Was the good guy with the gun really a good guy, or was this just another AR-15 murder spree?

[gulliver]

I don't accept the "well, there's an example of a good guy with a gun," storyline. It doesn't hold water. I think we should at least try to untwist it before we have a bunch of the people who really deserve nothing but blame taking bows and basking in self-generated praise.

Three people were killed by a 20-year-old, nutty, broken young man using an assault rifle (Sig Sauer Model 400, supposedly). Isn't that just another murder spree to lay at the feet of the people who can't see the need for sensible gun control? It sure fits the pattern.

But what about the good guy, the hero?

Sorry. We don't know enough about him yet. It would be ironic if the "good guy" turns out to be an anti-gun-control absolutist who loves AR-15s. He might be a hero in that moment at the mall, while, simultaneously, unwittingly at 22, being an enabler-level accomplice to the crime.

On edit: And even if the young man turns out to be a clear hero (and I hope he does), that doesn't mean the guys who sing his praises and can't see their way to sensible gun control are heroes too. Their claim is only to the role of enabler.

[ForgedCrank]

1. Why all the

negativity toward a man that potentially saved dozens of lives including his own?
It does hold water. This 22 year old asked for nothing other than to remain anonymous and private. Where do you see him "taking bows" and "basking in self-generated praise"? He didn't even want anyone to know who he was but someone has now leaked his name.

This guy just had to kill another human in self-defense and will probably have nightmares for the rest of his life. He chose that instead of being shot dead by a freak while other bodies piled up.
Why would it even be important what the "good guy" position is regarding gun control? The only thing we need to know about him is if he was an accomplice or not, and the FBI determined he was not. And he didn't have an AR-15, he had comparatively anemic 9mm pistol on him, nothing more.

[gulliver]

3. I'm wary of the idea of a 22-year-old walking around in a mall with a concealed weapon.

But I'm not completely negative about him. I don't think we really know what his past is, his reason for carrying, his feelings in the matter. That might tempt us to project a fantasy onto him.

To clarify, I did add an "on edit" to the bottom of the post on who I really think should do some thinking. I want to make it clear that this story should be headlined, "Another murder spree with an assault rifle." It shouldn't be, "Good guy with gun saves the day," tempting as that might be for the media and convenient as that might be for those who can't finally give in and support sensible gun control.

[ForgedCrank]

4. He was

a legal carrier of the firearm. If he was a felon, he would not be allowed, and he would have been arrested and charged by the police on the spot for being a felon in possession of a firearm. That's a very serious crime.
The real truth is that in states that are "shall issue" or Constitutional Carry, probably at least 2-3 out of 10 people you pass on the street are carrying a concealed firearm. And more people than that at least have a firearm in the glove box of their vehicle. There is no motive to be assigned to someone for simply carrying a pistol for purposes of self-defense, as has been proven by this one incident alone.
People can be pro 2nd Amendment and still support reasonable gun control efforts, I am one of those people. And I insist that I be allowed to carry a defensive weapon if I choose to do so.
If you are searching for another motive, ask yourself why this 22 year old man had a gun on him, was in a mall full of people, and only shot one person, specifically the one who was trying to murder people. Did he keep shooting? No, he didn't. And there is the motive: he wanted to stay alive to see another day. I don't know about you, but I find no fault in that motive.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

5. Yep

I find it odd that some people are upset this kid killed the murderer.

If he hadn’t been there and 30-40 people had been killed, we would instead have the snarky “where was the good guy with a gun to stop the slaughter?”

[BlackSkimmer]

48. Yes.

Nailed it.

[niyad]

75. At 22, he is an adult, not a kid.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

78. I'm 60

so he's a kid to me.

[rockfordfile]

7. Nobody should be carrying a gun in a Mall or anyplace like that.

We have to stop people before they're can even get close to start something like that. It's time to ban AR-15.

In this instance, good the right-wing pos is dead.

[SQUEE]

11. Well except the guy that prevented more deaths.

Genies out of the bottle, guns are here and they are not going away, so all you can do is accept victimhood, or arm yourself and hope to have time to save yourself and loved ones.

[rockfordfile]

15. What? Accept victimhood ? To accept victimhood is to give up against pos with AR-15s

Not to let more guns into the problem is the easy one. It's cowardly to not fight against these gun terrorist with just letting them be everywhere. No reason to own a AR-15 or bring a gun into any store. This is common sense.

"hope to have time to save yourself and loved ones" That's a weak response. Look leave the shitty action movie response.

[SQUEE]

29. I have multiple reasons to own multiple rifles, in multiple calibers.

ARs being literally the weakest, and I am quite certain that they are necessary.

I am tired of my supposed allies demeaning me because I refuse to be a victim to any type of violence. I've just come home from 15 months overseas I know what violence is, I know how unstable the world is, I know we here in America are not immune to the current tide of history back to barbarity. Common sense for me is to be prepared, if that's not your view, I appreciate and respect that, it's too bad you don't return that respect to myself and others here that see a stormy future approaching.

[thatdemguy]

38. I have been pretty damn anti gun, but

there is always a but. I have been changing my opinion.

To get to the point, turns out there was a reason for him to have a gun in the mall. It was to stop a potential mass murder, and protect his own life.

Believe it or not posts like yours are what is making me change my opinion.

[Raine]

16. Dozens would be dead but for him

and I'm glad he got the POS.

[gulliver]

14. We don't really know the defender's motive.

But let's say he was carrying specifically to be able to take out an active shooter, exactly as he did. It's a good motive, and there's no disputing that.

But this isn't about him or his heroism. This is about a failure to understand the need for cooling everyone's jets and dialing down the weaponry. The story has nothing to do with heroism saving the day. Do we want to live in a world where active shooters show up daily and only kill three people (but are killed by a defender)?

That's what we have when we don't think about sensible gun control. An arms race with random crazies thrown into the mix.

I've owned many guns in the past. I am fine with hunting and defense. I'd rather not have to concealed carry. But, please, no control of it? No control of assault weapons?

[ForgedCrank]

20. I don't think

you read my posts completely. I said nothing about "no control of it? No control of assault weapons?"
My issue is with the attacks on an innocent man for defending himself because there are no points to score.

[gulliver]

24. Well, again, "innocent man."

Those aren't easy to find, and the walking around with a gun in a public mall is not a point in his favor. As I said in my post, I'll wait and see. Too many times the perfect story ends up having wrinkles.

And I did read your post and your point concerning reasonable gun control and thought it made sense overall. I doubt we disagree as much as you might think.

[ForgedCrank]

35. We disagree on a couple

of points. And yes, a man carrying a concealed pistol legally is in fact innocent until he does something illegal.

[Demsrule86]

60. He is a heroe

He went after a guy with an AR15 armed with a hand gun and saved countless lives...more than what most cops would do. What you wanted more dead?. In fact, given that the courts have let us down, we may be forced to take matters into our own hands and protect ourselves.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

63. +100.

Just recently, with great reluctance, I purchased a handgun to keep in my truck in a biometric lock box just for the very reason you have stated.

I hate the fact that it has come down to this, but here we are because the repukes refuse to do anything to rein in these horrors.

[kcr]

102. Two things can be true at the same time

It's true it was a good thing that the young man was able to stop the shooter and save lives. It's also true that more guns do not make society safer. They only create more gun violence and death. Just because it worked out in that one instance doesn't change that overall fact. Just like how winning the lottery doesn't mean buying the lottery ticket was a financially sound plan. Just like how one person's life was saved because they didn't wear a seatbelt doesn't mean it's a good idea not to wear your seatbelt.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

105. well said n/t

[MarineCombatEngineer]

109. Great post.

[Zeitghost]

43. Because it doesn't fit the preferred narrative

n/t

[48656c6c6f20]

47. Oh dear Jeebus

Because I go to a mall to shop, socialize, fuck off whatever. I don't want to get caught up with americas insanity with guns and attend a mother fucking shoot out!
This isn't a damn good thing. The hero sprayed 20 some bullets. How the living fuck is this the solution to gun violence?
Are gun humpers this fucking insane they think this is how it should be?
Not a hero. Just another zerro with a gun

[MarineCombatEngineer]

55. Uhh, no, the hero didn't spray 20 some bullets, that was the asshole with the rifle,

quit spreading misinformation.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/bystander-who-took-down-indianas-mall-shooter-praised-for-heroism-as-victims-are-identified/ar-AAZIJTk

The image provided on Monday, July 18, 2022 by the Greenwood Police Department shows Jonathan Sapirman, 20, who police say fatally shot two people, Sunday, after he opened fire with a rifle in a food court and before an armed civilian shot and killed him at the Greenwood Park Mall in Greenwood, Ind.

“He engaged the gunman from quite a distance with a handgun and was very proficient in that, very tactically sound. And as he moved to close in on the suspect, he was also motioning for people to exit behind him,” Ison said, calling Dicken’s actions “nothing short of heroic.”

Sapirman was shot dead two minutes after he started firing. He got off 24 bullets out of the 100 rounds of ammunition he was carrying, police said.

“I am 100% certain many, many more people would’ve died last night if it was not for his heroism,” Ison told ABC News. “The young man had his wits about him, acted very quickly.”

If not for this hero, this would have been far, far worse.

[48656c6c6f20]

71. Oh dear God! Sorry about that mistake

He only sprayed 10 rounds. So now my mall trip is good to go. 10 is way better from some 20 year old Kyle Leftenhouse gun hero. He always wanted to be a cop.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

73. He sprayed the rounds?

Hadn't heard that...source?

[48656c6c6f20]

85. Well one shot one kill

Is the mantra of gun humpers. So I'm guessing 10 is a lot?
We'll probably have to wait until Kyle Leftenhouse makes the hero television show rounds before we know more.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

88. I'll ask you the same question I asked someone else on this thread

Are you glad that the attacker was killed before he killed more people or not?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

92. ....

Well one shot one kill

How is this even relevant?

That's the code of snipers, not ordinary citizens legally carrying a firearm.

Keep digging,

[DashOneBravo]

101. In one of the reports

They said the armed citizen took time and got in a supported (bracing) position before shooting.

That’s makes you more accurate and eliminates spraying.

I can’t find it now.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

76. More bullshit,

he did not "spray" 10 rounds, there is zero evidence of that, that's you projecting your bias on this young man.

He always wanted to be a cop.

And you know this.....how?

Is this you?



Yes or no, did this young man save untold lives that day by stopping a mass shooting?

[48656c6c6f20]

83. I can't answer that and neither can you

I suggest we ask the 3 dead Latinos. Oh fuck they're DEAD!
In answer to your amazingly hypothetical question. I'll toss one out there for you.

If we banned and destroyed guns would we be having this discussion?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

89. ....

I can't answer that and neither can you

The fuck I can't, there is zero doubt that this young man saved untold lives that day, you refusing to answer yes or no tells me all I need to know about you on this issue.

If we banned and destroyed guns would we be having this discussion?

Nice strawman.

Have a nice day.

[48656c6c6f20]

91. Ahh

Look you can have your Kyle Leftenhouse hero. I'd prefer the shit never happens. And he didn't save 3 people so that's bullshit too.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

93. Nice trolling there, but I'm done, all you're posting is pure

crap and I'm not going to engage you anymore on this issue.
Carry on..

[SickOfTheOnePct]

79. If you had been at that mall

and this kid shot the attacker before you got shot, would you still be so critical of him?

I'm guessing not, but one never knows.

[48656c6c6f20]

81. Naw, I'd be freaking the fuck out that the mall

Was a war zone. Shit like this ain't normal to me. I don't need or want Kyle Leftenhouse heros.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

84. Got it

I'm sure that never occurred to the people who were killed in the mall...

[48656c6c6f20]

90. No they were probably thinking

All I wanted is a fucking Cinnabon and someone capped my ass. And I'm sure they at that moment wished there were more guns. Because a GunMurka party needs More Gunz! More Gunzs! More Gunz!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

94. Give it up,

it's pretty obvious what this person is doing.

[ForgedCrank]

62. The discussion

is mostly over when the kindergarten names come out, but maybe that was your intention?
No one I have ever met wants to "attend a mother fucking shoot out", and that includes myself. But I'm also not going to allow myself to die while wishing just so I can avoid having someone call me a gun humper.

The "hero" as you referred to him, shot 10 rounds, not 20, which was probably the capacity of his handgun. And there was no "spraying" either. This kid took down a gunman at an estimated 40-50 YARDS (according to police analysis of the video) with a relatively cheap defensive handgun that is not known for high accuracy. That is not spraying, that is a very well placed shot, and extremely difficult to do, especially under that level of stress.
And had you read my comments here, you would be able to note that I specifically stated that I have never considered having to carry a defensive weapon to be any sort of solution to the overall problem, it is only a symptom and reaction to the existing threats.
And finally, for your information, I've never humped a gun nor had any desire to. They are not pleasant nor comfortable to carry around all of the time either. There is nothing fun about it, and it comes with great personal and legal risks. It is a tool. The defensive firearm is just that, it's the last thing you try right before someone tries to kill you and no other options are left. Even the 22 year-old who did this knew that when he was pinned down in a food court getting shot at with a rifle.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

66. Thank You!!!!

[Walleye]

2. Yes. He will not be unaffected by this. The problem is the AR 15 not the guy with a handgun

[Bettie]

41. Both are a symptom of a larger problem

too many guns and too much of a culture that fetishizes them.

[Demsrule86]

6. That is kind of ridiculous. Personally, I am glad the shooter was stopped.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

8. Same n/t

[Raine]

10. Agree nt

[gulliver]

12. "This" shooter was stopped. He should have been stopped before he could be a shooter.

Then we wouldn't have to be glad or sad. This story is much, much more the latter.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

13. Yeah and

If worms had machine guns, birds wouldn’t fuck with them, but they don’t.

In a perfect world, the murderer wouldn’t have been able to buy a semi-automatic rifle, but we’re not in that perfect world, so we live in the one we have, make change when and where we can.

I’m glad that kid was there, I’m glad he was not only brave enough (you watching, Uvalde police?) but well enough trained to stop the murderer.

[gulliver]

17. The world you're calling "perfect" is much easier to get to than a good guy with a gun strategy...

...which is hopeless.

It would be much easier to keep assault weapons out of the hands of crazies and eliminate far more murders at the hands of mass shooters than the completely preposterous idea of "good guys with guns." The crazies, for the most part, want to die. Are we going to throw away the lives of three innocent people per event (together with a wave of horror that rolls through the public and the permanent disfigurement of the names of cities, schools, and other places) and call it a success just because the killer was killed?

It's just bad strategy, stupid really. But it does bring home some bucks to the gun stores and manufacturers.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

18. If it's so easy

Then please, share with us how to do it.

Thanks

[SickOfTheOnePct]

19. Here's a very simple question

Yes or no will suffice.

Are you glad the kid with the pistol stopped more deaths at the hands of the murderer?

[gulliver]

31. Yes, and I've given you no reason to think otherwise

[SickOfTheOnePct]

32. Actually you have

Multiple times

[Demsrule86]

61. The comments here are ridiculous. Stopping mass murder is a Good thing.

[kcr]

103. Nobody is claiming otherwise

The fact remains that more guns lead to more shootings. It would have been better had the shooting not occurred in the first place. More wild west scenarios of good guy guns vs bad guy guns is bad.

[EX500rider]

111. "More wild west scenarios of good guy guns vs bad guy guns is bad."

More bad then scenarios of good guy no gun vs bad guy gun?

If no one had stopped him he could have gone on to kill 30+ in that mall.

[kcr]

112. There will be more scenarios of bad guy gun

When more people carry guns. What is so hard?

[Demsrule86]

99. Well that isn't going to happen anytime soon. So I will take what I can get.

[Bucky]

37. Of course it's a good thing the shooter was stopped

Please note: it didn't take an AR-15.

[Raine]

9. He wasn't the first citizen to stop a mass shooting

and he won't be the last I'm sure. I'm just glad he was in the right place at the right time and saved much grief for many families.

[gulliver]

21. It's not the number of preventions that matters, it's the rate.

One guy in the right place at the right time isn't a win if his story serves to justify a failure to accept sensible gun control. It's like saying, "Let's not fix the giant hole in the boat, we'll just bail the water out with this coffee cup. We'll have one less cup of water in the boat (for a second or two) before more gallons pour in through the hole."

[SickOfTheOnePct]

23. Wow

You would have preferred that more people died in the mall because that would have advanced the cause of banning semi-automatic rifles.

Just wow.

[gulliver]

25. Well, of course I didn't say that or imply it in any way.

You're misinterpreting. Believe me. Even being willing to think that about someone is something to be avoided.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

26. Your words, not mine

One guy in the right place at the right time isn't a win if his story serves to justify a failure to accept sensible gun control

[gulliver]

27. Right, and it's clear the context is that a failure to accept sensible gun control...

...is a ticket to far worse misery. That failure will produce, as everyone can now see, giant growth in the rate of the events. It's indisputable. That's what the analogy about the gallons vs. cups leaking into the boat is all about.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

28. I notice you haven't

answered the simple yes/no question I asked you earlier…

And saving lives isn’t a win in your mind…ok.

[gulliver]

30. The event wasn't a win.

The saving lives wasn't a win. It was a prevention of more loss. That's a very different thing from a win. Those who think it is a victory in some way have an opportunity to ask themselves why they think it is.

And I just didn't see your yes/no, but I did just answer it.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

33. It's certainly a win

For the people who weren’t killed

[gulliver]

36. Can't disagree

[Bucky]

42. What an insulting and ridiculous argument

Don't be intentionally dense.

High capacity rifles, including semi-automatics, should be heavily restricted because they serve no reasonable defensive purpose and because they're too easily used to shoot up crowds. As the "good guy with a gun" in this tragedy showed, a simple handgun gets the job done.

As you know, the good guy with a gun scenario hardly every plays out like the rhetoric suggests. It's such a rare occurrence. A society has a right to be pro-active in preventing frequently occurring tragedies and atrocities like mass shooting incidents. Counting on a level-headed, armed civilian to step in at the right moment and take out the shooter amounts to little more than sending thoughts and prayers after the fact.

Everyone's relieved the would-be mass murderer was stopped cold. We're just not willing to put our faith in near-miracles stopping the next Buffalo, the next El Paso, the next Uvalde, the next Las Vegas, the next Parkland High School, the next Pulse Nightclub, the next Nashville or the next Nashville or the next Nashville

[SickOfTheOnePct]

45. No one

on this thread, that I’ve seen, has argued against heavily regulating semi-automatic rifles. And I’ve. It seem anyone argue that a good guy will always, or almost always, be the answer to stopping mass shootings.

But the OP has repeatedly implied, or outright said, that the guy stopping the shooter “was not a win”.

I totally disagree - it’s entirely possible to hold the view that a good guy with a gun, while not the overall answer to mass shootings, was the answer in this case while still believing in tighter restrictions on semi-automatic rifles.

The two views are not mutually exclusive.

[Demsrule86]

68. Actually Bucky one person says it's like boats. Let the leaky boats sink while you find out why

they sink. It will further the cause. That is just plain fucked up.

[Demsrule86]

64. That is basically it...the bodies would have advanced our cause...well not mine. That is some

sick crap.

[sarisataka]

74. This thread has confirmed something I have suspected

For quite a while.

It is monstrous.

[Demsrule86]

86. I know right? Some seem to believe the more bodies the better and by stopping the shooting,

the 22-year-old set back the 'cause'...not my cause which will never depend on a high body count of innocent people. Honestly, disgraceful and just plain nuts.

[DashOneBravo]

98. Yep

I’m still waiting for the one who said something similar to this:

One day someone with no law enforcement or military training, will stop a mass shooting and it’s going to be bad for their movement.

[ForgedCrank]

39. Let's take that

one step further.
You have a harbor full of boats that keep getting holes in them all of the sudden. You think patching the hole in the one boat is the fix for the root cause?
No. Something is knocking holes in boats in this harbor. If we find out it is rocks, do we ban rocks? I know, it sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? How the hell will you get rid of all the rocks? And why attack the symptom? Those rocks weren't there last year and now they are. Are the rocks the cause of the problem? No, the rocks are a symptom.
What you do in a world where results are expected is you figure out how rocks are winding up in the harbor where they don't belong and correct that, the actual root cause.

[gulliver]

44. It can often work that way

The root cause can often be as simple as someone got in the habit of putting rocks in the harbor to keep out the sea monsters. And that's silly, because sea monsters aren't afraid of rocks. They like rocks.

[Demsrule86]

67. So hey some more dead...probably some of them kids Need to die for the greater good and they

are just like boats...not like people or anything. That is awful.

[ForgedCrank]

69. I didn't

make a comparison of people to boats. I was responding to someone who was making an attempt an an analogy of boats with holes in them. And an analogy isn't a comparison, it's a step used in rational troubleshooting.
We solve problems with logic, not emotions. Removing emotion from the variables in an attempt to think reasonably is a method used by those who are successful problem solvers.

[Demsrule86]

96. You don't seem to care about the people who may have died without intervention...sad really.

We can't view human beings as a means to an end. It makes us no different than the other side.

[ForgedCrank]

100. I'd like for

you to quantify that assertion.
You made a leap there in saying I "don't seem to care about the people who may have died".
I'd like to see the correlation between your statement and reality, and how you came to such a ridiculous and insulting conclusion.

[Demsrule86]

70. You post is so offensive. There are no words.

[ForgedCrank]

72. There's always

someone who is offended, even when I describe what I had for breakfast.

[Demsrule86]

95. I think this is a little bit different...

[Demsrule86]

87. A seriously sick post.

[PufPuf23]

22. The problem is when a "good guy with a gun" happens, usually is only

a wannabe John Wayne style cowboy that got lucky to not harm an innocent or themselves.

[ripcord]

34. Some people want to find something to blame the good guy with a gun for

Considering the shooter had another rifle, a pistol and more ammo many people are lucky someone was there to step in. I think the people who seem offended by this are just whining because this falls outside their narrow views.

[artemisia1]

40. Both. /nt

[Emile]

46. I long for the day where we don't need heroes with guns.

Too many guns. .

[SickOfTheOnePct]

53. Agree n/t

[MarineCombatEngineer]

59. +100. nt

[48656c6c6f20]

49. Not even close.

But I guess the left that support the gun culture have their very own Kyle Rittenhouse. Maybe this guy will tell us how much he always wanted to be a policeman and had mastabotory dreams of rushing into a mall spraying bullets at the bad guy. Tears and all.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

57. Wow!!!!

Project much?

[Locrian]

50. the 22 yr old...

the 22 yr old was a solution to THIS specific problem. He did stop the other shooter.

Doesnt mean that it should be *the* solution. The solution is to prevent the shootings in the first place: reduce access, mental health, background checks, red flags, restrictions on weapons etc.

But the right wings LOVES this as they now focus on even LESS restrictions.

[malaise]

51. Three people still died

The only useful policy solution is a ban on assault rifles -fucking PERIOD.

[malaise]

52. Three people still died

The only useful policy solution is a ban on assault rifles -fucking PERIOD.

[PTWB]

56. How is that the solution?

The gun violence epidemic is, by and large, committed with handguns. Just 3% of gun murders are committed with all rifles combined, including ARs and their variants.

Impoverished and disadvantaged minorities and children are being slaughtered by handguns in the streets every day and yet our outrage seems to be almost entirely directed at high profile mass shooters using AR style rifles.

We need to come together to address the root causes of crime and violence: poverty and wealth disparity, systemic racism and oppression, chronic addiction, the war on drugs, lack of mental health care, and an underfunded education system.

And if we want to talk about gun control, for gods sake talk about handguns before we talk about anything else.

I am not saying that to trivialize the deaths of those murdered by long guns, merely to point out that we have a much bigger problem and the focus on so-called assault rifles is misplaced at best and a disingenuous distraction at worst.

It just seems so transparent to me: the focus is on “assault rifles” because the victims of mass shootings trend white and tend to be random. The overwhelming majority of gun violence victims are persons of color, are not random, and are killed with handguns.

[Emile]

65. You convinced me, we need a ban on handguns too!

[PTWB]

82. Great! I'm sure that will happen soon.

Meanwhile, the root causes of violence and crime go unaddressed. Not only would addressing those societal issues--poverty and wealth disparity, systemic racism and oppression, chronic addiction, the war on drugs, a lack of mental health care, and an underfunded education system--drastically reduce gun violence, they'd raise the quality of life for the vast majority of people in the country.

And we wouldn't need a new constitutional amendment to repeal / replace the 2nd amendment in order to do it!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

54. Agree 100%

"Good guy with a gun" is NOT the solution to the overall problem of mass shootings.

But that doesn't mean that in this particular case, where a good guy with a gun saved lives, the good guy should be denigrated for doing so.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

58. +100.

It's truly sickening to see how this young man, who now has to live with the fact that he killed another human being, is vilified, pilloried on this site just because he had a CCW and was able to stop a mass shooting in progress and save countless lives while putting his life in danger.

[ripcord]

77. He went against everything some people believe in

So they have decided to be assholes and attack him, those people are pathetic.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

80. +100. nt

[Locrian]

104. exactly - there is no black/white here

Its definitely not the ideal solution - but here we are with millions of guns and easy availability of military grade weapons.

And yes, three people died.... but denigrating the "good guy" is the answer? Would it have been better if he wasnt there? If more people died?

[sarisataka]

106. For some, the answer to your question

Would it have been better if he wasnt there? Is yes

For the question If more people died? I am still reluctant to say some would answer yes, but clearly some would consider it less "inconvenient".

I put forth a poll of should the person who stopped the mass shooter face consequences. 53 % answered affirmatively, with 1 in 5 in favor of criminal charges.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216939913

[Locrian]

107. yes I see that.... sad

Nuance. It's what we need - not dogma / absolutist conviction.
That's what the GOP is supposed to be all about.

[AngryOldDem]

97. He was legally carrying, per Indiana law.

He did violate mall policy, though, but that is a civil action if the mall decides to make an issue of it, which it won’t for PR purposes. Gun-free zones are now officially toothless jokes.

My problem is, people toting around weapons like they’re security blankets. We’re lucky the 22-year-old was a good shot. Otherwise, it would have been “Shootout at the Greenwood Park Mall Food Court.” And that will happen somewhere, someday.

I, too, have a problem with the hero worship, because I see both men as symptoms of the rampant gun fetish that’s destroying this society. I do not feel safe much in open public places anymore, exactly because of this.

[brooklynite]

108. This is a great way to lose votes in November

We can advocate for assault weapons bans, age limits, training, etc. But framing ALL gun owners as "anti-gun-control absolutists" in our public discourse is likely to piss off "regular" gun owners who aren't MAGA/QANON/militia types.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

110. Yep

Along with the thinly veiled suggestion that it would have been better if the guy hadn't been there or hadn't used his own weapon to stop the killing. That attitude smacks of "ends justifies the means" vis a vis banning semi-automatic rifles, the means being more dead shoppers.