,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
I hadn't realized until today that concealed-carry laws can create mayhem during mass shootings in a way that has nothing to do with crossfire: bystanders will report anyone brandishing a gun as a possible shooter—meaning first responders have no idea how many suspects there are.
Ask a first responder if s/he would rather come upon the scene of a mass shooting with twenty possible shooters—giving rise to maybe 40 to 60 divergent descriptions from bystanders—or just one shooter with a generally agreed-upon description, I don't think there'd be much debate.
I'm wondering if there's *any* first responder or criminal investigator in America who would say that more guns and possible suspects at a crime scene is better than fewer. Indeed—I bet they'd say the danger to innocents rises *exponentially* with each additional weapon on-scene.
There's an argument to be made that while we progressives should hold fast to our principles on guns, we should dramatically transition our rhetorical tack to focus almost entirely on how proper law enforcement and criminal investigation demands stricter gun control than we have.
