Two people critical in hospital as officials in Bend say 16-year-old suspect shot dead by bystander
A 16-year-old shooter opened fire at an elementary school in Bend, Oregon, on Thursday, killing three children and a teacher before he was shot dead by a community member, authorities said at an evening news conference.
The dead children at Silver Rail elementary school were aged five, eight and 11, officials said.
A seven-year-old and a 54-year-old were also hospitalized with critical injuries, according to police.
Just another day in America. Unfortunately.
Without knowing any details of this case and the actual situation that happened - at one point in time, a civilian with a firearm opened fire at another (minor) with a firearm because there was a possible danger scenario near a school. How did the “good guy” in this scenario know exactly that this was the right call to open fire, and not just another possible “good guy with a gun”?
In this case, he was evidently correct, well done! But it could easily have become a terrible blue-on-blue scenario as well.
To me, this single “good guy with a gun” scenario does not justify the fact that firearms are so widespread that the “bad guy” easily got his own, and became more deadly as a result.
deleted by creator
The “good guy with a gun” seemingly did happen here - a civilian (i.e. neither security, police nor military) shot an active shooter and stopped the drama.
But relying on “good guy with a gun” is not a meaningful security policy as it actively encourages arming civilians. In case of an imminent threat like an active shooter - which one of the armed, non-uniformed civilians are friendly, neutral or enemies? And how do they communicate their afilliation to bystanders, fellow armed citizens and security forces - in a way that could not be exploited by an active shooter himself? Employing this as a general security policy would proliferate more guns in the society and teach everyone to be vigilant of each other, thus increasing distrust. It can also attribute to shifting the blame to victims of shootings: Why didn’t they arm themselves and shoot first?
In my view, reducing the amount of guns or at least the volume of fire (think 6-shooter revolvers instead of 17-round semiautomatics) would reduce the amount of gunshot victims in the time between start of an active shooting and the arrival of security forces that would then handle the situation professionally. A stressed-out amateur with a handgun is not as helpful as a professional, and can actually increase to the drama due to increasing uncertainty in identification of friend or foe.
Didn’t read the articles, did you.
So the one guy that got thrown clear of the car, uninjured, in a rollover accident where he didn’t use a seatbelt means nobod should wear a seatbelt in a car accident?
deleted by creator
By the time officers arrived on scene, the suspected assailant had been shot and killed inside the school building. It is unclear who shot the suspect.
I suppose if you work in an elementary school these days, you know the Calvary isn’t coming in and you’re on your own. My guess is a teacher took down the shooter.
deleted by creator
Read it was a special needs class that was attacked; teacher tried to stop the shooter by placing herself between the kids and the shooter and seize the gun.
Unfortunately the shooter’s name has been revealed. Infamy is what these nihilists want.
The price we pay for cosplaytriotism
So, good guy with gun stopped bad guy with gun?
Are you fishing for your cherry picked case that proves the premise you wanted in spite of the overwhelming evidence that contradicts it?
Is that not what happened here?
What about the hundreds of times that hasn’t happened? Or what about, if the “bad guy” didn’t have a gun 4 people wouldn’t be dead to begin with?
This narrative of “good guy with a gun” is so unbelievably rare, that when it happens, it’s actually noteworthy. You and your ilk love to hold it up to further your agenda. Neverminding the stacks and piles of bodies you’re stepping over to get to one example of “good guy with a gun”.
My ilk? Leftist gun owners? The solution you’re proposing is nobody has a gun. The genuine reality is, that’s never going to be the case in America.
I said ilk, I meant it.
Leftist can be gun owners, no problem with that, the problem is you’re not a leftist. You’re just a larper troll.
I mean, you can believe whatever you want regardless of it’s basis in reality I guess.
Crossing your fingers and hoping for a good guy with a gun.
Sound strategy. Much smart.
