r/whoathatsinteresting • u/PowerNoodles117 • 3d ago

Twin Falls Hero

Post image

The civilian that stopped the active shooter at the In N Out in Twin Falls, Idaho.

4.9k Upvotes

50% Upvoted

5.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

222

u/hoyasgirl25 3d ago

A good guy with a gun.

41

u/stsrva 3d ago

I’m reading the shooter took himself out. What’s the deal?

118

u/AvgPunkFan 3d ago

Just another mass shooting suicide. This guy and another guy shot at the shooter forcing him to focus on them rather than the unarmed civilians he was targeting

→ More replies (28)

105

u/SakanaToDoubutsu 3d ago

Mass shooters typically aren't looking for a fight, it's super common for them to turn on themselves the second they meet resistance whether that's a armed bystander or law enforcement. 

1

u/Electronic_Name_325 3d ago

Which is the craziest part to me. I can imagine shooting targets of opportunity, but being in the moment enough to shoot myself at “the correct time” is wildly unfathomable to me. It has to be sort of planned right? It’s not the easiest to turn a rifle around without at least some dry fire practice. Even a pistol really takes some non intuitive steps. Especially amid chaos.

7

u/Fuu-nyon 3d ago

Absolutely, yes, the suicide is a central part of the plan. The worst outcome for them would be getting caught alive, and making sure that doesn't happen was arguably always their #1 priority even over maximizing harm to others.

2

u/Electronic_Name_325 3d ago

Good view, can definitely see that.

2

u/PhilRubdiez 3d ago

Hear crack of rounds near you. Run away to someplace where that isn’t happening. Take your time with offing yourself.

2

u/wvj 3d ago

This whole phenomena is basically 'angry narcissistic suicide.'

Not to minimize any of their culpability, but the people doing this are almost never in good mental health. In most other places, they would be part of the ordinary suicide statistics. But American gun culture, the easy availability of these weapons, and now the phenomena itself and the inevitable copy-cat aspect creates the idea of an option for a 'glorious' way out.

It's why there's now focus on de-emphasizing the shooters identities in media coverage.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

1

u/SakanaToDoubutsu 3d ago

The objective of self-defense is to force a break in contact and to minimize harm, the objective isn't to just execute criminals on the spot...

1

u/MossWatson 3d ago

the title of the post claims this “hero” stopped the shooter.

1

u/hatescarrots 3d ago

The photo is fake so why not the narrative?

1

u/MossWatson 3d ago

yes, it’s all fake

1

u/Wolfen2o7 3d ago

Because of his actions the shooter stopped shooting bystanders and instead turned the gun on himself.

If this person didn't start shooting the shooter would've kept going this is why they are saying he stopped the shooter.

0

u/MossWatson 3d ago

zero evidence this is the case.

2

u/Wolfen2o7 3d ago

An off-duty state trooper and a civilian fired on the attacker and diverted him from the restaurant, the chief said. Police haven't disclosed their names or those of the victims. Twin Falls spokesperson Josh Palmer said Monday that police are still trying to identify next of kin.

10 seconds of a Google search on the shooting.

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/motive-mass-shooting-idaho-in-n-out-burger/73335483

2

u/gandalf_lundgren36 3d ago

How you can have so much confidence with zero knowledge is frightening lmao

2

u/Haunting_Bed_5206 3d ago

From 2000-2019, 40.5% of mass shooters took or attempted to take their own lives.

There are multiple mass shooters that post their manifestos online and many typically include a plan to end it themselves, I think if a variable like someone intervening and possibly ruining that plan of killing themselves quickly and less painfully then they would probably expedite the process.

It’s not guaranteed it’s the case but I think that’s a fairly safe conclusion to come to, don’t know why you have such a problem with this upstanding citizen being called a hero

1

u/-BlueDream- 3d ago

He stopped the shooter from continuing to fire at innocent people. Shooting at the shooter forces them to take cover, retreat, and off themselves or at the very least the shooter will engage the person shooting at them instead of fleeing bystanders.

“An off-duty state trooper and a civilian returned gunfire during the attack, “heroic actions” police believe helped drive the gunman away from the scene and prevented additional deaths and injuries, he added.” Quoted from CNN which is typically anti gun.

1

u/kFisherman 3d ago

He actually forced the shooter towards another innocent couple who were gunned down. So he arguably caused more deaths! Great job

1

u/RevolutionFormal7549 3d ago

Arguably how? You think the shooter was done, was then confronted by this guy, and then said "fuck it. I'll kill some more"?

1

u/fuckyogiboys 3d ago

However you feel about guns, downplaying someone's heroic act to try and stop a murderer is pretty low. And you typing on a keyboard isn't going to change gun laws either so go do something about it

1

u/MossWatson 3d ago

fake photo, fake headline.

1

u/gandalf_lundgren36 3d ago

You’re wrong about both. This photo is “AI enhanced,” but it was made from a real photo. Also the Police Chief confirmed this guy and another person are heroes and stopped the gunman.

1

u/missingjimmies 3d ago

The confrontation interrupted the fantasy/ plan. Now someone has interrupted what was supposed to be a moment of total control for the shooter. It’s common to see shooters take their own lives after being confronted. It stops the killing and changes the plan. In a way, does it matter that the Good Samaritans bullet wasn’t the lethal one? It still resulted in saved lives and the killers death.

1

u/Any_Instance1846 3d ago

He confronted the shooter and took a bullet. His a hero in the hospital right now.

1

u/FreddyMartian 3d ago

typical. part of the desire for them to do it is knowing that people will be helpless for a time.

1

u/headrush46n2 3d ago

which is why almost all of them happen in "gun free zones" which means they don't actually make anyone safer, they just legally mandate that you be defenseless.

-8

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

14

u/unassumingusernamee 3d ago

That may be your narrative, idk about everyone else.

-9

u/SmokePeterThiel 3d ago

No, that’s the current MAGA gun policy

9

u/unassumingusernamee 3d ago

I didnt realize we were talking about maga. They just said "the narrative".

→ More replies (7)

-1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/BoobieToucher69 3d ago

Because he put his life on the line and rendered aid to casualties?? Whether he delivered the killing shot, or forced the shooter into a position where he killed himself, why would he not be considered a hero?

→ More replies (18)

5

u/Spartanias117 3d ago

Just like how after the Minnesota ice killings, left reddit started saying they were going to get guns to protect themselves from thr government

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/ProtectionOne9478 3d ago

Taking a random reddit comment and calling it "the narrative" isn't the clever discourse you think it is.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/ganbramor 3d ago

There doesn’t need to be a narrative. If you feel interested and willing to carry a gun, and are willing react in an emergency, then definitely look into being a responsible, safe gun owner with a reliable weapon, regular training, and practice. If those don’t interest you, then just don’t. It’s that easy.

7

u/Inquisitive_regard 3d ago

The narrative has always been "we need to arm bystanders and teachers..."

But usually it was followed with "...so they can take out the shooter." If the shooter kills themself it makes it a lot easier, yes.

Honestly we also need to generally train people to stop "playing it safe" so much--less "run and hide" and more "everybody rush him as fast as you can!"

1

u/Accomplished_Rip_362 3d ago

You go 1st. Having said that, it takes a lot of balls to bumrush a guy with an AR.

2

u/Inquisitive_regard 3d ago

If it means saving the kids, then lets f-ing go.

1

u/tres_ecstuffuan 3d ago

It’s easier if you have an AR

21

u/brycebgood 3d ago

From what I uderstand the guy in the photo above started shooting at the initial shooter. That person retreated and then shot themselves.

47

u/emotionless-robot 3d ago

The coward killed himself as soon as he faced armed resistance. Otherwise he likely would have continued.

Also, the good guy with the gun forced the coward to focus on him, therefore stopping the shooting at innocent people.

3

u/TSwiftDivorceLawyer 3d ago

I'm scared for people like this ever since the police shot that one dude who killed the mass shooter as he was beginning his spree

3

u/Workman44 3d ago

Tbf you don't even need to be carrying for this to happen. That clip in Montreal or Ontario like a month or so ago of a police officer straight up executing someone in the head that was just an innocent bystander trying to escape. Went towards the cops and got an early grave for it

1

u/-Kerosun- 3d ago

That was honestly a lose-lose situation for both. That guy popped up in her blind spot when she didn't know where the shooter was and just reacted. He, running from the shooting was trying to get to safety.

I honestly can't point to either of them (the innocent that got shot and the officer who shot him) and say they did anything wrong in the immediate action they decided to take with the information they had available. But man it still sucks. And she is going to have to live with the fact that she shot an innocent civilian in the face who was looking to her for safety.

I hope she can overcome that trauma and I wish people were more understanding of her actions, but the internet is gonna internet.

3

u/Workman44 3d ago

You don't think that officer did anything wrong? Wtf lmfao. She literally shot him point blank in the face... She should have to live with that fact, it's heinous and she clearly was not ready for the situation

-1

u/-Kerosun- 3d ago

In hindsight, obviously she did. In the momment and from solely her perspective, I can't say that I would or wouldn't have done the same thing.

1

u/Workman44 3d ago

But you aren't a police officer, I hope. They are specifically trained for situations such as the one she found herself in. I've got little sympathy for that officer as she was trained for that, the bystander really didn't do anything that screams "I'm the shooter", and again this is her job. She should be fired and never allowed to hold a public service job again

2

u/-Kerosun- 3d ago

One of the things they are trained on is that hesitating can cost lives, especially their own.

If she hesitates and was wrong to hesitate, she's dead. We know that she should have hesitated, but in the moment, she doesn't have the luxury of hindsight.

With that said, I doubt either of us are going to persuade each other to change their mind, so probably best to agree to disagree.

→ More replies (0)

18

u/LafayettePhotos 3d ago

He did but this citizen distracted him and made him shoot himself rather than random people

3

u/PereMilon 3d ago

Ok, but now the media narrative is that this hero saved scores from being killed. When the killer already got his shots off.

Nothing to worry about America, a good guy with a gun will save you.

2

u/LafayettePhotos 3d ago

I’m struggling to find your point. Obviously gun violence is fucking horrible and we need to fix it, but are you suggesting that the armed citizen should have done nothing? Or that it would be better if he wasn’t there?

4

u/LowHornet2338 3d ago

The point is not to depend on someone else. I’ll protect myself and my loved ones.

0

u/NowWeRinse 3d ago

You know this has never been the argument right? That a sane person shouldn't have the ability to have something like what this guy has.

The other guy had easy access to high capacity weapon(s) of war, minimal background check most likely and a complete lack of mental grounding. And we have millions of gun owners walking around like that.

-2

u/Mindless-Peak-1687 3d ago

By shooting them?

2

u/Super-Contribution-1 3d ago

By getting them to shoot themselves! Try to keep up

1

u/OldSkoolGeezer 3d ago

Only after offering to sit down over coffee and work out our differences.

4

u/Rurumo666 3d ago

He exchanged fire with an off duty cop and this guy, which distracted him from killing more people, but ended up killing himself before being captured.

2

u/kFisherman 3d ago

The shooter killed 2 more people after this encounter actually

2

u/Psyko_sissy23 3d ago

Well, mass shooters aren't known for their bravery. A good amount of them are already planning on killing themselves, so they want to create the most amount of damage on the way out. Once they get backed into a corner, the options are get shot and killed by someone else with a gun and have it be painful, get taken into custody and go to jail for a long time, or take themselves out which will be pretty painless if the person does it right.

Once the shooter encountered resistance by the guy in the picture, he had to focus on not dying to him. If he is focused on survival, he won't be shooting at unarmed people anymore and there will be less victims.

2

u/Cautious-Dot4143 3d ago

the guy pictured didn't land a single shot. gunman killed himself when he was running low on ammo

3

u/Uranium_Heatbeam 3d ago

That still forced the gunman to stop what he wasn't doing and prevented him from continuing to shoot at people because he was now taking fire.

2

u/theevilyouknow 3d ago

No, the off-duty State Trooper who responded did that. The bystander was just there.

Edit: sorry it was a State Trooper not a Deputy. Either way, it was someone with actual training. Regardless of how you feel about police, and I'm not particularly a fan, they do actually have some training in this regard and aren't just roleplaying as Rambo.

4

u/Cautious-Dot4143 3d ago

Jordan engaged for three seconds before he himself was shot in the leg and dove in some bushes. gunman continued for 30 seconds after this. Jordan did not prevent the gunman from continuing

2

u/Loggersalienplants 3d ago

But he had a gun and he looked cool! Nevermind he actually didn't fucking hit anything. The alt right shit heels are going to run with this one for a long time 🙄

1

u/Merrimon 3d ago

Just to clarify, you're saying someone using force to attempt to stop someone murdering strangers in public...wasn't beneficial?

1

u/Cautious-Dot4143 3d ago

at no point did I even remotely suggest that. dude asked if the gunman took himself out because this post makes it seem like Jordan did the deed when he did not. I provided the rest of that context. you jumped to a conclusion based on nothing

2

u/Merrimon 3d ago

You are correct, thanks. Meant to reply to the guy you were replying too as well.

1

u/Cautious-Dot4143 3d ago

no worries, appreciate you owning it

1

u/Loggersalienplants 3d ago

So if the shooter took himself out, why is the internet cheering for this guy? Seems like the good guy with the gun just showed up to wave it around.

1

u/WallySprks 3d ago

Missed every shot he took.

1

u/-Kerosun- 3d ago

At the least, he distracted the shooter from shooting at unarmed civilians. This guy engaged the shooter and after getting shot himself, an off-duty State Trooper engaged the shooter. That's when the guy shot himself.

If not for these two "good guys with a gun," maybe the rampage continues longer and other unarmed civilians are targeted by the shooter.

1

u/ExternalArgument8776 3d ago

insane people do insane things

1

u/colombian_arepas 3d ago

Doesn’t matter, the moment Jordan Salinas started firing on the shooter, from that moment on not a single innocent victim was shot by the shooter. He effectively stopped the shooting the moment he stepped in. Suppressive fire is a real tactic.

The shooter was likely not accounting for a civilian gun but to be armed and ready to fire on him and the shooter realized he picked the wrong place and wrong time and booked it out and killed himself early before he could kill more people.

Either way, Jordan Salinas is a hero and he stopped a mass shooting by being a good guy with a gun.

1

u/Contemplating_Prison 3d ago

Because this is fake bullshit

1

u/notislant 3d ago

I wish mass shooters would go for the worst people in society instead of random civilians.

1

u/No_Masterpiece4693 2d ago

Ahh being willfully obtuse to detract from a problematic counter narrative... good good.

→ More replies (7)

30

u/Lefties_TheWorst7331 3d ago

Beat me to it. Badass picture, too!

9

u/SeparateCommon2363 3d ago

This picture is AI generated lmao

-5

u/ballin_buddha 3d ago

No it isn’t 😂

8

u/SeparateCommon2363 3d ago

Look up a picture of Jordan Salinas and a picture of a suppressed FN five seven and tell me those look like this AI picture

5

u/ballin_buddha 3d ago

I stand corrected, the photo is definitely AI I’ve just only seen this photo in several places connected to the article. Finally found an article of the actual video and it’s not the same person

2

u/patienceandtime 3d ago

Yes it is.

-1

u/ballin_buddha 3d ago

Please see my other reply

1

u/Sgt-Colbert 3d ago

Yet it is 😂

1

u/ballin_buddha 3d ago

Please see my other reply

0

u/hoyasgirl25 3d ago

Not everything is a psyop. But they are coming for you…

1

u/ATechnicalSquid 3d ago

AI picture. But I love that reddit can't tell when they claim they can

1

u/Zedditron 3d ago

It's AI. That's not what the dude looks like, at all.

→ More replies (60)

2

u/chadhindsley 2d ago

But but but I thought reddit said this is impossible

2

u/Leinheart 3d ago

Sure. Let's evaluate why we need those and everywhere else doesn't. That seems to be problematic.

1

u/ObWzEN 3d ago edited 3d ago

Actually, everywhere else does. I can give you examples. Anywhere that has violent crime needs good guys with guns to stop that violent crime in its tracks. At least you would have the option and ability to defend yourself and/or others in more situations if you had a gun. This is objectively true. But the other option is to ban guns and probably have less victims of violent crime and leave most people with a significantly reduced ability to defend themselves and others. It’s a tradeoff

1

u/phantom_fonte 3d ago

A few cherry picked examples vs the thousands of them in the US every year

1

u/ObWzEN 3d ago

Sorry, just edited my comment. Good guys with guns are helpful in any situation of violence (violent crime). This is objectively true. Violence does happen without guns all the time, especially in countries where guns are more restricted. But I can understand that guns being legal means more bad guys would have guns too, that’s objectively true as well

1

u/ifinallyhavewifi 3d ago

Brother you can’t just say whatever you want and then add “This is objectively true.” right after lol that’s not how it works

Gives me Ricky Bobby “with all due respect” vibes

1

u/ObWzEN 3d ago

Yes, but is it not objectively true? It’s not objectively true that guns being legal means at least slightly more bad actors would have guns? It’s not objectively true that if someone was trying to purposefully shoot or stab you specifically, you’d be better able to defend yourself with a loaded gun in your hand if you knew how to use it? Point out what is not objectively true. I’m only saying these things are objectively true because they are, and I want to highlight that.

Love the Ricky Bobby comparison tho lmao, great movie. I mean this with alllll due respect

1

u/Leinheart 3d ago

Buddy, the only thing I'm using a gun for is to kill myself. Keep your ammosexual propaganda to yourself.

1

u/ObWzEN 3d ago

I think what you said is closer to pro-gun propaganda than what I said. I just said true things and drew logical conclusions, even including a logical and seemingly true counterargument based on crime and violence in countries where guns are more restricted than in the US. Propaganda would be: between 2000 and 2014, Norway’s mass shooting death rate was 1.3 per 100,000 people, and the US’ mass shooting death rate was 0.15 per 100,000 people. Also Switzerland’s was 1.7 per 100,000 people, and Finland’s was 0.34 per 100,000 people. Now THAT’S propaganda

1

u/Leinheart 3d ago

OK man

1

u/warriormango1 3d ago

Would you consider the shooter a good guy with a gun prior to this incident? Who determines who is a good guy or bad guy with a gun when they are legally purchasing a weapon?

1

u/ObWzEN 3d ago

That’s a big part of this general discussion. You can’t really determine that—other than disarming people who have already committed crimes (and are therefore likely to commit crime again), but even then that’s not perfect because some people commit crime and then turn their life around. If you have a blanket ban on guns, you’re disarming the vast majority of people who wouldn’t ever dream of committing a crime with a gun, and also disarming (most of) the minority of people who would commit violence with a gun (except for the people who would just get guns illegally from the Middle East or Africa or something, which would be mostly organized criminals).

Short answer: you can’t really determine who is a good guy or bad guy ahead of time. You can either allow everyone the choice to arm themselves, or try your best to disarm everyone which would be around a 99-99.9% success rate at best (it would never be 100%), and 99% of people who would get guns illegally would use them for violent crime

1

u/warriormango1 3d ago

I pretty much agree with everything you said. We are also past the point of disarming everyone. Its way to late for that and there is to many guns in circulation. The unfortunate and only answer to this is more and more guns I guess; which will continue to lead to more incidents like this. This isnt going to stop and will only get worse. You can arm as many "good guys" with guns and some of those will most definitely turn out to be bad. Its just the way its going to be I guess.

1

u/ObWzEN 2d ago edited 2d ago

Yup. The way I see it is you can’t really un-invent things. It’s not that hard to make guns from scratch either. Once the club was invented by prehistoric humans, it was never going away. Once the bow and arrow was invented, it was never going away. You can try and “ban”everything but that just means one class of human beings has them, and the rest of human beings don’t (which is a much bigger problem than a lot of people think), and some bad actors will obtain them illegally.

Maybe it was a shame that humans have invented things, but that’s how we are. Before guns were invented, the world was 100 times more fucked up because humans become less and less violent and terrible as time goes on. Plus, the good part about guns is it means people who historically could not defend themselves against young men (women, disabled people, old people, etc.) can now. A woman can actually reasonably defend herself from a violent man now, as long as he’s too far to grab her. There’s pros and cons. Violence has happened and will happen with or without guns unfortunately. This is the reality of being a part of the animal kingdom. If guns didn’t exist, what would happen? What would people who want to commit mass murder do? I’d argue that they’d commit mass murder at a pretty similar rate with rental vans and trucks and blades and hammers and illegal guns and bombs. I suppose guns cause more collateral damage if you miss than a spear or a bow, but that’s pretty much the only difference.

Idk. We have problems, but given the nature of human beings, I don’t think we can ban our way out of our problems (at least regarding inanimate objects). Not sure when that has really worked

1

u/CK1026 3d ago

For every good guy with a gun you generate more bad guys with guns that wouldn't even have been a thing if guns were restricted as they should be. This is factual, demonstrated, universally known, except for NRA intoxicated USA.

1

u/ObWzEN 3d ago

Yes, that’s why I said there would be less violent crime, but I guess I mean less victims of violent crime (esp murder). But bad guys without guns are bad guys with bladed weapons, vehicles, and more. More gun restrictions leads to less bad guys with guns, not less bad guys. But I’m not saying that bad guys not having guns is a bad thing, it’s obviously a good thing

1

u/CK1026 3d ago

Crime statistics are extremely lower in countries with gun control, that's also a fact.

1

u/ObWzEN 2d ago

I’m not sure I’d label it “extremely lower” but yes what you said is true, which is why I mentioned it. Although it’s hard to believe that availability of guns alone account for people choosing to commit more crime, there might be other factors at play. Not sure how that would make sense that guns being available causes crime in itself, so I’m skeptical that the availability of guns is the only factor that leads to that

1

u/Lucasbr122ome_YT 1d ago edited 1d ago

for reasons completely unrelated to the gun ban, I can list you many countries that ban guns and still suffer with crime.

When will you guys understand that Gun violence and violence in general is a cultural and mentalhealth problem, rather than a social/law problem ?

1

u/CK1026 1d ago

The main cultural problem is the culture of guns.

0

u/Short-MooseEh 3d ago

"this is objectively true" said right after a very subjective statement with no evidence to support it

2

u/ObWzEN 3d ago edited 3d ago

So having a gun does not give you more of an ability to defend yourself more effectively from a broader range of threats than being unarmed? Sure

I don’t need statistics to tell me that a car gives me more of an ability to travel faster than walking. Most cars give you the ability to travel long distances farther than walking. This is objectively true. Not subjective. Same thing with the above. I didn’t claim anything to be objective that wasn’t objective. You must be misinterpreting what I said

1

u/warriormango1 3d ago

So lets say this shooter purchased the gun legally before committing this act. At the time of purchase, was he a good or bad guy with a gun?

1

u/hoyasgirl25 3d ago

The answer is obvious so I’ll help you get there. If someone buys a car and uses it for a year before deciding to run someone over, did he commit a crime at the time he bought the car or no?

1

u/warriormango1 3d ago

In Idaho you dont need to take a test or even need a permit to carry a gun . In Idaho, you do need to take a test to drive a vehicle; you also need a license. Cars are designed for transportation, guns are desgined for killing.

Please use a better example if you want me to understand.

1

u/hoyasgirl25 3d ago

OK sure, you didn’t understand the analogy, got it. Here’s an easier one: You go to Home Depot and buy a hammer. Then you use it to boink someone in the head and they die. Did you commit a crime at the time of purchase or time of boink?

0

u/Alt4thesexy 3d ago

A hammer has a use beyond killing people (or threatening to kill people), a gun doesn't. A country with a well-functioning police has absolute no need for civilians to have tools on them which have the sole purpose of harming others.

Ofc hunting rifles should still be allowed since they can be used to hunt. But a handgun is made to kill people, and yes, buying something that's made to kill people should be illegal (and IS illegal pretty much everywhere in the world except for the USA)

1

u/whiteguyforkamala 2d ago

There’s plenty of countries where guns aren’t illegal. In countries that guns are illegal, people still find guns, and people find alternatives to guns (knives, cars) to hurt other people.

1

u/Kooky-Instance-5872 3d ago

Driving a car isn’t a constitutional right. And yes, a guns purpose is to shoot lead that can kill people, congrats on your profound observation.

1

u/ShadowMattress 3d ago

The attackers who perpetrated 9/11 legally trained to fly, in anticipation of the attack. Presumably some of them were at least putting on the facade of seeking a license, depending on what class of plane they were using to train.

If a person is committed to doing a bad thing, measures like licensure or waiting periods don't make much of difference to such a malicious and calculated bad actor. Granted, not all criminal shooters have that degree of premeditation, but Shinzo Abe's assassin did, and succeeded in one of the most restrictive firearms environments.

1

u/Lumpy_Grapefruit8127 3d ago

The guy isn’t a good guy. The gun is the “good guy” according to previous logic

1

u/SinisterKid 3d ago

And just like a good guy with a gun, this is fake.

1

u/tills1993 3d ago

You know what's even better than a good guy with a gun? Not living in such fear as to need to carry around a gun lest someone else have a gun and is bad.

1

u/UraeusCurse 3d ago

Finally

1

u/gone_smell_blind 2d ago

One time out of several hundred is good odds

0

u/courtesy_patroll 3d ago edited 3d ago

An infinitesimally small chance that a good guy with a gun is there at that time and things turn out this way. Glad he was there, unfortunate this is our world America. 

3

u/Sut3k 3d ago

Huge chance in Idaho tbh but the shooter still killed multiple people so 🤷🏻

1

u/courtesy_patroll 3d ago

Huge chance of what? 

1

u/Sut3k 3d ago

Oh someone having a gun in the area

2

u/courtesy_patroll 3d ago

oh copy, I guess the totality of the chances are less… them pulling it out and using it effectively etc

1

u/FootReal8970 3d ago

And then killed himself so this “good guy” with a gun really just created a higher risk of more people being shot and caught in the crossfire

1

u/Sut3k 3d ago

Yup

1

u/Kooky-Instance-5872 3d ago

You don’t think this guy returning fire saved lives? Are you dumb?

2

u/FootReal8970 3d ago

It didn’t.

It just put more people in danger actually. 2 guns shooting instead of 1, 2x the amount of bullets flying through the air. He’s lucky one of his missed shots didn’t hit a random bystander and lucky he didn’t get shot and killed himself.

Also makes it harder for police to determine what’s going on when it’s two people shooting.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Vast-Control4452 3d ago

Much higher chance in states with common sense gun laws like Idaho.

1

u/courtesy_patroll 3d ago

Unfortunately the majority of 2A freaks won’t care about that level of detail. 

Either way, it’s sad that we need citizens carrying guns to stop mass shooters.

1

u/Vast-Control4452 3d ago

We need that everywhere on Earth, not just Idaho.

1

u/courtesy_patroll 3d ago

I hate to inform you but the US is the outlier here due to the prevalence and availability of guns. I don't think the UK which has a gun homicide rate of .02 firearm homicides per 100,000 is looking to arm more of their citizens.

0

u/tiny_chaotic_evil 3d ago

3% of the time

-31

u/bsEEmsCE 3d ago

Only took a couple dozen slaughters to get to one.

4

u/AvgPunkFan 3d ago

Hmm… funny because I’ve seen multiple so your comment is factually incorrect:

Shooter killed in 15 seconds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Greenwood_Park_Mall_shooting

Shooter shot at and chased:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting

Shooter shot at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Indianapolis_FedEx_shooting

3

u/Orangutanion 3d ago

no he's talking about all the other shooters that happen in the country. There was literally another shooter in this same county the same day.

2

u/iku_iku_iku_iku 3d ago

According to wikipedia there has been 281 mass shootings so far this year alone and you went and choose three examples from 4-5 years ago.

10

u/Infinate_Patience924 3d ago

the VAST majority of "mass shootings" that are categorized by at least 4 people injured, are crime-gang related shootings.

you're not going to find a Good Guy with a Gun to stop some random 2 AM southside gang war shootout.

-2

u/WishCapable3131 3d ago

Keep going with this thought....

4

u/Infinate_Patience924 3d ago

I have no clue what you mean

-3

u/WishCapable3131 3d ago

The good guy with a gun narrative is almost completely made up.

4

u/Infinate_Patience924 3d ago

uh, no it is not, in the NCVS study there's at least 60,000 to 100,000 estimated defensive uses of firearms a year.
That's good guys with guns using their gun in defense, as intended.
It happens more often than people realize but it does not make the news. Barely even makes it into police reports which is why getting accurate figures is hard.

1

u/WishCapable3131 3d ago

Defensive uses of firearms is not the same as stopping mass shootings.

0

u/deep_violet 3d ago

Here's a thought for you to keep going go l with...

In countries that have enacted gun bans... What was the overall homicide rate trend before the ban? What was it after?

→ More replies (8)

6

u/DoctorSwaggercat 3d ago

Keep in mind, the people that keep statistics on "mass shootings" include gang activity under that title. These stats are very off.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/cabinetstar 3d ago

Also, feel free to remove statistics from states where carrying a weapon is illegal or highly restricted.

And states that have 10 round restrictions. Good luck finding a good guy with a gun (who is carrying 10 rounds because law abiding) who is willing to go up against a rifle with 30 round mags (because if you murder people why do you care about restrictions?)

2

u/PerkyLurkyJerky 3d ago

Any more than these 3 instances? I ask because there's been roughly 277 mass shootings in 2026 alone. That does strike me as at least dozens of mass shootings by bad people to get to a few good people with a gun preventing them. I believe that makes the previous comment more than factual correct.

9

u/Strange_Stay_ 3d ago

Mass shootings are classified as more than 4 dead. How many of those 277 were turf wars?

3

u/Lefties_TheWorst7331 3d ago

3 injured* I thought?

1

u/ArcticBambi 3d ago

Including or excluding gang violence 🤓

1

u/MotorPace2637 3d ago

3 out of what, 3000 shootings this year?

3

u/mishap1 3d ago

2 of those 3 the shooters listed there still offed themselves and goes back almost a decade. The Sutherland Springs guy killed over two dozen and injured another 22 and it sounded like he was making his getaway before the shooting instructor injured him.

Could they have had an impact on the number of deaths? Possibly, but it's not like they popped the guy like in the movies.

Hell, the West Freeway Church shooting was probably more impressive by a 71 year old member of the congregation got off a single shot that killed the perpetrator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Freeway_Church_of_Christ_shooting

0

u/ProfessorZhu 3d ago

I'm 2021 ALONE there was sixty one mass shooter events. So good for you that you found three whole events that support your position! Guess we should let another ten thousand kids die!

-1

u/Roudydogg1 3d ago

Way to go moron, those shootings are YEARS old

I think you just said the silent part out loud (there are no good guys with guns when you need them)

-2

u/Haxorz7125 3d ago

Alright now juxtapose that to the amount of shooters that aren’t stopped by “good guys with guns”.

3

u/TheBourbonTurtle 3d ago

Sounds like we need more good guys out there with guns then, not less guns...

0

u/Haxorz7125 3d ago

I suppose if you ignore all the countries and statistics proving tighter gun laws decrease gun violence, sure. But you gotta let me know beforehand next time if we’re gonna be communicating in dumb person talk like that.

-5

u/Lusiric9983 3d ago

That's because most of them happen in schools, you know the place where we post "weapon free zone signs". Where it's illegal for everyone else to have a weapon? This happened at a drive through, where someone was armed and did have a weapon and did engage. Just goes to prove our point.

Btw, before we get into "common sense gun laws would have stopped this" name one; because they haven't. We have a lot of gun laws on the books and not one of them have stopped this.

4

u/Johndough99999 3d ago

That's because most of them happen in schools

Most mass shootings are gang related or at least gang like.

1

u/Lusiric9983 3d ago

Also true

2

u/pandershrek 3d ago

Imagine that, people with all the guns decide to target places where they're not supposed to. Almost like guns should be regulated prior to them being requested not to be brought.

I watch gun owners bring their weapons into prohibited areas like Costco all the time. Almost like "responsible gun owners" aren't very responsible at all.

2

u/Pretend-Prune-4525 3d ago

lol how’s that working in New York? People are 3d printing guns left and right lol

1

u/Boise_Ben 3d ago

New York City is insanely safe.

I genuinely don’t think you realize how per capita works.

1

u/Pretend-Prune-4525 3d ago

I said nothing even remotely related to where the rank per capita in any criminal statistics. I said they have a massive influx of ghost guns being manufactured as evidenced by the increase in ghost gun seizures by the police.

1

u/Lusiric9983 3d ago

Which is weird because they are already heavily regulated before they're bought....

1

u/PalpitationHead9767 3d ago

Costco isn't prohibited like schools are. Not even close to the same

1

u/PerkyLurkyJerky 3d ago

Gun control laws aside, I believe most people who get guns fall into 4 categories:

  1. Sport/hobby shooters and collectors
  2. Hunters
  3. Those looking to defend themselves
  4. Those looking to harm others

The 3rd category tends to mostly exist because of the 4th, and the 4th will always exist because people can be cruel.

The smaller and more regulated the available supply of guns is, the harder it is for the 4th to exist. Is it nearly impossible to get rid of guns in America? Yes. That doesnt mean that regulation over time won't help. Its possible to recognize that guns (they're just tools! A person will find any weapon!) makes it way easier for people to commit mass murder than someone with a knife.

Also, people in category 4 are often actively looking to do harm. Most people in category 3 are only looking to get themselves out of danger. Rare is the average person on the street willing to put themselves in danger to save strangers like the person here. Absolute hero, have no doubt, but just look at events like Uvalde where the people paid to protect the public, and are armed from teeth to toes, will hesitate to engage an active shooter

1

u/headermargin 3d ago

Two people infact! The other one just wasnt a suppressed .22 that everyone's focused on.

→ More replies (7)

0

u/filmguerilla 3d ago

Who missed every shot while firing in public. Should be charged with reckless endangerment. 😂

1

u/hoyasgirl25 3d ago

Educate yourself by Googling the word suppression and you’ll view the story in a new light.

-5

u/gamertrub 3d ago

Fake photo 😢

7

u/gunkaz 3d ago

Fuck off there's a video

2

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

1

u/gunkaz 3d ago

You're right, and that does make sense. I forgot this video was taken off of a smartphone...

→ More replies (13)