Gun-Grabbing Left: Good Samaritans Are Bad

Gun-Grabbing Left: Good Samaritans Are Bad

Gun-Grabbing Left: Good Samaritans Are Bad

The gun-grabbing left doesn’t like Good Samaritans. Rather than be thrilled that a young man stopped an evil person intent on shooting up a mall in Indiana, the left is caterwauling about the fact that the good guy had a gun!

Authorities revealed new details Monday on the weekend mall shooting in Greenwood, Indiana, including the identities of the gunman, three victims and the legally armed bystander who fatally shot the gunman.

The shooting rampage took place at the Greenwood Park Mall around 6 p.m. Sunday. Multiple people called 911 to report an active shooter. Three people died and two were injured as a result of the shooting. Greenwood is 15 miles south of Indianapolis.

The gunman was identified as Jonathan Douglas Sapirman, 20, who police said prepared for the shooting for a little over an hour in a bathroom before he emerged with a rifle, Greenwood Police Chief James Ison said.
The victims were identified as Indianapolis couple Pedro Pineda, 56, and Rosa Mirian Rivera de Pineda, 37, and Victor Gomez, 30, who is also from Indianapolis.

Here’s the thing about the gunman. The dude was planning on shooting for a very long time. Why? Because of the amount of firepower the gunman had with him. 

The shooter was armed with a Sig Sauer 400M .556-caliber rifle.
He had a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 .556 on reserve in the restroom.
A Glock 33 .357 pistol was on his person.
He was armed with over 100 rounds.
He’d been frequently practicing at a range for the past two years.
He had resigned from his warehouse job in May.
Police were told by family they believe he’d received a notice of eviction.

Three weapons and over 100 rounds. It is an absolute miracle that more people weren’t injured or killed during the gunman’s initial rampage. It’s more than a miracle, it is thanks to a young man, carrying a weapon, who kept his head and defended the innocents around him. 

Never mind that Elisjsha Dicken stopped a shooting that could’ve ended up way worse than it did. Never mind the fact that a gunman intent on harming as many people he could was stopped cold. Nope, the Indy Star runs an article wondering if Dicken would be legally liable for violating the mall’s ‘no weapons’ policy. 

Greenwood Park Mall’s no-weapons policy is akin to a “no shoes, no shirt, no service” sign you might see at a gas station, or a sign requiring masks in order to shop, said Guy Relford, an Indiana attorney and firearms instructor who is a prominent voice on the state’s gun laws. Such signs are simply stating a business owner’s policy.

~Snip

“So the fact that (Greenwood Park Mall) had a no-gun policy creates no legal issue whatsoever for this gentleman,” Relford said, “and it certainly has no effect whatsoever on his ability to use force to defend himself or to defend the other people in the mall.”

The gun-grabbing left is beside themselves over this. According to them, we are not supposed to applaud a good guy with a guy. 

Sure, let’s have the gun-grabbing left clutch pearls over the fact that the one who stopped a major shooting attack is being called a Good Samaritan. Evidently, that is a bad thing because suddenly someone carrying a gun to help others  stomps all over their chosen narrative. 

Shannon Watts, a major gun-grabbing leftist, sent out a tweet and then deleted it. 

Maybe she realized that her tweet was a major face plant of her narrative? Or she was getting so much ratio, she couldn’t block people fast enough. Who knows. 

Either way, the gun-grabbing left is now on record claiming Good Samaritans are bad and that those claiming Dicken is a Good Samaritan are biblically wrong. 

Here’s what a Good Samaritan ISN’T. It’s not a person who stands idly by wringing their hands while waiting for help to arrive. A Good Samaritan is someone who sees a problem and steps forward to help. THAT’S the biblical meaning behind that story. 

But the gun-grabbing left would have us believe that a good guy with a gun (even cops) are and should never be defined as a Good Samaritan. Why? Because of the gun. That evil evil gun. 

The shooter, who was intent on killing as many people as possible with a gun? That was a bad guy, but the gun-grabbing left would have us believe the good guy with a gun is even worse. 

Feature Photo Credit: Pistol ammo via Pixabay, cropped and modified

Written by

5 Comments
  • […] post Gun-Grabbing Left: Good Samaritans Are Bad appeared first on Victory Girls […]

  • NTSOG says:

    “Here’s what a Good Samaritan ISN’T. It’s not a person who stands idly by wringing their hands while waiting for help to arrive.”

    Progressive Lefties: all care and no responsibility or action. In my experience they always want someone else to do the ‘dirty work’, leaving them to be seen to be pure – then they vilify the people who actually took action as ‘not being nice’, being ‘uncaring’ or ‘too rough’.

  • GWB says:

    He was armed with over 100 rounds.
    WHAT?!? He didn’t even have 3 full AR magazines with him?! (I’m assuming he had a full mag in the Glock, which has a normal capacity of 9 (and options up through 15 rounds) and an additional magazine. Considering how much time this guy spent planning, he didn’t plan very well. Millennial slacker. Pfft.

    the Indy Star runs an article wondering if Dicken would be legally liable for violating the mall’s ‘no weapons’ policy
    Well, as someone who carries, I think it’s a valid question. Will he, should he, be legally liable?
    Fortunately, Indiana’s law on barring firearms from property only makes you liable for a misdemeanor trespass charge, and not a felony – that could thereby prevent future carry by the citizen. Other states are not so … understanding.

    the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm
    Note the carrying of a firearm – being responsible for yourself and for society around you – makes him a citizen. Hiding behind a table and hoping not to die and screaming for help from the authorities makes you a subject, not a citizen.

    those claiming Dicken is a Good Samaritan are biblically wrong
    Well, they kinda are. This guy was not an outcast and a foreigner. (That’s why I joked about him being from Ohio – that would make him a “Samaritan”.)
    THAT’S the biblical meaning behind that story.
    Yes… and no. The point of it being a Samaritan was to rankle the Jews with him being more godly than a Jewish priest and a Pharisee. But, yes, the point was the one who actually took action was the ‘neighbor’ to the waylaid man. Which is an inversion of the question asked, “Who is my neighbor?” meaning “Whom should I love?” It’s a deeper story than most people think.
    But I wouldn’t call this guy a “Samaritan”. He’s a bit of a hero and an exemplar of a citizen.
    (On the gripping hand, it’s also a silly thing to argue about.)

    Yes, the hoplophobes are so afraid of “wild west shootouts” and “chaos” and such. They desire – and think they can achieve through progressivism – a risk-free life, marked by no choice more difficult than what grape to choose in their box wine and what flavor of gelato to pull out of the freezer. They think – because their lives are so incredibly risk-free already, and so very comfortable – that if we just ban all the scary things (like merry-go-rounds) we can achieve perfect safety. They are the epitome of “People sleep peacefully in their beds only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

  • Anna A says:

    I read, elsewhere, that it only took Mr. Dicken 15 seconds from the time he realized that was a threat until the bad guy was neutralized.

  • Cameron says:

    Gun grabbers don’t care. This is only a minor hiccup in their Holy Quest to stop law abiding citizens from owning firearms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead