Texas Firearms Festival Daily Digest: Macho Propaganda, Peeling Off the Kids, and Knowing When Not to Listen

Untitled-2

Print

A few too many: I Have a Few Words for Gun Fanatics Following the Dallas Mass Shooting – “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.”

oowqwpvxy784fsci1jyu

So this is why the game’s so popular: Brothers playing Pokémon Go find loaded gun – “The Clark County Sheriff’s Office said the two men found the gun in Hazel Dell. They did not pick it up but called 911. Deputies say the .32 Magnum appears to have been there for some time and had visible weathering and rust. But it appeared the gun could still be fired. Responding deputy Brian Wade said it’s fortunate that two responsible adults, not children, found the gun.”

hughes13n-1-web

Man falsely named suspect in Dallas attack questions Paul Ryan on gun control, PTSD – “’We have not reformed our mental health laws in a generation. And mental illness is what we have found in these mass shootings one of the sources of the problems,’ he said. When asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper about whether he would support any legislation that would keep firearms away from potentially dangerous individuals, Ryan said that bills such as one preventing those on the terrorist watchlist from buying guns would violate citizens’ due process rights.”

4e21f0115ae2f2001f99c345bc27d35d

Democrats propose restrictions on kids’ access to guns – “Congressional Democrats introduced legislation Tuesday to crackdown on children’s access to “military-style weapons” in an effort to prevent accidental gun deaths. The proposal—from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.)—would ban people younger than 16 from having or firing a machine gun or assault weapon.” Camel’s nose. Tent.

23_bs1122_bas7951-60defa7e5b1b2285ebeff3c2a618cd5d30766293-s800-c85

After Dallas, Black Gun Owners Take Stock – “When (Ken) Blanchard heard the news from Dallas, he says it catapulted him back to the racially-charged violence of 1968, when civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, and many black neighborhoods in cities across the country went up in flames. He says the anguish of this week felt similar. ‘I thought, wow. The only thing’s missing was the cities are not burning — but the internet was,’ Blanchard says.”

Another attack averted: 3 Arrested After Baton Rouge Gun Burglary Tied to Plot to Attack Police: Officials – “Six of the firearms, which were all handguns, have been recovered. A BB gun was also stolen from the store. One of the suspects was apprehended while fleeing on foot. A 17-year-old was apprehended on the scene in possession of one handgun and one airsoft BB gun. During questioning, he informed police that he and the three other suspects stole the firearms and were going to get bullets to shoot police.”

comments

  1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Allow me to shred that opening graphic which stated,

    There were 20 open carry activists at the Dallas shooting.
    They did not deter the shooter from his attack.
    They did not stop the shooter during the attack.
    They ran away like everyone else.
    Open carry doesn’t work.

    The open carry activists did not deter the shooter … and neither did the armed police.

    The open carry activists did not stop the shooter during the attack … and neither did the armed police.

    The open carry activists ran away like everyone else … like the armed police.

    Open carry doesn’t work … and neither do openly armed police when a clever, determined attacker uses excellent tactics and is on a suicide mission.

    Next?

    1. avatar NorincoJay says:

      I think this is a valid question. Were the activists guns loaded and or did they have ammunition with them? Many times open carry activists don’t have loaded magazines with them. They open carry to make a point only.

      1. avatar Mikial says:

        Why would anyone in their right mind openly carry a gun, thereby making themselves a target, and not have any ammo in the gun or on them? That is the height of stupidity.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          Openly carrying an obviously unloaded firearm is a really good way to have it stolen from you by a criminal carrying a loaded concealed firearm.

    2. avatar samuraichatter says:

      May I add the Iraqi Army?

    3. avatar MarkPA says:

      Only Utopians argue in these terms. “Do it my way and everything will be perfect! Do it your way and something can go wrong as illustrated by this case.”
      In such a situation as Dallas, it would not make tactical sense for civilians to begin returning fire before the police did so. It probably wouldn’t make sense for civilians to begin to return fire simultaneously with the police. It probably made the most sense for everyone to seek cover and assess first.
      Thereafter, it might have been helpful for the open carriers to buddy-up with cops and assist in returning fire. In the Texas University incident in Austin civilians assembled to assist the police. Yet, such a course of action isn’t necessarily always the best course of action. The number of police present to handle a single perpetrator might have been adequate; in which case, the civilians’ assistance probably wouldn’t have helped.
      Eliminating gun-free-zones isn’t a Utopian cure-all. Carry everywhere simply promotes the probability that there will be some law-abiding person in more venues to respond in the case of need. In case of need, one or two law-abiding carriers will likely slow-down the rate of casualties until the police can arrive.
      We don’t need to argue that many – or even any – perpetrators will be deterred by carry-everywhere. In fact, we ought to assume (lacking much useful evidence) that carry-everywhere is a meaningful deterrence at all. The number of perpetrators of mass shootings is quite small, at least in the US. Most of them appear – in retrospect – to be not of sound mind. If and to the extent that they are not rational then they are unlikely to be deterred by the prospect of the presence of armed civilians. Clearly, the same argument can be made about fire and consumer fire extinguishers. Fire is not deterred by the presence of fire extinguishers purchased and maintained by consumers. So, should we stop the ubiquitous practice of maintaining fire extinguishers and rely exclusively on professional fire companies?

    4. I had a different take on it.

      “There were 20 open carry activists at the Dallas shooting.”
      There were also probably 100 armed police on scene before the attack. If the police are already there, good tactics dictate let the law handle it. It’s like being in a hospital lobby when someone goes into cardiac arrest. Why would I not let the doctors and nurses care for the person?

      “They did not deter the shooter from his attack.”
      Um…yes they did. I’m of course referring to the larger group of armed citizens. The Police. 4 were ambushed before a counter strike could take place. Then the last cop to die confronted the killer so that may have very well saved other lives.

      “They did not stop the shooter during the attack.”
      And where was the shooter in proximity to the open carriers? Guy shoots up a liquor store in Canton, GA and I am target practicing with my AR 15 in McDonough, GA. How exactly am I to do anything about it? 200 yards or 100 miles, too far is too far.

      “They ran away like everyone else.”
      You’re out in the open, not a closed in school room or night club. Escape is always the first option armed or otherwise. But only armed citizens have a second option.

      “Open carry doesn’t work.”
      Except every time it has.

      1. avatar Katy says:

        While you may or may not be the first to do so, I appreciate you mentioning CPR. It’s an analogy that applies really well to the Dallas events.

        I’ve been on scene at witnessed cardiac arrests where the patient died. You had trained personnel right there, equipped with the best money can buy. And death still happened. We don’t tell people to forego CPR training, because it can still help and increases the chance of survival. Same with carry – it may not be prefect, but someone with the equipment and skills is better than nothing, regardless of situation.

    5. avatar Cliff H says:

      No time to scroll through all the replies, so this may be a duplicate argument, but the Open Carriers did in fact do exactly what they intended to do, which was to deter attacks on the people they were marching with. It was never their intent to deter a crazed bigot intent on shooting white police officers, although I strongly believe that given the opportunity they would have gladly stood with the cops against the bad guy shooter. That opportunity never arose.

    6. avatar Tom in PA says:

      A person that is committed isn’t deterred – they must be defeated.

    7. avatar Cam says:

      Good point, and I would like to know how many armed cops where there that did not deter this evil son of a b!

  2. avatar Amfivena says:

    “Open Carry Doesn’t Work”

    That May Be…

    But, based on the Dallas shooting, neither does it ‘not work’, or even make things worse…

    So, I saw quite a few people in the video with white t-shirts. Those shirts didn’t stop the shooting. Therefore white t-shirts ‘don’t work’, BAN THEM NOW!

  3. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    If that is a .32 mag it is a 16-4 which is a pretty uncommon revolver and quite a waste.

    Oh and 11 kids a day on average meet their end texting and driving compared to how many firearms deaths?

    1. avatar William says:

      I doubt it will be wasted. Clark County is good about this sort of thing. Any functional firearms (which they admitted it is) are first run against the stolen guns database. If it dosent come up there it goes to auction. Only non-reported, broken firearms get scrapped here. Someone will get this and hopefully have it properly restored.

  4. avatar Ralph says:

    When the “open carry activists” are members of #BLM, they will not shoot one of their own.

    And besides, I thought that armed citizens were supposed to make things worse. That’s what we heard from the libtards after Orlando, right? Well guess what. They didn’t. They don’t. And libtards are libtarded, now and forever.

  5. avatar JR_in_NC says:

    Weren’t the Open Carriers in the protest carrying UNLOADED rifles?

    One of the initial reports about Hughes said that. Is this confirmed?

    This might explain why they ‘ran away.’ But even if so, that doesn’t fit the narrative(s) … so it won’t get much airtime. Or none.

    1. avatar NorincoJay says:

      I agree with you. Many times these open carry activists don’t carry loaded weapons or even ammunition. Key word here is activists

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Last time I participated in an open carry march, the rifle was unloaded. BUT I had a 20 round mag, loaded, in my pocket (20 rounds of 7.62 x 51 being nothing to sneeze at). And a loaded, OCed handgun.

        Basically, as long as I wasn’t the first person (out of scores) dropped by a (hypothetical) shooter, I wouldn’t have been harmless for long.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          But would you have sought cover…that seems to be the big issue here.

          Since when did seeking cover during a firefight become a bad thing.

          I think we have some drive-by trolls here today.

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          I guess they think that we *should* “stand our ground” to be consistent. If so…yeah, ignoranus (that second ‘n’ is not a typo) trolls.

  6. avatar Bollocks Troy says:

    Birth control doesn’t always work either, do we ban sex? Ney I say, we should mandate it, enforce it! Sex for everyone, and guns. Sex and guns in every home by Christmas. Just remember, every bullet you fire has a lawyer attached to it, like the guy riding the h-bomb in Dr. Strangelove. Child support is attached to the other gun.

  7. avatar Amfivena says:

    Oh, too Old Man Parker, please have the common courtesy to get little Ralphie an adjustable stock. Pretty sure they would not have been illegal anywhere in the States in the 1940s.

  8. avatar James in AZ says:

    Open carry doesnt work?

    You make it sound like a RIGHT needs a reason

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      The past 8 years make it clear that voting doesn’t work, should we ban it?

  9. avatar HP says:

    Once again, room temperature IQ liberals were looking for a case to hang their open carry hat on, so they picked this one. It’s a non-starter. It doesn’t prove that open carry works or fails, it only proves that liberals are terrified of citizens carrying firearms to protect themselves.

    By the logic they are using, the police should be disarmed. Funny, I don’t see them actually being that honest.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      room temperature IQ liberals

      Fahrenheit or Centigrade? The latter is more insulting. 😉

      1. avatar kenneth says:

        But isn’t; “IQs the same as their shoe size”, more accurate?

        1. avatar sota says:

          But not as high as their dress size.

          Sorry… had to.

  10. avatar formerwaterwalker says:

    The Pokemon boys and girls are not just finding rare relic handguns-they’re getting hit by cars,robbed by criminals and pizzing off plenty of folks by desecrating graveyards and Holocaust Museums. OFWG rant over. Get a job…

    1. avatar HP says:

      Zombies!

    2. avatar anaxis says:

      … along with being funnelled straight to the front door of a halfway house for sex-offenders in Phoenix; or getting themselved robbed by being constantly in Condition Pikachu-yellow. And I already have to dodge people texting-&-driving (or walking) often enough as is.
      I’m kicking myself for not having bought Nintendo stock last Friday.

  11. avatar Southern Cross says:

    The proposal—from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.)—would ban people younger than 16 from having or firing a machine gun or assault weapon.” Camel’s nose. Tent.

    And assault weapon is such a vague term it could be used to describe a .22 self-loading rifle such as a Ruger 10/22. To the (D)s, if it looks scary it should be banned. The (D)s don’t suffer from cognitive dissonance. They actually enjoy it.

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      Correction they want to ban the scary looking ones first, they will come for the rest later.

  12. avatar General Zod says:

    So they expect the open carriers to fire blindly at a sniper they can’t see, with no regard for where their bullets go. Yeah. That’s the usual liberal grasp of things.

    1. avatar John in AK says:

      I suppose that another way of looking at this would be to ask, ‘Were any of the Open Carriers shot by the murdering thug?’ If we can answer that in the negative, simple logic tells us that OC DID work in this instance–that is, if we were stupid enough to believe that the murdering thug was targeting anyone but white police officers.
      We can also learn from the fact that everyone who was not eating fresh fried green tomatoes at the time was likewise not shot; Neither were any blind pregnant lesbian Puerto Rican transvestite astronaut touch-typists, come to think of it.
      Surely, there is a lesson, here.

    2. avatar kenneth says:

      But its doesn’t matter if you can see a target or not. Bullets never miss, guns are magic….
      For example, one minute they’re an AR15, then they turn into SKSs, and then(after the flash of smoke) they end up a Saiga. See! They’re magic.
      So libtarb bulls**t makes total sense, in a harry potter kind of way…

  13. avatar Mad Cow says:

    If they ban children under 16 from using “assault weapons” they will toss out a number of top 3-Gun competitors, and kill the support for future generations. Iowa has an asinine 100-year-old law preventing children under 14 from using hand guns, and that’s keeping some kids from participating now. It’s one sure way to “overcome” gun culture: don’t allow kids to partake in it.

    Not that it has a chance of passing, but I’m sure it’ll be on the new (old) liberal agenda for a while…

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      This under 16 ban would be a huge win for the gun-grabber side.
      The Left plays the long-game.

    2. avatar notalima says:

      My son, at 14, is old enough to own his own AR here. (not old enough to buy, but can own one if given as a gift).

      For his 14th BDay his gift was to pick all the parts for his own top-to-bottom AR build (from parts) and we’d build it as a father/son project where he did all the tool-time, with dad watching and giving advice and input. Which we did.

      He competes with that carbine now (rather than borrowing one of dad’s).

      His younger brother, at 10, regularly shoots one of the family ARs at the range.

      This whole bit about ‘powerful assault rifles’ is such a giant bucket of crap. Part of the reason my boys both started shooting my ARs when they were pre-10 is that they are one of the lightest recoiling carbines commonly available. With a light-weight build easy to hold, handle, manipulate and fire safely with ease of control.

      This legislation is nothing more than a trick to push young shooters away from MSRs, reducing exposure, in a blatant attempt to change ‘culture’.

  14. avatar FedUp says:

    I was four years old in the summer of ’68.
    I thought Blanchard was younger than me.
    How can he be ‘catapulted back’ to those days?

  15. avatar Templar says:

    Seems like the open carriers did a fantastic job defending themselves, given none of them died. Or am I under the impression they had a duty to protect the police? Maybe the author thinks we should all have ready access to Jihadibots

  16. avatar strych9 says:

    The first story was posted on forwardprogressives.com. It’s hardly surprising it contains not a shred of common sense, logic or fact.

  17. avatar Cerickson says:

    I would like to make a couple of observations about the media ridicule of the open carriers in Dallas not engaging/running away from the shooting…

    Regardless of your opinion of OC vs. CC, the first thing I want to say is that I believe the first responsibility of someone caught in a situation like that in Dallas is to MOVE. Primarily to get to safety, if that is not possible, then move to cover in order to deal with the threat. The open carriers were not there as operational operators operating operationally, they were there to assert their 2A rights, and to show that they were taking personal responsibility for their security (and, yes, to make a polital statement).

    Personally, I favor CC. However, I believe that CC or OC, my reasons for carrying in whatever form are a function of having the option to offensively (in the tactical sense, not the morally perceptive sense) protect myself and my loved ones first, everyone else a distant second. I do not mean to sound callous, but there it is. I have no responsibility to protect everyone, and to be honest, I hope me one ever needs me to protect them, as above, I am not an OOOO.

    Armed or not, getting away from a threat is choice number 1, engaging a threat a nasty number 2. Either way, having the means to deal with option 2 is not something that is negotiable, it is a natural right.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      I would make a point about OC vs CC.

      When it comes to the local 7/11 yes, that’s opinion. When it comes to other situations it’s not. Defense against aggressive animals, especially large cats demands OC. The animal’s decision to attack is not going to be determined by an openly or concealed weapon and the trade-offs that CC gives you are nothing but a liability in dealing with an animal. An extra 1/4 second to deploy or a snag on clothing pretty well insures death against a Mountain Lion.

      That’s not true against a “street predator”. So I would argue that CC and OC have various trade-offs in public life and those arguments can be had but out in the woods or another area prone to predators of the four-legged variety CC has no place.

    2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Well said, Cerickson.

  18. avatar Ryan says:

    Carry is great at deterring petty crime. It’s designed to stop a bad guy who is looking for an easy target – a guy filling up his truck with gas at 2AM, or a woman walking in the Wal-Mart parking lot. In those situations the bad guy usually wants to live badly enough that just the threat of a gun sends him running.

    Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for fighting a determined attacker who is elevated and hidden and has already resigned himself to death.

    My seat belt is great for a head on collision at 30 miles per hour. At 70 miles per hour – i’m going to die. But that doesn’t mean I take my seatbelt off at 70 miles per hour just because it won’t make a difference in a collision at that speed.

    Saying that carry didn’t stop the attacks in Dallas is no different than saying that seatbelts are useless because they only work in low speed crashes.

    But… we all know that already.

  19. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    The proposal—from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.)—would ban people younger than 16 from having or firing a machine gun or assault weapon.”
    So how come I never got to play with real assault rifles and machine guns when I was 16?

  20. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I can imagine how well the open carriers would have been viewed by the cops if they were running around shooting guns trying to return fire in Dallas.

  21. avatar Felix says:

    so open carry activists dont carry ammunition? No offense thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard, the power of deterrence is one thing but the fact that apart from the military guys i doubt everyone of of them knows how to use their fists in an actual fight. What if some dude takes their tacticool AR/ak/ fal? away from them what are they gonna do pull their unloaded sidearm on them?

  22. avatar Joe R. says:

    The TX gunman was scary, but not as scary as a few Monday morning quaterbacks with attorneys and an il-used media outlet, a couple of POS lib-prog-comm (D) thugs,

    It’s safe to say that
    IT IS POSSIBLE
    that 100% of the CIVILIAN Open Carriers
    WERE ON THE SIDE OF THE SHOOTER,
    UP UNTIL HE TOOK HIS FIRST VICTIM (not “fired his first shot”).

    TTP’s people, everyone’s forming theirs while observing yours.

  23. avatar Robert says:

    I totally disagree with this! Open carry worked just fine, by both the police and civilians:
    First, the total victim count was 5 dead and 7 wounded. Compare that with a place with no firearms allowed where a shooting happened a few weeks ago – 50 dead and 70 wounded…. is it me or there were 10 times more victims?
    Next, it disproved the whole liberal bull*** that if a shooting happens the police or open carriers are at risk from each other as they can’t tell who the bad guy is. Yes, some got detained, but I’d rather be detained and let go than dead. No cop was harmed by open carriers and no civilian was shot by cops…

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
Texas Firearms Festival Daily Digest: Macho Propaganda, Peeling Off the Kids, and Knowing When Not to Listen http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/07/daniel-zimmerman/daily-digest-29/" title="Email to a friend/colleague">
button to share via email