It’s been three days since an armed gunmen shot five people and killed three at a mall in Greenwood, Indiana. Police are still looking for a motive.
The 20-year-old shooter was a local man. He was armed with a Sig Sauer model 400M (a semi-automatic rifle) and had a few hundred rounds of ammunition.
According to law enforcement, the shooter came out of the bathroom near the mall’s food court and started shooting. Five seconds later, the shooter was dead.
Greenwood Police Chief James Ison said 22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken, who was about 40 yards away on the other side of the food court, pulled out his pistol and fired 10 rounds, hitting the shooter eight times and killing him.
Greenwood Mayor Mark Myers said, “Greenwood’s ‘Good Samaritan’ acted within seconds, stopping the shooter and saving countless lives. Our city, our community and our state is grateful for his heroism in this situation.”
It’s unclear if Elisjsha Dicken had a concealed carry license, but even if he didn’t have one, he doesn’t really need one. Indiana became a constitutional carry state on July 1.
While the mall technically had a prohibition against concealed weapons, the mall’s ownership group commended Dicken, calling his actions “heroic.”
Gun-rights advocates are describing the situation as a classic case of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun. Not everyone agrees, of course. Those who support restrictions on firearms argue this type of ending to a mass shooting is statistically rare. And it is.
The Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University found from 2000 to 2021, less than 3% of 433 active shooter attacks in the United States ended with a civilian firing back.
While it is rare, many Americans think it might be the best way to protect lives in the event of an active shooter.
The Trafalgar Group, the pollsters who called the 2016 presidential election correctly, asked what people “believe would best protect them and their families in the event of a mass shooting?’”
41% of respondents said they trusted armed citizens to protect them more than local police. The political breakdown is what you might expect. Republicans and Independents trust armed citizens over police. Democrats trust police over armed citizens.
Whether it’s an armed citizen or a SWAT team, however, the evidence shows the quicker an active shooter is neutralized, the more lives will be saved.
IT’S BEEN A FEW DAYS SINCE AN ARMED GUNMEN SHOT FIVE PEOPLE AT A MALL IN GREENWOOD, INDIANA. THREE OF HIS VICTIMS ARE DEAD.
THE INVESTIGATION IS ONGOING, AND THE MOTIVATION FOR THE ATTACK IS STILL UNCLEAR, BUT HERE’S WHAT WE KNOW NOW.
THE 20-YEAR-OLD SHOOTER WAS A LOCAL MAN. HE WAS ARMED WITH AN AR-15 STYLE RIFLE AND HAD A FEW 100 ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION.
ACCORDING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, THE SHOOTER CAME OUT OF THE BATHROOM NEAR THE MALL’S FOOD COURT AND STARTED SHOOTING.
15 SECONDS LATER, THE SHOOTER WAS DEAD.
22-YEAR-OLD ELISJSHA DICKEN, WHO WAS ABOUT 40 YARDS AWAY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FOOD COURT, PULLED OUT HIS PISTOL AND FIRED 10 ROUNDS, HITTING THE SHOOTER 8 TIMES AND KILLING HIM.
Greenwood Mayor Mark Myers: This young man, Greenwood’s good Samaritan, acted within seconds, stopping the shooter and saving countless lives. Our city, our community and our state is grateful for his heroism in this situation.
IT’S UNCLEAR IF ELISJSHA DICKEN HAD A CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, BUT EVEN IF HE DIDN’T HAVE ONE, HE DOESN’T REALLY NEED ONE. INDIANA BECAME A CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY STATE ON JULY 1ST.
ALSO, WHILE THE MALL TECHNICALLY HAD A PROHIBITION AGAINST CONCEALED WEAPONS, THE MALL’S OWNERSHIP GROUP COMMENDED DICKEN, CALLING HIS ACTIONS “HEROIC.”
GUN-RIGHTS ADVOCATES CALL IT A CLASSIC CASE OF A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN STOPPING A BAD GUY WITH A GUN. NOT EVERYONE AGREES, OF COURSE, SAYING THIS TYPE OF ENDING TO A MASS SHOOTING IS STATISTICALLY RARE. AND IT IS.
FROM 2000 TO 2021, LESS THAN 3% OF 433 ACTIVE SHOOTER ATTACKS IN THE U.S. ENDED WITH A CIVILIAN FIRING BACK.
WHILE IT IS RARE, MANY AMERICANS THINK IT MIGHT BE THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT LIVES. THE TRAFALGAR GROUP, THE POLLSTERS WHO CALLED THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CORRECTLY, ASKED WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE WOULD BEST PROTECT THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES IN THE EVENT OF A MASS SHOOTING.
41% OF RESPONDENTS SAID THEY TRUSTED ARMED CITIZENS TO PROTECT THEM MORE THAN LOCAL POLICE. THE POLITICAL BREAKDOWN IS WHAT YOU MIGHT EXPECT. REPUBLICANS AND INDEPENDENTS TRUST ARMED CITIZENS OVER POLICE. DEMOCRATS TRUST POLICE OVER ARMED CITIZENS.
WHETHER IT’S AN ARMED CITIZEN OR A SWAT TEAM, HOWEVER, THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THE QUICKER AN ACTIVE SHOOTER IS NEUTRALIZED, THE MORE LIVES WILL BE SAVED.