Five Dead in Florida restaurant shootings. A domestic dispute.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37548334/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts

HIALEAH, Fla. - An apparent domestic dispute ended in a rampage that left four women and the suspected gunman dead in Florida late on Sunday, according to local reports.

The incident began when a man in his 30s shot a woman after an argument in a parking lot at a strip mall in Hialeah, the Miami Herald reported.

The gunman then entered the Yoyito Restaurant at around 10 p.m. and shot six other women, the newspaper reported. Three later died.

I still support your right to post freely.

He may verty well have been, but without inside info it's guesswork at this point. If he wasn't concealed carry is irrelevant. If he was, it's only relevant if he would not have killed them without a CCW. Since he proved himself unstable enough to kill without reason, it's hardly a stretch to imagine he was unstable enough to go back for his gun had he needed to.

It should make people sit up and think twice about CC, but then again, this is Florida.

I don't think about the legality of using a carving knife when somebody is killed with one. Does anyone?

Look at what violent video games have done to the youth of America. There is far less measurable empathy today than since we first started measuring it. Years of damage has been done to the youth (although I acknowledge many other factors, too). Before violent video was the norm, people limited their behavior in certain ways, including having a certain level of empathy and understanding of other people's strife. The constant violence, seen, used, observed on screen, made that empathy disappear.

The same idea "limit on behavior" applies to firearms. Once it becomes the norm to carry live weapons in normal society, people lose any inhibition against doing so. The chances of someone going postal increase dramatically.

Ours is not a healthy society. Your post proves that.

reflected in the greatly declining crime rates as CCW laws swept the US? If so, please explain.

Violent crime - including with guns - is down significantly over the last thirty or so years. Gun ownership has increased and CCW has skyrocketed in this period, so obviously no the chances of people going postal has not increased dramatically, and has in fact decreased significantly.

The "limit on behavior" argument is also reversed. Kids no longer routinely get introduced to guns. They are not allowed to play with even toy guns at school, and discouraged from doing so outside school far more than ever before. Violent video games have never been correlated successfully with violent behavior, and the study on empathy uses self-reporting that is biased towards current norms. It could just as easily be interpreted as students not meeting their own much higher standards for empathy.

That said the salient point is the effect shootings should have on CCW opinions, and the answer is as it should always be - what data do we have? The result would show CCW increasing dramatically while violent crime, with guns or without, is dropping dramatically. Any rational conclusion would have to be that if the two are connected at all (which is I confess only marginally probable) it is that CCW lowers crimes, not increases them.

What makes you think your "gun interventionist strategy" will change this, since the crime rate has been dropping during a time when American civilians have been purchasing record quantities of firearms.

It should be pointed out that concealed-carry laws allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. And data so far indicates that the average CC permittee is much more law-abiding than the citizenry as a whole.

If the killer in this incident has such a permit, please indicate; otherwise, your remarks about concealed-carry are not relevant.

If defectives like this are going off and shooting people, maybe more sane people should carry as a defense.

Instances like this are more reason to get your CHP.

Do you really believe that someone who's willing to commit murder would balk at illegally carrying a firearm? ( I'll give you a hint your answer is in Chicago)

It is highly doubtful that the shooter was LEGALLY carrying concealed. If he was carrying illegally, then changing the laws would not have stopped him. But by allowing those who go through the permitting process to carry, then those people would have a chance to defend themselves.

It is amazing to watch how those who are against gun-right continually confuse legal and illegal carry.

What, you plan on training people to grab their purses, find their gun, take off the safety, make sure the chamber is loaded, find the target, take aim, and shoot the bullet coming at them with their own bullet?

What a crock of shit. Think before you post, ok?

If, on the other hand, you suggest that an untrained person, using a wildly hard to aim weapon, can shoot the body of the shooter, accurately, without hitting an innocent bystander, or even shooting themselves in the process, given the stress of the situation, then obviously you have never spent time with any military, FBI, or police trainers who would tell a very different story.

It must be a tight fit...

Meanwhile, in the real world, where Citizens actually do manage to miraculously defend themselves with fascinating frequency...

so I don't have the problem of searching desperately for my concealed weapon in a bag full of cosmetics.

I carry a .38 snub nosed revolver in a holster in my right front pants pocket. I have no reason to take the safety off, as there is no safety. I know the revolver is loaded and have no need to check to be certain.

Your statement "find the target, take aim, and shoot the bullet coming at them with their own bullet" hopefully shows a sense of humor. I believe that you have the ability to distinguish movies such as the Matrix from real life.

Still, you make a valid point. Shooting a handgun accurately is not a simple task. It requires training and practice. I know a number of regular shooters on the range who have carry permits. They practice on a regular basis, usually weekly. Most are better shooters than the majority of the police you see on the street. They enjoy shooting where most police see shooting as a yearly test they have to pass.

The police do have an advantage in a stressful situation as they are often exposed to dangerous situations on the job. They also receive a lot of training on how to handle these situations.

I was fortunate to have a couple of friends at the range who were retired police firearm instructors who were willing to help me improve my shooting. They did teach me a lot.

There have been numerous shootings in Florida in which a civilian with a carry permit successfully used their weapon to stop a violent attack. I haven't read of many incidents in which a stray bullet from the firearm of a CCW holder injured an innocent bystander. I does happen, but is surprisingly rare.

Training is the key. The first issue? Safety. Next issue? Safety. In fact, I think the next 14 or 15 issues are summed up in one word, Safety.

I recall that video of the unhappy client emptying his gun at his own lawyer, who was ducking behind a bush, then a small tree. 4 ft away, and he still could not hit an open target. (Being a lawyer, I am happy about that result)

Spin, you are a rarity. Too many people think that guns point themselves by magic, handguns in particular. Years ago, when I was a far better shot than I am now, I hit a 3 inch bullseye at 70 feet with cop friend's 38 revolver, and I still think that was mostly luck. (heck, I might have problems seeing the damn target now) But that same day, I hit a large twig, at 150 yds, with his .22 target rifle. It felt like I could fly. We had been shooting seriously almost for 4 weeks, every other day or so, and my comfort level was pretty good then. No longer.

Glad you caught the humor. I've actually heard gun owners claim that they would have "shot the gun out of the culprit's hand" in self defense. Yeah. Right. Maybe, if you stood 8 feet away, had a 12 gauge loaded with flechettes, and had 3 - 4 shots to do it in.

Often in a defensive shooting you tend to concentrate on the threat. If the attacker is armed with a handgun you may well focus on the weapon and shoot at it rather than center body mass.

That's where some of those stories you hear about come from. The defender wasn't really trying to shoot the gun out of the attacker's hand but his concentration caused this to happen. He fired at the attackers firearm out of fear of its threat and just managed to hit it. It's more dumb luck rather than skill.

Remember too that most defensive gun uses occur well within 21 feet.

I finally became a fairly good shooter with a handgun after many years of target shooting. This happened just as my eyes got old.

Perhaps spin appears to be a rarity to you due to your bias against gun owners. My experience -- interacting with gun owners for about eight years now -- is that the vast majority are responsible and rational.

The sequence is actually "draw pistol from holster while moving off the X, front sight on target, pull trigger". No rooting around in purses necessary (women are allowed to wear holsters too, you know), no checking of chambers, and if the target isn't blatantly obvious and the focus of your full attention, then it's a pretty safe bet your circumstances don't justify armed self-defense in the first place.


Hmmm, like this guy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=320448&mesg_id=320448

Why would you assume that "holds CHL license and carries a firearm" equals "untrained and incompetent"?

How much shooting under stress do *you* do on an annual basis? I shoot USPSA matches when I can, pistol and carbine. And yes, I hold a CHL, and I think it is fair to say I could pass the state police firearms quals of most states with my EDC (they're actually not very stringent).

And yes, I have spent a fair amount of time shooting with military and police.

It happens with regularity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x320206

What, you plan on training people to grab their purses, find their gun, take off the safety, make sure the chamber is loaded, find the target, take aim, and shoot the bullet coming at them with their own bullet

I carry my pistol holstered W/ a round in the chamber and the safety (DA/SA) off. It is never unloaded. I have also had some stress inoculation training as well as defensive pistol and military MOUT training. Many permit holders train W/ their weapon regularly because they understand just how serious this business is.

By chance, did you do your research by watching ABC's "If I only had a gun."?

I sometimes carry in a Maxpedition bag - but it has a dedicated holster compartment as does a lot of "gun purses". I can get the bag opened and the gun out just slightly slower than drawing from a holster. Heck some of the "gun purses" you could shoot the revolver from inside the purse - a semi will also shoot at least once though you'll probably get a jam shooting from a purse or pocket. At close range point shooting works.

Take off the safety - none of my handguns have external safeties.

Make sure chamber is loaded - I always carry with one in the chamber or cylinder of revolver.

First I'd drop into any available cover as I find the target.

Fire.

Not saying it would be easy. Or I would survive. But at least I'd have a chance. And maybe my training would kick in and clue me the shit has hit the fan.

I've seen at least two situations just this past week where innocent women were killed in a domestic and you have to wonder if maybe they had been carrying if they might have had a chance. Or even the tactical training and mindset.

In my area this happened a few days ago. The weapon was a .22

Stacey was driving southbound on State Route 981 in Mt. Pleasant Tuesday night when her SUV was flagged down by a bleeding Janet Piper.

She and her 16-year-old daughter had been shot by her husband Raymond Piper, Sr., who was on a shooting spree.

When Stacey stopped the car to let Janet in, Raymond reached in the driver's side and shot Stacey as well.

"Had the door open and just let it go," Elijah Mizikar, of the Calumet VFD, said.

http://kdka.com/westmoreland/Calumet.shooting.spree.2.1729470.html

Your scenario is rather silly. I carry my guns in my pocket and a second gun in a holster in a waistband holster. The gun in the pocket has nothing else in that pocket except a shield to break up the outline so it doesn't print.

I alway carry with a round in the chamber, safety on. Taking the safety off is merely a flick of the thumb. My wife, who also carries either carries in waistband holster or in a special gun pack. Each of us can get our gun into action very rapidly.

Most gunfights are at extreme close range so the method of aiming would be point-fire. With practice, point-fire can be accurate enough at close range.

Handguns are not wildly hard to aim.

I am a Vietnam veteran and a retired private investigator. I think I know a think or two about guns. In fact, you will find that the regular pro-gun posters here in this forum are extremely knowledgable about guns, and about real life self defense situations.

BTW - A few years ago, my wife saved herself from being murdered by using the gun that she was carrying.

Now a question for you. In the situation of the OP, how would being unarmed provide greater protection than being armed. By being armed a person has a chance as taking out the shooter.

Never mind that there is a large number of major firearm instruction institutions, like LFI, Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, Valhalla, and FAS to name a few, that are all doing more than adequate business teaching private citizens how to use firearms defensively. Not to mention small-scale instructors at every indoor firing range, and of course an extensive network of NRA-certified instructors.

...that's the textbook definition of a "straw man" fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html).


In a word, no, and you're not going to find a reputable firearms instructor who will present your extremely contrived scenario as the correct way of going about self-defense with a firearm.

If you take a look at the basic doctrine taught by someone like Rob Pincus, you'll find quite a different scenario. Pincus recommends carrying a striker-fired pistol (e.g. Glock, Springfield XD or S&W M&P) without an external safety in a Kydex, straight-drop belt holster; but whether or not you do that specifically, he urges to be consistent about your method of carry, so that you'll know where your handgun is. If you do use a pistol with an external safety, you disengage it while extending the weapon towards the target. So that takes care of "grabbing your purse," "finding your gun" and "taking off the safety."

If you're carrying for self-defense without a round chamber, U R doin it wrong, as the kids say these days. Besides, plenty of recent production handguns feature loaded chamber indicators. And as others have noted, if you're in a position in which lethal force in self-defense is justified, you already know who your target is.


But anyone attempting to rob you with a firearm, or make you victim of a mass shooting, will place his shots unerringly, which is why it's futile to attempt to use a firearm for self-defense.

And what a curious dichotomy you present: on the one hand, according to your contrived 25-step scenario, there's no way to train private citizens to become effective with a handgun; on the other, there's no way to become effective with a handgun without training. Apparently, there's no way you can become effective with a handgun except by becoming an agent of the state.

All of the people who are anti gun rights always count a defensive gun use only if the defender shoots the bad guy. In real life, the bad guy usually takes off running as soon as he discovers that his intended victim has a gun. I personally know or have know several people who have genuinely used their guns in the face of violent crime. In none of those cases, including my wife's, were shots fired.

"What a crock of shit. Think before you post, ok?"

You might take some of your own advice there, sir.

"If, on the other hand, you suggest that an untrained person, using a wildly hard to aim weapon, can shoot the body of the shooter, accurately, without hitting an innocent bystander, or even shooting themselves in the process, given the stress of the situation, then obviously you have never spent time with any military, FBI, or police trainers who would tell a very different story."

Easy to creat imagined failure, when you also create the imagined ridiculous circumstances of it, isnt it?

in 2008 there were 1,041 alcohol related fatalities in Florida yet the state has not repealed legal alcohol drinking laws....bunch of idiots, huh?

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-florida.html

4 women dead, 3 wounded after Miami-area shooting

By SUZETTE LABOY (AP) – 46 minutes ago
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hworEoieQd1D6lpvLgWRFTgAWOvwD9G6GK0O0

A man police have identified as the gunman in a mass shooting in Hialeah is believed to be the half-brother of former Major League baseball player Orlando ``El Duque'' Hernandez.

Gerardo Regalado was behind the murderous rampage at a Hialeah restaurant late Sunday that left four women dead and three others wounded in the city's worst mass murder in its history, police said.

Regalado, 38, of Coral Gables, apparently committed suicide blocks from the mass killing.

Among those he allegedly gunned down at Yoyito's Restaurant was Regalado's estranged girlfriend, Liazan Molina, 24, who worked at the eatery, Hialeah police said.

Spanish-language media in Miami have reported that Regalado is also related to former New York Yankee and former Florida Marlin Livan Hernandez.



Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/07/1667678/suspect-identified-in-rampage.html#ixzz0qBjNoDV9

If You Are Going To Allow Guns and Ammo For a political purpose then you will have this dead kill outrage
and Ammo for any other purpose for any reason or no reason whatsoever.

Usually killers have committed prior serious crimes and have their guns unlawfully.

Minus points to you for using an unwarranted assumption.

I didn't think it was possible for you to make less sense than you normally do.

Five Dead in Florida restaurant shootings. A domestic dispute.
Posted by Captain Hilts
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37548334/ns/us_news-crime_a...

HIALEAH, Fla. - An apparent domestic dispute ended in a rampage that left four women and the suspected gunman dead in Florida late on Sunday, according to local reports.

The incident began when a man in his 30s shot a woman after an argument in a parking lot at a strip mall in Hialeah, the Miami Herald reported.

The gunman then entered the Yoyito Restaurant at around 10 p.m. and shot six other women, the newspaper reported. Three later died.

----------------------------------------------------





Remind me why this is posted in this forum?

I see nothing concerning "gun-related public policy or the use of firearms for self-defense".