Armed Citizen Stops Mass Shooting in Oklahoma City

[Bartholomew Roberts]

http://www.news9.com/story/38274025/...on-lake-hefner

Shooter killed by an armed citizen. Two innocents shot and injured. One guy broke his arm running away. Lake Hefner is covered in police.

[TXAZ]

Thank you armed citizen.
If 25% of citizens were armed, how much of "this cr.." would stop? My guess is the majority of it.

[stephen426]

Somehow, I doubt the "lame stream" media will pick this up. This was probably more of a domestic dispute where the husband decided "If I can't have you, no one will." Glad the mother and child are okay and that an armed citizen was able to stop the shooter.

[DaleA]

I was trying to read the "comments" to the story and just had to give up they are such a "you are"/"no, you are" mess.

It baffles me why the news outlets don't moderate their comment section.

[thallub]

Somehow, I doubt the "lame stream" media will pick this up.

Believe it or not all the networks usually carry these stories.

ABC:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/civilian-s...ry?id=55424657

CBS:

http://video-test.cbsnews.com/news/o...ay-2018-05-24/

CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/24/us/ok...ing/index.html

NBC:

http://kfor.com/category/news/

If you refuse to watch the so called "lame stream media" then don't tell me those networks don't carry these stories.

[TXAZ]

At least 2 outlets are indicating the guy walked into the restaurant with ear and eye protection.

According to OKCPD twitter feed:

One person has been taken to a hospital with serious injuries. A bystander with a pistol confronted the shooter outside the restaurant and fatally shot him.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

UPDATE: TWO armed citizens, not one. And apparently, really fast and aggressive police response as well. Don’t get froggy in OKC.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/05/25...ls-gunman.html

[thallub]

The perp was a licensed armed security guard.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/authori...d-gun-license/

[mete]

Both armed citizens had guns In their cars !! I don't know the rules there, but it takes a long time to get those guns !

[Remington74]

So the guy walks into the restaurant and shoots it up while wearing eye and ear protection.
That's got to be a first.
Hat is off to the two responding citizens who ended this nightmare.

[Dozermonkey]

The restaurant has a “ NoGuns “ sign on the dooor. Some say no open carry only. Just depends location.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

How that guy managed to stay licensed as an armed guard with the Youtube videos he was putting out is a mystery to me. And I happen to know that while he has not been arrested or cited by OKC police, he has certainly had a few interactions with them prior to this besides the one they reported.

The restaurant has a “ NoGuns “ sign

Looks like their signmaker sent them a defective sign then, since it only disarmed the people who stopped the situation.

[L2R]

This has some very odd qualities.

We hear that a gun in your car or one not in the chamber is useless.
Those injured might have been spared surgery and pain but a gun close by was a lot better than no gun at all.

Second, 2 law abiding citizens followed the rules of the restaurant owner - they left their guns in their vehicles. So here is another example of just how law abiding, law abiding people can be. We know criminals don't care about laws but look at who does.

[stephen426]

I wonder if the restaurant is going to change it's stance on "no guns" after this event. I still believe that private businesses who prohibit guns are responsible for the safety of their patrons. Businesses that fail to protect their patrons should be held liable.

[Nanuk]

We hear that a gun in your car or one not in the chamber is useless.

It sort of worked this time. I guarantee if I am in your face attacking you neither are a good option.

[L2R]

No one is arguing that a gun in your car isn't as good as one on your hip. Point being, these guys had multiple obstacles to overcome and yet they did.

So what would those who are trained in confrontations say is the right way to handle a similar situation had they both shown up about the same time? The man who shot the attacker came into the restaurant and announced himself as someone to help and asked where the attacher was? This was incredibly smart so he got answers. But how you do you handle this if the next person he comes across is another would be hero. Have should you identify yourself without giving away your posiiton?

[thallub]

This shooter had very serious mental issues:



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ons/645249002/

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by L2R

No one is arguing that a gun in your car isn't as good as one on your hip. Point being, these guys had multiple obstacles to overcome and yet they did.

And the other point is that these two people obeyed the law and the owner's prohibition of guns inside the restaurant, and their respecting the prohibition significantly interfered with their response time.

If we are finally learning that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun, we're also seeing that a good guy whose gun is outside somewhere is at a significant disadvantage.

[Double Naught Spy]

Alright, before we suffer more arm and shoulder injuries patting ourselves on the back, like Sutherland Springs, the armed citizens did NOT stop a mass shooting. The armed citizens stopped a mass shooter who was fleeing the scene. The mass shooting happened and was over by the accounts given.

As the gunman ran from the scene, two bystanders got their own handguns from the trunks of their vehicles, then confronted and fatally shot the attacker outside the restaurant, Mathews said Friday.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/24/us/ok...ing/index.html

Immediately after the shooting, Matthews told the media that a single civilian shot the suspect, but upon further investigation, it was determined that two men both shot the suspect.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/civilians-...ry?id=55424657

The mass shooting happened. The shooter was in flight from the shooting. The citizens did well, but they didn't stop the shooting inside the restaurant, but they did stop the shooter.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

DNS, the shooter was fleeing the restaurant where he had just randomly shot three people and all other targets fled. That area is a small collection of restaurants, parks and jogging trails next to a lake that serves as a reservoir for the city. The entire area is packed with people usually and you can walk easily from one bar/restaurant to the next. You can see the environment here: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lo...2717c2769d58fd

So, I disagree with your assumption that the “shooting was over.” Given the circumstances, I think it reasonable, and probably prudent, to assume the shooter was merely looking for additional targets rather than fleeing the scene.

Also, if we are going to be very pedantic, a mass shooting as defined by FBI did not occur because only three people were shot before the shooter was killed. To the extent the armed citizens stopped him from shooting more people, they did in fact stop a mass shooting, even though they weren’t successful in stopping the shooter 100%.

ETA: According to this report (https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesma...0SEQYEfGVnBBA/), the shooter opened fire from the doorway of the restaurant into the restaurant. The two men who shot him were inside the restaurant when it began, escaped, got pistols out of their vehicles, and returned.

[seeker_two]

Originally Posted by stephen426

I wonder if the restaurant is going to change it's stance on "no guns" after this event. I still believe that private businesses who prohibit guns are responsible for the safety of their patrons. Businesses that fail to protect their patrons should be held liable.

And, until a place of business loses a hefty lawsuit to the victims who were disarmed, I doubt it will change anytime soon.

....this is the kind of stuff the NRA should be pursuing, not writing bump-stock legislation.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[Double Naught Spy]

So, I disagree with your assumption that the “shooting was over.” Given the circumstances, I think it reasonable, and probably prudent, to assume the shooter was merely looking for additional targets rather than fleeing the scene.

You can assume what you want, but that isn't in evidence from any of the reports, just like it wasn't with the Sutherland Springs shooter or the Appalachian School of Law shooter.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by DNS

You can assume what you want, but that isn't in evidence from any of the reports, just like it wasn't with the Sutherland Springs shooter or the Appalachian School of Law shooter.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The shooter was stopped after shooting three people, and he's now dead. We'll never have any way of knowing if his intention upon leaving the restaurant was to kill more people in a nearby establishment, or to go home and have a cold beer. He still had a firearm and he still had ammunition. He had means and he had opportunity, so he was still a viable threat. Reports are that both of the armed citizens who confronted him called for him to put down his weapon. Apparently he didn't, so they did what any logical person would do and neutralized the threat.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You can assume what you want, but that isn't in evidence from any of the reports, just like it wasn't with the Sutherland Springs shooter or the Appalachian School of Law shooter.

There is as much, if not more, evidence for my assumption than there is for yours that it was “over.” The reports describe the shooter as “leaving the scene”; but if he opened fire from the doorway then pretty much any direction but into the restaurant is away from the initial scene.

And none of us knows where he was going next. I’m not sure why you think your assumption is somehow more likely.

[JohnKSa]

And none of us knows where he was going next. I’m not sure why you think your assumption is somehow more likely.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of mass shooters (who aren't stopped at the initial shooting location) leave the scene of the initial shooting and then continue shooting at another location.

It would also be interesting to know if the shooter had any provision for continuing his attack, e.g. additional ammunition, a second loaded firearm, etc.

At any rate, the shooter in this case had disengaged before being confronted by the armed citizens. It's possible he was going to continue his activity at another location, but although we can speculate about what his plans were, nobody knows for sure. What we know for sure is that he had already stopped shooting before the armed citizens confronted him--i.e. they did not interrupt him in the process of actively shooting at victims and cut that activity short.

So if we want to be accurate and make a statement that is not based on speculation we could say that the armed citizens MIGHT have prevented him from perpetrating another shooting.

We can't accurately say that the armed citizens DID stop a shooting unless we caveat it by saying that the statement is based on speculation that the shooter might have been going to shoot more people at a second location.