Some Gun-Ban Advocates Don't Believe Saving Lives Is 'Good'

When an armed bystander saved what might have been dozens of lives during an attack at an Indiana shopping mall food court on Sunday, many called him a hero, with some even referring to him as a “Good Samaritan.”

“The real hero of the day is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop this shooter almost as soon as he began,” Jim Ison, Greenwood, Indiana, police chief, said of the 22-year-old man who drew his concealed carry handgun and put an end to what could have resulted in dozens dead.

Greenwood Mayor Mark Myers took it a step further

“Someone we are calling the ‘Good Samaritan’ was able to shoot the assailant and stop further bloodshed,” Myers said in a released statement. “This person saved lives tonight. On behalf of the City of Greenwood, I am grateful for his quick action and heroism in this situation.”

That biblical reference, however, was just too much for many in the so-called “mainstream” media, who never like to refer to anything relating to privately owned firearms as “good,” and who immediately began crying foul.

“The term, ‘Good Samaritan’ came from a Bible passage of a man from Samaria who stopped on the side of the road to help a man who was injured and ignored,” CBS4 traffic anchor Justin Kollar tweeted on Monday. "I cannot believe we live in a world where the term can equally apply to someone killing someone … my God."

As Fox News reported, Kollar wasn’t alone in his criticism of the “Good Samaritan” reference. In fact, Comedian John Fugelsang had plenty to say about it.

“The Good Samaritan paid for an unknown immigrant's health care out of pocket,” Fugelsang tweeted. “The Good Samaritan did not shoot anyone. Jesus was not a fan of killing for any reason, including self-defense. But if these ammosexuals had ever read the Bible, they couldn't support the GOP or NRA.”

In truth, Kollar, Fugelsang and anyone else alarmed with the life-saving armed citizens being referred to as a “Good Samaritan” are dead wrong in their criticism. In fact, their statements seem to suggest that they would be more comfortable with more innocent people killed than with an armed citizen stepping up and stopping the attack.

In a Bible story that Jesus told in response to the question, “Who is my neighbor,” a man had been beaten, stripped and robbed by thieves and left beside the road. After a priest and a Levite had passed by on the other side of the road to avoid the situation, the Good Samaritan saved the man’s life by rendering medical attention, taking him to an inn and paying for his future care. Long and short, he saved the guy’s life. Of course, the conclusion was that the “neighbor” in the story was the one who showed compassion and mercy.

In the mall shooting situation, the modern-day Good Samaritan saved far more lives than the good man in the Bible story did. He showed true compassion and mercy to the innocent shoppers being slaughtered by taking out the threat before more could be killed—a “Good Samaritan,” indeed.

In these violent times in which we live, we all need more armed “Good Samaritans” as our neighbors. News people and celebrities pontificating from their lofty perches don’t save any lives—armed citizens do.

---

About the Author

Freelance writer and editor Mark Chesnut is the owner/editorial director at Red Setter Communications LLC. An avid hunter, shooter and political observer, he has been covering Second Amendment issues and politics on a near-daily basis for the past 20 years.

---