It is sad that political activists have already begun to call for more gun control in the wake of the assassination of five Dallas police officers last night. But before we jump to the conclusion that taking guns from law-abiding citizens would have prevented this carnage, let’s take a look at how this event was different from others (or from what could have happened), and how driven killers such as this one will always find a way no matter the restrictions placed on law-abiding citizens.
First, note that this killer – unlike the San Bernardino CA, Orlando FL, or Paris France terrorists – was not given the option of a disarmed group of citizens to slaughter. Texans carry the right to bear arms very near to their hearts, and you can bet that many people in the crowd were armed for self-defense. Some, as noted by earlier reports, were even openly carrying defensive rifles in support of this right. Had the killer opted to open fire in close quarters on this hardly defenseless crowd, he might have met his end rather quickly. Instead, he was forced to take an isolated position high above the crowd where he would be difficult to detect and even more difficult to defeat. As a result, while any deaths are deplorable, his carnage was limited by the distance from which he was forced to operate. We need to keep in mind that had the crowd been disarmed he would not have had to take a remote position, and the death toll could have been much greater – as it was in the previous terrorist attacks referenced above.
In addition, police raids on the killer’s home have found quantities of bomb making materials, combat tactics journals, ballistic vests, in addition to firearms and ammunition. This was evidently a motivated killer; even in the case where he had no firearms he would have had other means to kill innocent people and police. The bombs he might have used instead could have been just as lethal – if not more so – than the shots he was forced to take from his distant vantage point. In other words, it is quite likely that the potential for an armed response from the general public actually reduced casualties by forcing the killer to operate from a remote location, while also preventing him from being forced to rely on the potentially more lethal bombs that he had the materials to construct.
This was a killer, plain and simple. He was going to kill no matter what, and restricting the American public’s right to defend themselves against such a killer would have only left us with still greater losses.