But the NRA says having a gun makes you safer!
Mitch Smith reports in the NY Times:
A lawyer for the suburban police officer who fatally shot a black man during a traffic stop said on Saturday that the race of the driver, Philando Castile, played no role in how his client responded, and that the officer “was reacting to the presence of a gun” when he opened fire.
Officer Yanez, of the St. Anthony police, is on leave while state authorities investigate the shooting, which has prompted protests and raised questions about what role race might have played in the stop.
“The shooting had nothing to do with race and everything to do with the presence of that gun,” Mr. Kelly said in an interview, noting that Officer Yanez is Latino.
Mr. Castile “was not following the directions of the police officer,” Mr. Kelly said, but he declined to provide further detail. . .
The initial report was that the police officer asked for the guy’s driver’s license, and when he reached for it, he was shot (similar to this incident in South Carolina in which a man was shot for following the orders of the police officer).
Very weird. The NRA solemnly assures us that having a gun on your person makes you much safer. Could they possibly be wrong? It’s hard to know for sure, since they have successfully fought to prevent any research being done on guns and public safety. I presume they’re worried about what the research would reveal.
Speaking of the NRA, they have come out strongly for citizens to be allowed to carry guns everywhere, since stopping a bad guy with a gun requires, they say, a good guy with a gun, and this NRA dictum has been enthusiastically followed in many states, including Texas. And yet when Texas did have a shooting, what did those armed citizens do? They fled and they lay low. Maybe—just maybe—arming citizens doesn’t in fact work the way the NRA describes. You think?