We now have more information about a mass shooting in an Indiana mall that was cut short by an armed citizen. Within moments of a gunman opening fire in a mall food court, 22-year-old Eli Dicken took decisive action, drawing his own firearm and killing the shooter before any more lives could be taken.
“His actions were nothing short of heroic. He engaged the gunman from quite a distance with a handgun, was very proficient in that, very tactically sound…”
– Greenwood Police Chief James Ison
What Happened:
Dicken is still not speaking to the media, and may not for some time as his attorney said his client will remain silent until the police finish their investigation into the shooting. Authorities say Dicken was legally carrying his handgun under a new Indiana Constitutional Carry law that had gone into effect days earlier on July 1.
The law allows Indianans to conceal carry a handgun without a permit. There are some exceptions – in cases where the person is underage, was convicted of a felony, or has what is deemed to be a dangerous mental illness.
While the mall itself had a ban on firearms, it’s very unlikely they will pursue legal action against Dicken given the circumstances, and the owners of the mall have already praised him as a hero.
Constitutional Carry
Supporters of laws like Indiana’s constitutional carry say that gun ban policies such as the mall’s can actually attract would-be killers because they see such places as “soft targets.”
Dicken had no formal military or police training — everything he knew about handling a weapon he learned from his grandfather. Police estimate that 15 seconds had passed between the gunman firing his first shot and Dicken taking him out. Even more incredibly — Dicken hit the gunman with eight of ten shots from about 40 yards away, which would be impressive even for someone with professional training.
Unfortunately, even with Dicken’s quick response time, the shooter was still able to kill three people and injure two more, which emphasizes how quickly situations like this can escalate.
Gun-Free Zones:
Critics say that more people carrying guns increases the chances of a situation escalating into something more serious and that armed civilians are more likely than not to be shot by responding police officers who have to assess a situation and take action quickly. Critics also say that good guys with guns rarely stop crime. According to researchers at Texas State Universities, of 433 shooting attacks in the U.S. between 2000 and 2021, 22 were ended by an armed civilian.
Proponents say that a study like the one at Texas State can’t account for all the times the mere presence of an armed civilian stopped a shooting before it began. Many mass shooters specifically pick targets that are unlikely to put up much resistance, at least initially, so those criticisms do carry some weight. One big challenge these proponents face is it’s incredibly hard to quantify the magnitude of the deterrent effect.
Ron McLean, the Watchman on the Wall
