I agree. I don't have TV except for 3 channels (cooking and whatnot). I'm not on FaceCrook. And I don't get a newspaper. If it weren't for Trapperman, I would be completely under a rock. Just how I like it.

Haven't watched the news. What style of rifle did the shooter use?

I think it applies in all situations.

The general principle behind duty to retreat laws is that the use of force - lethal or otherwise - is not justified until a person has made a reasonable effort to avoid confrontation, either by de-escalation or an attempt to leave the area where the threat is occurring.

So if you are unfortunate enough to live in a state with a Duty to Retreat law, your only legal recourse is to hide, run away if you can (even in your own home) or try to de-escalate the situation ("Please sir. could you stop shooting people, that's not very nice of you.").

Once you have tried all that you might possibly avoid prosecution if you use deadly force. But if you live in a liberal state with that type of law, I wouldn't count on it.

Duty to retreat means only in self defense. However Castle Doctrine changes that if your on your own property. If out in public you will get in trouble. You will be arrested and tried. You do have a chance though because the jury may find your actions justified. In that case you'll go free and have to find 10's of thousands of dollars to pay for all your attorney fees. Lol.

In PA the Castle Doctrine applies anywhere, you do not have to be in your home to stand your ground.

I dont care what the law says. If there is an active shooter around me, I'm going to at least try to take them out. I'll do the jail time or pay the fines if it means I have saved someone or multiple people.

I do think they care , if people shoot back.
they find gun free zones , they find people in and around bars where they couldn't carry and drink legally.
some may be on a suicide mission but others surrender shortly after law enforcement arrive.

there is a difference between suicide and murder suicide if they have a goal of killing a bunch of people to make some statement first then suicide or suicide by cop catching a bullet 30 seconds in rather than police arriving 6-8 minutes in. is different.

if the shooter is brought down by a cop.citizen ect with only a few injured or low death count that is done in just a few 24 hour media cycles vs weeks.

just guns are not the answer , >10% of the population in any place being both well trained and well armed , could go a long way to reducing at a minimum the duration of such an attack. less than 5% in most states are even licensed in states that would require a license and probably less than 1/2 of that actually carry on a regular basis.

actual number of armed people in any one place even if it is a unrestricted area is likely around 1% if that person isn't immediately adjacent the attack they will likely be making egress rather than joining the fight.
a former cop friend of mine who recently decided it was time to start carrying again he left the force 24 years ago and didn't carry a day since bought himself a new gun he had let his service revolver go back tot eh department when he left, didn't even have a gun these last 24 years. any way we started doing some training together to get his proficiency back . he asked me Pete if you were in a store and a guy started shooting the place up would you engaged to which I had to answer if I am in the back of the store and egress is available and I have the kids with egress it is.

as a part of an active shooter training I took last year , it was largely a review of decades worth of such attacks and what we knew about the shooter, the victims , what worked in slowing the attacker , what didn't . ect..

what we learned was that the profiles of what and why changed so much that if you made a list of who would carry out such an attack based on the common characteristics it would return hundreds of thousands if not millions of false positives.

what single trait do they all share? a deep anger that they have been wronged and that hurting or killing people be they the people who wronged them or not will make it better.

You do know that you are proposing a restriction of the first amendment?

I would have thought that there would have been so many Texans carrying that this guy would have been taken out a lot sooner.

Once the mass shootings start,that never happens,its always law enforcement that plugs the perp.Sometimes an armed citizen will prevent an armed robbery,but I never heard of a mass shooter being taken out by an armed citizen.Everyone is too busy running away.

Texas is probably one of the states that promotes open and concealed carry more than any place in the USA and there does not seem to be any evidence that those states with very liberal gun carry laws stop these events or curtail the carnage, so using freedom of carry and other such issues does not seem to hold up with the evidence that we have seen in the distant and current past. Universal background checks may not curtail these events or others as would be hoped but background checks are about people and not firearms, magazines, ammo etc. If we are strong advocates of the gun does not kill people it is the person pulling the triggers then we need to be careful how that issue is addressed. We have been fortunate in the past that those wanting strong gun control center around clip size and numbers of rounds fired etc. etc. and not get real serious about background checks, because if they did the argument would be stronger and not be about the mechanics of what is fired etc.

Bryce

At least they didn't "ARREST" him . Someone that does a mass shooting should be shot on site. Don't care if he or she lay down and give up. Just like nut that shot up school kids in Walmart in Texas. Threw his hands up when LEO closed in. Center mass a clip into him !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It did help (not prevent) the shooting at the church a few years back. Grandpa with an AR started shooting back and he ran

Here's some reading for you

https://crimeresearch.org/2019/05/uber-driver-in-chicago-stops-mass-public-shooting/

once the threat has been eliminated, It will not progress to a mass shooting. I would be very difficult to know how many are actually eliminated, but I suspect it is a lot and under reported.

White 17,

Don't confuse locoboco with any facts!!!

I don't blame anyone with a snub noze 38 that can barely hit a pie plate at 10 yards for retreating from a heavily armed mass shooter with an AK and a hundred round drum magazine.

Completely false Bobo. There are plenty of examples of armed citizens stopping mass shootings. Just three weeks ago at a Walmart in Springfield, MO. a good guy with a gun stopped some whack job who pulled up to the store, donned body armor, armed himself with a “tactical rifle,” a handgun, and more than 100 rounds of ammunition then started his camera rolling as he walked down an aisle. The good guy held hem at gunpoint until the police arrived.

No actual shooting in that case so:

In May of last year; Bryan Whittle and Juan Carlos Nazario, two guys that didn't know each other, heard the “popping of gun shots” at a popular Oklahoma City restaurant, they grabbed their weapons, moved toward the danger, engaged the shooter, and killed him.

In December 2017 at Schlenker Automotive in Rockledge, Fla. a shooter killed one man and wounded another before two employees of the store, Don Smith and Nathan Taylor, returned fire, wounded the shooter, and held him at gunpoint until the police arrived.

All three of the above incidents had the potential to turn into mass shootings but were stopped by armed citizens and there are more examples. And there are hundreds, probably thousands of examples of armed citizens preventing violent crimes and protecting themselves and others. You rarely hear about it because it doesn't fit the left's agenda of disarming America and they control the media and what people are exposed to.

There was no mass shooting in your example-those are just robberies and gang stuff.
I am talking about the mass shooter during the act or after the fact,that law enforcement handles,Not some assumed thing that might have happened.

I don't see any proposed first amendment restrictions here. He is simply stating fact. Nowhere does he say anything about restricting anyone.

What you don't know, you don't know.

Happens more often than ya think, just that most news sources don't want to say so.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-ch...ood-guy-with-gun-takes-down-mass-shooter