Okay, Gun Nuts: Justify This One...

daryl hall.jpg
Daryl Hall: Died from apparent "friendly" fire.
So, it turns out that the off-duty St. Louis police officer killed in April outside a downtown bar was likely shot to death by the nightclub's bouncer in a case of mistaken identity.

Officer Daryl Hall died April 24 from bullet wounds to the neck and arm that police now suggest likely came from the gun of Will Spencer, the man hired to provide security at the now-shuttered tavern Label at the Ballpark.

Hall, 34, was inside the bar at 2:38 a.m. when shots rang out on the street and he rushed out to confront the alleged perpetrator, identified as 30-year-old Asif Blake.

When Blake allegedly failed to drop his weapon after informed that Hall was a cop, Hall fired off several shots, fatally wounding Blake. Then, just moments after squeezing the trigger, Hall himself was fatally shot when the bouncer allegedly mistook Hall as the gunman whose shots first brought Hall running out of the bar.

Spencer, the bouncer, is a sergeant at Scott Air Force Base, who was working part-time at the nightclub. It's unclear if Spencer has a concealed-carry permit, but that's a moot point anyway. Bouncers working St. Louis nightclubs are not supposed to carry weapons.

It's unclear, too, if Blake has a concealed-carry permit. Blake, 30, reportedly served in Iraq with the Missouri Army National Guard. He has no criminal history in Missouri, according to court records. Moreover, none of the shots he allegedly fired that night struck or injured anyone.

As a cop, Hall is justified in carrying his weapon while off-duty. Still, given its recent history with off-duty officers shooting people during drunken brawls in bars, it seems somewhat ludicrous that the police department reportedly encourages its officers to keep their firearms on them at all times -- even while out drinking.

Indeed, the whole April 24 ordeal makes for a curious equation:

1 bar + 3 men with guns ÷ late-night chaos/misjudgment = 2 violent, senseless deaths

And here we thought that handguns were supposed to make everyone safer -- especially when in the hands of the "good guys." So, tell us Second Amendment folk, what's wrong here?

My Voice Nation Help
99 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Stuntbutt
Stuntbutt

This is like using an example of someone dying on the operating table and then stating  "I thought heart surgery was supposed to SAVE lifes!"

Kernef_ii
Kernef_ii

man, losing my friend right in my face is crazy.  He NEVER FIRED HIS WEAPON, HALL WAS OUTSIDE DURING ALL THE CONFUSION AND THE SECURITY SHOT BOTH OF THEM, THERE WAS NEVER ANY PUT YA GUN DOWN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE IT ALL HAPPENED IN A MATTER OF SECONDS ONCE THE SECURITY STARTED SHOOTING LIKE A COWBOY. POLICE TREATED US AS IF WE WERE THE SHOOTERS THREATENING US AND MISHANDLING US. BEFORE THE CLUB OWNER CRAIG WHO WAS APART OF THE WHOLE SITUATION, AND THE SECURITY WENT DOWN TO THE CLUB I'M SURE THEY GOT THEIR LIES TOGETHER.  CLEARLY ALL THE BS THEY TOLD THE POLICE THAT MORNING DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE BUT THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE DO WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO SAVE THEMSELVES. THANKS CRAIG MORRIS FOR BEING A "BIG BROTHER" AND DIFFUSING THE SITUATION...WAIT, YOU DIDNT.

JMH
JMH

Near as I can tell, this kind of situation andhappenstance is at least acceptable to thequote-unquote gun nut. Collateral damageso assholes can wear pistols into Starbucks?...??

PerformanceArt709
PerformanceArt709

Chad, Thanks for letting us all know that you don't carry a gun.  Now if you could let us know how much money you usually have on you, and where you hang out, we would really appreciate it..PerformanceArt"I'm Only A Pawn In My Game"

Danieljoeoconnor
Danieljoeoconnor

chad, these 2 guys were killed due to their idiotic behavior and irresponsibility. i figure it like this:  3 strangers with guns + 1 nightclub with alcohol /chaos = 2 dead drunk gun toting idiots 

jcdrummer
jcdrummer

 "I'm talking about the belief among many backers of the Second Amendment that guns make  society safer "

I don't know if it makes society safer, but it makes me safer...when seconds count, the cops are just minutes away

Dustin
Dustin

Seems to me that not that long ago Britain had a 'mallet gang' of young kids who mugged with knives and hammers.  So the question is always 'are guns making us safer'.  but as soon as someone shows up with a knive and starts stabbing the response is 'somebody shoot em!'  Where is the middle ground?  Have you liberals lost all common sense and critical thinking skills?  Unfortunatley those who are the most sheilded from societies dangers are always least aware of why they exist and think they can be eliminated through legislation.  If criminals no longer have guns they will use knives, then sticks, then stones.  After all that is outlawed we can concentrate on what really matters like outlawing straws and toothpicks and any other hard or sharp objects.

Randy
Randy

Chad,regarding your comments relevant to the impact of private citizens carrying firearms on crime rates and public safety, I suggest you review the works of Dr. John Lott,  and Professor Gary Kleck .As for "what's wrong here?" - based upon what you have stated in your article, it appears that more facts(as pointed out earlier) are needed before one can intelligently comment upon this particular incident and where it screwed the pooch.

IRP
IRP

The more guns are around because of laws like Missouri's conceal and carry, the more "misunderstandings" like this there will be.  If this were the cost of some benefit to society, then it would might be worth it.  In all the inflamed rhetoric in the comments, however, there isn't a single benefit to society (at least not since 1776) provided.  Increasing guns gives a false sense of security and results in unnecessary death.  

Andrew
Andrew

The ability of an individual to defend themselves against aggressors is a benefit to society. Free speech, the 1st Amendment, has collateral damage, yet I don't hear you calling for the banning of internet use or computers.  If we are talking straight up benefit/liability then people such as yourself, who rely on others to protect them, present an undue burden and undeniable lack of benefit to any society that you infest.

Imroade
Imroade

Tell that to the thousands of people that use a handgun in self defense against a criminals every year.Even the anti gun Violence Policy Center admits that only 0.25% of all gun deaths(not including self defense) can be attributed to licensed gun owners. That statistically proves that we dont have a gun problem, we have a CRIME problem.

Drewy
Drewy

Chad, you might want to make your articles not so biased if you would like to have a successful career in journalism.

excess
excess

This is simply a tragedy gone wrong when you mix Alcohol, Midnight hours and Guns.  Even when the three involved appeared to have past or current careers carrying guns.  Our human bodies weren't meant to be intoxicated.  We are not righteous, no not one.  We are not responsible, no not one.  If more of us read the word of God and had values, we would not be looking for something in the wee hours in the morning while holding an intoxicating beverage in our hands.

Mdeaton3
Mdeaton3

Sounds like this anti-gun nut is trying to make a point off on an isolated incident.  I say isolated because this incident is not the norm.  Yes, what happened is a tragedy but you have to remember one thing, if you live in a FREE SOCIETY there are some risks.  I personally do not want  to live under a glass dome.  You do not ban cars because of drunk or careless drivers, road rage, faulty equipment or the use of vehicles in criminal behavior.  Some will say regulate them like cars.  That that I say, only regulate them IF you trust your government.  I do not.  Would the government lie to you, take your property without compensation,  have they ever killed anyone, will they always do what is in the best interest of its people.  The answer is a simple NO, they will not always work in our best interest.  THE GOVERNMENT IS MADE UP OF PEOPLE...  A lot of them with criminal histories attached to them.

Chris Meissen
Chris Meissen

I know of no responsible gun owner or gun rights activist who would endorse the behaviour of any of the three parties involved.  Even forty-five years ago, when I was first being taught the rules of firearms handling as a teenager, one of the fundamental rules was that guns and alcohol do not mix.  It is one thing to carry one's legally possessed firearm while dining in an establishment that serves alcohol. But... but one should confine oneself to non-alcoholic beverages when armed.  The behavior of all three parties involved in this incident is indefensible and I believe that Mr. Garrison knows it.  If so, the title of this editorial is a straw man argument and yellow journalism.

Punderwood18
Punderwood18

The answer is: poor judgment.  That is what went wrong.  If these two left the club after drinking and ran over 2 children, the bar and people would be blamed.  Noone would question people's right to own cars.

Gussers
Gussers

Your title says it all. To argue with you would be futile. 

Suffice it to say, there are plenty more auto accidents than firearm accidents every day and you're not screaming for everyone to take the bus. I used autos because there are as many guns as cars in the United States (around 230 million of each). 

What makes every firearm owner a "Gun Nut" other than your ill-informed view of how it should be?

JKeim
JKeim

Reading this was a complete waste of time..lol I don't see where you wanted to go with this.. You fail as a writer, maybe you can help write a few fantasy savage love articals..

scoop411
scoop411

As a gun person I will say this.Don't drink and play with guns.Stupid people should not have guns.Don't pull the trigger unless 100% sure.

RileyEscobar
RileyEscobar

Chad, you're getting your a** kicked, lol. Don't you feel bad, man. I wanted to add to the argument but these fine gentlemen seem to have it covered. 

Let us all keep Officer Hall and his family in our thoughts and prayers.

Gatsby
Gatsby

The problem with society today is every unfortunate accident for some reason has to met with a law that prevents this from happening in very specific events later. Also since the bouncer was already breaking the law then this really isn't a second amendment case now is it? Even if the law said no hand guns at all, he would have still had a hand gun and still be breaking the law. Words on pages do not magically affect the people who would read them, they only give grounds for someone to say "It's ok to take away this mans rights" after the fact. Crime prevention laws are not a viable solution to stopping crime, making examples of people who break those laws are. As long as we do not hold people accountable for their actions. We have become a society of finger pointers and bribers, our leaders point fingers because it's never their fault and after decades of this it has slowly trickled down into the fabric of society, it's never your fault that you did something, it's always the fault of someone else. Even in your own article you point fingers and I'm not saying the "gun nuts" you ask for explanations do not also point fingers. But seriously why don't you just hold the bouncer accountable for his actions not the second amendment.

Papa
Papa

1. A "safer" society does not necessarily mean a completely safe society where violence does not take place. Using this single incident where Blake and Spencer illegally possessed and used handguns does not make a reasonable case for law abiding gun ownership being the cause for broader violence. Nor does it make a case for law abiding gun ownership reducing violence.

2. Blaming the handgun for the illegal and unreasonable actions of Blake and Spencer is not a reasonable or logical conclusion. The legally armed person, Hall, used his handgun to address an illegally armed threat. If anything, the actions of Hall protected those others being threatened by Blake. It would not make sense to punish the legally armed individual to address actions perpetrated by those not obeying the law. If it would be possible to remove all guns from existence, of course, there would not be any gun violence. But our only means for attempting that is to create laws that make it illegal to possess them. Those laws would not affect individuals that would be willing to disobey the law, as evidenced by the incident in this article.

Your Momma
Your Momma

" Hall, used his handgun to address an illegally armed threat."

Please explain how Blake was illegally armed? I haven't read those facts anywhere yet. Also, how do you know he was a threat? I haven't read those fact yet either. For all I know, he could have been defending his life, I haven't seen anything indicating differently. 

"The legally armed person, Hall,"

While it may have been legal, people drinking should not be carrying firearms. Legal status doesn't justify, only excuses from criminal prosecution. 

Papa
Papa

You're correct that the article doesn't explicitly state that Blake was carrying illegally. I made that assumption and may be wrong about it. I do believe based on Halls reported actions that it was his opinion that Blake was at least behaving illegally and/or unsafely, thus my belief that he was a threat.

Yes, it's a bad idea to be carrying while drinking. I think we can agree that was a bad decision. We're debating the idea that this incident enforces the premise that stricter gun control will lead to less violent crime. I don't think this incident says anything about the issue.

Mike N.
Mike N.

Kudos to Chad for spurring a debate more volitile than pet ferrets... 

Handsome Jimmy
Handsome Jimmy

++ on Chad bringing the heat on this volatile subject.  I still prefer the dick joke type of stories.

Schroeder30
Schroeder30

Has anyone considered that the police officer stepped into the situation because it was the right thing for him to do? Police officers carry while off duty for a reason-- because just like doctors and nurses, they're never really off duty.Have any of you ever patrolled City of St. Louis to protect its citizens? Have you ever been scared shitless while knowing around any corner, at any moment, your last breath could be waiting? Have you ever considered, truly considered, that these men and women really do risk their lives on a daily basis? That they're not just the assholes that gave you a ticket on your way to work?It seems to me that those of you who have commented on the police officer basically jumping to take advantage of a rare opportunity to shoot his gun like a little boy playing cops and robbers, are CLEARLY projecting YOUR immaturity into this situation. Just because you may secretly dream of being a pistol-packing BLACK BART doesn't mean he was. Maybe instead of sitting in judgment over a situation you have never and probably never will be in, a situation that could quite possibly make you piss your pants, consider this.Lives were lost. One of those lives was that of a police officer-- a man who risked his life every day-- a man whose last breath finally found him, while he was answering a call off duty.

Your Momma
Your Momma

All the good intentions in the world don't justify carrying a firearm if you're drinking. Just as  a surgeon shouldn't do surgery while impaired. 

Jbouncer
Jbouncer

Just another black man shot while shooting guns at others. LOL.

Daskrolator
Daskrolator

The article is light on pertinent facts. Stl city requires all security guards who wish to carry a gun while working to be licensed with the city. Given no charges were filled against Blake it's reasonable to assume he had such a license. Otherwise he would have been arrested for a myriad of charges. This is a police policy issue, not a 2nd amendment one.

steve
steve

What does this have to do with the "gun nuts"?  Someone shot someone without knowing 100% who he was shooting at.  Bouncer at fault, not guns or gun laws or others that don't shoot unless they are 100% sure of what or who they are shooting at.  Police officers are always training to make the right decision to shoot or not to shoot.  But again this is an article that suggests we need to yet again "justify" a right...

Facts_Not_Emotion
Facts_Not_Emotion

As fun as it is, I'm unsubscribing from this story because when you're debating guns you inevitably reach a point when anti-gun people fail to acknowledge facts and revert to emotion so, I'm done.  Not to mention I have better things to do that sit and wait to respond to incoming messages.

All the info you need is at http://gunfacts.info/

ALL THE FACTS ARE SOURCED AND VERIFIABLE...

Yourkiss
Yourkiss

21 comments and no Hall & Oates jokes? Really?

Ben
Ben

What's wrong here is that the Chad mistakenly believes that statistics is the plural of anecdote.  You have a couple of examples where guns are used in a bad way and therefore conclude that handguns make everyone less safe.  The truth is that handguns are used to protect Americans almost 2.5 million times every year.  Yes, people do stupid things sometimes.  But to conclude that it would make everyone safer if you disarmed good people is a bridge too far.

KITTY
KITTY

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT! THE SHOOTINGS AND KILLINGS AT "THE LABEL AT THE BALLPARK" WERE ONE OF THOSE "SHIT HAPPENS" THINGS. YES, THERE WAS DRINKING AND MIS-JUDGMENT INVOLVED BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. IT'S HIGH TIME ALL THE ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT WHINERS S.T.F.U. -( SHUT THE FUCK UP ).

Facts_Not_Emotion
Facts_Not_Emotion

Accidents happen and people make bad decisions (especially with alcohol).  Guns are not the problem, they are simply tools.  Saying "guns kill people" is like saying "cars kill people."  They don't, the operator kills people.

Removing the tool will not solve the problems at hand.  Just look at England and Australia, they have put heavy bans on firearms and have only seen their violent crime rates increase.  In fact according to a Dutch Ministry of Justice Survey, England has a much high violent crime rate including more assaults, home entries, stabbings, and rapes than the US does.

Why?  Criminals don't care about laws, so why do we think that making guns illegal will do anything but put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage?

So lets stop focusing on, and trying to place the blame on an OBJECT.  Lets instead focus on fixing a culture that thinks drinking to excess is fun, and one that produces the monsters that kill innocent people, OR a culture that is too damn sensitive and too worried about offending someone to report an Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Jared Loughner, and Seung-Hui Cho....  All of those massacres were preventable if people would have spoken up...

a42natson
a42natson

That escalating British crime rate wouldn't have anything to do with the infuux of black and/or Muslim immigrants, would it?

brian behrmann
brian behrmann

What is the rate of gun deaths and murders period in the US vs. countries that have firearms bans?  How about accidental shootings?  I'll wait while you look it up.

steve
steve

Accidental shootings less than 2% of all firearm related deaths (somewhere in the 600-700 range)... Average gun deaths in the US is usually between 25,000 and 30,000.  with about 60% of those being suicides.  Canada has shown us when suicides by gun decrease the suicides by other method increas at the same rate.  So with the suicides out and the accidents out that leaves 38 % aprox. Which leaves around 11,400 deaths of "homicide" by gun each year.  Out of 350 or so million people, that is less than one tenth of 1%.  Compared to whom?  NO country of our size population wise has the amount of guns we have.  So you would really compare apples to oranges.  Switzerland requires each household to own and take care of and know how to use an assault rifle, but there is less gun crime there.   Places like the UK that outlawed guns, their police carry guns for the first time in history... now have a HUGE knife crime epidemic.  So again, compare to whom?

Facts_Not_Emotion
Facts_Not_Emotion

Well of course gun deaths will be lower in the UK and countries with bans.Its like saying compare vehicular deaths in a specific county, to a place that doesn't allow vehicles, like Mackinac Island.... Of course that county will have more accidents....

However, are you willing to trade 1 lower violent crime statistic (gun deaths) for 4 higher violent crime statistics (assaults, home entries, stabbing, and rapes)?  I'm not

The issue is that society in blaming an object or cultural problems, not the users behind it.

Stats:

In Australia Crime has been rising since a sweeping ban on private gun ownership. In the firsttwo years after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms,government statistics show a dramatic increase in criminal activity.61 In 2001-2002,homicides were up another 20%.

From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are:• Gun murders up 19%• Armed robbery up 69%• Home invasions up 21%

The sad part is that in the 15 years before national gun confiscation:• Firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66%• Firearm-related deaths fell 50%

Citing:Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002, Australian Institute of Criminology, April 2003.

UK:

Handguns were used in 3,685 offenses in 2000 compared with 2,648 in 1997, anincrease of 40%.55 It is interesting tonote:• Of the 20 areas with the lowestnumber of legal firearms, 10 hadan above average level of “guncrime.”• Of the 20 areas with the highestlevels of legal guns, only 2 had armed crime levels above the average.Fact: Between 1997 and 1999, there were 429 murders in London, the highest two-yearfigure for more than 10 years – nearly two-thirds of those involved firearms – in acountry that has virtually banned private firearm ownership.56Fact: Over the last century, the British crime rate was largely unchanged. In the latenineteenth century, the per capita homicide rate in Britain was between 1.0 and 1.5 per100,000.57 In the late twentieth century, after a near ban on gun ownership, the homiciderate is around 1.4.58 This shows that the homicide rate does not vary with either the levelof gun control or gun availability.Fact: The U.K. has strict gun control and a rising homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000.Switzerland has the highest per capita firearm ownership rate on the planet (all males age20 to 42 are required to keep rifles or pistols at home) has a homicide rate of 1.2 per100,000. And to date, there has never been a schoolyard massacre in Switzerland.59  Percentage increase from pre-ban number:Armed robbery 170.1%Kidnapping/abduction 144.0%Assault 130.9%Attempted murder 117.6%Sexual assault 112.6%

UK info citings:54 42 killed by handguns last year, The Times, January 10, 2001, reporting on statistics supplied by theBritish Home Office.55 Illegal Firearms in the UK, Centre for Defense Studies at King's College in London, July 2001.56 Ibid.57 Crime and Society in England 1750-1900, Clive Emsley, 1987, at 36.58 Where Kids and Guns Do Mix, Stephen P. Halbrook, Wall Street Journal, June 1999.59 Ibid.60 Associated News Media, April 30, 2001.

For more facts, THAT ARE SOURCED AND VERIFIABLE,  go to http://gunfacts.info/ 

Gatsby
Gatsby

It would be interesting to see the crime rate involving knives pre gun band and post gun ban in the UK. Do you have these figures?

Your Momma
Your Momma

What of is rates of deaths / injuries related to motor vehicles in the US vs. countries that do not have cars? I'll wait while you look it up. 

Galt, Johnathan
Galt, Johnathan

Nice one, Chad. The score is now:

Chad- 1

Gun Nuts- 1000

I do take issue with the off-duty officer having his gun at a bar... or, at least I have a problem with it if he was drinking. It is against the law to carry while drinking (I think it is a felony... someone help me out here).

I see off duty cops at bars all the time, and they are always packing heat. I believe that the same laws apply to cops... but they are never enforced.

anonymous
anonymous

ayn rand is l ron hubbard for racists

Galt, Johnathan
Galt, Johnathan

Ron Hubbard? Hilarious!

Funny how you tie Ayn Rand to racism -- she was an objectivist and individualist. In fact, she ties racism to collectivism -- pretty much the antithesis of what she believed in.

I have heard the ramblings of semi-intellectuals before: they know to associate Ayn Rand with all things bad, but they have never taken the time to read her philosophies. And I understand why they don't read her; it is hard to finish 1400 pages and still have time to hang out at Pin-Up Bowl (in $300 jeans and a $10 sports jacket... no doubt).

So tell me, Mr/Ms Semi-intellectual, how do you draw the connection between Ayn Rand and racism?

steve
steve

Be in possession of ... NOT CARRYING.  They had problems with lawyers or prosecutors trying to create felonies out of nothing by charging people in possession, by being drunk at their own home and having a gun in the house...

Dan
Dan

It used to be a felony.  As of August 2010 it is no longer a felony unless you are basically being stupid with it.  See RsMO 571.030 (5) http://www.moga.mo.gov/statute...

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...