Right-wing blogs are all a-twitter over this "virtually unreported"story of a concealed weapons permit holder reportedly cutting short the killing spree at the Clackamas Mall last week.
The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.
"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.
Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.
"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."
Now, how can a story be virtually unreported if it was, in fact, reported on? Now, I am NOT going to criticise Mr. Meli for not confronting the shooter, taking cover or not pulling the trigger of his handgun. Handgun v. rifle usually ends in the rifle winning. Taking cover is prudent. Not firing because you fear hitting an innocent person is also prudent. However, the wingers' conclusions do not logically follow the events.
Here's what we know. The gunman shot three people. Meli uses a lull in the firing to pull his handgun and take cover, first behind a pillar, and then in a nearby store. Meli never fires a shot. Reporting from the scene indicated that the shooter's weapon jammed, which is a far more reasonable explanation for why the shooting spree halted, rather than Meli's limited actions (that's not to say that Meli wouldn't have taken a shot had the opportunity presented itself, we just do not know). The shooter killed himself in a service stairwell, apparently out of sight and well away from where Meli took cover, and Meli doesn't indicate that he pursued the shooter, in fact he states that he took cover in a nearby store. There's no indication that the gunman even saw Meli, other than Meli's own account. To conclude that the killer took his own life because of the presence of an armed citizen is nothing more than propaganda.
Reasonable people should be able to have reasonable conversations and debate about the role of guns in our society, the value or detriment of having an armed citizenry, and what can be done to reduce or stop carnage such as this and the Newtown school massacre. Ascribing a heroic conclusion to support your side in the argument when the facts don't support that conclusion is dishonest.