As you may know, a man involved in a child custody dispute went beserk in Tyler, Texas, yesterday, killing his estranged wife and several others. The reports are uncorroborated at present, but here are some features of what I have heard. The man used an "assault weapon" to shoot and kill his wife. One report called the weapon an AK-47, and another report said the weapon was fully automatic. The man was confronted by a concealed carry licensee who fired upon him after the wife was killed and the man had shot and was apparently intending to kill their older son who had been acting as a mediator between his parents. While the concealed carry licensee was killed in the gun battle, the police claim his actions saved the life of the older son. The man was confronted again later by another concealed carry licensee, to unknown effect. The man fled in his truck, but was shot in the head and killed later by police. The man was wearing body armor and a flak vest which were effective at protecting him from fire.
The man was reported to have a history of abuse and for previous firearms violations. These points are pretty vague, but mighty interesting.
I can hear the press now disclaiming that assault weapons are evil and must be banned. On the other hand, it may very well be that the man was breaking existing gun laws which did NOT deter him from his crime. For example, if the "assault rifle" truly was fully automatic (media is not very handy about using this term correctly), then the weapon was already prohibited by a 1934 law outlawing, except in very special circumstances, private ownership of machine guns. Depending on the previous firearms violations, the man may not have the right to own any firearms. Depending on the history of abuse, the man may have been prohibited from owning firearms.
Also noteworthy -- but you probably won't hear the press mention this -- is the fact that the first concealed carry licensee SAVED A LIFE!!! Concealed carry saves lives.
Anyway, what have you heard and what do you think? Obviously the events are regrettable, and the guy should not have done what he did. There is no debate on that matter. I'm interested in the repercussions of this event for lawful gun owners.
Anyway, what have you heard and what do you think? Obviously the events are regrettable, and the guy should not have done what he did. There is no debate on that matter. I'm interested in the repercussions of this event for lawful gun owners.
I learned more from your recap in a minute than I have from the mainstream press in the past 24 hours. I had no idea two concealed carriers were involved.
This terrible incident could very well lead more Americans to support CCW, but if history is any lesson, all of those arguments will be drowned out by the antis whining with plenty of press coverage.
As I say, the reports are not real solid yet, and I may be wrong on the second concealed carrier. I got the idea of a second concealed carrier from the following account at Neil Boortz's site:
In confirming my recollection by rereading Boortz's story, I see I have added my own piece of dubious information to the story. Boortz's story says a second armed civilian interveened. I have unwittingly modified this to a second concealed carrier, a dubious transformation of my source. And note that the source itself is of unknown quality. So . . . keep a flexible view of this event until the accurate facts get out. Also, I apologize for contributing a currently dubious "second concealed carrier" to the story.
I talked briefly with my wife about this at lunch, and I said the problem with most gun control laws is that they do not deter criminals . . . DUH!!!! . . . but further confine and constrain the law abiding citizen in the exercise of their second amendment rights. Of course, this is a point that has long been made by supporters of the second amendment. I'm thinking this specific case may be an excellent example of this view.
Also, it was pointed out to me that those unschooled in firearms often speak of people having AK-47s when in fact they only have weapons that RESSEMBLE AK-47s, a distinction the media isn't likely to sift for us. My source says AK-47s are selectable for fully automatic or semi-automatic fire, and hence a true AK-47 is not generally legal here in the US. So, maybe the guy did not have an AK-47 but just a look-alike. Hopefully the story will become more accurate and clean as time progresses.
Also, I apologize for contributing a currently dubious "second concealed carrier" to the story.
I see the importance of factual details, but in my book a citizen with a gun is the same as a citizen with a concealed gun. Both are putting themselves at risk but nonetheless confronting a lunatic murderer before he can kill more people. When you think that the CCW holder died in the process of defending other bystanders, it could strengthen the CCW movement. Sad someone has to die to do so, though.
Quote:
I talked briefly with my wife about this at lunch, and I said the problem with most gun control laws is that they do not deter criminals . . . DUH!!!! . . . but further confine and constrain the law abiding citizen in the exercise of their second amendment rights. Of course, this is a point that has long been made by supporters of the second amendment. I'm thinking this specific case may be an excellent example of this view.
This cannot be stressed enough.
Quote:
Also, it was pointed out to me that those unschooled in firearms often speak of people having AK-47s when in fact they only have weapons that RESSEMBLE AK-47s, a distinction the media isn't likely to sift for us. My source says AK-47s are selectable for fully automatic or semi-automatic fire, and hence a true AK-47 is not generally legal here in the US. So, maybe the guy did not have an AK-47 but just a look-alike. Hopefully the story will become more accurate and clean as time progresses.
There are thousands of semi-auto AK clones out there, but few true originals. To those who've never heard the distinctive 600 rpm chatter of an AK-47, a rapid-fired semi probably sounds like a "machine gun". I don't think the media will ever get this straight. You'd have to have enough tolerance to do a little research on guns, which so few reporters do.
Story in the Texas press is that the CHL holder engaged the bad guy immediately after the BG killed his ex and wounded his son. Sheriff's dept is crediting the CHL holder with saving the son's life. Friend of the CHL holder was interviewed, and said he carried a "Colt .45 pistol". I'm guessing a 1911 of some type. If the BG was wearing body armor, as reported, could be the CHL holder didn't miss, as reported, but didn't penetrate and stop the BG. Would like to see some more info on that aspect. After puting the CHL holder down, the BG reportedly approached him and shot him on the ground. BG was killed either entering his vehicle, or during a short chas in his vehicle. Still a lot of confusion there during the media interviews, I'm sure.
The local fishwrap (Excuse-Nusiance) actually had a pretty good story, not the whineing approach that the AP story has.
This is the first I have heard of the incident, but I haven't caught the news in a day or two. I'll have to keep an eye out to see what the local yocals on the news have to say.
__________________
You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!
Tyler, Texas shootings
