2 suspects in custody after San Antonio shopping mall shooting

This really shows the failure of the "good guy with a gun" myth. A GGWG can shoot a criminal, but they can't actually defend against the violence done by a criminal. A gun is only ever offensive.

Thank you, NRA.

"Thanks you, NRA" is not warranted here but still think it's better to have the police taking care of it instead of risking a shoot out OK Coral style...

Playing the hero is too risky.

This really shows the failure of the "good guy with a gun" myth.

Why? No mention of whether the "good Samaritan" that died had a gun. There is mention though of one good guy with a gun who got the murderer and might have prevented him from killing others.

"Thanks you, NRA" is not warranted here

Because the NRA lobbies tirelessly to protect American citizens from gun violence?

Raw Beer: "There is mention though of one good guy with a gun who got the murderer and might have prevented him from killing others."

Yeah, but he also DID cause the other suspect to flee while firing at others and injuring two others, whose condition isn't mentioned. Ergo, the good guy with the gun got these other people shot, good intentions or not.

Kind of gives the lie to the "if we were all armed bad things wouldn't happen" narrative. Good Samaritan thought he was a lethal weapon and turned out he was falling down

Yeah, but he also DID cause the other suspect to flee while firing at others and injuring two others,

Did he? Where did you get impression? This article does not say that.

Good Samaritan thought he was a lethal weapon and turned out he was falling down

Yeah, maybe if he was armed, he would be alive and well.

RIP to the victims. Condolences to their family.

The taxpayers in San Antonio and throughout Texas are going to pay for the law enforcement, medical and judicial costs, among others, resulting from this latest gun rampage.

In gun loving Texas you have to assume that many of those already owning private arsenals have already gone out or are going to go out to add more guns and ammo to their collections because of this latest shooting.

And once again, the only people profiting are those in the gun business, Trump's truest believing followers. No doubt Trump will push for the gun industry to profit even more.

Reject this American carnage!

This really shows the failure of the "good guy with a gun" myth. A GGWG can shoot a criminal, but they can't actually defend against the violence done by a criminal. A gun is only ever offensive.

If you believe that then that means law enforcement and the military should be disbanded.

instead of risking a shoot out OK Coral style...

OK Coral shootout was a law enforcement shoot out with criminals in which no civilians were killed or wounded and none of the law enforcement officers in the shootout were killed while three of the criminals were killed. Seeing as that is the result of the OK Coral I'm not seeing the downside....

Playing the hero is too risky.

It is not about playing "hero" it is about the responsibility and obligation of if you have ability to help someone who is being assaulted you have to intervene.

Yeah, but he also DID cause the other suspect to flee while firing at others and injuring two others, whose condition isn't mentioned. Ergo, the good guy with the gun got these other people shot, good intentions or not.

Non-sequitur.

Raw Beer: "Did he? Where did you get impression? This article does not say that."

It most certainly does: "The other robber who fled the mall fired his weapon, injuring a man and a woman."

That was after the "good Samaritan" shot the first robber.

"Yeah, maybe if he was armed, he would be alive and well."

And maybe even more would be dead.

Nonliving: "If you believe that then that means law enforcement and the military should be disbanded."

Hogwash. We're talking about armed citizens, not the military and police. Their job is to uphold the law, that is NOT the job of civilians, and this is precisely why. This is PROOF.

"Non-sequitur."

How is it a non-sequitur? The robber fled when the "good Samaritan" opened fire and hit the other robber; in his retreat he started shooting up the place, hitting others. It is a direct result, and connected. The only non-sequiturs here today are the, "Well... geez... if people who are not police or military can't have guns, police and military shouldn't have guns, either" comments, not to mention being straw man arguments.

Seeing as that is the result of the OK Coral I'm not seeing the downside....

Ah, the good old days: tooled-up, god-fearin' white men. MAGA?

Hogwash. We're talking about armed citizens, not the military and police. Their job is to uphold the law, that is NOT the job of civilians, and this is precisely why. This is PROOF.

But it applies just the same to them. A police officer can shoot a bad guy with a gun but they can't actually defend against the violence a criminal does. Same for the military when protection the nation from foreign threats, they can shoot the foreign threat but they can't defend against the violence the foreign threat does. If your claim is that they can, especially a law enforcement officer, then so can an armed citizen.

How is it a non-sequitur?

Because the robber made a choice to shoot up the place while fleeing, the robber wasn't forced into shooting the other people while fleeing. For all you know the robbers would have shot up the place while fleeing with or without any confrontation by an armed or unarmed population. It does not follow that robbers will go out of their way to attack people who are not confronting them while making a get away and are not blocking their escape.

That was after the "good Samaritan" shot the first robber.

You should reread the article. The "good Samaritan" did not shoot anyone. The article says he intervened, but there is no mention of him being armed:

After the suspects fled the store, a man, described by McManus as a “good Samaritan” tried to stop the two men.

One of the robbers then fatally shot the man, McManus said.

A second individual, who was carrying a licensed concealed weapon, then shot and wounded the robber who had killed the person who intervened, McManus said.

The other robber who fled the mall fired his weapon, injuring a man and a woman.

If the good guy with a gun did not shoot one robber, there could have been two robbers, instead of one, fleeing the mall and shooting at people.

If the good guy with a gun did not shoot one robber, there could have been two robbers, instead of one, fleeing the mall and shooting at people.

What if guns were near impossible to procure, and possession had the strictest sanction - say 10 years for first offence?

What if guns were near impossible to procure.

Very difficult thing to accomplish. Just introducing new laws will not make guns magically disappear.

and possession had the strictest sanction - say 10 years for first offence?

Well, in the above story, the two robbers don't seem to care much about being punished for murder, so this sanction you are proposing might not influence them much. What you are proposing would only take guns away from the good guy.

I guess if guns were always near impossible to procure, then America would still be British.

Well, in the above story, the two robbers don't seem to care much about being punished for murder

Is that why they murdered the staff in the store?

There is NO ONE to blame but the (illegally) armed robbers.

What if guns were near impossible to procure, and possession had the strictest sanction - say 10 years for first offence?

You would end up with a situation that you have with drugs and prostitution. Banned but still plentiful.

You would end up with a situation that you have with drugs and prostitution. Banned but still plentiful.

But I thought people were generally lawful. Are you saying that people would place illegal gun ownership over being lawful citizens?

Are you saying that people would place illegal gun ownership over being lawful citizens?

They will place defending their own life and the life of their family over being lawful citizens, yes.

It is always interesting to read the debate about gun ownership, the NRA, etc.

One thing that must be considered is the fact that there are now so many weapons in circulation in the U.S. that banning guns and trying to remove them from circulation would be nearly impossible.

The first step would be to ask for people to voluntarily surrender their weapons and then compensate gun owners for legal guns voluntarily submitted.

Next, it would be necessary to search people's domiciles to find and remove unreported weapons (bye bye 4th Amendment).

Finally there would need to be a mechanism to deal with the millions of un-registered and unlawfully purchased firearms (such as the Saturday night special bought out of the trunk of a car).

Gun ownership is a difficult problem. I do not think the 2nd Amendment should be abolished and I am for legal and strictly regulated firearms ownership as there is obviously a problem in the U.S., especially in places like Chicago where on some weekends dozens are shot.

It might have helped non-US readers if the article had stated which country or state San Antonio was in. I know it's a big city, but it's not the only city to bear the name.

But I thought people were generally lawful. Are you saying that people would place illegal gun ownership over being lawful citizens?

They are, I consider people willfully breaking contemptible laws to still be law abiding. Good examples would be recreational drug usage, consensual prostitution, non-malicous gun owners etc.

They are, I consider people willfully breaking contemptible laws to still be law abiding. Good examples would be recreational drug usage, consensual prostitution, non-malicous gun owners etc.

People who break the law are still law abiding.

Yeah, that makes sense alright.

Yeah, that makes sense alright.

Civil disobedience to me is being law abiding. For example I consider the illegal immigrants who simply go to work and school in the USA to be law abiding.