Not to worry. The TSA is gradually taking care of that.

So let's assume this is just a nutjob with a gun.

How in the hell did he get a gun?

I think if we want to continue allowing responsible people to own guns, then we've got to be much better at keeping guns out of the hands of the unstable.

It's interesting that while the Congresswoman advocated (according to reports) concealed carry in a State that permits it, neither the Congresswoman nor anyone in her entourage appears to have availed themselves of this means of protecting themselves; or, their constituency! While the element of surprise would have still kept the Congresswoman from being saved from harm, the others who were injured and killed might have been spared if someone, anyone, had been in a viable position to respond to a lethal threat without having to wait for the perpetrator to stop and reload.

Everyone knows that such public gatherings enhance the targetability of those attending; so, it appears that the Congresswoman simply didn't consider personnel security to be her duty even though she had the right to own it. If she and her entourage had been known to exercise that right, this incident might not have occurred. I suppose it's like when people who have the right to vote just don't want to bother with getting out and voting; or, otherwise rationalize leaving the outcome to others. They just don't consider it to be their civic duty.

So people who don't carry guns are bad citizens?

The price of the freedom of gun ownership is that occasionally somebody gets one who is mentally unfit.

Just because you allow that some may have rights to carry, doesn't mean you want to be one of those people.

But we always fall back on that: if someone had a gun it would have been much less worse! Everyone, and Annie, GET YOUR GUN.

I contend that the nutjob wouldn't have hurt so many people if nutjob had access to only sticks and rocks. :cool:

More than occasionally, prolly.

I admire your skill with rhetorical questions.

This is a traditional posit in such situations.

But it's just as easy to suggest that if one or several people start firing,
the neither the crowd nor the authorities will know
the good guys from the bad... a circular firing squad.

That's like saying that plainclothes law enforcement officers (e.g. city, county, state, federal - incl. Sec. Svc.) who happen to be on the scene when a politician is attacked shouldn't intervene; because, there may be more than one of them and they might all shoot each other. Absurd. It's the responsibility of each shooter to verify the legitimacy of a target as well as the risk to others before pulling the trigger and there are many ways to separate friend from foe. There are also many non-LE people I would trust to do a better job of that than many LE officers.

While there is a grain of truth to this, what I actually hear is an excuse to do no better than we have done.

I notice you didn't answer the question.

Of course not: that's the prominent mentality. The right to gun ownership is so innate that to have to think of ways to make it safer for all is ludicrous. "You can worry about crazies and their rampant access to guns when I lift a cold dead finger to do anything about it."

No, it's NOT like saying anything of the sort.
Plainclothes, or any other LE authority, have a badge or some ID to display.

Except as you sort of said, yourself, when they do something stupid !
If LE can't always get it right, how to expect the CCL's to do so.

I hesitated to use the phrase "Polish firing squad" in my first reply,
but a quick Google search turned up this from 2005.
There's a bit of tongue-in-cheek, the video link doesn't work,
and it is the LA Police Dept !
Nevertheless:

Polish Firing Squad

<snip>

There is no psychological test for gun ownership because that would be unthinkable. At some point in time there will be enough genetic markers found for schizophrenia that it can be tested for with a cheek swab. Until the time as such a test is affordable, we will have to wait.