Wild West Politics?

[sexobon]

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.

[glatt]

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

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by glatt

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

I admire your skill with rhetorical questions.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by sexobon

I admire your skill with rhetorical questions.

I notice you didn't answer the question.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

I admire your skill with rhetorical questions.

glatt accurately described what you posted. They deserved to be harmed because they were not packing. That was your claim.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by sexobon

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.
<snip>

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.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by sexobon

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, public figures using violent allegory to rouse their supporters to heights of political passion is just the exercising of rights to free expression, but the victim in an assassination attempt is irresponsible for not carrying a firearm?

Forgive me for my bluntness but that really sounds off kilter to me. I also really don;t see how you can draw any kind of equivalence between responsibly taking part in the democratic process through voting, and carrying a weapon.

[Undertoad]

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

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

More than occasionally, prolly.

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

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

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

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

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."

[Shawnee123]

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.

[sexobon]

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.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by sexobon

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.

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

Last night in the upscale (not!) neighborhood of Compton in the tony south central portion of Los Angeles,
a very lucky man avoided what should have been his last night on this big blue orb.
Apparently the driver of the SUV in this video fired some shots at somebody
and was then engaged in a high speed pursuit at 0300 this morning.
At the conclusion of the chase, at least four LA County Sheriff's Deputies commence
what amounted to a "mad minute" on the occupant(s) of the SUV.
If you watch the vid, you will notice that the SUV moves slowly forward while it is under fire.
Deputies are positioned at angles in front of the SUV on either side of the street and do not seem to be concerned
about obtaining a covered firing position.
When the SUV moves ahead, those angles are steepened to 90 deg.
Essentially creating the Polish firing squad scenario.

<snip>

This gentleman in Compton must have had 4 Deputies empty their magazines in his general direction,
and he only came away with minor injuries.
One Deputy was also wounded from what will almost certainly turn out to be friendly fire.
The most interesting connection that I draw from these two stories is the fact that in both cases,
people who are not smart enough to avoid a Polish firing squad are also lousy shooters. Imagine that.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by glatt

I notice you didn't answer the question.

I addressed a current event about specific people in a particular situation. You tried to extrapolate that into a gross generality that's better suited to a pro-gun VS anti-gun thread the likes of which have already been done here ad nauseum. You simply weren't astute enough to realize that I'm not going to debate that here.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

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

Anybody can buy a stinkin' badge. Do you really think they're going to take the time to authenticate each other's credentials while under fire?

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

... 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 think you're projecting your own inabilities to process relevant information under such circumstances, to make timely and accurate judgment calls, on others. That's not an uncommon trait in the elderly.