A possible mass shooting — another tragedy — was stopped by a man with a gun Thursday evening in Springfield, Mo.

Perhaps copying what occurred a week ago Saturday at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, an off-duty fireman stopped and held a potential active shooter at gunpoint until police arrived.

Police said the young white male, in his 20s, arrived at the store, clad in body armor and military fatigues, carrying a tactical weapon and 100 rounds of ammunition. In the store, he pushed a cart around, recording himself via a cell phone.

Notified, the store manager set off the fire alarm alerting people to escape.

Leaving the store via an emergency exit, the young man was stopped and held by the off-duty fireman.

Which is wonderful and fantastic because an armed citizen prevented another potential mass shooting — another tragedy.

(15) comments


Not to pop anyone's balloon but.......... Missouri is an 'open carry' state. So, unless the store had a policy, i doubt anything will come of it, unless the person was illegally in possession? (ps..... anyone who can afford body armor is allowed to buy it as well) Although, it is quite cumbersome.

David Collins

Did the guy with a gun threaten anyone in any way shape or form ? Was there a sign at the door that said no firearms allowed ? Was the gun loaded and primed ? Sure, the weak in the knees bunch goes absolutely spastic at the sight of a weapon so it will probably go down as assault by fear . By sounding the fire alarm wouldn’t you exit anyway you could ? Back in my dove hunting days , we would routinely stop by the store in full hunting garb and buy cases of shells on the way to the fields . No one even paid us any mind . This episode will probably go down as a lack of good judgment and common sense in these days of nervous Nellies . Of course that could lead to legal troubles and possible jail time . Lots of could be , might be and possibilities here .


That boy was making a statement. It was neither necessary nor welcome. He is now on the radar.


This article is not reporting. Words like "potential" and "possible" are for tabloids. No information has been released that this person had intentions of a mass killing. A person with a gun detained a person with another gun. Until the information is released, the author of this article should be factual in his attempt to show how concealed carry saved the day. A strong second amendment supporter, I am disappointed. We do not need to justify our rights with this type of journalism.

Core Sounder

The young man is not guilty of anything except for being foolish. He's lucky that he did not get shot by someone mistaking him for a terrorist. Wearing body armor is legal and most cops wear it all of the time so is walking around with a weapon but can not be concealed unless one has a permit. Then again anyone that does not have a concealed permit is a dang fool to leave a weapon in plain sight for a thief to steal or child to get a hold of regardless of what the law says.


Sore on the shoulder, high on the sugar. And a second amendment supporter.

But I digress. It was of very poor judgement for someone to enter Walmart in that manner, especially after the recent shootings. While open carry is legal here, it isn't all that smart, given the common law "Going Armed to the Terror of the Public". Most civilians are not trained in weapon retention as well. Concealed carry is best, and gives the element of surprise advantage. Many civilian open holsters aren't good at retention either, and many don't properly carry, openly. The concealed carry courses don't require concealed deployment skills demonstrated either. We must use good judgement in carry.


Right Corrupt. I grew up in the country and have used firearms all my life. Grandfather was a deputy sheriff and owned a rifle range. I helped out with turkey shoots and whatnot. Every now and then, someone would show up who had no business carrying a gun, usually drunk. The gun would be taken and held at the house until the person returned sober or the relative it was "borrowed from" came by.


NC-Native -Son: I agree. In my childhood, I walked from Front Street to the Black Cat to shoot whatever I chose for that day. No one even noticed. In high school, there were many firearms in our lockers. No school shootings or what not.

In middle school we walked to school and left our rifles in the principals office, picked them up after school. It is the raising of children that has misfired. Not the firearms.


"Ideology, the Schools, and Murder: the McInerney/King Case" by Noel Anenberg. Your childhood did not have to endure this kind of crazy far left BS.

David Collins

Guys, the perhaps only difference between when we were chaps growing up and now is Extreme liberalism with all it’s dark nooks and crannies. Just like a Venus Flytrap, it smells so sweet just before it grabs and kills you.

Livin in Paradise

What about the rights of people who don't want to own a gun ?? Or do those even matter ??

David Collins

Your rights to not have a gun have not been taken away. That is your choice and will be, and is , respected. Not like a scarlet letter is posted on your face. Really, who cares. Same goes for those that feel differently. Get it? The my way or the highway state of mind is the problem. Sadly, it will come to a head. With predictable results. Weaken this country enough and the opposition will make a hostile move. Not just if, it is when. My opinion.


Sorry there LIP, i don't see anyone in here forcing you to own a gun, beyond that, you are not responsible for anyone else on this planet, much less free American's, the way i see it? Not one person ever 'FORCED' a gun in your hands i'd bet. So, based on that theory, you are welcome to not own anything! [wink]


What paradise is really saying is that those who don't like firearms shouldn't have to endure those who do. Or some such general statement. Paradise has the right to not own or possess a firearm. Additionally, paradise has the right to not associate with others having firearms. Paradise does not have the right to dictate to others what their rights are, or what they can possess. That is the crux of the subject. Liberals want to have the right to dictate to others what they can or cannot have. They fear their fellow citizens with firearms, sometimes at the paranoid level, or even worse. That is the basic idea.


Thats not liberal, its 'Totalitarian' or must we look to a dictionary?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.