Previous Post
Next Post

Crime scene, Treme, LA (courtesy fox8live.com)

On the afternoon of 31 January, 2016, some ten ATVs were getting gas at the intersection of Claiborne and Esplanade Avenues in New Orleans, Louisiana. Richard Macklin pulled up in a white Volvo. Police said Macklin became upset; the ATV riders were blocking the gas pumps. He pulled out a firearm and opened fire, sending more than a dozen rounds into the crowd. Three were wounded. One of the wounded was armed . . .

He drew his legally carried weapon and fired at Macklin, hitting him in the head and stopping the attack. During the initial investigation, officers concluded that the person who fired back did so in legitimate defense of self and others.From  nola.gov/nopd:

At this time, detectives believe it was an act of self-defense. He was also carrying a legal weapon, that was registered to him and that he had a concealed carry permit to carry.

While the disarmsists will see this incident and bemoan the “easy availability of guns,” it’s another example of a legal gun carrier stopping a mass shooting, which the disarmists claim never happens. Even when it does.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

Previous Post
Next Post

187 COMMENTS

  1. I saw the title and thought, “A CCW in Los Angeles! Maybe Californians will learn that guns are valuable tools.” Then I saw the body…less exciting.

      • Yup. And Florida just moved a little closer to having their rights restored. The Florida House just voted in favor of HB 163 to give those of us with CCWs the rigjt to openly carry. Now we may see movement on Florida Senate bill 300 (identical bill) and get our rights back!!

        • Let’s hope that Florida also gets its right to Stand Your Grand back considering how the Florida Supreme Court basically rewrote the law saying that if one stands their ground, they are presumed guilty until proven innocent, that they must prove they had reason to stand their ground and couldn’t flee.

        • Guess you missed the Senate President saying he will not allow a vote on either Bill. Don’t understand how one idiot can stop a vote on bills. That needs to change!

        • I like the fact that he shot him in the head and killed him. No fuss, no muss….One less dirtbag and no trial or money spent for him to be in jail…I love it when a shot hits its mark…. lol

        • IT CAN’T be a RIGHT if a group of Public Servants is the one that says you can.

          Only the People can make it a Right! Take back the Constitution and make the elected servants obey it. The people are ONLY liable under the common law while the public servants are controlled by the statutes/rules. Careful examination of the Statutes will show that they have NO AUTHORITY over ‘private’ ANYTHING!

          Their only handle over the private citizen is that WE act like we are in commerce. You ‘drive’ a commercial motor vehicle you gave/donated to the State with the Application for Certificate of Title.

          You have a “Drivers License” which in TEXAS is defined as dealing ONLY with commercial vehicles.

          They must use the STRAWMAN all capital letters spelling of your name to get you into their commercial courts as they have NO AUTHORITY over a ‘private citizen’ and if you do not know how to respond in that court, YOU LOSE!

      • Conceivably, it could have been someone from another county that’s a lot looser with its CCWs than LA is (a low bar to top, to be sure).

        IF, and that’s the rub, IF, you can manage to get a CA CCW permit, there’s almost nowhere you aren’t allowed to carry in the state.

    • Update: From the advocate.com:

      Police said in the arrest report that statements from victims and witnesses made it “evident” that Macklin was the aggressor and responsible for the shooting.

      Friedman, the magistrate commissioner, found probable cause in relation to the shooting for the three counts of attempted second-degree murder as well as illegal use of a weapon, illegal carrying of a weapon and possession of a firearm by a felon.

      Macklin was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Texas in 2009, according to court records, and also has previous convictions in New Orleans for domestic abuse, battery and violations of a protective order.

      http://theadvocate.com/news/neworleans/neworleansnews/14759629-123/new-orleans-gas-station-shooter-sent-from-hospital-to-jail-claimed-self-defense

      • Gun laws didn’t stop him from illegally obtaining and illegally using a firearm. Cops weren’t at the scene to stop the attack in time. But an armed concealed carrier was able to stop him, preventing more injury and possibly death. +1

  2. Damn ATV’s and motorcycles…Good to see. Yeah this seems even more rare than legal Chiraq shootings. Honestly idiots at gas stations are a pet peeve…

  3. I think the real Q is was macklins gun legal. Clearly that butter should have been walking around free let alone driving a car

  4. The 2nd amendment IS our damn “legal carry permit!!! You idiots continue to give away your GOD given right to self defense. The govt has no involvement in how you protect your life or those of your friends and loved ones. GET THIS THRU YOUR THICK HEADS. YOU DON’T NEED A DAMN PERMIT FROM SOME GOVT PRICK!

    • I won’t disagree with you, but apparently the supreme and other courts have held that while the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right of the individual, concealed carry is not. Don’t shoot the messenger.

      • That’s what they have said, concealed carry requires a permit if the state says so. However in FL they may restore our right to open carry but ONLY IF you ask permission and pay the tax. That is a poll tax. Pure and simple. It turns an enumerated protected right into a privilege. Ask for permission, pay a tax, your now allowed to excercise your privilege. Purely unconstitutional.

    • Dude, you’re preaching to the choir.

      But, you really need to work on your delivery.

      Shouting people down is a pretty weak tactic.

    • The evidence presented here is yet another example the laws NOT allowing previous violent convicted felons from owning a gun, though difficult to enforce, are correct. The best predictor of future behaviors is past ones. This is also another prime example of why those who use a weapon in commission of a violent crime should have additional time added to sentence.

      • Wait. Huh?

        How did the laws against past “bad guys” possessing guns stop Macklin from doing what he did?

        The entire premise of your statement is nullified by this (and many, many other) real world example: the “law” does not do jack squat from stopping current felons or prior felons…or anybody else, for that matter…from getting a gun.

        The law is ineffective at delineating behavior. That simple concept is something you don’t seem to understand.

      • Use of a gun has nothing to do with anything. Those who commit violent crimes should have additional time added to their sentences.

        • maybe people who commit crimes while in possession of a gun should have an automatic verdict of attempted murder tacked onto their sentence. of course, in this warped country the sentence would be overturned because a person who commits an illegal act while having a gun will be considered to have had the gun for self-defense only, which is not a crime.

        • You do realized that speeding, crossing against the light, etc are crimes, right? So, since there is a gun in the car, or legal CC, the person should go to prison for a parking ticket, or a rolling stop? Why not work on punishing actual crimes, and forget about punishing possession of an inert object.

      • Then you are endorsing a life-sentence of prohibition of self-defense based on maybe one bad act? Do you know how minor a crime can be and still qualify as a felony?

      • Are you willing to go into a jurisdiction where possession of handguns is highly regulated, walk into a police station and declare you have a handgun, and the police have no right to relieve you of your handgun and drop you in the drunk tank? Willing to go into court and tell the judge he/she has no right to penalize you for violating the handgun laws of that jurisdiction? Only when you have done such and managed to avoid any sanctions can your position have much usefulness.

        • I don’t even know what that is supposed to mean. Are you willing to go into the ‘hood after midnight, and yell out for all to hear that you are unarmed and there to take their guns and drugs, and screw their women? Because if you are not willing to do that, then you shouldn’t have expressed an opinion on how often homeowners should be required to mow their lawns.

          Try to wander back into the realm of reality.

        • What I am saying sir, is slogans are not legal defense, or even political defense. Even on a gun lover blog, slogans should not be acceptable discourse about serious matters…especially slogans in all caps. People believe that screaming a few words they learned is all the justification they need to violate a law and be free of consequences. Thus the test of faith in what was said is the willingness to challent the court,

    • Try screaming that to the thug filling the jack-boot pressing down on your neck when you get arrested. Or to the judge overseeing your trial. Or the guard at the jail when you’re incarcerated. You don’t have a right to anything that you won’t fight for (and win), and neither does anyone else. All rights come from the threat or implementation of violence.

  5. So much under the surface here. 1 year ago, a woman was struck and killed by an ATV rider just one block from this incident. There has been an ongoing campaign by NOPD to get ATVs off the streets. This group apparently tried to take part in a parade that day but were told to leave. The 3 who weren’t shot fled the scene and led police on a chase of sorts. Do I smell liquid courage? The perp, Macklin, was shot in the back of the head. The 3? Reports do not say where they were shot, but if one or two are to the front than a “disparity of force” scenario begins to form in my mind…

    • So if I’m reading this right (and I can scarcely believe that I am), you’re saying that the convicted felon illegally carrying a gun who threatened his ex-girlfriend with a gun 14 days prior, and has multiple violent convictions on his record, was probably attacked or threatened by several men to the point of needing to legitimately use deadly force in self defense??????

      And how the heck did he survive a shot to the back of the head? Was that a “point nine millimeter”?

      • Well a felon may defend themselves. Even with a gun, there have been a number of felons acquitted under such circumstances. And wouldn’t his violent temperament be more likely to rub drunken parade rejects the wrong way? I said this theory was “forming,” so I’ll take it further;

        “Hey, guys (watching them play grabass) could you hurry it up?”

        “FU, we’re the ATV BOYZ!”

        “…(inmate comes out) WTF did you just say to me?”

        (bikers line up like 50s greasers, snap fingers) ATV, ATV, ATV BOYZ!!!

        Shots begin to fly.

        And he was obviously running away from the group of aggressors, who were mounting their all terrain vehicles which are capable of pursuing him literally anywhere.

        Your scarcity of belief notwithstanding.

        • “And he was obviously running away from the group of aggressors…”

          Why is that obvious? Running? I haven’t read much about this incident. Is there anything reported that says he was running?

          Running away? Ditto.

          Aggressors? Plural? I guess shooting back in self defense could be considered “aggression,” but I don’t think that’s how you meant it.

          If you are assuming that he was running and running away because he was reportedly shot in the back of the head, I don’t think that’s necessarily correct. I can envision many situations where someone who is shooting at a group of people could be justifiably shot in the back by a member of the group who was smart enough to move away from the rest of the group or who just happened to be somewhere else on the property when the shit went down, like returning from the bathroom, or paying the cashier or…

          If your comment was meant as sarcasm, never mind.

        • Glenn,

          I’m working off the idea that lining up and snapping the fingers constitutes an “imminent” threat of bodily harm.

          And the running away theory is only part tongue in cheek; the question was how did that shot not kill him, and a glancing strike off a moving scalp accomplishes that.

          Again, I am attemptinmg to formulate an alternate theory that MIGHT be plausible, not officially declaring my belief in his innocence.

        • “the question was how did that shot not kill him,”

          That fact alone says precisely nothing about the circumstances of the incident.

          There are many examples of head shots from handguns not being lethal – or even not penetrating the skull. MANY.

          For example, Jared Reston, in his first CQB gunfight, ended the fight with not one, not two, but THREE contact headshots. Autopsy showed only ONE of those three shots delivered a fatal injury. That was with a .40 S&W with Duty Ammo, point blank, muzzle touching the head…

          The notion of an instantly and always lethal head shot, especially from hand guns, is yet another Hollywood Gun Myth.

  6. So a dude in a Volvo couldn’t wait his turn to get gas? So he shoots everyone up? I don’t buy it. There is a lot more to this story than what is currently portrayed.

    • Sometimes people can be real d***s at garages. Last weekend I wanted to buy petrol, get some ice creams because my son and I had been stuck in heavy traffic for the last 90 minutes, and get home. Nothing complicated.

      Two people decided to be difficult and be a**holes to everyone else by blocking the lanes to the pumps. One decided to leave their car parked in front of the pumps while they took their time doing their weekly shopping (hint: pay for the fuel AND MOVE YOUR CAR before shopping). The other had forgotten his wallet and sulked in his car in front of the pump while checking facebook. It should be noted getting caught by the police without your driver’s license while driving can result in loss of points and several hundred dollars fine.

      It’s not rocket science, nuclear physics, or brain surgery, but to some even simple things can be. Or that some people just HAVE to be a**holes and can’t help themselves.

      • Been there done that, drive a diesel where normally 1 set of pumps out 10, 2 nozzles out of 20 are for diesel on that same setup are 2 gas nozzles. Most fail to understand why the Audi/VW/1 ton dually is sitting there when all the rest of the pumps are open. They are normally on the ends where it’s easy for a truck pulling a trailer can get to, then turn to leave. Commonsense and normal curtiosity are far from common or normal.

        My guess is that the ATV’s were not legal to be on the street. DC is having a problem with ATV/dirt bikes being used for he11raising/snatch and grabs/blocking interstates while doing donuts, etc… They flee before the LEO’s can get though the backups. There are a number of Youtube videos. Even a $250 reward if you call it in and they are busted. http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Police-Offer-250-For-Help-Catching-Illegal-Dirtbikers-321648652.html

      • It is in NOLA. How else did they confiscate during Katrina, eh?

        I believe this was in NOLA, if not… I know some people who register because they want to, think it’s right, or that they have to when they don’t.

        I also think that newspapers and or police higher ups report that they are registered to push an agenda or their own ignorance.

      • States that Require Registration of All Firearms
        District of Columbia
        Hawaii

        States that Require Registration of Handguns
        New York

        States that Require New Residents to Report Their Firearms
        California
        Maryland (handguns and assault weapons)

        States that Require Registration of Pre-Ban Assault Weapons or 50 Caliber Rifles
        California (assault weapons and 50 caliber rifles)
        Connecticut (assault weapons and large capacity magazines)
        Hawaii (assault pistols)
        Maryland (assault pistols)
        New Jersey (assault weapons)
        New York (assault weapons)

        States that Prohibit Registries of Firearms
        Delaware
        Florida
        Georgia
        Idaho
        Pennsylvania
        Rhode Island
        South Dakota
        Vermont

        • It seems you’re right that Louisiana does NOT require gun registration. “Registered to him” has unfortunately become shorthand for “he legally owned it”, I’m thinking.

        • The majority of news consumers are in states with serious gun control laws. News is packaged to reach that audience. Thus, “legally registered” does, indeed constitute short hand for “legally owned”, because the major audience cannot conceive of legal possession of a firearm without it being registered.

  7. If it weren’t for the easy availability of guns in the hands of the wrong people:
    1. the bad guy would not have had a gun in the first place
    2. the good guy with a gun would have had no need for one
    3. attempting a head shot in a crowd chaotic after shots were fired is a recklessly dangerous action; should have shot near the body in an attemept to wound

    • 1. Bad guys are the *last* people to give up their guns.

      2. Guns are not the only weapons available to bad people, but guns can be used to defend against many kinds of attacks. They are just more effective than many other kinds of defenses.

      3. The head shot worked very well in this case, with the attack stopped and no one killed. Are you complaining about that? Head shots are usually safer for other people than body shots, because head shots are often directed upward, and are less likely to intersect with another body after the first one.

      • Ok….

        1. If the bad guy (all of them, from the beginning) did not have easy access to guns, the bad guy in this situation would have been very unlikely to have a gun at all. So, we can’t eliminate all the illegal guns (or the people holding them.), but do we need to make a path for them to add to that collection ? (by path, I mean gun availability in the general populace).

        2. Any weapon other than a hand gun used by “the good guy with a gun” would have prevented the “good guy” from using a hand gun to endang others in the middle of a fear accelerated mele’. If there were/are no guns in the possession of the general population, “good guys” would be forced to find another means, or just maybe, decide it is not worth risking death to confront a deadly attack by a “bad guy”.

        3. Head shots are the most difficult to achieve (the ricochet theory is more luck than reality), placing bystanders at the most risk of being hit by a “good guy” miss. Aiming for the body (you know this) and slightly adjusting for a leg or crotch shot puts bystanders at less risk (hollow points, right?) of a miss or over penetration. But, unarguably, no gun available means zero collateral damage by a “good guy with a gun”.

        • 1. Wrong.
          2. Wrong.
          3. Wrong.

          Take a self defense class. Nothing personal, but you know nothing about this subject, and a forum debate will not fix your incorrect assumptions.

        • My friend, simple logic: if guns are not available to anyone, there will be no injuries or deaths from gunfire. Irrefutable. Without guns, self-defense classes would concentrate on close-quarters techniques and weapons (carrying a bow and arrow for SD is kinda silly). The idea that one has a somehow superior right to self-defense does not mean by use of a gun and nothing else.

          Gun confiscation is considered impossible to achieve, yet other nations have done a remarkably good job of it. Come on, we are Americans. We can do this.

        • Have you considered that simpleton statements in defense of the the myth of guns being a good thing is one of the reasons common sense gun control is gaining popularity everyday?

        • George, have you considered that the overabundance of lies about statistics is part of the reason why gun control is rapidly fading in popularity among all but the most fanatic ideologues? Popularity has been declining for quite a few years now, claiming that it is not is really pretty difficult to explain, other than branding it a lie. Many, many states have moved from prohibition to licensing, to constitutional carry, steadily relaxing gun control for several decades. Once again, take a course, find out a bit of truth before claiming to know anything at all about the subject. Much less everything.

        • I do not consider a near 50-50 split of the public to be a victory for unfettered gun possession. There has been movement toward more tolerance of gun-related chaos and carnage among the states. 2016 may be a watershed, irreversible victory of common sense. There is viable hope that a Clinton victory will have long coattails, combined with a demographic shift to ethnic groups more sympathetic to government-provided safety from crime and decay. The demographic shift will be permanent, and antiquated ideas such as self-defense equates solely to gun ownership will be left behind.

        • You might check in with this idea after the resulting civil war ends. You obviously never learned anything from at least 5,000 years of history.

          If being kept a helpless, vulnerable victim at all times, and subject to the thugs that would then rule everything, I’d rather be dead.

          The good part is that you, nor people like you, can choose for me. I’ll always have my gun, so I’ll always get to “vote” on it. Why is my death so much less important than any you make up in your false statistics?

          Go pound sand…

        • What false statistic? What was the latest Gallup poll result regarding gun control? I’d call that near 50-50.

          But to take the gun owner logic to its conclusion, there can be no restrictions on possessing a firearm, not one. If any restriction is allowed, the justification can only be that such is a restriction gun owners like. If there is a restriction gun owners like, why are other common sense restrictions not to be tolerated? The only valid justification for any restriction on gun ownership is “common sense”. Thus we meet at “common sense”, but the definition of “common sense” by either side is subjective, neither being based on objectivity or acceptable “gold standard” of logic.

        • 2A, you have to realize you are speaking gibberish. Why do you seem to enjoy it so? Why not learn a bit about some subject or another?

        • Gibberish? Ideas that don’t calcify your world view are gibberish? Resistance to shop-worn phrases and attacks are gibberish?

          Not to be trusted.

        • @2Asux,

          There is viable hope that a Clinton victory will have long coattails, combined with a demographic shift to ethnic groups more sympathetic to government-provided safety from crime and decay.

          Safety for who? The individual or the collective? Please elaborate how the government can provide safety from crime? The supreme court has already ruled that police don’t have a duty to protect. Police officers themselves state that in the vast majority of cases whatever was going to be done is already done by the time they arrive.

          The demographic shift will be permanent, and antiquated ideas such as self-defense equates solely to gun ownership will be left behind.

          Who said self-defense can only be accomplished with firearms? I don’t endorse the exclusion of other objects, but I do endorse the inclusion of the firearm.

        • The “collective” is comprised of individuals. When government control of individual behavior results in reduction of risk in the “collective”, risk is reduced for individuals. When police are commanded t control the population, protection is a byproduct (with nothing being 100% effective…but neither is having private possession of firearms 100% effective as a deterrent or solution).

          If you have been reading this blog long, it is abundantly clear how many subscribers focus on gun possession as self-defense. The mantra about “natural and God-given civil right to self-defense” is extremely rare in conjunction with non-firearm weapons. And if most were honest (and they just may be), they will tell you they do not think of anything other than firearms when invoking 2A.

        • The “collective” is comprised of individuals. When government control of individual behavior results in reduction of risk in the “collective”, risk is reduced for individuals. When police are commanded t control the population, protection is a byproduct (with nothing being 100% effective…but neither is having private possession of firearms 100% effective as a deterrent or solution).

          The collective is usually handled as a singular entity. People are no longer people with rights, but are numbers on a spreadsheet, statistics. What is best for the collective is not always best for the individual. Suppose guns were banned, you want to paint this facade that people can still have their right to self defense without guns because it “may” reduce the overall “gun” homicides (maybe not overall homicides) for the collective. So young strong burglar breaks into an old lady’s house. Are you seriously… seriously going to say that this old lady can exhibit any means of hand to hand self defense against an attacker twice her size? Is it beneficial to her for the two of them to resort to “Knife, baton, umbrella, broom handle, wrench, chains, pepper spray, stones, feet, staff, walking stick…and so on” as you called it? The gun puts them on near equal footing. I thought you social liberals were all about equal opportunity???

          Another example – taking hundreds of millions of people and blanketing laws on them when they are so culturally diverse is a recipe for conflict. Many of those people will differ in how to accomplish that law. Many will differ in that they disagree with that law. Those people are not a “collective.” They are a full color gradient of differing people disagreeing – individually. Some laws are deserving of respect. I think we can all, regardless of differences, agree that killing each other is not a good plan? Right? Let’s not kill each other, rape each other, take each other’s stuff? Right? Well… how about we ban lawn darts okay? Some people would say – that’s a great idea – for the children. Some people would say – I like lawn darts, I don’t throw them at people, and I don’t have any children. Some people would say – that is ridiculous, lawn darts aren’t any more dangerous than the chemicals in my home, why can’t I have more responsibility over my own home, my possessions, and the safety of my children? Okay – lets ban guns and confiscate them? Yea?? Some would say – that’s a great idea, If the bad guy did not have easy access to guns, the bad guy in this situation would have been very unlikely to have a gun at all and the good guys wouldn’t need them! Others would say – that’s not good for me – I have coyotes and they constantly attack my calves. I need my guns. Others would say – wait a minute, I’m a 3GUN and IDPA champion – this is my sport! This is the only sport I do and I enjoy it! Others would say – I don’t like that. My neighborhood is riddled with large dudes exchanging paper bags for money and I keep my gun in my drawer near my bed. I don’t have any children and that is best for me. Others would say, hold up! I have 73 guns, that’s a large investment! Who is going to reimburse me for them? Also – I don’t even want to part with them! They come from a long line of family members – one even from my great great grandfather. Others still – I have 70000 rounds of ammo for the next civil war against the .gov and I like my guns! So no. There is no consensus there and an amazing potential for conflict. So to me, we are not a collective. We are a large group of amazingly different people with different ideas, different ways of life, different cultural aspects, and most importantly different conditions that blanketing such a law affects. Trying to take things away from such a large group invariably will cause a great deal of conflict. We are not all the same – trying to make us the same or will only create conflict and is morally wrong in my opinion. As you can see – taking people’s guns is not the common good. Reducing violence and addressing why people are resorting to killing people (with guns or otherwise) is. Also – what is the deal here? I thought you social liberals liked diversity?? What happened?

          If you have been reading this blog long, it is abundantly clear how many subscribers focus on gun possession as self-defense. The mantra about “natural and God-given civil right to self-defense” is extremely rare in conjunction with non-firearm weapons. And if most were honest (and they just may be), they will tell you they do not think of anything other than firearms when invoking 2A.

          When I think of the 2A, “Knife, baton, umbrella, broom handle, wrench, chains, pepper spray, stones, feet, staff, walking stick…and so on” as you have worded it – doesn’t normally come to mind. But I see no reason why those shouldn’t be included in the 2A and I see no reason that firearms should be excluded from the 2A.

        • We agree there will always be crime, violent crime. At this minute, and foreseeable future, not every person has a gun to use as an “equalizer”. People are still being assaulted by bad guys who have overwhelming force in their favor. The likelihood that every person will have a gun everywhere they need it is so remote as to not be a serious topic for conversation.

          Evidence is that with 400 million guns in the public, the type of criminal actions you cite are happening anyway. If liberty means free choice, people are free to choose to not have a gun. So, guns are not actually the great equalizer.

          My entire thesis is that if guns are removed (as near completely as humanly possible), the deaths resulting from gun use will decline, and however many people would remain alive afterward is worth the effort to achieve (no, one or two would not be a success justifying gun removal).

          If the “collective” is rendered safer by severe gun control, then individual safety rises also, even if it is an unintended consequence of collectivism.

          The fault line for gun advocates is the raw selfishness that dismisses innocent life taken as the result of irresponsible gun handling. To attempt to avoid making changes in gun laws, gun advocates demand the elimination of all other type threats/risks, first. This is a “straw man” argument of the first order.

          Track back to the beginning, this string was about a “good guy” with a gun being necessary because there was a “bad guy with a gun”. The line of reasoning was that without guns, the incident would not have unfolded as it did, and there would be no need of a “good guy with a gun”. Reduced to absurdity, zero guns means zero gun related death/injury. The idea is to track backwards from the “dream” to actions that can get us as close as possible in order to save lives callously lost today.

      • Dean, buddy, you should know better than to feed a Troll. Besides, the head shot was probably landed by pure luck, not aimed.

        • You just made my point. If the bullet did not strike the small target, it was going somewhere, likely to harm a bystander. If the “good guy” shooter was aiming at something other than the head, goes to my point that shooting into a crowd is reckless. If the shot was aimed, attempting to hit such a small moving target was, itself, reckless; margin for error is enormous.

          And sometimes you have to read with comprehension.

        • The record reflected a crowd at the scene (10 motos). The record reflected shots fired into “the crowd”. The crowd did not completely evaporate into a gaseous state when shots were fired. Concluding, there were probably many people running in all directions when both shooters discharged. If the crowd ran away from the immediate scene and congregated a short distance away, the “good guy with a gun” may have had several innocents covered down by his muzzle when he was shooting. My point was attempting head shots in a mele is reckless. Being so out of control that a center mass aimed shot resulted in a “lucky” hit to the head of the “bad guy with a gun” indicates poor gun control, and is also reckless.

          Spoiler Alert: do you really think an actual “troll” would spend this much time exchanging ideas? Not to mention that a “troll” would have been limited to sophomoric sentences, name-calling, integrity impugning, foul language, or all the above. Dean responded with reasoned words, and I tried to reply the same way.

        • The record reflected a crowd at the scene (10 motos). The record reflected shots fired into “the crowd”. The crowd did not completely evaporate into a gaseous state when shots were fired. Concluding, there were probably many people running in all directions when both shooters discharged. If the crowd ran away from the immediate scene and congregated a short distance away, the “good guy with a gun” may have had several innocents covered down by his muzzle when he was shooting. My point was attempting head shots in a mele is reckless. Being so out of control that a center mass aimed shot resulted in a “lucky” hit to the head of the “bad guy with a gun” indicates poor gun control, and is also reckless.

          Understood. I thought you were saying the DGU was fired into a crowd, but it was the shooter who fired into the crowd. Understandable that people could have been running everywhere, however the DGU shooter knew the situation much better than our speculations about it and I don’t think anyone here promotes shooting a shooter who is standing in a crowd. That said, if a shooter is among a crowd targeting everyone, which is better?: To risk hitting bystanders in the crowd to disable the shooter or to run away and do nothing allowing the shooter to continue the onslaught? I’ll give you a hint. In one instance the shooting stops in the other the shootings continue.

          And we can play the “there should be no guns here” card, but that isn’t going to happen. Why? Because there are perfectly legal and valid uses for guns. We don’t ban blenders because they are dangerous – because we use them to blend our food, and likewise, we don’t ban guns because they have useful, legal, valid purposes:

          3GUN, IDPA, IPSC, USPSA, CAS, PPC, SCSA, ICORE, Action shooting, silhouette shooting, precision shooting, benchrest shooting, trap, skeet, clays, hunting, NRA high power, defense of livestock, defense of self, defense of country, defense of tyranny.

          And again – we can discuss the “defense of tyranny” which is a darkish gray area when it comes to lawfulness, whatever it’s purposes. But regardless, there are many uses and the prohibition of gun ownership would cause a great deal of conflict. And even if there is no perceived valid purposes, it is not indicative of a free country to “ban” objects rather than actions that harm.

        • I appreciate your reasoned reply. And to give everything away, the culture is becoming more anti-gun with each generation, and with each wave of immigrants from nations where guns are prohibited (and seen as a benefit). The dangers of untrained and irresponsible gun owners need to be addressed by the pro-gun citizens, but it is not happening. Most attention is given (by either side) to trying to prove immutable truths via the courts, and, as here, loud shouting of religious (I love guns, don’t bother me crowd) slogans. The image projected is of a dangerous mob of gun owners who care nothing about reducing unintentional gun deaths, care nothing about pressuring legislatures and courts to dramatically punish people who commit crimes with assistance of a gun (I see no rallying cry to create a combined front to take political action on this matter, only that “someone” should make things better), care nothing about bringing gun ownership to normalcy (one third of the populace owning guns does not make it “normal”), care only about shoving “rights” in the face of honest people who are concerned about their right not to be a victim of irresponsible gun handling. The environment, as presented here, is one of intolerance, arrogance and bullying people who value their right to life over anyone else’s right to own a firearm. There is danger is self-congratulations and self-aggrandizement.

    • Based on your username, it’s a safe assumption that you are mostly a troll, rather than a complete moron.

      1. “the bad guy would not have had a gun in the first place”: This incident proves otherwise. Macklin was already a prohibited individual. It is illegal for him to obtain, purchase, possess, or even touch a gun. There does not exist a place in the US he can legally buy one. Yet he had it anyway.
      2. “the good guy with a gun would have had no need for one”: This incident proves otherwise. Good guys will always need guns, because laws can’t prevent bad guys from obtaining them. Why do you think the police carry them?
      3. “attempting a head shot in a crowd chaotic after shots were fired is a recklessly dangerous action; should have shot near the body in an attemept to wound” Everything about this statement is wrong, including grammar and spelling. It is legally impossible to “shoot to wound”, because employment of a firearm against a person is a lethal act under the law. It is use of deadly force. There is no such thing as shooting to wound, and if you knew anything about firearms, the law, or reality, you wouldn’t write such silly things.

      • My premise is that if guns were/are not available, the incident would not have happened the way it did; bad guy wouldn’t have a gun, and good guy wouldn’t need a gun. Meaning, availability of guns is a driving factor in shootouts. We can’t actually scarf-up all the existing firearms, but how does that problem argue for further escalation of guns in society?

        In the incident, both “sides” had guns, so people were shot because both sides were shooting into a crowd that was in a panic and running every which way. Head shot: shooting at a small moving target is less likely to be successful than shooting at a larger target. Except for police, collateral damage is to be minimized, so head shots should be discouraged and condemned.

        Putting more guns into a dangerous brew of human frailty cannot be the answer to crime reduction. Statistics will prove that the number of competent gun shooters in the population of gun owners is very low. Putting more guns in the hands of incompetents does not bode well for society.

        Employing deadly force against imminent use of deadly force does not mean I must kill the other guy. I can use deadly force to stop/prevent/disrupt a deadly attack on me or someone I observe. If the use of deadly force against an imminent deadly force attack requires a killing, then “shoot to stop the threat” becomes exposed for the crass, self-serving rubric that it is.

        It is one thing to read alphabetic characters on a page or screen. It is entirely another to understand written content.

        • Justification for confiscation, like other civilized countries. No guns, no gun related crimes/accidents. More guns, more gun related crimes/accidents. You only need a gun to fight someone else with a gun. If there are no guns, other lethal threats are more difficult to mount. And those threats generally cannot wreak destruction at long distances.

        • 2A, thanks for the positive tone rather than the vitriolic bile that’s normally spewed against the right to bear arms. The problem with your premise is that nearly everyone can effectively defend themselves using a firearm. Becoming proficient in martial arts for the same purpose is very time consuming and difficult if your opponent is larger, younger, and less mentally stable. As for banning easy access to firearms to block the “iron river” I’d ask you to look at what comes from the Khyber pass or the Danao region of the Phillipines. Guns are not difficult to make, although quality can be lacking in cheaper weapons. Finding raw data from law enforcement organizations or papers from peer reviewed criminologists may help you as well.