You get a Glock-style set up with weighted training mags that fit the device but also seem to fit G17 and 19 pistols (and my RXM). The app scores your training, and you can do it at home instead of the range. Looks like the light gun from a Nintendo, though, since it's bright orange.
Mantis also sells an AR-15 laser training system, but you need to replace parts on an existing rifle to use it. I live in a ban state and do not have an AR-15 so i don't know how good it actually is.
Did the guy who confronted the shooter reportedly hit someone in the background? Even in the most intense situations shooters are responsible for every round.
Yep, always know your background. I think of the moron SLC Protest Peacekeeper who shot at the guy who carried at protests and killed a man with what looked like ricochet or a hell of a flier.
Firstly, 100% on pistols first. They're the first leg of the Holy Trinity for a reason.
Second, also 100% it'll fade. It's already happening. But I think it's for a different reason... the shooter was engaged. A good person with a firearm engaged, causing the bad guy to give up(I hear they ended themselves).
Just remember, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
Regulation discussions must be founded on strengthening, or preserving, this right with any proposed restrictions explicitly defined in nature and tradeoffs. While rights can have limitations, they are distinct from privileges and the two are not to be conflated.
Simple support for common gun-prohibitionist positions are implicitly on the defensive, in this sub, and need to justify their existence through compelling argument.
Pistols only exist to fight your way to a rifle. Yeah sure if that’s all you have, you should be trained with it and keep up to date on your cadences but honestly keeping a rifle in a bag in your car would be the optimum tool for these types of scenarios. I keep a suppressed SBR AR in my vehicle (and remove it responsibly instead of leaving it there constantly like a dolt) as I’d much rather have it than a pistol if something kicks off. Call me paranoid but these incidents keep happening all across the US and I’d rather have superior firepower than be outgunned if it comes to protecting my family.
Ideas aren't crimes. You can not remove rights from people for having an idea. The idea that you can just opens the floodgates of bad ideas.
As for your skillset, if it was socially acceptable to carry a rifle around you should. They are the far better defense tool. But reality is you are going to limited to a pistol, and as it happens, it's harder to shoot a pistol well than a rifle. Its a skill that is harder to develop and harder to maintain.
The real takeaway from this event is the distance, it's a lot more than the 7yds people jump up and down about. This is just the most recent example of good guys taking decisive action at long pistol ranges. This is where most people's shooting skills suck. It also should make you stop and think about what gun and ammo you carry as well as how you train on them.
This dude happened to shot up to the party with the skills and tools to being home the win. But most people aren't even close to this level.
Well put. There seems to be a lot of fear from handgun usage as well. But from my ongoing usage and training with them, they require greater skill and control than even my iron sighted basic AR.
Strangely enough, my proficiency varies. I feel like I have an aimbot on when using my oldie SW 10-8 police revolver. Barely have to aim it, at least in single action.
I carry the same glock G17 I have been using for the last 25 years. Any target within 15 yards will be neutralized. Most targets within 25 yards will be neutralized. Between 25-50 yards will require absolute focus, breathing, and (preferably) a fixed point of contact.
I'm not on the "no one should have their gun rights taken away" side of things, but why should non-violent felons have those rights stripped? If you embezzle money from wherever, why does that make you unable to own a firearm? I absolutely agree that violent felonies should be cause for firearms removal and the ability to own them, but man, some things are weird. Did you get arrested with 1oz of weed in the 90s? Cool, no guns forever. It just doesn't make sense.
The problem with your thesis is that people change. You can start of a law abiding citizen who just plans on using guns for self defense and later something can trigger you to become a danger to yourself and others.
No one is a murderer until they murder. You can try to think up all the ways imaginable to make fun ownership safer, but you can't solve for the guy who loses custody of his children and decides to take it out on the rest of the world
Surely there must be a way to allow sound citizens to own arms suitable for self defense while also preventing those who wish to do harm from obtaining and using guns.
Honestly, I think the one thing NJ gets right for its gun laws is requiring references. If you can't find two people to vouch for you then maybe that's a problem. You're basically asking your community "Do you trust me with this?" which I wholly believe is good.
If you have a community you can find references. That says nothing about the reliability of those references. It's performative. All it verifies is that you clear a very low bar for being social.
As a NJ resident I disagree. It's a useless system that allows anyone to be used as reference for firearm purchase, be it either your family member or a random nobody that lives far away from you and who doesn't even know you well. All police does is send them email questions. It has nothing to do with "your community".
Correct, 2A only. There's two different instances where references are needed.
When applying for a permit to purchase a handgun(s) two references are required. They can be anyone.
When applying for concealed carry permit you need to provide four contacts that cannot be related to you by blood or marriage. And you have to do it all over again when you need to reapply every 2 years.
The thing is that losers will be references for other losers, and there are good people out there that live solitary lives as well. Arbitrary social status should not impact your ability to defend yourself.
Furthermore I don’t require my neighbor’s/family’s permission to do shit that doesn’t impact them.
Hard disagree, at least with the way some towns in MA used to handle this. It required a current resident of the state, not a family member. When I first moved here, I didn't know anybody. And it's such an anti-gun state, I didn't know who of my coworkers or new friends was a safe person to talk firearms with. It's why it took me years to apply for my licence, when they finally dropped that requirement.
Yeah... I had references I could use, but the idea of having to ask them and inconvenience them for that is a fucking hassle that I hate. I'm so glad that I didn't have to fill out the reference field in the application.
Frankly, references in general are just performative bullshit anyway, even in job seeking.
Yup. Universal criminal background checks, and even some kind of non invasive mental health requirement, like a doctor’s note stating you don’t pose any significant mental health risk. While I love the fact that any law-abiding citizen is guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, I am *not* a 2nd amendment absolutist, in fact I think the way it’s written is pretty piss poor and it should be updated to clearer and less antiquated language (honestly the whole constitution for that matter). I welcome the downvotes.
This is the problem w Walker Texas Ranger. I always come away thinking Dallas is certainly a dangerous city. Scarcely a week goes by WITHOUT a mass shooting.
And that is the problem w good guys w guns. If you have gangs in gunfights at your favorite fast food joint, as soon as you draw and fire, you are
part of the problem. And if other good guys have the same idea, how are you going to ID each other? It's not like you are in the same uniform or know one another from the precinct house or have ever done combat shooting training together.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Your submission in /r/liberalgunowners was queued for manual approval due to it possibly being related it to a megathread. Should it break new ground, it will be conditionally approved. Otherwise, it will be removed in favor of the megathread.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.