Guns and Protests

Joined
Jan 15, 2025
Messages
108
Reaction score
233
Location
Texas
Here’s a perfect example of doing it wrong:


, Video of Karen at a No Kings Protest
Notice a few things. First, it’s extremely open. Second, she’s not carrying it for protection or self-defense- she’s counter-protesting, trying to disrupt the crowd. She’s surrounded, with multiple people in close. Third, the firearm here is her talisman- notice how she grabs for it when she evidently loses an argument or gets frustrated? Either way, her “obey me I’m armed!” Karen becomes a lethal threat to everyone around her, because she’s an idiot trying to introduce a firearm to an argument. Hence the swarm-and-drop, for which she’s lucky…what if she clears Kydex? If you’re carrying, do you draw on her when she draws to (presumably) light people up for disagreement?

Fourth, this is a classic example of carrying “at” someone- the pistol is a fashion statement intended as a threat and a declaration, not a serious tool. Retention, access and even possession are all horribly ignored here- if this were a rowdy crowd, it’s very easy to see her holster simply getting ripped away, gun and all.

Without stoking political tensions, this is exactly what those last few threads should have been more about. There is absolutely a legitimate reason to carry at a protest or in public, especially in a world where Karens and Keiths are taking their Magic Speaking Rock Sigs into protests to make themselves heard or just trying to crowd-surf their F-350s. But doing it with larger guns, visibly, etc very rapidly puts you on the side of **someone**…be it a self-appointed “guardian”, the cops, counter-protesters, etc. That’s usually a silly thing to do.

In this case, it immediately identifies Karen as a threat to pretty much everyone because she’s got gun-touchy hands, a visible weapon, agitation and strong Karen vibes. No bueno. When we see people bragging about carrying semi-concealed or openly, remember, attitude and your choices matter way more than ammo capacity, caliber or any hardware.

IMO, these are the perfect times for a concealed IWB 1911, revolver or similar that you can hide readily in a good, well-retained holster and more importantly avoid being swarmed or boxed in…and not touch unless absolutely necessary.
 
Register to hide this ad
The above situation is exactly why all of this matters. Honestly, the peacekeeper wasn’t wrong to draw, and possibly even fire. Letting the rifle-toting active shooter engage the crowd will definitely result in fatalities, likely a lot of them, at least until that first 30 rounds is gone. Milliseconds matter here, but so does accuracy. Tragically, in this case, it seems one or more rounds missed and hit someone. I don’t think it’s the guardian’s fault, but at the same time, they have to live with that. With that being said, this is also extremely relevant to protecting ourselves and our communities…these defenders were likely the only people who **could** act in the relevant timeframe, and they did. Always be carrying!
 
I had my S&W model 59 with me at the "No Kings" rally I attended at the Capitol building in Cheyenne.
It was holstered in the front pouch of my pack along with two extra mags with the thumb strap unsnapped, a round chambered, and the de-cocker in the safe position.
Fortunately there was no need to pull it out and the pack just sat between my feet as I relaxed in my folding camp chair in the shade of a tree sipping water and watching the girls walk by. :cool:
BTW: There were about 300+ "No Kings" protesters on one side of the street that runs in front of the Capitol and about 100+ counter protesters on the other side of the street.
Lots of cheering and yelling but way less than at the "Border War" football games between Wyoming and Colorado or Nebraska universities. :)
 
The above situation is exactly why all of this matters. Honestly, the peacekeeper wasn’t wrong to draw, and possibly even fire. Letting the rifle-toting active shooter engage the crowd will definitely result in fatalities, likely a lot of them, at least until that first 30 rounds is gone. Milliseconds matter here, but so does accuracy. Tragically, in this case, it seems one or more rounds missed and hit someone. I don’t think it’s the guardian’s fault, but at the same time, they have to live with that. With that being said, this is also extremely relevant to protecting ourselves and our communities…these defenders were likely the only people who **could** act in the relevant timeframe, and they did. Always be carrying!


You don’t think it’s the “guardian’s” fault that they missed what they were shooting at and then hit and killed an innocent bystander?
 
You don’t think it’s the “guardian’s” fault that they missed what they were shooting at and then hit and killed an innocent bystander?
Honestly? It’s the trolley problem. If you don’t shoot, an active shooter with an AR opens up on your community, friends, family, etc…that’s the “will” happen, if you don’t act.

If you do, you “might” stop a greater tragedy, and you will likely stop the mass killing…but at a risk.

It’s the use of force discussion in a nutshell. And it’s a horrible one to have to have. And tragically, here, it went wrong. But also partly-right. The victim died primarily because a would-be mass killer was sprinting toward a crowd of people and forced action with terrible consequences.
 
Honestly? It’s the trolley problem. If you don’t shoot, an active shooter with an AR opens up on your community, friends, family, etc…that’s the “will” happen, if you don’t act.

If you do, you “might” stop a greater tragedy, and you will likely stop the mass killing…but at a risk.

It’s the use of force discussion in a nutshell. And it’s a horrible one to have to have. And tragically, here, it went wrong. But also partly-right. The victim died primarily because a would-be mass killer was sprinting toward a crowd of people and forced action with terrible consequences.


I’m curious how you know that the “guardian” made an accurate assessment of another observably armed person definitively being an active shooter?

I’ve had two on duty CONUS shootings that resulted in fatalities that I was cleared by a grand jury on, so I’m familiar with use of force.

Politics of anyone aside, to say that if someone fires at another, misses, hits some one else and KILLS that person that it’s not the shooter’s FAULT, is pretty unfathomable to me. One of the most basic premises of firearms training is that one is ACCOUNTABLE for every round that leaves their muzzle.
 
I’m curious how you know that the “guardian” made an accurate assessment of another observably armed person definitively being an active shooter?

I’ve had two on duty CONUS shootings that resulted in fatalities that I was cleared by a grand jury on, so I’m familiar with use of force.

Politics of anyone aside, to say that if someone fires at another, misses, hits some one else and KILLS that person that it’s not the shooter’s FAULT, is pretty unfathomable to me. One of the most basic premises of firearms training is that one is ACCOUNTABLE for every round that leaves their muzzle.
Pretty sure a guy finding a out-of-the-way place, pulling a rifle out of a backpack (or attempting to do so), then running with it towards a crowd when confronted, is a fairly obvious sign.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1717.png
    IMG_1717.png
    789.5 KB · Views: 0
Back
Top