Ammo For Sale

« « Just one more! | Home | Gun Porn » »

Clackamas Shooter Confronted by Armed Man

Seems he had to hold fire to avoid hitting passers-by:

“I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.”

Other cases of mass-murderers v. armed citizens here and here.

10 Responses to “Clackamas Shooter Confronted by Armed Man”

  1. Crotalus Says:

    This is the first time an honest citizen who wasn’t an off-duty cop defied the no guns policy of a mall, and stopped a mass murder, or so I believe. Good on him!

  2. JJR Says:

    Thanks for posting this, Unc. Unfortunately the chances this will get picked up by the national media are nearly zero.

  3. TIM Says:

    You know its funny as much as I love my guns and shooting them I have never had the desire to get a concealed carry Until now.

  4. Larry Says:

    But, but, but…. I’ve been assured by top people in the media and prominent gun-control organizations that people with CCWs will spray the whole area down with bullets, killing and wounding as many or more people than the original shooter. This story is unpossible.

  5. DaveR Says:

    First, this story has not been confirmed. Best as I can tell it’s getting reported by one news outlet and the timing of the revelation makes me suspicious that this guy is not being completely honest.

    Second, the guy freely admits to violating state law by having a gun in the mall. While he may have saved lives, his flaunting of the law does little to make “us” look law abiding. If the story ever gets official confirmation (video surveillance?, police report?, eyewitness confirmation?) then his legal violation would of course be of little consequence in the eyes of most.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m hoping that his story is true and that he even gets some semi-official exemption from prosecution because he might have saved many many lives. But right now the evidence is slim and needs exposure beyond the gun boards.

  6. Anthony Says:

    The only law he would have been breaking is trespassing. I’ve been to that mall (before I got serious about protecting myself and my loved ones) and I can tell you that the no gun signs are not prominent and could easily be missed. Likely all that would have happened had he been discovered would have been to ask him to leave, as those signs don’t carry weight of law in Oregon.

  7. DaveR Says:

    This summary of Oregon law says “No Gun” signs carry legal weight (see page 5):

    If that mall was not signed then that exonerates the purported hero, but it also destroys arguments floating around gun boards that the mall was off limits to CHP holders.

  8. Anthony Says:

    Sorry about that. I misread my state’s laws on that (though the laws as written could be interpreted to mean what I said, I wouldn’t depend on that as a legal defense.) I have a personally policy of not going where I’m not welcome, so I haven’t worried too much about that portion of the law here.

  9. blounttruth Says:

    It is never the gun, why don’t they get it? They never attack the real problem.

  10. Skeptic Says:

    Based upon what I’ve read on the internet (so it must be true) The mall doors that lead to the concourse from outdoors are posted, but the doors to the concourse from the large department stores are not, and neither are the doors from the outdoors to the large department stores.

    So one could be rationally ignorant of the prohibition, in which case presumably under 164.265 it would not be criminal trespass unless this was brought to your attention.

    But if you watch this video to its conclusion, mention is made that the guy in question had until recently been a security guard at this very mall before leaving for a better security guard job elsewhere. So it would perhaps be harder for him to argue that he was ignorant of the mall’s rules