Gunfight, two Permit Holders, two off Duty Police, one Attacker

By Dean Weingarten


Arkansas Second Amendment Supporters Exercise Rights
Arkansas Second Amendment Supporters Exercise Rights in Fort Smith
Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten

Arizona – -( It is commonly said by those opposed to the second amendment, that police will not be able to discern armed citizens who are legally carrying guns from criminals, and that armed confrontations will then result in widespread carnage.

Here is an example where it did not happen.  From

Investigators said Qandil confronted his estranged wife, Tabitha Qandil, 31, Grayson Herrera, 23, and Dustin O’Conner, 27, as the three were headed to the movie theater.

“The victim raised his shirt and showed a weapon within his waistband, began to pull the weapon. The other two were concealed handgun weapon carriers and they pulled their weapons, and there was an exchange of gunfire,” said Grubbs.

An off-duty officer was working security inside the Malco, another off-duty officer was attending a movie, when both heard the shots and ran to the parking lot, according to Grubbs. The officers were able to disarmed Herrera and O’Conner.

Note that there were two legal firearms carriers, one attacker, and two off duty police officers.  The officers arrived very quickly, and they were not in uniform.  The defenders did not shoot the officers.  The officers did not shoot the defenders.  The attacker was killed, and one defender was wounded.  The wounded defender was expected to be released from the hospital the next day.  No one else was hit.

Consider the implications.  You have all the potential for chaotic gunfire causing mass casualties imagined by those who want the public disarmed.  More than one defender.  The attacker starting with surprise.  More than one police officer.  Officers that are not in uniform.  Yet only  the attacker was killed, and one defender was wounded by the attacker.  The situation simply refuses to fit the anti-second amendment template, because the template does not fit reality.

When five bank robbers attempted to rob a bank in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, in 1922, dozens of shots were fired by numerous citizens.  Three bank robbers were killed and two seriously wounded.   Not one innocent citizen was shot.  The idea of multiple people being shot by citizen defenders in such a confrontation is simply a myth.   It, like most arguments used by those opposed to the Second Amendment, is simply a figment of the imagination of people who are proudly ignorant about firearms and self defense, and who want to insure that most citizens are disarmed.

Legally armed citizens are not gang-bangers who fire indiscriminately at houses to enforce their “turf”.  Sometimes innocents are hit, but ordinary armed citizens have a better record of hitting the people that need to be stopped, and no others, than police do.
c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

We have to stop calling the perp. The victim when he’s killed in the commission of a crime.


They take the weapons because until the police know who was right/wrong and who is legal to carry, they dont want random armed people who just shot otger people holding loadedfirearms. Because cops arent stupid. They “should” have had all legal weapons returned once it was sorted out and the facts known. The article doesnt mention that but I would think it happened or they would mention police not returning legal firearms once the facts were proven.
Sorry for typos. Phone keyboards suck. Great story too, more good guys who didnt rely on nonexistent protectors to stop a potential murderer.


Why would 2 CWP holders need to be relieved of their weapons? They did nothing wrong! What they did is the reason to have a CWP.


I got the gist of the story but was confused reading it. I think it needs a re-write.

Joshua H

Breezer, It’s pretty standard for police to disarm everyone involved in a shooting.


[“The victim raised his shirt and showed a weapon within his waistband, began to pull the weapon. The other two were concealed handgun weapon carriers and they pulled their weapons,]

“The other two?” There were three “others.” Once again we have the idea that a CHL must be male.


Does it not occur to anyone else that there are some oddities about this article? Great outcome of the situation but the way this story is told was more about pro-2nd Amendment whining than it was about conveying the plain facts of the events that transpired.

EVERYONE whines so much that they can’t get their story straight.


Can we also note that the bit which calls the attacker “victim” was quoted from the report and not the words of the columnist?

Jess D

They say victim because he was killed… poorly written though


An editor would be a nice addition to this article but don’t let yourself get lost in the sauce; I’m sure we can all get the gist of what was said.

Joshua S

I think that you would put Rob L on retainer. As a commentator he is sucky and opinionated (which is the gist of his complaint about the article), but as an editor, he has valuable input on how to improve the article. First with Hard-hitting questions, second by example. e.g. If the article seems like his writing style, fix it, because you know he cannot communicate.

Rob L

“The victim raised his shirt and showed a weapon within his waistband, began to pull the weapon….”

Who was the VICTIM? I know this is from the Lame stream media, but that is particularly lame.

Robert Beezer

What’s the point of this line

“The officers were able to disarmed Herrera and O’Conner.”?

The wording of the sentence makes it sound like Herrera and O’Conner were reluctant or confrontational too.