On May 10th 2014, a 34-year-old man named Fadi Qandil went to the Central Mall parking lot in Ft. Smith, Arkansas to confront his estranged wife Tabitha while she was on her way to see a movie with two other people; 23 year old Grayson Herrera, and 27 year old Dustin O’Connor.
According to witnesses, Qandil approached the party and told them that he had a gun. He then raised his shirt to display a firearm tucked into his waistband. When he went to reach for his firearm, both Herrera and O’Connor, who are licensed to carry a concealed firearm in their state, drew their firearms and fired at Qandil.
Herrera suffered a non-life threatening wound, while Qandil was hit with multiple shots and pronounced dead at the scene by first responders.
So let’s see what we have here: A bad guy shows up and commits felonious assault with a deadly weapon and attempts to shoot a bunch of people (probably at least his estranged wife and likely those who she was with.)
Before he can complete that act, however, he is stopped in the commission of his felony by two other citizens carrying concealed guns.
Both of the civilians fire several shots between them and none of those bullets strike anything other than the intended target.
Now contrast this with the common “police response” to such an event, where (1) the cops show up only after the alleged assailant has completed at least one felonious act and injured or killed at least one innocent person and (2) they typically either don’t shoot at all (because they’re too late and the felon has already killed himself, having completed what he intended to do) or they shoot while exhibiting poor marksmanship, often injuring innocent people and/or damaging property.
You would think that this instance, where the only person who got shot was the bad guy, would get boatloads of press. After all, it bleeds, therefore it should lead, right?
Ah, probably not. See, this incident shows with decisive clarity the superiority of citizens being individually armed over reliance on the government.
- The citizens involved were demonstrably better shots, and displayed better targeting discipline, than most law enforcement officers do under similar circumstances.AND
- The citizens, due to the fact that they were present at the time of the assault and the police were not, effectively ended the assault before any innocent person was harmed.AND
- The weapons carried by the law-abiding citizens did not, despite their presence on these persons for an extended period of time, neither injured or killed anyone other than a person who was attempting to commit a violent felony at the time he was shot in lawful self defense.
There is only one fly in the ointment — the story “emphasizes” the fact that the two citizens were licensed to carry firearms.
A person’s right to lawful defense of self and others, if you recognize the right to life in the first instance, requires no “license.”
A license is, by definition, a granted privilege and by both any reasonable moral code as well as the Declaration of Independence‘s assertion of unalienable rights, recognized (but not granted) by the Second Amendment, no person need ask permission before defending themselves from a deadly assault.