I Have a Few Words for Gun Fanatics Following the Dallas Mass Shooting

open-carry-activistsI try not to overly politicize tragedies just for the sake of “making a point” or “pushing an agenda (as some folks frequently do), but if there’s a valid, rational point to be made — I have no problem making it. I wanted to wait a couple of days before writing this to let everyone have some time to process what happened on Thursday night in Dallas, Texas.



As I sat back on Friday, watching the usual “blame game” go back and forth between the left and the right, I couldn’t help but notice something was missing — the usual pro-gun “macho” propaganda that often goes along with most of these mass shootings.

Maybe I’m simply not remembering things correctly, but don’t gun fanatics typically claim that the reason why mass shootings (and even terrorist attacks) happen is because “gun free zones” prevent “good guys with guns” from being able to take out the “bad guys”?

Yeah, I’m fairly certain that’s what they usually say.

Heck, here’s what Donald Trump had to say following the terrorist attack in Paris:

When you look at Paris — you know the toughest gun laws in the world, Paris — nobody had guns but the bad guys. Nobody had guns. Nobody. They were just shooting them one by one and then they (security forces) broke in and had a big shootout and ultimately killed the terrorists. You can say what you want, but if they had guns, if our people had guns, if they were allowed to carry — it would’ve been a much, much different situation.

And here’s what he said after the San Bernardino shooting:

I think it would’ve been a lot better if they had guns in that room, somebody could protect. They could’ve protected themselves if they had guns.

Then this is what the presumptive GOP presidential nominee said after the Orlando nightclub massacre:

If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy that you had. If people in that room had guns with the bullets flying in the opposite direction right at him… right at his head, you wouldn’t have had the same tragedy that you ended up having.

I can’t help but notice that there’s definitely a common theme of “if they had guns…” in each and every one of those statements. All Trump’s doing is parroting rhetoric Republicans, the NRA and gun fanatics have been using for years. You know, the whole “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun” idiocy.

Well, on Thursday night in Dallas, where the shooting took place wasn’t a “gun free zone.” Not only that, but in Texas, it’s completely legal to openly carry your gun(s) with you almost anywhere you go. Heck, there were people openly carrying guns with them at the protest.

Before I go forward, just think about that for a moment: Technically, the animal who killed five police officers, while wounding six others, could have literally been marching around and stalking his eventual victims while openly carrying the very same high-powered assault rifle he would later use to carry out his attack and there’s nothing they could have done about it because, at that point, he was just a “good guy with a gun exercising his Second Amendment rights.”



Furthermore, I think it’s important to point out the real “elephant in the room.” On Thursday night, there were over 100 police officers at that protest — which means there were more than 100 guns where the shooting took place. Yet, that didn’t stop a madman from killing five, and wounding six others, in an assassination-type ambush.

So, were there not enough “good guys” with guns at the scene of this massacre to prevent it?

Based on his comments, it’s clear that if you ask someone like Donald Trump (or most every other gun fanatic), he believes that the attacks in Paris, San Bernandino and Orlando (as well as many other mass shootings) mainly happened because there weren’t “good guys with guns” there to stop the “bad guy.”

Even when it comes to mass shootings at schools, gun fanatics typically say we need police officers at every single one to protect the children, right? So, wait, do we need more than 100 cops at every single one of our nation’s schools? After all, there were 100 police officers there on Thursday night and one prepared gunman managed to be extremely effective at killing innocent people in a fairly short amount of time. So, if 100 armed and trained police officers weren’t enough of a deterrent to dissuade the Dallas shooter from carrying out his murderous plot — then what are one or two going to do?

I have another question: Since we had around 100 police officers with over 100 guns on the scene of Thursday night’s shooting — just how many more members of law enforcement, firearms and other “good guys with guns” would we have needed to be there to prevent what happened?

200? 300? 1,000?

How many?

Or, maybe — just maybe, what was proven Thursday night is that, instead of this nonsense about “good guys being the only thing that stops bad guys” we learned what we need to be doing is making damn sure the “bad guys” don’t get their hands on guns. Dallas showed us that, even with 100 police officers and more than 100 guns on scene, one “bad guy” was able to effectively murder five innocent people and wound six others, not because there weren’t any “good guys with guns,” but because our laws make it too damn easy for “bad guys” to get them.

Image via “The Good, the Chad, & the Ugly” on Facebook.




Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Vicky King

    Finally, a voice of reason.

    • mariojuggernaut22

      It wasn’ reasonable at all. My responce “This is a dumb argument. This was done sniper style. Of course you wouldn’t know the bullets come from. What many gun rights activists talk about is the classic type of mass shooter where a guy storms a building in full view where he is trying to get the most kills. You would be able to know where the bullets come from ..”

      • wheldon rumproast

        No guns, no “sniper style” …or any other style. And those victims would still be alive. End of discussion.

      • mariojuggernaut22

        Yeah, this man had bomb making materials and was military trained. Besides he would have passed a swiss background check. and that country has very few firearm deaths

      • Tristan Wiley

        I understand your argument. However, I’ll counter with this: how well did that work out for France, San Bernardino, and other places where the weapons of choice were banned, or guns are banned completely?

      • DallasJim

        As well as it worked out in Dallas.

      • Kareem O’Wheat

        You have nothing but a lone marble rolling around in that cavernous skull.

      • mark

        Don’t forget Chicago has the strictest gun laws in our country.Yet people get shot everyday by criminals.. Hows that gun control working out there??lol

      • Vicky King

        And I’ll counter with how often does that hapoen where guns are banned? Hardly ever here it’s a daily occurance.

      • pwrserge

        “Daily occurrence”? Really? Hyperbole much?

        Actual mass shootings are incredibly rare. Criminals shooting other criminals is not a problem. It’s just a bit more chlorine in the gene pool.

      • cargosquid

        See Mexico.
        You are obviously wrong.

      • strayaway

        2,100 shot in Chicago so far this year. Vermont has the lowest gun homicide rate in the US; 0.3/100,000/year (the same as Belgium). Washington, D.C. has the highest gun homicide rate in the US; 15.1/100/000/year. All three vote Democratic and have stricter than average gun laws. Norway, France, and Belgium all have even tougher gun laws too but terrorists get guns anyway. Of course, terrorists have other options including bombs, Stanley knives, airplanes, and rental trucks full of fertilizer.

      • John Tuttle

        That is how we won the war on drugs. Make them all illegal, No drugs no problem. End of discussion.

      • mark

        That’s BS… Besides if anyone wants to kill they will do it gun or not.Boston bombing a damn pressure cooker..You confiscate guns only the criminals will have them.Not a good idea..

      • pwrserge

        Because clearly a member of the military would have no way to get his hands on a gun… Just ask Mexico how well gun control works.

      • Blerg

        Another Rambo wanna-be, who thinks if he were there with his penis substitute, he could’ve stopped those mass shootings. There’s a reason why the only people who ever stop mass shootings (with a couple notable exceptions, like the woman who talked a shooter down) are police and military. They’ve been trained. You 2nd amendment supporters shooting cans in your backyard are not trained to handle those kinds of intense situations.

      • mariojuggernaut22

        ^Yeah here’s a guy who thinks it is morally okay that a woman to be strangled by her panties other than she having to explain to a police officer that she used her gun in self defence. Comparing gun ownership to dick size? Please give me your statistics on that other than an insult. Most high profile mass shootings tend to take place in gun free zones. A place where you can’t open carry/conceal carry. Besides, the officers were armed there also. They couldn’t stop the shooter either who would have easily passed a swiss gun license. Man you’re immature.

      • Blerg

        What in the world are you talking about?

        And gun ownership to penis size is an insult, not a measured statistic. You must be in the microscopic range

      • mariojuggernaut22

        Yeah. I’m done. You lack reading comprehension skills.

      • Blerg

        I read just fine, just not good at translating wing-nut to English.

      • mariojuggernaut22

        Yeah, anyone who doesn’t think like you is a right wing nut. I am not even a right winger. Please stop assuming what your opponent is. You have never gave me a reasonable reply other than just juvenile insults.

      • Blerg

        “Yeah here’s a guy who thinks it is morally okay that a woman to be strangled by her panties other than she having to explain to a police officer that she used her gun in self defence. ”

        Please re-read what you wrote, and maybe you can explain 1) what some woman and her panties has to do with mass shootings; 2) how you’ve managed to get by in life with deplorable grammar skills; and 3) how your crazy defense of gun rights makes you some how left-wing.

      • mariojuggernaut22

        Well the first statement is basically a statement for self defence with a firearm. Something that many of you lot seem to really not support since by the way you talk, you want the state to do it for you and the kind of morality many of you guys seem to have. Also you see things in black and white. I am a centrist libertarian and I support the rights of others. I agree with some left wing and right wing values because unlike you I don’t consider any point that is right wing as wrong. For left wing values, I support abortion when it is absloutly necessary like in cases of rape, incest and a botched pregnancy, against nationalism based heavily on race, medicare and social security for people who have retired or are physically or mentally unable to work, separation of church and state, and to kick it all off, am am an Agnostic when it comes to belief in a deity. For right wing values I FULLY support the right to self defence whether it be with a firearm, Sword, Knife, Taser, Stun gun, crossbows or pepper spray(Many european countries ban these things for self defencce), capitalism since it got more people out of poverty on an objective basis and patriotism. I’m done.

      • Blerg

        Omg, I don’t even know what to say to that nonsensical drivel. You still haven’t explained the lady with panties relating to mass shootings, and now you say that has something to do with self-defense?! You think it’s “left-wing” to support limited abortion rights? And what exactly is a “botched pregnancy”?

        There are no words. I’d bet money you’re Palin spawn. Either that, or English is not your first language (actually that seems most likely, and if it is the case, then I apologize for mocking you).

      • mariojuggernaut22

        My god. Where do I start I was talking about democrat’s tendency to take guns away from everyone every time there is a mass shooting since they and you think it’s crazy to own one and the consequences of that was the purpose of the self defence post. Abortions isn’t a black and white issue since you think a woman should do it as a form of birth control. “You think it’s “left-wing” to support limited abortion rights” So you’re ok doing it the week before the baby is born then? Your argument goes there. Where do you draw the line? Also a botched pregnancy would be the type where the baby cannot survive in the womb for much longer or if the fetus starts to grow in the fallopian tubes. Yep, empty vessels make the most noise and reading the shit you send to me is hilarious. You really are a parody of the stereotypical liberal progressive who thinks he knows how to solve the world’s problems but knows absolutely nothing. (BTW, I don’t even own a gun. I just support the right for others to own one if they are citizens who uphold the law. It works in Switzerland)

      • Blerg

        Ok, I feel better now, since you’re not ESL. Democrats don’t have a “tendency to take guns away from everyone every time there is a mass shooting”. They haven’t taken anyone’s gun away at all; but they do talk a lot about trying to get the guns from crazy people and criminals.

        You really need to link the story of the lady, panties, and self-defense; it really makes no sense and you keep bringing it up.

        And your abortion comments show just how little you know about the issue. Here’s a thought – you don’t like abortion? Don’t have one. Leave the decision to a woman and her doctor.

      • mariojuggernaut22

        Yes, I want to stop crazy people and from getting guns but I don’t want to stop anyone else who aren’t those things from getting it. There should be gun control but none that infringes on the Second amendment that LITERALLY covers more than just guns.That panty and woman statement is used as a statement to show what would probably happen if you deny someone else the means to defend themselves. This is sadly becoming more common in Europe since the concept of self defence is stupidly mocked there and their police force is becoming so neutered they are unable to help their native population because of the PC culture around migrants. Just look at Sweden and Germany. And again, Abortion is a much harder topic to discuss because of how gray of a topic it is. Gun control for me is basically find ways to stop people with evil intentions to have guns orany other type of weapon like fertilizer bombs without infringinghts on the rights of others. Switzerland did it ( There, it is an easily acquired privilidge other than a right.), America can do the same. They just need to teach responsibility and safety towards the gun.

      • Kareem O’Wheat

        More tripe from the mental eunuch.

      • Blerg

        Oh, look who’s joining the discussion 4 months later. A racist a$$hole. Or maybe you’re the newest troll account for Mario, and it took you 4 months to think up replies.

        Go fondle a gun

      • Kareem O’Wheat

        Awww, did the pedophile soil his pink thong?
        Quit fondling young children.

      • Blerg

        Flagged and blocked, Deplorable.

      • mariojuggernaut22

        Also I am not a rambo type. You idiots assume anyone who doesn’t think like you is a gun nut/Hillbilly/rambo wannabe. Grow up.

      • mark

        When a person stands up in a theater and shoots someone shooting that person is not rocket science..

      • Blerg

        Is that how the aurora shooter was stopped? Hmmmm I seem to remember something about it being an off-duty police officer who was able to subdue him.

        But keep up with the Rambo fantasies. I’m sure in a dark theater, amidst the chaos of gunfire and screaming, you’ll be the hero that is able to shoot and kill the bad guy.

      • John Crawford

        Semper fi
        Semper fi

      • Blerg

        Policy and military are the only people I would call “good guys with guns”. The only ones actually referenced by the 2nd amendment. All the rest are wannabes who think a gun makes them stronger or braver.

      • John Crawford

        I presume you can recognize police or military every time you see them, regardless of clothing?
        Please cite the 2d Amendment’s reference to police or military.
        Semper fi

      • Blerg

        “Well-regulated militia”. Surprised you were unaware of that.

      • John Crawford

        YOU said “Police and military”. Citing militia doesn’t cite “Police and military”! The military is provided for in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, being a Power ceded to the central government by the States. Military has no Rights, has no need of Rights. Military has Duties, and Authorities. Police fall under State authorities, and have no Rights. Again, cite the 2d Amendments citation of police and military.
        Semper fi

      • Blerg

        Ugh, it’s so tiresome arguing with gun- fondlers.

      • John Crawford

        Then go elsewhere! When you comment, you invite response. So, instead of complaining that you get what you came for, respond to my comment. Or not!
        Semper fi

      • John Crawford

        Then go elsewhere! When you comment, you invite response. So, instead of complaining that you get what you came for, respond to my comment. Or not!
        Semper fi

      • legaleagle45

        Yes, a well regulated militia is the stated purpose of protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The right is not allocated to the well regulated militia however. It is clearly allocated to the people.

        The fact that you do not understand how this works or why that works is a tribute to your ignorance.

      • strayaway

        The Second Amendment lists two things that are not to be infringed. It does not, however, explain their relationship or define “militia”. It does not say “and” as I suggested in the first sentence. Nor does it state what you claimed. Both interpretations are surmised. The Second Amendment, in my opinion, could have been written more clearly. That is why there is a Supreme Court and the right to amend the Constitution.

      • legaleagle45

        Yes— the two things that are not to be infringed are the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. Their relationship is clear.

        No terms are defined in either the constitution or the Bill of Rights. Your argument would be similar to asserting that the right to a trial by jury is not defined because we do not know what a jury is. Writ of habeas corpus? Ex post facto? What the heck is due process?

        All those terms are well defined at common law and were familiar with the persons who wrote the Constitution as was the term militia.

        The 2nd is not written poorly. People are merely using grammatical gymnastics in a vain attempt to make it disappear, all the while relying on the historical ignorance of the their supporters concerning the inter relationship and dependence upon the individual right to have and use arms for individual purposes such as self defense and the capacity to maintain an effective militia for a domestic defense force.

      • strayaway

        One thing the Second Amendment certainly doesn’t say is that a” well regulated militia is the stated purpose of protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” That is conjecture; your conjecture. Try sticking to the actual words instead of imagining that you have powers to divine meaning. I’m not sold on your act.

      • saltysailor

        You’re right, it is not the stated purpose. Nor does it state that it is the only purpose.
        But it DOES affirm the right on “the people”.

      • legaleagle45

        BLM does not share your opinion.

        Many gun owners are ex military or ex law enforcement.

        The Dallas shooter was ex-military. Does that make him a good guy?

      • pwrserge

        You do realize that civilians stop mass shootings all the time? Right? When they do, the average death count is 2.7. Police average 14.2.

      • Blerg

        Really? “All the time”? Good job buying into the NRA’s propaganda.

      • pwrserge

        Yes. All the time. Google it. About 50% of mass shootings are stopped by civilians.

        Pearl High School
        Parker Middle School
        Appalachian School of Law
        New Life Church
        New York Mills AT&T Store
        Freewill Baptist Church
        Clackamas Town Center Mall
        Mystic Strip Club
        Austin, Texas Construction Site
        Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital

        Do I need to go on?

      • Blerg

        Apparently so. I looked at one of these, just at random. The Clackamas Town Center Shooting was actually stopped when the shooter committed suicide, not by a Rambo-esque “good guy with a gun”. Do I need to go on?

      • John Crawford

        He, like many mass murderers, killed himself when he realized he was cornered. He was cornered by good guys with guns.
        Semper fi

      • Blerg

        Sure – add whatever gun-fondling fictions make you happy.

      • John Crawford

        So, if it isn’t true, refute it with fact! Otherwise, why not shut up, thereby not showing yourself a fool?!
        Semper fi

      • Blerg

        Do you say “Semper fi” every time you complete what substitutes for a “thought”? I bet your family and imaginary friend get really tired of that.

      • John Crawford

        I use it to sign my statements. Not your business or worry. Do you see imaginary friends? Oddly, I do not. Perhaps you can show me one.
        Semper fi

      • pwrserge

        Yeah he punked out after Nick Meli shoved a gun in his face. Then he ran away like a little liberal and blew his brains out.

      • Blerg

        NRA fan fiction?

      • pwrserge

        Fun fact. Nick Meli drew his gun, the shooter saw it and ran away like a #thuglivesmatter terrorist from a delousing. Simple.

      • Blerg

        Yep, sure. The NRA loves when you help spread their propaganda.

      • pwrserge

        Yeah… Because facts reported by dozens of news sources are totally “propaganda”…

        But please, keep ignoring the fact that your opinion is irrelevant. My right to keep and bear any gun I want anywhere I am legally allowed to be is not up for regulation, registration, legislation, or the democratic process. That’s why it’s a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE. You can kick and scream all you want, but my guns aren’t going anywhere. This is especially true now that the Democratic party has completely sold out to Wall Street. Thanks Bernie, you just made sure that there will not be a Democratic president for the next 20 years.

      • legaleagle45

        Many mass shooters commit suicide when confronted with armed opposition.. in fact, that is there intent in many cases… to go out in a blaze of glory. They commit suicide as they do not wish to risk being wounded and captured.

        Adam Lanza committed suicide shortly after being confronted by armed police… Does that mean that armed police were not necessary in stopping Lanza?

        Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, committed suicide when police breached the building he was in.. Does that mean that armed police were not necessary in stopping Seung-Hui Cho?
        After being confronted by armed police, both Harris and Kebold (Columbine shooters) committed suicide. They did so simultaneously as they counted it down together shouting “1-2 -3” before shooting themselves in the mouth. Does that mean that armed police were not necessary in stopping Harris and Kebold?

        In all of those situations, including Clackamas, the shooter was stopped when confronted by armed opposition and then committed suicide.

      • Kareem O’Wheat

        Why do you obsess over the genitalia of gun owners?

      • *response

      • mariojuggernaut22

        Thanks.

      • Donnie The Lion

        There is no “classic type of mass shooter” – good God.

      • mariojuggernaut22

        I already described what I meant by “classic” a better word would be “typical” Open carry doesn’t deal with sniper type mass shootings. Which are extremely rare. Notable types of attacks of this type are the the Texas University Sniper in 1966 and the DC sniper in 2002.

      • Vicky King

        Then the purpose of carrying a rifle on a public street is? In a crowd you can’t see where bullets are coming from so why carry a rifle in a peaceful demonstration? The ONLY reason is to show off, threaten or murder, all stupid reasons.

      • cargosquid

        The purpose was a political statement about black people carrying guns. It was Texas. You need government permission to open or conceal carry a pistol, but rifle carry is allowed.

        Black people going to the government for permission to carry……. too many people think that they won’t get it. Thus…open carry the rifle.

  • Brandon

    Here’s a message to the person that wrote this, and all the anti gun people out there! Yeah of course they didn’t stop him, the shooter was using a sniper rifle cowering in a fucking building where he was protected!

    • Duncan Rogers

      no he wasn’t. Please don’t talk with your mouth full. Get the facts first, ok? It was an SKS Carbine (Russian no less) and he had a holstered pistol. So. facts. 2 Every idiot there with an assault style rifle over their shoulders had to be corralled and questioned by DPD taking valuable time and resources away from the urgency of the situation. All those open carry folks started running around in fear of their lives (and rightly so) so please tell me how a cop could tell the difference between a legally carrying “good guy with a gun” from the perp trying to blend into the crowd? I’ll wait. And wait.

      • mariojuggernaut22

        It was actually an AK-74 but that wouldn’t matter since he could have done the same with a hunting rifle.

      • Jillz

        “Every idiot there with an assault style rifle over their shoulders had to be corralled and questioned by DPD taking valuable time and resources away from the urgency of the situation.”

        ^^ This. Thanks for making sure this obvious fact was pointed out. It’s the part the pro-gunners don’t want to think about. How the hell are authorities on an active shooting scene supposed to know the difference between those legally carrying and those getting ready to shoot? How much time should they waste during an active shooting trying to find out?

        It certainly didn’t escape my attention either, that the tuff guys walking around with their penis extensions slung over their backs didn’t stop to shoot back – they ran for cover like everyone else (and rightly so). So much for the good guys with the guns saving the day, huh?

        ETA The sarcastic last sentence excludes the brave officers of the Dallas Police force who risked and/or gave their lives to protect the protestors. Respect to them and all good police officers who put their lives on the line every day. RIP

      • mariojuggernaut22

        Even if no one was carrying, it would have still causes chaos.

      • Jillz

        Sorry, I don’t think I understand your point.

        I’m saying that in an active shooting situation, open-carriers add to the confusion and may delay law enforcement from identifying who the shooter is. We can agree that an active shooting scene is chaotic whether citizens are carrying weapons or not. My point is that those carrying weapons increase the chaos and make it more difficult for LEOs to identify the shooter.

        Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

      • mariojuggernaut22

        Actually I disagree. When it comes to snipers, open carry would fail but these type of mass shootongs are extremely rare and impractical in most cases and are mostly done by people who had military training. However in a situation like Orlando and Colombine open carry would be better. Even Israel does this since mostly everyone gets military training.

      • Jillz

        Thanks for the reply!

        So then, for example, open carry might have prevented or at least reduced the tragedy in Orlando? If so, how would the open-carriers have known who to shoot (since it would have been in a dark room)? How would they ensure they weren’t blindly firing into a crowd in said dark room (increasing the casualties)? And how would law enforcement officers know who the “bad” shooter was once they arrived on the scene (again, delaying the police ability to identify the active shooter). Then of course, the big question, what if a “good” guy with a gun was mistakenly shot by law enforcement in an active shooting situation – should the officer then be charged?

        If EVERY American who was permitted to carry a gun (concealed or open) was required to do training PRIOR to owning / carrying the weapon, it might alleviate some of the stupidity that’s been happening. Since they are not required to have training though, what you have are a bunch of people who are perceiving a false sense of security by having a weapon, while at the same time increasing the chances that they or one of their family are going to be shot by that gun. The only time I’ve heard about a “good guy with a gun” actually using it in an active shooting, he was killed (I believe this was the 2014 Nevada shootings by Jared and Amanda Miller). There was another “good guy with a gun” at the Umpqua College shooting in Oregon – he said he didn’t draw his weapon because he didn’t want to be mistaken for the shooter by law enforcement.

        Personally, I have no need or use for guns and have never felt the need for such “protection” in my free country. That said, I don’t begrudge anyone legally owning them as long as they are owned responsibly. Unfortunately I’m not seeing the “responsible” part all that often, and I believe gun ownership needs to regulated more consistently across the country.

        Thanks for this discussion – I think you are the first I’ve discussed it with, who has opposing views, and who has been respectful. I appreciate it 🙂

      • mariojuggernaut22

        Easy, you can have armed guards in these places who would follow the sounds of the fire and take them out before they kill more people. Hell even, you can train those who want to open carry to do this. It works in Israel.

      • Jillz

        So not everyone, just those that are trained (whether professional armed guards, or trained citizens). If that’s what you are saying, I can somewhat agree with it (residual doubt due to the need for armed guards just about everywhere in this scenario). An easier solution though, would be just to enact consistent regulations across the country for registration, training and safe storage.

        My issue is that there are too many guns in the hands of too many irresponsible people and approximately 33,000 people a year are paying the price.

      • mariojuggernaut22

        There is a breakdown on that. Watch it here http://louderwithcrowder.com/vox-gun-rebuttal/

      • Kareem O’Wheat

        Don’t confuse that ditz with facts!

      • mariojuggernaut22

        Becfause he has an opposite political opinion than you?

      • Kareem O’Wheat

        No, because of his comment. I would have thought that was obvious.
        Next time I’ll type s l o w e r for you.

      • mariojuggernaut22
      • Kareem O’Wheat

        First you spew…

        “..the tuff guys walking around with their penis extensions slung over their backs”

        then…

        ” I think you are the first I’ve discussed it with, who has opposing views, and who has been respectful. I appreciate it :)”

        Hypocrite.

      • Jillz

        That’s what you got out of that whole discussion? pfffft. I was respectful to the respectful person I was having the discussion with. No need to be so with you though. Go get your penis extension, fire a few rounds in the air, let some steam off. Maybe you’ll feel better.

      • Kareem O’Wheat

        That you obsess over the genitalia of gun owners is comical.
        Freud wants you to the front of the line!

      • mariojuggernaut22

        He was using it for sniping. His argument still stands.

      • mark

        The sks was in its day a sniper rifle.Russian has nothing to do with anything..

      • cargosquid

        SKS…..sniper rifle…….*giggle*

        He was using an AK-74.

      • pwrserge

        Actually, he had an accurized AK-74, but please continue to be ignorant.

        Let me simple it up for you. My right to keep and bear the weapons of my choice is not subject to regulation, registration, legislation, or the democratic process. That’s why it’s a right. Try to take my rights from me, and you’ll find out the real purpose of the 2nd amendment.

        It has nothing to do with shooting deer and everything to do with shooting tyrants and their jackbooted lackeys.

  • IBSAYING

    Rule of safety: Always be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

  • DucksInOrder

    The commentary proves the point: Good guys with a gun who are NOT TRAINED to handle crisis situations are, well, useless. Just because someone carries a guy does not mean they know how to use it! https://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destroy-the-nras-heroic-gunslinger-fantasy/

    • Carolyn Presley

      <<o. ✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:::::::!bw324p:….,…

    • Mark Campbell

      A carry permit is not a hunting permit. ignorance of the permit like a jet plane over head. But…the useful tools will buy this crap. A carry permit allws a person to defend and NOT be a vigilanty. The view of this article encumpasses the ignorance immedialtely in the spin. Just as large is the fan base of ignorance regarding a carry permit.

    • John Tuttle

      But some of us are trained. We are no longer in the Military, but we know what to do when something like this happens. First take cover. Then you have to find where the shots are coming from, which is not easy to do in an urban situation because of the echos. Anyone who had a rifle would be considered a shooter, so those not police would be targets for return fire. If civilians fired at the shooter the police may fire at them because of the muzzle flash. In this case just take cover and wait for air support. The times when having a weapon is useful is when there is a mass shooter just walking around looking for more unarmed victims. Each situation is going to be different you can’t look at one instance and say see it didn’t work here, so it will never work.

  • Mark Campbell

    A carry permit is not a hunting permit. ignorance of the permit.

  • Ted Gilbertson

    Problem here is the open carry crowd was on the same team as the shooter. This article is BS. I have seen around ten violent crimes stopped due to citizens carrying guns in my area in the last few years.

  • Ken Vinson

    There’s still ISIS despite bombs, tanks, and an international effort to stop them. Open carry will not be a deterrent to violent crime as much as it will give citizens the ability to defend themselves. For instance, we’re any open carry people shot in Dallas? Nope.

  • mark

    You dumb ass even the cops ran for cover..CCW holders do not need to intervene when they have a shit load of cops there.Why because the police at that time don’t know you they only know they’re getting shot at..

  • Kenneth E. Ames Jr.

    Another way of looking at it is not a single open carry demonstrator fired their weapon.

  • Alarmist!!!

    What we do know is that 130 French citizens had zero chance of saving themselves. In addition, the murderers were using banned weapons and bombs. The Charlie Hebdo terrorists were using RPGs!

    This article is stupid. The presumption that someone carries to save others is a fallacy. People carry to save themselves. Gun training doesn’t teach us to save your ass. It teaches us to save our own. I will cover and responds as the situation plays out. If I’m the first hit, well, gun or no gun isn’t an argument.

    As to the notion that if we end gun manufacturing world wide, confiscate every gun on earth and melted them down; that suddenly the bad guys wouldn’t have access to guns. The cartels build submarines. What makes you think they couldn’t buy 50k of automated milling and lathing equipment and start churning out weapons for their own consumption? “Oh, oh…but they wouldn’t have gun powder!” Yeah, cause organic chemistry all of a sudden becomes a mystery.

  • Vicky King

    Tgis isn’t about taking away your guns. It’s about walking around on a public street, in a crowd carrying guns. Keep your guns at home or hidden under your jacket if you have a permit. To openly carry is ignorant, serves no purpose and causes confusion when police are trying to find shooter. I would not have blamed police if they shot everyone of those tools carrying rifles that day.

    • Billca

      Then the police would be guilty of the kind of Rambo-esque behavior many people accuse gun owners of.

  • Billca

    That’s an interesting perspective. But it doesn’t “prove” anything.

    Let’s look at it another way. Folks who fear firearm owners have told us for years that in this, or some other, kind of shooting incident the presence of armed citizens will result in tragedy when police shoot a lawful gun owner or, the “gun totin’ fools” begin shooting at each other.

    Well, neither of those things happened. And your article pointed out why when you pointed out the large police presence.

    Did those folks carrying guns run for cover like everyone else? You betcha.

    N.B. This situation is significantly different than other “mass shootings” in
    that it was a large crowd, outdoors in the streets being threatened by a
    HIDDEN shooter. Most of the other shootings we’ve seen have taken place indoors where the shooter is quickly obvious.

    First thing we’re told in the military is if you’re taking incoming fire — find cover! You can’t fight back if you’re dead. Plus, there were plenty of police already there, on-site and better able to coordinate quickly.

    Initially you don’t know if it’s something personal between two people or if it’s a police-involved shooting. It’s best to seek cover, observe, orient to the threat, decide on your actions before acting. Until you have eyes on the sniper/shooter there isn’t much you can do in this situation.

    Most gun owners are both responsible people and law abiding. With a large police presence and an unknown shooter around, the LAST thing we’re going to do is Rambo-up and try to charge into an unknown situation. If I’m there with my family or friends I want to get them to safety first and foremost, along with anyone nearby.

    Let’s also acknowledge that any person who is 100% committed to a course of action, then & there, who does not expect to survive is unlikely to be deterred by any number of weapons. We saw that in Vietnam and in the Middle East.

    Also, it’s quite possible citizens openly carrying rifles were doing so with an empty magazine both for safety and to make a political statement more than to “defend” a peaceful protest. That may also have been a condition or request of the protest organizers which was honored. I’ve not heard or read anything specific on the subject though it’s a possibility.

    For me, personally, I wasn’t there. If I had been, I’m sure I would have sought cover like most others did. Then, if I could visually locate the shooter it would be prudent to try to inform the police and let them attend to the threat. At that point my task would be to protect those around me in the event the shooter threatened them somehow or additional shooters revealed themselves.

  • Mikele Deziell

    More people killed by Assault hammers and high capacity bats than all the rifle deaths combined this year. You anti-gunners are hypocrites. More than 88,000 people, kids, infants, unborn children have died due to alcohol related deaths than all gun homicides put together. Where’s the outrage? Where’s the anti alcohol groups? In 2014 almost 10,000 people died in alcohol related driving accidents.

    • John Tuttle

      They did get rid of Alcohol it was called prohibition and making something illegal just made the bad guys supply it and get more power and money. The biggest drive by shooting happened back then. They finally figured out banning something just makes a black market for it and it funds a huge criminal empire. The problem is people who don’t study history are just doomed to repeat it.

  • pwrserge

    Because, clearly you would have preferred random civilians to open up on an unidentified target in the middle of the city…

    Right… I thought you clowns claimed that situations like this would cause open carriers to shoot people indiscriminately? oops?