outstanding
Extensive article, but did I miss this? What did the first guy go nuts over to start this mess?
Well, kinda. Had they not said this:
In a matter of seconds, the two armed citizens became self-appointed protectors,...
Their attempt to show vigilantism.
When seconds count, the self-appointed protectors are there within seconds. The police, however....
Those pushing gun control say it never happens.
Remember all the warnings about multiple defenders shooting each other, and the police getting in gun fights with them?
Here is a real world example, and none of the hypotheticals happened.
People who have made the decision to be unarmed, make up these hypotheticals as excuses to justify their decision.
Texas tower shooting in the 60’s, I think the guy that shot the sniper was a ex - navy guy deputized on the spot by a local Police officer.
BRAVO!!!
I like stories like this;)
"but"? What is that supposed to convey to me sitting in my chair? That I have to limit my self-defense to my little town's wife-beaters and angry drunks and whatever faces I've seen on "Crime Watch"?
I'm seeing zero out of 160 shootings that were stopped by on-duty law enforcement shooting the guy. Maybe some of the suicides are the guy shooting himself when he sees ten guns pointed at him, but that's another matter.
“In a matter of SECONDS, the two armed citizens became self-appointed protectors,...”
When SECONDS count, the police are only minutes away.
I read a significant amount of bias from the author. The tone throughout is that armed civilians, especially those of lesser experience with firearms, create an environment of confusion and uncertainty in situations such as these, where responses by LEOs in similar circumstances are usually the opposite. Basically, the author deviously suggests this was a rare situation where the two heroes were well-trained, an uncommon situation, and also lucky with regard to how it all played out, and that more often than not it won’t end so well.
Gotta love the ridiculously biased write up.
“The NRA has brandished the good guy with a gun argument after several recent mass shootings. Wayne LaPierre, the groups chief executive, invoked the phrase after the 2012 massacre of 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school. He repeated it after the rampage in which 17 people were killed at a high school in Parkland, Fla., in February, even though an armed school resource officer was present and did not enter the school or engage the gunman during that attack.”
Ummmm how exactly does the fact that the Broward Coward refused to engage the shooter IN ANY WAY invalidate the truism that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? Wayne LaPierre did not say having another gun present automatically neutralizes a bad guy with a gun. He said that’s the only way they can be stopped. The good guy with a gun sort of has to actually DO SOMETHING to stop the shooter - not cower behind a car out in the parking lot like the Broward Cops.
bbb
“We dont want people to be vigilantes, Bo Mathews, a spokesman for the Oklahoma City Police Department, said in a recent interview. Thats why we have police officers.”
Arrogant a$$hole! You weren’t there to stop the shooting.
I love a good story with a happy ending.
Good thing there were 2 more shooters. Liberals like the Oklahoma governor don’t want people to be able to protect themselves. They prefer dead people.
As the shooter Blood Out on the grass and died! I love a happy ending!
“as the shooter bled out into the grass and died.”
I love...sniff.. happy endings.
I love a happy ending.