Some killers are easier to stop than others.
The coronavirus pandemic is proving very hard to stop.
But one good guy with a gun and presence of mind can stop a different kind of would-be killer — an active shooter — instantly. This is what happened last week outside of a Tulsa marijuana dispensary.
Apparently angered by some earlier altercation with somebody, a woman started shooting at customers. By the time the Tulsa Police arrived, she was dead. A bystander with a concealed carry permit had returned fire, stopping her before she could hurt anyone. He was questioned and released by police, who reviewed video of the scene.
At BearingArms.com, Cam Edwards decries the under-reporting of the story. One local news station even “completely miss[ed] the fact that an armed citizen saved lives,” instead making it sound as if the guy just walked up to the woman at random and shot her.
“Journalistic malpractice,” Edwards calls it.
It’s easy to see why a story like this might get lost in the shuffle given everything else that’s going on now. But even in (relatively) normal times, many in the media tend to strenuously ignore — sometimes even willfully distort — the facts about how persons bearing arms have used deadly force to stop others wielding deadly force from killing innocent people.
What we always hear is true: guns are not independent agents.
Persons wield weapons for good or ill.
And it is decidedly good when an armed civilian draws and fires a weapon to stop an evil shooter from doing criminal harm.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
4 replies on “Tulsa Shooter Stopped Dead”
Neither syllable of self-defense is in any manner objectionable, but harming or hindering the function is.
The citizen acting to protect himself and other innocents performed a lawful societal service. The deceased clearly was an outlaw and prohibited by law from possessing firearms not to mention her use of them them in this incident.
What societal goal, how would the population be better served, by prohibiting the citizen carrying of his weapon and being able to immediately react?
The “journalist” has an agenda and the reporting and reasoning is flawed.
I heard it first here, today… So much for journalism.
I would add that surely we would have heard non stop reporting from the media had there been no armed citizen on site to defend the public and the numbers of dead had been much greater. The dead shooter does not count…
Precisely. Much of the media are actively playing the political game, rather than reporting on it. And not just on the gun issue.