DimWit Politics

Oklahoma shooting poorly reported. Why?

 Breaking News

Oklahoma shooting poorly reported. Why?

Oklahoma shooting poorly reported.  Why?
May 29
16:00 2018

Oklahoma shooting poorly reported.  Why?

On May 22 of this year, Alexander Tilghman entered the popular Louie’s Bar & Grill in Lake Hefner, Oklahoma at the peak dinner hour.  Wearing shooting-range gear (protective glasses and ear “muffs”), he pulled out a hand gun and started firing.  The shooting ended after he wounded three patrons of the eatery – all with survivable wounds, fortunately.  The victims were a 39-year-old mother, her 12-year-old daughter and another child.

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Most of the major news outlets gave the incident a bit of one-day coverage – many not at all.  They virtually abandoned their habit of making every mass shooter a poster child for gun control. Could it have had something to do with the outcome?

Why did Tilghman stop shooting?  Because he was dead.

Oklahoma is one of those carry and conceal states –where almost anyone could have a gun in their pocket or in their car.  And sure enough, two bystanders retrieved personal guns from their vehicles and took on the gunman before he could continue his rampage.

It is important to understand that these heroes took action within seconds of the first shot being fired.  They immediately engaged the gun man, drawing his attention away from the restaurant long enough to see the flashes of the gun that ended his attack and his life. 

While it is not measurable, it can be said with some certainty that had the folks in that restaurant or nearby had to await the arrival of the police, many others could have been wounded or killed.  We know that from the tragic outcomes of all the attacks on crowds where no one had a defensive weapon on the scene.

The outcome in Hefner Lake also rebuts one of the central arguments against arming civilians – that they do not know how to use a gun and are likely to do more damage than resolve the situation.  That contention was also refuted by the civilian who killed the Texas church shooter before police arrived.

This is not a story the anti-gun media likes to promote because the weapon of choice was not the dreaded AR-15 or some other high-volume gun mislabeled as an “assault rifle.”  Tilghman was about to murder as many people – men, women and children — as he could with a hand gun.

The heroes of the day were Juan Carlos Nazario, 35 (pictured), and Bryan Whittle, 39. They showed police-like restraint – ordering Tilghman to drop his weapon.  Only after the shooter refused and fired in their direction did Nazario fire two shots, taking down Tilghman.  Nazario and Whittle demurred from the title of “hero,” saying anyone would have done the same – at least some “anyone” who was allowed to carry a gun in public

One of the reasons that the debate over guns is so acrid is that the media determines their coverage based on only one view.  That will never bring understanding and resolution.

About Author

Larry Horist

Larry Horist

Larry Horist is a conservative activist with an extensive background in economics, public policy and politics. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman, as well as the White House. He has testified as an expert witness before legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress, and lectured at major colleges and universities. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He can be reached at lph@thomasandjoyce.com.

Related Articles


  1. FDR II
    FDR II May 30, 09:19

    Cherry picked another one, NRA-style. Why not report that guns are 18 times as likely to kill or wound someone innocent or suicidal as to stop the proverbial “bad guy?” Doesn’t the public deserve all the facts? (And yes, some suicides would still happen but studies show that if we make it harder to do, many change their minds and live.)

    Reply to this comment
    • Nanny
      Nanny May 30, 12:48

      No “cherry picking”- just facts.
      Thank you for concealed handgun permits…
      This saves lives

      Reply to this comment
    • Jimmy Peterman
      Jimmy Peterman April 12, 02:16

      “Why not report that guns are 18 times as likely to kill or wound someone innocent or suicidal as to stop the proverbial “bad guy?”

      Because it’s not true. And yes, the public deserves all the facts, not the BS that gets reported or the information that gets left out.

      Reply to this comment
  2. Vic
    Vic May 30, 11:10


    Reply to this comment
  3. Eric
    Eric May 30, 13:24

    What I hear is whining. Three people wounded in a small diner in Oklahoma by a guy with a pistol is hardly in the same category as a kid obtaining assault style weapons and killing up to dozens of students in a school. Do I care about the victims? Yes, I do. Am I glad trained people with guns stopped him? Yes, I am. But Larry Horist is conflating different events, and along the way trying to create a strawman by claiming the media only cares about one pov.

    Reply to this comment
    • JudyB
      JudyB May 30, 16:16

      Since when do we compare tragedies…a person with a gun looking to murder innocent people has the potential for the same impact as any mass murderer. Point here is that the perpetrator was stopped.

      Reply to this comment
    • Putts 4 dough
      Putts 4 dough May 31, 15:28

      What a moron. If the good folks hadn’t stopped him, you may have gotten your “dozens” gunned down (including more children). Then your feeble mind might be able to equate this with similar incidents. It doesn’t have to be school children to be tragic. Are you actually stupid enough to believe that the mass media doesn’t have an agenda?

      Reply to this comment
  4. TJ
    TJ May 31, 08:58

    Politicians cannot stop criminals with gun control legislation. Fifty years of anti gun laws have not worked. It is time to try armed response by responsible trained citizens as the two heroes in Oklahoma here demonstrated. Even if only one in ten people are armed the response will be quicker and more effective than waiting for the police to arrive. Why do politicians surround themselves with armed protection? Because they know that when a defensive weapon is needed it is needed now. Even a quick police response time of 5 to 15 minutes will be too late for many in an active criminal shooter situation. Also, if more citizens are armed and ready to defend it may serve as a deterrent.The bad guys may stop and think twice if they know they will likely be shot and their sick plans thwarted. What do we have to lose? It can’t be any worse than the failed gun control we have now, which only makes law abiding citizens defenseless sitting ducks.

    Reply to this comment

Write a Comment

Special Offer

Latest Comments

He avoids the truth surrounding the Civil War. He goes into comedy mode when touchy...

Is it possible the Democratic Party/Mainstream Media establishment has realized the big mistake they have...

30% of Americans are brainwashed sheeple that would bleat agreement with anything Leftist Democrats say--including...

Take a Look!

Don’t Miss This!

12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt Displaying 12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt.