Washington Times on Multiple Shootings

They point out that the media only really follows body counts, and look at this example:

In Oklahoma City the previous week, an armed citizen singlehandedly stopped an attack that surely would have resulted in a multiple-victim public shooting. The media gave the event scant attention. The scene went down when a Marine, who was on leave and came home for the holidays, started firing in an apartment parking lot. Before anyone was harmed, another man aimed his permitted concealed handgun at the attacker and ordered him to put down his weapon. The shooter dropped his gun and ran into his father’s apartment, barricading himself in. Three-and-a-half hours later, the man surrendered to the police.

Such scant attention, it escaped even my attention, and I have this stuff Google alerted out the wazoo. No bodies, so it’s not a big news story. I have to say, it took a lot of guts to tell the guy to drop his weapon rather than just open fire.

6 thoughts on “Washington Times on Multiple Shootings”

  1. Would have been a freebie to shoot. But I guess that’s the difference between us and them. Most criminals shoot first and take what they want afterward.

  2. Heck, I live here in OKC and I don’t recall this incident, but I rarely watch the local news.

  3. Yes, it did take a lot of guts. It was risky, because in another instance, the bad guy turned and fired before the good guy could react, and the good guy wound up in a wheelchair. Action beats reaction every time, and if you don’t fire first, you give the action back to the bad guy. Make sure you have adequate cover if you’re going to do that.

Comments are closed.