GUNS IN THE PULSE CLUB
Michael Sean Quinn*
Presidential candidate Donald trumpeted roughly the following following the “Orlando Massacre.”
“If one of the “guests” in the club had been armed, and had used the pistol to deal with the terrorist (“T”), obviously, irrespective of how the term “terrorist” is defined, things would have likely come out very differently.”
Setting aside the obvious that at least one more bullet might have been fired, there are a number of things wrong with this idea–really something more like a comic book image.
(1) Donald’s images the the pistolized defender as being a very good shot. It is not that easy to strike a man in the center of his forehead from across a room, unless you are a extremely good shot when drawing, aiming, and triggering very quickly. There would probably not enough time to use two hands. In addition there were a lot of people in that room, and a lot of noise was being made.
(2) The defender would have to be a very, very good shot; he would have to move quickly; he would have to be highly trained; he would have to be completely sober; his vision would have to be nearly perfect in a relatively darkened room; and he would have to have immense courage, a huge appetite for risk; and nerves of steel.
(3) If our protector had missed the number of casualties might well have been increased, not diminished. This is especially true if our defender had hit someone else. In all likelihood, he would have fired more than once–indeed, probably several times. Amateurs with hand held weapons are a great danger in crowded and chaotic areas.
(3) If the gunman saw the patrol draw his weapon, he probably would have begun shooting. Maybe the defender would not have been hit, but it is likely that lots of other people would be.
(4) The defender would almost certainly be killed. Many people who have survived, might not have.
(5) The following is a matter of pure, abstract sociology. It may or may not be true; I certainly have no knowledge regarding the matter. What if statistics were to show that gay males are less experienced with pistols and firing them than the general population of non-gay men? If this proposition is true, then Donald’s shriek of something which is really nothing more than a rumination, is especially irresponsible.
(One might expect Donald to have some knowledge on matters like this since one of his closest mentors and “hang around with buddies” was a famous despicable, highly aggressive New York lawyer, who was a knowledgeable and dedicated homosexual. Incidentally, this McCarthy disciple taught Donald much of what it is to be Trump-esque. What Donald Trump Learned From Joseph McCarthy’s Right-Hand Man, NEW YORK TIMES, A-1 (June 21, 2016). See “He Brutalized for You”: How Joseph McCarthy Henchman Roy Cohn Became Donald Trump’s Mentor. POLITICO (April 8, 2016.). See also Roy Marcus Cohn, WIKIPEDIA (June 22, 2016, my page view). I’m sure that Donald’s style is such that he already recognizes that some conjecture he was more than merely friendly with Roy. He clearly loved him in some sense. Then again, such an outrageous idea has no place in policy and civil conversation.)
Michael Sean Quinn, Ph.D., J.D.
1300 West Lynn Street, Suite 208
Originally posted on 07/01/2016 @ 8:58 pm