pageok
pageok
pageok
Hero Stops Mass Shooting:

From a Winnemucca, Nevada police statement:

On Sunday May 25, 2008 at approximately 2:30 a.m. the Winnemucca Police Department was dispatched to the Players Bar and Grill .... There were approximately 300 patrons in and around the bar....

The officers on scene discovered three adult males who had died from obvious gunshot wounds. Two additional gunshot victims were also located[, treated, and released from the hospital]....

The ... investigation lead detectives to believe that [Ernesto Fuentes] Villagomez[, 30,] entered the bar and at some point began firing multiple rounds. At least two of these rounds struck and killed the other two decedents, Jose Torres age, 20 and his brother Margarito Torres, age 19 both of Winnemucca. At some point during this shooting spree Villagomez allegedly stopped and according to witnesses reloaded his high capacity handgun and began shooting again.

It was at this point that ... [a 48-year-old Reno man] produced a concealed handgun and proceeded to fire upon Villagomez who succumbed to his wounds. The Reno resident was in possession of a valid Concealed Carry Permit issued through the Washoe County Sheriff's Office.... [T]he shooting of Villagomez by the Reno man was [concluded to be] a justifiable homicide ....

The investigation is currently pursuing a lead that indicates that this event may have been the result of a long standing feud between several families....

My hat is off to the anonymous man who likely could have blended into the crowd and escaped, but who put himself at considerable risk to protect the lives of others.

Thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer.

Bill Poser (mail) (www):
I've visited Winnemucca. In addition to biker events and gunplay, it is known for its Basque food.
5.29.2008 1:22am
Dave D. (mail):
...Goes a long way towards proving a negative; that folks were not shot that would have been.
5.29.2008 1:23am
ithaqua (mail):
How much would you bet that "[Ernesto Fuentes] Villagomez[, 30,]" was an illegal alien? If we stopped these people on our borders, we wouldn't have to stop them in our bars.

Nevertheless, well done to the hero. You'd never see a liberal risking his life to save others' like that.
5.29.2008 1:29am
Anon21:
ithaqua, it's fairly obvious you're trolling, so perhaps I shouldn't bother. But unless you are in some way personally connected to this incident, you know absolutely nothing about the man who intervened and stopped the shooting except that he is 48, a resident of Reno, Nevada, and has a concealed carry permit and a handgun. He could be an Obama precinct captain for all you know, but you choose to assume he is not a liberal, and make the demonstrably false assertion that liberals do not risk their lives to save others' lives. Even for trolling, this is fairly low-grade stuff.
5.29.2008 2:06am
dircast:
I am a shooting instructor in California. One of the courses I teach is a qualification course, to people who have already had their background and good cause approve by their local Chief Law Enforcement Officer - usually the county sheriff, but sometimes a city Chief of Police. I have had more than 300 students go through the CCW class.

Of that 300, I have met only 8 or so that would be fairly described as liberal. Most were women who had restraining orders against people (2 former husbands, 1 boyfriend, one former female domestic partner and 1 daughter) and who had never considered owning a gun previously. The other three were family lawyers. In every case they handle, someone ends up hating them, either their own client or the ex, they also came to carry a gun reluctantly - one after being shot.

Maybe Nevada is different from California. In California you're not allowed to carry a concealed weapon into a bar like "The Player's Club" and apparently in Nevada you can. But from my experience the odds are overwhelming that the Samaritan in this case was conservative, Republican, over 30 with a college degree and a regular church goer.
5.29.2008 3:09am
Snarky:
As a liberal Democrat who loves guns and strongly supports an individual rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, I would suggest that people who believe in protecting gun ownership from undue infringement avoid making it a partisan issue.

If you want guns to be increasingly restricted, there is no better way than to isolate those of us on the left who support gun ownership.
5.29.2008 3:21am
Snarky:
Let me put it this way. It puts me in a more awkward position supporting gun ownership when I am informed that this is essentially a conservative position that a good liberal would not support.

I do not see what could be more liberal than strong support for gun ownership. Guns are the great equalizer.
5.29.2008 3:23am
Jerry F:
Anon21: Even if one were to make, for the sake of argument, the assumption that an atheist is as likely as a conservative to risk his life in order to save another's, it still remains the case that a liberal wouldn't have been carrying a gun at the bar in the first place and, therefore, wouldn't have been in a position to be a hero. So Ithaqua's somewhat knee-jerk remark holds no matter what.

Of course, if I were a cynic, I would also point out that a liberal wouldn't have acted in this situation for fear that conservative media outlets would cite to the story as an argument against gun control. But of course no liberals would ever think something so reprehensible...
5.29.2008 3:54am
Jerry F:
I note that this blog post might as well have been called "Gun Stops Mass Shooting". Guns may not stop mass shootings without heros, but neither can heros stop mass shootings without guns.
5.29.2008 4:01am
Brian K (mail):
neither can heros [sic] stop mass shootings without guns.

sure they can. the guy would still be a hero even if he took out his trusty rapier and used it to cut the rope holding up a chandelier causing it to fall on and knock out the shooter.

having a gun is not a requirement to be a hero nor is it necessary to stop a mass shooting (it just makes it easier).
5.29.2008 4:27am
gwinje:
A shitty situation all the way around. For some reason, the pro/anti gun control debate wasn't the first thing that came to mind when I read this story.
5.29.2008 5:20am
Hoosier:
Brian K--Sure. But now the liberals want to take away our chandeliers.
5.29.2008 6:13am
Daniel Chapman (mail):
"Guns are the great equalizer"

Aside from the rather scary thought of armed class revolution that you seem to be invoking, no one's talking about passing out free handguns to the poor. As happy as I am to see you support an individual right to bear arms, I think your rationale is a little off.
5.29.2008 6:58am
zippypinhead:
I'm guessing that Brady Campaign press releases and Helmke's blogging at places like the Huffington Post may not feature this one?

Most of the armed defense reports in places like the NRA-ILA "Armed Citizen" column or the blogs that follow Second Amendment issues tend to be home defense or first-person victim defense stories. This one is significant because it involves a CCW permit holder stopping an armed attack in a crowded public place. If there are any more extensive media or press articles on this incident, it will be easier for the story to get wider coverage in the mainstream media (if you track the Instapundit source back through the nested blogs, you simply get to a Reno newspaper's on-line reprint of a police statement without any apparent reporting or analysis).

Ironic that the incident took place at a biker bar as opposed to one of the typical "gun free zones" like a campus or shopping mall where the worst mass shooting incidents have typically occurred. The shooter clearly didn't think through his plan very well -- about the only places I can think of where it's more predictable that you'd get return fire if you start killing people might be a police station or a Gun Owners of America convention...
5.29.2008 7:19am
John Neff:
The report appears to be an explanation of why the 48 year old man from Reno was not charged. What I don't understand is why the original gunman and the two victims were identified and the second gunman was not.
5.29.2008 7:40am
Josh Barro (www):
My guess is that it's the department's policy not to reveal the names of witnesses. Releasing witness names would, for example, make it easier for potential defendants to intimidate witnesses before discovery begins.
5.29.2008 8:07am
Curt Fischer:

What I don't understand is why the original gunman and the two victims were identified and the second gunman was not.


I wondered the same thing. One possibility is that the second gunman wished not to be identified, and the police chose to honor his request.

I'm sure many other explanations are possible as well.
5.29.2008 8:08am
PersonFromPorlock:
Snarky:

I do not see what could be more liberal than strong support for gun ownership. Guns are the great equalizer.

You may well be right, but the Liberals you vote for disagree.
5.29.2008 8:10am
A. Nony Mouse:
Me: Liberal, Red State resident, Hillary campaign volunteer, combat veteran (Desert Storm and Panama), CCW holder, gun owner.

While it is probably true that a substantial majority of gun owners and CCW holders are politically conservative, it is not so overwhelmingly true that safe assumptions are possible. In my shooting club (entirely composed of veterans, btw), we are only slightly weighted in favor of conservatives.

Of the two Silver Star recipients in the club, both are serious liberals. I think the holder of a Silver Star counts as a hero, don't you?

And, yes, I am fully aware that anecdote is not the singular of data. I am only speaking from personal experience.
5.29.2008 8:26am
Kevin P. (mail):
This pissing match about liberals is stupid. Yes, it is probably true that conservatives are more likely than liberals to own guns in general. I live in Austin, a liberal mecca, and encounter a fair number of gun owning liberals who understand and support gun ownership.

Gun ownership and the Second Amendment should be appreciated and supported by everyone across the political spectrum. Don't turn away potential allies just because you don't like all their politics.
5.29.2008 8:34am
Aultimer:

dircast:

Of that 300 [CCW students], I have met only 8 or so that would be fairly described as liberal. Most were women who had restraining orders against people (2 former husbands, 1 boyfriend, one former female domestic partner and 1 daughter) and who had never considered owning a gun previously. The other three were family lawyers.


Do you merely have "lib-dar" or is there some other means of determining the persuasion of your students?
5.29.2008 8:54am
FantasiaWHT:
This man should, but probably won't, get a Medal of Honor.

I'm a conservative Republican in one of the last two or three states that doesn't allow concealed-carry (our Democrat governor kept vetoing it), so I have considerable reason to trash liberals when it comes to the issue, but the attacks and assumptions being made in this thread are ridiculous. It SHOULD be a nonpartisan issue and I applaud people on both sides who recognize that.
5.29.2008 9:43am
bornyesterday (mail) (www):
A single issue does not a party member make. Da, Comrade?
5.29.2008 9:44am
FantasiaWHT:
This man should, but probably won't, get a Medal of Honor.

I'm a conservative Republican in one of the last two or three states that doesn't allow concealed-carry (our Democrat governor kept vetoing it), so I have considerable reason to trash liberals when it comes to the issue, but the attacks and assumptions being made in this thread are ridiculous. It SHOULD be a nonpartisan issue and I applaud people on both sides who recognize that.
5.29.2008 9:44am
ruralcounsel (mail) (www):
Snarky wrote:

As a liberal Democrat who loves guns and strongly supports an individual rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, I would suggest that people who believe in protecting gun ownership from undue infringement avoid making it a partisan issue.

If you want guns to be increasingly restricted, there is no better way than to isolate those of us on the left who support gun ownership.


What, both of you?

No really, I do appreciate that the RTKBA is not strictly a conservative/liberal issue, in the cause and effect sense. But you have to acknowledge that there sure is a strong correlation. You must already feel pretty isolated. Do you think your existance has any real impact on the policies of the Left and really slows down their kneejerk impulses to further restrict gun rights? You may be a member of their club, but I don't think they are listening to you. At all.

And frankly, I think Democratic politicians are the ones who repeatedly make it a partisan issue. After all, they are the ones trying to upset the historical status quo. Remember all us "bitter" people who turn to guns? All the big city liberal mayors trying to sue firearms manufacturers? Howard Metzenbaum? Ted Kennedy? Nancy Pelosi? I'm sorry you few outliers get caught in the crossfire. (Kind of like fiscal conservatives who support or could care less about gay marriage or open immigration!)

BTW, I think your use of 'liberal" is in the more classical traditional sense. In that sense, I would consider myself a liberal as well. But I don't see a strong connection between that and the modern day policies from the "left" portion of the political spectrum ... who, by failing to understand the laws of unintended consequences, only want to create equality in terms of making everyone equally miserable, powerless, and poor. (Except the leaders, of course!)
5.29.2008 9:47am
bornyesterday (mail) (www):

This man should, but probably won't, get a Medal of Honor


Obviously he won't; he isn't a soldier.


Do you merely have "lib-dar" or is there some other means of determining the persuasion of your students?


I suppose he could talk to them.
5.29.2008 12:15pm
EH (mail):
Do you think your existance has any real impact on the policies of the Left and really slows down their kneejerk impulses to further restrict gun rights?

Nice textbook illustration of partisanship. Being a liberal in support of gun ownership does not make one responsible for an entire ideology. You know, nothing requires you to subscribe to Dick Cheney's "1% Doctrine."

Remember all us "bitter" people who turn to guns?

You're presuming to know the reasons why Mr. 48 Year Old Hero starting carrying in the first place.
5.29.2008 12:34pm
Aultimer:

bornyesterday :

Do you merely have "lib-dar" or is there some other means of determining the persuasion of your students?

I suppose he could talk to them.

Sure, because every left-leaning student in a firearms course is going to tell the whole truth. Kind of like how I told everyone at the city food pantry fundraiser that I'm a registered Republican.

If my firearms instructor asked me about my politics, I'd politely stonewall. If she went further, I'd probably claim whatever seemed to be the prevailing view in the class. If you've never been much of a minority, you might not understand.
5.29.2008 12:34pm
Ben P (mail):

I live in Austin, a liberal mecca, and encounter a fair number of gun owning liberals who understand and support gun ownership.


I think this reinforced a point I made somewhere in the past that the debate over gun ownership tends to be regional.

I might say Urban vs Rural, but the example of Austin doesn't fit with that.

I live in Arkansas. Arkansas state politics are dominated by the democratic party. The state went for Bush in 00 and 04, but neither year by significant margins.

Gun ownership is also highly popular here, myself included.

Where you see virulent anti-gun feelings are not typically in these areas of the country, but there's still significant portions of the populations there that vote democratic.
5.29.2008 1:18pm
Smokey:
Hoosier:
Brian K--Sure. But now the liberals want to take away our chandeliers.
LOL! It's funny because that is about the level of what passes for 'rational' anti-gun arguments.
5.29.2008 1:22pm
theobromophile (www):
My hat is off to that man. Undeniably, there are families who have their husbands and fathers home and alive with them, because of his bravery.

Guns are the great equalizer

I didn't read that as a class revolution thing; I read it as a woman/disabled person/etc thing. I'm tall. I'm strong. Nevertheless, a lot of men could beat me up if they wanted to, and I probably wouldn't stand a chance if I had to fight off more than one. The only way I would have a chance, whether or not they were armed, is if I were armed.

The Pink Pistols embraces this philosophy. They are the gay gun group - promoting responsible gun ownership and use. The theory is that gays are often the targets of violence, and responsible gun ownership can either prevent the violence (flashing the gun will scare off a lot of would-be-macho-man attackers) or give the guy a chance when faced with a group of attackers.
5.29.2008 1:23pm
Anon Y. Mous:

"Guns are the great equalizer"

Aside from the rather scary thought of armed class revolution that you seem to be invoking, no one's talking about passing out free handguns to the poor. As happy as I am to see you support an individual right to bear arms, I think your rationale is a little off.

LOL. It's not a class warfare thing. The people who get equalized are the weak. With a gun, I am equally able to defend myself whether I'm 4'2" flabby senior citizen, or a 6'5" 300 lb NFL lineman.
5.29.2008 1:23pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
Now as big a fan of gunplay at biker bars as I am, a whole lot of emphasis is being placed on our CCW hero, but nobody seems to be interested in asking any questions about the initial shooter. Did he have a valid permit for his gun? While the article (and the comments) seems to imply that this was some crazed gunman, on the other hand, the other two fatalities were brothers who the shooter apparently had a beef with.
5.29.2008 1:24pm
Jacob Berlove:
At least from the tone of the article, it almost appears like police did everything they could short of putting the guy on trial to deter future such acts. The length of the hero's custody is left unstated, but the article does say that the man "was initially taken into custody at the scene as a person of interest", and that
After further investigation as well as ongoing discussions with Humboldt County District Attorney Russell Smith, the decision was made that the shooting of Villagomez by the Reno man was a justifiable homicide as outlined in Nevada Revised Statute 200.120 and 200.160. Because of this the Reno man was released from police custody.

So our hero got lucky that after "further investigation" and "ongoing discussions", the "decision was made" that the shooting was a "jutifiable homicide", and the shooter was therefore released from police custody. He meanwhile may be stuck with an arrest on his record, undoubtedly was not compensated for the embarrasment, fear, and other hardship that resulted from his being detained, or for any lost wages. In addition to the inevitable mark on his psyche that he killed a man that will be with him for the rest of his life, he also is stuck with a possible stigma of having being taken into police custody, and no matter what the explanations, there undoubtedly will be people with the attitude that nothing would have happened to him had there been any question about his conduct.

The law is way too permissive in this field in allowing the police to do this to men who put there lives at considerable more risk than the average cop or fire-fighter. If our hero had been a police officer, he would just have been temporarily assigned to desk duty awaiting an investigation, but because he did his duty as an average citizen, he was subject to an unofficial policy of "arrest first, ask questions later".
5.29.2008 1:24pm
Jiminy (mail):
I loved Tom Morello's sticker on his guitar: Arm the Homeless
5.29.2008 1:26pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
Hmmm. So if the bad guy had barged into the bar and begun shooting . . . er, knifing without a firearm, what would we be saying here?

Seems to me that more good people (far as we know, anyway) than bad people got killed here. Why is this story positive about firearms? What am I missing?

Many years ago, I took a new job and my new boss was bragging about how tough his hometown -- Council Bluffs -- was.

Sure, I thought.

A couple weeks later, a story came out of Council Bluffs. A robber with a shotgun went onto a bar, fired a shot into the ceiling and demanded money.

What he got was a full can of beer right between the eyes. As he went down, the other drinkers clubbed him nearly to death with pool cues. The cops had to save him.

When guns are outlawed, true heroes still will have beer, I guess.
5.29.2008 1:30pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
With a gun, I am equally able to defend myself whether I'm 4'2" flabby senior citizen, or a 6'5" 300 lb NFL lineman.

And there lies the great lie about firearms. Of course they are not the great equalizer. They might help. But if you were to ask me who would win in a confrontation between a 4'2" armed senior citizen with a concealed weapon and an unarmed 6'5" 300 lb NFL lineman, I would bet on the lineman. He would be able to snap Granny's neck before she even got her gun out of her purse. Give them both a gun and Granny wouldn't even stand a chance. (And if you are thinking of Granny Clamplett, she was hardly flabby/)
5.29.2008 1:31pm
therut:
A large portion of Democratic voters and politicians in Arkansas would be Conservatives in most parts of the country. Many people in my State of Arkansas vote Democratic become their parents did and we know how long that has been going on down here. Plus since most people in local elections run on the Democratic ticket people vote that way in State races otherwise you have no one else to vote for. Many conservatives run on the Democratic ticket. Arkansas is still a one party State out of tradition. It is a little less corrupt than it was 30 years ago but just a little. Alot of greasing the palm of family members and business associates down here. Espically in local races. Bubba who is not so bright can get a Gumbit job and so on.
5.29.2008 1:32pm
Jiminy (mail):
Jacob, the issue was that perhaps that hero was somehow aligned with the dead brothers and as such could have continued the apparent "feud" and exact some more retribution. How could anybody know one way or the other without detaining and questioning him?

Are you advocating that the cops just high-five the guy and send him on his way? They have the duty to follow up on a homicide and make sure he was just a good Samaritan who helped defend his fellow man against the killer's depredations. If he was another family member then the violence could easily have continued back and forth, putting further innocent people at risk.
5.29.2008 1:33pm
gab:
Let's balance EV's post with this bit of news from the Los Angeles Times.

Girl killed in Highland Park shooting is identified


"The 14-year-old had been on life support since the Tuesday attack, which wounded two others. A gang member, 16, is in custody."


A little background. A 14 year-old girl is sitting in the back seat of her parents' SUV driving down the street in Highland Park, and she's shot in the head by a 16 y.o. gang-banger.

And this happens literally every day in LA. Maybe she should have had her Glock loaded and sitting in her lap, so when she heard the gun shots she could have started firing...
5.29.2008 1:39pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
The law is way too permissive in this field in allowing the police to do this to men who put there lives at considerable more risk than the average cop or fire-fighter.

Give me a freaking break. There was a shooting incident at a bar where three people got killed and two wounded. There were 300 people at the bar and I'm sure lots of conflicting stories. Yet, in your world, the mere possession of a CCW permit means that the man responsible for one of the deaths must be completely blameless and the police should have let him go immediately without even bothering to figure out what happened.

It sounds like the police and prosecutors handled this perfectly appropriately. They investigated what happened and determined that the shooter was justified. Even if a cop had shot the guy, he would be put on administrative leave until it was determined it was justified.
5.29.2008 1:40pm
Ben P (mail):

A large portion of Democratic voters and politicians in Arkansas would be Conservatives in most parts of the country.


Yet Huckabee still won as Governor. He talks about the bias against republicans in his book some.

But that also doesn't change the basic point. Beebe, (who is, more or less, in my opinion the embodiment of Arkansas democratic politics) is probably somewhat more conservative than the mean in the Democratic party, but it's still silly to pretend that every democrat or even every quote "liberal" is some sort of stereotype upper class liberal from New York or San Francisco.
5.29.2008 1:40pm
PatHMV (mail) (www):
gab, I certainly sympathize with the little girl and his family, but such stories do not support the gun control position. Show me one city, one single city with tough gun controls where it is actually difficult or impossible for 16 year old gang-bangers to get guns. It just doesn't work. There are already way more guns in this country than will EVER be gotten off the streets, even if we adopted a nation-wide ban on all firearms tomorrow.

Moreover, without guns, gangbangers tend to use knives, baseball bats, and whatever else is handy. It's the gangbanger that's the problem, not the tool he uses. I'm all for making it illegal for any member of a street gang to possess a gun, and for locking them up for long periods if they are arrested with a gun in their possession. That will do far more to stop random gang violence then passing gun control laws... because the criminals will, as always, ignore the law, while the law-abiding folks will mostly obey that law, leaving us with a bunch of armed criminals and no armed good guys.
5.29.2008 1:54pm
luagha:
As usual, J.F. Thomas engages in a foolish lack of understanding of the real world - in this case a classic example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Let us say that a 4'2" unarmed, untrained senior citizen has perhaps a 1% chance of surviving a hostile encounter with an unarmed, untrained, determined 6'5" 300 lb NFL lineman in his prime. Why 1%? The senior citizen might poke him in the eye and grind in, or find some other such sensitive target. It could happen, but it is very unlikely.

But an armed 4'2" senior citizen with a concealed weapon has perhaps a 25% chance of surviving a hostile encounter with the same unarmed, untrained, but determined 6'5" 300 lb NFL lineman in his prime. There are many times in an imaginary conflict when a small gun might be brought into play close to the body and used defensively. And guns are so simple that it takes only a few hours to become 'trained' with them - anyone can do it in a weekend.

Even with the gun, the odds aren't 'even'. Once the lineman is close he has many advantages. But the chances are astoundingly better.

The surprising thing about it is that when they both have guns, the likelihood of granny's survival only goes down to 20%. Why? Because people don't die immediately when shot, especially with handguns, and close range shots often miss amongst the lightly trained. If you look at the data, you will find that her survival is more based on luck and determination than skill, plus the level of motivation in the lineman, and the closeness of a hospital.

I suggest you take some time to educate yourself on the nature of firearms conflict and gun safety. It really doesn't take very long, and to my mind it's just like learning to swim. You might live in a landlocked area, you might never plan to be on a boat or a pier or by a lake or a river, but you might travel somewhere new and you might just fall in the water. And you know, if you hit your head when you fall and you land in the rapids or get taken out to sea by a 10-knot current, you'll still drown even if you knew how to swim. But your chances are still much better if you know how to swim versus not.
5.29.2008 2:03pm
whit:
jacob, you have NO idea what you are talking about

it says he was taken into custody AT THE SCENE as a person of interest. they just had a shooting, and they were freezing the scene and "making it safe".

here's a hint. an arrest "at the scene" does NOT go down into any database as an "arrest" for the purposes of FBI, NCIC or any other criminal database.

the guy did NOT get booked, and no charges were recommended/filed, which is exactly what you would expect in a justified shooting. so, unless you have some additional information from what the article says, you are totally wrong.

the kneejerking here is amazing. it does not say he was BOOKED. it says he was arrested AT THE SCENE, and then released. iow, they put handcuffs on him (and who knows who else) until the scene was made safe and they could sort it out.

that's simply prudent police work, granted neither of us know the FACTS AND CIRCUMSTNACES KNOWN TO THE COPS AT THE TIME they placed him (and who knows who else) in handcuffs until they could get it sorted out.

all evidence suggests the police, prosecutors, the shooter, and everybody else did the right things and the right result happened as well.
5.29.2008 2:03pm
Brian G (mail) (www):
Gab said:


Let's balance EV's post with this bit of news from the Los Angeles Times.

Girl killed in Highland Park shooting is identified



"The 14-year-old had been on life support since the Tuesday attack, which wounded two others. A gang member, 16, is in custody."



A little background. A 14 year-old girl is sitting in the back seat of her parents' SUV driving down the street in Highland Park, and she's shot in the head by a 16 y.o. gang-banger.

And this happens literally every day in LA. Maybe she should have had her Glock loaded and sitting in her lap, so when she heard the gun shots she could have started firing...


This is a perfect example of the silliness of the gun control people like him. A 16 year old gang banger is ready to commit murder without thinking about it. Do you actually believe that he would be afraid to violate a gun law? Just look at the cities with tough gun control laws. Their murder rates are ridiculous. The scum know that law-abiding citizens don't have guns. Gun control laws don't work, period.

Like an old wise man once said, "An armed society is a polite society."
5.29.2008 2:09pm
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
I don't think that the cops really had any choice here. The unnamed man killed someone, and until the cops had a chance to sort things out, they had to keep a hold of him. A concealed carry permit is not a get out of jail free card, but rather just what it says, the right to carry concealed. But being rural Nevada, I have little doubt that he was given the benefit of the doubt here and released about as soon as they could.
A little background. A 14 year-old girl is sitting in the back seat of her parents' SUV driving down the street in Highland Park, and she's shot in the head by a 16 y.o. gang-banger.

And this happens literally every day in LA. Maybe she should have had her Glock loaded and sitting in her lap, so when she heard the gun shots she could have started firing...
Obviously, it wouldn't have done her any good, even if she could have gotten a CCW in CA, which is doubtful. But because she appears to have been the random victim of gang violence, your post is really irrelevant in regards to the story of the CCW holder in NV legally taking out someone who had already killed twice.
5.29.2008 2:15pm
Kirk:
Jacob Berlove,

I didn't read anything that seemed out of the ordinary for a homicide situation. Depending on the situation, it may take more or less time to determine if the shooting was justifiable use of force or not. For example, I don't think the shooter in the Seattle Westlake incident was detained for very long, but in that case there were plenty of witnesses to the fact that he was accosted, in broad daylight on the sidewalk, and only drew and fired after his assailant had knocked him to the ground and was beginning to kick him in the head. Sorting out what happened at a bar, with multiple shooters, might possibly take a little longer.
5.29.2008 2:20pm
Brian E:

Show me one city, one single city with tough gun controls where it is actually difficult or impossible for 16 year old gang-bangers to get guns. It just doesn't work.


I think you're missing the point of view involved here. The gun control advocates would simply retort that it doesn't work in cities because guns are still legal in the rest of the country. As with any other politicized issue, the goal is the complete elimination of guns, not a reduction in gun crime through effective means. Their goal can only be achieved through a mass and systemic violation of privacy and human rights that would make the War on Drugs and the TSA seem like they were designed by the ACLU. Every piece of property coming into or out of the country would have to be searched for weapons. A border wall substantially stronger than anything yet proposed would have to be built and staffed by thousands of on-duty border patrol officers. Satellite surveillance of all coastlines for unauthorized entry into US territorial waters would have to be backed up by the immediate response of a vastly embiggened Coast Guard. Individuals suspected of possessing weapons would be subject to immediate paramilitary police raids; the police, of course, would have to be armed with ever more powerful firearms to counteract the (real or supposed) threat of the "dangerous criminal elements" who own firearms.

Look, I'm not a gun enthusiast. I don't own one and probably never will. I have fired in the past, and it wasn't a recreational experience I'd really get into. I think that Tasers are the first step towards the future of comprehensive personal safety, and that technology will eventually provide for effective non-lethal replacements for most uses of firearms. But let's not kid ourselves: the elimination of gun ownership would mean the end of liberty.
5.29.2008 2:28pm
Brian K (mail):
But now the liberals want to take away our chandeliers.
I see you and smokey have started to confuse your fantasy world with reality.


And frankly, I think Democratic politicians are the ones who repeatedly make it a partisan issue.
HAHAHA. This one was so funny i literally laughed out loud when I read it.
5.29.2008 2:38pm
zippypinhead:
The police behaved exactly as they should have on the facts as we must assume them: Officers responded to a multiple shooting in a crowded and likely confused public venue with numerous witnesses, some of whom were likely intoxicated, extremely agitated, etc. One confessed shooter was present on the scene and still armed. He was cooperative, and produced what purported to be a CCW permit. However, the officers (a) had no way of confirming the CCW/shooter's identity; (b) had no way of confirming the validity of the alleged CCW permit or whether the shooter subsequently had become a prohibited person for any of several reasons; and most importantly (c) could not definitively determine what happened, including the sequencing of shots fired and by whom, and whether the force used was unjustified and/or excessive, without conducting a fairly extensive on-site (and possibly forensic) investigation.

Correct SOP would be to temporarily detain the shooter, preferably taking him to a safer and more controlled location (i.e., the police station) for further questioning, possible toxicology tests, etc. That is certainly better than letting him stay on-site and possibly disappear into the crowd before the police figure out what happened. Or letting him stay onsite and risking him tampering with evidence before the investigation is completed. Or letting him stay onsite and endangering either him and/or the officers if there are other armed individuals present who may be less than happy with the his actions -- and any officer would assess the odds of that at a biker bar with hundreds of patrons as being uncomfortably high.

Mere custodial questioning followed by unconditional release does not constitute a criminal arrest for NCIC or other records purposes. And the police were right to not publicly release his name, both because he is a prospective witness, and also for his own protection as an innocent citizen who was involved in a crime.

Every good CCW course carefully warns prospective permit holders that if they EVER use their weapon, they WILL be put under a microscope, and if it turns out they overreacted or otherwise screwed up, they're going to be hung out to dry. That's part of the bargain you implicitly agree to when you get a license to carry. And if that's unacceptable to you, you should not be carrying.

The system worked as it was supposed to here.
5.29.2008 2:39pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
As usual, J.F. Thomas engages in a foolish lack of understanding of the real world - in this case a classic example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The statement was made that guns are an equalizer. In my world equal means that the two would have an equal (50/50) chance of coming out of the confrontation alive. Even the monkeys that flew out of your butt and told you that Granny had a 25% of survival against an unarmed lineman and a 20% chance against an armed one weren't willing to claim the gun was an "equalizer".
5.29.2008 2:56pm
gab:
PatHMV, Brian G, and Brian E are operating under the assumption that I am a proponent of gun control. You are assuming facts not in evidence. Gun control is impossible -the genie's already out of the bottle and there's no putting him back in.

EV, Instapundit, and others of their pro-gun ilk are always ready to point out stories of the heroic CCW holder who prevent mass shootings or prevent break-ins or whatever. And I am willing to concede there are probably a larger number of instances where guns are invoked to save life and property that don't make the news.

That being said, there is a huge incidence of crimes where the enormous number of guns in existence in the US today make it all too likely that a handgun will make it's way into the hands of a 16 year old gang-banger who will then take an innocent life or three. And it happens everyday, multiple times a day in large American cities. But those stories, where there is a grieving mother and father and friends of the innocent victim of gun crime, never seem to make it into The VC, or Instapundit. Why not? Might I suggest that a) sadly, it is all too common and isn't even news anymore? and b) it conflicts with their agenda?

I'm merely trying to add a little balance to their perspective.
5.29.2008 3:21pm
Adam J:
J.F Thomas- You're kinda playing games with words here, a gun might not be a perfect equalizer, but it certainly is equalizing. If Granny's chances went from a 0.1% chance to 25% chance by virtue of a gun... that's certainly equalizing. And if there's a credible threat of Granny packing, she'll be seen as less of a target. I'm not for having no gun control whatsoever, but I at least recognize there are virtues to the pro-gun side.
5.29.2008 3:22pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
J.F0 Thomas- You're kinda playing games with words here, a gun might not be a perfect equalizer, but it certainly is equalizing.

I am not playing games with words. This is the statement I was responding to:

With a gun, I am equally able to defend myself whether I'm 4'2" flabby senior citizen, or a 6'5" 300 lb NFL lineman.


Which of course is a patently absurd statement.
5.29.2008 3:28pm
zippypinhead:
The gun control advocates would simply retort that [gun control] doesn't work in cities because guns are still legal in the rest of the country. As with any other politicized issue, the goal is the complete elimination of guns, not a reduction in gun crime through effective means.
Well, that can be their goal, but along the way they might have a small problem with the Second Amendment. While we're waiting with baited breath to see just what the Supreme Court says in its forthcoming D.C. v. Heller decision next month, almost every knowledgable commentator -- including some rabid gun-control partisans -- at minimum expect that the Court's articulation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms isn't going to permit wholesale gun bans and confiscations.

...at least not without amending the Constitution to remove or materially change the Second Amendment (something I suspect will happen about the time pigs learn to fly).

Meanwhile, it was already illegal for that 16-year old gang-banger in LA to possess a handgun, under both state and Federal law. No, that didn't stop him. Laws only tend to stop law-abiding people, after all. But now it's time to put him away for the rest of his natural life. And, if possible, to put away the crook who gave him the gun. That won't bring back the poor girl he killed, but it does have some benefits: Specific deterrence - Mr. gang-banger won't be shooting anybody else, and Mr. straw purchaser won't be putting any more illegal firearms on the street. General deterrence - maybe some other idiot gang-banger may think twice before mindlessly blasting lead around the 'hood, or some straw purchaser will find a new line of work, if they see their pals have gone away for good for similar antics.
5.29.2008 3:30pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
That being said, there is a huge incidence of crimes where the enormous number of guns in existence in the US today make it all too likely that a handgun will make it's way into the hands of a 16 year old gang-banger who will then take an innocent life or three.

Yep, here in New Orleans we had four people shot with an AK-47 on a street corner just a couple days ago. But of course this didn't actually happen because, according to EV and Instapundit, such weapons are never used in crimes.
5.29.2008 3:31pm
bonhomme (mail):
The statement was made that guns are an equalizer. In my world equal means that the two would have an equal (50/50) chance of coming out of the confrontation alive. Even the monkeys that flew out of your butt and told you that Granny had a 25% of survival against an unarmed lineman and a 20% chance against an armed one weren't willing to claim the gun was an "equalizer".
So because a handgun doesn't induce perfect equality, it is therefore not worthy of any variant of the word equal. I propose that J.F.Thomas no longer be called or thought of as human. Because "he" cannot possibly be a perfect specimen "he" is by his own standard of pure word meaning and function not a proper instance of the term.
5.29.2008 3:40pm
zippypinhead:
Corrected post, to help out J.F. Thomas:

"Yep, here in New Orleans we had four people shot with an AK-47 on a street corner just a couple days ago. But of course this didn't actually happen seldom happens because, according to EV and Instapundit the FBI, such weapons are almost never used in crimes."

Source.
(FBI U.S. homicide data for 2006: rifles of any type used in only 2.9% of homicides, even less than shotguns. Even less than knives. Even less than blunt objects. Even less than hands, fists, and feet).
5.29.2008 3:44pm
bonhomme (mail):
Yep, here in New Orleans we had four people shot with an AK-47 on a street corner just a couple days ago. But of course this didn't actually happen because, according to EV and Instapundit, such weapons are never used in crimes.
Holy hyperbole Batman! You go from arguing absolute word usage purity to attributing asinine arguments to our host and G. Reynolds. When has either of those two men argued that weapons such as AK47s are never used in crimes? Put up.
5.29.2008 3:47pm
Smokey:
So J.F. Thomas again appears in the middle of a thread, ignorantly spouting off as usual:
"Did he have a valid permit for his gun?"
It might help JFT to read down to only the fourth paragraph:
The Reno resident was in possession of a valid Concealed Carry Permit issued through the Washoe County Sheriff's Office...
5.29.2008 4:12pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
"Did he have a valid permit for his gun?"

You might want to reread my post and pay attention to the "he" I was referring to.
5.29.2008 4:19pm
BobDoyle (mail):
Hmmm, where was this hero at Virginia Tech???

Oh, yea, I forgot. Virginia Tech prohibited (and still does) everyone, including people with concealed-carry permits, from carrying their weapons on campus.

Great! Let's pretend to make everyone safer by barring those law-abiding people who are legally permitted to carry concealed weapons from carrying so only nut cases and criminals will have guns. Sure worked at Virginia Tech!!!

Greatest Irony Department: Since the VTech massacre, many schools and universities that had no specific or clear restrictions concerning carrying by concealed-carry permit holders have enacted policies denying these people the right to carry on campus, despite their having state-issued permits. In fact, Tarrant County College in Fort Worth, Texas not only has enacted a policy prohibiting carrying even by people with concealed-carry permits, but it has also prohibited students from wearing empty gun holsters on campus to protest this policy.

I guess TCC is running a 2-for-1 special on violations of their students' civil rights (both first and second amendments)!!
5.29.2008 4:19pm
Brian K (mail):
Hmmm, where was this hero at Virginia Tech???

you might also want to ask why didn't this happen at virginia tech? the fact that the bar is not a gun free zone didn't seem to deter the shooter nor does it appear that he deliberately sought out a gun free zone.
5.29.2008 4:32pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
Ithaqua writes:

How much would you bet that "[Ernesto Fuentes] Villagomez[, 30,]" was an illegal alien?


What a display of ignorance! I hate to tell you this, but Nevada has had a large Hispanic population for centuries. You might notice that even the name is Spanish. According to the US census, 24% of the population of Nevada is Hispanic. That comes to about 600,000 people. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, there are 150,000-200,000 illegal aliens in Nevada. Assuming the larger figure and that all illegal aliens in Nevada are Hispanic, that means that of the Hispanic people in Nevada 2/3 are legal, 1/3 illegal. The odds are therefore 2 to 1 that Mr. Gomez was legal.
5.29.2008 4:38pm
Kirk:
Brian K,

That's because the killer in this case was targeting some specific known individuals.
5.29.2008 4:40pm
Aultimer:

Bruce Hayden:
your post is really irrelevant in regards to the story of the CCW holder in NV legally taking out someone who had already killed twice.


The relevance is that EV posted a gun = good result story, so the poster felt like a gun = bad result story was in order.

I believe in individual 2A rights, but many on my side seem unable to understand the quite reasonable position of the other side: they want to see a stop to gun violence and find that more important than 2A concerns, self-defense concerns and such.
5.29.2008 4:43pm
BobDoyle (mail):
Brian K, my point, which I suspect was pretty obvious to everyone but you, was not that the killer at VTech would have been deterred had VTech not banned guns, but that, in the absence of the ban, persons with concealed-carry permits like the hero in the bar-shooting story would have shot and killed or disabled the nut case at VTech long before he managed to kill 32 people.
5.29.2008 4:43pm
Brian K (mail):
That's because the killer in this case was targeting some specific known individuals.

substitute "institution" for "individual" and have what happened at the school shootings. so your point is...?
5.29.2008 4:59pm
Philistine (mail):
Completely off topic, but the title to this post got me thinking--if this had happened in a Catholic Church in Boston during services, the title of the post could have been:

Hero stops Mass. mass mass shooting.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread....
5.29.2008 5:05pm
Brian K (mail):
BobDoyle,

i understand your point. but seeing as how you compared this incident to school shootings, i took the opportunity to do likewise. i thought that it would be obvious...
5.29.2008 5:06pm
Smokey:
J.F. Thomas: It pains me to admit this, but I missed the word 'intital.' I suppose because it's just about impossible to find any instance anywhere of a legal CCW permit holder going into a bar and gunning people down. The article doesn't mention whether the dead shooter had a CCW; no doubt the article would have mentioned a newsworthy fact like that.
5.29.2008 5:15pm
mischief (mail):

substitute "institution" for "individual" and have what happened at the school shootings. so your point is...?


The TV stations ran the tape, remember? We know perfectly well that the Virginia Tech shooter was not acting out of hatred of Virginia Tech or anyone at it.
5.29.2008 5:15pm
theobromophile (www):
That being said, there is a huge incidence of crimes where the enormous number of guns in existence in the US today make it all too likely that a handgun will make it's way into the hands of a 16 year old gang-banger who will then take an innocent life or three. And it happens everyday, multiple times a day in large American cities. But those stories, where there is a grieving mother and father and friends of the innocent victim of gun crime, never seem to make it into The VC, or Instapundit. Why not? Might I suggest that a) sadly, it is all too common and isn't even news anymore? and b) it conflicts with their agenda?

Your conclusion is not the only one at which you can arrive.

Perhaps EV, the other Conspirators, and Instapundit recognise that there are crazy, armed, gun-toting gang bangers out there, and that there will be crazy, armed, gun-toting gang-bangers out there whether or not we have gun control laws.

Therefore, for them, a story about an innocent person who is shot is not anything with which they disagree; it's actually a fundamental part of their "agenda" (as you put it) to acknowledge the presence of those crazy, armed, gun-toting gang-bangers. If there weren't crazies out there, after all, why would we need guns and concealed carry permits?

By the way, the girl doesn't need to have a Glock in order for it to be less likely that she would have been shot. Those who attack others often do so under the theory that no one will attack back. We only need to compare the relative numbers of school and mall shootings (i.e. "gun-free zones") with NRA meetings and the like, to understand that the crazies are less likely to attack when any one person is armed.
5.29.2008 5:17pm
PersonFromPorlock:
Of course, it will probably turn out that the hero was a professional bodyguard protecting a slumming Liberal movie star.... ;^)
5.29.2008 5:24pm
Kirk:
Brian K, the point is that the shooter, in order to attack these specific individuals, had to find them where they were. He didn't foolishly choose the bar over a gun-banning school location, where he would have been safer from a counter-attack--presumably the victims were not enrolled in school anywhere and so that option, given his goals, was simply not open to him.
5.29.2008 5:27pm
Dave D. (mail):
..The CCW is extraneous; the bad guy thought he was justified to initiate murder. That's what makes him a BAD guy. The good guy responded to the imminent threat of death to himself or others by using deadly force ( not always deadly ) to stop the bad guy. Nothing changes whether both, or just one, or neither, have a CCW permit.
..As usual, J.F. is typing out his nether regions and muddies up pretty simple shooting. It's one of his few intrinsic skills.
...Diane Feinstein has a CCW, or used to. So did Gungrabber CA Senator Don Perata. Lots of liberals believe in gunrights, but only for themselves, not others. If you support folks like that, your personal 2nd amendment support is useless.
5.29.2008 5:51pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

That being said, there is a huge incidence of crimes where the enormous number of guns in existence in the US today make it all too likely that a handgun will make it's way into the hands of a 16 year old gang-banger who will then take an innocent life or three.
Fortunately, California has pretty strict gun control laws, so 16 year old gang-bangers can't get hold of guns.

Oh, it doesn't work that way?

No it doesn't. Short of a police state, gun control is not very effective at disarming career criminals. What gun control does do is disarm those people who are reluctant to risk becoming a criminal by buying a gun illegally.

And yes, this isn't really a conservative/liberal thing. Liberal media types are overwhelmingly pro-gun control, but a lot of liberals are not. And there are conservative gun control advocates.
5.29.2008 5:53pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
We only need to compare the relative numbers of school and mall shootings (i.e. "gun-free zones") with NRA meetings and the like, to understand that the crazies are less likely to attack when any one person is armed.

What a silly comparisons. Schools (even in relatively bad neighborhoods) and malls are among the safest places in the country. Most people are murdered on the street or in their homes (in the latter case it is almost always a relative, not a stranger who is the killer). And guess what, in most cases both murderers and victims have had some other brush with the law before they are kill or killed.

Contrary to what is implied, but never outright stated by the likes of EV and Instapundit, most people know their killers. Most murders are committed are not random crimes against a random victim but the result of criminal disputes (gangs, drugs) or some variety of domestic violence--broadly defined (including bar fights, arguments between friends, and garden variety caught your wife in bed with another man).

As an example, the New Orleans Times Picayune did a survey of all the murders in New Orleans in 2004. Fully 80% of the victims had a felony arrest and apparently were not random victims. Most of the rest were domestic disputes. We've had several mass killings in New Orleans this year (one where five people were shot dead). All occurred in neighborhoods where you would expect a large proportion of the population to be armed. An armed citizenry was no deterrent to running gunbattles in the street.
5.29.2008 5:54pm
DonP (mail):
"IF" this even hits the major media you can count on a dogged pursuit of every facet of the CCW shooter's past life.

An almost desperate search will start to fundamentally disqualify him from "citizen" status, similar to the woman that shot the guy in the Colorado church.

In a matter of moments it seemed she went from being a "civilian with a CCW permit" to being a "volunteer security guard" to being a "former policewoman" in every news report, even though her police service ended over five years prior, IIRC.

Same thing happened with the off duty cop in the Mall a few months back.

It seems so terribly important to some people that no citizen EVER be allowed to be seen as doing something good with a gun.
5.29.2008 6:36pm
Jacob Berlove:
I don't deny that the system worked according to SOP, I'm arguing that the SOP here is fundamentally flawed. A police officer who saved a countless number of other lives in this fashion would not have been treated this way, and nor should an ordinary citizen. And I know that Whit is a big supporter of current case law allowing the use of handcuffs in almost any situation, but I think that this is one of a countless number of examples where the police essentially are allowed to police themselves because the courts, relying on police "expertise", give undue overwheming deference to police manuals on what's appropriate in a given situation. This deference is inappropriate because the police naturally will design policies that give disproportionally more weight to officer safety and less weight to citizens liberty.

I don't know for how long our hero was detained, but the phrasing of "further investigations" and "ongoing discussions" with the district attorney imply that it was for a considerable length of time. Do detainees whose conduct was found to be legal after a consdierable period of time not get booked? If so, I stand corrected on the arrest. As far as handcuffs go, their us exerts a considerable stress and discomfort on the arms, hands, and wrists, is often painful, and I'm convinced should be restricted far more than is done now (both as a matter of policy and law). And their use carries a stigma, indignity, and embarrasment far more than a standard Terry-stop detention, because people are used to being pulled over by cops all the time, but the primary use of handcuffs is to control people suspected or convicted of a criminal offense. The physical pain, stress, discomfort, embarrasment, indignity, and possible stigma that was brought upon our hero subsequent to saving the lives of countless number of people, that came from being handcuffed and detained for a significant period of time (as implied by the police statement) was misguided and inappropriate, and sends the wrong message to those who do the right thing.
5.29.2008 7:30pm
gab:
thebromophile writes:


Perhaps EV, the other Conspirators, and Instapundit recognise that there are crazy, armed, gun-toting gang bangers out there, and that there will be crazy, armed, gun-toting gang-bangers out there whether or not we have gun control laws.

Therefore, for them, a story about an innocent person who is shot is not anything with which they disagree; it's actually a fundamental part of their "agenda" (as you put it) to acknowledge the presence of those crazy, armed, gun-toting gang-bangers. If there weren't crazies out there, after all, why would we need guns and concealed carry permits?


See my post further up. I didn't say anything about gun control laws. In fact, I concede they wouldn't do any good.

To argue your point about gun-toting gang-bangers (from the dep't of reduncancy dep't) the story I quoted was one gang-banger trying to shoot another - would he not have assumed the other "banger" was armed? And yet that didn't stop him. And a 16 year old girl sitting in mom's SUV is still dead.
5.29.2008 7:43pm
Curious Passerby (mail):
The relevance is that EV posted a gun = good result story, so the poster felt like a gun = bad result story was in order.

But that's not what it was, it really was:

legal gun = good result
illegal gun = bad result

or maybe

illegal gun + legal gun = good result
illegal gun = bad result
5.29.2008 8:05pm
Curious Passerby (mail):
The relevance is that EV posted a gun = good result story, so the poster felt like a gun = bad result story was in order.

But that's not what it was, it really was:

legal gun = good result
illegal gun = bad result

or maybe

illegal gun + legal gun = good result
illegal gun = bad result
5.29.2008 8:05pm
Tennessean (mail):
Completely uninformed as to this, but can anyone point me to quantitative or substantive analysis of the impact of the different gun control laws on crime rates comparing the U.S. to other countries?

From my limited experience, the number of guns in, e.g., the UK is far lower than in the U.S., and the UK homicide rate is also far lower than in the U.S. Obviously, just being aware of those facts isn't holding everything else (e.g., income level, education level) equal. But, rather than compare, e.g., Washington to Richmond, the better comparison might be where the system is substantially different.

I'd also be curious to know what the justification of 'gun control is not very effective at disarming career criminals'? That's obviously true if by disarming we mean absolutely so, where not one career criminal possesses a firearm. The bigger question is whether making guns illegal to possess both 1) increases the penalty to career criminals for possessing firearms (possibly this will have an impact, but my guess, like everyone else here it seems, is that the impact won't be significant) and 2) reduces the number of guns in the system. Combine the two, run a little classic economic, supply-and-demand analysis (demand contracts, supply contracts), and you might quickly see a severe reduction in the number of guns in the hands of career criminals. Remember, now for them the penalty is higher than before _and_ the price is higher -- likely much much higher - than before.
5.29.2008 8:06pm
Jagermeister:
J.F.Thomas says:
Yep, here in New Orleans we had four people shot with an AK-47 on a street corner just a couple days ago. But of course this didn't actually happen because, according to EV and Instapundit, such weapons are never used in crimes.

If you mean this episode then indeed, it never happened. The was the only reference I found for recent shootings in New Orleans, on May 26th. It involved a shooting of three, and a stabbing of one, the shooting unrelated to the stabbing. No information was available as to the type of weapon (which was apparently not recovered from the scene).

I only searched because media weapon identifications are often unreliable, and I wanted to see what basis there was for identifying the weapon as an "AK-47", and not as, say, a Mini-14, an AK-74, or a host of related types. Unfortunatly, I could find NO reference to any recent use of an "assault weapon" in the recent past in New Orleans. Such uses of "assault weapons" are usually given national media attention, if only because most of the media is on the gun control band wagon. I find the lack of any mention significant.

J.F. Thomas: Can you please provide details and a link to the story? I'd like to see how you know it was an AK-47. (I'm not suggesting that you have inside knowledge, or are the perp).
5.29.2008 8:19pm
Jagermeister:
J.F.Thomas said:
We've had several mass killings in New Orleans this year (one where five people were shot dead).
Can you provide details and links for this incident as well? I'm having trouble finding it. (Although you DO have a high murder rate). Thanks in advance.
5.29.2008 8:46pm
Dave D. (mail):
Jacob Berlove "A police officer...would not be treated this way "
...Well Jacob, other than the handcuffs, if they were used, " this way " was the way I was treated when I shot a suspect while on duty ( Highway Patrol Sergeant )on I-5 on 8-27-97. I was questioned at the scene by Sheriffs detectives and D.A. investigators, sent to my office and sequestered in an office, alone. I was read Miranda and when I didn't waive the detectives left, but I was immediately interrogated administratively and advised I must answer all questions or be fired. Following that I was directed, upon threat of administrative action up to 'dismissal' not to discuss the events with anyone. Then I was sent home. The next day I was ordered to sit in group session with a Dept. hired psych., and then I went back to work. The Sheriffs investigation took about 4-5 months and the D.A. did not prosecute me. The suspect was prosecuted fot three felonies. The Dept. investigation took a year and I was exonerated, but criticised over my enforcement tactics. The officer who was next to me that day and who also shot, but missed, was similarly treated.
..I don't know where you get your information from. There is my experience. What's yours ?
5.29.2008 8:48pm
zippypinhead:
Jacob Berlove:

I'm sure everyone has sympathy for what the CCW permit holder went through. But the timeline here doesn't look all that bad for a multiple homicide investigation, frankly. The incident occurred at 2:30 am on May 25. The press statement indicating the CCW permit holder had been exonerated was posted by the newspaper on May 26. None of us know the exact sequence of events beyond that.

Now, even if Granny shoots a 300 lb attempted rapist in her home, she's going to be taken away from the scene and questioned at the station. Probably for many hours, until the crime scene work is done, her story has been fully vetted, and a preliminary determination that her actions were justified has been made. Doing anything different would be reckless, in case the ultimate facts turned out to be different from initial indications. Same principle applied here, and would also apply with an officer-involved shooting.

Here, making an educated guess as to what happened (and I do have some professional quals for a guess, albeit not under Nevada law/procedure): The CCW permit holder probably wasn't home in time for Sunday breakfast. But - this was clearly the biggest event in Humboldt County law enforcement that weekend, and got maximum attention. I am sure the DA's office was involved almost immediately, and undoubtedly a significant part of the DA's staff ended up with a major change of weekend plans. In this clear-cut a case, I would be shocked if the decision that the shooting was justified wasn't made during the day on Sunday. I suspect the CCW holder spent Sunday night in his own bed at home.

An unpleasant experience for the poor CCW holder? Sure. But as someone noted earlier, a CCW permit is not a "get out of jail free" card. Any good concealed carry class explicitly warns its students that if you carry and ever decide to use your weapon, that decision will be put under a microscope. So part of the voluntary, knowing and intelligent decision to legally carry a concealed weapon is to understand that your actions will be examined VERY closely. That's part of the bargain that's implicit when you decide to carry. And is one of the reasons CCW holders tend to be among the most responsible of citizens.

The timeline the CCW holder had to endure, frankly, looks great compared with what happens in most law enforcement agencies after officer-involved shootings. The officer is immediately and fully (and I mean FULLY) debriefed by Internal Affairs. And he doesn't get to go home before IAD is done with him just because it's the end of his shift. If the Department is too small to have its own IAD, they often call in the State Police or other outside agency to avoid charges of conflict of interest. And then generally the officer gets grilled again by the DA's office, the state A.G.'s office, and sometimes even the Feds. Meanwhile, the officer is placed on administrative duty or is suspended outright, sometimes even having to surrender his service sidearm and badge. And the whole process drags on -- it's common for an officer in this situation to be kept in limbo for 30 or more days. And then he has to pass the psychological screen that's mandatory in many places before he can return to duty. And the officer doesn't get to keep his name out of the press, either.

At bottom, no matter who you are -- if you shoot somebody, your actions are going to get flyspecked. If you're lucky enough to have shot someone legally, you will [hopefully] be exonerated. But the process is neither instantaneous nor painless. That's just the way homicide investigations are.
5.29.2008 8:56pm
zippypinhead:
Or to put it more succinctly: Read Dave D's post. I keep forgetting to hit "refresh" to see what's happened in the meantime before I hit "post comment."

It's no fun for an LEO involved in a shooting, either...
5.29.2008 9:01pm
Dave N (mail):
A Google search found an Associated Press story with more details about te underlying family feud between the original shooter and the two victims:
WINNEMUCCA, Nev. (AP) - A man who shot and killed two brothers at a crowded bar may have been angry over delays in the trial of the men accused of shooting his own family member in a separate incident last year, authorities said.

Authorities said Ernesto Villagomez, 30, killed Jose and Margarito Torres early Sunday at the Players Bar and Grill. Villagomez was then shot and killed by another tavern patron who had a concealed weapons permit.

Margarito Torres, 19, and another man are accused of shooting a member of Villagomez's family last July. Mario Villagomez was left paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair.

Margarito Torres and Jose Jesus Castellano-Moreno were to stand trial in January for the shooting, but the court proceeding was delayed.

"It appears from what we can tell, that they didn't feel this was moving along fast enough through the criminal justice system, and they probably wouldn't get justice unless they got it themselves," said Russell Smith, Humboldt County district attorney.

There have been several confrontations between the Villagomez and Torres families in recent months, authorities said.

"We're going to try to keep the peace because we don't think
this is over. We are having 24-hour patrols."

"That evening it was stated several times it's not over yet by family members," he said. "We definitely believe it's not finished."

Smith said the two families have been feuding for years in what he described as a "modern American version of the Hatfields and McCoys."

After the July shooting incident, Smith said he had members of both families in his office, and both said their lives were being threatened.

"We were trying constantly to get them to de-escalate and stay away from events where the other families were involved," he said. "It seemed to fall on deaf ears."
No one deserves to be shot in cold blood, but one of the victims doesn't sound partcularly innocent.
5.29.2008 9:08pm
Waldensian (mail):

The timeline the CCW holder had to endure, frankly, looks great compared with what happens in most law enforcement agencies after officer-involved shootings.

True, but doesn't the officer get qualified immunity? If so, I won't shed any tears over a lengthy administrative process that ensures he handled the gun correctly.

By comparison, if I ever have to pop somebody, and get it wrong (e.g. stray bullet hits bystander), I pretty much have to pay full retail.
5.29.2008 9:15pm
zippypinhead:
Dave N, thanks for the follow-up. The original police statement sounded like there may also have been some injured bystanders. Have you seen anything about that?
Two additional gunshot victims were also located. One of these victims, a 34 year old male, was transported to Humboldt General Hospital via private vehicle. The other victim, a 22 year old female, was transported via Humboldt County Ambulance. Both of these injured parties were treated and admitted to Humboldt General Hospital in "stable condition".
The original statement also suggested the shooter was basically spraying the place. If so, the CCW permit holder may well have saved some lives, even if this was nominally a targeted "hit." From the original statement:
[the shooter] entered the bar and at some point began firing multiple rounds. At least two of these rounds struck and killed the other two decedents.... At some point during this shooting spree [the shooter] allegedly stopped and according to witnesses reloaded his high capacity handgun and began shooting again.
5.29.2008 9:21pm
Dave N (mail):
Another story I found indicates that the two wounded bar patrons were innocent bystanders--so the guy with the concealed weapons permit definitely did the right thing by ending it.

Additionally, Margarito Torres was awaiting trial for shooting the brother of the man who eventually killed him.

Quite the feud. I am glad someone was there to stop it, at least temporarily.
5.29.2008 9:34pm
zippypinhead:
Waldensian wrote:

but doesn't the officer get qualified immunity? If so, I won't shed any tears over a lengthy administrative process that ensures he handled the gun correctly.
Ah, but don't you live and practice law in Virginia? Va. has a comparatively rational approach to such things. In some jurisdictions the definition of "qualified" approaches "non-negligent" nowadays. I'm guessing California is one such place, given Dave D's. description, above. Heck, they even Mirandized a Hwy. Patrol sergeant post-shooting in what I assume shouldn't have been a custodial interrogation! Only one reason you do that - to make sure any incriminating statements have absolutely no chance of being suppressed in a criminal trial of the officer.

And even if the LEO escapes criminal charges, of course the officer may still face crushing civil liability in addition to career-ending administrative sanctions -- there's a reason why more and more Federal and local LEOs are buying individual professional liability insurance policies, unless they happen to work in one of the shrinking number of places where their union still provides both representation and insurance or indemnification (not an option for the Feds, btw).

Shooting someone isn't good, no matter who you are.
5.29.2008 9:58pm
Kirk:
Tennessean,

The incidence of gun use by criminals seems to be trending up in Britain, so I wouldn't use them as a showcase for how wonderful gun control can be. As far as the cross-national figures, they're a bit more complicated to analyze than you appear to think. Yes, the US has a higher rate of homicides than England, but that was true back in the early 1900's, too, when in either London or NYC you could walk in to a hardware store, plunk down your cash, and walk out with a revolver or long gun.

In addition, the rate of non-fatal assault is higher in the UK than the US...
5.29.2008 10:44pm
theobromophile (www):

would he not have assumed the other "banger" was armed? And yet that didn't stop him.

The relevant query is the likelihood of that happening, compared to an unarmed gang-banger and unarmed bystanders, not whether or not it happened in one particular instance.
5.29.2008 11:04pm
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
Bruce Hayden:
your post is really irrelevant in regards to the story of the CCW holder in NV legally taking out someone who had already killed twice.
The relevance is that EV posted a gun = good result story, so the poster felt like a gun = bad result story was in order.

I believe in individual 2A rights, but many on my side seem unable to understand the quite reasonable position of the other side: they want to see a stop to gun violence and find that more important than 2A concerns, self-defense concerns and such.
I thought that it was irrelevant since EV was talking about a legal gun legally being carried concealed being used legally to prevent further murder, and the second story was about an illegal weapon illegally procured being used illegally that accidentally killed an innocent person.

Ok, I admit my biases, and that is probably the heart of this dispute. Anti gun people cite examples like that random killing of the innocent and ignore that the weapon was not only acquired and used illegally, but also that it was almost assuredly imported illegally. I don't see how disarming law abiding citizens would have helped matters at all there. Besides, the number of guns in this country is of a similar order of magnitude as the number of people here. Removing all those guns would be nigh impossible.

I just don't see how illegal use of an illegal gun is relevant to a discussion of a legal use of a legal gun. The assumption that you make that it is implies I think a belief that the legal use of the legal gun, or possibly just the mere presence of the legal gun, affected the probability of the illegal use of the illegal gun.

I don't buy that. I don't buy that gutting the 2nd Amdt would result in any meaningful reduction in gun violence, and in particular, gang related gun violence. Rather, I would suggest that those who believe that are engaging in wishful thinking.
5.29.2008 11:43pm
whit:

I don't deny that the system worked according to SOP, I'm arguing that the SOP here is fundamentally flawed. A police officer who saved a countless number of other lives in this fashion would not have been treated this way, and nor should an ordinary citizen. And I know that Whit is a big supporter of current case law allowing the use of handcuffs in almost any situation, but I think that this is one of a countless number of examples where the police essentially are allowed to police themselves because the courts, relying on police "expertise", give undue overwheming deference to police manuals on what's appropriate in a given situation. This deference is inappropriate because the police naturally will design policies that give disproportionally more weight to officer safety and less weight to citizens liberty.




it's not current law. it's the constitution

deal with it.

the 4th says all seizures must be reasonable. and in a high danger (for everybody) incident like a "shooting just" (occurred), the prudent course to protect EVERYBODY - innocent victims, suspects, cops, witnesses, etc. is to "freeze the scene" as quickly as possible, get medical aid to who needs it (can't do the latter w/o doing the former first, especially cause aid cars won't even go in until it's secured), and SORT THINGS OUT.

i am sorry but given the circ's it is entirely reasonable(which is the key word in the 4th) to detain - briefly the shooter. as the facts were quickly (apparently) sorted out, the shooter was uncuffed. no harm, no foul. given a situation like that, it's way better to cuff then uncuff, then to not cuff when you have a chance, and it turns out oops somebody else gets hurt, an actual bad guy gets away, etc. etc.

the most important function of the first responders is to freeze the scene - make it SAFE. that is best for everybody, INCLUDING the (justified) shooter, because once he's detained, there is no (essentially) chance of him or anybody else getting shot or hurt etc.

i've carried concealed for nearly 20 yrs, and if i shot somebody in public and the cops responded - badge or not (and i have one) i would expect to be told to DROP THE GUN and submit to handcuffing until the responding officers had the scene made safe.

your objection is ridiculously petty, and given the circumstances, ridiculous. and i would be willing to bet that the shooter isn't miffed a bit by it, nor would i be.

fwiw, i have had numerous situations where i have had to handcuff people who later turned out to be witnesses, victims, etc. whether or not they were an actual shooter, or whatever. and NORMAL people (vs. 20/20 hindsight bloggers) don't have a problem with this because they (being part of the situation) understand the dynamics.

and note that people with CCW's know (or should know - since its part of deadly force training), that REGARDLESS of whether justified or not, if they get involved in some sort of shooting, they should expect a high probability of being (at least briefly) detained if they shoot (or point a gun at ) somebody no matter how justified it appears in retrospect.

iow, it comes with the territory. again, as best i can tell from the article the cops did the prudent thing, nobody was hurt, and that's how it is supposed to be done.
5.30.2008 12:00am
Dave D. (mail):
...I forgot to mention, they drew a blood sample from both the officer and I, to check for drugs and alcohol. And took photo's, then took our uniforms, except sam brown gear. They issued me another pistol, though I used the HBAR AR15, which of course, went into evidence. I was about 18 feet away from the suspect. The bullet shattered 5" of her right humerus bone between elbow and shoulder. A 62grn power point, it struck the left side window first and part of it hit her accomplice in the right thigh.
..I agree with Waldensian that hightened scrutiny is a job expectation, just as qualified immunity is. I had 26 years on the job when this occurred. Nobody had ever NOT dropped a gun when I told them. Unbeknown to me, she had put the pistol (.22 ) to her boyfriends head about 20 seconds earlier and pulled the trigger as he jerked his head back, missing him but blowing out the right side window about the time I rammed her car at slow speed. I suspect she was suicidal, but it was shocking to see her bringing the pistol to bear on me. Didn't seem real. Still doesn't.
5.30.2008 1:18am
Dave N (mail):
BTW--for legal trivia buffs, this happened in the same rural county from which Hiibel v. District Court arose. I'm not sure that means much of anything, particularly since the police apparently already knew the identities of everyone involved, except the guy from Reno with the concealed weapons permit.
5.30.2008 1:46am
Harry Eagar (mail):
Well, jeez, yours was an unconcealed carry situation and it didn't seem to create much deterrence, did it?

I think back to one of the saddest gun slayings ever to happen on my warch.

A father had rented a downtown store to open a new business, and he hired his son and three friends to clean up the place prior to remodeling. The boys were 13 and 14.

It was a Sunday morning. Quiet downtown, not many people around.

A drifter with a pistol found the boys, made them lie down and shot all of them in the head.

Despite the fantasies of the CCW crowd, I have a hard time imagining leaving 4 13-year-old boys alone and armed in the middle of a city.

The thought processes that CCW people ascribe to would-be murderers probably are not very close to the real thought processes of murderers.
5.30.2008 1:50am
theobromophile (www):
Despite the fantasies of the CCW crowd, I have a hard time imagining leaving 4 13-year-old boys alone and armed in the middle of a city.

IMHO, it is the former part of that description, not the latter, that is problematic. I'm about as old as both those boys put together and wouldn't particularly want to be left alone in some cities.
5.30.2008 2:31am
TDPerkins (mail):


Despite the fantasies of the CCW crowd, I have a hard time imagining leaving 4 13-year-old boys alone and armed in the middle of a city.


What does the implausibility of CCW having anything to do with saving any boys in a like situation have to do with there being any "fantasies" which weren't, relatively, happily fulfilled in EV's post. I say relatively because I'm sure the survivor's would be happier if it hadn't happened, and "happily" because, y'know, they were more of them.

What I cannot understand is why CCW opponents and skeptics can't look at the data and realize CCW is a net improvement everywhere it is realized, both regarding the public safety and respect for constitutional restrictions on government.

Why are you so dead set against improvement?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
5.30.2008 9:08am
zippypinhead:
Despite the fantasies of the CCW crowd, I have a hard time imagining leaving 4 13-year-old boys alone and armed in the middle of a city.
Fantasies? C'mon... turn down the flame, Harry, you're only burning yourself.

Yes, that's a horrible, tragic story. But the part I'm having trouble with is why any responsible adult would leave "4 13-year-old boys alone . . . in the middle of a city" in the first place.

Frankly I doubt you've EVER heard anyone (let alone a responsible proponent of CCW laws) advocate arming 13-year olds. It's illegal under Federal and probably all states' laws for a minor to be in possession of a firearm except under direct parental/guardian supervision (or with explicit parental/guardian permission and under the direct supervision of a responsible adult, such as in JROTC or Scout camp venues).
5.30.2008 9:42am
whit:

No one deserves to be shot in cold blood, but one of the victims doesn't sound partcularly innocent


"there are no victims"

a very cynical old saw, but often quite true.
5.30.2008 12:46pm
Aultimer:

Bruce Hayden:

I don't buy that gutting the 2nd Amdt would result in any meaningful reduction in gun violence, and in particular, gang related gun violence. Rather, I would suggest that those who believe that are engaging in wishful thinking.


I agree that outlawing some guns for some people can't work, and that repealing (in effect or for real) the 2A is a horrible idea. Nonetheless, that there are places with less gun violence and restrictive gun laws validates the view of the other side.
5.30.2008 1:10pm
TDPerkins (mail):

Nonetheless, that there are places with less gun violence and restrictive gun laws validates the view of the other side.


That's a skosh conclusory. You'd have to show those places have less gun violence and less violence in sum BECAUSE of the restrictive gun laws to show those laws brought about any improvement.

Unless you count the Sarah Bradyites feeling good as an improvement, which I don't.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
5.30.2008 1:18pm
Mark Butler (mail):
Haven't read all the comments.

But, hasn't anybody noted how remarkable it is that nearly one-half of one percent of the entire population of Winnemucca was at one bar at 2:30 a.m.?

What are the odds of that happening?

(Based on 2000 census of 7,174)
5.30.2008 1:40pm
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
I agree that outlawing some guns for some people can't work, and that repealing (in effect or for real) the 2A is a horrible idea. Nonetheless, that there are places with less gun violence and restrictive gun laws validates the view of the other side.
Like, for example, Wash. D.C.?

You can't cherry pick here. That some places have restrictive gun laws and less gun violence does not necessarily mean that restricting legal gun usage will result in decreased gun violence. Rather, you need to look at the issue statistically across the country, controlling for urbanization, income, etc.

There may be a lot of other reasons that gun violence goes down in some instances where there are restrictive gun laws, just like there are some instances where it goes down or up with less restrictive gun laws. Specific instances are essentially irrelevant as to trends and causation.

BTW, if you are looking for either causation or high correlation, try looking at the relationship between boys raised in fatherless homes and their propensity to commit violence by gun or otherwise. You can start by looking at the percentage of such in prison as compared to those having grown up with their father in the household.
5.30.2008 2:27pm
Joe Bingham (mail):
Give that guy a Klondike Bar!
5.30.2008 2:40pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
zippy, I'm agnostic about guns, though not about the fantasies of CCW.

Here's my beef: If you aren't going to arm children, but you are going to allow anybody to have a gun, then from time to time, you're going to have children shot.


That story was about Des Moines, a city without (usually) much violence downtown. (The rest of the story was that the drifter wandered off until he found another person -- a clerk at a dirty book store, which was just about the only open business on a Sunday morning -- and shot him, too.)

Now, I live in a county where there has not been a homicide (other than vehicular) of any kind for two years. But I was visiting Houston last month, and since another blog I infest debates this issue frequently, I noted the firearms toll during the four days I was there, as reported in the Chronicle:

5 murders, 1 suicide (including an entire family of 5, including 3 tots), 1 target shooting mistake.

That's a lot of carnage from having a gun-totin' society, with not very much CCW upside that I can see.
5.30.2008 3:21pm
Virginian:

Nonetheless, that there are places with less gun violence and restrictive gun laws validates the view of the other side.


And there are places with less gun violence and less restrictive gun laws and places with more gun violence and restrictive gun laws. So how exactly does it validate the view of the other side?
5.30.2008 3:26pm
Kirk:
This just in, in support of yesterday's assertion about the UK and violence:
One of Britain's leading trauma surgeons [at the Royal London Hospital] has told how one in three of his Accident & Emergency patients is now a stabbing victim.


Harry,

I'm sure your Des Moines incident was ghastly to behold, but what does such a low-frequency occurrence say about anything? Should we have locked up all 20-something males because Ted Bundy was in his 20's when he began his killing spree?
5.30.2008 4:16pm
Jagermeister:
Harry says:
That's a lot of carnage from having a gun-totin' society.
Harry, you're positing a causation where none is proven. You say, "carnage from having a gun-totin' society", but you're assuming the linkage that you purport to prove.

Maybe the carnage is due to fluoridation of the water, to having a crappy football team, or to the droppings of migratory birds. Anyone one of those theories has as much evidence as you have provided for your assertion.
5.30.2008 5:03pm
TDPerkins (mail):
Harry Eager wrote:


Here's my beef: If you aren't going to arm children, but you are going to allow anybody to have a gun, then from time to time, you're going to have children shot.


Yes. And sometimes, if we don't let toddlers drive motor scooters they won't be able to get away from the coyotes.

I'm suggesting you are reaching to a far greater degree than almost anyone with a CCW fantasy is—even Walter Mitty.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
5.30.2008 5:55pm
Dave D. (mail):
Mark Butler : " What are the odds of that happening ? ( approx. 1/2 of 1% of Winnemucca being at one bar, on one Saturday morning at 0230 hrs. )
...I couldn't help but notice that your email address is...N.Y.City. You ain't from these parts, are ya Mark ? Well, Winnemucca puts the wool in Wild and Wooley. Hotter than the hinges of hell, windy and Godforsaken, there ain't nothin'...less than nuthin' to do at 0230 but wander down to a watering hole and wait for the gunfire to break out. It's the only town I've ever been to where Oh-My-God Avenue crosses the Rue-de-Shots-Fired. If you ever wander west past the barrens of Jersey, I'll buy you a shot there, at the 'Bar Exsanguination'. Maybe two. Wear your ballistic tutu. Appropos for a state that calls itself " Battle Born ".
5.30.2008 7:51pm