President Trump[1] was very clear about what needs to happen after the horrific mass shooting of Jewish people in a Pittsburgh synagogue.
The logical answer, he opined, was to arm people in synagogues.
‘If they had some kind of protection inside the temple, maybe it could have been a very much different situation,’ he told reporters. ‘They didn’t and he was able to do things that unfortunately he shouldn’t have been able to do.’
When asked if the shooting indicated a need to revisit gun laws, Trump replied that ‘this had little to do with it.’
He then added: ‘As you know, numerous police were badly injured.’
Yes, they were Mr President.
Four officers were shot, in fact.
And they were armed, highly trained, and knew what they were dealing with by the time they arrived at the synagogue.
So what possible chance would a solitary guard have to stop a lunatic who burst in during a service blazing away with a semi-automatic rifle?
We saw what happened at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida, earlier this year when the armed guard froze under very similar circumstances.
He was branded a coward, but who could really blame him for not wanting to confront a deranged individual armed with a high- powered assault rifle, intent on killing as many people as possible?
Trump’s response to the synagogue massacre was similar to his response to what happened in Parkland.
He called then for teachers to be armed.
It’s his default position on every mass shooting now, and of course, the preferred rhetorical template of his paymasters at the NRA, who deliver him big votes and big money.
Why?
Trump says it's
