It can only end with somebody firing into a crowd, right? We’ve seen extremists from both sides showing up at protests with military style weapons. A few days ago, a nutjob drove his car into a crowd of the other guys. What if he had shot someone? The other guys had guns and would have probably shot back; then, his guys had guns and would have shot back too.
What could/should the police reaction be?
Is there any reasonable preventative measure that can be taken?
NO, of course not! They only have them to hunt today’s super animals such as the flying squirrel or the electric eel for dinner on the way home.
It’d be nice if the police would arrest all the mob that engages in any form of rioting or violence. But it seems like the political consensus is to let the mobs have room to destroy.
Free access to guns, open carry laws, and extremely contentious political rallies with directly contradictory goals = a very, very high likelihood of deadly violence (hell, as we saw last weekend, the guns aren’t necessary for deadly violence). If we want to reduce that likelihood of violence, we need to either change easy access to guns (not going to happen), open carry laws (more likely to happen, but still not very likely, at least in some states), or the contentiousness of these rallies (possible, but I’m not exactly sure how – maybe separating them by a considerable distance, but doesn’t that take away some of their free speech rights?).
I don’t expect any of this to change at least unless and until we have a rally turn into a gun battle.
All it would take is a few states amending their “Brandishing” laws to include open carry at any public rally or protest. I’m quite sure such laws could be written to be constitutional, even in front of assholes like Gorsuch and Alito. Then throw the idiots in jail and confiscate their weapons. Second offense is a felony and they lose ALL rights of gun ownership.
Bring it on, pally. You think you’ve got the votes in Richmond to do that? Bring it.
In the meantime, I, a Virginia resident, will work to defend my rights. Let’s see who wins.
Which other states are you targeting?
If they have the right to carry, then they have the right to carry. That’s America. It does nothing but help them think that they look tough. When it comes to hurting, and killing people, all they really need is car keys.
Bricker, silenus is also working to defend your rights. Like, say, the right to not get gunned down in the crossfire of a rally-battle. That’s a pretty important one.
I’m curious how you would predict a shooting at a crowded and divisive rally would play out as everyone with a gun pulled it out to defend themselves?
Our laws already prohibit that – his job is done. Woo hoo! He can declare victory and go home and stay there.
It’s certainly possible, but of course the fact that a day of sustained violence and wanton murder ended without a shot being fired can be seen as evidence for the opposite conclusion as well. Remember that whenever carry laws are expanded, one hears warnings of increased violence, but I don’t think those predictions have generally been borne out.
Yup, I’ve seen photos of both white nationalists and antifamembersarmed with firearms. Only a matter of time until there is an actual shootout.
Who knows what can of worms that opens. Can anything prevent it? I don’t think so, its only a matter of time.
Our laws will do nothing to prevent a full-blown gun battle from breaking out. Which I fear is imminent.
Not necessarily.
Guns weren’t an essential ingredient in last week’s violence.
I’ve played a similar game.
Back in 2010, Virginia debated the passage of a change to their concealed-carry laws that would permit concealed handgun carriers to enter bars. Previously, the law had required open carry if the carrier was present in a place licensed to serve alcohol.
Opponents of the law argued vociferously that passing this law was tantamount to legalizing a “wild west,” scenario. They demanded I answer similar questions, like how I predicted two drunks would react with both trying to defend themselves.
I responded at the time that I did not regard the scenario as likely, and I was not concerned about the prospect of such a statistically unlikely event.
And then, a year-plus later, I bumped the thread to report this newspaper article.
(My favorite rebuttal was the claim that this proved a conspiracy between the newspaper and the police to falsify data.)
In any event, we now turn to 2017, and we have a situation in which no laws are being changed. Virginia’s open carry laws have existed for years. No shootouts between protesters have resulted.
Yet you now want me to believe that such a result is inevitable, or likely, unless we change the laws?
Ha!
Nope.
Do they? By the standards of self-defense that seem to apply in the US, it looks to this foreigner like any sudden movement by an armed protestor could result in a counter-protestor reasonably fearing for his life and opening fire. Cascading reasonable self-defense rights would result in everyone present being legally justified in returning fire. Hey presto! Completely legal firefight. Sounds preposterous, but I’m not sure where my mistake is.
In any event, the OP asked about prevention, not prohibition.
I submit that a rally of armed neo-Nazis espousing death to certain groups meeting an Antifa group opposing them, also armed, is a more volatile mix but maybe I am not hanging in the right bars.
Let’s start with your understanding of what justifies “opening fire.”
You seem to believe that “any sudden movement by an armed protestor [sic]” is sufficient. Can you explain why you believe that to be the correct standard?
The OP asked about reasonable preventive measures. Our criminal justice system rests on the notion that criminalizing behavior reduces instances of that behavior.
Perhaps so, but the arguments offered in 2010 did not concede that the bars were not a volatile mix. To the contrary, they strongly predicted that if the law passed, a volatile mix would result.
Now you contend that the current laws, which have existed in substantially unchanged form for years, create an even more volatile mix, but for some reason the volatile mix has not created the volatile outcome you warn of.
So based on that, I disregard your ability to predict events and be accountable for your predictions.
Actually I am curious how your gun helps you at these rallies and how it improves your safety?
