I think sufficient time has passed to bring up a point about the National Rifle Association and guns. The Washington Post reported at the time 20 people were armed with exposed rifles in the crowd at the ambush killings of the police officers in Dallas. The police were praised for not shooting any of them during their response to the sniper fire. The NRA has espoused that the best defense against a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. The police said the 20 riflemen in the crowd beat it when the shooting started. That was probably the correct thing to do, but it seems to belie the NRA's good gunman-bad gunman position. I read about the rifles in the 20 civilians hands in the Washington Post. They were reported to have "ammo gear and rifles over their shoulders" and they "began to run away when the shooting began." The story also said, "Once authorities began to catch and interview them, . . . they realized one shooter had fired from multiple angles." Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the NRA, said in December 2012, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." What are we to make of the gun lobby position in this light.?