Did Idaho pass the guns are OK in bars

recently?


Police say 2 Wash. men shot outside Idaho bar

"Police said the two men, from Moses Lake, Wash., argued with the alleged gunman at a bar, and encountered him a short time later after leaving and while walking with a group of people." http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_id_coeur_dalene_shooting.html?source=mypi

Good thing he waited to do the shooting outside the bar I guess.

Looks like the people who "subdued" him whipped his ass http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sirens/2009/dec/27/big-brothers-poster-boy-accused-attempted-murder/ Wonder if he has a CWP upstanding citizen and all.

My asshole of an uncle killed a family friend in a bar in Connecticut about 10 years back. He fumbled a .45 and when it hit the floor it killed a 30 year old with two kids. Shot a guy I liked through both lungs. I'm a gun control guy but I believe almost everyone can agree that bars are not a place for firearms...

or Idaho wouldn't be considering the idea. In fact, I'll bet there are DUers who would argue the point.

There are some very logical reasons for allowing people to carry where alcohol is served. One must keep in mind that such laws do NOT make it legal to consume alcohol while carrying, so really this mainly affect designated drivers. I say it mainly affects them as people who are inclined to drink and carry at the same time likely don't obey the restrictions on carrying in bars anyway. So you have a law that's failing to do any good, and is only doing harm to people who wouldn't abuse it anyway. It's not very logical IMHO. To top it off, requiring these people to leave their guns in their cars increases the likelihood of those guns being stolen and ending up in the wrong hands. So it's truly the worst of all worlds.

Like many issues, one must look beyond the surface (guns + booze = bad) and dig into the meat of the issue to really understand it.

and I stupid. But a friend is dead and an uncle both destroyed and broken by the death. So tell me logically why someone is dead. And again tell me about the statistics of guns stolen at bars???

You stated a guy fumbled for his gun and it went off when it hit the floor. This could have happened anywhere, not just in a bar. Equifan makes a very valid point about this issue and you flew right past it trying to score a cheap shot with an emotional plea regarding a personal anecdote that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

No one can tell you logically why your friend is dead. I am sorry for you loss, I really am.

except that is exactly what happened.He had a gun in the bar and drank and fumbled and a friend died.

Since what he was doing was illegal and it resulted in a man's death. What kind of dumbass carries a .45 in condition 0 anyway? He should be in jail just for that.

He had a gun in the bar and drank and fumbled and a friend died.

The guy was in violation of any law allowing or nor allowing guns in a bar. The presence or absence of a law regarding guns in a bar had no effect whatsoever on this guy. The guy had a gun illegally in a bar (because he was drinking and/or because there was a law against it), so allowing guns in bars would not have prevented or stopped your friend from getting killed.

Plus manslaughter?

And this reflects on everyone else how? Did you ask your uncle WHY he was breaking several laws that night? Presumably, he broke the first two BEFORE he got drunk, and impaired his decision making processes?

No sleight of hand can possible place the blame on guns. It belongs squarely upon your uncle.

and reduced dexterity, are you really that dense? His story was completely relevant.

...if we were talking about legalizing the consumption of alcohol while carrying a concealed firearm, which we are not.

The topic is allowing guns in bars (with the caveat that the gun owner may not consume alcohol while carrying). The personal story provided was about a drunk guy fumbling with a gun.

people DRIVE to bars to drink. Will I need to explain the connection to you?

I don't drink. Therefore, I am always the designated driver. I carry. I have occasion to visit bars with family and friends.

Why should I have to leave my gun in the car, where it might be stolen by some scum? I'm not going to drink. I may even encounter some drunk asshole that thinks my head would make a nice soccer ball. I may actually have NEED of a firearm to protect human life inside a bar. It has happened before.

Since I would not be drinking, why not carry in a bar, when I can carry everywhere else? (Schools, and the secured areas of jails aside)

That's not something that 'just happens'. He made a conscious choice to violate the law.

That guy was an accident waiting to happen.

about to enter into a debate with the most irrational people ever to set foot into DU. They will show you all kinds of data where guns and alcohol are a great idea. Some may even tell you that it's a wonderful idea to sit in bars armed. The logical among us know differently, I wish you all the luck in the world though. you're about to see real crazy.

You get spanked every time you step foot in here, and because of that you call us all "irrational". You also project about as much as is possible. You're cheap, Michael. Pure and simple.

Tell me, what if we actually could provide significant quantities of data that showed that somehow guns and alcohol were a good mix? I'm not saying that such data exists, but if it DID exist, what would you do? Just cry about how it can't possibly be true and stomp off? That does seem to be your MO. Somebody that is unwilling to question the "reality" they "know" so well, no matter what, is the definition of a closed minded person.

see that data. You'll post two or three "good" bar shooting stories and the sane among us will post scientific data about how alcohol impairs the mind and that designated drivers sometimes still drink. If we all believe that CWP holders will not drink at the bar where they went to drink something then we have entered crazy-town. Show me the medical evidence that alcohol makes us more reasonable. Until then you truly do reside in insaneville. Your entire post reeks with gun insanity.

Straw-man argument, much? Please point specifically to where I EVER said that any such evidence that alcohol makes us more reasonable exists? Where I even claimed that such a thing was true?

As for designated drivers drinking, I also never claimed that DD's were somehow beyond the temptation of drinking. But again, if somebody carrying happens to start drinking, they are now in violation of the law, and should be punished accordingly. I'm only stating that DD's with self control should not be treated the same as those who lack that self control. The law, as it stands, treats everyone equally as totally lacking in self control, and I don't agree with that.

The sort of argument you are making now could easily be used to argue that it should be illegal for anybody to drive a car to a bar. After all, drunk drivers kill far more people than guns do. But we accept that people have enough self control, generally speaking, to know when they should and shouldn't drive. I'm only saying that the same should apply to concealed carry permit holders.

did you or I introduce hypothetical data? That would be you. "what if we actually could provide significant quantities of data that showed that somehow guns and alcohol were a good mix? I'm not saying that such data exists, but if it DID exist, what would you do?"

Spanked much?

The obvious context to the comment was your lack of ability to question what you "know" to be true when contrary evidence is provided, not that any such evidence actually exists of that one particular "fact" (as stated clearly in the post itself when I said "I'm not saying that such data exists...").

Seriously, you just spanked yourself about as hard as you can with your own post. That takes a special sort of talent. ;)

Poster of # 45 stated; "After all, drunk drivers kill far more people than guns do."

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates 11,773 people died in alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in 2008.

The number of people killed with “guns” has averaged over 30,000 a year for as far back as I can find.

Maybe the poster doesn’t mean the number of people killed with guns, but the number of homicides.

The latest year of statistics from the National Vital Statistics Reports is the preliminary estimates for 2007 which shows 12,129 homicides by discharge of firearms. Down slightly from 2006’s 12,791.

Maybe the poster meant to write that the 41,259 people killed in all motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 2007 was far more than the 30,769 people killed with guns.
Mistake? Error? Slip-up? Stupidity? Maybe he’s just fuckin smoking something?
The point is, drunk drivers do not kill more people, much less far more people than guns do.

I’ll provide links if anyone is really interested in reputable sources.

Approximately half of gun deaths in this country are suicides. Doesn't really map to drunk driving, or any crime committed against another person.

Poster of # 45 stated; "After all, drunk drivers kill far more people than guns do."

So in your opinion, a revised, more accurate statement would be something like;
After all, the number of people killed by drunk drivers is pretty much in line with the number of people killed with guns, if you subtract the suicides?

Thanks, really valuable information there.

FYI for the years 2006 & 2007 the number of people killed with firearms even after you subtract the suicides, still exceeds the number of people killed by drunk drivers.


National Vital Statistics Reports, Deaths Final Data for 2006 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf & Deaths Preliminary Data for 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_01.pdf

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) National Center for Statistics and Analysis
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811016.PDF

... They stop being a designated driver don't they?




And I'm sorry, but what laws exactly do we have concerning designated driver status? Do DDs have to undergo multiple background checks and safety certifications? Do they automatically become criminals when they change their minds and have a drink?

the designated driver from drinking? Was it a law? Was it his or her morals? Now, what would stop a CWP holder from drinking in a bar. Why do people go to bars? Seriously, you guys can't be this ignorant.

If I want to drink I usually stay home. No shame in having some liquor around the house, in fact I'm finishing up some Sailor Jerry's my brother and I split yesterday.


And the difference is that a DD is not someone with any special certification, not someone who has to undergo any screening or training, they just make a verbal agreement with their friends that they will hold off that night. If they break their promise, or plans change and someone else becomes the DD, no big deal. A person with a concealed carry permit can't just hand their gun off to a buddy and say "hey dude thanks for taking over for me I'm gonna tie one on", while there is absolutely nothing stopping a DD from doing exactly that, or everyone deciding to just park the car in a safe place and walk, or taxi, or get picked up, or whatever.



I think you are projecting and inferrinng a great amount in this thread. Just because a bulk of people go to a bar planning on having some drinks doesn't mean that everyone in the bar has to drink.

arguing against your own point?

It's the CWP holders willingness to not break the law that's keeping them from not drinking in the bar while carrying. It's the same trust we place in every licensed driver when we ask them not to drive drunk. We do not apply any special restrictions to bars when it comes to people driving cars to them outside of a specific limit on the amount of alcohol that is acceptable to have in ones system when driving. We are doing the same thing when it comes to a CWP holder, just the limit is lower (zero to be exact). Are you starting to see the point now? CWP holders should be treated with the same respect as drivers license holders. They should be allowed to carry when they go into the bar, so long as they don't partake of any alcohol. Should they violate this and be caught, they should be punished.

and scenery, and drink alcohol rarely. I know many people of the same habits.

Do you find it difficult to resist consuming alcohol in a bar? If so, the problem is not mine...

don't need a gun in a bar either unless you plan on shooting your comrades.

"don't need a gun in a bar either unless you plan on shooting your comrades."

You think that is what I am planning to do?

Quit being an ass and playing the fool...

Sometimes the wings.


No seriously, I have some friends, sometimes we go to the bar. I never drink. So, I am the designated driver bitch. I don't mind. They can have a little more fun with a responsible chaperone along. The bar owner appreciates it too. Even gives me free diet coke, all night long.

Why shouldn't I carry, like I do everywhere else? I am a tool using human, not a wild animal. If someone attacks a member of my group, or even some other bystander, I want the tools to end the situation, just like I have everywhere else.


Edit: Correction, I am an animal, we all are. I'm not a WILD animal.

Lots of reasons to be in a bar without drinking. Repairman servicing the video games? Meeting someone who does drink, but you don't? Work there and have to walk through a dark parking lot when you leave? Work there and take the daily receipts to the bank?

I normally carry a firearm. I do not drink. Please reconcile these three data points.

I'm also the guy that drives everyone home at the end of the night, because I haven't had a drink in many months.

of a gun being stolen from a person with a carry permit. There was the time recently in Chicago where someone was kidnapped for a robbery and somehow managed to get a gun from one of his kidnappers and shoot her, but that certainly isn't the norm by any means and she was obviously not a concealed carry permit holder.

Many states have passed regulations allowing CCW permit holders to have their firearms in establishments that serve alcohol provided they don't drink. One of those gentlemen actually stopped a mass murder in progress with his concealed weapon. Maybe it's not such a bad idea, eh?

I doubt Tony (the fellow killed) cared.

No Dave pissy is minor carping. Facts are things like being shot though two lungs and dying on a bar room floor. We go past "pissy" when you find not being able to lock and load in a bar is an infringement.

I never said it was an infringement no one here ever did that I know of. Your uncle was breaking the law and a man died as a result, your uncle should be in jail. I don't carry a weapon. I couldn't carry into establishments that serve alcohol because I don't have a concealed carry permit. Your friend is dead because your uncle is a dumbass. I would love it if we could ban dumbasses as I have to treat a lot of them and their victims in my line of work. Banning the stupid would be unconstitutional though.

a law. He had the concealed carry permits. He just killed a guy and the downside was being sued for cash.

Who knew that an entire state could be that stupid?

"Sec. 53-206d. Carrying a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug prohibited. Hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug or while impaired by the consumption of intoxicating liquor prohibited. (a)(1) No person shall carry a pistol, revolver, machine gun, shotgun, rifle or other firearm, which is loaded and from which a shot may be discharged, upon his person (A) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or (B) while the ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person is ten-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight."

If he was intoxicated, as you suggest, he broke the law just by having a firearm on him. He should have been prosecuted for that. Plus manslaughter in the 2nd degree. Plus being IN a bar with a gun.

Your uncle MUST have taken a training class, it's required by connecticut law for that permit. He has no excuse.

I also agree bars, alcohol and guns are a terrible combination.

I value your opinion and read your posts.

I stopped debating in this forum after my friend lost his daughter to gun violence recently. Her and her child were gunned down by a man with an AK-47.

I only come here when a point seems reasonably arguable like guns in bars. Having people in my circle fried by an AK would put me way past discussion here. Guns have been a part of my life but never a determinant OR EVEN IMPORTANT.

in fact I bought 3 22 rifles this month, two were Christmas gifts. My life doesn't revolve around guns nor the laws that cover them. It's just not that important to me. I would have to be a very stupid individual to think that America will be gun-free someday by some governmental demand. Those who fear that are completely irrational.

You can actually see some of that irrational behavior in this thread. This thread got unrecommended which makes me wonder, do only the "good shooting" stories get recommended in the gungion? If you research the many posts in this forum you will notice a pattern. Only "good" gun stories seem to be allowed. Debate is closed in the gungion. If it is a story they dislike they attack it, they don't debate or even acknowledge that an incident was bad. Like the death of your friend. Sure you got the token "I'm sorry for your loss but...". If the poster had been truly sorry the post would have ended there. a non-apology at best.

I hope they were all Ruger 10/22s. It floats my boat to have guys like you armed. I should not be and chose that status and that is the really scary part.

was a ruger 10/22, mine was a Henry Golden Boy that I also had engraved and the 3rd was a Marlin 22 with a 10 shot clip, I think they call it the 765 model. The Ruger and Marlin were gifts for my niece and her boyfriend.

I just swear by the Ruger. It was a fine rifle.

when I saw how nice the 10/22 was I sort of wanted one for myself. My wife has this little 22 magnum rifle with a real nice scope. It's a very fun can plinking gun. We tried to buy bullets for it at the hardware store and the guy said he was out because the gun nuts emptied his inventory when Obama was elected. Same story at the gun store.

This is forum to discus the politics of firearms and firearms policy. If somebody posts a story about a person killed tragically with a firearm, and attempt to state that this tragedy represents a need for a policy change of sorts, why is it not appropriate to comment on that policy change suggestion? And if somebody just posts a random story with no context, given the purpose of this forum, how is it inappropriate to ask what purpose the post is to serve?

Michael, your main complaint seems to be that the people on this forum don't fall apart with every appeal to emotion. That we aren't knee-jerking, blubbering idiots when presented with such a tragedy. Appeals to emotion should not, by themselves, make the foundation of public policy.

EDIT: Also, I don't think most of us "fear" (you love that word, don't you?) that the government is going to try and take our guns. We know for a fact that members of the government want to do that. It's not a paranoid suggestion, it's a simple fact. As to how many would want any sort of total ban, I cannot give an exact number, but they do exist. Do you hold the ACLU in such low regard as you do members of this forum? Obviously the ACLU should operate purely on what you, Michael, can imagine ever happening, and that various chapters do otherwise points to their irrationality, does it not?

this post opens the door to insane-ville. I can't buy .22 magnum rounds at my local hardware store because of people like you. Once again, who is crazy-scared?

Please, describe what characteristics about me have caused you to be unable to by .22 magnum rounds at your local hardware stores? Also, please be so kind as to provide evidence of this characteristics. You say that my post opens the door to "insane-ville." Exactly how does it do this?

I am guessing the the ammo he claims to prefer is either too expensive or not available, and he thinks we created the problem.

For what it's worth, I've never purchased .22 mag in my life, though I do hope to own a single action revolver with both .22lr and .22 mag cylinders someday :D

I'm sure there are some people who are capable of being totally drunk, and don't have the urge to gun everybody down. There are plenty of hunters who drink like fish, and they don't wind up shooting scores of people.

Just because a few people go over the top and use guns when drunk doesn't mean we should punish those who enjoy drinking while carrying a concealed gun.

I've heard similar arguments from people wishing to reduce the penalties for drunk driving (when no accidents are involved). Alcohol affects the judgment and reasoning centers of the brain in a very big way, as well as vision and coordination, not to mention balance. A person in such a state has no business handling a firearm, just as they have no business driving a car. Drunk drivers rarely end up in an accident their first time out. They may do it for years without incident. Is this by itself a validation of their behavior? Does this mean they weren't creating a potentially dangerous situation every time they hit the road behind the wheel of a car while drunk? I think not. And the same applies to handling/carrying firearms while drunk, IMHO.

I hold a CCW and avoid the consumption of alcohol while carrying or shooting anything anywhere. Lots of people drink a little and hunt, I dont see the benefit of drinking before hand. After the smoke clears sure.

Now if I am in my garage or something and cleaning up I may have A beer, but will never carry when "drinking". Alcohol brings in a whole host of liability issues as well, even if you were "right"

alcohol and gunpowder dont mix.

It isn't about the urge to kill, it is about the lack of judgment necessary to decide on level of force and the coordination and balance to use the firearm safely and effectively. I heartily disagree with the idea of mixing a dis inhibitor and CNS depressant with a potentially deadly weapon. Hunters who drink while engaged in hunting or handling of their guns in any way, give firearms owners a horrible name and do no one but those seeking to restrict or prohibit firearm a favor.

turns out to be what the vast, vast, VAST majority of felony shooters is...a repeat felon who is legally prohibited from owning or possessing a gun.

read the article. He is a local businessman who has won awards. Not a felon at all. Tell me, who's going to look stupid, me or the idiot who didn't read past the gun info? Hint: that would be you.

you found an anomaly which will allow you to exploit your fantasies for years to come...sort of a stark change from your usual unapologetic criminal justification, huh?

the one, according to you post, who now looks somewhat less brilliant now.

Sounds to me like the shooter didn't have the firearm on his person, but retrieved it from his vehicle, perhaps even his office.

The bar where the argument took place, the Underground, is at 316 Sherman Ave. According to this article http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/dec/27/2-men-shot-downtown-coeur-dalene/ the shooting occurred at the intersection of 3rd St and Sherman Ave, after the victims had visited another bar, apparently on 3rd St. The shooter's business is at 1111 Sherman Ave (http://www.convertecsolutions.com/component/option,com_contact/Itemid,3/), half a mile from the scene of the shooting. If the vics spent more than 20 minutes in the other bar, that would have given Johnson all the time he needed to walk to his office, retrieve his gun, and walk back to the 300 block of Sherman looking for them.

At the very least, the passage of time indicates Johnson didn't have the firearm on his person at the Underground. If so, the problem isn't allowing licensed carry in bars, but rather, that Johnson is an asshole with a massive chip on his shoulder.

or were at least able to make them up.

exactly which "facts" are you claiming Euromutt "made up?"

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You thought you had us bang to rights, and then I had to go and dig a little deeper into the story and point out that your interpretation of events might have been less than rigorous because you allowed yourself to read what you wanted to read, not what was actually there. I understand it's frustrating when someone rains on your parade.

But you know as well as I do that I'm not making anything up: my speculation (and at least I admit I'm speculating) is based on the details in the Spokane Spokesman-Review article http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/dec/27/2-men-shot-downtown-coeur-dalene/.
I'll quote the relevant paragraph, shall I?

So Phillips and Burgess were in the Underground (at 317 Sherman Avenue), then went to another bar (apparently on or just off 3rd Street), and only after they left the second bar did they encounter Johnson again, as they were turning from 3rd Street onto Sherman Avenue. There's no mention of how much time they spent in the second bar--they might have decided they didn't like the place and left immediately, or they might have had a couple of drinks there--but one way or another, enough time had to pass between the argument at the Underground and the shooting for Phillips and Burgess to walk at least one block north (to the closest bar on 3rd Street) and back.

Moreover, the Underground is east of the scene of the shooting, so if Johnson was walking east, he can't have been coming from the Underground, but was headed back towards it. The most plausible explanation to my mind is that Johnson had the gun in his car, that the car was parked west of Sherman and 3rd (possibly in one of the two parking lots on 2nd, just north of Sherman), and that Johnson went to his car to get the gun and was headed back to the Underground when he encountered Phillips and Burgess on the corner of Sherman and 3rd.

It's also possible that Johnson went to get the gun from his office (half a mile east) and was walking up and down Sherman looking for Phillips and Burgess, and happened to be heading east again when he encountered them, but that requires a few more assumptions.

I don't know that either scenario is what happened, but what evidently did not happen is that Johnson had the argument with Phillips and Burgess in the Underground, went outside with them and shot them as soon as they got outside, and that is the only scenario that would logically have required to have the handgun on his person in the Underground.

Here's another thing to consider: all three men--Burgess, Phillips and Johnson--are 25 years old. Somehow, I don't think that's a coincidence. Burgess and Phillips were visiting relatives for Christmas, according to the Spokesman-Review article. That raises the distinct possibility that Burgess and Phillips are originally from CdA, in which case they might have known Johnson since high school or before. Johnson evidently had some problems growing up http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/dec/20/a-big-impact/ and I would not be in the least surprised to discover that Burgess and Phillips were part of those problems at the time (e.g. they bullied him for being nerdy and/or the child of a single mother). If my surmise is correct, then we're not dealing with some out-of-control argument between random strangers, but rather, with a long-standing personal conflict between the specific people involved.

he should either write a book, befriend balloon dad, or join Fox News with that type of grasp of the "facts".

of you post is your own speculation, join Fox News, a perfect place for this type of "investigative" journalism.

...is a horrible thing now, only worthy of "fox news?" Yep, I'm sure tons of people will buy into THAT, Michael. You really showed him!

What's funny is that your original post apparently took for granted the idea that the person in question was carrying the firearm while in the bar (based off your title and the very beginning of the post), in spite of a lack of hard evidence supporting this. So I guess your less informed extrapolation is somehow more valuable than Euromutt's, who takes far more evidence into account? Is this really the best counter argument you are capable of? You're truly losing your touch.

This thread needs your attention:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x270147

I'm sure his defense will be that he was late for his dick meeting

of knowledge always cause you to resort to name calling? I remember we did that when we were around six years old.

I must have missed that

...so I really wouldn't talk. Those in glass houses, and all that. ;)

Show me, great investigator, where I digressed into name calling.

They are not one in the same, as you should know. Just in this very thread you have been very insulting towards Euromutt, stating that his posts are worthy of Fox News (something just about anybody around here would view as a pretty nasty insult). Even in the very post I'm replying to, you sarcastically call me the "great investigator," which is insulting. You're just dripping with insults! Not that I care really, as I'm more than capable of being insulting at times as well. But I'm more than fully willing to admit this.

sink ships

even know what that means. Hopefully you do.

Best 3 post exchange of all time right here, IMHO :D Well done, tburnsten!

You really set me up for that one.














He served me a perfect shot.

















Twice.

See I waited for the facts and it payed off. "Johnson told police he always wore the gun in the front of his waist with no holster, according to police reports." http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sirens/2009/dec/28/shooting-suspect-claims-self-defense/

You guys are so easy to prove wrong it's not even a challenge anymore.

Carry permit guy snaps, "In interviews Monday, friends described Johnson as a level-headed, responsible young man trained on firearms and experienced in carrying them. “He is the epitome of a responsible gun owner, but he made a bad choice having it on him that night.” said Candace McEnespy, 23. “Those men were out looking for trouble.”


Johnson’s criminal history, which includes a 2006 drunken driving conviction and a dismissed charge of carrying a concealed weapon while intoxicated

You posted the story right away, and simply assumed he had the gun on hand. And exactly WHAT did you prove wrong? Nobody here EVER said for certain anything one way or another on this particular story. That was YOUR doing, Michael.

You got lucky, pure and simple.

I've already mentioned this in post #67, but I think it's worth drawing attention: both the shooter (Johnson) and victims (Phillips and Burgess) are 25 years old. According to the Spokane Spokesman-Review http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/dec/27/2-men-shot-downtown-coeur-dalene/ Burgess and Phillips were in CdA visiting relatives for Christmas. That raises the possibility that both victims used to live in CdA before moving to Moses Lake, and that they may have been in the same class as Johnson since high school, or even junior high. Apparently, Johnson had some challenges growing up http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/dec/20/a-big-impact/ and was considered "at-risk" (at risk of what is unclear), and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Johnson harbored a grudge against Burgess and Phillips because they bullied him in school, and that that's what prompted this shooting.

Certainly, it strikes me as increasingly unlikely that this was an incident between random strangers, fueled by alcohol and exacerbated by one of the parties having a firearm on his person. Also, being a victim is a condition, it is not a moral quality; i.e. the fact that someone has made you the victim of a malfeasance doesn't mean you're incapable of wronging others yourself.

with even more knowledge of events he knows nothing about, now they are high school chums? Man you are good.

...does he claim direct knowledge of the events he is speculating on, but rather is just putting the pieces together using logic and rationality. He's not claiming that these things MUST be true, but that the evidence can easily be seen to point to these circumstances.

That you are incapable of recognizing this does not say much for your capabilities for rational thought.

make a whole lot better investigative journalist than MH, though MH claimed to be the best thing since Jimmy Olsen when he first arrived in the Gungeon.




Keep your chin up MH, those cards and letters to the Joyce Foundation are bound to pay off someday!

but I do enjoy your simplistic insults, they are always so very funny.

See I waited for the facts and it payed off. "Johnson told police he always wore the gun in the front of his waist with no holster, according to police reports." http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sirens/2009/dec/28/shooting-suspect-claims-self-defense/

You guys are so easy to prove wrong it's not even a challenge anymore.

Carry permit guy snaps, "In interviews Monday, friends described Johnson as a level-headed, responsible young man trained on firearms and experienced in carrying them. “He is the epitome of a responsible gun owner, but he made a bad choice having it on him that night.” said Candace McEnespy, 23. “Those men were out looking for trouble.”

Again, you didn't WAIT for anything. You posted your story right away and just ASSUMED he was carrying. You got lucky this time, and you failed to prove ANYBODY wrong because nobody made any such assertions as you did here, but rather openly speculated on the possibilities.

MH ever actually makes cub-reporter status he will be no different than the rest.

But, to show there's no hard feelings, let's help his career:

from "Tracking Errors in Defence reporting"
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3694&p=772846




wait for it


















here it comes

'nother wet keyboard. I'm putting up a shower curtain. A coffee-proof shower curtain.

As eqfan rightly points out, I'm just putting together possible alternatives based on the available information. That information being incomplete, I have to engage in speculation to some extent, and I have not pretended otherwise.

Your problem here is very simply that you've made up your mind about how this incident took place, in a manner that fits your prejudices, and you're refusing to consider alternative explanations. But the only counter you can offer to my (admittedly speculative) scenarios is an argument from ignorance (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#ignorantiam), specifically the sub-variant the argument from incredulity (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity).

Now, I'll admit to some incredulity myself. Since I don't accept that guns have magical powers to influence behavior, I have difficulty accepting that this was a simple case of "alcohol + firearm = bloodshed". From the information put forth by the Coeur d'Alene PD, and reported in the Spokesman-Review, we know some time elapsed between the argument at the Underground and the shooting, during which Johnson was not in visual contact with Phillips and Burgess. So there was time for tempers to cool, but Johnson's evidently did not. That indicates that this incident was not simply a result of poor impulse control on Johnson's part, and that leads me to think there was more to this incident than a case of simply "alcohol + firearm = bloodshed." I will certainly accept that the influence of alcohol exacerbated the situation, and that there might not have been bloodshed had Johnson not been able to get hold of a firearm in short order, but I find it a highly implausible notion that there isn't some background to this story. But at least I bothered to come up with a scenario that is compatible with the available evidence.

"Now they are high school chums?" Er, no; what I suggested was that they were anything but "chums," so once again, you need to work on not letting your prejudices get in the way of your reading comprehension (though I'm not holding my breath you'll ever manage it). Coeur d'Alene School District 271 (http://www.cdaschools.org/school_directory) boasts exactly three middle schools (Canfield, Lakes Magnet, and Woodland) and two high schools (Coeur d'Alene and Lake City), so if (note the conditional "if") Phillips and Burgess did grow up at least partly in CdA, the chance is hardly remote that they might have been in the same year, at the same school, as Johnson at some point.

If you think this scenario is so implausible, give me a good argument why. Because from where I'm standing, it looks like you refuse to consider purely because it might force you to accept that this incident wasn't simply "alcohol + CCW = bloodshed."

they make you out to be an idiot.

See I waited for the facts and it payed off. "Johnson told police he always wore the gun in the front of his waist with no holster, according to police reports." http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sirens/2009/dec/28/shooting-suspect-claims-self-defense/

You guys are so easy to prove wrong it's not even a challenge anymore.

Carry permit guy snaps, "In interviews Monday, friends described Johnson as a level-headed, responsible young man trained on firearms and experienced in carrying them. “He is the epitome of a responsible gun owner, but he made a bad choice having it on him that night.” said Candace McEnespy, 23. “Those men were out looking for trouble.”


Johnson’s criminal history, which includes a 2006 drunken driving conviction and a dismissed charge of carrying a concealed weapon while intoxicated

far more law abiding and responsible with their firearms then any other group of firearm owners, they are not all angels. (And in mythology and religion, not all angels are good.)

Occasionally a case will pop up where a CCW holder misused his/her firearm.

In Florida, for example, 1,666,203 concealed weapons permits have been issued from 10/1/87 - 11/30/09. Currently 674,225 licenses are valid. In that twenty two year period of time only 167 licensees have been revoked because of a crime committed with a firearm.

info from Florida's Concealed Weapon / Firearm Summary Report at http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html.


Statue of the Fallen Angel, Retiro Park (Madrid, Spain).

This case is still under investigation, but the authorities are recommending that the shooter be charged with attempted murder and aggravated battery.

It will all play out in court. As it should.

I honestly don't understand how you can persist in this notion that you somehow correctly assessed what occurred, when you've ignored--and continue to ignore--various crucial points. The fact that some of my speculations were wrong does not make your interpretation of events correct.

From your link:

So, again, the shooting didn't occur until some time after the argument at the Underground. Apparently, quite some time:

So at least some members of the group Phillips and Burgess were part of had been getting pretty rowdy. The Torch Lounge (strip club) is at 216 Coeur d'Alene Avenue, so about two blocks north and one west of the Underground, by the way. So enough time elapsed between the argument at the Underground and the shooting for the group containing Burgess & Phillips to walk three blocks to the Torch, get rowdy, get bounced, and walk the three blocks back.
And evidently, enough time for Johnson to have done something else. From this article http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/dec/28/man-shot-downtown-cda-doing-better-family-says/

The Shore Lounge is on 2nd and Front, one block west and one south from the Underground.

There's another interesting bit in that article, too:

There does, then, appear to be some support for Johnson's claim that he felt threatened. Whether that perception was reasonable is impossible to tell at this point. The members of the Burgess and Phillips' group say Johnson took the first aggressive action, but then, they would say that, wouldn't they?

I'm not exactly impressed with Ms McEnespy's claim that Johnson is "the epitome of a responsible gun owner" either. She's his girlfriend, and I'm not expecting her to be entirely objective. Personally, I don't consider someone with one DUI conviction and who's been arrested for carrying a firearm while under the influence to be a "responsible gun owner." Being caught under the influence in Washington state is grounds for revocation of your CPL, and rightly so in my opinion. So based on this newly available information, that Johnson not only had a habit of carrying while drinking to the point of intoxication, but that he'd actually been arrested for doing so before, I'd say he shouldn't even have had his CCW permit anymore.

Still, given that the group of which Burgess and Phillips formed part were drunk, and apparently rather rowdy and possibly belligerent, it would be premature to conclude that all the blame rests with Johnson, let alone that he "snapped" at a minor provocation.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/idaho.pdf

Don't see a prohibition...

can get you shot now. "The fight at the Underground bar apparently began when one of the Moses Lake men bumped into Johnson, who was with two friends"

"Johnson told police he was pushed, not hit, before he fired the first bullet."

"In interviews Monday, friends described Johnson as a level-headed, responsible young man trained on firearms and experienced in carrying them. “He is the epitome of a responsible gun owner, but he made a bad choice having it on him that night.” said Candace McEnespy, 23. “Those men were out looking for trouble.”

Alcohol and guns, fantastic mix http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sirens/2009/dec/28/shooting-suspect-claims-self-defense/

Watch the gungion defend this action. I'm sure they'll find a way.

arming drunken frat boys for their safety's sake. No telling, someone might bump into them and the second amendment is all about arming drunks in bars.

But I think we have enough of that from Michael. ;)

:popcorn:

:rofl:

You can't even POST that without getting the post deleted or the thread locked!

"I brought two condoms. You better put them both on..."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What really happened?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

one time at band camp. . .

I actually went to band camp. Several times.

I like 'em a lot!

tell us what happened, what did you see?

All those guys standing around in black t-shirts that say security aren't there because people are overly polite when drunk.

If you'd take the time to actually read the opinions of those you disagree with, you'd find that almost nobody is promoting the allowance of drinking while carrying, but rather, not forcing somebody to leave their carry firearm in their car or at some other location if they are entering into a bar. So long as they don't drink, they shouldn't face any legal issues.

If you think it's too much to expect people to exert self control in such a situation, then do you also support the banning of driving to bars in cars? As of now, we trust people to behave in a responsible fashion and to not drive drunk. When they break this trust, they are punished. Sometimes, allowing this freedom leads to others being hurt or killed. If you don't support such a ban on cars being driven to bars, then is it not a bit hypocritical to support a similar ban on legal permit holders carrying in a bar?

ban open containers in cars. No one in the moving vehicle is allowed to drink. So why do they ban open containers in cars? Same reason guns should be banned in bars, IT'S DANGEROUS!


Next.

...at preventing drunk driving. Nobody would EVER think to drink someplace else OTHER than their car!

Now back in reality, you comparison totally fails to actually address the issue brought up, and that's the trust placed on drivers not to drive while drunk. A car is a very dangerous thing to be operating while intoxicating, yet we still allow people to drive their cars to the bar. Yes, actively drinking while driving is illegal in many states, as it should be, just like actively drinking while carrying is also illegal in most carry states, as it should be. But that's NOT the issue that is at hand.

"next" indeed...

one would use a gun in a bar. Hahahahahahaha yup, next.

Let me know when you're back on point. Next. ;)

act rationally. As for driving a car to the bar, I am unfamiliar with someone starting a fight in a bar and running another person over with a car. As for fighting in bars I am very familiar with since my family has owned few of them. Fighting in bars is as much a given as seeing someone drunk in one.

Here is a true story for you.

Guy is drunk in a bar. He is sitting at the bar and notices a handgun in a ladies purse that is sitting next to him. He reaches in grabs the gun and shoots the mechanical bull three times they have set up on the dance floor. Luckily no one was hurt.

Drunks and guns should never be allowed in the same room.

if we continue to use facts we'll surely be banned from the gungion.

I'm pretty sure Dave said his story was true. My post is true. Lay off the pipe man.

That you think otherwise is what's truly laughable. ;)

news articles based on the police reports? If you like I guess I could wait for the court records. Seriously man, you're too easy.

Yes, the ONLY issue we're talking about is THIS ONE particular event. We haven't discussed the larger issue of allowing concealed carry in bars at ALL in this ENTIRE thread!

Really man, you're just not trying hard enough. ;)

looking silly.

...if we were talking about allowing people to drink while carrying, which we are not. You don't seem to think people who have been entrusted with a CCW permit should be allowed to carry in an environment where alcohol is being consumed. I disagree with this, as I personally think that a person should be trusted to behave responsibly until proven otherwise. You're more than welcome to disagree with this.

And notice that I'm not calling you an "idiot" for disagreeing with me? ;)

If that even matters. It was taken from another individual and used.

completely miss the open container in the car analogy. Sometimes the driver does take a drink. They really hope no one sees that.

But one particular "everything seemed to go wrong" type story isn't, by itself, enough to base an entire public policy on, IMHO.

That is why they have bouncers.

Hell, I used to work as a bouncer, so I do see your point there. I can't say I agree with it still, but I do see your point. :)

They most definitely shouldn't be driving. . .
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1496437.html

drinking? that was easy.

about responding to posts 141,143,146,and 148.

simply cannot be trusted.

are they drinking?

should be outlawed. Think of the children...

If Johnson was not in peril of grevious injury or death, or he instigated the fight, then his actions were illegal and unjustified. Furthermore, if he was drinking, he should not (and was likely disqualified) from carrying a firearm that night. No... the gungeon will not defend the prohibited actions of Johnson. On the other hand, we do call out cowardly people who misrepresent, hang strawmen, or post dishonest arguments to push their fearful agendas. :eyes:

attack the post or the poster. If you can't see that then you are truly blind.

That's up to his attorney now, before a jury of his peers.

Sure sounds to me like he screwed up, but that's not my call. I wasn't there, and the author of this article isn't privy to all the evidence. We'll see what the trial turns up.

Possible this guy is a shitbag, idunno.

I hope you have a chance to repost it, as it laid out the position many of us hold perfectly!

Either way, well said :)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The person who did may or may not have been sympathetic to your point. Hard to know. I certainly wouldn't have reported you for that part of the thread.

not that important to me, it does harm the debate though.

http://gothamist.com/2009/11/22/lawyer_off-duty_cop_shot_victim_aft.php

The off-duty NYPD cop who shot a man following a Long Island bar brawl fired the round after the altercation was over, according to the lawyer representing victim Atiba Watkins. The fight that lead to the shooting started when the 22-year-old NYPD officer, whose name has not yet been made public, got into a shoving match with the 23-year-old victim's cousin on or near the dance floor of the Irish bar Napper Tandy's in Miller Place on Thursday.

Apparently this one was in self defense:

http://www.northescambia.com/?p=7473

“It’s my opinion that Mr. Wiley was justified in shooting Mr. Cloud,” Rimmer wrote in his report.

Wiley, who is black, entered the lounge about 2:30 a.m., and three white men began making racial slurs, according to a news release from the Foley Police Department. Wiley decided to leave bar after one of the three men said he was going to get a pistol, but he was confronted by the three men in the parking lot, according to the Foley release.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58585

'He just in a drunken rage started firing up gunshots'

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/witness-off-duty-cop-shot-knife-wielding-man-after-fight-in-napper-tandy-s-pub-1.1607020?qr=1

John Gomez, 27, one of dozens who saw the events unfold at Napper Tandy's, said the bar was crowded at 12:30 a.m. as two men threw punches in a front foyer. One of the men, later identified as a city police officer,...

I guess no-one was ever shot in a bar before the law went into effect. Whatever...

Do you ever think before you post this stuff?

In the bits you've posted up there, you've managed to falsely create the impression that someone bumped into Johnson, whereupon Johnson immediately drew and opened fire, and that is not what happened.

The other bar the group containing Phillips and Burgess went to is the Torch Lounge, a strip club three blocks away.

After the group got thrown out of the Torch, they walked back to Sherman Avenue, and it was there that they encountered Johnson again. By this time, it could have been hours later, for all we know.

Some salient details from this article http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/dec/28/man-shot-downtown-cda-doing-better-family-says/

While it is very possible that Johnson overreacted by drawing and firing (presumably not helped by having his judgment impaired to some extent by alcohol), there's evidence to indicate that there was some provocation from the other side.

because you have a great animosity toward folks who defend the Second Amendment in DU. Or, in the alternative, you get off to picking at people. And not very successfully at that.

Speaking of bar rooms, you sound a little like Dick Cheney: always spoiling for a fight in an empty tavern.

when you have nothing name call. I was waiting for it Steve and you didn't disappoint.

....say somebody called you a name when they didn't. You DO realize people can read the posts your replying to, right? Saying you sound like somebody hardly qualifies as "name calling." Next. ;)

thank God they can read

pleasure in poking at others.

You have no real interest in gun-control, do you? It's about your own pleasures and self-image. Too obvious, too conformist.

I'm not convinced the shooter was a 'good guy' in this. (Prior drunk driving conviction, prior charge of carrying concealed weapon while intoxicated, girl friends comment that he was 'angry' after first encounter.)

On the other hand, I'm positive the group of 8 were trouble looking for a place to happen.

What would have happened without a gun? The one guy would STILL have gotten beaten up, and all of the 8 would have walked away, scott-free, probably thinking that they'd had a great night. I'm not sure that's a better outcome, in this case.

are getting to an honest question and debate. Does pushing someone in a bar require deadly force? Getting beat up because you pushed someone, does that require deadly force? What would happen in a bar that would require deadly force if no one was armed? Pool cues, broken bottles, fists? Does an ass-whipping require response with deadly force.

Thank you Ready4Change, you response deserves intelligent debate, something that two days of gungion posts failed to garner.

What have we allowed in society to require deadly force? 150 years ago a ride from Montana to Wyoming required protection, does walking from bar to bar require the same protection? There are no bandits and marauding Indians, only some people itching for a fight. Are guns and deadly force required for a fist fight? Not when I was young, why now?

Now you have your gun in a bar in Idaho, you're not drinking. Someone bumps into you and they are drunk what do you do? These are the questions the gungion should have discussed instead of belittling the post and the poster. THIS is why we make fun of you guys. You don't have the ability to see that sometimes guns are not the answer. It's called blind faith. You see any law as a crack in the door to more gun control, you see this crack at the expense of common sense.

I'm not going anywhere, I don't drive by. I'll take, and handle your insults. The majority here at DU have some semblance of common sense. We sometimes wish you guys had the same sense.

"We" sometimes wish you guys had the same sense....

well, "we" sometimes wish that fish had eyebrows.....

It's like a little back-door sneak-attack ad hominem , you know. Maybe you didn't mean it to be, but that subtle way of implying that you, and those who agree with you, are somehow better than those who don't agree with you...meh. Lame. Get over it.

You decry others for making personal attacks and being insulting, but apparently it's totally cool if you do it.
Or maybe you didn't think anyone would notice?

"oh gee willkers, gun guyz, I guess we're in the wrong here. thank the baby jeezus MH let us know we're also inferior human beings."

Mike- if you genuinely want a debate here, I humbly suggest that you post things like your third paragraph and the first sentence of your fourth. Those are interesting questions, and you ask them without demeaning anyone. Those will get you answers.

To wit: 1) It appears that what we have allowed to require deadly force is (granted this varies by state and statute, I'm going for a general, catch-all version) the following: reasonable belief that you or another person is in imminent danger of significant harm to life or limb. Reasonable, in this case, meaning agreed with by an average person facing the same situation, and determined (when necessary) by a jury.

2) 150 years ago, Wyoming was not Wyoming. Also, Montana was not Montana. While you are correct that there is a noticeable lack of bandits and the marauding Indians seem to be easing off as well; there are people who are dangerous. But now we recognize equal-opportunity threats, and realize that the particular asshole who decides to make someone a victim of a violent crime- be it mugging, rape, assault, kidnapping, murder, what have you- can be of any ethnicity and doesn't really care if you're walking between bars, from your office to your car, or really what you're doing at all. Is it statistically likely that any individual will fall afoul of one of these gobins? Nope, it's not. That fact makes some people think that those who carry guns are nuts. It is a fact, however, that someone in our society is victimized in a violent or potentially violent manner on a fairly regular basis. Since none of us have a 0% chance of encountering this type of situation, some of us choose to carry a firearm in order to give us a better chance at surviving that situation. We don't think we're nuts. (at least mostly). I tangent-ed; but that was a long way of saying that yes, I do believe walking from bar to bar might require the same type of protection as traveling from the place soon to be known as Montana to the place soon to be known as Wyoming, 150 years ago- because the goblin doesn't give a shit about what you're doing or why you're doing it, which makes your activity irrelevant.

3) Guns and deadly force may or may not be necessary for a fist fight. It completely depends on how many are against you, relative fitness/age/skill/level of intoxication (re: the initiator, of course. CCW should not be drinking at all)....and many other factors. If I knew that the theoretical guy I got into a fistfight at a bar with was going to keep it one on one, stop when I went down, not grab a bottle off the bar or slam my head in a car door; then yeah, I'd say no need for a gun.
No one can ever know that, though; and no one should ever be required to trust in the restraint of the instigator of violence.

and finally; 4) I say excuse me, smile, and go on with my night. Even if it was not my fault. I do my level best to de-escalate the situation, whether through humor, buying the guy a drink, leaving, or whatever else I can think of in the moment. I firmly believe that 99 times out of 100, these will serve to resolve the conflict.

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

By the way, MH, are you still taking pictures? I saw your site oh...must have been a year ago...and you had some gorgeous photos.



:toast:

In many cases, a fistfight may not result in your death if you are unable to defend yourself. It might result in permanent scars, crippling injuries, or just bumps and bruises. But the 'winner' controls how far it goes. All too often in the Seattle area, a 'fist fight' at a bar results in someone going to Harborview. (our local trauma center)

If you are the victim, and you do not win the fight, you are at the mercy of your attacker, as to just how much beating you are going to acquire.

It's even possible to, as you put it, 'bump into someone' inadvertantly starting said beating. That doesn't mean you have to take it, just because you accidentally did something that escalated into a fight.

You are correct, sometimes guns are not the answer. I'd go you one further, and say guns are OFTEN not the answer. But in some cases, a gun is the only answer that is going to save your life, or maybe just your health.

I think what you are really getting at is our violent nature. If you deduct firearm related deaths, we still have an astounding homicide rate, compared to other developed nations. The sad truth is, our nation is still a dangerous place. You SHOULD have the reasonable expectation of going out and having a good time at a bar with a couple friends, in total safety. The reality is quite different. Bars are one of those places where you actually have a higher chance of catching a beating or worse, regardless of the presence of firearms.

If some people want to carry in such situations, and they OBEY THE LAW, and do not mix drinking with firearms, i'm hard pressed to feel any real concern. Yes, there's a chance said person might not fully understand all nuances of the law, around self defense, or protecting others. There is a chance that person might over-react in some situations. All possible. To me, none of these possibilities justify stripping all responsible adults of this right. But you can bet I'll be first in line to hold some jackass accountable for failing to obey the laws. Especially when they start shit, and then claim 'self defense' when it gets out of hand.

Tough question.

I think it's a hard call to ever say that lethal force is REQUIRED in a specific case. Not because it never is, but because being SURE about that necessitates factual knowledge of future outcomes, and/or full knowledge of past events, and none of us is omniscient.

Never the less, people do wind up in situations where they have to make that call. My position is that deadly force is required in SOME cases. (Not all cases, and not even MOST, just some.) If/when (gods help me) I find myself in that situation, I want to have options.

I understand, respect and support people who don't share my position. But I reserve my right to disagree. To each his own.

In the specific case that prompted this thread, who really knows? The news articles portray enough differing viewpoints and accounts of events that I think the ONLY people who can be reasonably secure in their position are those who don't think deadly force is EVER appropriate. That still doesn't mean I think they are correct.

What a train wreck.

and the censorship of sub-threads that directly related to the debate didn't help. One post that was deleted was about a shooting in the same bar 6 months ago. I would love for the deleting mod tell me why that wasn't relevant to this thread. My guess it is a biased Mod, one who allowed Gunsmoke subthreads but not one involving a shooting in the same bar.

but I support your right to say it without heavy-handed and non-sensical moderation.

for that support.