Good guy with a gun actually stops mass shooting.

[Meadmaker]

From what I have read, the shooting was over, the shooter had left the restaurant and the two armed males then attempted to arrest him. That then precipitated a second shooting incident.

It is being justified because the shooter may have gone on to shoot others. Or maybe not, who knows. I have no problem that in America it is acceptable to shoot someone dead because they might do something. I do not live there.

For what it's worth, I don't know the amount of time that passed between him leaving the restaurant (I actually read later that he never entered, just shot from the door) and the men confronting the shooter. I think it was less than a minute. The shooter was still in the parking lot.


I don't think anyone nearby would have felt safe with this guy still armed and not detained.....or dead.

 

[dann]

Of course we do know that security cameras are not body cameras. Are there any examples of armed civilians who actually wear a body camera (not a phone camera) because they want the footage because they might possibly at some moment choose to use their gun during violent conflict?

No, not yet, AFAIK, but considering the narcissism that drives them, there probably will be. Not "because they might possibly at some moment choose to use their gun," but because they've already chosen to do so and want the world to watch them do it.

 

[Nessie]

So how did that get you to accusations of a summary execution? Surely understand that you are making this accusation towards two men who may not deserve it.

I do understand, in the same way I understand that they do not necessarily deserve the good guys who stopped a mass shooting claim.

 

[Nessie]

For what it's worth, I don't know the amount of time that passed between him leaving the restaurant (I actually read later that he never entered, just shot from the door) and the men confronting the shooter. I think it was less than a minute. The shooter was still in the parking lot.


I don't think anyone nearby would have felt safe with this guy still armed and not detained.....or dead.

Why would anyone nearby feel safe when a second shooting breaks out between three people in the car park?

How many shots were exchanged? How many missed? Did the "good guys" properly assess the risk of hitting passer-bys?

 

[erlando]

The Wild, Wild West is clearly very much alive.

 

[Meadmaker]

Why would anyone nearby feel safe when a second shooting breaks out between three people in the car park?

How many shots were exchanged? How many missed? Did the "good guys" properly assess the risk of hitting passer-bys?

Unknown, to us anyway. I'm sure the police know the answers, but there was very little published about it. The gunfight went on long enough for the two attackers to exchange a couple of sentences of conversation.

That's the big risk, of course, that these vigilantes would accidentally hit someone else, or that the shooter would hit someone. All of these things have to be considered by the investigators who have to decide whether or not to charge the responders/vigilantes/good Samaritans. They weren't charged, so apparently the DA's office decided their actions were ok, and the press is full of praise for them.

 

[Ranb]

I do understand, in the same way I understand that they do not necessarily deserve the good guys who stopped a mass shooting claim.

I don't know of any attempts by these men (so far) to glorify themselves or benefit from their killing a man. It is the press and other organizations (NRA) doing this.

 

[Nessie]

I don't know of any attempts by these men (so far) to glorify themselves or benefit from their killing a man. It is the press and other organizations (NRA) doing this.

Which is my point, the thread title and the news coverage is about perpetuating the good guy with a gun myth.

We are expected to just accept the shooter was going to shoot more people, without any evidence and the best scenario was for two civilians to end up in a gun fight with the shooter in a public place.

My other point is that many Americans do accept what the men did was fine, which is one reason why the USA cannot do much to reduce the number of gun deaths.

1 - That he could be tackled by armed citizens, was not a deterrent to the shooter shooting up the restaurant.

2 - The shooter apparently had mental health problems, but he still had guns.

3 - This incident has hardly caused a ripple in the USA, whereas if it had happened in the UK there would be a huge enquiry, in particular into how he had guns. An incident like this would at least change local licensing procedures, if not national as well. In the USA, it will change nothing.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

We are expected to just accept the shooter was going to shoot more people, without any evidence and the best scenario was for two civilians to end up in a gun fight with the shooter in a public place.

If someone has already shot three people apparently at random and still has possession of their weapon(s) do you really think that the assumption that they are nolonger a potential threat is reasonable?

I don't think anyone has said it was the 'best scenario'. Has anyone denied it would have been better if he'd dropped his gun when challenged and been held for the police? If so I missed that. 'A better outcome than more innocent bystanders being shot" =/= "best scenario".

1 - That he could be tackled by armed citizens, was not a deterrent to the shooter shooting up the restaurant.

2 - The shooter apparently had mental health problems, but he still had guns.

3 - This incident has hardly caused a ripple in the USA, whereas if it had happened in the UK there would be a huge enquiry, in particular into how he had guns. An incident like this would at least change local licensing procedures, if not national as well. In the USA, it will change nothing.

These are good points, with which I for one completely agree, but describing an unusually clear cut case such as this in terms of 'summary execution' and denying that an armed man who has already shot members of the public at random should be treated as a potentially lethal threat undermines your arguments.

 

[Nessie]

When someone goes to shoot a specific place and then then leave and have stopped shooting, the risk they pose has lessened. I have not said there is no longer a risk at all.

Anyone who then just leaves the person alone and keeps out their way is not at any risk. Anyone who then confronts that person is likely at a high risk.

The civilians who decided that they would tackle the shooter are the ones who are changing the risk level and raising it to very high, with another shooting taking place.

 

[Meadmaker]

Which is my point, the thread title and the news coverage is about perpetuating the good guy with a gun myth.

We are expected to just accept the shooter was going to shoot more people, without any evidence and the best scenario was for two civilians to end up in a gun fight with the shooter in a public place.

My other point is that many Americans do accept what the men did was fine, which is one reason why the USA cannot do much to reduce the number of gun deaths.

1 - That he could be tackled by armed citizens, was not a deterrent to the shooter shooting up the restaurant.

2 - The shooter apparently had mental health problems, but he still had guns.

3 - This incident has hardly caused a ripple in the USA, whereas if it had happened in the UK there would be a huge enquiry, in particular into how he had guns. An incident like this would at least change local licensing procedures, if not national as well. In the USA, it will change nothing.

Even if we adopted the kind of much stricter gun controls that I would advocate, all the people involved in this one would have been able to have guns. The shooter was a licensed security guard, as was one of the vigilantes. I know the other vigilante was ex military with combat experience, although I don't know if his current employment situation would have had anything to do with guns.

I'm guessing that in the UK armed private security is pretty rare, and doesn't give the person any rights to carry guns about in his car in circumstances not related to his job.


All this talk of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is all well and good, but very often the first reliable indicator of mental illness is that they shoot someone. Unless we want the government scanning our social media posts and interviewing associates who have vague suspicions about whether we are all right in the head, this guy and neither of the recent school shooters would have been caught. The Parkland shooter and the shooter from this incident were both obviously seriously troubled, but they didn't have any record to indicate it. The Santa Fe shooter had no signs except not talking much and wearing trench coats in Texas. Personally, I don't want the kind of surveillance in place that would have allowed us to deny these guys guns.

On the other hand, it's my opinion that the way you keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is to keep guns out of the hands of darned near everyone. That's difficult because of the second amendment, but we could do more without crossing that line.

ETA: The other "vigilante" is currently serving in the Oklahoma Air National Guard.

 

[Nessie]

The UK manages to identify mental health issues with a system of referees, self declaring illnesses and police having blanket permission to contact GPs if they have any suspicions.

The US also appears to manage it with CCW permit holders. My suggestion was to expend CCW permit conditions and rules to ALL people in the USA who want a gun.

But then I realised that can never happen. Neither can any of the other eminently sensible suggestions to reduce gun deaths.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I'm guessing that in the UK armed private security is pretty rare, and doesn't give the person any rights to carry guns about in his car in circumstances not related to his job.

Non existent rather than rare.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Anyone who then just leaves the person alone and keeps out their way is not at any risk.

If he was armed with a knife I'd be inclined to agree, with a gun anyone who happens to come into sight is a potential target.

 

[Nessie]

If he was armed with a knife I'd be inclined to agree, with a gun anyone who happens to come into sight is a potential target.

By keeping away, I mean keeping well away and out of sight.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

By keeping away, I mean keeping well away and out of sight.

Great until someone who doesn't know what is happening walks, cycles or drives into the area.

 

[Ranb]

Which is my point, the thread title and the news coverage is about perpetuating the good guy with a gun myth.

Really? I thought the word "actually" seemed to emphasize that the good guy with a gun scenario happened so rarely that the thread title did anything but perpetuate a myth. The words typed in the OP also seems to re-enforce this.

We are expected to just accept the shooter was going to shoot more people, without any evidence and the best scenario was for two civilians to end up in a gun fight with the shooter in a public place.

We as in you? Sure doesn't include me. I've seen two people facing each other down with guns and the best I hoped for was no further violence.

My other point is that many Americans do accept what the men did was fine, which is one reason why the USA cannot do much to reduce the number of gun deaths.

It was fine in that two men saw a person trying to murder someone and took actions to prevent further bloodshed. Expecting the shooter to stop the carnage on his own is naive I think. Would you have expected this scenario to end differently if I had shot up a place with a semi-auto rifle and encountered two armed policemen in the UK?

 

[Nessie]

I would expect the UK police officers to try all means to arrest the male and seek justice, rather than assuming he is intent on shooting more people as an excuse to kill him there and then.

 

[Ranb]

I'll be more specific. If armed UK policemen encountered a gunman who just shot up a place then refused to drop his weapon and discharged it again in front of them (as Tilghman may have), what would the police officers be likely to do?

Wikipedia lists deaths caused by UK police officers. While not as common as in the USA, the police will use deadly force to protect themselves and others if required.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I'll be more specific. If armed UK policemen encountered a gunman who just shot up a place then refused to drop his weapon and discharged it again in front of them (as Tilghman may have), what would the police officers be likely to do?

Wikipedia lists deaths caused by UK police officers. While not as common as in the USA, the police will use deadly force to protect themselves and others if required.

They wouldn't shoot immediately, but if they believed there was an imminent threat to police or civilians they would shoot to kill. Our police have an excellent record of resolving these situations without loss of life but they will employ lethal force if necessary (and, yes, there have been unjustified shootings too, be these are also very rare).