Armed Civilian Saves Lives, Takes Out Rampaging Shooter At Indiana Mall
As the old saying goes, the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun… is a good guy with a gun! A shooter in Greenwood, Indiana was shot and killed by an armed civilian after he began a murderous rampage at a local mall.
The man began firing at random people around 6 pm Sunday evening, severely injuring two individuals and murdering another three, said the Greenwood Police Department.
FOX3 reported that the mass shooter, who was a young adult man, took the lives of three others before another citizen stepped in to ultimately take his life and end the carnage.
The young hero who stopped the deadly event is a 22-year-old man named Elisjsha Dicken.
Dicken received praise from Indiana police for his actions during the incident.
“Many more people would have died last night if not for a responsible armed citizen,” police Chief Jim Ison said Monday, emphasizing that Dicken is a “good Samaritan” and his response was “heroic.”
This news comes after a woman at a children’s birthday party in West Virginia used her pistol to shoot and kill a man with an AR-15 after he began firing into the crowd. The lady was praised by Lieutenant Tony Hazelett of the Charleston Police Department, who said, “Instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night.”
Some actors in the media have made an effort to downplay Dicken’s heroic actions by highlighting the rareness of such an event. Rather than focusing on simply reporting what occurred that day, The Hill penned a piece titled “Rare in US for an active shooter to be stopped by bystander.” The outlet claimed that data from the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University showed that less than 3% of 433 active attacks in the United States ended with a civilian shooting back. They further wrote, “It was far more common for police or bystanders to subdue the attacker or for police to kill the person.”
This data shared by the outlet conveniently does not appear to account for various questions about such conclusions. How many of these attacks occurred in parts of America where carrying a firearm is virtually impossible for the average citizen as a result of political policy? How many were in gun-free zones? Were any civilians armed at all in many of these shootings? The Hill did not explore any of these questions in their piece.