As some of you may know, a man -- the bad guy (BG) -- involved in a contentious child custody suit shot and killed several people including his ex-wife using an "assault rifle" Thursday in Tyler, Texas. It is not clear exactly what "assault rifle" he used, but it was said to be an AK-47. While the real AK-47 is selectable for fully automatic fire and hence outlawed in most circumstances since 1934 as a machine gun, perhaps the BG merely had an AK-47 look alike. The BG wore body armor and a flak vest over the body armor.
After shooting his wife dead, the BG turned on and shot once his 23 year old son who had been acting as a mediator between the BG, his father, and the BG's ex-wife, his mother. At this time a concealed carrier intervened and exchanged shots with the BG. Because the BG had on body armor, the concealed carrier didn't affect the BG much. The BG hit the concealed carrier who fell to the ground. The BG then walked over to the concealed carrier and shot and killed him on the ground. A member of the police stated that the concealed carrier saved the life of the 23 year old son, albeit at the cost of his own life.
The BG escaped in his truck, to be shot in the head and killed a short distance away. During some point in these events another armed civilian -- I don't know if this was a second concealed carrier or just someone with a rifle in a gun rack -- also fired upon the BG.
The BG was said to have a prior history of assault and of firearms violations. This language was very indefinite.
Anyway, I find this event regrettable, as all of us do. In reference to this as a subject related to our second amendment rights, I can imagine the news media now clamouring that, see, assault weapons must be banned! What I wonder about is (1) was the weapon a true AK-47 and therefore fully automatic and hence already banned by the 1934 machine gun law, (2) whether the BG's "history of assault" prohibited ownership or keeping of firearms, and (3) whether the BG's "history of firearms violations" prohibited ownership or keeping of firearms. All three of these points bear on the question, who do gun control laws constrain? In most cases, gun control laws only impose a burden and a restriction on the exercise of second amendment rights of law abiding citizens, non-criminals. It is a logical tautology that a criminal, a law breaker does not obey the law and hence is not constrained by gun control laws. I have heard others say wearing body armor itself is a felonious offense, and this guy was in violation of that law (assuming my source RE body armor was correct).
Additionally, far from being an event which cries out for greater constriction on civilian ownership of guns, the event shows that concealed carry and civilian ownership of guns can contribute to saving lives, as for example the dead concealed carrier saved the life of the 23-year old son.
What are the chances we will hear these perspectives from the major media? If this ends up covered on 60 minutes, what is the angle those boys will take on this event?
