EDITORIAL: A gun in a restaurant; a duck blown away
Published: June 20, 2009
The recent shooting of a mother duck by an armed and intoxicated patron at Tim’s Rivershore Restaurant and Crabhouse on Potomac River raises more questions
than just those related to animal cruelty. It makes one wonder why people should be allowed guns in restaurants, period.
First, some background.
David Yount, 33, walked into the restaurant on June 10, probably drunk, carrying a .40-caliber handgun. When bartenders wouldn’t serve him, he walked outside to
the beach area, pulled his gun and fired four to seven shots at a group of ducks, blowing away a mother duck.
He ran off but was arrested when he wrecked his car not far from the restaurant.
Because domestic ducks can be hunted, he wasn’t charged for that. And because Virginians are legally allowed to carry unconcealed guns into restaurants, there
was no penalty for that either.
That is ridiculous. There is absolutely no need for a person to carry a gun into a restaurant.
Opponents might say the fact that patrons can be armed could deter criminals from trying to rob restaurants. Guns in the hands of the law-abiding prevent criminal
acts, or so the story goes.
But that line of thought actually raises more disturbing questions. Do we really want a criminal and a patron exchanging gunfire in a crowded restaurant? We think
not.
And when a supposedly law-abiding person with a gun can get drunk, get angry, pull his gun and fire, something is wrong with the picture.
Furthermore, restaurants are usually family friendly, but it’s not so friendly when mom and dad take their children out to eat and have to sit close to someone with
a gun strapped to their hip. In fact, it’s downright hostile.
Guns should be banned from restaurants, plain and simple. Alcohol is served there, intoxicated people congregate there and the possibility for violence exists.
Guns should not be allowed.
At the very least, if the state government isn’t willing to do something, then restaurant owners should take it upon themselves to ban guns. People are only legally
allowed to carry unconcealed guns in restaurants that don’t ban them.
So get rid of the guns already, or deal with more armed drunks in the future.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
snakecharmer, the comment by Obamanation was dripping wet with sarcasm.
Lots of great comments from pro-gun/anti-crime folks here in response to this pro-crime opinion piece.
Here is another good response written here: http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/06/26/my-response-to-another-anti-gun-editorial/
Let’s have a survey of all of the restaurants in Prince William in reference to which ones allow patrons to carry guns. I would love to see that list because if a restaurant allows it, I will boycot them. I’ll bet about 70 percent of residents would do the same, especially family people.
Mr. Duck Killer was violating the law by being “Drunk in Pubic” and “Driving while Drunk”. Drinking and carrying a gun do not mix!
Mr Duck Killer should be charged for every violation from, Hunting without a license,reckless endangerment, firing a gun within 100yrs of a business, double parked, DWI and of course DWU (driving while ugly)
To OBAMANATION!
OK I’ll conceed the point of sarcasm to you. Reading it with that in mind I can see it. But to be honest at first read it seems more like you had the perpitrators confused with the innocent workers and diners who left their weapons in their cars or at home and regretted that decision. But I still would like my question answered by everyone else including the newspaper as how the anti-gun laws they want passed will stop those intent on breaking those laws? What is thier reasoning?
Both sides of this debate have recently been argued ad nauseum in this article and the last.
All I can say is I’m glad the Virginia Legislators disagree with this newspaper’s op ed.
VCDL estimates that firearms are used 2.5 MILLION times per year for self-defense purposes. Hard to believe that some of those instances weren’t in public places like restaurants. I’ll be exercising my right to carry thank you very much.
snakecharmer I was being sarcastic. What I really think is that the author of this article needs to move to another country more to his liking like say cuba or north korea that is more anti-freedom, but more for the safety of the citizen! Look bottom line you deny my most basic human right to self defense for myself and my family that is GURRANTEED by the constution of the U.S.A then I will simply carry concealed because for you anti freedom folks if its out of sight then it’s out of mind. For every person you see dine with a gun visibly on their hip their are probably 100 more that are conceal carrying as Im sure conceal carriers outnumber open carriers 100 to 1. As for the right of businesses to ban constitutional rights when a citizen is on their private property I understand they can legally do so, but i think it is plain BS. Because private property owners can do that in their restaurants maybe I should put a sign on my restaurant that say “Muslims and Christians BANNED” Religion free Zone! because hey its my private business and property afterall!
I agree with many of the previuos writers. The fact that the man had a gun he was legally carrying is not the problem. He was drunk! I strongly believe in the right to own guns and I also strongly believe in enforcing the current laws we have in place regarding them. There was a bill introduced to the state that would have made it illegal to carry a gun into resteraunts and bars openly but allow those with carry permits to do so as long as they did not consume alcohol but that bill was defeated. Why?
Mr. Yount has abused his rights as a gun owner and has proven that he is not able or responcible to either own or carry a weapon. He should now have that right taken away.
Oh and to OBAMANATON! George Jo Hennards was in no way an admirable person. He was the perpitrator of the killings. He did not walk into Lubby’s he drove through it and proceeded to kill. The only other person who had a gun was Suzanna Gratia Hupp who did what any LAW ABIDING person would do and left her weapon in her car to enter Lubby’s and regrets obeying that law beacause she had seversal chances to stop Hennerds and couldn’t and as a result both her mother and father became victims of that NON LAW ABIDING Hennerds.
As for Mr Huberty he was clearly an deranged individual with metal health issues who should never have owned a gun at all. It is ILLEGAL for persons who are not mentally competent to own weapons. Also the were many failing by both the police and regular citizens to report and respond to his actions before he entered the McDonalds. The police went to the wrong address and persons seeing him at 2 other stores failed to make proper reports to the police at the time.
Now please tell me how laws preventing people from carrying guns into bars and resteraunts would have stopped those two UNLAWFUL people to doing what they did? Would they have stopped and said “Hey wait I can’t do this. It is illegal for me to take a gun in there. I could get in trouble.“ What it did was stop any LAW ABIDING person from taking their weapon inside which is undoubtly what they were counting on. What statistics have shown and this comes from not only the FBI and Law Enforcement studies but even fron the Brady Group ( one of the most agressive anti weapons groups out there ). That when confronted by armed resistance either average citizens or law enforcement, perpitrators of mass killings such as above do one of 2 things. They kill themselves or immediatly give up.So again explain to me how laws stop people who are intent on breaing those laws.
The Gun Law issues aside, restaurants (all restaurant even those owned by a corporation) and open to the public are private property. It is well within the restaurant owners rights (as it is a homeowner) to say certain behaviour is not allowed. Remember the signs “no shoes, no shirt, no service”. Although a sign “no guns” won’t necessarily stop a drunken idiot from entering the restaurant it does give the owner one more tool in his legal tool box.
I’m curious to know why it is the position of the Editorial Staff that it’s OK to have a gun on a college campus (ref http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/opinion/article/legal_is_legal_let_them_have_their_guns/5030/) but not to have one in a restraunt that serves alchohol.
The last two years the General Assembly has passed legislation allowing for concealed carry in restraunts to have them veto’d by Gov. Kaine. In effect, Gov. Kaine supports the CURRENT legality of openly carrying firearms in ABC licensed establishments.
As has been said below Mr. Yount broke numerous laws that he should be tried for. I don’t see one example of anyone saying that he should be spared or what he did wasn’t wrong. But, because 1 person who was intoxicated BEFORE he got to the bar (and was turned away by the bartender - good job!) and then committed more illegals acts when forced to leave does not constitute an accurate depication of the law abiding gun carrying community.
I fail to see any mention from the editorial staff about banning alcohol, driving, or driving while intoxicated - just the gun issue. So, does drunk driving get a pass from the editorial staff?
To the point of gunfire being exchanged in a crowded restraunt by a patron against an armed attacker is it the position of the paper that we as a society should lay down our lives so that an attacker could go on about his killing spree, unchecked, because someone MIGHT feel intimidated by dining next to an armed person? I don’t think you’ll find many people that agree with that position and has been said below the patrons of Luby’s in Texas would certainly disagree.
Further, is it the position of the editorial staff that a police officer or commonwealths attorney (CA’s can carry concealed firearms into a restraunt AND consume alchohol WITHOUT any training requirement whatsoever under current law) should NOT fire on an attacker to save lives? Just because of a crossfire situation? Think about that one - digest it some - you value the life of the attacker and his ability to press his attack more than the lives of the innocents that are being slaughtered. How can you rationalize that?
Regardless of the legality of bringing a gun into a restraunt (only *9* states ban concealed carry into restraunts and 2 require open carry) that will NEVER stop a person that wants to walk in and do harm. No law, no moral code, no sign will stop someone from slaughtering innocent people. Why as an editorial staff would you take away the ONLY means for the innocent to protect themselves from those that would do us harm?
Finally, I took my neices, my sister and my wife to On the Border last weekend. I was carrying the 4 month old and in her baby carrier and had the 2 year old on my strong side (side of my body with my visible pistol in holster). No patrons screamed, no body left, no one confronted me. I was just a man out in public caring for my family and prepared to defend them from harm. Don’t hurt me, my family and other Virginian’s because your sensibilities are ‘injured’ by the presence of a pistol.
Charles What do you think would happen to you if you tried to shot the shooter and missed and hit an innocent person? Do you think you would be held responsible and prosecuted? Do you think the family of the person you shot would be understanding and forgive you?
Two people shooting up a place. Where are the bullets coming from and where would you hide?
Advertisement