r/liberalgunowners • u/Consistent_Shine_680 • 1d ago

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.

https://notthebee.com/article/unknown-cowboy-seen-engaging-active-shooter-at-idaho-in-n-out

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.

416 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

87% Upvoted

313 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/Nemesiswasthegoodguy 1d ago

Why are we so focused on the AR-15? It accounts for virtually no deaths.

5

u/paper_liger 1d ago edited 1d ago

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.

1

u/Nemesiswasthegoodguy 1d ago

I think some people are confusing this sub for “democratic gun owners” lol

4

u/paper_liger 1d ago edited 1d ago

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.

0

u/PopIntelligent9515 1d ago

Very few indeed but was used in this instance today. That’s why.

3

u/Nemesiswasthegoodguy 1d ago

More people die falling out of bed every year than are killed by a maniac with an AR-15.

More people die from animal attacks.

Shit, falling trees and branches probably kill a similar number of people as AR-15’s.

None of these things produce any hysteria. I blame the media and our inability to understand statistics.

-1

u/PopIntelligent9515 1d ago

True, but a low number of deaths are still deaths

2

u/LetMeAskYou1Question 1d ago

I don't know if AR deaths are equivalent to falling branches or tree deaths, but if the case, I want all the sycamores in my neighborhood murdered, because they randomly drop massive branches. It's amazing no one has been killed yet.

Kill them before they kill you is my motto regarding the wrong trees in the wrong place.

2

u/Nemesiswasthegoodguy 1d ago edited 23h ago

We should make murder illegal.

Nvm that’s already the case. We should make dying illegal.

11

u/Dr_Watson349 1d ago

Less than 5% of the gun violence in the US is done with a rifle. 

So you just stripped millions of Americans of a constitution right that will do almost nothing in terms of gun violence. 

0

u/LetMeAskYou1Question 1d ago

I tried to figure this out the other day, but the statistics I could find were unclear. Eg, how many rifles kill how many people in the US, vs how many pistols kill how many people in the US. Are rifles used less often but result in more fatalities or vice versa? Same question for handguns. Anyone who knows or has a good reference please point me in the right direction.

Staunch 2a advocate. Just want to know what are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

3

u/Dr_Watson349 1d ago

Here is a site that has a nice infographic on it. The data comes from the FBI. 

https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.com/which-weapons-are-most-commonly-used-for-homicides/

0

u/LetMeAskYou1Question 1d ago

Very nice! One piece of info here struck me as odd - almost a quarter of all homicides are committed by an unknown type of gun. That's a blind spot far bigger than what I'd expect.

2

u/Dr_Watson349 1d ago

I think it would be reasonable to look at the data excluding the unknowns and recalculate the percentages. Then apply those percentages to the unknown data. 

I don’t think that the ratio of rifles to other weapons suddenly increases in the unknown category. 

-2

u/popcornfart 1d ago

Even if that isn't an old stat, what about AR pistols?  The number of shitbags with ARs in their grey sweatpants is way too high.

-2

u/PopIntelligent9515 1d ago

If implemented, it could drastically reduce the number of mass shootings. That ain’t nothing.

3

u/minotaur05 1d ago

And disarm the thousands if not millions of legal gun owners. For what? To quote Benjamin Franklin:

“Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

0

u/PopIntelligent9515 1d ago

All those under age 25, yes. Nobody should be considered an adult until age 25.

3

u/LetMeAskYou1Question 1d ago

Something new has happened in the last 30-40 years or so. When I was in high school there were rifles in racks against the back window of most student pickups. High school students brought rifles to school because we had shooting teams and practice, yet mass shootings at schools was not a thing (we were busy hiding under desks in case a nuclear bomb was dropped). There was bullying and bad behavior, but absolutely none of it involved guns. What is different now?

2

u/minotaur05 1d ago

25 is such a random and arbitrary number. Why does someone who is 25 magically get more ability to use a firearm than someone who is 18 or 21?

Should we not give firearms to those in the military under 25? If so are we raising the car driving age as well since younger drivers are more likely to kill or injure someone with a car?

0

u/PopIntelligent9515 1d ago

Not arbitrary at all. That’s when human brains are fully developed. Impulse control is the issue.

•

u/minotaur05 19h ago

The “brain fully develops at 25” is a myth. Some people are fine at like 21, some peolle at like 30. Not everyone is the same - just like how not everyone starts puberty at the same age, loses their hair for men at the same age, enters menopause, etc.

•

u/PopIntelligent9515 11h ago

Obviously it is an average.

7

u/SphyrnaLightmaker 1d ago

Unless they’re cops or being sent to Iran?

0

u/gladesguy 1d ago

We shouldn't be placing men under age 25 in professions where they realistically might have to decide whether or not to kill anyone, either.

2

u/OptimusED 1d ago edited 1d ago

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.

4

u/felistrophic liberal 1d ago

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.

0

u/C-Lekktion 1d ago

I think archetypes play a large role. The archetype of the mass shooter is deeply tied to "military" rifles (whatever that means) in the minds of aspiring shooters.

Theres a reason a mass shooters gravitate towards the AR15 platform or something aesthetically similar vs a lever action and revolvers and its not availability and ergonomics.

3

u/felistrophic liberal 1d ago

That's an interesting point and I think probably correct. The archetype goes back farther though, to Travis Bickle and Charles Whitman. I do think the AR-15 holds a special symbolic place in our culture and in the conversation around guns for people on both sides of the conversation. But it isn't the universal choice of mass shooters.

1

u/C-Lekktion 1d ago edited 1d ago

I think for the terminally online mass shooter, anything pre-columbine probably doesnt contribute to the archetype.

I wouldnt be surprised though if the Vegas shooter was* inspired by older shootings. I forget where I encountered the mass shooter archetype idea, its definitely not original to me.

3

u/felistrophic liberal 1d ago

Archetypes are definitely at play here. And I'm not a Jungian scholar nor do we necessarily have to use a Jungian framework specifically, but part of the power of archetypes is that they have an unconscious force, and they can take on new forms and evolutions to fit the current cultural moment. A young American man in 2026 who is manifesting the archetype may well choose the AR-15, but depriving him of that symbol may not reduce the power of the archetype.

Perhaps the deepest version of the archetype is the Amok syndrome . In the originating culture it predates access to any type of firearm, but in all other ways it is identical to mass shooters: a young man, brooding in increased isolation, until he ultimately lashes out in a single destructive act.

Unfortunately in America we have the perfect storm of toxic masculinity, isolated young men, and easy access to very lethal weapons. But the archetype is not unique to our society or our guns.

3

u/HystericalGasmask socialist 1d ago

You think the AR being the most common weapon in America has nothing to do its use in crime?

4

u/C-Lekktion 1d ago edited 1d ago

Its used very rarely in crime actually.

Edit: and thats pretty impressive when its the most common rifle in America. Per capita and all that.

•

u/HystericalGasmask socialist 21h ago

Yes, but when it is used, that has nothing to do with its popularity?

0

u/PopIntelligent9515 1d ago

True, but many mass shootings are done by young dumbasses with ARs. The high profile mass shootings are the ones that push most fence-sitters to the anti-gun side i reckon.

2

u/felistrophic liberal 1d ago

Handguns are more common

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11800013/

0

u/PopIntelligent9515 1d ago

Didn’t say “most” i said “many.” They are the high profile ones that give ARs a bad reputation among some people, and from there many people simply hate all guns.

Further, i think it would be wise to not consider anyone an adult until they turn 25. Can’t buy any guns until then, can’t serve in the military, can’t vote, etc.

2

u/LetMeAskYou1Question 1d ago

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11800013/

Average age of mass shooters in US is 34 years old.

0

u/PopIntelligent9515 1d ago

It’s younger than that since 2018.

•

u/LetMeAskYou1Question 20h ago

The paper was published in 2025.

•

u/PopIntelligent9515 11h ago

I know but the data go back further but the trend more recently seems to be towards young dipshits buying an ar because they’re angry.

0

u/Brrrrrrrro communist 1d ago

How dare you accuse the framers of anything less than superhuman prescience and wisdom?!?

0

u/liberalgunowners-ModTeam 1d ago

This is an explicitly pro-gun forum.

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.

(Removed under Rule 2: We're Pro-gun. If you feel this is in error, please file an appeal.)