Russell Pearce Would Have Taken the Guy Out, No Doubt

Another of former Senator Russell Pearce’s missives (and it feels so good to say “former”) made the rounds this weekend, and it doesn’t even involve bigotry.

Here he is with his solution to the shooting incident in Colorado, posted on Facebook only an hour or so after reports of the incident hit the news (yes, that means it was posted at one in the morning):

Had someone been prepared and armed they could have stopped this “bad” man from most of this tragedy. He was two and three feet away from folks, I understand he had to stop and reload. Where were the men of flight 93???? Someone could have stopped this man. Someone should have stopped this man. Lives were lost because of a bad man, not because he had a weapon, but because noone [sic] was prepared to stop it. Had they been prepared to save lives or the lives of others, lives would have been saved. All that was needed was one Courages [sic]/Brave man prepared mentally or otherwise to stop this it could have been done. When seconds count, police are only minutes away.

Yep. If the victims were only more “courages” they wouldn’t have been killed. Oh, and the police are incompetent. We can always count on dear Russell for his sensitivity.

Of course, what Pearce is really doing here is pushing what has been a theme on the right over the last few days: if someone just had a gun, none of this would have happened.

Let’s see: the perpetrator was wearing a bulletproof vest and was armed with an AR-15, this took place in a dark and crowded theater, oh and don’t forget the tear gas. That certainly sounds like the sort of scenario where a marginally trained civilian can get a shot or two off and take down the bad guy.

By and large, I’m a supporter of gun rights and I come from a family of gun owners. I also know the difference between real life and an episode of Burn Notice.

This incident happened in a state with gun laws and culture much like Arizona. Colorado has concealed carry, for example. Who is to say no one in the place had a weapon?

Also, remember January 8th here. I don’t know if she was carrying that morning, but Gabrielle Giffords held a concealed carry permit. People in the crowd were armed. Reports of that incident said that the man that disarmed the shooter almost got shot by another civilian who saw a guy holding a gun and made assumptions. And that happened in broad daylight.

I guess Pearce had to blame the incident on a lack of gun ownership (in Colorado?) once he found out he couldn’t blame Mexican immigrants.

By the way: this weekend Jon Kyl endorsed Pearce’s primary opponent, Bob Worsley. Worsley managed to get the endorsement of the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce a few weeks ago. It just goes to show that the Republican karmazyn are done with this guy. Wow, and it only took him being out of power to do it. Talk about “courages”…

7 thoughts on “Russell Pearce Would Have Taken the Guy Out, No Doubt

  1. It would be interesting to see if Pearce thought the same thing about the incident here in Tucson. If he expressed similar sentiments at the time, they might have gone unnoticed due to a compliant press and the fact that he was not nearly so desperate for attention.

  2. Tom: And, as you know, there was a trained person with a CCW in the crowd. As I recall he assessed the situation and decided not to add any more gunshots to the confusion.

  3. Dearest Commenters,

    Russell Pearce only has as much power and influence as people will allow. I thought the same thing about Jesse Helms towards the end of his term in Congress — I could never understand why his fellow lawmakers had such a high tolerance level (if not respect) for him.

    The GOP bigwigs tolerated Pearce when he was in power because they couldn’t afford to throw him under the bus and split the party. But now his grumpy old man act has gotten stale, he’s degraded into a caricature, and he’s become too much of a stench in the nostrils — even among people who call themselves conservatives and probably agree with him on some things — to vote for anymore. Pearce is the poster child for supporters of an open primary.

    Your Humble Servant,

  4. Pearce is an idiot. The gunman was wearing body armor, the theater was dark, not just darkened but dark. Not only would Pearce not have had any idea where the shots were coming from (and likely would have shot someone fleeing), but the armor would have allowed the gunman to just keep firing no matter that he was being shot at by Mr. Congeniality. Bring back the assault weapons ban! No one needs that in their house or on the street.

  5. 1. Ted is right. This is not an episode of Burn Notice. In an episode of Burn Notice, Michael Westen would explain all the reasons why trying to take out the shooter under those circumstances is a bad idea, make his priority getting people out, then wait for the cops. In other words, a TV character in a silly action show would display more sense than Russell Pearce.

    2. Christopher is wrong about open primaries but right about Pearce. Toward the end of the 2008 session, when it was clear that the Republican leadership had become ineffective and there was polling data which suggested that Democrats might take the House, we suddenly found ourselves being treated cordially by lobbyists who normally never spoke to us. Sometimes, they would even buy us dinner. This went to show me that if Democrats were able to take at least one house of the legislature, and make it clear that it was not a fluke, it would end the perception of a permanent Republican majority, which would make it less likely that an exclusionary and divisive figure like Russell Pearce would have such power.

Comments are closed.