Two people critical in hospital as officials in Bend say 16-year-old suspect shot dead by bystander

Two people critical in hospital as officials in Bend say 16-year-old suspect shot dead by bystander

A 16-year-old shooter opened fire at an elementary school in Bend, Oregon, on Thursday, killing three children and a teacher before he was shot dead by a community member, authorities said at an evening news conference.

The dead children at Silver Rail elementary school were aged five, eight and 11, officials said.

A seven-year-old and a 54-year-old were also hospitalized with critical injuries, according to police.

  • BionicBeaver3000@lemmy.world
    123·
    4 days ago

    Without knowing any details of this case and the actual situation that happened - at one point in time, a civilian with a firearm opened fire at another (minor) with a firearm because there was a possible danger scenario near a school. How did the “good guy” in this scenario know exactly that this was the right call to open fire, and not just another possible “good guy with a gun”?

    In this case, he was evidently correct, well done! But it could easily have become a terrible blue-on-blue scenario as well.

    To me, this single “good guy with a gun” scenario does not justify the fact that firearms are so widespread that the “bad guy” easily got his own, and became more deadly as a result.

    • AllHailTheSheep@sh.itjust.works
      91·
      4 days ago

      the kid shot 4 people and you don’t understand why someone considered them a threat?

      I agree that the good guy with a gun thing is generally a myth and usually causes more trouble than good, but in this case I don’t think it was a hard judgement call…

      • daq@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        English
        2·
        3 days ago

        That assumes he saw a kid with a gun and did nothing while evaluating the situation and getting a 100% confirmation that he is indeed a crazy shooter. Which could really only happen when he saw this kid started shooting other kids. Then he calmly found a location where he would not accidentally hit any bystanders and without missing, terminated the shooter. If that sounds improbable for a real life situation, that’s why OP expressed his doubts.

    • freely1333@reddthat.comEnglish
      71·
      4 days ago

      Also do we want every random vigilante carrying and deciding who is or isn’t a threat in general? If a police officer busts in and hurts an innocent while taking this shooter down it’s already a huge enough can of worms… if this guy did, now is he criminally liable or are we giving random citizens qualified immunity?

      • DarkFuture@lemmy.worldEnglish
        81·
        4 days ago

        Also do we want every random vigilante carrying and deciding who is or isn’t a threat in general?

        There’s a shit ton of conservatives in this country, so the answer to that question is a massive FUCK NO. We can’t even trust them to do things that benefit themselves. I have very little faith in the humans around me when I’m out in public. I don’t want them playing judge, jury, and executioner.

      • Taldan@lemmy.world
        52·
        4 days ago

        Statistically gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or their family than to use the gun in defense

        That includes both accidental and intentional use of the gun

      • The__Guy_Fawkes@lemmy.world
        2·
        3 days ago

        “Good guy with a gun” is a fallacy.

        It just happened with this story. A legal gun owner took out a lunatic with a shotgun.

        • BionicBeaver3000@lemmy.world
          1·
          3 days ago

          The “good guy with a gun” seemingly did happen here - a civilian (i.e. neither security, police nor military) shot an active shooter and stopped the drama.

          But relying on “good guy with a gun” is not a meaningful security policy as it actively encourages arming civilians. In case of an imminent threat like an active shooter - which one of the armed, non-uniformed civilians are friendly, neutral or enemies? And how do they communicate their afilliation to bystanders, fellow armed citizens and security forces - in a way that could not be exploited by an active shooter himself? Employing this as a general security policy would proliferate more guns in the society and teach everyone to be vigilant of each other, thus increasing distrust. It can also attribute to shifting the blame to victims of shootings: Why didn’t they arm themselves and shoot first?

          In my view, reducing the amount of guns or at least the volume of fire (think 6-shooter revolvers instead of 17-round semiautomatics) would reduce the amount of gunshot victims in the time between start of an active shooting and the arrival of security forces that would then handle the situation professionally. A stressed-out amateur with a handgun is not as helpful as a professional, and can actually increase to the drama due to increasing uncertainty in identification of friend or foe.

        • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
          1·
          3 days ago

          Didn’t read the articles, did you.

          So the one guy that got thrown clear of the car, uninjured, in a rollover accident where he didn’t use a seatbelt means nobod should wear a seatbelt in a car accident?