Did Colorado’s Open Carry Law Delay Police Response to a Mass Shooter? | Mother Jones

Did Colorado’s Open Carry Law Delay Police Response to a Mass Shooter? | Mother Jones

(Via.)

I wish I understood the philosophy behind open carry. I just don’t…and I’m not someone who thinks that private citizens shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns (after completing a vetting and licensing process).

The spokespeople for the “open carry” movement seem to be jerks who enjoy walking into a Burger King with a cosplay-fabulous AK-47 slung over their shoulder just to get a rise out of people. This is, as they say, Bad Optics for the movement.

5 thoughts on “Did Colorado’s Open Carry Law Delay Police Response to a Mass Shooter? | Mother Jones”

  1. I am not familiar with the laws on the books in Colorado, but here in OK (an open carry state) handling a firearm publicly, as opposed to it being holstered unconcealed, is cause for a brandishing charge. Additionally, open carry here only applies to handguns. Even as a handgun permit holder, I do not see the appeal of open carry in public places.

  2. Did it delay response… maybe, but would you expect the police to respond when a crime hadn’t been committed? No crime occurred until the gun was used illegally. To say that the police response was delayed because they didn’t respond to a non-crime is a bit misleading.

    But then again, so are most arguments in this debate over guns.

  3. A few things. First, the story is filled with vagueness like “may have” and “It’s unclear.” The headline posts a question and halfway down the article it states “It’s unclear how much time lapsed between Bettis’ 911 call and when the rampage began…” so was it five minutes or two hours? Seems any journalist worth his salt would have found out the amount of time that had passed.

    Second, it states “initial police response didn’t come until after…”. Well, of course. That’s the entire point of open and concealed carry. The police don’t show up until a crime has been committed. The point of carrying a weapon is for defense because the police don’t show up until a crime has been committed.

    Third, look, no one likes those people Andy. The people that sling an AK over their shoulder or walk around with a loaded tactical vest. But, you know what? That’s America. You can’t make a judgement on people who act like that and apply it to all 2A supporters. Ever seen the people in a gay parade wearing a costume consisting of half a thong and a dozen dildos attached to straps? Or an atheist that dresses like a slutty nun and does sacrilegious acts in front of a church for a “protest?” Wouldn’t be fair to apply a judgement to all people in a group just because a few show bad judgement.

    Anyway, while not defending the jerks that walk around with rifles or other conspicuous firearms, you’re actually safer with them around.

  4. Yeah, David, I wish none of that was “normal” but that’s not the world we live in. Your point about us being safer with the gunslingers present is valid, even if we’d rather not see them.
    Same idea with “No Gun Zones”. Having such a sign doesn’t guarantee havoc, but it seems to be an invitation. I don’t think we need to have every teacher armed, but the well known possibility would serve as a deterrent, no doubt.

  5. Well put, David. Most people have a moderate take on issues and people at the fringes often push the moderates away from the center to oppose that force.

    It’s worth noting that Richard Dawkins’ halo has started to fade, for this kind of reason.

Comments are closed.