General Categories > Newsworthy

Two good guys with guns stop a bad guy, WaPo says there were three shooters

(1/2) > >>

Jito463:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/07/13/feature/in-all-reality-there-were-three-shooters-oklahomans-kill-an-active-shooter-and-its-not-as-simple-as-it-sounds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9206d70590d5

So, the Washington Compost is at it again.  There was another shooter on a rampage in Oklahoma, and two men nearby grabbed their guns and stopped him dead (literally).  WaPo's response?


--- Quote ---“In all reality, there were three shooters,” Benton said.
--- End quote ---
No, there was one shooter and two rescuers.  If they were police officers, would they still say there were three shooters?


--- Quote ---But police also noted that armed citizens can complicate volatile situations.
--- End quote ---
Or can help stop them, as happened here.


--- Quote ---“We don’t want people to be vigilantes,” Bo Mathews, a spokesman for the Oklahoma City Police Department, said in a recent interview. “That’s why we have police officers.”
--- End quote ---
Except there were no "vigilantes" here, just two guys trying to do the right thing and protect others, while putting themselves in harms way.

The real kicker in the article?

--- Quote ---Both men did what they believed was right, but that meant they had killed a man they did not know.
--- End quote ---
Who cares if they knew him or not?  Would that have made any lick of difference?  He was shooting unarmed people and threatened their lives when they engaged him.  That's all they needed to know.  He's dead, they're not.  That's the best result they could have hoped for.  Of course, they couldn't even stop there and had to get some digs in at the NRA.


--- Quote ---The NRA has brandished the “good guy with a gun” argument after several recent mass shootings. Wayne LaPierre, the group’s 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.
--- End quote ---
No, not "even though", because of the fact.  That resource officer wasn't just a good guy with a gun, he was charged with the responsibility of keeping those kids safe, and he failed miserably in his duties!  They keep harping on that as if it changes the argument, when in fact it only serves to strengthen our side.


--- Quote ---The FBI examined 160 shootings between 2000 and 2013 and found that most of the violence ended when the assailant stopped shooting, committed suicide or fled.
--- End quote ---
And I bet the FBI completely ignored the data from the CDC that shows between 500k and 3mil defensive uses of guns every year.

To their credit, they did at least mention some instances (such as the Sutherland Springs shooting) of times when shooters were stopped by a good guy with a gun, but then they felt it necessary to list some "negatives" (for balance?  Hah!).


--- Quote ---In 2014, husband-and-wife attackers killed two Las Vegas police officers before going into a nearby Walmart and firing a shot in the air. Joseph Wilcox, 31, a civilian with a handgun and a concealed-carry permit, pulled his weapon to confront the male shooter, but the man’s wife shot Wilcox in the chest, killing him.
--- End quote ---
A tragedy for sure, but that doesn't alter the argument of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy.


--- Quote ---When Prince George’s County police detective Jacai Colson responded to a 2016 attack on a police station in his street clothes, another officer mistook him for a threat and shot him.

“The shot that struck and killed Detective Colson was deliberately aimed at him by another police officer,” the police chief said.
--- End quote ---
So, in this case it's not even involving civilians, it's two police officers with one in plainclothes, and the shooter at fault was a police officer.  Still not changing the argument any.


--- Quote ---“How is the officer going to discern who is the Good Samaritan and who is not?” Serpas said. “They don’t have placards on the front of their shirts that say ‘I’m the good guy’ or ‘I’m the bad guy.’ ”
--- End quote ---
If the guy is aiming his gun at you, I'd wager that's the bad guy.  Duh!

And then he gives yet another example why we shouldn't rely on just the police (except that's not what he intended, I'm sure).

--- Quote ---But he also has seen how quickly things can go wrong. In August 2013, Oklahoma City police officers responding to the sound of gunshots opened fire on a man shooting at a car before realizing he was the owner of a liquor store who had been robbed.
--- End quote ---

Gotta love this line from the article.

--- Quote ---Nazario and Whittle had no idea who Tilghman was when they killed him. Tilghman did not kill anyone, and any sentence he might have faced had he been apprehended certainly would have been less than death.
--- End quote ---
Aww, poor wittle shooter trying to kill innocent civilians!  He never actually killed anyone, so he didn't really deserve to die!

DISGUSTING!

Nettles:
Pompous, sanctimonious twattle.  I think that's WaPo's official motto now.

GreyGeek:
That WaPo article was a classic case of a drive-by shooting, with the 2A being the intended target.

Very cleverly worded.    Now, IF the author were at that eatery and being shot at would he demand that the two good Samaritans not stop the shooter and wait till the police arrived, even if HE could be a victim?  I doubt it.

Dalamar:
If you want WaPo's fake news to go away, remind everyone to never click WaPo links and get a good ad/java blocker.
Block WaPo and Amazon in your router (owned by same scummy person). No loss with Amazon, they're actually pretty expensive 99% of the time.
And of course, spread the information.

eelstrebor1:
Despite the fact that I get tired of all of the pro/con arguments about guns, I realize that we have to "push back". Society has had laws against criminal activity since the dawn of mankind. Since everyone acknowledges that people will do bad/evil things, we have laws and punishments to deal with those situations. In the case of weapons, we can't ban everything that can be used for evil purposes due to the actions of such a small percentage of people. But, we have ridiculous laws (i.e. prohibited places laws) that were intended to reduce crime but are obviously ineffective (i.e school/church shootings because of inadequate security). And it's not my problem that people commit suicide - they'll find some way to do that with or without a gun. Anyway, society has to find a way to deal with criminal activity without punishing everyone for the abuses by such a small percentage of bad people. You'll never be able to stop all criminal activity, though. But, we have too many people that want to take away every ones freedom. Other amendments are under attack also. Heh, a lot of politicians are calling President Trump a traitor when they don't honor their oath to defend and protect the Constitution. What a bunch of hypocrites. Those politicians should be impeached. Term limits for Congress should be implemented, also. The "down side" to term limits is that we might end up with worse people in government. I could write more but I don't want to take up too much of your time.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page