Father and son dead, 2 wounded after shootout at gun shop

[47of74]

Ugh.

A 40-year-old father and his 17-year-old son are dead in Pearl River County, and two others critically injured after a shootout at the McLemore Gun Shop on Hwy 43 North near Henley Field on Saturday.

According to Pearl River County Sheriff David Allison, a gun owner and his son went to the shop to retrieve a weapon around 3:15 p.m. After being told it was not repaired, one of the men reportedly became agitated because he had to pay a $25 service charge; even though his gun was not fixed.

The wife of the gun shop owner, who was at the counter, called her husband and son to de-escalate the situation. Both father and son pairs began to argue, resorting to physical violence and eventually gunfire.

One of the wounded men is in his late 20's, the other in his 50's. Both were airlifted to nearby hospitals with serious injuries. One of the victims went to a Hattiesburg hospital, and the other is now in a New Orleans medical center.

[doc03]

1. More good guys with guns yeehaw. n/t

[peace13]

2. And thus the prepay policy was initiated.

so sorry to hear about the deaths....

[Z_California]

3. Natural selection at work

[SheilaT]

4. At least it was gun owners battling other gun owners,

rather than firing upon unarmed innocents.

And as always, keep in mind that guns make us safer.

[beevul]

6. WOW. The implication of that post is disgusting...

At least it was gun owners battling other gun owners, rather than firing upon unarmed innocents.

WOW. The implication of that post is disgusting, AND enlightening.

To some folks, there is no such thing as an 'armed innocent'.


Such selective compassion is disgusting, and I will be very sure to remember it for what it is next time you go off about sandy hook.

[sarisataka]

7. There are many references

To the victims being "only" gun owners.

Apparently owning a gun makes you Burakumin

[SheilaT]

8. Both sides had guns.

Armed, just as the NRA says we all should be.

What could possibly go wrong?

If thousands of people have to die from guns every year in this country, I'd much rather it people like this than some toddler, or even that toddler's mother, even if that mother is stupid enough to have a loaded gun in her purse.

[beevul]

9. You say that like its relevent to this discussion.

Armed, just as the NRA says we all should be.

Uh...no. Just as YOU say the nra says everyone should be.

If thousands of people have to die from guns every year in this country, I'd much rather it people like this...

Right. You'd rather have it be the innocent gun store owner and his innocent kid, than some other innocent.

That doesn't sound too universally compassionate to me. In fact, lets just call it what it is:

Situational compassion.

Again, I will remember this next time you get all self righteous about sandy hook.

[SheilaT]

10. What's your response?

Wring your hands over the senseless violence? Where there are guns people get shot. It's as simple as that. I prefer that all guns be confiscated. You I'm sure disagree with that stand, but how would you suggest we see to it that murders like these, or the once I referenced, don't happen?

[beevul]

11. My response is NOT to look the other way because 'acceptable' innocents are killed...

My response is NOT to look the other way because 'acceptable' innocents are killed, as YOU have done.

Don't you dare try to make this about me.

[SheilaT]

13. But you made my response all about me.

So what *is* your response?

I happen to think that every single gun death is unacceptable. Which is why I'd confiscate the guns. Anything short of that is saying the deaths are perfectly okay. I NEVER see any of the gun apologists suggesting ANYTHING that would reduce any of the gun deaths. NEVER.

[beevul]

15. Thats because your response is both disgusting and hypocritical.

That's on you, not on me. When I make an equally disgusting and hypocritical remark in this thread, feel free to say so. Otherwise, its about you, because you made it about you, by making the disgusting hypocritical remark that you made.

I NEVER see any of the gun apologists suggesting ANYTHING that would reduce any of the gun deaths. NEVER.

Then you aren't looking very hard.

Time and time again it has been suggested that people like you focus on suicides, since they make up 2/3 of gun deaths.

And time and time again, folks like YOU refuse to do that.

I happen to think that every single gun death is unacceptable.

Show me. By not making excuses about focusing on gun suicides.

Otherwise you're just pandering within the debate.

[SheilaT]

16. All you've done is complain about my responses

and have not made any hint of what you would do to reduce gun deaths.

Gun confiscation would minimize the suicides.

[beevul]

18. Its not nice to misrepresent the actions of others, Sheila.

All you've done is complain about my responses...

No, I've complained about just 1 of your responses, basically. I could complain about you attributing to the nra a position it does not hold, but I didn't. I simply corrected you.

If anything, I've been easy on you. Gentle even. You're welcome.

...and have not made any hint of what you would do to reduce gun deaths.

Its not nice to misrepresent the actions of others, Sheila. I suggested focusing on suicides, as you damn well know, since you referred to it in your last sentence. So really the question is, why can't you be bothered to debate the topics of guns/gun deaths honestly, if 'every single gun death is unacceptable' to you? I guess honesty in debate is 'more' unacceptable than guns deaths, in your view, huh?

Gun confiscation would minimize the suicides.

Except gun confiscation is not going to be allowed. Period. And you knew that before this thread even started.

If its really true that you happen to think that 'every single gun death is unacceptable', how come I see you here complaining about something you know you will never see happen to reduce gun deaths, and ignoring something viable which would with zero resistance from anyone, definitively reduce gun deaths?

Is it because you hate guns and the deaths are an easy crutch for you to lean on to make arguments against guns?

Because that's sure what it looks like.

[SheilaT]

20. So how would you reduce gun suicides?

Simple question. I've asked three times how you would reduce gun deaths, and you've not given an answer. So I must conclude that you think the gun deaths are unavoidable and acceptable.

Yes, I hate guns. I hate every single unnecessary death from them. And I never see any reasonable solution proposed by those who favor gun ownership. So apparently, if you favor gun ownership you simply shrug your shoulders at all who die from guns.

I don't shrug my shoulders. And until those who are fine with gun ownership can start to propose realistic solutions, then the one I propose is confiscation. Just don't ever cry crocodile tears any time someone dies from a gun.

[beevul]

21. The predictable doubledown.

So how would you reduce gun suicides?

Education. For many problems, education is the answer. Let me guess, that's not reasonable in your view...

I've asked three times how you would reduce gun deaths, and you've not given an answer.

There it is, the predictable doubledown. Misrepresenting the facts, AGAIN. What you've done, is tried to distract attention away from this disgusting hypocritical statement, made by you:

If thousands of people have to die from guns every year in this country, I'd much rather it people like this...

And what you're doing now, is pretending that you asked three times, and were never given an answer, which is a blatant lie.

On top of that, you haven't addressed just about anything I've said to you in this thread, and now you're demanding that I answer your questions? Holy entitlement batman. If I were you I'd be feeling embarrassed right about now.

Yes, I hate guns.

No, really?

And I never see any reasonable solution proposed by those who favor gun ownership.

I guess focusing on suicides is unacceptable to you then huh? Tell me more about how 'every single gun death is unacceptable', while you ignore the obvious facts about them. Maybe its just me, but "every single gun death is unacceptable" doesn't mesh very well with "If thousands of people have to die from guns every year in this country, I'd much rather it people like this..."

Lots of solutions are proposed, the problem is, none of them are 'reasonable' in your view because you hate guns and want them confiscated.

I don't shrug my shoulders.

Every time you refuse to focus on gun suicides, that's exactly what you're doing - shrugging your shoulders. Everyone can see it, even people on your side of the issue. The truth of the matter is obvious.

Put plainly, nobody is being fooled anymore.

I hate every single unnecessary death from them.

Uh huh:

If thousands of people have to die from guns every year in this country, I'd much rather it people like this...

Yeah, I can tell.

And until those who are fine with gun ownership can start to propose realistic solutions, then the one I propose is confiscation.

You hate guns. You want guns confiscated. Nothing less will ever placate you.

In other news, water has been scientifically proven to be wet...


Debate aside, heres some free advice:

If you can not debate your position honestly without misrepresenting the arguments of your interlocutor, and flat out lying about things your interlocutor has said, then either your position is incredibly weak, or you have a personal problem with honesty in debate, or both. And worse, for you, its as obvious as the nose on your face - everyone can see it for what it is, except perhaps you.

[SheilaT]

22. So education is your solution to gun suicides.

Please explicate what form this education would take.

[beevul]

23. Its not difficult.

So education is your solution to gun suicides.

Kind of like oh, I don't know, sex education? This isn't rocket science.

(On edit: that would apply to ALL suicides. Non-gun suicides matter too.)

As for gun accidents, universal gun safety training, in 12th grade, would cut down that already miniscule number even less.

So, which do you hate more:

gun deaths

or

universal gun safety training which would reduce gun deaths


I think I already know the answer. Surprise me and prove me wrong.

[Straw Man]

24. Right.

Gun confiscation would minimize the suicides.

It worked so very well for the Japanese.

[beevul]

25. I think our interlocutor ran for the exit.

[Jerry442]

28. So, if you're the last person talking, you win?

[pablo_marmol]

30. Not at all.

He was simply pointing out a familiar pattern........which is that Controllers tend to vacate premises once all of their specious arguments get smacked down.

But of course you knew that. More dishonorable "debate".

[beevul]

31. Unless I actually said that, I didn't actually say that.

So, if you're the last person talking, you win?

If you run from debate, you certainly can not win it. Do you disagree?

Besides...

What conclusion would YOU draw, when your interlocutor first refuses to debate honestly, then after being called on it in multiples, disappears? And particularly, if this behavior was observed time and time and time again from anti-gun posters?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. Now that we're on the topic...

...does that mean the SC decision in Miller is wrong?

[beevul]

43. ROFL. N/T

[pablo_marmol]

32. "There are only two kinds of world views. Fact based and fucked up."

Your sig line is quite interesting under the circumstances.

Apparently with regard to the gun restriction/gun rights debate you've freely chosen "fucked up".

[Jerry442]

27. Sorry anyone is dead but he ran a gun shop. He accepted the risks.

[exboyfil]

34. Hold the phone on innocent kid

The customer father is able to Facebook so he should be able to be arrested. Some reports indicate the 17 year old fired first.

The reason the case is so interesting is that it will help define the rules of engagement in our new magical armed Utopia.

1. A physical altercation occurred prior to the shooting. By definition the store owner would almost be surely in the right in this case. The customer cannot use force to recover property being held as part of a contract dispute. If the store owner wished the customers to vacate the premises, I believe he would be allowed to use reasonable force to accomplish such an action.
BUT
2. Does the level of physical provocation rise to the point of brandishment of weapons as the store owner did and possibly the store owner's son.
AND
3. Brandishment represents a potentially lethal situation allowing for the use of lethal force in defense. Customers now draw their weapon(s).
AND
4. Now self defense is called forth by both parties.

SHOOT OUT


A complication. Can a 17 year old be armed with a handgun even on premises?

[beevul]

37. Not that complicated.

A complication. Can a 17 year old be armed with a handgun even on premises?

Under supervision of the parent? I believe so. I know of no law that forbids it, though there may be one at the state level.

As to the rest, we'll see.

[sarisataka]

5. Another opportunity for folks

To show callous disregard for victims of gun violence. It seems some in Gun Discussion and LBN are actually expressing joy over this.

It makes me wonder how progressive some DUers are. If Bloomberg runs on a strong anti-gun platform will some jump if Bernie is the Democratic candidate?

[hack89]

12. This makes you happy doesn't it? nt

[ileus]

14. The son or mother should have taken a position to the customers left or right.

That would have split their attention and gave them doubt in being successful in their attack.


Safety first, high noon showdown never.

[Kang Colby]

17. This is speculative but...

It appears this is going in the direction of self defense. The father (customer) was unarmed and the father is claiming that his son returned fire after the store owners fired.

We will know more in a few days. Silly controllers, this may just be a high profile self defense shooting.

[sarisataka]

19. Doesn't matter if it was self defense, murder or

act of Dog- it is simply a reason to celebrate the deaths of gun owners

I was wondering when this was going to happen and I am glad it did

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027559757

The up side of gun nuttery.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141323670#post51

and many more...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141323670

[Human101948]

26. Yeah, the father is definitely an unimpeachable witness...

Tell me another.

[Kang Colby]

44. I'm not suggesting anything one way or the other...

I made the caveat within my statement with "this is speculative". You'll notice how the controllers jumped on the celebration bandwagon over this horrific event, contrasted against the fact that charges haven't been filed. It's equally as likely that the customers were assaulted at gun point and defended themselves as it is the store owners were killed for $25.00.

We just don't know.

[Human101948]

45. I agree...

isn't that amazing!

[Kang Colby]

46. You're human so it's understandable.

[exboyfil]

36. If the customers had not drawn their weapons to that point then self defense

If they had, then all bets are off regarding self defense.

As I stated in my other posting, this may help define the rules of engagement in this magical armed utopia we appear to be headed towards.

Of course if the customers had been black, then the decision would be obvious. If all other facts where the same, they would be thugs.

[guillaumeb]

29. Wayne LaPierre stated that the only thing that stops a bad guy...

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." This renowned quote voiced by the NRA's Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre has become a motto for Second Amendment support across the nation.

http://www.nrastore.com/nra-good-guy-with-a-gun-t-shirt

So if that moronic statement is true, who were the good guys and who were the bad guys?

Were they all good guys until anger caused some of the good guys to spontaneously combust become bad guys?

More guns=equal more chances for shootings.

[beevul]

33. Start a movement, wont you?

So if that moronic statement is true, who were the good guys and who were the bad guys?

Were they all good guys until anger caused some of the good guys to spontaneously combust become bad guys?

More guns=equal more chances for shootings.

Start a movement, wont you? You know, to change the current system. The one we live under. The one in which society has decided that whenever theres a bad guy with a gun, we dispatch good guys with guns.

Your position would be more realistic, if it didn't ignore reality.

[guillaumeb]

38. "Society" has not decided.

The NRA has convinced enough people, and bribed, or donated if you prefer, enough politicians that gun legislation is nearly impossible. Except of course for legislation to expand gun ownership even further from the original intent of the Founders.

[beevul]

39. Your continued ignorance of reality isn't going to make it go away.

"Society" has not decided.

Yes. Society has decided. In each and every jurisdiction in America, if one calls and reports an armed individual shooting where/what they ought not to be, the default response, the societally approved response, is to send PEOPLE WITH GUNS to deal with it. Its been going on like that since before you were a born.

Thats reality. You can ignore it all you like, and while that just makes you ignorant, reality keeps right on being reality in spite of your fevered desperate insistence otherwise. Its pathetic, but not surprising. Or original.

The NRA has convinced enough people, and bribed, or donated if you prefer, enough politicians that gun legislation is nearly impossible.

Maybe it will help if you stomp your feet and raise your voice. It wont effect reality, but it might make you feel better in your own little world. And if theres any truth about 'convincing' anyone, the part you neglected to mention, is that you gun control folks can't seem to convince anyone of anything. That speaks to the legitimacy and credibility of the messengers, their methodology, and their message. Don't blame the nra if your position can't compete with theirs. That's on you and your position, not on the nra.

Except of course for legislation to expand gun ownership even further from the original intent of the Founders.

I doubt very much that you have even a clue of the original intent of the founders, and doubt even more that you'd admit to it if you were forced to learn it.

[guillaumeb]

40. You have convinced me.

The police, if we acccept them as the modern day equivalent of a "well regulated militia", can use guns to defend society. And the police are also both controlled and regulated by society, also a Constitutional necessity. Fine. Members of police forces can keep their guns. The rest of you can turn them in to the police.

[beevul]

41. Hah.

The police, if we acccept them as the modern day equivalent of a "well regulated militia", can use guns to defend society.

"The militia" is legally defined. Your 'opinion' has no bearing on that, any more than it has the ability to make reality disappear.

The rest of you can turn them in to the police.

Denying reality again. Your loss. People have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Not 'the privilege'.

And we do not depend on your approval to exercise that right, nor will we.

If this bothers you, I suggest retreating back into your own little world where reality can not intrude, because its not going to change.

People who value their rights, and greatly outnumber you anti-gun folks at the polls, will not allow it.

[exboyfil]

42. From the customer son's Facebook account

The father, using the son's account, states that he and his son were shot first. His son returned fire killing the store owner and his son.




https://www.facebook.com/mccool24?hc_location=ufi&pnref=story


Maryann Moreland That you will be well soon!!!! That picture kinda says it all!
Yesterday at 1:51am
Michael McCool
Michael McCool Just need to see his face
1 · Yesterday at 1:58am
Darrell Pomes
Darrell Pomes Hey brother how are you and your pops?
Yesterday at 2:48am
Michael McCool
Michael McCool This is dad I only have his phone we're both stable for now
2 · Yesterday at 3:12am
Darrell Pomes
Darrell Pomes Thank God . Was yall attacked first?
Yesterday at 3:17am
John Elston
John Elston Michael McCool that's good news
1 · Yesterday at 3:28am
Michael McCool
Michael McCool Absolutely I was unarmed and was shot first Michael second
2 · Yesterday at 3:53am
Christopher Montalbano
Christopher Montalbano Mr Audy, I hope for successful recovery for u and Michael. Im so thankful Michael was armed and yalls lives were spared. 🏻🏻🏻💯
3 · Yesterday at 7:54am
Darrell Pomes
Darrell Pomes Amen