News Forum - Gunman shot dead by armed civilian after killing 3 in US mall

[Thaiger]

Four people were killed, and two were injured yesterday in yet another mass shooting in the US. A man with a rifle entered Greenwood Park Mall in Indiana at about 6pm last night, approached the precinct’s food court, and let rip with several rounds of ammunition. The gunman was eventually shot by an armed civilian who happened to be nearby. Greenwood Police Department Chief Jim Ison reported they don’t know of any motive for the shooting and did not identify the gunman. “I’ve been a police officer most of my life. Still, this is incredibly shocking, to not only me […]

The story Gunman shot dead by armed civilian after killing 3 in US mall as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Guest1]

1 hour ago, Thaiger said:

The gunman was eventually shot by an armed civilian who happened to be nearby.

So it can work out, that people can legally carry guns.

This will be a pro for the gun lobby!

[Fanta]

2 minutes ago, Guest1 said:

This will be a pro for the gun lobby!

Provided they ignore the 4 dead and 2 injured it’s such a win win! 

[23RD]

And yet again it goes to prove there's only one thing that stops a bad guy with a gun that's a good guy with a gun. 

Well done to the Patriotic citizen (bet he's a Republican).

[Guest1]

8 hours ago, Fanta said:

Provided they ignore the 4 dead and 2 injured it’s such a win win! 

Do you really think, someone with the wish to kill in a mall or in a school will not find a way to get the weapons he/she/it needs/want?

In case of stricter gun laws? The difference, as proven in countries WITH strict gun laws:  The law abiding people won't carry guns or knifes, if forbidden.  It might need some more  time, no spontaneous shootings. Perhaps even better planned and more deadly?

But the "bad people". however, can be relatively certain, till the police shows up, they are the only gunning ones on the scene.

If everyone could/would, there might be often a change in the call, from "Help, police, here is a shooter", to "Hello, police, someone shot people so I shot him. Get some ambulances rolling and bring at least one coffin.

 

[Fanta]

8 minutes ago, Guest1 said:

Do you really think, someone with the wish to kill in a mall or in a school will not find a way to get the weapons he/she/it needs/want?

The right to bear arms is in the Constitution. At that time they kept slaves and women didn’t have the vote so why do you cling to the belief that this document and all it contains is correct and current? It’s an old law from old times and modern Americans only have themselves to blame for it’s consequences. You reap what you sow. 

[23RD]

22 minutes ago, Guest1 said:

Do you really think, someone with the wish to kill in a mall or in a school will not find a way to get the weapons he/she/it needs/want?

In case of stricter gun laws? The difference, as proven in countries WITH strict gun laws:  The law abiding people won't carry guns or knifes, if forbidden.  It might need some more  time, no spontaneous shootings. Perhaps even better planned and more deadly?

But the "bad people". however, can be relatively certain, till the police shows up, they are the only gunning ones on the scene.

If everyone could/would, there might be often a change in the call, from "Help, police, here is a shooter", to "Hello, police, someone shot people so I shot him. Get some ambulances rolling and bring at least one coffin.

Well said the more armed law abiding citizens the better its a force multiplier and cuts down the reoffending rates. 

The only people the Democrats want armed are the criminals.