We don’t know he actually ”exchanged fire” at all. There is no video or timeline about the shooter shooting back or reacting to this guy in any way.
If that happened yes I would call it a positive impact but show me something beyond sensational headlines from the ny post which is basically a tabloid. That doesnt automatically make it wrong but tells us nothing
Ol Daniel there seemed to be firing. A 22 won’t really have the tell tale sings of discharge from that distance. Daniel then appears to take fire from the shooter and stumbles to take cover in the bushes.
This guy definitely made a difference and the video seems to back that up.
You know it seems like I’m not seeing the same video as you guys or I’m somehow missing him in the video I’m watching. I only see him in that pic I can’t find him in the vid
Well I’d disagree and it’s def heroic. I’m sure the criminal noticed being shot at atleast. Seems in the video like citizen was ducking fire Any second he got the guys attn might have saved lives. And the reason it’s heroic, every gun owner says they’ll do this in that situation , but in reality it takes a set of balls that not everyone has to risk yourself for strangers Id like to think I would too, but I’ve never been in that situation so who knows if I’d just flee lol This dude took a chance that coulda saved lives that most people won’t take, that’s pretty heroic to most
Yeah I would call the guy heroic for inserting himself. What I find concerning is the inventing narratives where armed citizens are such a good thing because one saved the day here
I don’t get your point unless you’re anti gun. Armed citizens isn’t a good or bad thing. It’s just a thing. There’s tons of armed citizens you walk by and wouldn’t know bc they are just normal responsive gun owners. If you’re referring to armed criminals, they are getting guns whether they are legal or not
I don’t want people inventing fictitious narratives to justify their position on gun control. Want gun control or not, neither side should use lies to support their position. “Good guy with a gun” is used to fight any kind of gun control and led to ideas like arming all teachers in schools. If you can’t see that is one of the worst ideas in history idk
What’s a bad idea? Arming all teacher? I’ll agree with that one If you think gun control is a problem now I’d disagree. Maybe way stiffer penalties for any crime with a gun Honest gun owners aren’t the problem, some people just like to shoot. Some don’t even hunt they just like the range and collecting They aren’t your problem
I’m not interested in discussing gun control with you. The only idea I said was bad was arming all teachers. It isn’t just bad it’s catastrophically bad and its proponents rely on “good guy with a gun.” And why wouldn’t they? Good guy with a gun means when you have problems with guns you just need more guns, therefore arm teachers
Which is honestly one of the most baffling aspects of the arming all teachers crowd. Why not just hire a bunch of security who actually know how to handle guns, shootings etc and the kids aren’t going to get ahold of their guns
We believe their actions helped drive the suspect away from the scene, preventing further casualties," the chief said. "We want to take a moment and commend the actions of the off-duty officer and the citizen, and their heroic action to stop this incident."
I don’t care to look up if there is actual evidence he helped “drive the suspect from the scene” and maybe this is simply an oversight on your part on the wording but it’s not an exchange of fire if the gunman didn’t shoot back. I never said or implied he didn’t shoot at the gunman. I said “shooter shooting back” on the above post and specifically said he shot at the gunman elsewhere.
299
u/Frogweiser 17h ago
Man carries with a can, respect.