The most absurd slant of the article (beyond the general point that the hero violated some sort of 'mall rule') is that not once does it care to mention that the active shooter violated the rule too
And here's a microcosm of the gun debate: create a law, or in this case a rule, that bans guns, ostensibly to prevent 'gun' violence. Yet people who are intent on murdering others obviously aren't concerned about laws to begin with- if they were concerned about laws then the laws prohibiting murder would stop them. So following the laws falls on the shoulders of the law abiding. The irony of that is completely missed by the creator of this news piece. Which wholly centers on whether or not a law abiding citizen failed to follow a mall ordinance and pretty much dismisses any responsibility of the initial shooter.
Truly insane. Why is this even a debate?