Good guy with a gun

B

BobCat45

New member
The news has a story about an abortive mass shooting at a shopping mall in Greenwood, Indiana.

The Associated Press story is at https://apnews.com/article/indiana-mall-shooting-345348912b288dce656083b2422c2fde

A "fair use" quote of the leading paragraph:

Three people were fatally shot and two were injured Sunday evening at an Indiana mall after a man with a rifle opened fire in a food court and an armed civilian shot and killed him, police said.
Click to expand...

The 'good guy with a gun' is reportedly 22 years old. There is no additional reporting on who he is, what kind of weapon he used (I assume his carry pistol, but you know what happens when one assumes things), the specific type of rifle the attacker used (but it was magazine fed since they report he had a rifle and magazines), or exactly how the event transpired.

I'm grateful that more people were not killed or injured, sad that anyone at all was killed or injured, and utterly amazed that every news story I've read about this actually stated that an "armed civilian" ended the attack.

This is in juxtaposition to a number of current news stories about the police response to the school shooting in Uvalde, TX.

Interested in your views on carry pistol vs rifle (if that assumption is even correct) and how you think the public will interpret this event.
 
Local news is reporting that the 22-year-old "Good Samaritan" did indeed shoot and kill the suspect with a handgun.

https://fox59.com/news/at-least-2-dead-in-shooting-at-greenwood-park-mall/

I lived in or near Greenwood for several years and used to frequent the Greenwood Park Mall. Like all Simon Malls, there are "no guns" signs posted at all the entrances though these signs carry no force of law in Indiana (if caught with a gun, you'll be asked to leave by Mall security). Seems to me that being designated a gun-free-zone was at best worthless (the suspect didn't care) to potentially deadly (likely would've been worse if Good Samaritan had obeyed the signs).

As to engaging with a handgun when bad guy has a rifle, you have to roll with what you have. Carrying a rifle often isn't practical (and in many places isn't legal). It seems in this case the Good Samaritan with the handgun was able to win the day, so good on him.

Unfortunately I also think this will be memory-holed fairly soon as it doesn't fit the preferred narrative.
 
Webleymkv said:
As to engaging with a handgun when bad guy has a rifle, you have to roll with what you have. Carrying a rifle often isn't practical (and in many places isn't legal). It seems in this case the Good Samaritan with the handgun was able to win the day, so good on him.
Click to expand...

All four "major" wire services had the story on their web sites; AP, UPI, ABC, and even Reuters https://www.reuters.com/world/us/gunman-kills-three-indiana-mall-before-being-shot-by-armed-bystander-2022-07-18/ which is often pretty objective *except* when it comes to guns.

Local sites are reporting the story; the local Houston news sites had it, and even the Chicago Sun Times carried the AP version saying that the 'armed civilian' ended the problem. Of all the many crappy rags I look at, only the New York Post failed to mention it.

I just wonder whether we have 'turned a corner' on the one-sided news coverage, or if this is just an anomaly. Time will tell.

As far as rolling with what you have, I agree with you completely. In Texas I would be technically legal to walk around with an AR carbine on a sling, but would draw too much attention and I'd be asked to leave anywhere I showed up like that, if not immediately arrested for something like 'disorderly conduct' or 'brandishing' (I know, there is no such law here) - but at my age, with my eyesight, I'd be one heck of a lot less dangerous to bystanders with the carbine than my pistol. Another good reason not to go out in public.
 
"good guy with a gun stops bad guy with a gun"...it IS news, but don't expect it to be in the news more than a day, or so...

back at the end of May, in Charlotte, a man opened fire on a party with an AR-15. A woman at the party (private citizen - NOT armed security or off duty cop) drew her pistol and shot him, DRT. No one else was shot.

That one was also out of the headlines in 24hrs (or less).

I also fully support the news withholding the names of these individuals.

I just wonder whether we have 'turned a corner' on the one-sided news coverage, or if this is just an anomaly. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Turned the corner? Not yet, not by a long shot. HOWEVER, there are some indications that the news industry has finally begun to awake to the fact that the extreme one sideded coverage of guns is beginning to harm their industry. I saw a "guidance" from one of the major news groups (though I now forget which one) a little while back that was interesting, it literally told their reporters to stop using the term "assault weapon" to describe every gun they wrote about.

Seems some bright fellow finally realized that when you do nothing but lie, eventually, some people are not going to fully trust you.....:rolleyes:
 
44 AMP said:
Turned the corner? Not yet, not by a long shot. HOWEVER, there are some indications that the news industry has finally begun to awake to the fact that the extreme one sideded coverage of guns is beginning to harm their industry. I saw a "guidance" from one of the major news groups (though I now forget which one) a little while back that was interesting, it literally told their reporters to stop using the term "assault weapon" to describe every gun they wrote about.
Click to expand...
At least one reporter got the memo. I saw an article about the Uvalde school shooting that talked about the shooter buying two "machine guns."
 
Looks like another example where a person has a better chance if the area is not a gun free zone. Wonder if the politicians will catch on?
 
I wonder other things.
There is a technique in analyzing a position called an Appeal to the Extremes.

Think of every ignorant thing you’ve ever heard someone with an opinion on this topic that is different than yours. Now imagine they are all untrained and carrying weapons. Every ignorant foolish clodberger you ever met….

I sure would not feel safer!

Having seen the knuckleheads at cabelas that can’t control their muzzle direction… sheesh.

Perhaps the best solution would be to look at other countries and see how it is they have less mass shootings.
 
44 AMP your point is well taken. I recall the incident to which you refer and it did indeed vanish from the news within a day or two.

This one in Houston https://www.fox26houston.com/news/would-be-robber-killed-after-armed-victim-turns-tables-in-west-houston about an armed robber who failed his victim selection test is current, we'll see how long it takes to vanish.

Lately I've seen a number of news stories about ordinary people jumping in to terrible situations to help, often successfully. Pulling the driver out of a wrecked, burning car; waking a family whose house was on fire and getting them out; jumping in the water to rescue a drowning person. I do no know whether there is a sudden spate of 'Good Samaritanism', the news has suddenly turned to reporting such stories, or I've just become attuned to reading anything that might nourish my optimism. So, during this period of being inundated with Uvalde stories, this one just jumped out at me and I was blown away that the major wire services all picked it up.

BTW I was quite wrong about 'all the crappy rags I peruse' - BBC had no mention of this story even though they are quite vociferous about Uvalde.
 
I was watching "The View" 07/19/2022 - watching to keep track of the enemy - when the Greenwood Mall shooting came up. One of the members mentioned that the good guy was carrying illegally in the mall. When the guest host tried to correct that the mall rule was not law, Whoopie immediately broke in and they went to commercial. I suspect that someone in the control room squashed that line of discussion immediately.

NRA Benefactor Golden Eagle
 
There really isn't an MSM anymore. We can all tune into our own echo chambers or tune into our perception of the other side's echo chamber. But the days of the news being distributed by a handful of sources are long gone.

And anyone who is too lazy to do their own research is content to keep up with the Kardashians and not much else.
 
s3779m said:
Looks like another example where a person has a better chance if the area is not a gun free zone. Wonder if the politicians will catch on?
Click to expand...
It was a "gun free zone". Now the D.A. is considering charging the guy who stopped the shooter.
I am glad Ga passed the new law that deals with that problem.
 
What's the D.A. going to charge him with? My understanding is that it wasn't "illegal" for him to carry unless someone from the mall management asked him to leave and he refused to do so -- and then the charge would be trespass, not a gun charge.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
What's the D.A. going to charge him with? My understanding is that it wasn't "illegal" for him to carry unless someone from the mall management asked him to leave and he refused to do so -- and then the charge would be trespass, not a gun charge.
Click to expand...
I hope nothing. Never underestimate the left.
 
Now the D.A. is considering charging the guy who stopped the shooter.
Click to expand...

the DA is considering making points with the anti gun people by SAYING he is "considering charging" the guy.

Private property owners DO have the right to make their property "gun free zones" if they wish. If you have a gun there, you are breaking their wishes, but NOT breaking any law. IF they ask you to leave, and you refuse, THEN you ARE breaking a law, TRESPASS.
 
44 AMP said:
the DA is considering making points with the anti gun people by SAYING he is "considering charging" the guy.

Private property owners DO have the right to make their property "gun free zones" if they wish. If you have a gun there, you are breaking their wishes, but NOT breaking any law. IF they ask you to leave, and you refuse, THEN you ARE breaking a law, TRESPASS.
Click to expand...
I agree in Georgia. I don't know Indiana law.
 
reynolds357 said:
I agree in Georgia. I don't know Indiana law.
Click to expand...
From Handgunlaw.us

“No Firearm” signs in Indiana have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you even if you are within the law.
 
Last edited:
The Greenwood Park Mall has posted a statement that reads in part:

"We are grateful for the strong response of the first responders, including the heroic actions of the Good Samaritan who stopped the suspect."

So they are unlikely to ask for any charges to be filed.

The only information I've seen is that the county DA wanted to interview the young hero; haven't seen anything that he is considering any charges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top