Texas Open Carry and the Dallas Shooting

-->
firearms

Right after last week’s massacre in Dallas I wrote on Facebook,

Today the New York Times explains why the Texas open carry law not only didn’t prevent the massacre; it made law enforcement’s job more complicated.

The Dallas police chief, David O. Brown, described to CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday the amount of confusion the armed protesters initially caused.

He said the event had attracted “20 or 30 people” who “showed up with AR-15 rifles slung across their shoulder.”

“They were wearing gas masks,” Mr. Brown said. “They were wearing bulletproof vests and camo fatigues, for effect, for whatever reason.”

When the shooting started, “they began to run,” he said. And because they ran in the middle of the shooting, he said, the police on the scene viewed them as suspects. “Someone is shooting at you from a perched position, and people are running with AR-15s and camo gear and gas masks and bulletproof vests, they are suspects, until we eliminate that.”

There were also some presumably armed men staging a counter-protest to BLM at the scene. I assume they ran also. It’s a wonder it didn’t turn into a regular battle, though.

Gun nuts gun rights activists have long argued that all mass shootings take place in “gun-free zones,” even though that isn’t actually true.

In a 2014 report, Everytown for Gun Safety, a pro-gun control group, said that from 2009 to July 2014, 18 multiple-victim U.S. shootings–meaning any incident where at least four people were killed with a gun–occurred in places where civilian handguns were allowed.

Of 33 incidents in public spaces, the report said, 18 took place wholly or in part where concealed guns could be lawfully carried. Conversely, no more than 15 incidents “took place entirely in public spaces that were so-called ‘gun-free zones,’” the report said.

The gun culties gun rights activists also like to deny that the presence of armed law enforcement officers count. For example, they will tell you that military bases are “gun free zones” because civilians and non-security personnel are unarmed. But the MPs are armed.

But I don’t think even Wayne LaPierre is demented enough to try to argue the Dallas shooting happened because it was a gun-free zone.

Share Button
10 Comments

10 Comments

  1. Swami  •  Jul 11, 2016 @1:43 pm

    But I don’t think even Wayne LaPierre is demented enough to try to argue the Dallas shooting happened because it was a gun-free zone.

    I think you’re wrong. Remember, you’re talking about Wayne LaPierre. Logic and reason become null and void in the LaPierre universe.

  2. Csm  •  Jul 11, 2016 @1:54 pm

    Was thinking the same thing Swami. They don’t call them nuts for nothing.

  3. c u n d gulag  •  Jul 11, 2016 @2:01 pm

    ‘“They were wearing gas masks,” Mr. Brown said. “They were wearing bulletproof vests and camo fatigues, for effect, for whatever reason.”’

    Because YOU assclowns made it f*cking legal. you stupid f*cking douche-canoe!

    You created an environment where tons of “good guys with guns” – those that aren’t f*cking stupid – run away FROM gunfire!!!

    These are not combat-hardened veterans, they’re armed yahoo’s!

    Black and white, and every shade in between!

    Kinda hard to tell a good armed guy(s)from a bad one(s)?
    CHANGE THE F*CKING LAW, ASSHOLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  4. Ed  •  Jul 11, 2016 @4:13 pm

    Noteworthy is what did not happen. I have feared that in such a situation, where there are “good guys with guns” in an active shooter situation, that said good guys would open fire in all directions with high casualty rates. It seems commendable that they held fire when the active shooter could not be identified. They did not prevent the sniper from shooting, but they did not inflict further casualties.

    This does not mean that there will not be a next time in which the open-carry good guys will begin shooting. But it did not happen this time. Often in other situations such as mall shootings, there have been armed citizens who also held their fire because of not wanting to cause further harm, either because of not having a clear line of fire at the active shooter or for other reasons.

    It remains the case that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun only in special circumstances. Main problem is that the bad guy always has the element of surprise and can shoot the good guy before the good guy can return fire.

  5. bernie  •  Jul 11, 2016 @4:40 pm

    Will everyone just calm down. As is well known around these parts, the credibility of the New York Times is highly suspect. Just use some common sense. Texas would never pass a law allowing people to walk city streets with a rifle, body armor, and a gas mask. That would just be silly. The people of Texas would never elect anyone who even thought that was a reasonable idea. And if they did, the people they elected would make sure the city officials of the city could waive such a law if they though it was in their best interest to do so, like if they were allowing a peaceful march of it’s citizens. This just must be another one of those fantasy articles I keep hearing about. I am sure the real truth will come out in a day or two. What kind of gullible people does the NYT think we are anyway?

  6. Swami  •  Jul 11, 2016 @7:35 pm

    Soon this discussion will all be moot..The Donald has announced that he’s going to be the Law and Order president. Yep, he’s going to clean up this nation and in the process he’s going to make America great again… I’m so excited, just can’t wait.

    “And they shall beat their AR15’s into market shares” ?

  7. Swami  •  Jul 11, 2016 @10:40 pm

    Gee, what kind of patriot totes an AR15 to a protest and then skedaddles when gunfire erupts? Is it just me, or is there some sort of contradiction in logic at play here? I get the “don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes” thing, but doesn’t it make sense to at least stick around long enough to see if your patriotic services can be put to good use?
    Where would we be as a nation if the minutemen at Lexington just took off running as soon as the first shots were fired. I guess they don’t make patriots like they used to.

  8. Joel Dan Walls  •  Jul 12, 2016 @9:12 am

    All the murder/revenge fantasies that start with, “If only someone there had been armed,” seem absurd. Has there ever been a case in which an armed civilian somehow assisted the police?

  9. maha  •  Jul 12, 2016 @11:15 am

    //Has there ever been a case in which an armed civilian somehow assisted the police?// Maybe sorta kinda, depending on how you define “assisted.” But mostly not. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

  10. Swami  •  Jul 12, 2016 @6:19 pm


    About this blog

    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me
















    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile