Once again, a lack of education in history, including Texas history; there have been plenty of riots in Texas over the years. None of them seem to be resolved positively by shootings.
An older example:http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F70E12FF355D1A728DDDA90B94D1405B818CF1D3
And a more recent example, also including property damage and fire:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/01/texas.prison.riot/
An overview, of sorts, is here:
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jcr02
which includes these paragraphs, although it clearly doesn't cove the second half of the 20th century, or the first decade of the 21st century :
"The most common cause of riots in the first half of the twentieth century was public outrage toward prisoners. Mob threats of violence to prisoners necessitated the use of state troops on four occasions in 1900. In 1901 three lynchings by mobs took place despite the calling of state troops; in two instances the troops suppressed the mobs. At Brenham rioting broke out over the employment of a black brakeman by a railway; it was suppressed after two days. In 1902 mob violence brought on the use of state troops three times. In one instance the mob hanged a prisoner before the troops' arrival. Troops were called out three times on this account in 1903, twice in 1904, three times in 1905, and once in 1906. The Brownsville Raidqv (1906) precipitated a serious race riot involving black soldiers. Troops were needed elsewhere in 1907 and 1908; in the latter year rioting at Slocum resulted in the killing of more than ten blacks. Other mob actions in the first decade of the century resulted from strikes at Houston in 1904 and racial tension at Ragley the same year. Riots also took place in San Antonio and Fort Worth in April and May of 1913. The Houston Riot of 1917 was started by about 150 black troops from Camp Logan, a temporary training center near the city. The riot, touched off by the arrest of a black woman, was the culmination of general uneasiness and hostility following the establishment of the camp. It resulted in the deaths of seventeen people, mostly whites; the anger of an aroused white population necessitated martial law for four days. The Longview Race Riot of 1919 also resulted in the proclamation of martial law. A strike at Galveston in 1920 produced lawlessness that required the help of the Texas National Guard. Mexia was declared in a state of anarchy because of a riot and was placed under martial law from January to March 1922. The Sherman Riot of 1930 stemmed from the arrest of a black who had assaulted a white woman; rangers were called to protect the prisoner, but a mob set fire to the courthouse and virtually seized control of the town. When troops of the Texas National Guard arrived, they were attacked by the mob, and before martial law restored order, a number of buildings were destroyed. Enforcement of oil-conservation laws in the 1930s also necessitated the use of the National Guard to suppress mob lawlessness.Both massive property damage - as in the example of the destruction of 100 homes - and racial tension appear to be factors in common with the UK rioting and the history of riots in Texas.
The guard was also called in September 1937 to suppress mob violence at Marshall and again to quell the Beaumont Riot of 1943. In Beaumont a white mob, outraged at the assault of a white woman by a black, terrorized the black section of town. Two died and 100 homes were destroyed. In 1955 the National Guard was used to control a riot at Rusk State Hospital. In May 1967 a riot that occurred among black students at Texas Southern University in Houston resulted in the death of one policeman and the wounding of two students and two police officers. Though the immediate cause of the riot was the arrest of a student, the night-long incident was related to general racial tension. "
It wouldn't surprise me if the other people in the room when this woman spoke up actually had a better grasp of Texas history than this dim bulb, in spite of being, presumably, mostly citizens of the UK.
Where are the guns? A Texan's take on the UK riots
Daniel Deme / EPAPolice officers patrol the streets of Camden, in north London, on Monday. An extra 10,000 officers were brought in from other parts of the country to help to quell rioting and looting that engulfed parts of the capital.
By Heather Lacy, NBC News assignment editorYes. You do.
LONDON - We’ve been on five-day roller-coaster here in the NBC News London bureau, what with riots and looting breaking out across the capital and the country.
We’re all wondering if the “criminality pure and simple,” as Prime Minister David Cameron put it, will pop up again, or if the uneasy calm we have now will hold.
Everyone in the newsroom has been discussing the recent violence, the worst this country has seen in three decades. Why would people set fire to stores, cars and homes, looting, wounding, killing and destroying property as they go? Who could do this? How did the police
fail to bring order for days?
As everyone in the newsroom debated the use of force – whether to use rubber bullets, tear gas, water cannons, Tasers, even bean-bag guns – I wondered why they were wasting their breath.
“If your cops had guns, day number 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this, it would NOT have happened!” I said at a recent meeting.
People stopped talking and looked at me. A couple giggled. Those who know me weren’t too horrified, but others stared at me like I’d just drop-kicked a puppy.
Transplanted Texan
I’m a relatively recent London implant, having moved from Texas a few years back. I’m surrounded mostly by Brits who are usually amused and occasionally appalled at some of my comments.
“In fact, why are we even talking about this?” I asked. “A couple batons aren’t gonna do the trick when the rioters have Molotov cocktails, bricks and knifes, and they outnumber the police.”
When I first moved here I was surprised when I discovered that “bobbies on the beat” (cops on the street) don’t carry guns. Apparently, when the Metropolitan Police Service was founded they thought arming the officers would scare the public. How quaint, I thought.
There is an armed contingent, the Authorised Firearms Officers, which makes up about a third of the Met’s numbers, but they don’t patrol routinely and are only called in when needed. And getting a firearms certificate as a private citizen is very difficult, if not impossible, unless you live in the countryside.
Now, I’m not suggesting police just go out and start capping people carte blanche, but I can assure you those brave and defiant “hooded youths” (as they were described by many a British broadcaster) would not have been so brave or defiant if they had a lethal weapon pointed at them.
Yes, there’s an argument for unarmed police, and yes the British police do have an armed unit, but I’m not going to get into the minutiae. I just want to know, what’s so bad about a show of force in the form of a gun?
I mean, you don’t see anything like this kicking off in Texas, do you?
What an embarrassment that this person is in a news position, with such a bacground of ignorance. Odds are she knows even less about the UK and their history, or world history generally, than what she knows of Texas. The history of Texas is not the same as the myth of guns in Texas, or the myths of "Texas-style" law and order.