Local news reports
A man driving a motorized shopping cart shot an Anchorage Walmart assistant manager during a dispute over the man's unrestrained dog on a busy Saturday afternoon inside the Midtown store, police said.How dare that store manager ask the man to leave. He wasn't doing anything wrong. No wonder he ended up getting shot, he asked for it.
Police arrested the suspect minutes later. Medics rushed the victim, a man shot once in his midsection, to a hospital in stable condition, police said. The store was not shut down, a police sergeant said, and business continued as usual minutes later, with many shoppers unaware a shooting had taken place.
Police later identified the shooter as Daniel Pirtle, 45. The victim, Jason Mahi, 33, was in surgery Saturday afternoon, a police spokeswoman said.
Pirtle, a double amputee with metal, prosthetic legs, came into Walmart with his service dog not on a leash, police Sgt. Cameron Hokenson said.
Mahi is an assistant manager at the store, according to Walmart. He asked the man to leave, police said.
By the way, if the justification for Constitutional Carry is that gun owners are law abiding, shouldn't the ones who do stuff like this count as concealed carry fuck-ups? The problem is no one is counting and the gun-rights fanatics keep touting those ridiculously low percentages.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
There's nothing ridiculously low about citing the actual numbers of incidents such as this one. They're rare. You can't just speculate and say that the number must be much higher than the data indicate.
ReplyDeleteWell, it certainly would be higher is we counted all the Constitutional Carry idiots who do shit like this. Let's start with Loughner.
DeleteThe Violence Policy Center already does. He's a part of their tiny number.
DeleteI doubt if they counted this one, but they should.
DeleteAh, More proof that we need to add to the grading of falsehoods.
DeleteThere's lies; there's damned lies; there's statistics; and then there's the world according to MikeB, Dog Gone, Laci, Baldr, and Jade.
Give them time.
DeleteIt took place in the gun section of the store, no less.
ReplyDeleteWhen these incidents happen, as they do all the time, the gun guys never stop and say, "Hey, maybe we should do more to keep guns out of the hands of retards like this one, since they make US look bad." Instead they get all defensive and say "Not Us!" and scream that nothing should be done.
When you have a proposal that will accomplish that goal without violating the rights of good citizens, let me know.
DeleteBut you want all out bans on certain semi-auto firearms and magazines. Are you saying everyone is a "retard"?
DeleteIn other words, you're arguing "nothing should be done" (since we already know that any proposal I support you would assume goes against your interpretation of "rights").
DeleteYes, Greg has the right to go out of town for more than a week without being subject to arrest and imprisonment. Call it his right to travel freely if you are not comfortable with the "keep and bear arms" thing.
DeleteBaldr, I'm curious as to how you quantify "all the time" since, as I recall, you do statistics for a living.
DeleteWhat about the Walmart manager? Didn't he have the right to not be shot by some idiot who should never have been allowed to own a gun in the first place?
DeleteOf course, an innocent person has the right not to be shot. When that right is violated, we address it through the courts. It's against the principle of American law to punish good people who did nothing wrong.
DeleteOf course the manager shouldn't have been shot. That's why we have a justice system to punish the shooter, hopefully severely.
DeleteYou bet. That's why they arrested the man for violating the managers right to not be shot.
DeleteOf course he had the right to not be shot. The last time I checked, our criminal justice system is designed to punish criminals (which we define as those who actually commit a crime vs someone who might do so), not those who obey the law.
DeleteAddendum to what Greg said: It's also against our principles to punish bad people for things they didn't do (or try to do).
DeleteSorry Mike, but if you want to be able to punish bad people for being bad people, you'll have to find somewhere else without due process and get them to make you their chief.
Exactly so, Anonymous.
Deletehttp://walmartshootings.blogspot.com/2013/03/double-amputee-shoots-alaska-walmart.html
ReplyDeleteSo you've started another blog where comments aren't allowed? Gee, I'll be sure to visit regularly. By the way, if you wouldn't lie on it, you might get more respect. You claim that the blog isn't associated with any gun control groups, or whatever you labelled them. You're the author. Aren't you part of CeaseFire Oregon? Aren't you known as an activist against gun ownership and carry?
DeleteYes, I'm a volunteer for CO, but that doesn't mean everything I do is somehow magically associated with them. duh.
DeleteAnd no, I'm not "an activist against gun ownership and carry" despite your pre-conceived notions about me.
So, Oregonian, you lied when you claimed that this new site isn't associated with any gun control groups. Thanks for your admission. As for your status as an activist against rights, I've just read your own words. Please don't be a whiny baby and try to claim that you're not against gun ownership and carry. The truth matters.
DeleteWhile I don't know enough about anyone who comments here to be sure, I've found this to be generally true: For people who want to limit freedom and choice, truth has little value beyond its utility. So, when the truth no longer serves the "greater purpose" of an anti-rights person, it is as easily discarded as a jacket which no longer fits.
DeleteI'm not sure I follow that bit about discarding truth when it no longer serves. Can you give an example?
DeleteMikeb, I know you read the article that I wrote about Oregonian's new site, and I showed you immediately above your question where the lie is. But I'll clarify:
DeleteOregonian has created a new site that claims not to be associated with any gun violence prevention organizations. Why he would claim that is beyond me, but perhaps he wants to add the air of neutrality to it. The facts that he's the author and that he is associated with said groups means that he lied. The fact that he's an activist against gun rights--call it what you will--means that he implied something that isn't true.
Greg has dealt with the immediate context. If you'd like other examples of anti-rights people discarding the truth: When anti-rights people claim the 2nd Amendment has only recently been seen as protecting an individual right (especially when they claim to have read pertinent historic documents) that is discarding the truth. When some anti-rights folks have publicly expressed an interest in extensive or even complete civilian gun ban only to have anti-rights people (including those who should no better) claim no one wants to do so. That qualifies as discarding the truth.
DeleteIt would appear I've somehow lost both a grammar and a spelling gene. Please change "ban" to "bans" and "no" to "know".
DeleteWell noted. I don't have an edit function - only delete.
DeleteBaldr, while you are here, please check out Mike's post entitled "States with weak gun laws have more murders" and offer your comments. Thanks.
ReplyDelete