The pro-gun group Come and Take It Texas, in cooperation with other pro-2A organizations, is planning to stage a “mock mass shooting” at the UT-San Antonio campus this coming weekend. The Austin campus has been in the news recently thanks to the efforts of “Gun Free UT,” an anti-gun organization that has been agitating to make the school as restrictive as possible when the impending law change regarding campus carry takes effect next year. Gun Free UT’s latest protest didn’t draw much of a crowd, but if things go as planned, Come And Take It Texas might get quite the media turnout . . .
From The Statesman:
Gun rights groups say they will conduct a mock mass shooting this weekend at the University of Texas campus as they try to end gun-free zones.
The Open Carry Walk and Crisis Performance Event will involve actors “shot” by perpetrators armed with cardboard weapons, said Matthew Short, a spokesman for the gun rights groups Come and Take It Texas and DontComply.com.
“It’s a fake mass shooting, and we’ll use fake blood,” he said. He said gun noises will be blared from bullhorns. Other people will then play the role of rescuers, also armed with cardboard weapons.
He said the group was not seeking any sort of permit for the event from Austin or UT. University officials were not immediately available for comment, but in November, university President Gregory L. Fenves spoke in favor of a faculty resolution opposing campus-carry.
The idea is to show that concealed carry is an effective deterrent and response to a mass shooting event like the one that took place in Oregon recently. This demonstration, however, promised to be a little more high profile than the standard rally.
No matter what the pro-gun side does in terms of public demonstrations, the condemnation from the anti-gun side will be swift and hysterical. The NRA can’t even hold a meeting without Moms Demand Action trucking in a cadre of protesters to hold signs outside and condemn the them as murdering insurrectionists. This latest idea from the pro-gun side, though, might be over the line.
From an Austin based pro-gun forum:
This is just too far, I’m ALL for our 2nd amendment rights but this is batshit crazy, this won’t help our cause, it’ll just make us look like psychos.
The pro-gun group Students for Concealed Carry sent out a press release condemning the demonstration as well. From their presser:
Often, the hardest thing about fighting for licensed concealed carry on Texas college campuses is undoing the damage done by the small subset of gun rights activists who believe that theatricality and intimidation are adequate stand-ins for rational discourse and fact-based arguments. Case in point: the open carry activists who plan to stage an open carry march and mock mass shooting on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin.
They certainly don’t seem to be mincing their words. The Facebook event for the mass shooting demonstration has it scheduled for December 12th at noon. Watch this space.
![By Larry Keane President Joe Biden traveled to New York City for a media event to try and show America he’s doing something about rampant crime. Instead, he blamed the Second Amendment and lawful gun owners, said nothing about holding criminals to account and repeated the same tired lies about the firearm industry he keeps at the ready – lies “fact-checked” as being false each time he’s previously recited them. It makes no difference to the president. He’s not even trying anymore. To President Biden and national gun control groups the problem is always the gun and the law-abiding members of the industry. It’s never the criminal. Blaming the ‘Resistance’ President Biden was joined by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Democratic New York City Mayor Eric Adams for a “Gun Violence Strategies Partnership” meeting to talk about how to solve the crime surge, particularly those involving firearms. Instead of real solutions, the focus devolved into blaming law-abiding gun owners and again pushing a gun control agenda. “Enough is enough,” President Biden said. “Because we know we can do things about this, but for the resistance, we’re getting from some sectors of the government and the Congress and the state legislatures, and the organizational structures out there.” That “resistance” the president spoke of is the American people. Over the past two years they’ve become fed up with police defunding policies and soft-on-crime prosecutors, like Manhattan’s Democratic District Attorney Alvin Bragg. They’ve invested in their own safety. The “resistance” is the 21 million lawful gun buyers in 2020, including more than 8.4 million first-time buyers, and the 18.5 million gun buyers in 2021, with more than 5.4 million first-timers. The ”resistance” has backstopped Congress from passing federal gun control that don’t address crime. It also stopped President Biden’s nominations of paid gun control lobbyist David Chipman to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and banking activist Saule Omarova as Comptroller of the Currency because not even all U.S. Senate Democrats could support them. They would have turned those agencies into bludgeons to hammer the firearm industry to achieve a special interest, gun control agenda. Favorite Falsehoods The president turned his aim from lawful gun owners towards the firearm industry and repeated a lie he’s rehearsed several times before. “Imagine had we had a liabil… [sic] they’re the only industry in America that is exempted from being able to be sued by the public. Only one,” the president protested. “Why the gun manufacturers?… It’s got to end. They’ve got to be held responsible for the things they do that are irresponsible.” He repeated the claim for emphasis. “And I find that outrageous.” This is flatly false. The president knows by now, or his speechwriters do and they don’t bother with the facts. CNN, Politicfact and Washington Post have all checked President Biden on his remark, including after he said it in the White House Rose Garden. CNN cleanly rebuked it. “This is false. Gun manufacturers are not entirely exempt from being sued, nor are they only industry with some liability protections.” Politifact rated it “false.” Washington Post wasn’t kinder, saying, “Biden is wrong to claim the gun industry is totally immune.” The firearm industry has liability protections under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), bipartisan legislation enacted under former President George W. Bush. The firearm industry cannot be held liable when unaffiliated third-parties, in this case criminals, misuse a legal, lawfully sold product. It’s fundamental tort law and is similar to an individual attempting to hold Ford and Budweiser responsible for drunk driving deaths. The law was passed in direct response to lawsuits filed against the industry by control groups and municipalities like the city of New York and the state of New York. These type of lawsuit continue to be filed, now even by foreign governments represented by the same gun control group, the Brady Center. Colonial-Era Error President Biden continued to ignore facts on the Second Amendment and its history. He even erred when speaking about the Revolution-era days and why the right to keep and bear arms was so sacrosanct. “When the amendment was passed, it didn’t say anybody could own a gun and any kind of gun and any kind of weapon,” President Biden remarked. “You couldn’t buy a cannon, and when – the – when this, uh, this amendment was passed.” It did, and does, say the right of the People “shall not be infringed.” Even The Washington Post was brutal in their assignment of “Four Pinocchio’s” to this statement. “Biden has already been fact-checked on this claim — and it’s been deemed false. We have no idea where he conjured up this notion about a ban on cannon ownership in the early days of the Republic, but he needs to stop making this claim.” In fact, the Constitution of early America – before the Bill of Rights, and Second Amendment, was even ratified – granted and encouraged “special waivers” to American merchants and sailors, “allowing private individuals to act as pirates on behalf of the United States against countries engaged in war with it.” Americans given waivers and who owned warships obviously also obtained cannons for use in battle. In fact, it is still perfectly legal to buy a cannon today. It is the presidents’ fundamental misunderstanding and blatant lying about the Second Amendment that informs his gun control agenda and misguided approach to solving the crime problem. Millions of law-abiding Americans took ownership of their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves, understanding the president won’t. Instead of mangling the meaning of the right and pushing for more gun control on law-abiding Americans, the president should keep it simple. Take on the criminals and punish them for breaking the law.](https://ttagstaging.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/download-26.jpeg)
There’s no “might be” to it. This is over the line and these groups are simply making us all look bad. As Alice Tripp from TSRA so politely put it, this “may be well-intended but is definitely not well thought-out.”
I am not proud that, as a vocal second amendment supporter, people probably lump me in with these…
What are they thinking (if at all)?
That they’re helping and being clever and bold, I guess, bless their souls.
Anything Alice Tripp (TSRA) says is suspect, even when she might be right. She ACTIVELY fought against open carry here in Texas. For that, I trust nothing she says and have ZERO respect for her.
I’ve shared a few terse words with her over email – While I appreciate her work for the TSRA, I disagree with many of her views, and dislike when she uses the TSRA as her soapbox for pushing them.
This seems to be “one step forward, two steps back.”
Oh lordy, students can be shrill. Living up to the term “sophomoric”.
How come when the anti’s come out of the woodwork with stuff like calling us terrorists, no one on their side says they are over the line, but a small group of college kids do something deemed “out there” and we eat our own?
“From an Austin based pro-gun forum:
This is just too far, I’m ALL for our 2nd amendment rights but “
There it is…I support the 2nd Amendment, but…
Because we’re more deeply principled and objective 😀 This side’s for people with true grit!
I know, right?
At least they are out there making a difference.
I hate all the keyboard commandos sitting in their double wides on a vinyl covered love seat buffing the wood stock of a mini 14 complaining that “they are making us look bad”.
I guess the UT students should just wait for a real mass shooting so they can say “we told you so”.
“rational discourse and fact-based arguments.”
How’s that been going? You really believe progressives are swayed by facts? I think theatrics are EXACTLY what is needed.
So, only Fudds have Mini-14s with wood stocks?
Got mine because it operates and feels like an M1 carbine. Nostalgia, but in 5.56…and easier to take apart.
Of course, I still think the mock mass shooting is just giving the anti’s material to stereotype us with, too. Why offer a spectacle that can be used to further their paranoia? They already twist everything we say and do – why make it easy for them? We need to show that they’re the irrational ones. Pulling a stunt like this blunts that argument.
Your generation lost the argument. Time to let the black rifle and polymer pistol packing preppies take a shot. We should be congratulating these yoots rather than wringing our hands.
The only thing that could save this debacle would be if they used dildos instead of cardboard guns. At least then it would have some entertainment value.
Wait, though. I’m confused.
When TTAG posts a story about the anti’s widespread calls to SWAT us or oft-repeated labels of “terrorists” and the President issuing EO’s favoring “gun control,” we get folks commenting that “the gloves are off.” Theses same commenters say “bring it,” “come and take them” and “Molon Labe.”
Then, someone on our side actually does something defiant and the whining starts about how they are “hurting our cause” or some such. Often, these comments come from folks with nondescript usernames that are not recognizable as “regulars.”
Here’s a thought: We can’t really HURT our own cause.
The anti’s want us dead. They want cops to shoot us and they tell us to shoot ourselves.
So, let’s put this protest into perspective. It’s a minor blip in the grand scheme of the debate, and it’s nowhere near as offensive than what the anti’s say about us.
The disconnect seems to be when a pro-gun group goes to the campus and pretends to do exactly what the Anti-2A folks claim we are all just on the edge of doing. As I said, at least with the dildos instead of fake guns the thing could have a little perspective. If these guys have something more specific in their charade that is intended to make a salient point then they should be publicizing that and avoiding the backlash from pro-gun people who are having a difficult time understanding how this is supposed to help our cause.
Symbolic “protests” are plain childish to begin with. “Hi Mom, look at meee!!! I want some attention….” Leave that nonsense to the progressives, who lack the capacity to know any better.
I’m sure MLK would agree with you on the effectiveness of peaceful protesting…
Or not.
If nothing else, he’d sure agree about their usefulness for getting some attention from progressives…… For so called “causes” less immediately fashionable among that crowd, the record is quite a lot less impressive.
“Demonstration” can change facts on the ground, if they truly, genuinely, beyond any possible doubt, demonstrate that the status quo is unsustainable. IOW, if the demonstrations are of a magnitude displaying unquestionable strength. A billion poorly armed, hence “peaceful” of us, versus perhaps 100,000 properly armed of you… Gandhi and about a quadrillion followers marching on the Raj comes to mind. As does the disintegration of Eastern Europe, and to some extent “Arab Spring.”
A couple of teenage attention seekers flashing tits or paper guns does not. All their pathetic begging for some sliver of attention from the ruling junta accomplish, is to validate and legitimize them. Just the though of Washington et al “peacefully demonstrating” against the Brits by wallowing in Woodstock mud wrapped in paper guns, makes me want to puke….
So some think “rational discourse” should be applied on the anti-gunners? Since when has that worked?
I kinda like the idea of making a bunch of lib shrews pee their pants. Doubtful that any harm will come of this at all, and perhaps some good.
Exactly.
Adapting the tactics of our opponents AND being able to back them up with logic, reason and statistics spell nothing but W I N.
I don’t know about the organizers but one thing is certain – If it’s treated as a training exercise, it might actually be HELPFUL. Set the parameters, look for problems during the course of the mock-up and hopefully gain some lessons learned. It reminds me of a much-hyped exercise produced by a certain web site…
Sitting on their butts complaining isn’t going to help the cause.
I support open carry. I support open carry protesters. Chipotle ninjas and all, but, (God help me for actually using this in a statement) BUT this is a terrible idea. This looks like borderline fifth column sabotage to the movement. Its not going to be out in the open, is it? They’ve at least got a closed off “performance area” right? With stands for the audience and ridiculous giant shoulder thingy going up prop guns?
That is batshit insane. What the hell are they trying to accomplish with this stunt?
“…this won’t help our cause, it’ll just make us look like psychos.”
Yes. Dumb asses.
There is always a risk of things going sideways. The thing is, doing nothing to prepare for a possible attack IS stupid. Notice how I described the inaction, not the people?
Insulting people you don’t know is, well, cowardly.
On one hand, they are publicizing this. On the other, one of the reasons you need a permit for something like this is so that the PD knows it is a performance, including where and when.
As written, this sounds like a great opportunity for some unsuspecting bystander to either freak out and call the cops, who over-react (justifiably) and kill someone, or to freak out and pull a gun on someone, which results in a stupid shooting.
Open carry protest without permit? Not a fan, especially when all you see are white guys wearing camo and beards carrying ARs (and cementing a stereotype), but go ahead as long as you don’t interfere with others. Permitless performance involving simulated lethal weapons in a highly public space? That’s crossing the line.
For those saying this is psycho, crazy, etc. what do you think is more unhinged: A de facto mass shooting drill that’s going to show how effective concealed carry can be to counter mass shootings or a woman protesting concealed carry on campus by carrying “a huge dildo” around?
This may well be their point, and if it is they should make some allusion to it: A group of shooters comes on campus (with cardboard guns) and starts randomly popping off students. Before they get very far one or more students draw (cardboard) concealed weapons and drop the shooter(s) in their tracks. Minimal good guy casualties, maximum repulsion of bad guy invasion. THAT would be worth demonstrating and THAT I would support.
I have to admit I read this report with a growing sense of disbelief. These theatrics do not demonstrate anything except the sponsors have really immature judgement. They might as well arm up with cap pistols and stage a game of “The Shoot-out at the OK Corral”. This event illustrates nothing, particularly to the unconvinced and openly hostile, except you can stage a shoot-out where the predetermined outcome comes out exactly as you wanted it to.
DUH-UHHH!
It reads more like a performance art piece than a training exercise to me.
So, what’s the difference between this and all the people laying in the street pretending to be dead in Ferguson last year?
It’s making a statement about student’s being sitting ducks. Nothing more. Some of “our side” are reading WAY too much into this and giving the anti’s WAY too much credit.
People on the pro-gun side got their pantie’s in a twist over people
open carrying AR’s in TX, now there is open carry of handgun’s in TX.
It can go either way… I say give it a shot (Pun not intended).
The only thing I disagree with is the fake blood. Overly realistic drills are what schools do internally to traumatize themselves. However, it’s a free country, so I hope they planned at conveying our message decently.
The imagery is needed just like the cardboard guns. Each “dead” student will have a cardboard gun as to say “a real gun could have saved my life”.
I don’t see the big deal. Colleges conduct these training exercises themselves from time to time. Being run by the college itself and the campus P.D., those are more organized and obviously “official”, but still, there are screams and sound effects and it’s a whole event. Didn’t TTAG run it’s own active shooter simulation last year? Where was the outrage?
Now, this one does sound a little more like a PR stunt than a bona fide training exercise. So what? They’re using their 1A rights to advance their 2A rights. That’s something constructive.
Prediction:
Number killed or wounded: zero
Number butthurt and whiny: thousands
…if this supposedly pro human rights forum is any indicator…
I wouldn’t bet against you on that one.
How is this over the line? Is this any different than the pathetic “die ins” that were pushed by my local student body?
It ain’t…
I just hope they aren’t too obnoxious. There’s noticeable and loud, and there’s a-hole. We’ll have to see what actually transpires. It’d be hilarious if they just did nothing to show how crazy the difference in response is to political stunts and actual terrorism.
I see they decided not to call the dildo protest and instead raised them a skit about poor taste.
My hoplophobic niece asked me about this at dinner tonight. She has to be on/near the UT campus tomorrow and said something like she’ll probably have to be one of the dead ones. I said, “Or you could pull out your own cardboard gun and be a ‘good guy with a gun.'” thinking she might take it up as a form of double-cross anti-protest not realizing I was trying to trick her into proving “our” point. She just snorted derisively and dismissively said, “Good guy with a gun.” Oh well, I tried.