[hwy19man]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

All I kept thinking after Dallas, and the guy with the AR-15 who ended up being completely innocent--you never know who is a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun until he starts shooting.

And really--if trained officers can't handle a madman with a weapon, what makes a random Joe off the street think he's a good enough marksman to pull it off?

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

The guy with the AR-15 also ruined the argument that it provides protection.

Protest gets open-fired on. The first thing that the hero with the AR-15 does? Throws it away so he doesn't become a target.

I mean, it was a reasonable decision (as much as reasonable can be attributed to someone walking around with that type of weapon) and I understand the decision. I'm not expecting him to be a hero and get involved in a gunfight and risk his life. But when he recognized the threat, his immediate reaction was realizing that the gun he had strapped to him made him a target, exact opposite of the protection it was suppose to provide.

Originally Posted by ResAlien

"The police killed two men today, one they could confirm was the suspect and shooter. He was killed with a bomb detonating explosive. The other man killed was a black male armed with an assault rifle who joined the firefight in what is now believed to have been an attempt to help police. Police were unaware of this fact and fired upon the man as he fit the description of the suspect. A public apology has been issued to his family."

Yeah, definitely should have started shooting.

Texas-open-carry-laws-blurred-lines-between-suspects-and-marchers

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us...pgtype=article