When mass killers meet armed resistance...

More media “filtered” info…

~ This is an email I got from a friend (who hunts, and always carries a gun in his truck) ... I know it's long, but it is about some true stories of a few of these "rampage" killers who were actually brought down in the act by armed citizens (even armed students). And... how the media downplays the fact that the killers were stopped in their tracks because they met with "armed" resistance. I thought it was interesting. I Googled a lot of these things, and it's all true. I wonder why we never heard about them? Those are the questions we need to ask:

1. Who has the power to control the Media?
2. Why would they downplay these stories?
3. Who stands to gain something from downplaying these stories?

When Mass Killers Meet Armed Resistence:

It took place at a university in Virginia. A student with a grudge, an immigrant, pulled a gun and went on a shooting spree. It wasn’t Virginia Tech at all. It was the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, not far away. You can easily drive from the one school to the other, just take a trip down Route 460 through Tazewell.

It was January 16, 2002 when Peter Odighizuwa came to campus. He had been suspended due to failing grades. Odighizuwa was angry and waving a gun calling on students to “come get me”. The students, seeing the gun, ran. A shooting spree started almost immediately. In seconds Odighizuwa had killed the school dean, a professor and one student. Three other students were shot as well, one in the chest, one in the stomach and one in the throat.

Many students heard the shots. Two who did were Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges. Mikael was outside the school having just returned to campus from lunch when he heard the shots. Tracy was inside attending class. Both immediately ran to their cars. Each had a handgun locked in the vehicle.

Bridges pulled a .357 Magnum pistol and he later said he was prepared to shoot to kill if necessary. He and Gross both approached Odighizuwa at the same time from different directions. Both were pointing their weapons at him. Bridges yelled for Odighizuwa to drop his weapon. When the shooter realized they had the drop on him he threw his weapon down. A third student, unarmed, Ted Besen, approached the killer and was physically attacked.

But Odighizuwa was now disarmed. The three students were able to restrain him and held him for the police. Odighizuwa is now in prison for the murders he committed. His killing spree ended when he faced two students with weapons. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

You wouldn’t know much about that though. Do you wonder why? The media, though it widely reported the attack left out the fact that Bridges and Gross were armed. Most simply reported that the gunman was jumped and subdued by other students. That two of those students were now armed didn’t get a mention.

James Eaves-Johnson wrote about this fact one week later. The Daily Iowan. He wrote: “A Lexus-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross was armed.” This 2002 article noted “This was a very public shooting with a lot of media coverage.” But the media left out information showing how two students with firearms ended the killing spree.

He also mentioned a second incident. And while I had read many articles on this shooting for an article I wrote about school bullying not a single one mentioned the role that a firearm played in stopping it. Until today I didn’t know the full story.

Luke Woodham was a troubled teen. He felt no one really liked him. In 1997 he murdered his mother and put on a trench coat. He filled the pockets with ammunition and took a handgun to the Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. In rapid succession killed two students and wounded seven others.

He had the incident planned out. He would start shooting students and continue until he heard police sirens in the distance. That would allow him time to get in his car and leave campus. From there he intended to go to the nearby Pearl Junior High School and start shooting again. How it would end was not clear. Perhaps he would kill himself or perhaps the police would finally catch up with him and kill him. Either way a lot more people were going to get shot and die.

What Woodham hadn’t planned for was the actions of Assistant Principal Joel Myrick <;http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/101297/LA0540.htm> . Myrick heard the gun shots. He couldn’t have a handgun in the school. But he did keep one locked in his vehicle in the parking lot. He ran outside and retrieved the gun.

As Myrick headed back toward the school Woodham was in his vehicle headed for his next intended target. Myrick aimed his gun at the shooter. The teen crashed his car when he saw the gun. Myrick approached the car and held a gun to the killer who surrendered immediately. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

So you didn’t know about that. Neither did I until today. Eaves-Johnson wrote that there were “687 articles on the school shooting in Pearl, Miss. Of those, only 19 mentioned that” Myrick had used a gun to stop Woodham “four-and-a-half minutes before police arrived.”

Many people probably forgot about the shooting in Edinboro, Pennsylvania. It was a school graduation dance that Andrew Wurst entered to take out his anger on the school. First he shot teacher John Gillette outside. He started shooting randomly inside the restaurant where the 240 students had gathered.

It was restaurant owner James Strand, armed with a shot gun, who captured the shooter and held him for police. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

It was February 12th of this year that a young man entered the Trolley Square Shopping Mall, in Salt Lake City. The mall was a self-declared “gun free zone” forbidding patrons from carrying weapons. He wasn’t worried. In fact he appreciated knowing that his victims couldn’t defend themselves.

He opened fire even before he got inside killing his first victims immediately outside the front door. As he walked down the mall hallway he fired in all directions. Several more people were shot inside a card store immediately inside the mall. The shooter moved on to the Pottery Barns Kids store.

What he didn’t know is that one patron of the mall, Kenneth Hammond, had ignored the signs informing patrons they must be unarmed to enter. He was a police officer but he was not on duty and he was not a police officer for Salt Lake City. By all standards he was a civilian that day and probably should have left his firearm in his vehicle.

It’s a good thing he didn’t. He was sitting in the mall with his wife having dinner when he heard the shots. He told her to hide and to call 911 emergency services. He went to confront the gunman. The killer found himself under gun fire much sooner than he anticipated. From this point on all his effort was to protect himself from Hammond, he had no time to kill anyone else. Hammond was able to pin down the shooter until police finally arrived and one of them shot the man to death. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

In each of these cases a killer is stopped the moment he faces armed resistance. It is clear that in three of these cases the shooter intended to continue his killing spree. In the fourth case, Andrew Wurst, it is not immediately apparent whether he intended to keep shooting or not since he was apprehended by the restaurant owner leaving the scene.

Three of these cases involved armed resistance by students, faculty or civilians. In one case the armed resistance was from an off-duty police officer in a city where he had no legal authority and where he was carrying his weapon in violation of the mall’s gun free policy.

What would have happened if these people waited for the police? In three cases the shooters were apprehended before the police arrived because of armed civilians. At Trolley Square the shooter was kept busy by Hammond until the police arrived. In all four cases the local police were the Johnny-come-latelys.

Consider the horrific events at Virginia Tech. Again an armed man enters a “gun free zone”. He kills two victims and walks away long before the police arrive. He spends two hours on campus, doing what is unknown. He then enters another building on campus and begins shooting. He never encounters a police officer during this. And all the students and faculty present had apparently complied with the “no gun” policy of the university. So no one stopped him. NO ONE STOPPED HIM! And when he finished his shooting spree 32 people were dead. It was the killer who ended the spree. He took his own life and when the police arrived all they dealt with were the dead.

There were many further victims that day. The shooter never met with armed resistance

_________________
~ to know, to dare, to will, to keep silent. ~

Last edited by taken by the wind... on Tue May 08, 2007 9:55 am; edited 6 times in total

WOW!! I didn't know about all that. Thanks. Very Happy

_________________
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. - Psalms 53:1

Good info. Thanks, I didn't know that.
In Canada, us law abiding citizens have to register are guns but the criminals don't have to, and they also get to carry them Rolling Eyes

eric

Okay I want to know:

1) How did the DEFENDER prevent himself from being mistaken as the SHOOTER? (A cop can announce POLICE OFFICER - but that could be false)
2) What stopped the DEFENDER from just openning fire on the SHOOTER, and getting the wrong guy, or a bystander (yes, police are trained for this)

Do not get me wrong. I am all for controlled weapons. Just looking for tougher ways to get guns out of criminals hands, and easier ways to get the guns into law abidding well trained citizens.

offroad1994 wrote:

Okay I want to know:

1) How did the DEFENDER prevent himself from being mistaken as the SHOOTER? (A cop can announce POLICE OFFICER - but that could be false)
2) What stopped the DEFENDER from just openning fire on the SHOOTER, and getting the wrong guy, or a bystander (yes, police are trained for this)

Do not get me wrong. I am all for controlled weapons. Just looking for tougher ways to get guns out of criminals hands, and easier ways to get the guns into law abidding well trained citizens.

I don't know if your in the US but most if not all of the articles were in the USA. Read the Constitution about the right to bear arms. It doesn`t say ``Bear arms if your trained``

Hell our founding fathers who created the constitution spoke AGAIN and AGAIN about the importance of not having a standing army and instead having well armed citizens.

Did you know that there are states were Open Carry (carring a fire arm open to be seen anywhere without a permit) don't have people running around and shooting people. Hell even though its legal people still get bugged by the cops because they think if you have a gun your a criminal but that is not the case.

This is why I will be moving to New Hampshire where people are fighting for our rights that are CLEARLY outlined in the Constitution.

Oh....

Also since crimnals get there guns through illegal means, and ofcourse don't register them how does making it harder to get guns legally stop criminals? It doesn't! It just makes it easier for the goverment to come and use the military against citizens (which is against the constitution as well mind you, but has been done and there is now a executive order by bush to male it the norm in a emergency for the US military to use there guns against the citizens)

Its just like the war on drugs. Since we have been fighting the war on drugs for 100 years have you seen a decrease in drugs? Nope... and the police and politicians don't care as long as they can keep using the war on drugs to continue expanding there bankroll and scaring people into giving up there rights.

I will leave this with a quote I hold dear...

Benjamin Franklin once said . . . ``Those who give a little freedom for a llittle security deserve to have neither``

My own opinion... and I feel like an idiot that I didn't know there are still "open carry" States... Rolling Eyes

At the risk of sounding cliche, guns don't kill people... people kill people.

I support the 2nd Amendment right to "bear arms" here in the U.S.... it's an important part of our heritage here, and it was intended as our last and final fail-safe against tyranny and anarchy:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But in this day and age with far more people and bigger cities than our founders ever could have imagined... I absolutely think it is every gun-owner's serious responsibility to learn gun-safety and take a course in gun-ownership, handling, safety. And I agree with required government-checks by gun dealers that guns aren't being sold to criminals, etc. Makes perfect sense to me, a citizen, and I think our founders would agree. My father and grandfather did me a good service by teaching me from a young age to respect, and how to properly use, firearms.

This is as political as I'll get, here on our board. Wink

_________________
"Asinus sæculæ maximus."

	ColdSoul wrote:
	Oh.... Also since crimnals get there guns through illegal means, and ofcourse don't register them how does making it harder to get guns legally stop criminals? `

The smart criminals will always have guns. Always. A good reason to have your own, and be well trained in its use.

The dumb criminals (the majority are) will try to get guns through normal means. And be stopped.

So HOPEFULLY we get the guns out of the hands of the dumb criminals. The ones likely to shoot someone over a parking lot accident, or a girlfriend.

I feel the population is dumbing down somewhat, but that just might be an age thing (as I get older all the dumb buddies die off). That would mean we are seeing more dumb criminals. This may not be good logic, but it is my opinion.

_________________
#Les Stroud# FIVE "Ws" of survival. 1- Wood for fire. 2- Widowmakers - to fall on you, or bite, etc. 3- Wigglies making sure they do not get into your bedding. 4- Weather - make sure you have shelter 5 - Water as much as a gallon a day.

From what I've heard and read, statistics are bearing out that in areas that allow guns and concealed-carry, crime rates have been going down. This is not what was anticipated by many who are against guns.

Many anti-gun people thought that gun-owners were going to be having gunfights on the streets, and it would be like the Old West, and Dodge City again. This simply hasn't happened, and in fact there are stories routinely of fights and crimes being avoided, simply because a criminal knew that someone had a gun.

I think you're right offroad... criminals will always get and have guns, no matter how many anti-gun laws there are.

_________________
"Asinus sæculæ maximus."

offroad1994 wrote:

The smart criminals will always have guns. Always. A good reason to have your own, and be well trained in its use.

The dumb criminals (the majority are) will try to get guns through normal means. And be stopped.

So HOPEFULLY we get the guns out of the hands of the dumb criminals. The ones likely to shoot someone over a parking lot accident, or a girlfriend.

I feel the population is dumbing down somewhat, but that just might be an age thing (as I get older all the dumb buddies die off). That would mean we are seeing more dumb criminals. This may not be good logic, but it is my opinion.

So your willing to give up freedoms for a little security huh? Did you even read the Benjamin Franklin quote I posted?

Here it is again for good measure: ``Those who give a little freedom for a llittle security deserve to have neither`` Which means to me you don't deserve either because your not only giving up your freedoms, your giving up mine because you want to feel safe. What kind of crap is that?

To me this is the reason the government is being allowed to do all the crap it's doing. You think oh well I don't mind registering all my guns, and going through a 2 week waiting period if it keeps just a few criminals from having guns. Well guess what I do mind registering my guns, and waiting 2 weeks and filling out a bunch of paperwork to get a gun, or continue to own one legally. If you want to do all that you do it involuntarily and not FORCE me to do so.

You have to understand that if it ever comes down to it where people are protesting all over the US because the government finally started pissing off enough people, and enough people finally start waking up. You know what is going to happen then? The government is going to send the police, the national guard, and the army to go and stop those people from protesting, and if they have guns they will prob. take the guns from them by raiding there house. Hell up in Canada they just sent in some police masked and undercover. One of the cops who was undercover and masked along with 2 other undercover cops slipped into the protesters and picked up a big rock trying to insight the protestors so that the big line of thug police could come and bust some heads making the protesters look bad by the media and everyone. But since the protesters noticed they were cops (because they had puncture resistant boots, the exact same one all the cops in riot gear were wearing). They acted like they were pushing there way through the riot line, and the riot police "arrested them". The police denied it for about 1 day until finally they admitted they did sneak undercover cops into the protest.

*Paragraph edited out by Dobry* (ColdSoul, I just sent you a pm... no problem, actually for your benefit) Wink

Dobry

As long as the government has guns, and criminals have guns why should it be hard for citizens to get guns? Makes no sense what so ever.

A well armed society is a polite society

Also anyone notice that these people are taking guns and shooting people in "gun free zones".

Do you see anyone storming into a police office to kill people? Nope, and you know why? Because people are armed there.

If everyone was allowed to open carry/concealed carry without a permit then this would happen only at the business that forced people to not bring there guns in, because 1 criminal or nut would sneak there gun in and start shooting people. And since everyone left there guns outside there will be nothing they can do about it. The teachers and administration at these schools should be allowed to have guns (like some have requested but been denied) so that when these nuts show up they quickly get shot without being able to complete there dumb ass plan, and that will lead to less people doing so.

But my problem is that when the media gets a hold of a positive gun story they hide the fact that people used there own guns for defense of themselves or other people. Just recently a couple stopped a shooter back east at a college because they heard some shots and got there guns from there locked car. Then confronted the gun from behind and both sides and then another student tackled him. The media didn't mention the 2 armed students just the student who tackled him because that would not promote people to continue to be lemmings and follow the illegal government laws.

Moved the thread to General Chat... thought it was more appropriate.

_________________
"Asinus sæculæ maximus."

Also this is just my info. I have read an article saying Washington D.C. had one of the most increasing crime rates in the country, so they decided to ban selling or carrying all guns for the citizens. What they didnt realize is that the criminals wouldnt obey that law. If I remember this was a couple of years ago and since then Washington D.C.'s crime rate has gone up substantially and at one point and time it was the number one crime state.

I personally agree with the statements of faculty carrying guns (mainly the principles)

Maybe one day we will all listen to Steven Colbert and let all of the students carry guns too! Laughing

My quote I leave you is Si vis pacem, para bellum. "If you want peace, prepare for war"