“It was utter chaos,” he said. “People were trying to get out, running over each other, losing shoes. I don’t blame them.”Guns are probably allowed in places that serve alcohol in Minnesota, so why didn't one of the other patrons put a stop to this? Why did it take a wild-west saloon scene like hitting the shooter over the head with a chair?When the shooting ended, Edward John Walberg, 40, was shot to death in the chair Jugovich had been sitting in earlier in the evening. Cale Steven Nelson, 29, was critically wounded after being shot in the stomach and Larry Vernon Elj, 38, was shot in the shoulder.
The alleged shooter, Jason Musburger, 47, a former Chisholm police officer, was subdued by patrons, including Ryan Simonson, who smashed a chair over Musburger’s head.
“It was heroic,” Jugovich said of Simonson’s actions. “If that didn’t happen, there was another gun and more people could have been injured or killed. He was very courageous.”
The story doesn't tell us whether alcohol had anything to do with it, but I'm guessing it did. It also doesn't tell us anything interesting about the shooter except that he had been a cop years ago and now worked for the city. I'd bet there were plenty of indications that Mr. Musburger shouldn't have been allowed to own guns. What do you think?
Is this a good example of why it's bad to allow armed folks to hang around in bars? Is the only pro-gun defense going to be that it happens infrequently enough that it's OK? Is this just part of the price we must pay for "freedom?"
Please leave a comment.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteGuns are probably allowed in places that serve alcohol in Minnesota, so why didn't one of the other patrons put a stop to this?
It does seem to be the case that Minnesota allows carrying in bars (I was a bit surprised about that--many states with legal concealed carry do not, and I kinda expected MN to be one of the restrictive states). Carrying while drinking is, however, illegal, and the law is fairly strict:
A person may not carry a under the influence of a controlled substance, under the influence of any chemical compound or combination of chemical compounds that affects the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the person so as to impair the person's clearness of intellect or physical control, or when the person is under the influence of alcohol.
When an officer has reason to believe that the person may be violating, the officer may require the person to provide a breath sample for the purpose of deciding whether an arrest should be made and whether to require the chemical tests authorized. Following the preliminary screening test, additional tests may be required.
If a person’s alcohol concentration is .10 or more, the permit is revoked and the person may not reapply for a period of one year from the date of conviction.
If a person’s alcohol concentration is more than .04, the permit is suspended for 180 days from the date of conviction.
So if the shooter was drinking, he's in that much more trouble (that's a joke). We also have a good idea as to why there was no return fire--unless you take a "designated shooter" (armed teetotaler) along, there is no legal way for "one of the other patrons to put a stop to this" with a gun.
I think you're guessing and making wild assumptions again.
ReplyDeleteYou do know what they say about making assumptions right MikeB?...
He left the bar then came back with a gun. This has nothing to do with conseal and carry!
ReplyDelete"It also doesn't tell us anything interesting about the shooter except that he had been a cop years ago and now worked for the city. I'd bet there were plenty of indications that Mr. Musburger shouldn't have been allowed to own guns. What do you think?"
ReplyDeleteThat he was a cop, and left the force voluntarily to become a meter reader, in and of itself, means nothing. There may have been a back story there, but it certainly wasn't presented.
Other than his wife filing for an order of protection, which was dismissed less than a month later, we have nothing to show us that he should not have been allowed to legally own a firearm.
He snapped, for some reason. He chose a gun. He could have chosen a knife, or a bomb, or to ram his car through the front of the building. Let's not jump to conclusions, or make assumptions yet.
"Is this a good example of why it's bad to allow armed folks to hang around in bars?"
No, just the opposite. He was the ONLY person in the bar armed. As a result, he was able to kill one man, and seriously injure two others before the rest of the patrons were forced to tackle him and beat him with a bar stool in order to subdue him. If anything, this highlights the failure, once more, of the "gun free" mentality. The bar was obviously not "gun free." It was a "disarmed victim" zone.
"Is the only pro-gun defense going to be that it happens infrequently enough that it's OK?"
No. That wouldn't even make my list of top ten "defenses."
The shooter was my neighbor; our kids play together-- I've talked to him plenty of times; smart man, good employee as the mayor stated. No reasons why he shouldn't be able to own a gun. He was depressed and even bitter about the divorce, but nothing I haven't seen in plenty of other people going through divorce. He snapped...plain and simple. And yeah, he was drinking all night.
ReplyDeleteThe shooter was a neighbor, and our kids play together--- not a super-friendly guy, but not mean either. I certainly didn't see it coming. They had a nice home, two nice incomes, and he lost it all when she left. She is very nice and who knows what went on during their marriage? He was also there for hours drinking. He snapped when she came in basically.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it when something bad happens, like a shooting, someone always has to throw in "gun control" ....please
ReplyDelete"Why is it when something bad happens, like a shooting, someone always has to throw in 'gun control' ....please"
ReplyDeleteWell, it depends.
If there is a shooting and someone brings up "gun control" that supposedly would prevent such shootings, that's a legitimate argument that can be debated.
If there is a shooting and someone brings up generic "gun control" with no indication as to how it would prevent such shootings, that's a little dishonest.
If there is a shooting and someone brings up their favorite type of "gun control" even though it would not prevent such shootings, that's very dishonest.
Someone asked, "Why is it when something bad happens, like a shooting, someone always has to throw in "gun control" ....please."
ReplyDeleteThe reason is many of these "bad" things would not happen at all if there were proper gun control laws.
Thanks to the other Anonymous for the personal insight. That "never saw it coming" thing is hard to prevent.
"The reason is many of these "bad" things would not happen at all if there were proper gun control laws."
ReplyDeleteOr, we could argue that it is precisely because of those bad laws that it happened. Remember, it was a supposedly "gun free" zone.
What happened? Didn't we make it illegal enough? We already have laws that say you can't kill people, and this guy ignored it. Maybe we should make illegal-er to murder--that'll stop 'em.
Or we could just face reality and recognize that no matter what laws we pass and what controls we put in place, there will always be some sort of criminal act such as this. We cannot possibly stop all such crimes from happening.
No, the problem is we have so many guns and such lax regulation for things like private gun transfers that we aren't doing enough.
DeleteWhat we have been doing has helped, but it hasn't solved all the problems.
So you are correct. We not only didn't make it illegal enough, we haven't done other things like provide current and past names that the state of MN should have provided to the NICS data base, as just one example.
Take a look at how many people - ZERO - the state of MN had supplied to the NICS data base, listing people who were dangerously mentally ill as of 2010. I don't believe we have done any better for any of the other categories of prohibited persons.
So it is in fact absolutely correct that MANY of these bad things would not happen if there were fewer guns available, and if we had stricter gun laws.
We may not stop ALL of the crimes, but no one ever claimed we could. What we do know is that other countries do a whole lot more, and have a tiny fraction of the number of crimes like this that we do.
The entire UK had ZERO deaths of law enforcement by shooting, and only one death of a law enforcement officer by violent means last year.
We have had too many already this year of violent LEO deaths, beginning with the park ranger killed on New Year's Day.
We have WEEKLY occurrences of murder suicide mass shootings.
So YES we may not be able to stop ALL of these from happening, but we can stop most of them, and that is worth doing.
I have read your blog and all the replies to it about this story and all of you are way off base here. This is a case of domestic violence and no, in Minnesota we don’t allow guns in most if not all bars. This man had a restraining order out on him taken out by his wife he had already threatened to harm is ex-wife and himself and had been hospitalized for observation when the threats were made. These men were sitting at the table with the ex-wife when Jason Musburger came in with the intent to harm her and anyone with her. The only thing on his mind was getting back at his wife because he no longer could controll her.
ReplyDelete