Gunman shot by patron at mall.

An active shooter was killed.

Monday, a day after a gunman opened fire inside an Indiana shopping mall before being fatally shot by an armed bystander.

The shooter, identified as Jonathan Douglas Sapirman, 20, of Greenwood, Indiana, killed three people and injured two in the food court at the Greenwood Park Mall on Sunday before closing time, police said.

He was killed by Elisjsha Dicken, 22, of Seymour, Indiana, a mall patron who was legally carrying a gun, according to authorities.

Must of thought it was a gun free zone....

The armed bystander, who shot and killed the Greenwood Park Mall mass shooter, was identified as Elisjsha Dicken. He did not have a permit for the gun, but was carrying legally under Indiana's new "Constitutional Carry" law.

From 2000 to 2021, under 3% of 433 mass shooters have been stopped by a civilian with a gun according to Texas state university study.  Far more common for bystanders without guns to stop attacks or for police to kill mass shooters.  It would be a mistake to think armed civilians can be relied on to regularly stop mass shootings.

Most mass shootings happen in gun free zones.

If you had a gun in such areas you would be criminally liable.

https://attorneysforfreedom.com/most-mass-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/

GVPedia and Washington post rate false the claim that 98% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.  Everytown for gun safety found 10% of mass shootings occur in gun free zones.  The claim that gun free zones attract mass shooters doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I don't know who needs to hear this, but it's STILL the fuking guns..

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

fixed it for you. Why do you guys forget the first part?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed! 

Unless it's someone trying to protect neighborhood like Kyle Rittenhouse, then it's the Person with the gun.. Thats your thought right?

Source? 

Your story twisted of course. He didn't shoot someone because he didn't like the cell phone light. He asked him to shutoff his phone, Oulson did not and then Mr Reeves got up and went out and complained to a manager and then returned to his seat. Oulson started shouting at him " You fucking told on me!" He then threw popcorn at Reeves and what was believed to be his cell phone. Reeves, in his 70's, shot Oulson, in his early 40's, when he believed Oulson was then coming over his seat to attack him. The single shot also hit Oulson's wife's hand as she had her hand on her husband's chest trying to hold him back. The jury saw grainy video of the incident and heard the testimony. It took them 4 hours to find Reeves not guilty.

 They obviously believed him. 

So, what are you saying?  Google did not work for you? 

It is customary when someone asks for your source to give them one or two.  Or, simply say it is just your opinion.  No big deal to say it is just how you feel.  

Actually I read now that Oulson ripped the bag of popcorn from Reeves and threw it in his face. 

Pretty sad when you cannot just apologize and put your phone away. Pretty sad when it's all about you and watch me terrorize/bully an old man for speaking up. A lot folks that way today. That is what caused this, period.

The jury "believed" and that's all that matters. You weren't there and I wasn't there. 

O.k. back to the reality of The NRA only clear argument for the right to bear arms in public. 

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

That or they run out of ammo or the weapon jams.

So laws do not matter and after t

Watching the cowards of Texas at the u value school shooting don't start thinking law enforcement will save you.... 

If 98% is not a correct figure then what is more than 80% of the shootings and all the school shootings are in gun free zones but I guess criminals can't read????

Dr. Strangelove is right.  Stand your ground laws were created by the gun lobby to solve a problem that doesn't exist.  Traditional self defense laws already give people the right to protect themselves if they cannot avoid violence.  But shoot first laws are controversial and dangerous because they give people a license to kill even if they started the confrontation or even if they can safely de-escalate the situation by walking away.  They encourage more violence and don't deter overall crime.

How did stand your ground laws effect the right to self defense another deflection.

Stand your ground says you don't have to run you can confront a criminal pounding you into the ground by shooting them. Not negotiating at that point laws do not stop criminals they create more criminal behaviour and thinking that somehow guns will not be apart of American culture is equally absurd. 

Simple a mass shooting began at a mall the dead peep killed three a.man took a gun and shot him...... What a friggin concept. No more mass shooting ...

A good guy with a gun...

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/us/arlene-alvarez-9-year-old-shooting/index.html

CNN reports that a good guy with a gun accidentally shoots an innocent girl instead of robber.  In under 1% of crimes, good guys with guns successfully defend themselves according to Giffords law center.  For every justifiable homicide, they are more likely to cause unintentional deaths.  Contrary to common belief, access to gun doesn't protect people any better than calling police or running away in crime situation.  Myth is that guns increase public safety.  Actually, evidences show more guns increase risks.

according to Giffords law center.

The source is a left wing propaganda system. That states.

The research is clear: gun laws work. The nation’s courts agree: gun laws are fully compatible with the Second Amendment. And the American people have spoken: our weak gun safety laws are killing nearly 40,000 Americans every year. Something must change.

For over 25 years, Giffords Law Center has been at the forefront of the fight for justice and legislative reform. And we won’t stop until we’ve put an end to this epidemic once and for all.

It shows a map of the northeast. On the map those states with the highest rated gun control laws a or a pluses are the most likely to be shot in a drive by shooting. States marked d or f least likely.. Laws and the erosion of the right to bear arms have direct implications. 

Lets deal with Illinois.

GUN SAFETY STRENGTH RANK
8 out of 50
GUN DEATH RATE RANK
27 out of 50
GUN DEATHS PER 100K
14.1
% DIFFERENCE FROM NATIONAL AVERAGE
↑3%

And compare to Maine a state that received an F.

GUN SAFETY STRENGTH RANK
29 out of 50
GUN DEATH RATE RANK
40 out of 50
GUN DEATHS PER 100K
10.4
% DIFFERENCE FROM NATIONAL AVERAGE -24%.

So with better laws and more legislation 8th in country I am sure you would feel safer on the south side of Chicago than in Portland Maine..   

According to the Gifford law Center....

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/resources/scorecard/