The Greenwood mall shooting, This is why we need guns, do you agree?

Question

A shooter at the Greenwood Mall in Indiana killed three people. But a good Samaritan with a gun came out of the blue and shot dead the gunman. Because police response time to get to the shooter would have caused more people to be shot. So essentially him having a weapon saved a lot of other people's lives. This is why we need guns, do you agree?

Lliam · Accepted Answer

Society is safer when honest citizens are allowed to be armed.

A study was done on prison inmates who had been convicted of violent crimes. They overwhelmingly said that they feared the police less than they did the possibility of ordinary-looking citizens who might be prepared to stop them.

Ordinary citizens essentially serve as undercover cops. And I have never heard of an instance of private citizens shooting it out in confusion or even causing collateral damage. They are consistently more judicious in their use of firearms for defense. And they are under more legal threat than cops if they behave inappropriately.

I've seen many articles and videos of ordinary citizens using guns to stop violent criminals.

I've also looked up the stats on numbers of defensive gun use (DGU) compared to firearm related homicides. How many people have used a gun to prevent rape, robbery, severe injury, trauma and death?
The stats on DGU range from 150,000 to 3 million, while firearm related homicides went up to around 20,000 in 2021 but had hovered around 16,000 prior to the covid measures.

The FBI estimates that 80% of gun related homicides are gang related. So out of a total of 20,000, that means 4,000 annual deaths that are not gang related.
When one looks at overall causes of death in the U. S., 4,000 is nothing. 10x that many people die from accidental falls, for Christ sake.

4,000 non-gang related gun deaths out of over 80 million legal gun owners? Yeah, it's SUCH an epidemic.

Prof_Don · Accepted Answer

Shout out to the armed bystander that ended this madness! Imagine how many more people could have been killed!

Aerissa_Jade · Accepted Answer

I'm surprised CNN even reported on this, usually the liberal media ignores all the times a legal citizen carrying a gun stops a shooter.

The majority of the time a open carry or concealed carry person won't go hunting down a shooter, they just hunker in place ready in case they come to their area... so they aren't helpless.

Anti gun people will say if no one had a gun, there would be no shootings but they fail to grasp the concept you can't outlaw guns... cause even if they did, I or anyone who wanted one could just buy one from the cartel.

Just like people buy illegal drugs right now, has the US ever been able to stop illegal drugs from coming into the country? Nope and they'd neve be able to stop guns.

Sour-rose · Accepted Answer

You know... seeing new info that the police, 50 policemen or whatever actually was there taking the kids to safety but for an hour, the mofo held someone hostage. And an hour, the cop negotiate... but he wasn't a negotiator like in the movies. And since they didn't go in there, a whole classroom is in heaven now.

Soooo it could work for situations like this, people are crazy.

RolandCuthbert · Answer

It doesn't even make sense in an insane asylum. I would never leave my house with my gun. Because of what has happened to too many "Black" men trying to be heroes. You had the situation in Uvalve where literally dozens of trained officers refused to take on a heavily armed murderer. If more guns would make us safer, we would be the safest nation on earth. We are not. We are the most violent developed nation on this planet.

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/13/667252788/police-fatally-shoot-black-security-guard-who-detained-suspected-shooter

Police Fatally Shoot Black Security Guard Who Detained Shooting Suspect

The Greenwood mall shooting, This is why we need guns, do you agree?

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-us-gun-violence-world-comparison/

Gun Violence in the US Far Exceeds
Levels in Other Rich Nations

Published: May 26, 2022 at 7:00 PM CDT

Mass shootings like the horrific attack that killed 19 children and 2 teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, or the murder of 10 people at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York the week prior, are all too common in the US. There have been 214 mass shootings—defined by Gun Violence Archive as one in which at least 4 people were shot—in the US within the first 145 days of the year. These types of tragedies feel unique to America, where there are more civilian-owned guns than people.

Goforit1010 · Answer

"This is why we need guns, do you agree?"

I do agree this is "a" reason we need guns. Definitely not the ONLY reason.

Criminals won't bother to follow the laws anyway. Just look at all the lawlessness we have going on now! As the saying goes, a cop is always 10 minutes away when you need on right now! Thankfully, that one guy was there to stop the idiot from making things MUCH worse.

Guns aren't always the answer, but many times, they can change the circumstances back to law and order.

Zeus_66 · Answer

I see the anti-gun crowd is at it hard today answering this question! The leftists are just pissed more people didn't get killed so they could politicize it.

Reality is quite simple. We have the right. There are consequences to having said rights. And when thugs, SJWs, sheeple, and globalist puppeteers come around threatening and hurting people, you gotta be ready. So for all the folks who replied "It adds to the confusion!" or "Then the 'good' guy's gets shot", you're weak sheep that will unfortunately be slaughtered by the wolves. And since that's your choice, fine. But I'll be damned if I ain't gonna give myself and my family a defense option and handle biz.

DarkWinterNights · Answer

I haven’t seen much about the shooter himself, other than he bought the weapons legally several months ago. Basically showing that background checks, waiting periods and possibly even red flag laws had no effect.
We can’t fix this problem with more laws that target law abiding citizens and gun aren’t going anywhere. We can do the following:
1. Legalize constitutional carry.
2. Provide tax incentives for training and safe storage.
3. Make shooting and killing someone during the commission of a crime an automatic death sentence with no plea deals.
4. Create media blackouts on the perpetrators, information can and should be released but not on prime time.
5. Continue to harden soft targets like schools, malls and public events.
6. Drop a few more mass shooter wannabes and both crime and mass killings will drop.

AimeeKyle · Answer

Absolutely. It’s not like the old days anymore…. where either, people respected each other and life (and handled things with fist fights) or most everyone had guns…land if you pulled yours out, you might be shot dead….

Too many spineless bullies or infamous name seekers are amongst us…. feeling they can get away with whatever they dreamt up before something bad happens…. The sooner more of these nut jobs are shot dead before completing their chosen task / path (and the news outlets quit reporting the nut jobs names or posting their pics) we will begin to see fewer copycat offenders as it won’t seem as appealing.

And maybe we can start teaching respect and what is right and wrong again…. Instead of slaps on the wrist for real crimes and the idea that everyone wins no matter what…

WhiteSteve · Answer

Well…. I mean, look…THIS ONE worked out ok. But this is not the usual result. Also, if I’m somewhere and someone starts shooting, I’m just gonna book it and get the fuck outta there, and I don’t want extra bullets from vigilantes flying through the air. This country just has such an insane mentality with guns, it’s really pushing me away from wanting to continue living here for the rest of my life, because it seemingly only gets worse.

Boromir · Answer

No, statistics show that the good guy with the gun to take out the bad guy with a gun is very rarely effective or happening. Defibrillators in supermarkets have a higher success rate.

In this story the good guy needed 10 shots to take out the bad guy. And don’t get me wrong, I don’t feel sorry for the bad guy being shot, but the 9 fires bullets in a shopping mall could have hit other people too. Combat shooting in close quarters with a lot of civilians and kids is not something you want…

The USA simply need significantly less weapons. Like the rest of the civilized world.

Datboi65 · Answer

The "armed bystander" is a myth, and this is anecdotal evidence. This is one case out of hundreds that turned out quite differently, so statistics do not support your idea.

You cannot just expect people to want to be a hero all the time, that's just unrealistic. You can't expect everyone to want to buy a gun either. There was literally another shooting that took place at a hospital when a guy bought a licensed gun and didn't have any prior convictions.

If you increase accessibility to guns, yes we might have more heros like this, but we will also have more shooters, so it defeats the purpose anyway. Prevention is better than cure.

NamerOfStars · Answer

No. Making normal citizens feel empowered to step up and shoot people is going to lead to a LOT more innocent people being shot when they cross a line that the police know doesn't warrant that response, but that Johnny Gunowner doesn't.

The police have lots of training and clearly established rules and boundaries; normal people don't. Police officers regularly get hauled into court to answer for calls they made (the usual proverb is "lawyers have weeks to debate decisions we have seconds to make"); it's STILL difficult and complex. That's not something I want overeager minor nutsos throwing themselves into.

And that's not counting the fact that police also have lots of ACCURACY training, which normal gun-owners often don't; I'd rather not get a hole blasted in my torso because an urban cowboy saw someone shoplift and opened up with his Desert Eagle.

TheorionMage · Answer

A gun is but a 'tool' ... in untrained/unskilled hands it may as well be a brick.
Right perception, ... right awareness, ... minimal potential collateral casualties, ... DO NOT shoot-to-wound!
Police academy doctrine reads: "Shoot to stop"
DEAD is 'stopped' and saves your fellow taxpayers court and imprisonment expenses.
ALWAYS double-tap!

Nalix · Answer

It certainly helped in this case, but of course the root problem is people wanting to kill others in the first place. In general, having an armed population is a good way to keep government under control and communities safe, but being armed does not automatically make us responsible nor does it guarantee a free and stable culture.

A free people need to be able to defend themselves. But being able to defend themselves alone doesn't make them free.

crmoore · Answer

In some ways, yes, but I wouldn't say this is the best argument for gun rights.

Can we really trust civilians to make the right judgment calls in this situation? Let's say this person heard gun fire, took cover, pulled their gun out and began scanning to find the assailant. Then, let's say another civilian who is not the active shooter did precisely the same thing. Then say the first guy spots the second guy with the gun, how is he supposed to know whether the guy with the gun is or is not the active shooter? Especially in a high-stress, adrenaline-rushed situation?

I'm for gun rights. But I guess what I'm trying to say is it's not as simple as "good guys with gun stop bad guys with gun." These are very complicated situations.

Agent_Elflord · Answer

I agree, but I also don’t want people to buy guns without actually taking the time training with them. Good for this guy as well as Jack Wilson who popped the church shooter in Texas a while ago, but I just don’t want someone’s grandma to buy a.357 Magnum and stuff it in her sock drawer and leave it there until she needs to use it and ends up hitting the neighbor’s dog.

GreatnessBack · Answer

Or we can get rid of guns and have everyone knife each other.

Or we can make it harder for mentally instable people to get guns.

Or have a country that's not turning everyone in a psycho because of high this and paycut that.

I dunno.

CountessSarah · Answer

No. Because having guns was what led to the shooting being possible in the first place.

And a lot of the time the 'good guy' with a gun just adds more confusion to the scenario. There are cases where multiple 'good guys' with guns ended up mistaking each other for the original shooter.

This case presented here, assuming it's even true, is the exception, not the rule.

Agape93 · Answer

About damn time we see the fabled good guy with a gun.  This is only part of why we need them

globetrotter22 · Answer

I’m shocked CNN covered this story and admitted “a good guy with a gun” is effective at stopping bad guys. It goes against the narrative they usually push. I guess a broken clock is right twice a day.

Anonymous · Answer

Since 2009 there have been 279 mass shootings in America resulting in 1576 deaths. Whereas Australia, who enacted gun control 25 years ago, has had only one mass shooting since. But I guess the handful of lives saved in this ONE incident makes up for the murder of 1576 people. 🙄
https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/
https://news.yahoo.com/australia-nearly-eliminated-mass-shootings-235904813.html

purplepoppy · Answer

No that's completely illogical. The more people who carry a gun simply increases the risk of a shooting. The fact is despite heavy gun ownership in America mass shooters are not discouraged.

Anonymous · Answer

i guess , armed civilians have stopped shooting before , this isn't unheard of. if criminals know there is people out there with guns it can be somewhat of a deterent

HighValue · Answer

Yeah, here's another recent one.

LexiXide · Answer

As long as it's used for good use then yes this is the same thing as the government debating on weather teachers should carry guns in school

FunkyMonkee · Answer

Just one of the reasons. This is the second time (that I know of) that this has happened in just the past 5 years, or so. Third time, if you count Kyle Rittenhouse.

exitseven · Answer

Yes, this happens a lot more than people know because most of the time it never makes the news. This time there was just no way to spike this story. Even CNN covered it.

Anonymous · Answer

I will not say "this is why we need guns". I will say this is why we need the right to have guns. We have a right to defend ourselves and our loved ones.

Pudsmucker · Answer

I looked around the greenwood Mall area many years ago. Kudos goes out to the guy took out the shooter.

Jessica405 · Answer

Stupid question. Someone else sees the guy shooting at another guy, so shoots HIM! Then a fourth person shoots that third guy. Ad infinitum, as they say!

Sarahplus2 · Answer

its amazing he was able to shoot the gunman. its not easy to take a life, but in this instant he reacted and saved everyone.

D_Bone_Steak · Answer

I agree. An armed society is a polite society. I think as to why that is, that is obvious.

Bricealan · Answer

Yes, I agree with you, but still do not 'carry' my 9mm because I am afraid of being arrested.

OddBeMe · Answer

Checking stats…yeah “armed bystanders”, heavily trained swat forces, etc, don’t stop mass shooters. But the assault weapons ban…yep.

Jersey2 · Answer

That is a positive aspect as well as home defense but we need our guns to protect from a tyrannical government.

Cubus · Answer

Democrats would tell you to wait for police But wait - Democrats want to defund the police :)

Anonymous · Answer

Yes! Guns are required in order to have a gunman. Can’t have a gunman without guns.

jshm2 · Answer

Don't be a daft dick. He got to kill three people, and got taken out and made infamous as he wanted. He was probably going to turn the gun on himself after, had that gun nut not interfered.

Staximus · Answer

If someone is shooting at you, you should be able to shoot back. Making more dumb laws doesn't stop people from breaking laws.

Waldoe · Answer

if guns are "Outlawed" then only "Outlaws" will have guns

Anonymous · Answer

Lol at the people who think having guns led to this forgetting most shooting are carried out with illegally obtained guns. Just look at Japan, politician was killed with a homemade gun, so it makes the whole having guns null and void.

slatyb · Answer

If the shooter hadn't had a gun, then no one would have been killed. Nations with strict gun control don't have shootings at schools and malls and concerts.

JDBSLAOQ · Answer

thats still 4 people dead by guns. 3 innocents and 1 guilty. in no way does this equation equal out lol

Anonymous · Answer

I agree, I hope it pissed off some people on the far left.

KostasKouvalis · Answer

3 people were still killed. If he was true hero, zero people would have been killed.

But yeah, pretty much. Americans need guns for protection, because other Americans feel they need to shoot people in order to be respected

collie22 · Answer

i hope the police didn't arrest the good Samaritan

WhiteBoyChill · Answer

Agree. Just think of all the other shootings that had far higher casualties. It was because nobody armed had been around to act in time

andreasderjuengere · Answer

This one will never be agreed on. Instead of wasting more time and more lives it would be better to find a solution somewhere else.

RasmusAiken · Answer

Greenwood Mall = an example of why "Gun Free Zone" is a sad joke on the public.

Chazmatazz269 · Answer

I do agree, but it would be better if we could prevent more shootings rather than responding to more shootings with more shooting. Ell oh ell!

plredhead · Answer

No, I do not agree. Canada has much stricter gun control and they have less shootings. At the very least, we need to pay attention and get the people with mental issues help and keep guns out of their hands.

Anonymous · Answer

OR men shouldn't be allowed to have guns. It's always men the common denominator. Always some mental issue. Why do men shoot up places? It's like how pit bulls are violent dogs

Wubs3000 · Answer

thats still 4 lives lost. What if the shooter didn't have a gun in the first place? There would be no lives lost in that situation.

Guy13 · Answer

Most definitely…this is a perfect example.

Jouth · Answer

We should all just have a big national shoot out.

Those who survive get to own guns, those who don't so not get to own guns. Cause they're dead.

Guns: Controlled

^The only real solution to gun control problems in the USA^

Anonymous · Answer

The fact that you think people shooting each other is somehow positive just shows how fucked up America really is. The country is basically broken.

joeldalton · Answer

One of the reasons, yes.

Aurora1010 · Answer

Glad that piece of shit got taken out

skeetskeetskeet · Answer

When seconds count... the police are only minutes away... then they wait outside

kitkills · Answer

Y'know if they didn't have the guns in the first place there wouldn't have been a shooting

MountAverage · Answer

Nope. But I agree that guns themselves aren't the problem. It's gun fetishist psychopaths like you and all other right-wingers that are the problem. We should just ban you psychos instead of guns.

msc545 · Answer

There would have been no dead people had the shooter been unable to obtain a gun.

Twalli · Answer

Yes, because the gunman having a gun was entirely unavoidable with strict gun laws (sarcasm).

The Greenwood mall shooting, This is why we need guns, do you agree?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

The problem with guns is too many people shoot to kill, agree or disagree?

The Greenwood mall shooting, This is why we need guns, do you agree?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

The problem with guns is too many people shoot to kill, agree or disagree?

We're glad to see you liked this post.