Liberal Media "It Was an UNARMED Hero"
0
-
I don't see a problem with that article other than the armed guard wouldn't give the Veteran his handgun. 0 -
GOOD FOR HER! [:D]
I like that lady security guard - ought to get the civilian Freedom Medal for
her guts. Reminds me of Molly Pitcher - sometimes the menfolk have to be
led by example.0 -
The problem is that once again it is obivous that the liberal, anti-gun media (anti-gun only in regards to civilians) will go to almost any lengths to try and divert our attention from the fact that a NON- GOVERNMENT, A NON-LEO (basically an armed citizen) was totally and completely responsible for killing the deranged gunman. The media wants to continue to spoon feed us the thought that if you are ever confronted by an armed madman, the only action you should take is to call for help and then wait patiently to be saved by the professionals OR DIE.
If people start thinking about how an armed citizen (an a woman at that) was able to stop a deadly attack in progess, simply because she had a CCW and a gun, then more and more people will start wanting to have the equipment (gun) and the right to protect themselves and their family WHEN THE PAID PROFFESIONALS ARE NOT AROUND.
The anti-gun left and the liberal media cannot stand to even think about that happening because then gun rights would become so popular in America that the anti-gunners and the liberal media and the government would never, ever be able to get rid of guns.0 -
tr fox
Did you read the same article I read?0 -
quote:Originally posted by MVP
tr fox
Did you read the same article I read?
Yeah, basically they barely mentioned the armed female and instead praised the guy who asked a guard for his gun and after not getting it jumped out and yelled at the shooter calling the shooter a coward. Why praise such naive, senseless action just described while not praising the armed female that was the one who actuallly took care of business? I say they are slanting the news or pushing anti-armed citizen propaganda off on us.
Maybe I'm wrong but that is how I see it and I have seen it often.0 -
The way I read it was that the unarmed veteran tried to get a gun and was unable to and a while he did a brave thing in not waiting for authorities to arrive before approaching the shooter, he would have been a dead man if it wasn't for the armed female guard who took the threat out. The veteran then went on to give praise to the female.
I don't see where this article takes anything away from the event as seen from the veterans perspective. I was glad to be able to hear his side after reading several from the female guards side.0 -
I don't know that it slanted the attention away from the guard who killed the gunman.....but it sure did emasculate the male guard who froze up. 0 -
I think it was a very wise decision for the armed guard NOT to give his weapon to a stranger in the midst of a shoot out. Would you ? How do you know the person asking for your gun wasnt part of the shooting itself ? Would you disarm yourself in the face of danger just because some stranger said he was a "vietnam vet" ??
In my opinion this story is actually no story at all (except to the liberal media) What they are trying to portray here is that the armed guard, despite being armed, was in fact useless and incapable of defending or protecting anyone. However, the unarmed "shouter" easily took control of the situtation merely by shouting "coward".
Moral of the story "guns will not protect you, but shouting will"0 -
I see it pretty much the same as MVP does,.........just the story from the unarmed vets aspect. It simple said he confronted the shooter, it did not say "It was an unarmed hero", as the thread says. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
. It simple said he confronted the shooter, it did not say "It was an unarmed hero", as the thread says.
look at the top of the browser page and it clearly says "UNARMED HERO"0 -
http://www.msn.com/
here it is again. the title of the article is "UNARMED HERO CONFRONTED SHOOTER" . doesnt get any clearer than that0 -
I give him credit too - should read FRUSTRATED UNARMED HERO!
... we'll never know what kind of distraction he presented to the killer.0 -
The armed guard who did not shoot is a discrase. I hope he lost his job. If anyone was shot while he refused to engage the gunman he shares responsibility for that injury or death. 0 -
I see it now,.........I typically do not read browser headers, I was looking at the story title.
Still says unarmed hero confronted,........true, and who knows how that may have helped.
I get the drift though.[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by bigtire
The armed guard who did not shoot is a discrase. I hope he lost his job. If anyone was shot while he refused to engage the gunman he shares responsibility for that injury or death.
i wondered why he didnt shoot too. however, maybe it wasnt tactfully prudent for him to shoot at that time ?0 -
That's true - could have been children and ladyfolk in the way -
good point!0 -
quote:Originally posted by zipperzap
That's true - could have been children and ladyfolk in the way -
good point!
Could have been, or maybe he just froze from fear.
Nobody knows how one will react until it happens to them.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Civil Rights
I think it was a very wise decision for the armed guard NOT to give his weapon to a stranger in the midst of a shoot out. Would you ? How do you know the person asking for your gun wasnt part of the shooting itself ? Would you disarm yourself in the face of danger just because some stranger said he was a "vietnam vet" ??
In my opinion this story is actually no story at all (except to the liberal media) What they are trying to portray here is that the armed guard, despite being armed, was in fact useless and incapable of defending or protecting anyone. However, the unarmed "shouter" easily took control of the situtation merely by shouting "coward".
Moral of the story "guns will not protect you, but shouting will"
Actually this poster sums up what I was trying to say better than I did. The media pushed this story so as to provide the moral that guns will not protect you but shouting and the authorities will.0 -
That church has some pretty brave patrons. I think I read that there were several others on the security detail that were armed, near the shooter, but not firing back. Wonder if in the back of their minds they wondered what the authorities might do to them and that acted as a deterrent. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Originally posted by zipperzap
That's true - could have been children and ladyfolk in the way -
good point!
Could have been, or maybe he just froze from fear.
Nobody knows how one will react until it happens to them.
I tell all the people I protect that I will gladly help them lead a retreat if an armed nut comes around. I also tell them that someday I will be able to afford more than the one bullet I carry in pocket.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Civil Rights
I think it was a very wise decision for the armed guard NOT to give his weapon to a stranger in the midst of a shoot out. Would you ? How do you know the person asking for your gun wasnt part of the shooting itself ? Would you disarm yourself in the face of danger just because some stranger said he was a "vietnam vet" ??
In my opinion this story is actually no story at all (except to the liberal media) What they are trying to portray here is that the armed guard, despite being armed, was in fact useless and incapable of defending or protecting anyone. However, the unarmed "shouter" easily took control of the situtation merely by shouting "coward".
Moral of the story "guns will not protect you, but shouting will"
Actually this poster sums up what I was trying to say better than I did. The media pushed this story so as to provide the moral that guns will not protect you but shouting and the authorities will.
I guess it all boils down to the thought process of the reader.
I still don't read this article like you guys.
I read where an unarmed man, brave non the less, would have been dead if it were not for an armed female guard who ended the events.
It is all what people want to focus on.0 -
quote:Originally posted by MVP
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Civil Rights
I think it was a very wise decision for the armed guard NOT to give his weapon to a stranger in the midst of a shoot out. Would you ? How do you know the person asking for your gun wasnt part of the shooting itself ? Would you disarm yourself in the face of danger just because some stranger said he was a "vietnam vet" ??
In my opinion this story is actually no story at all (except to the liberal media) What they are trying to portray here is that the armed guard, despite being armed, was in fact useless and incapable of defending or protecting anyone. However, the unarmed "shouter" easily took control of the situtation merely by shouting "coward".
Moral of the story "guns will not protect you, but shouting will"
Actually this poster sums up what I was trying to say better than I did. The media pushed this story so as to provide the moral that guns will not protect you but shouting and the authorities will.
I guess it all boils down to the thought process of the reader.
I still don't read this article like you guys.
I read where an unarmed man, brave non the less, would have been dead if it were not for an armed female guard who ended the events.
It is all what people want to focus on.
Good reasoning on your part but you are right in that it comes down to what the reader wants to think. But don't you wonder why the news article elevates a man, who actually did nothing but throw an insult at a crazed gunmnan, to the same level as the heroic woman who was able to actually take effective action and stop the shooter? If the term "hero" is used here, that term belongs solely to the female shooter. My thought is that the media wants the citizen sheep to not focus on a female civilian effectively using a firearm to stop a violent crime in progress.
KInda like when the media referrs to a football star/team as "heros". We all know real heros are not overpaid, pampered sports starts doing nothing but the job they are overpaid to do, whend the real heros are our military troops, cops and firemen who save lives.
In short, by using the word hero is such as way (both the church shouter and sports stars) the media devalues the term so soon we have no "heros". I believe this is the way the media and leftist America wants us to think.0 -
I still read it the way MVP does.
I do believe an unarmed man that was willing to face death, by attracting attention "could" be called a hero.
Had to have taken some cajones to step out and be shot, unarmed?
Maybe there is a "conspiracy" here with the media that I am just not seeing in this particular story, although I am more than aware that it does take place on a regular basis.0 -
One might also ask, if the man was a hero, couldnt the article have said "Man Who Distracted Shooter is a Hero" ? Why did the article feel it was necessary to identify the man as "Unarmed" ? Normally I wouldnt read so much into this but given the blatant anti-gun bias of media and reporters I think it bears questioning.
However, I actually dont think what the man did raised to the level of "heroic". Especially considering that what the women shooter did was absolutely and without question heroic and FINAL !! She ended the entire situtation and no doubt saved lives. The man who shouted might have done some good but in my opinion its not even worth mentioning.
Either way, I wish the media would report the story in such a way as to make the public realize that guns in the hands of ordinary citizens is a good thing.0 -
oh yeah, the article also says the man who shouted "confronted" the shooter. i would rather have an armed citizen ENGAGE the shooter rather than an unarmed man "confront" the shooter. 0 -
Sure as heck wouldn't turn my gun over to anyone but LEO's in situations like that either. !! 0 -
I think it is silly to say the Veteran did anything but heroic.
He didn't run from danger, he ran to face it.
The odds were not in his favor when he as an unarmed man ran to face the armed shooter as others were running away or either hiding (like the armed guard who wouldn't hand his gun over to the veteran who was not afraid to face the threat)
Why are you guys acting like this unarmed man who came to edge of his own death to help stop the threat. Because he was unarmed makes no difference to me that what he did was heroic.
If he was packing and and faced the aggresor would he then be a hero?
I will add that this man would be dead if it were not for the Armed female guard though.
But he did act in a way 1% of people would act when he went at the gunman with out running away.0 -
I didnt intend my post to be in any way demeaning to the actions of the unarmed man, rather I wanted to highlight the medias focus on him rather than the armed female shooter. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Civil Rights
oh yeah, the article also says the man who shouted "confronted" the shooter. i would rather have an armed citizen ENGAGE the shooter rather than an unarmed man "confront" the shooter.
I am not one bit trying to take anything away from the man and what he did. It took a lot of nerve to shout an insult at an armed man who was in the process of shooting innocent people. So please let's leave the man's actions as being brave, risky, etc. But if we are to assign the term "heroic" to his actions, then what are we to assign to the female shooter who actually did something other than taunt a deranged shooter? I.E. she stopped the threat cold.
What I am failing to express here is that I have long observed that the media trys to shape our attitudes involving citizens using firearms for defense. The media simply does not like to report such armed defense in a positive light. So, in this case, since the media could not take away from the heroic actions of the female shooter, the media still found a way to downgrade her actions by unreaonably elevating the shouter's action (come on! The shouter did not "confront" the deranged shooter. He merely taunted him from or close to cover. I respect that but, especially when compared to the female shooter that is not heroic). The media simply will not cleanly and positively report how a common citizen uses a firearm to defend from a violent attack.
The media in the past has described such resistance to armed attack, by common citizens, as the perp being "tackled" and or "wrestled to the ground" and overcome in the same manner that a group of rambunctious high school boys might solve a bloodless altercation. Such descriptions, which I have personally read, have even been used when in actualilty another armed citizen (teacher, store customer, etc) actually used a firearm on the perp AND AFTER THAT FIREARM USE, the perp was "tackled" and or "wrestled" to the ground.
Perhaps I am trying to make too big a deal out of this and it might be that if someone has never noticed such liberal media bias on their own, there is no way that someone can convince them of such bias.0 -
I believe both of you are making too much out of this,.........wasn't like they did not go into the details about the female that, as for now,......is believed to have taken the shooter out.
I think you are looking for things that are not there, in this particular piece.
Too much mincing of words, to make it fit something to be angry about.
Once again, IMHO!0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
42 comments