Another self-defense shooting...this time in a bar.

[skippythwndrdog]

http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/201825-6208-009.html

Discuss. Try to keep the flames down. I'm helping my grandmother move today, so don't expect any replies from me until tonight or tomorrow. Thanks.

[Paleocon]

1. Well....

I guess it's good that the licensed guy used his gun in self defense, but this is exactly why I don't carry when I know I am going to a bar.

Even though I don't drink there are too many crazies that do and feel they have to prove something.

[ET Awful]

2. A self-defense shooting in which the person defending themselves

hits 3 innocent bystanders isn't exactly a shining example of why people should be allowed to carry aa firearm in public.

In fact, if someone who is that indiscriminate with their shooting is supposed to be an example of why guns are good for self-defensive purposes, I'd submit that anyone that maintains that little control over their fire shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun.

[burythehatchet]

3. this is not about guns in my mind, as it is about the underclass

There are more people now falling into poverty. What were previously middle clas nieghborhoods like the one in Indy, are now declining communities. Its so sad. America is gone forever

[iverglas]

4. oh look

Eyewitnesses said Goodpaster got into an argument early Sunday with David Lightle around three pool tables, said Lt. Paul Ciesielski of the Indianapolis Police Department. The two beat each other with pool cues before Goodpaster pulled a semiautomatic handgun and fatally shot Lightle.

Once the shooting started at 12:50 a.m., another guest, Randy Howey, 30, Avon, pulled out his own pistol -- which he was licensed to carry -- and, police said, killed Goodpaster in self-defense.

... Early on March 9, Goodpaster told police that several people attacked him with a baseball bat and bottles outside McShane's. Reports from the scene do not make clear how badly Goodpaster was hurt, but he declined to identify all the people involved, telling police he would "handle it" himself.

Ten days later, a man reported Goodpaster had punched him in the face as he entered McShane's. Goodpaster denied the claim, but police arrested him on a preliminary charge of battery. At the time, he had a .45-caliber Glock pistol, which he had a legal permit to carry. The victim in the case had an outstanding warrant for his arrest, and so was taken into custody and sent to Wishard for treatment.

Surely this can't be!

He had a permit to carry a concealed firearm and he carried it into a bar. And he started a fight.

And then he carried it into the bar again this week (but hey, I'll bet those were the only two times he did it) and got into another fight, and shot and killed somebody.

Why, he's the very poster child for the responsible, trustworthy, law-abiding, perspicacious kind of individual who (and only who) gets a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

But never mind. I'm sure that bradycampaign.org made this whole thing up.

[slackmaster]

6. It might be worth pointing out that it is not illegal...

...for an Indiana resident with a concealed handgun permit to carry a concealed handgun into a bar.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar47/

Perhaps the law is a little too loose in that regard.

Indiana law has some interesting quirks. Apparently no licence is required to possess a nuclear bomb, but if you have one with the intent to carry out an act of terrorism it's a class B felony. If someone actually gets hurt it's a class A felony.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar47/ch12.html

[RoeBear]

10. Would you like to use this instance...

...as a reason to ban CCW?

[iverglas]

11. I don't have to

Criminal Code
PART III FIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS

Possession Offences

Carrying concealed weapon

90. (1) Every person commits an offence who carries a weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition concealed, unless the person is authorized under the Firearms Act to carry it concealed.

Punishment

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Firearms Act
AUTHORIZED TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARMS

Carrying restricted firearms and pre-February 14, 1995 handguns

20. An individual who holds a licence authorizing the individual to possess restricted firearms or handguns referred to in subsection 12(6) (pre-February 14, 1995 handguns) may be authorized to possess a particular restricted firearm or handgun at a place other than the place at which it is authorized to be possessed if the individual needs the particular restricted firearm or handgun

(a) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals; or

(b) for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation.


FIREARMS ACT
Authorizations to Carry Restricted Firearms and Certain Handguns Regulations

PART 1
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL NEEDS RESTRICTED FIREARMS OR PROHIBITED HANDGUNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 20 OF THE ACT

Protection of Life

2. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals are where

(a) the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals;

(b) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; and

(c) the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm.

Lawful Profession or Occupation

3. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation are where

(a) the individual's principal activity is the handling, transportation or protection of cash, negotiable instruments or other goods of substantial value, and firearms are required for the purpose of protecting his or her life or the lives of other individuals in the course of that handling, transportation or protection activity;

(b) the individual is working in a remote wilderness area and firearms are required for the protection of the life of that individual or of other individuals from wild animals; or

(c) the individual is engaged in the occupation of trapping in a province and is licensed or authorized and trained as required by the laws of the province.

PART 2
AUTHORIZATIONS TO CARRY

Issuance

4. A chief firearms officer shall not issue to an individual an authorization to carry a particular restricted firearm or prohibited handgun that is required in the circumstances described in section 2 or for the purpose described in paragraph 3(a) unless

(a) the individual has successfully completed training in firearms proficiency and the use of force; and

(b) the chief firearms officer determines that the particular restricted firearm or prohibited handgun is appropriate in those circumstances or for that purpose.

To summarize: I don't need "a reason to ban CCW". The carrying of a concealed firearm is already banned, for a plethora of very good reasons.

[RoeBear]

12. Assuming that is Canadian law...

...you posted; why is that your response?

[iverglas]

13. what a clever assumption!

And now you ask:

why is that your response?

Well, let me see now.

The question was:

Would you like to use this instance...
...as a reason to ban CCW?

And the answer was:

I don't need "a reason to ban CCW". The carrying of a concealed firearm is already banned, for a plethora of very good reasons.

I'm not getting what you're not getting.

Why would I want to use the instance of a bunch of dirtbags, licensed to carry concealed firearms, shooting at and killing one another in a bar in, what was it, Indiana? as a reason to prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms?

Better yet, I guess: why would you ask me whether I would??

[RoeBear]

14. So you have no point...

...I get it.

[iverglas]

15. how unfortunate ...

"So you have no point..."

... that you never asked me whether I had a point, or what it was.

If you had, you might have some basis for this wild and crazy thing you say. As it is, you just seem to have got lost somewhere along the way. Attention deficits are the cross that we other more careful posters must bear, I guess.

If you find your way back to your own point ever, do not hesitate to let me know. I'll just stay silent 'til then, so as not to confuse you further.

I knew that when you said:

Would you like to use this instance...
...as a reason to ban CCW?

... I should just have said:

Would you like to use this instance
as a reason for the chicken to cross the road?

Coulda saved you a lot of time and effort.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[NorthernSpy]

5. and I say, thank Gawd...

... that our fight-starting pistoleer wasn't... hmm, say, an inner-city Detroit mom trying to scrape together her Christmas money for her son's bail. If he had been, he'd likely have gotten keel-hauled by the "personal responsibility" crowd -- not offered as an example of legitimate self-defense in the barroom.


:eyes:

[alwynsw]

7. Gawd! Let it rest.

There's absolutely no comparison. (BTW, I think that's the only area in which we've ever disagreed on this board>)IMO all three involved were in the wrong. Firearms and alcohol do not mix - period. If you're drinking, you don't carry or even touch firearms. If you're armed in an area where there are likely to be drunks around - leave. You can't reason with a drunk. That leaves either removing yourself or the drunk from the situation or leaving yourself and others at risk if a disagreement occurs. Guns in bars is a bad idea, IMO. Those carrying firearms should NEVER drink while carrying. Too many drunks have to prove that they're bad asses. It's a volatile and potentially tragic mix.

I killed the article window and forget the names, but the CCW holder who killed the bad guy ought to have his CCW yanked and be prosecuted for reckless endangerment (or the IN equivalent) if it proves that his shots were indeed responsible for any of the wounds inflicted on the bystanders. If you can't control your shot, don't take it. EXCEPTION (This may fit that exception. We can't tell from the article.) Take the best shot you can to defend your life or the lives of others. (It's hard t accurately aim if you're behind cover and being shot at.) Never shoot if your shot is likely to strike an innocent. There's more to it than that, but I'm not in the mood to write a book.

[NorthernSpy]

8. Certainly not. I shall be indignant for the rest of my life!

;)

[Wickerman]

9. Odd case, seems nearly everyone was armed at some level

A couple of fatal shootings in the past (or was that a knifing and a shooting?).

Most of the main players were licensed. You aren't a criminal until you break the law, but its horrible judgement like what these characters exhibit that scare the hell out of me when I think of an armed society.

Once the shooting started at 12:50 a.m., another guest, Randy Howey, 30, Avon, pulled out his own pistol -- which he was licensed to carry -- and, police said, killed Goodpaster in self-defense.

When the shooting stopped, 14 rounds had been fired.

-snip--

Homicide investigators believe bullets from Howey's gun struck the three bystanders, Ciesielski said. No charges were filed against him. About 35 people were in the bar when shooting erupted.

[EDT]

17. Here's another one behind a nightclub-

http://wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=2688849&nav=0oa7UARX

Google works both ways.