Convenience Big Store: Protecting shooters’ rights and never giving up a con

Get Unlimited Digital Access for 25¢!
Support local, independent journalism. Subscribe Today.

Texas' most revealing mass shooting is one that didn't happen

Dressed in black combat clothing and body armor, Guido Herrera walked into Houston's Galleria mall last year with a Bible in one hand, a Radical Firearms AR-15-style rifle in the other, a Taurus semi-automatic pistol strapped to his body and 120 rounds of ammunition.

With a Bible passage about Sodom and Gomorrah on his mind, Herrera was 10 feet from walking into a weekend dance competition for young girls. That's when Houston Police Sgt. Kendrick Simpo tackled and disarmed him.

Houston police praised Simpo for preempting a mass shooting, and prosecutors promised to throw the book at Herrera. But after searching the statutes, the only crime Herrera committed was misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Judge Franklin Bynum handed down the maximum sentence of six months in county jail.

Herrera could apply to get his guns back after completing his sentence.

Since the Santa Fe High School shooting in 2018, Republican politicians have floated proposals to further limit dangerous people from possessing firearms. But gun rights groups have successfully crushed any kind of red flag law that would allow authorities to take weapons from people like Herrera.

Since Gov. Greg Abbott took office in 2015, Texas has experienced seven mass shootings. Yet he's helped expand the right to carry guns in public and opposed all limits.

Mass shootings have also sharply risen nationally, and 2023 is on pace to be the deadliest on record. Gunshot wounds are now the No. 1 cause of death for American children, especially in the South.

You can see the fear spreading as more businesses raise prices to afford armed guards in body armor. But it only helps so much. In Allen last weekend, the mall shooter killed a guard.

Republicans are scared too. When I started reporting from the Texas Capitol 12 years ago, metal detectors did not block the entrances, and state troopers were dressed in freshly-pressed uniforms with discrete sidearms. Today, only people with a concealed handgun license can enter without a search. Troopers dress for combat, with automatic rifles strapped across their chests as if on foot patrol in Baghdad.

Even the state patrol's motorcycles have assault rifle mounts.

Texas Republicans have created a society where a person's right to carry a gun outweighs our right to go to the mall without fearing for our lives. Worse yet, they intend to keep it that way.

Chris Tomlinson
Business Columnist
chris.tomlinson@houstonchronicle.com

What Else I'm Writing

Photo: Sergio Flores/Contributor

Texas grid to spend billions boosting fossil fuels

Electrical grid plans would increase costs to taxpayers and hobble innovation.

Photo: Carlos Javier Sanchez/pixelrefle

Carbon capture for food and health care

CarbonFree, based in San Antonio, has a patented process to convert CO2 emissions.

What I'm Reading

Must Read: What is Title 42 and why is it ending? Immigration rules at the border are about to suck the oxygen out of the national discourse. (Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News)

Should Read: 9 Charts Explain Per Capita Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Country U.S. residents emit almost three times the world average. (World Resources Institute)

Interesting Read: Who was Kingsville native Richard Cavazos, the namesake general of the renamed Fort Hood? My first assignment was at Fort Hood in 1984; there is nothing like it. (San Antonio Express-News and Houston Chronicle)

Technical Read: U.S. History score continues decline begun in 2014 When young people don't learn history, they are bound to repeat its mistakes. (National Assessment of Educational Progress)

Fun Read: Willie Nelson at 90: It Ain't Over San Angelo's legendary writer Turk Pipkin writes about celebrating his legendary musician friend's birthday. (Texas Highways)

Question of the Week

What will it take to change Texas's gun laws? Reply directly to this email and tell me your thoughts.

Mailbag

Last Week's Question: Some Democrats think Biden and Yellen can ignore the debt limit. Should Biden compromise or set off a constitutional showdown?

"It is probably not a popular position, but I think he should set off a constitutional showdown." –Rosalind Wilkins Haith, Houston

"I think the question of whether the debt limit is constitutional should be put in motion. Probably not right now while there is this standoff. … The question should be: Should he compromise on the deficit? Spending is only one side; the other side is revenue. A real cause of the deficit is the unpaid for $2.3 trillion Tax Cut and Jobs Act which tossed trillions of borrowed money to the very top of the wealthy in this country. And it did not turbocharge the economy as promised." –Scott Robertson, San Antonio

"Why does passage of appropriation bills by both houses and signed by the president not suffice to allow the Treasury Department to pay our bills? Wouldn't it be wonderful if each house would follow regular order and settle political differences at the Appropriation Committee level? Our Congress does not work unless one party is in charge of everything. That is not an ideal situation either." –Morris C McKee, San Antonio

"I still believe strict term limits are the cure for what ails us. Not only would term limits provide a different breed of cat running for office – those focused on solving problems rather than making a lucrative lifetime career out of building power and wealth – but the incentives to give away taxpayer money (that needs to be borrowed) to purchase reelection votes would vanish." –Greg Groh, Houston

The Takeaway

Sunday morning, I was stunned to see former Texan Elizabeth Holmes on the cover of The New York Times business section. She sits with her arms wrapped around crossed legs with a look that pleads for sympathy. The headline: "Liz Holmes Wants You to Forget About Elizabeth."

The convicted fraudster, hoping that giving birth to two children will keep her out of prison, is trying to rehabilitate her image. Because the No. 1 rule for con artists is to never give up the con:

She maintains the idealistic delusion of a 19-year-old, never mind that she's 39 with a fraud conviction, telling me she is still working on health care-related inventions and would continue to do so behind bars.

"I still dream about being able to contribute in that space," Ms. Holmes said. "I still feel the same calling to it as I always did and I still think the need is there."

Many pundits have attributed Holmes's ability to defraud investors to her youth, gender, race and good looks. I have to wonder if those are the same reasons why the Times assigned a sympathetic Holmes profile, which includes her posed like a Madonna on a rocky beach.

I can think of some former addicts convicted of robbery who will spend more time in jail and deserve more sympathy than Holmes. I don't see them getting the Holmes treatment. If you want to know what wealthy white privilege looks like, check out the Times.