So I found this story from the Enemy Twitter feed.
Waguespack said Paul French, 51, shot and killed his ex-girlfriend, Michelle Borer, 42, after he walked into the restaurant and they began arguing.
“She appeared to have been shot multiple times,” the sheriff added.
A patron, who was armed and had a concealed gun permit, pulled out a handgun and began shooting at French, the sheriff said. The two exchanged gunfire before both went outside where French shot himself in the head. Waguespack said. He added that the patron was wounded by a shot to the abdomen.
The money quote:
The wounded patron was hospitalized in stable condition and “his injuries are not life threatening,” the sheriff said
Waguespack would not release the wounded man’s name, but said he acted to protect others and there were no plans to book the armed man who intervened.
“What he did was in the defense of others,” he said.
So before we go too much further let’s give the H/T to the Antis who tipped me off
#Louisiana concealed handgun permit holder gets in shootout at restaurant, saves no one, is shot himself.***
Let’s start big and narrow the focus. First CSGV is a Joyce Foundation sub group, the same place that bankrolls Conceal Carry Killers which like everything Joyce has a hand in is bullshit, but in this case they are NOT doing the standard Joyce play and attempting to paint the defender as a killer or a criminal, or a psycho. But they DO point out that the defender “Didn’t save anybody” and was in fact wounded. So they’re attempting to claim that concealed carry is pointless, and will get you hurt.
Let’s look at that: First did he “save no one”? First up that’s a bit tough because the aggressor is dead, but look at the event. There was a fire-fight and the attacker retreated and took his life. Hard to read into that with much accuracy, but if his goal was to cap his GF and then pop himself, certainly I don’t see why he’d worry much about a guy returning fire…but then again this guy isn’t rational. He could have wanted to hurt more people, and maybe if he made a run for it, would he try to take cops with him? Hard to say.
Now how about the idea that this guy got hurt for his troubles. I think we all know what the antis would do in this scenario: Hide and play dead. But what would you do? Would you try and stop the attack? Would you try to stop the attacker from fleeing?
Just because you don’t have a gun doesn’t mean you won’t get shot. Just look at all the anti-gun poster children! Also let’s say everybody chickened out in this case, would he have killed more people? Would he have run and later faced off against the cops?
And of course in the end comes the Anti-Gun Strawman: That pro-gun people think CCW is a magical protection talisman, and the person with the pistol and the permit is a white knight that is protected from evil and will smite all who cause harm.
Sorry, the reality is the first rule of surviving a gun fight is to NOT BE IN A GUN FIGHT! That being said, in this instance he was in a gun fight weather he liked it or not. Also he’s going to make a recovery, and he acted as a hero.
Care to tell me how things could have been BETTER if he had left his gun at home? Maybe the guy would have politely walked outside and offed himself rather than exchanging fire.
That’s a pretty big “Maybe”, don’t you think?
*** It appears the CSGV account has been suspended. More on that later!
Once again we see a crazy take his own life once confronted by armed force. We may never know if he saved more lives that day, but no one else is dead, so kudos to him
If the shooter came in and killed a bunch of people then guns are evil and must be banned. If someone stops the shooter, then no one got saved and there’s no reason to carry a gun so ban them all. (Sounds like lawyers talking to me.)
Sure it’s faulty logic, but then so is their entire position. I
…and it is only coincidental that spree shooters tend to suicide or surrender when faced with a defending gun–the would have quit just then anyway.
I always wondered if this was how a situation like this was going to shake out…
We know that spree shooters are almost invariably stopped when resisted – they either take their own lives, or they are killed by those resisting.
We know that pretty much all spree shooters have only been stopped after shooting a few folks.
So what happens when someone lawfully defends themselves from a spree shooter before the murderer is able to shoot anyone?
Well, apparently, the anti-rights organizations lose their collective gos-se in a race to see who can look like the biggest idiot…
Its their magical thinking. They like to pretend that however that situation ends is how it was always going to end.
They see Cho at Virginia tech being totally done shooting people BEFORE the police breached the doors, and it was just coincidental that he chose to off himself only after the doors were breached, and ignore that he reloaded multiple times during his spree (with legally limited magazines I may add) and he had full magazines on his person at the time of his death.
Same with the New Life Church shooting. Another shooter who took his own life after being wounded, and loaded-to-bear with ammo and magazines.
So of course comes the catch 22. If somebody engages a spree shooter BEFORE the spree starts, or before the first person is wounded was it ever a spree shooting. Certainly the media and the anti-gun types won’t report it as such.
Obviously he would then be labeled a murder who got off on “stand your ground” laws. Duh.
You bring up a good point. If it “hadn’t” gone down this way, could the future news headline have read “2 police officers killed trying to arrest shooter who killed girlfriend in restaurant last week”?
One must always assume that a criminal not stopped might kill the police who come after him later.