Glen Reynolds, the Instapundit, provides fodder for Volokh to proclaim a gun toting hero in Winnemucca, Nevada. After Ernesto Fuentes Villagomez walked into the Players Bar & Grill and shot and killed two individuals,
[a 48-year-old Reno man] produced a concealed handgun and proceeded to fire upon Villagomez who succumbed to his wounds. The Reno resident was in possession of a valid Concealed Carry Permit issued through the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office.
That this armed bystander stopped a shooter from killing others is undisputedly a good outcome. And given that we are all awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision on whether the 2nd Amendment states a fundamental individual right to bear arms, stories about how legally armed individuals protected others provides justification to such an interpretation.
But does this story prove the point? Gene writes:
My hat is off to the anonymous man who likely could have blended into the crowd and escaped, but who put himself at considerable risk to protect the lives of others.
We can all appreciate the actions of a person to protect others at personal risk. Certainly, the shooter could have turned his weapon on the good samaritan, and the choice to pull out his concealed handgun was one of putting the safety of others before his own.
Query: Had this good samaritan tackled the shooter, would he be less of a hero? Had he struck the shooter over the head with a beer bottle, would he be less of a hero? There are plenty of other examples, but the point is the same.
And what if the anonymous good samaritan lacked a valid permit for the concealed weapon? How would that change the equation?
It could well be argued that, lacking a concealed weapon, the chances are substantially less that anyone would have challenged the shooter by brute force, a beer bottle or any other way. It could also be argued that if guns weren’t so pervasive, the shooter wouldn’t have had one and would have engaged in fisticuffs with his enemies rather than murdering them. This is all speculation, so there’s no point in arguing which is accurate.
The question of whether the Second Amendment will ultimately result in rampant shootings across America, or responsible gun culture that will serve better to protect than to harm, has nothing to do with whether there is a right to bear arms. It’s just a way of blunting the claims of potential disaster, and making the anticipated interpretation more palatable. See, a gun saved lives. Take that, you liberals.
My preference is to see that a man saved lives. The same motivation to do something to stop harm to others existed regardless of whether the fellow carried a concealed weapon. The gun doesn’t make the hero. The hero makes the hero. The fact that this person was willing to risk his own welfare to help other people sounds decidedly “liberal”. Maybe only liberals should have guns?
On the other hand, this happened at the lovely Players Bar and Grill. Maybe if we prohibited alcohol?
An anonymous person stopped a man from killing people by shooting him with a concealed weapon. It proves nothing more than on this occasion, one good man stopped one bad man from doing harm. I too applaud the anonymous man, but this doesn’t prove that all good people should carry guns.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ok, how about thousands upon thousands of anecdotes? How about decades of no stories of mass shootouts in states where citizens can carry concealed weapons (which, is most of them)?
Should liberals be the only ones to own guns? Well, that’s one way to implement tyranny and disregard liberty.
Aside from the self-serving hyperbole, that almost all of the anecdotes are about home invasions and not concealed weapons, and no mention of anyone (children included) wrongfully shot and killed, what is most fascinating is your attribution to liberals of the “one way to implement tyranny and disregard liberty.”
That’s right! Give libs guns and we’re gonna make you kiss men, watch chick flicks and have abortions, all at gunpoint.
If any political belief feels it is the one true way and that only those who adhere to its dogma should be the only ones to remain armed, then yes, you’re party to tyranny. I don’t care about the label you wish to affix to yourself.
May I ask for you to highlight the self serving hyperbole? I can highlight yours
“and no mention of anyone (children included) wrongfully shot and killed”. No mention because it’s as rare as hens teeth. According to the Brady Campaign and other anti-rights organizations, there should be hundreds of stories a day about crippled orphans being gunned down by cowboy citizens hell bent on shootin’ themselves a bad guy.
But there isn’t. Because it’s not a common thing. Here in Florida, we were assured of blood in the streets if they issues concealed permits. Hasn’t happened. And it won’t. So, your statement of “This is all speculation, so there’s no point in arguing which is accurate.” is false since there is plenty of data to prove my point.
What harm is there for a good person to have, on their person, a firearm? What harm does it cause to society? Unless you believe that somehow, the combination of metal and plastic causes a normal, sane person to go into fits of murderous rage. Since there are nothing more than anecdotes of innocent bystanders getting shot, there is no data that backs up the assertion that CCW adds any sort of significant danger to society that isn’t outweighed by the good that it provides.
A true liberal would not care if someone else decided to arm themselves just as much as I don’t care if you watch chick flicks, drink red wine too cold, shave your eyebrows, and smooch others of the same gender.
The problem with your query is you forgot to add the word “attempted”.
If the man had attempted to tackle/hit the gunman over the head, he may have well been shot.
You also seem to think the anonymous man wasn’t in fear for his life. Saying he was acting heroically is fine, but he was most likely reacting to a threat to himself.
As to proof, or lack thereof, that all good people should carry guns is putting words in the mouths of those who champion gun rights.
We don’t want everybody armed, we just want that option available to those who both desire and qualify to carry a firearm.
“I too applaud the anonymous man, but this doesn’t prove that all good people should carry guns.”
No one is claiming that all good people should carry guns. But it does go a long way to prove that all good people who WANT to carry firearms should be allowed to, right?
Does a valid concealed carry permit change the nature of the person’s action? Nope, he acted in self-defense. Valid permit or not, his weapons wasn’t used to commit a crime. Good people won’t be attacking and murdering others in bars.
What a crock of excrement -“The fact that this person was willing to risk his own welfare to help other people sounds decidedly “liberal”.” Nice implication that only liberals help people. Care to back up that accusation with any numbers? Last time I checked “conservatives” out gave “liberals” to charity causes but the right to defend yourself and others isn’t a political issue, just a human rights issue.
Not to sound like a “state’s rights” advocates, but why does the city of Los Angeles and a small town have to have the same gun laws? Why do gun advocates have to try to influence laws in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Oakland and other cities that have gang violence which can be slowed by gun control laws? This is quite selfish. Dealing with the law in terms of weapons, murder and violent crime, it’s obvious that gun control laws are needed.
“it’s obvious that gun control laws are needed”
No, what’s obvious is the legal system isn’t doing a good enough job keeping those who can’t be trusted with ANY tool, much less a gun, off the streets. I guess there’s too much money to be made getting them off on technicalities. Instead, let’s blame the OBJECT they use instead of the criminal. Then we can make law abiding citizens jump through unconstitutional hoops to exercise a right while those areas with the most stringent of gun control still have a serious problem.
If you are waiting until the Point of Sale to prevent dangerous people from obtaining weapons, you’ve already failed. Why trample on rights (something I was under the impression ‘liberals’ were very much against) when the data clearly shows it’s not the guns that are the problem.
Hey, you mentioned guns! Enjoy all the comments!
You’re right, the anecdote doesn’t prove anything, but for those of us who support an individual right to keep and bear arms, it’s nice to see a little positive press.
The news media normally only covers the bad things that happen with guns. It’s not they’re biased, it’s just that bad news is bigger news.
Man invades home, shoots three: Big news about gun crime. Man tries to invade home, is killed by armed homeowner: Small news story. Man tries to invade home, is scared off by armed homeowner: Maybe it makes the police blotter of the community paper. Man walks past many homes but decides it’s not worth the trouble to break in because the owner might fight back: No one ever knows.
Joe,
“Dealing with the law in terms of weapons, murder and violent crime, it’s obvious that gun control laws are needed.”
If you deal with the law in terms of murder and violent crime you don’t need gun control. Does it really matter if a person was killed with someone’s hands, a baseball bat, a car or a firearm?
No. A tool is simply a tool. Deal with the criminal in terms of the violence.
Are you saying we need special laws because someone was killed in Los Angeles versus Peoria Illinois? How does that make sense?
Ironic, isn’t it? Little do they know that I support the interpretation of the 2d Amendment as stating a fundamental individual right to bear arms. But don’t say anything.
> … laws in Washington, D.C.,
> Los Angeles, Oakland and other cities
> that have gang violence which can be
> slowed by gun control laws?
Washington D.C. and Chicago have long-standing gun control laws that could be described as “draconian”. How well are those laws reducing the gun-related gang violence in those cities?
Doesn’t the data show that gun-related violent crimes are *up* since those laws were enacted? When do those laws start slowing the gun-related gang violence (or, indeed, non-gang violent crime) in those cities?
We’re waiting. We’ve been waiting for decades now. When, oh when, will those gun-control laws kick in and start noticeably reducing gun-related violent crimes?
“Why do gun advocates have to try to influence laws in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Oakland and other cities that have gang violence which can be slowed by gun control laws?”
A) A human right is a human right– everywhere. Are you next going to ask, “Why did abolitionists have to try to influence laws in states that needed slaves to get the crops planted?” Uh, ’cause slavery is wrong, just as forced disarmament is wrong. Ever hear of the Bill of Rights, Skippy? It was intended to prevent the violation of rights, and you’re there advocating the violation of those rights. There can be no “right to violate rights”. Get it?
B) If the Bill of Rights is allowed to be violated in one city or state, there is nothing stopping it from being violated everywhere? If the 2A can be violated, then all the others are at risk. Get it? Or do you not want to get it?
Look; if you don’t want a gun, it’s a free country. Don’t get one. Cool. It’s supposed to be a free country, remember? People have rights. Those rights were supposed to be protected—everywhere. That was the promise.
If we start to buy into your premise then why should states and municipality’s not have the ability to also regulate abortion, pornography or even integration? All the above as well as the Second Amendment seem to be civil rights and if you open one to local regulation you must open them all .
I won’t say a word. Then again, I’m not sure that means a lot; Barrack (NMN) Obama both interprets the 2A similarly and has served on the board of the Joyce Foundation. Kinda like supporting the First Amendment and supporting restricting protests to “Free Speech” zones.
Hey Joel. Glad to hear from you. Hope all is well.
Absolutely. Just the usual — Truth, Justice, the American Way, andhelping”> helping instruct some public servants in the basics. (I don’t make this stuff up, you know; the dialog is entirely invented, the underlying facts well, aren’t — looping back to a previous discussion: the highly-trained law enforcers did miss the big honking .45 on the Viking-Ax-murderer-looking-guy’s hip while they were busy going through his wallet.)
Hope all is well with you, as well.
That was hysterical. Thanks for a good laugh.
Well, SHG, that annecdote (and thousands of others, not all “home invasion” types) proves a lot to me. But then I believe in liberty and personal responsibility, not the Nanny State.
And the citizen who stopped the rampage would have been a better hero by tackling the gunman instead of shooting him, how? He very likely would have wound up a dead hero. Politically correct, I’m sure, but not acceptable in my book. Like it or not, it’s much safer to put the bad guy down with your own gun than it is to try to tackle him unarmed. Also, if the bad guy dies in the firefight, too bad. His life is forfeit for committing murder in the first place. And don’t you dare construe that as revenge. That was self-defense, and circumstances were such that the bad guy bit the Big One.
Our host is mostly right in that a single incident proves nothing. (Actually, I think it’s demonstrable that it proves almost nothing. Close enough for this discussion.)
That said, the data is in on the effect of [a bit of perhaps unobjective characterization coming] modern, mainstream, commonsense, “shall issue” carry laws. We’ve got, collectively, tens of millions (at least) of person-years of civilians carrying under them in upwards of forty states.
The only real issue is how to interpret the data, and I don’t know of anybody who is arguing that they’ve had a demonstrable negative effect. (Lott argues that there’s a small but demonstrable positive effect; Donahue, etc. argue that there’s no demonstrable effect at all. Obama’s Joyce Foundation keeps funding studies to find bad stuff, and keeps falling on its face.)
On a personal level, such laws have made a huge difference to me on two occasions — I can’t prove that I’d have been killed or crippled the times I’ve had to take my gun out “for serious”, although it certaily seemed that way at the time.
Realistically, though, I’m unlikely to ever have to do that again to protect myself, and vanishingly unlikely to use my handgun to stop a multiple victim public shooting. (I’m not just not a hero; I’m a well-trained, competent, devout professional coward, and what are the chances I’d be around one, anyway.)
That’s okay. I’m probably not going to get into another major auto accident, either, and I’ll continue to fasten my seatbelt when driving, and insist that my passengers do, too.
“To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.”
–Ted Nugent
Bad Boys, Bad Boys, Whatcha gonna do…
When I tackled the issue raised by Eugene Volokh’s praise of a gun-toting good samaritan, I
expected some of the RKBA crowd to come out from under the rock.