Man who opened fire on Texas church shooter hailed as 'good Samaritan'

[pintobean]

A former National Rifle Association instructor who grabbed his rifle and ran barefoot across the street to open fire on the gunman who killed 26 people at a smalltown Texas church was hailed as a hero Monday, along with the pickup truck driver who helped chase the killer down.

Stephen Willeford, 55, said he was at his Sutherland Springs home on Sunday when his daughter alerted him that she had heard gunfire at the First Baptist church nearby. Willeford said he immediately retrieved his rifle from his weapon safe.

“I kept hearing the shots, one after another, very rapid shots – just ‘Pop! Pop! Pop! Pop!’ – and I knew every one of those shots represented someone, that it was aimed at someone, that they weren’t just random shots,” Willeford said Monday during an interview with the television stations KHBS/KHOG in Fort Smith and Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Willeford said he loaded his magazine and ran barefoot across the street to the church where he saw the gunman and exchanged fire.

More - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/06/stephen-willeford-johnnie-langendorff-texas-church-shooting

[Lurks Often]

1. He ran toward the danger, not away from it and put 2 bullets into the murdering POS

None of us will ever know what the murdering POS intended to do after leaving the church.

What we do know is that person chose to run toward the danger and try and help and then, with another person, pursued the murdering POS until the POS crashed his vehicle and then killed himself. All BEFORE the cops arrived.

As to how many here would have done the same, I'm thinking damn few.

[exboyfil]

2. And some on this board are calling

Them vigilantes. See how well that plays in upcoming elections.

[Lurks Often]

3. It won't play well at all outside of very blue districts.

[leftynyc]

27. I'm from a very blue district

and I can assure you, it wont play well here at all. And frankly, what I would call anyone calling him a vigilante would surely get me banned. Ignore them.

[cwydro]

12. Im thinking damn few also.

I still remember all the threads about how scared people are to even have a bumper sticker on their car.

Resistance for many consists of turning magazines back to front lol. I don’t see anyone like that willing to put themselves into real danger.

That guy was very brave.

[grossproffit]

28. I agree with you. How anyone can demonize this man is beyond comprehension. It's why we lose.

[Ilsa]

69. I would be running to the victims to administer CPR.

I don't own a gun because I don't need one.

As to what the POS was going to do next, I guess we won't know since his most lethal weapon was drained, per reports.

[loyalsister]

4. What if he was going to turn himself in?

It would be kind of nice if someone could have deescalated so that we could learn a bit about why he did it. Since we don't know and he was apparently finished with the church, there is no way of knowing. This is not real evidence of the glorious good guy with a gun scenario claimed as a reason to write mass killings off as collatoral damage.

[jmg257]

5. He shot himself in the head. After shooting at the interloper. Not sure 'might turn himself in'

is a reason for not confronting the scumbag.

[snooper2]

6. What if he was going to track down his MIL and shoot her since she wasn't at church

what if...

what if.

blah

[loyalsister]

11. Exactly my point

Speculation is not evidence that proves that the good guy with a gun scenario is anything but in their dreams of being in an action movie.

[jmg257]

16. You need to prove...something? That this civilian did NOT do something good by confronting

this scumbag, or should NOT have confronted the scumbag, for whatever goofy reasons?

Seems there is a lot of that today.

It's perplexing.

[loyalsister]

19. This is being used to "prove" that everyone should have a gun

.

[jmg257]

20. Ah - gotcha. Clearly not a good idea. nt

[pintobean]

21. I have no idea where you're getting that.

It's a news story in The Guardian.

[loyalsister]

25. The NRA has been dreaming of the day that they would find their hero

They don't care how unique this circumstance was. It is evidence that their good guy with a gun scenario is a reality.

[Orrex]

85. And THAT is the point. Thank you.

In other words, as always, the solution to gun violence is more guns.

[Jim Beard]

94. Any more it is going to take both, a good man with a gun and fewer guns and more laws are needed bec

because there are so god damn many guns now. Do Both!

[EX500rider]

9. "What if he was going to turn himself in?"

And what percentage of gunmen who have committed mass shootings have "turned themselves in"?

[pintobean]

10. He was an active shooter.

He was outside, shooting at the guy next door when Willeford engaged him.
Would you have wanted to try to interview him, to see if he wanted to turn himself in, had you been there?

[cwydro]

13. Thank you. Nt

[loyalsister]

14. I was pointing out how dumb speculation is

There is no proof of anything that would have happened next. The guy may have prevented more carnage, but maybe not. This is not evidence that more people should be walking around with guns hoping to become a hero. There is no glory anywhere in this but peoplle will use it to make sure they get their chance to be an action hero.

[historian]

23. be careful

you are making sense and that type of thinking (or just plain thinking has been banned since the establishment of the nra and the arrival of idiot maximus trump

[jmg257]

24. You really think Willeford was hoping to become a hero??? He just doesn't seem like that

to me. I would think most gun owners hope they never get in such a situation.

I would bet they are more concerned with defending them and theirs, if considering it at all.

[loyalsister]

31. I don't think most gun owners think that way

But I have a hard time believing that people who demand to carry murderous instruments everywhere they go would not like to be able to use them at some point.
People who desperately believe that they have an unconditional right to own instruments designed to kill people, by extension believe they are entitled to kill people. Why carry it if that is not the end game?

[jmg257]

33. Why? Why would they just be busting to use it?? Strange you think so many are just aching to kill.

Don't you think most people being lined up as the next target, or watching their family being lined up, would wish they had some decent means to protect themselves and their family?!?

I would.

And I bet for most of the millions of gun owners out there it is just that simple. No hero wish, no death wish, no overwhelming desire to just shoot someone - anyone, for no reason.

Not sure why it is so easy to think otherwise.

[loyalsister]

36. Why own anything you don't want to use?

.

[jmg257]

39. You mean like a fire extinguisher? A bee-sting kit? A seat belt? A life preserver?

Also, there are other uses for guns besides killing people, and especially 'just because'.

[loyalsister]

41. Which of those items is specifically designed to kill people?

None. They are specifically designed to preserve life. No comparison.

[jmg257]

42. So you change the question!!? "Why own anything you don't want to use?"

I listed numerous devices....perfect comparisons, in answer.

Plus note the added point of using guns for other things...i.e. trap shooting, target shooting, hunting (if so inclined), etc. NO killing of people needed to use them.


As for "designed to preserve life", if you are not aching to kill, for no reason (as I expect of most people), and do not use a gun to kill, for no reason (as most people do not), but are so unfortunate as to have to use a gun to preserve the life of yourself or others, is that a bad thing?

I do not think so.

[loyalsister]

44. Guns for other things is the most callous justification out there

But what about meeeee and my target shooting. A few mass murders is worth my little weekend thrill.

You were the one who tried to counter apples to oranges. Comparing safety devices to one designed to kill fails.

[jmg257]

47. Yeesh...YOU were the one who asked the questions. And now your making points that had

nothing to do with those questions (and the points you were making) that were addressed.

1) people who own guns want to kill other people
2) why own something you don't want to use (to kill)

Asking questions to make points easily answered, and then making totally different points?!?

Fail, indeed.

And here I thought we would have/were having a good conversation, and you go ahead and bomb.

ETA on your new point: no, target shooting is not worth a bunch of gun-related murders.
You may need to find someone else who actually thinks it is.

[historian]

75. exactly

Furthermore when the constitution was written it took several minutes to load a gun so there was a chance of self defense. If the framers of the constitution had ever imagined that guns which could spew hundreds of bullets in matter of minutes were to become a reality they would never have included the right to bear arms. Furthermore, and i have lived in both these countries. Israel and Switzerland, all the citizens must have weapons at home till the age of i believe 65 and the murder rate is close to zero. In Israel there are certainly terrorist attacks but very rarely will one Israeli kill another,

[jmg257]

91. Curious point. How do you think they would have handled the importance of the people/militia then?

Are you saying they all of a sudden wouldn't trust the people with militia grade weapons?
That they would instead have decided to trust our liberties to "that bane of liberty" - a large standing army?

Maybe go with Hamilton's select militia and keep the people's arms in armories the people themselves control?



Also doesn't square well with this:

"Furthermore, and i have lived in both these countries. Israel and Switzerland, all the citizens must have weapons at home till the age of i believe 65 and the murder rate is close to zero."



Strange point to make if you are against the militia principals of the founders, simply because of today's more efficient arms (a huge point of the 2nd and the militia acts). Which of course Israll and Sweden have.

[pintobean]

35. I own a plunger.

I'm not excited about the thought of using it.

[loyalsister]

37. Do you carry it everywhere you go?

Just in case

[pintobean]

40. Nope. just my phone, wallet and keys.

If I need specific tools, I take them where they're needed. Willeford's gun was in his gun safe, unloaded. The magazines weren't even loaded. He had to unlock the safe and load the magazine before he went out to confront the killer.

This is nothing like what you're trying to make it out to be.

[loyalsister]

43. If you need specific tools....

I doubt you are a person who feels like you need a tool to kill people every single place you go over the course of the day. At least I hope not. My comments are about the overgeneralization of this unique incidence where it worked out that a good guy with a gun seems to have been helpful.

That some people really do worship guns and argue for increased presense and ease of aquisition really is a problem that has had predictable results. More guns = more killing. Easy access = accidental shootings including by children.

[Baconator]

61. Just admit that the idea makes you feel icky...

You're falling flat on the logic thing...

[loyalsister]

62. yes it's gross and creepy

that the US has declared it a constitutional right to kill friends and neighbors. If there is a right to own instruments designed to kill, there is also a right to use them for the purpose they were intended.
It grosses me out that some people get giddy from owning and using them for any purpose.

[Baconator]

78. Doubling down on the whole 'making things up' bit...?

Bold strategy Cotton...

[Not Ruth]

54. I carry a flashlight everywhere I go

Very few years I swap the AA battery

[loyalsister]

56. It specifically designed to use when there isn't enough light, right?

And, you would use it for that purpose. Likewise, why would someone carry a gun that was designed specifically to kill people if that is not the purpose?

[Not Ruth]

57. I would argue that it is a trade off between weight and safety

I get no enjoyment or satisfaction from carrying a flashlight, but it is not that heavy. If one day there is a blackout, it will allow me to help myself and possibly others.

[moriah]

68. That *is* the purpose, and was the first lesson I was taught about guns.

I was just about to turn three, but it was very memorable, and done because we had to move in with my grandparents. My grandfather had a shotgun he kept loaded with birdshot as his home self-defense weapon -- he'd had other guns in the past, and did also still have something like a pellet gun that could kill a bird, but he was too old and sick to hunt anymore. Still, that was a dangerous weapon.

He took me outside, where he'd set up a target. He told me he had something very important to show me, that he needed me to pay attention, and he would explain why after.

He told me to stand very still and look at the target, and knelt next to where I was standing. The shotgun was braced on his shoulder and he had it in full control, I was completely safe, but he made sure to have the opposite leg touching my body. He told me to hold my ears tight, and fired.

I could feel, just from the very slight contact with his body, the recoil of the weapon. My fingers weren't much protection even with birdshot. I saw the target was destroyed.

He then discharged the shells, made sure the weapon was safe, put it down, and gave me a hug. Then he picked it up, resting it pointing it at the ground.

Him: "This is a gun. They kill things. We usually use them to kill deer, but they can kill anything. They can kill people. They could kill *you*. They are dangerous. Do you understand?"

Me: "Yes, sir."

Him: "Until I teach you about them, you are never to touch them. Not this one, not anything that looks like this one, or anything that someone calls a 'gun'. Do you understand?"

Again, I yes-sirred.

"Now, I keep this under my bed. Do you promise me to never, EVER look under my bed for anything without asking?"

Again, assent.

Then he hugged and praised me, told me he loved me and just wanted me to be safe, and then we went for ice cream.

----

They didn't really make gun safes in 1983 that were childproof, and he didn't have one either way.

[moriah]

64. I certainly keep my plunger next to the toilet. ;)

It's pretty useless under the kitchen sink.

And that's the big issue with guns. Most of the time, having one isn't going to fix your problem in a self-defense situation. Either you don't have it on you (I owned one when I was raped, but it was at home because I was raped by someone I trusted enough to not be armed around, in fact enough to get intoxicated with so having a gun would have been completely counterproductive), drawing is just going to escalate/confuse a situation (never NEVER draw a weapon unless you are committed to killing something/someone and have that specific target in sight and are ready to do it!), or you're not going to be Johnny Quick-Draw and you'd never get it out of your holster.

And I am leaving out the worst case scenario, that your own weapon is used against you.

Fortunately outside of South Park, plungers aren't used for killing anything.

[sarisataka]

45. I can only speak for myself

I have twice faced attempted robberies while I was armed. In both cases I was able to de-escalate the situation without resorting to using a weapon. In neither case did the criminal even know I was armed.

I consider taking a life extremely serious and it is the very last resort. I do not know anyone who carries that thinks they are entitled to kill.

[Lee-Lee]

46. I carry daily and hope I never have to even draw my gun

It’s not something I want to do. I am always extra vigilant to avoid any situations where it may be needed.

It’s not quite the last thing I ever want to do. Because I would rather do that than sexually assaulted again, or have someone come at me with a knife whose intentions I don’t know. Or any of many worse alternative some of which I have experienced and do not want to experience again.

I find my students in the concealed carry classes I teach are the same. Of the 8 hour course I spend almost 2 hours on how to be alert and spot potential problems and threats and avoid the situation and get away before it can escalate.

[loyalsister]

67. But you can and are willing to use it for the purpose it was designed for?

I assume it would be only for self defense.

There is not a universal meaning of self defense. In my state it means killing someone who has stepped on my lawn or just someone who scares me.

[Lee-Lee]

71. For defense of myself or others

And yes, state laws vary.

And just because using it would be legal in a situation doesn’t mean I’m going to. It’s one thing what is legal and a higher standard to when I’m going to do it. Because you have opened a big batch of other issues for yourself legally and morally and mental health related. It’s not an easy thing to do or deal with the aftermath.


I don’t know anyone who carry’s who is just waiting for that moment when he threshold to shot someone legally is passed so they can- people with that kind of mentality don’t bother with going trough the legal process to carry legally they just do what they want law be dammed.

[moriah]

73. And when it's necessary to shoot, it's still a BFD legally for the person.

I have only known two people who have, to my knowledge at least, fired a gun at a human being outside of wartime or otherwise in the line of duty.

Both were women. One got lucky. Her story, from her lips, said rather shamefacedly, was that she shot her husband in the hand during an argument over something he said. He lied to emergency personnel about how the "accident" happened because he didn't want her to go to jail, so apparently whatever he said must have been pretty bloody awful even to him in hindsight and with a gunshot wound. Still... overreaction, anyone?

The second... she got a call from a coworker who was in a DV situation that the coast was clear and needed help to get a few things out. She had to cross a county line, so the fact the gun was in her vehicle despite her not possessing a CHL wasn't an issue at trial. It was a .22 that her father-in-law had given her to shoot snakes on their rural property. They had everything out of the house and were loading when he showed up. The coworker got into the car, and so did my friend, leaving what wasn't already in the trunk/back seat, but he tried to pull "his woman" out of the car through the window they hadn't gotten all the way up.

My friend grabbed the gun, got out of the car, and told him to let her go. He let her go, but then came to her side of the vehicle. He admitted seeing the gun in her hands and believing it was fake. Her story is that he rushed her, his was that she shot as soon as he came to the side of the car, but then how could he have seen it and thought it was fake?

Anyway, she was acquitted of attempted murder and all other possible charges after getting five shots off before the poorly maintained .22 jammed. She got one center of mass, and the other two hits were in his arms.. he'll never beat another woman again. The piles of prior no contact orders helped the jury decide that had she simply fled, she would have left her coworker in risk of death or felonious assault.

Still, she certainly wishes she hadn't had to go through all of the legal hassles that came from it, and while she was committed to him potentially dying when she made the decision to fire, she is glad he lived.

[Lee-Lee]

80. Thats an almost universal thing with people who have had to live through it

Taking aside the rare, rare exceptions like the George Zimmermans (who will end up doing so regardless of laws) it is not in the human condition for most people to kill. Even in self defense.

[ileus]

63. Mine are personal protection instruments designed to save life.

[loyalsister]

66. Yeah I hear that a lot

You may think of it that way, but it was created to fire bullets with enough velopcity to kill. Would it sell if it could not do that efficiently?

[Jim Beard]

81. He had to take time to get his rifle out of his gunsafe in his home. Hardly

walking around armed.

[GaryCnf]

79. You're correct

The NRA has done everything it can to turn this into a "good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun" story. It isn't.

It is a story of courage. No one disputes that. For those enthralled in the technical aspects of armed combat, it is a story of situational awareness and technical skill. Few who care one way or the other on the topic would dispute that either.

BUT this rank speculation that he would have killed another innocent person had this guy not stepped in, made against the weight of the known facts, is 100% NRA propaganda.

The weight of the evidence is that, having carried out his twisted retribution, Kelley had only one further victim in mind, he successfully completed that killing as he sat in the front seat of his vehicle, and that not one innocent life was saved by the "good guy with a gun."

[Lee-Lee]

82. How to you judge the weight of the evidence to be such

When the following seems to be true-

His actual intended targets were not at the church- so he had not accomplished what he seemingly was out to do.

When he left the church he fired shots at a neighbor who wasn’t in the church and wasn’t affiliated with it but who had out working on his car. If he was “finished” why would he do that? That was just moments before the armed citizen fired at him.

In fact the weight of the evidence suggests nothing about him being done at that point. His firing at the neighbor and his attempt to flea at high speed and escape instead of just killing himself right away both indicate the opposite, that he wanted to do more. He killed himself only when he couldn’t escape from his pursuers.

I get that some of you are desperate for this narrative of “he didn’t save anybody” to be true because if it’s true it conflicts with what you want to believe, but twisting things to claim that nobody was saved just makes you look very petty and sad that you can’t even acknowledge that this person in fact most likely did save lives just because you are more worried about the political aspects of it being true than what the truth actually is.

[GaryCnf]

84. Did he kill the neighbor?

I ask not because I am claiming it doesn't count if he missed (so don't try to spin it that way). I am asking because his intent in firing toward the neighbor matters and his relative success inside the church (and the fact that he appears to have killed at least one specifically-intended target - because, as we know from Las Vegas, crowded areas make it easier to hit non-specific targets) indicates that he at least knew which end was the muzzle.

Fleeing shows nothing more than that he chose not to die at that place. It shows nothing about what else he planned to do.

The most telling piece of evidence. The one your narrative seems desperate to ignore if that Kelley, still armed, still in body armor, still behind a barrier, shot himself instead of the "good Samaritan."

What is sad is that YOUR political agenda demands you fantasize about Kelley scouring the countryside like the random killers the NRA tries to convince potential customers are waiting outside their front door.

[Lee-Lee]

86. So if he missed he didnt mean it?

Really? Really?

The neighbor by that point was inside his house looking out the window. That’s not the same as shooting at anperson a couple feet away inside a room. Your desperate attempt to twist his missing as somehow having different “intent” is just... sad.

Your notion that because he didn’t hit the neighbor he didn’t “mean it” or had different “intent” is such a sad twisting it is laughable. Your so desperate for this idea that he didn’t have any desire to kill people after he left the church that your trying to look for some “intent” in him shooting his gun at the neighbor other than to kill him.

Do you get how desperate that makes you when you are trying to say that a man who just shot 50+ people may have had some different “intent” when he shot as someone a few moments later? When a man who just murdered dozens of people shoots at you moments later his intent is very clear.

Because if you don’t see how desperate your trying to judge his “intent” in shooting at the neighbor is everyone else does.

Your story falls apart about him not shooting the Good Samaritan too if you bother to read the details (that you clearly haven’t or didn’t comprehend). He dropped his rifle when he was shot and no longer had a long gun, he only had handguns in his vehicle and on him after that. When he ran off the road into the field the guys chasing him stayed back away about 150 yards and just covered his vehicle from behind theirs. They had a rifle and could easily shoot him at that range. He only handgun and a 100-150 yard shot with a handgun isn’t happening. He was shot twice, bleeding out and outgunned at that point with no chance to shooting them- that is why he didn’t try.

But keep trying....

[GaryCnf]

87. Perfect

I specifically say that I meant no such thing. I specifically said don't try to spin it that way.

But your position is so weak you STILL do it. I said his intent is unknown. He could have just as easily been seeking to discourage pursuit, or observation/identification, or even to discourage reporting. I don't think I need to tell you this, but a firearm is actually a multi-purpose weapon. You WANT it to be an attempt to kill a random bystander because it's the ONLY one of these possible motives that suits your agenda and you ignore the fact that he had a specific purpose for his prior killings in order to get there.

As an aside, do you mind if I ask you a simple yes or no question? Have you ever been in a combat situation (and I don't just mean military, it could be as a law enforcement officer, or for that mater, even as a gang member (just as an extreme example)? I respect your answer either way. I am just curious.

Finally, you again fantasize about what Kelley was thinking instead of limiting yourself to the facts. He CHOSE to kill himself.

There may be more facts which point to a different story, maybe even a story much more like yours. If it does, I won't hesitate to admit that a "good guy with a gun" saved lives. It does happen.

BUT at this point saying it is a leap.

[Lee-Lee]

88. Your changing your stance a bit now

You can’t make an asinine statement and then say “but don’t call me out on it”. You said don’t call
Me out for saying it doesn’t count, and I didn’t, I called you out for trying to say he meant something other than to kill when he shot at him. That is what you meant when you brought up his “intent” in shooting at him is it not?

Saying his intent is unknown is an accurate statement.

But your initial post I responded to you claimed the weight of the evidence was that you knew his intent and he wasn’t going to kill anybody.

That part simply isn’t accurate. There is no evidence that points to that as strongly as you claim. When I view his actions given my training and experience I see if anything indications of the opposite, although as he is dead absent more knowledge from documents or his phone we don’t know for sure.

Not sure why the question about my experience, but here you are. In LE I fired my weapon once in 11 years. At a car with 2 suspects that had led another agency on a high speed chase and then when cornered started ramming a car with an officer inside and tried to run over another who was on foot. Twice if putting a wounded deer out of its misery counts. I was also in several other life threatening situations where I didn’t fire because I was able to resolve it with other means or one where I would have if I had been able to draw my pistol but I wasn’t (this was a young man in a psychotic break whose grandparents intentionally didn’t call in as a violent psychotic break so I came in not expecting it and he surprised my 2 feet away with a knife). My experience in Afghanistan was no direct combat myself although I was in convoys that did take small arms fire- but it was just harassing fire we didn’t even slow down for.

It’s fine to say we don’t know his intent. That’s a valid statement. But to spin it as you know or are reasonably sure he wouldn’t have harmed anyone by that point simply isn’t supported by the facts.

[GaryCnf]

93. I'm not sure I can disagree with that last statement.

I did want to reply to say, however, that I appreciate your candor regarding you personal experiences. It is not always an easy thing to discuss.

Take care.

[loyalsister]

92. Thanks for the detail and clarity

You expanded on my point much better than I could have.

[Bucky]

18. Active shooters don't do that.

[moriah]

48. I understand you don't like the narrative you feel they're pushing...

... by the way they're presenting the story. That it feeds into the "we need guns to stop guns" thing the same way that suggestions men are inherently more dangerous than women and women are vulnerable to them feeds the "women need strong men capable of violence to protect them from strong men capable of violence" idiocy.

But if I was confident in my capabilities with a firearm (I'm not at the moment as I no longer own and routinely shoot one anymore) and realized there was a mass shooting, I hope I would have had the courage to grab my weapon and try to do something.

I would follow all of the four rules -- I would assume it was loaded from the moment I picked it up, but would in that instance be checking to verify it WAS loaded. I normally stored my pistol where I could just slam my mag in and rack the slide vs storing it loaded at all, but I always checked to make sure there wasn't a round in the chamber.

I wouldn't have it visible or drawn unless I actually felt a shot would be effective unless the only thing I had *was* a rifle, and I haven't shot one since deer camp as a teen. That might slow reaction time, but you should never draw or aim unless you are sure shooting is what needs to happen. I might walk out and realize all I could do was help the wounded.

I wouldn't put my finger on the trigger, even drawn, until I had my target in sight, was certain of my target and what was beyond it, and had made the decision to take a life and hope it stopped more killing.

-----

And if I didn't have a weapon, I hope I would still have had the courage to go out and do something. Whatever it took, whatever could do the most good. Even if it meant taking his life however I could.

Why?

Because if a person has just shot up a ton of people, it's simply logical to assume they are capable of shooting more. They have just demonstrated enough callous disregard for human life that the risk to other innocent people by not doing what it took to get the weapon out of their hands and get them into custody -- up to and including lethal force -- is too great to rule out lethal force. If another life is likely to be lost unless the shooter is stopped, and the situation is that the shooter's life or another's will be, it should be the shooter who dies.

I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but it hasn't ruptured.

[loyalsister]

53. Run with it and see where it has brought us

Most gun owners are good samaritans. Therefore, everyone should buy a gun, make it easily accessible, and don't leave home without it.
Glorifying a single unique incident and celebrating killing reveals an ugliness that disturbs me. I find it disturbing that the dominant narrative sees killing the shooter as something to cheer and glorify rather than a regretable necessary evil. It reflects the same cavalier attitude and comfort with a right to kill people as well as the acceptance of mass shootings as necessary collatoral damage.

[moriah]

58. As I said, I get why you don't like how they're pushing the story.

And I agree. I live in the South, specifically Arkansas. Because of that, I'm kind of immersed in "gun culture". It's not something I like, but I do understand it very well.

And you can read how I de-escalated a gun incident without using a gun in another post in this thread.

But still, my bleeding heart isn't ruptured, unlike what the people who died may have literally experienced.

[Lee-Lee]

83. You cant change what happened just because you dont like the

political ramifications.

All the people trying to do so just make themselves look petty and sad that they can’t even give the man credit for what he did, at great risk to his own life, because they don’t like how the politics may look.

That’s just sad.

[Baconator]

59. That's just embarrassing...

[pintobean]

90. Yes, it is.

[NCTraveler]

7. Under current laws...

I'll go as far as to say this guy is a hero. He should have never been put in that position or even had the ability to be put in that position. Well, he was. Lots can go wrong in a situation like that but shit was already fucked up. The guy gets my thanks even if it give some ignorant gun humpers a false-equivalency argument.

[gratuitous]

8. Have these people actually read the parable of the good Samaritan?

Sheesh.

[moriah]

50. Can death ever be mercy?

I know the obvious answer is yes in certain situations because of losing my father to AIDS and having gone from dealing with his suicidal impulses as a response to the diagnosis very poorly to at the end being willing to help him to a peaceful death, a nd would have if I could have even if I went to jail for it, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Who is your neighbor when you're dealing with an active mass shooter who is still armed?

Is there ever such a thing as a "just war"?

I am Pagan by practice, but I have explored the philosophies behind the tenets of Liberal Quakerism. Naturally I am a pacifist. But I believe that my life is valuable, and that someone attempting to take it from me doesn't have that right. That I have the right to do what is necessary to stop them. I feel the same thing applies if they were attempting to rape me, even if I wasn't certain that they would kill me. All too many murder victims were raped first, and besides, it's my body. No one has the right to use it against my will.

I hope in a life or death situation, since I have been in one before involving someone I loved or me, I would place a higher value on the person I loved's life than my own. I did in that instance, at least, without hesitation. I wasn't armed, dealing with someone who was but hadn't yet shot, and was able to use my words as my weapon to solve the problem. Still was "staring down the barrel of a .45", but was doing my best to ignore it and look him in the eyes to make my words more effective.

If it'd taken lethal force to get that gun not aimed at my mother and out of his hands, though, I would have used it. And it would have been mercy to my mother, who was my neighbor in that situation.

[gratuitous]

65. Short answer

In the parable, the Samaritan comes upon the man who was beaten by the robbers and left for dead. Instead of setting out in hot pursuit of the bandits to visit some rough justice on their heads, he tends to the victim. That, at least, is what I was talking about. If someone wants to turn these guys into heroes, go for it; but calling them "good Samaritans" shows me that the person calling them that hasn't read the Bible.

[moriah]

70. I'm confused.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10:30-37&version=NRSV

Did the other two go off in hot pursuit, or did they just ignore the guy? I was reading it as that they had just ignored him.

But the reason for the parable was that Jesus was asked how you define who your "neighbor" is. A person who is an imminent threat to the lives of other human beings is definitely not a good neighbor. Worse than simply ignoring a situation and leaving the person for dead.

[Raine1967]

15. IF we had certain regulations in place, and the ones we had were followed,

we would not have needed a 'good samaritan'.

The murderer should never have had a gun.

Imagine for a moment had this town been larger with a larger police department (I can't even fond a website for it -- the town is so small) -- he would have been a problem by no fault of his own. LEO would not have known who the bad guy was and he might have ended up dead himself.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. Yeah that's the narrative from this incident.

"You too can be a hero with a gun."

I'm not casting aspersions on the person who did it btw, just on the narrative surrounding the incident.

[historian]

22. has it ever occurred to anyone

that if there weren't so many guns around there wouldn't be so many dead? Yes i know the tired old refrain if we take away all the guns then only criminals will have them. Why dont we have massacres like these in other western countries?

[jmg257]

30. I am sure that has occurred to plenty of people. You would have to square

Last edited Wed Nov 8, 2017, 09:31 AM - Edit history (1)

it with such things as the 20 year 50% drop in gun-related deaths/violence vs the huge increase in the number of guns.

We would have to reduce the numbers drastically to make a difference.

[historian]

74. not wishing to be rude

but do you truly believe in those phony statistics showing that the more guns in circulation is equivalent to less deaths. Let me give you some real examples (and i have lived in these three countries) When a couple of loonies in Scotland and Australia ran out to massacre little children at play in their schools, guns were immediately banned. No if ands or buts. Have a gun and its jail time. The crime rate dropped drastically. Now why do I believe that? As someone who has worked in ICU or hospitals, and according to hospital and not NRA or trump statistics, most gun shot wounds occur in homes in disputes where a gun is readily and one the arguing party grabs it in a moment of rage and uses it. Now if the gun wasn't available what would he do? Chase his partner with a baseball bat? At lease the other party could defend him/her self until the rage had abated.

[jmg257]

89. Taking no offense. These aren't phony statistics. They're FBI/DOJ crime stats and well-known.

And they existed long before trump became president....in fact the latest are from Obama's DOJ.
No offense - anecdotes are fun, but facts are better.

"To see the charts of each type of crime, both violent and non-violent, on U.S. Department of Justice websites showing almost all categories at historic lows, click here and here. If you explore these webpages, you will see that it is not just violent crime; almost all types of crime have declined more than half over the past 20 years."

http://web.archive.org/web/20100313064618/http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=kftp&tid=3


Nonfatal firearm incidents and victims, 1993-2008
Year Firearm incidents victims Firearm crime rate
1993 1,054,820 1,248,250 5.9 11 %
1994 1,060,800 1,286,860 6.0 11
1995 902,680 1,050,900 4.9 10
1996 845,220 989,930 4.6 10
1997 680,900 795,560 3.6 9
1998 557,200 670,480 3.0 8
1999 457,150 562,870 2.5 7
2000 428,670 533,470 2.4 7
2001 467,880 524,030 2.3 9
2002 353,880 430,930 1.9 7
2003 366,840 449,150 1.9 7
2004 280,890 331,630 1.4 6
2005 416,940 474,110 1.9 9
2007 348,910 394,580 1.6 7
2008 303,880 343,550

Firearm Crimes
1993 581,697 225.5 17,048 6.6 279,738 108.5 284,910 110.5
1994 542,529 208.4 16,314 6.3 257,428 98.9 268,788 103.2
1995 504,421 192.0 14,686 5.6 238,023 90.6 251,712 95.8
1996 458,458 172.8 13,319 5.0 218,579 82.4 226,559 85.4
1997 414,530 154.9 12,346 4.6 197,686 73.9 204,498 76.4
1998 364,776 135.0 10,977 4.1 170,611 63.1 183,188 67.8
1999 338,535 124.1 10,128 3.7 163,458 59.9 164,949 60.5
2000 341,831 121.5 10,179 3.6 166,807 59.3 164,845 58.6
2001 354,754 124.3 11,106 3.9 177,627 62.3 166,021 58.2
2002 357,822 124.3 10,808 3.8 177,088 61.5 169,926 59.0
2003 347,705 119.6 11,041 3.8 172,802 59.4 163,863 56.3
2004 338,587 115.3 10,650 3.6 162,938 55.5 164,998 56.2
2005 368,178 124.2 11,351 3.8 175,608 59.2 181,219 61.1
2006 388,897 129.9 11,566 3.9 188,804 63.1 188,527 63.0
2007 385,178

https://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/StatebyState.cfm?NoVariables=Y&CFID=153842461&CFTOKEN=54589f6285af86cb-156FCB6B-F2BC-0A54-E99EE2177CA56EEE

" The violent crime rate last year was 367.9 for each 100,000 in population, down 5.1 percent from 2012.The rate has fallen every year since at least 1994, the earliest year for readily accessible FBI data, and the 2013 figure was about half the 1994 rate."

https://www.wanttoknow.info/a-fbi-violent-crime-drops-reaches-1970s-level

"In all regions, the country appears to be safer. The odds of being murdered or robbed are now less than half of what they were in the early 1990s, when violent crime peaked in the United States. Small towns, especially, are seeing far fewer murders: In cities with populations under 10,000, the number plunged by more than 25 percent last year."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html

"The FBI says crime rates, including murder, were down last year. The report is in contrast to headlines this year. In 2014 the U.S. recorded the fewest murders since 2009."
https://www.wanttoknow.info/a-fbi-report-violent-crime-down-us


You would have to check the FBI NIC stats to see the year after year record increases in background checks to know how many more guns there are now then 20 years. ago.

Cheers!

[dpd3672]

26. It doesn't always have to be political.

A guy puts himself in harm's way to stop a crime and protect further victims. That makes him a hero, in my book; Good Samaritan isn't a strong enough phrase.

And IIRC, there were actually 2 people who took action.

[hunter]

29. He should've shot that asshole mass murderer BEFORE he stepped into the church.

There, would that have made it better?

Gun humpers...

You can't reason with them.

[onenote]

32. It's possible both to consider the two guys who intervened as heroes and to simultaneously

recognize that merely having good guys, including one with (as far as we know) a legally owned weapon that he was trained to use in the vicinity didn't prevent 26 people from being slaughtered whereas changes to today's gun laws might have prevented the need for anyone to be a hero in the first place.

[FarCenter]

49. He was trained. Willeford was a former NRA certified instructor.

[LisaM]

51. That's what I was thinking.

He was trained, and he didn't kill the guy, just stopped him, or attempted to stop him.

I don't feel as if I really know enough about it to comment, but if in fact a trained marksman ran outside with the intent of taking down an active shooter, and did just that by shooting and wounding him, on its face, that sounds to me like a good thing, a lot better than everybody in the church being armed and waving guns around.

Unfortunately, we have an instant news cycle and we are often too quick to praise or condemn before all the facts are known, so I'm going to go with "he did a good thing" for now, and reserve the right to change my mind if more information comes to light.

[FarCenter]

52. He was aiming to hit above or below the body armor that the guy was wearing.

Not easy, considering that the guy was probably moving and shooting back at him.

He had only one round left in the magazine when they gave pursuit.

[Lee-Lee]

55. Have you ever fired a gun? Under stress? At a moving target?

And a target that wants to kill you?

His two hits is impressive.

That said, one thing to point out and that is true here as well is that in virtually every case of these mass shooters the moment they encounter any armed resistance they give up, stop the killing and either flee, kill themselves or both.

The killing continued until there is nobody left to kill or they meet armed resistance.

Armed resistance in the church may have stopped him. Past episodes in similar circumstances says it would have. Maybe it would not have- but I don’t see it making it worse.

[LisaM]

60. I have not, and that's why I don't want to glorify or condemn.

I want to take the information as it comes and let the facts ultimately speak for themselves.

[Hoyt]

77. Are you saying there were no armed individuals in that church? I don't think Kelley was

worrying about resistance. Nor was Paddock, Loughner, Roof, etc.

[hunter]

95. Yes.

And never again, thank you, please.

I faced the next one down with a garden rake.

Dog was very disappointed.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/112721453

My adventures with human assholes holding guns have never been so entertaining.

[LanternWaste]

34. Chemo works well on cancers.

Chemo works well on cancers.

Far too few people enjoy it and allow it its due celebratory nature though- especially those undergoing chemo treatment.

[Madam45for2923]

38. IMO People that go on murder sprees expect not to make it.

[book_worm]

72. I guess he is

[Hoyt]

76. Glad he intervened, but it just proves guns seldom make things better.

Contrary to what gunners want us to believe, guns killed 25 innocent people in a gun lovers paradise. And a brave man next door with a gun couldn't do a thing about it until it was way too late.

Armed cowboys are not the answer.