How Open-Carry Gun Laws Make Mass Shootings Even More Dangerous

Two attacks now, from Colorado to Texas, show why.

Gun rights advocates protesting near the Texas Capitol in January 2015Eric Gay/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


America has now experienced two mass shootings in less than a year that have been complicated by open-carry gun laws.

As the deadly attack on police officers unfolded in Texas on Thursday, the Dallas Police Department posted a photo of a “suspect” (since deleted by the Dallas PD) and solicited the public’s help finding him. The photo showed a man in a camouflage T-shirt with a rifle strapped over his shoulder who was participating in the peaceful Black Lives Matter protest where the attack took place.

About 40 minutes later, the Dallas PD announced that the man, now described as a “person of interest,” had turned himself in. He was interrogated and soon released, no longer suspected of any involvement in the attack. The man, Mark Hughes, was carrying his gun lawfully and has since received numerous death threats, according to his attorney. (Texas, like most states, allows rifles to be carried openly in public.)

The sequence of events involving Hughes underscores how citizens carrying firearms on display can compound the danger in a violent, chaotic situation. Last fall, several police chiefs in Colorado spoke out about the potential perils after authorities responded tepidly to a report of a man in Colorado Springs walking around with an assault rifle—just before he went on a deadly rampage.

“The problem that we all face is that we never have all the information,” said one chief after the Colorado Springs attack. Another noted that the police had no codified way for responding to such situations. In Colorado Springs, that may well have prevented a faster response to a lethal threat. In Dallas, clearly it could have endangered Hughes’ life and possibly those of others around him.

Gun lobbyists argue that arming more “good guys” is the solution to stopping mass shootings, but history shows that’s a myth. And police leaders, FBI agents, and other law enforcement officials have long said that ordinary citizens with guns will “divert them from the real threat.”

Update, July 11: According to the New York Times, upwards of 20 to 30 people were open carrying AR-15s and other types of military-style semi-automatic rifles at the Black Lives Matters protest last Thursday, which “created confusion for the police as the attack unfolded, and in its immediate aftermath made it more difficult for officers to distinguish between suspects and marchers.”

Beyond Hughes, it is unclear who comprised the 20 to 30 people carrying rifles at the rally. As I’ve reported in the past, Texas is home to groups of provocative gun-rights activists, including Open Carry Texas, which in its push for looser gun regulations gained a reputation for intimidation tactics and harassment and bullying of women. Dallas police chief David O. Brown told CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that at least some of the 20 to 30 armed people were wearing gas masks, bulletproof vests, and camo fatigues, “for effect, for whatever reason.” When the shooting at police officers began, Brown said, “they began to run,” causing some law enforcement on the scene to view them as suspects. “Someone is shooting at you from a perched position, and people are running with AR-15s and camo gear and gas masks and bulletproof vests, they are suspects, until we eliminate that.” (The head of Open Carry Texas told the Times that in his view it wasn’t difficult for the police “to tell who the good guys and the bad guys” were.)

President Obama also commented to reporters over the weekend about how open carry exacerbated the mass shooting in Dallas: “Imagine if you’re a police officer and you’re trying to sort out who is shooting at you,” he said, “and there are a bunch of people who have got guns on them.”

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate