4 Shot during argument at Uptown Charlotte restaurant

[depakid]

Charlotte-Mecklenburg detectives are investigating a shooting in Uptown Charlotte Saturday morning where four people were shot along West Fourth Street. Police responded to a call between two men arguing inside Bentley’s Restaurant and continued outside.

According to police, the argument turned violent when someone pulled out a gun and started shooting. Two people standing in the parking lot were injured in the shooting, one in the chest the other in the foot.

Both victims were transported to Presbyterian Hospital. Investigators said the victim shot in the chest was listed in stable condition and the other has non-life threatening injuries.

Two other people were shot in the head as they drove along West Fourth Street, Police said. These two victims were taken to Carolinas Medical Center with non-life threatening injuries.

More: http://www.wsoctv.com/news/22896046/detail.html

[nosmokes]

1. well thank god they didn't hafta resort to words to settle an argument...

good thing they had those guns so they could get all those strangers involved in their shit too. very neighborly.

[Chulanowa]

2. Those strangers should have been armed!

They got shot because htey didn't havethe magic power of a gun to keep them safe! Everyone knows hte mere presence of a firearm nearby renders all discussions civil, and all other weapons unusable.

Their own fault, really.

[Euromutt]

3. Yeah, just keep repeating that straw man

Someday, somebody might actually believe anyone had ever seriously claimed anything of the sort.

[Chulanowa]

4. What, that the victims should have been armed?

I see that all the time here.

Or how about "guns protect people!" see that one, too. Claims that owning a gun makes you feel safer and be safer? Seen that one too.

Maybe you should take a visit to the optometrist? 'Cause if you can't see it, maybe you need some special glasses.

[Euromutt]

5. And here comes the inevitable backpedaling

You said:

They got shot because they didn't have the magic power of a gun to keep them safe! Everyone knows the mere presence of a firearm nearby renders all discussions civil, and all other weapons unusable.

Claims to the effect that possessing a firearm provides the wielder with an increased ability to effectively defend himself against an assault (assuming that the prospective victim is able to see the attack coming) is hardly a claim that firearms possess magical powers to confer invulnerability on their possessors and defuse any confrontation. Hence, the passage quoted above is a straw man.

[Chulanowa]

15. Nope, no backpedaling

I have never seen anyone add the caveats "if the person has the weapon handy and knows the attack is coming" to "GUNS PROTECT YOU!" - ever. Well, until now, I suppose. I have even made the argument that one needs to actually be prepared for a gun to be handy, and have been told that I was wrong, that somehow just having it is enough. I think this ties into the whole "Good guy / bad guy" view of the universe, where the "bad guys" have some sort of gun-sensing powers.

I think you need to pay closer attention to your fellow backyard warriors, Euromutt. Most of their claims are as laughable and mythologically-based as any claims from the anti-gay and anti-choice brigades, and come off just as silly, if not quite as offensive (Well, except from always blaming hte victim for being unarmed, of course)

[Euromutt]

20. Yes, backpedaling!

Don't insult my intelligence. When I point out that nobody has ever claimed that firearms have magic powers conferring invulnerability on the bearer and "render<ing> all discussions civil" it is completely fucking irrelevant to point at assertions that have been made, but could only by the most contrived and tendentious interpretation be taken to mean what you claimed they meant.

If you'd been being facetious by exaggerating for comic effect, that'd be one thing (though in questionable taste), but given that you've now gone on to assert that some pro-RKBA types are "always blaming the victim for being unarmed, of course," that's no longer a tenable claim. You sure as fuck don't get to complain that anybody who disagrees with you is being offensive. Tu quoque may be a logical fallacy in some cases, but not when pointing out that the other person is being hypocritical.

[shadowrider]

6. I'm going to venture a guess and say this was gang / drug related

I may very well be wrong. That said, simply owning a gun is NOT a magic bubble that provides immediate and irrefutable safety. You have to SEE the threat before you can react. Something that comes out of the blue with no warning catches everyone by surprise.

The fact that someone carries simply evens the odds somewhat.

Note: The article doesn't state whether or not the victims were also armed.

[Euromutt]

22. There was certainly some illegal activity going on prior to the shooting

I don't know about gang/drug-related, because going by the website (http://www.bentleyson27.com/index.html), Bentley's is pretty upscale. However, carrying in restaurants that serve alcohol is illegal in North Carolina, as far as I can make out, so the shooter would have already been in violation of the law. We have to consider the possibility that the shooter didn't just "happen" to have the gun on him, but that he came armed with malice aforethought.

From the article, I get impression the suspect wasn't apprehended, but I'd be damn interested in more information about him if the fucker's identified and arrested.

[hex29a]

8. Where can I buy one of those magic guns? Ebay?

:eyes:

[shadowrider]

10. Many people here continually post the "Guns keep you safe" lie

To make gun owners look bad, when that is simply not true. Guns don't automatically encase you in a protective bubble. They give you a chance to even the odds, nothing more, nothing less. I daresay that a bad guy committing a crime, and confronted with a gun, will run resulting in no shots fired. They don't want to die, they just want an easy target they can rob, beat, rape, carjack and intimidate with no danger to their immediate requirement to breathe and see and stuff.

[cabluedem]

14. you have to be a member of the gun lobby to get the majic guns.

[Chulanowa]

16. Good question, been wondering that myself

I keep seeing the spiel about how a heavily-armed populace is infinitely safer than a lightly or unarmed one, and i'd love to know where to get these awesome safety guns. I'll bet they're made out of unicorns or something.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. Seems my definition of 'infinitely' is not yours. Still, you have some "gotcha"quotes at hand, no?

Take your time, be sure and get 'em right...

[Pavulon]

7. And. Someone died in an ER, stroked out while taking a shit

or had a small plane land on them while they were running on the beach. Not my problem, not part of legal firearm ownership or how hard you push when dropping a deuce.

This topic is done. Any attempt to restrict already restrictive gun because of criminal behavior will result in a political ass kicking by the party who tries it.

You guys can post every asshole who breaks a law until time ends. Maybe I can start posting medical malpractice stories, you can push for better anti doctor laws.

[hex29a]

9. Ding, ding.

:thumbsup:

[shadowrider]

11. I say ban planes or running on the beach. That'll solve that problem.

[eqfan592]

12. Well fucking said. (nt)

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Pavulon]

19. Spare your pretend outrage. I've spared the bullshit in my post.

I truly dont give a rat fuck about a criminal's choice. Nothing I can do to stop it. GO work on banning beer because people get all fucked up and kill others. They do every day. And the victims are just as dead. You know what, when I drink a tasty cold beer, i dont fucking care. Know why, because if I drink to much I dont fucking drive. Now go to work on prohibition..

stop flashing your pretend concern around me.

[Chulanowa]

21. it's not concern, it's disgust

of course, one would have to be able to read beyond a second-grade level to divine that sort of thing.

I don't feel like banning anything. I'm just here to slap your chops when you say stupid shit. Which is apparently going to result in me doing a whole lot of chop-slapping.

[Pavulon]

24. Well guess I should rent a copy editor for the day..

reality is stark. I dont take responsibility for gun violence any more than you take responsibility for kiddie porn on the internet. You see, you have access to the internet, legally. You choose to use it legally, or use it to do things that feed a system that destroys kids lives.

Now, I have zero problems with reasonable laws, but balk at the stupid.

Now from you eloquent phd in tweet post I see your point is you are not posting content, only busting my balls?

[proteus_lives]

13. Ban restaurants.

[shadowrider]

23. Leave the restaurants open. Ban patrons.