I’ll provide the links you neglected to include in your post.
First, the Slate piece:
I’m not sure why you think this article is “sewage.” Did you even read it, or just assume that, because it was published in Slate, it was some kind of leftist rant?
From the article:
Willeford was undoubtedly heroic, but as an argument for wider gun rights, this example is not as straightforward as conservatives make it seem.
I couldn’t agree more. Mr. Willeford did not, unfortunately, stop the mass shooting at Sutherland Springs. He did, maybe, assist in the apprehension of the shooter (or, more accurately, the discovery of his body).
However, as the article says, it is possible that Mr. Willeford prevented more killings. We don’t, and will never, know, but it’s possible:
But did Willeford prevent Kelley from resuming his rampage at a second location? It’s possible. After all, Kelley was shot in the firefight and dropped his gun before he jumped into his vehicle, and the ensuing chase by Willeford and the other man may have led to Kelley’s car crash and/or apparent suicide. But we don’t know—no evidence suggests that Kelley planned to shoot more people elsewhere.
So, I’m not sure why you see this article as “sewage.” Can you explain?
The Washington Post article is here. It’s not really a terrible story, even from your point of view. What about it, in your opinion, makes it “sewage”?