Dallas County Sheriff Harris Huffman said the incident appeared to be a case of self-defense and no one has been arrested in connection with the shooting Thursday afternoon.This is the kind of incident that makes the case for why a legally armed citizenry might be a good thing. If it wasn't for the internet, the incident would have appeared in the local paper and later archived at the local library, likely to be forgotten. Instead, it is made generally accessible so that citizens can make up their own minds, based on all relevant information and not just the prevalent, one sided media narrative.
The incident occurred when Dallas County resident Kevin Mclaughlin entered Dollar General reportedly waving a pistol in the air, Huffman said. Mclaughlin then ushered a group of people inside the store into a break room.
“It appears that once the cashier got inside the break room, a customer that was walking into the break room shot the individual, the white male, with the pistol,” Huffman said. “There was only one shot fired and that shot struck the individual with the pistol causing the disturbance.”
District Attorney Michael Jackson confirmed the customer who reportedly shot Mclaughlin was Orrville resident Marlo Ellis.
Huffman said Ellis used his own weapon in the incident.
Monday, March 31, 2014
"Customer shoots, kills gunman at Orrville Dollar General"
"One person is dead after a customer at the Dollar General in Orrville began shouting and waving his gun in the air."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
64 comments:
I love a story with a happy ending.
Good thing the dead man was an expendable white male, otherwise, this would be Trayvon Martin all over again.
I'm not against CWW if that's what communities want, but I believe the chances that someone carrying a cw is more likely to accidentally shoot a bystander or themselves than shoot a bad buy in public. Particularly if it's in a restaurant.
A simple google search will find plenty examples of that.
"James exited the building shortly after Mclaughlin waved the pistol and told customers not to move.
“He said he was looking for three bad mother—-ers...
Mclaughlin then ushered a group of people inside the store into a break room."
The customer who shot McLaughlin saved several lives.
"I believe the chances that someone carrying a cw is more likely to accidentally shoot..."
David Mamet:
"Many are opposed to private ownership of firearms, and their opposition comes under several heads. Their specific objections are answerable retail, but a wholesale response is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. On a lower level of abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms.
The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.
Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.
Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun, number of guns, or amount of ammunition."
I don't know what the statistics are, I just have a feeling if you are in a restaurant with a concealed carrier you're more likely to be shot by him than you are to be saved by him.
That doesn't mean concealed carriers don't ever come to the rescue and I hope one does if one of mine ever need a hero.
I'm just saying both scenarios are possible, accidental shootings (and casualties) from concealed carriers happen. Are the stats that show states with concealed carries are safer only measuring crime? Or do they factor in accidental shootings as well?
Remember I'm not saying we should outlaw CC. But I'm saying we should be real about it. Admit there are risks.
And don't worry, you metrosexual nervous Nellie com-symps out there,
And it's that kind of macho baby talk that makes someone a bad risk for C & C IMO. Spectacularly bad judgment. Gonna shoot himself in the femur trying to show someone his gun fer shore.
Phx...curiosity question:
Have you ever in you life fired a pistol or rifle? Let alone carried one in serious affairs?
Very few of us shoot ourselves in the femur. Except Glock owners with excessive hubris. :-)
Where do you get you idea that CPL holders are idiot "cowboys" who just shoot shit out of everything?
You read it somewhere, right?
What makes you think I might be a danger to you in a restaurant ... depending upon location I've likely sat right near you and you never knew it. See that is the part about "concealed"...you don't blow hard and show off.
I'm just saying both scenarios are possible,
and
Admit there are risks.
Life is full of risks. The minute you walk out your door. The moment you are driving your car down the street. Using sharp pointy objects in the kitchen full of hot appliances and slippery floors.
More people are killed by automobiles than someone who us concealed carrying. More people are killed by bad doctor diagnoses.
Risk. Live with it or cower in your closet.
Closet - sounds about right.
I like knowing some of my neighbors have CCs. Makes me feel safe. A neighborhood filled with random gun owners is much safer that a gun-free neighborhood, (or campus, store, whatever establishment). Gun free zones are dangerous. Might as well hang a sign that says: "we cannot defend ourselves - come on in and take what you'd like or go postal. Your choice."
Sorry for non-pc postal comment. God bless.
phx "has a feeling" and that settles everything. His feeling. He's a perfect example of the creatures that have elected the sensitives who have destroyed everything but never look back at their own feeling created wreckage, only FORWARD!
What makes you think I might be a danger to you in a restaurant ...
Ari I'm not afraid of YOU carrying. I know enough about you from here to know that you are probably one of the ones I want training the others.
You and I both know though that some people who are carrying are not mature about it.
I'm not afraid of licensed carriers. I'm afraid of SOME licensed carriers.
Nor am I averse to risk. I am now saying for the third time - just in this thread - I DON'T necessarily favor laws against C&C.
All I'm saying is Lem is right that "This is the kind of incident taht makes the case for why a legally armed citizenry might be a good thing." BUT I can just as easily find such anecdotal evidence that demonstrates these situations going very very wrong. If you don't believe me just google "Concealed carry accidental shooting". Make yourself a pot of java, enjoy the Darwin awards.
Closet - sounds about right.
You. Old guy. Trailer. Sound about right?
You and I both know though that some people who are carrying [driving cars] are not mature about it.
I'm not afraid of licensed carriers [car drivers] I'm afraid of SOME licensed carriers. [licensed and UNINSURED drivers]
The rules on concealed carry are much stricter than those for people driving 4 to 5 thousand pound vehicles which have been proven to kill and injure many more people than registered and licensed gun owners.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be strict rules to ensure that crazy people, mentally disturbed people don't have access to things that can kill us. There should. For guns, cars, airplanes, cooks in kitchens. However, the anti gun people want to go further than just reasonable precautions. They want to restrict our Second Amendment rights based on the smallest incidents. If we based our licensing of drivers on the roads in the same knee jerk restrict all attitude, it would be next to impossible and very very expensive to get a license to drive.
I believe the chances that someone carrying a cw is more likely to accidentally shoot a bystander or themselves than shoot a bad buy in public.
Ok, you believe that. Do you have facts to support the belief, or is this a faith-based sort of thing?
Do you have facts to support the belief, or is this a faith-based sort of thing?
Well what did you see when you googled up "concealed carry accidental shooting"?
I do believe it's more likely a c&c person is more likely to accidentally discharge their weapon than use it to prevent a crime. But if you have data suggesting otherwise, I'm not married to the premise and I'm completely open to looking at your supporting evidence with an open mind.
Well what did you see when you googled up "concealed carry accidental shooting"?
That the top story is four years old. That it occurs, if the search engine is reporting the incidents about once a year.
The lastest one "Dunlap [74]accidentally shot Michael Piemonte, 27, of Pataskala, while he was demonstrating a .38-caliber handgun. The bullet hit Piemonte’s right arm. The shooting occurred on Aug. 10 toward the end of a 12-hour day of training in gun handling and safety." was not a guy carrying but rather a tired and rather old instructor who made a mistake. Last year. Thankfully no one was seriously hurt. Accidents....do happen....you know that. Right?
The other stories are about people who were careless and let others get a hold of their weapons.
When you can show the same level of licensed CCW holders who WHILE carrying have recklessly injured and/or killed people as licensed automobile drivers....then we might have something to talk about.
As someone elsewhere observed, "He was robbing a dollar store? What kind of idiot robs a dollar store?".
The gene pool is a little safer.
Well what did you see when you googled up "concealed carry accidental shooting"?
I learned that 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person, vs. 2% of civilian shootings. Also, that there are 2.5 million defensive firearm uses per year and only 600 accidental deaths (most of them hunting accidents).
I do believe it's more likely a c&c person is more likely to accidentally discharge their weapon than use it to prevent a crime.
Yes, so you keep saying.
That the top story is four years old. That it occurs, if the search engine is reporting the incidents about once a year.
The top story is dated March 11, 2014, about an shooting instructor who accidentally shot someone in 2013 and was just charged this month.
The other stories are about people who were careless and let others get a hold of their weapons.
C&C's are absolved from recklessly letting other people use their guns? Those stories don't count?
Like the five-year old who shot himself and his dad THIS MONTH with his Dad's c&c piece?
Again, all I'm saying is let's be real about the risks as well as the benefits.
phx, you see many stories about cops and other armed authority figures shooting themselves and others accidentally. But the vast majority of civilian accidental fatal discharges are hunting accidents and children getting into unsecured gun cabinets.
Frankly, I'm more worried about cops, since a lot of departments have startlingly lax training standards and training budgets.
I don't have a CCW, I own a shotgun and haven't so much as touched it in two-three years. (Yeah, the day they issue a concealed carry permit for a shotgun is the day they re-legalize sawed-offs.) But then, I don't live in an especially high-crime area.
Oh, and I live in a county seat. Between borough police, sheriff's deputies, state troopers and sundry Barney Fifes, my town's crawling with open-carry uniformed yahoos.
Heh, no doubt Mitch H, no doubt. Cops scare me more than armed citizens generally.
But I don't have any romantic notions that an armed citizenry is somehow to everyone's benefit. I personally know people who are c&c. Some of them I wouldn't trust to operate an umbrella or an ironing board even after special training.
Without the data, at best you could convince me as far as cost and effect it's a wash. But probably not.
C&C's are absolved from recklessly letting other people use their guns? Those stories don't count?
That's correct; they don't.
Let me refresh your memory:
"I do believe it's more likely a c&c person is more likely to accidentally discharge their weapon than use it to prevent a crime."
The above story is not an example of that happening.
Again, all I'm saying is let's be real about the risks as well as the benefits.
Like I pointed out above, letting police carry guns appears to be more dangerous to innocent bystanders than letting civilians carry guns.
That's to be expected, really. Civilians are held criminally liable for accidental shootings. Police aren't.
The above story is not an example of that happening.
Okay, sophist. You win the argument.
Like I pointed out above, letting police carry guns appears to be more dangerous to innocent bystanders than letting civilians carry guns.
Since you don't have any citations of any kind whatsoever, I have to ask...is that like DBQ saying "that top story is four years old"?
C&C's are absolved from recklessly letting other people use their guns? Those stories don't count?
Not in the context of YOUR argument, which is that someone who is carrying a concealed weapon is "more likely to accidentally shoot an innocent bystander or themselves". YOUR words. Your argument. You can't start moving the goalposts when you are loosing :-)
There is no excuse for allowing your weapon while NOT being carried to fall into the hands of children or anyone else. NOT being carried and carelessly left available. No excuse for that type of irresponsible behaviour. But that isn't what we are discussing.
YOUR argument was that a CW permit holder was more likely. I would say that an illegal gun owner who is illegally carrying a weapon, concealed or not, would be MORE likely. A responsible person who went to the trouble to register, get the training and certification and the permit to conceal carry is LESS likely to be a wild cat brandishing his/her weapon or to draw his/her weapon for no good reason.
Gah....losing. Not loosing. /facepalm
This reminds me go to the dollar store.
I found out it is across the street Broadway from Meininger's.
I was bummed out because it moved and I didn't know where. I thought out of bees wax completely. But no, they moved closer!
You see, I must buy some "Amazing" cleaner. Or perhaps the name is Awesome.
"Totally Awesome."
I saw a promo for Amos Shock it clean and it was impressive and cogent. I want some. Checked Amazon and read the reviews. Worst ones first. Said it doesn't work. They led me to Awesome and mentioned its cheap price. Awesome gets outstanding reviews but too expensive on Amazon. Walmart just a few dollars. Dollar Store too. But elsewhere 20 - 30 dollars. I'm interested because apparently its good for steam carpet cleaners as well, and 7 Cleaner is expensive, they really take you to the... make "skimming" like profits off something that's probably simple like vinegar.
YOUR argument was that a CW permit holder was more likely.
Right, more likely to be a problem than to fix a problem.
I agree that a CWPH is MOST likely to be neither.
If we call accidental shootings by CCW holders "inadvertent post-birth abortions" and all the little bed wetters in their onsies will be on board.
Since you don't have any citations of any kind whatsoever, I have to ask...is that like DBQ saying "that top story is four years old"?
Like I mentioned, I learned that by running the Google query you suggested. Had you run it yourself, you'd have learned the same thing.
But thanks for the giggle; hearing a guy whose sole source of information is "belief" whine about lack of citations was worth the price of admission. :)
But thanks for the giggle; hearing a guy whose sole source of information is "belief" whine about lack of citations was worth the price of admission.
Hardly whining. I busted DBQ for running bullshit, just giving you a chance to show you're straight up. I'm not going to whine because you decline. I just won't assume you're trustworthy. No big deal.
Note to self: if you ask Revenant if there's a source to his statistic, he considers it "whining."
From the Mamet quote: "...for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot."
I think that this is only, at best, partially true. (That crime runs riot because the law-abiding are unarmed.)
I think that crime runs riot because the law-abiding are treated as presumptive criminals. Because, at the point your government treats you like a bad guy and threat to the community, a whole lot of motivation to be anything else goes away.
Hardly whining.
"Shameless hypocrisy" may have been a more accurate description of your behavior, I admit. :)
I busted DBQ for running bullshit
You accused her of it, anyway. I'm not sure how you know what order her Google results turned up in.
just giving you a chance to show you're straight up. I'm not going to whine because you decline.
You're doing it right now. In any event I didn't decline; I told you the results came from the Google search you asked me to run. In case you forgot what that search was, it was "concealed carry accidental shooting". You don't even have to read down very far before you come to it.
I think that crime runs riot because the law-abiding are treated as presumptive criminals. Because, at the point your government treats you like a bad guy and threat to the community, a whole lot of motivation to be anything else goes away.
I get the impression that, in previous generations, "that's against the law" was considered roughly equivalent to "that's morally wrong". Which more or less worked, since most laws banned activity that most people considered morally wrong -- rape, murder, theft, that sort of thing.
I'd be surprised if more than one law in a ten met that standard, these days. It is impossible to respect a system that doesn't even pretend to have an underlying basis beyond "might makes right".
In case you forgot what that search was, it was "concealed carry accidental shooting". You don't even have to read down very far before you come to it.
Uh huh. Instead of just saying "Yeah, it's the third link" - you want me to play hide and seek to find a source. A simple "My source? Fuck you!" will suffice. I suppose I should just assume when you argue with me your points and rhetoric will be bogus?
I'm really surprised how desperate you sound with someone who simply has a different point of view and is making an above-board argument. It's just an argument, Revenant, the kind smart people make all the time. It's really not an inquisition or a food fight.
You aren't ready for prime time.
Just to repeat my response to Revenant, who apparently can't handle the disagreement; but in case you can and want to try to undermine me cogently:
"I do believe it's more likely a c&c person is more likely to accidentally discharge their weapon than use it to prevent a crime. But if you have data suggesting otherwise, I'm not married to the premise and I'm completely open to looking at your supporting evidence with an open mind."
Pretty socialist-like stuff, huh? No wonder I give some of you righties conniptions!
Sixty, It's interesting, I have seen several Molon labe t-shirts out here. I looked it up a few days ago, "Come and take" is certainly the defiant attitude for you. When's your birthday, I'll get you a t-shirt. XXXXL?
Uh huh. Instead of just saying "Yeah, it's the third link" - you want me to play hide and seek to find a source.
Amusing. I ask you for supporting evidence; you give me a Google query and no specific link.
You ask me for supporting evidence; I reply with the exact same Google query, and you whine about it.
A simple "My source? Fuck you!" will suffice.
Is that what you meant when you told us to "just google 'Concealed carry accidental shooting'"? Interesting. :)
Amusing. I ask you for supporting evidence; you give me a Google query and no specific link.
I gave you exactly what I had. It was strictly take it or don't.
You were "I know where it is but you have to find it!"
What a fuck up you are at this.
But when I do the same to you, it is because I'm ducking your questions and/or telling you to go fuck yourself?
You didn't. You wouldn't show me what you had. You were being petulant or didn't have it.
I showed you exactly what I had. I never said I had more than that, I've been very up front about my ideas and how they are or aren't supported.
You don't understand the difference though do you?
You didn't. You wouldn't show me what you had. You were being petulant or didn't have it.
Actually I just enjoy taunting you.
Had you actually run the Google query you told us to run, and actually looked at the results, you'd know the answer without having to ask for it.
Your insistence on having other people do all the work is a source of amusement to me. That's the only reason I've continued to pay attention to you.
I showed you exactly what I had.
Well, no. You pretended that the Google query would return supporting evidence for your claim. It didn't. Now, since -- as we've established -- you didn't actually look at the results, you might not have known that. But the sad truth is that it returns nothing but series of anecdotes, with no apparent information on the relative dangers of CCW vs criminals.
"Exactly what you have" is "nothing". Your claim is a pure invention, supported by no facts you are aware of. Which is why you are a figure of fun.
Actually I just enjoy taunting you.
If my evidence didn't support my claim that's all you have to say.
You pretended that the Google query would return supporting evidence for your claim. It didn't.
My claim is the returns of a google search on "concealed weapon carry accidental shooting" or any such combination of words is enough to persuade me that people who conceal carry are more likely to be a problem than they are a solution to the problem.
It's that simple, and you don't know how to argue against it.
BUT I can just as easily find such anecdotal evidence that demonstrates these situations going very very wrong. If you don't believe me just google "Concealed carry accidental shooting". Make yourself a pot of java, enjoy the Darwin awards.
I stand by that shite.
Phx gets owned.
Then whines about it and calls sophistry.
Another sad little pajama boy gets put in his place, I love it.
The gun control issue is the only issue that I can think of in my lifetime where the right has pushed back and won.....I think the whole point of that well regulated militia thing was that the framers of the constitution wanted a citizenry that looked to themselves first and foremost for protection. Self reliance is a good thing. I'm sure someone somewhere screwed up with a handgun, but if that spirit of self reliance is strangled and killed, we will lose something valuable.....I remember reading somewhere that no citizen of Japanese ancestry has ever been convicted of 1st degree murder in California. If that's true, then comparisons between the murder rates of the USA and Japan are invalid. Our murder statistics are actually lower than those of Japan if you compare apples to apples.
I would just like to remind everyone here that Google uses algorithms to determine results based on user activity and search history.
So, that said, you may all Google the same phrases but get differing results.
My claim is the returns of a google search on "concealed weapon carry accidental shooting" or any such combination of words is enough to persuade me that people who conceal carry are more likely to be a problem than they are a solution to the problem.
I'm sure someone can produce a thorough statistical analysis of accidental shootings vs. citizen crime prevention via CCW permit holders.
Phx gets owned.
Well I don't know if I was owned or not, but I do know the assertion that I've been making several times in this thread hasn't been undermined by anyone, at least not with any more evidence than I offered for why I believe c&cs are more of a problem than they are a solution.
Phx ... one question for you. Your assertion that more bad than good comes from concealed carry. You say it has not been "undermined" by anyone. Okay, where have you proofed it with evidence?
So....
Have violent crimes or accidental shootings gone up in any jurisdiction where concealed carry is allowed...especially after the "shall issue" provisions were enacted?
I really will listen. I've been carrying since I reached legal age, and began shooting at age 7 in 1949, with my first award for marksmanship at age 8. My government let me enlist and gave me another gun, several actually, in 1968. Fact is I have never shot at anyone who wasn't shooting at me.
I actually am interested in just where you get this idea that concealed weapon carriers are more likely lethal randomly than not. Or do I misunderstand?
Maybe you've been watching too much "Duck Dynasty" or "Swamp People" lately, I donno :-)
BTW...AllenS had it right in the very first comment!
I actually am interested in just where you get this idea that concealed weapon carriers are more likely lethal randomly than not. Or do I misunderstand?
No, that's not what I'm saying, though you got the rest pretty much right I think.
First, what I'm saying is based strictly on anecdotal evidence, such as the google search I suggested. Nothing more than that, and I'm aware that's not really evidence at all.
So what I'm saying is that in the absence of contrary evidence, I believe that concealed carriers are more likely to cause a problem than solve one. The other part of that is that the great majority of concealed carriers are likely to be neither a problem or a solution.
Now that's all I'm saying and I'm interested in the response of reasonable folks, and of course ANYONE who actually has evidence to the contrary or in support of my idea.
As far as your personal experience goes I don't think I've made a secret of my personal respect for you aridog. IMO you are probably one of the people carrying who actually will be a solution to problem.
And again, I don't advocate making C&C illegal. I'm good with whatever people decide for their community. And no matter what the law is I don't doubt when I'm in public there's good guys and bad guys who are packing.
My observation, which may be wrong but is objectively IMO not very provocative, is simply in response to Lem's post about a story showing a guy being a hero and saving the day could be used as a persuasive tool in favor or C&C.
I'm just observing it cuts both ways. But apparently I've been owned.
Phx said ...
...what I'm saying is that in the absence of contrary evidence, I believe that concealed carriers are more likely to cause a problem than solve one. The other part of that is that the great majority of concealed carriers are likely to be neither a problem or a solution.
Also in the lack of confirmatory evidence, in other words. A personal opinion. Sadly, you made a sweeping presumption based upon nothing. You did not get "owned"...you "owned" yourself this time. This isn't TOP where up can mean down and vice versa, depending on the phase of the moon. We all do it now and then. :-))
If you want to carry this conversation further, email me..it's in my profile. I can explain things I've skipped her for brevity...a new feature for me...trying to be more like AllenS and Rabel !!
Post a Comment