The “task” here for the organization is raising public awareness, not dealing individually with weapons. I don’t justify her specific actions, or in fact care much about them. I am speaking to the objection you raised, implying that knowledge of guns is a prerequisite for validity of one’s political opinion on gun laws.
Smells like fish. Looks like fish. Hmmm. Yep, red herring.
Or, perhaps the organization does not support the leadership’s specific action in this case. Perhaps the organization expected the leader to motivate, and attract a large popular support sector to express their desire for a more restrictive public policy on guns. In that case, her political and social skills, rather than her gun skills were more important. Perhaps the criteria for being president are more subtle than just “knows a lot about guns.” It appears the membership was wrong in their choice of leaders, but the error wasn’t in estimating her knowledge and familiarity with guns.
Tris
“It is when I struggle to be brief that I become obscure.” ~ Horace ~
"The Laws I want are for the Great Unwashed Massses, not the Elite. Since I am of the Elite, clearly they do not apply to me . " :rolleyes: Not said in so many words, but…
Well, if you’re riffing off some belief that you and your tribe share, but the rest of the world doesn’t, an explanation might be necessary. And then we can discuss whether that belief has any foundation in fact.
That’s because it’s largely overwhelmed by the effects of geography.
The Southern Maryland section of the Washington Post weekly publishes the local crime reports. In my area, the big crime of the week is usually something on the order of someone’s car getting broken into, and a cell phone and CD player getting stolen.
Is this because there are a lot of gun owners in northern Calvert County? No. It’s because we’re far from any concentrations of serious criminals.
Or consider the part of D.C., west of Rock Creek Park, which is within walking distance (a longish walk, but still a walk; D.C. just isn’t that big) of some nasty areas. But west of the park is quite safe; when three people got shot and killed in a pizza parlor 10-15 years back, it made the local news in a big way because such things never happen west of the park. So when it happened once, it was a big shockeroo. (Meanwhile, across town, there were the usual complement of murders, in areas with plenty of guns floating around, that got negligible press. Guess the spillover effect didn’t help much, there.)
Is this because enough Georgetown socialites are sufficiently well-armed so as to create a spillover effect that protects Northwest D.C.? Nope. It’s just that they’re far enough away from the lowlifes, even though ‘far enough’ is a mere hour’s walk for a healthy young man.
Nah, don’t bother. I’ll continue to assume they make no sense.
Well, if there is no spillover effect, then why won’t you publicly display the fact that your house is gun-less? Well that would be silly I agree. But in an effort to protect my house next door ( he he he yeah I know but for the purpose of this discussion ) I think I should be able to put up a sign that your house has no gun and mine does because you publicly say you don’t have one and don’t need or want one. That will make me feel safer because I do think there is more to it than just location, location, location, and since you don’t, it will not harm you.
Actually, that would be fine with me. I would be delighted if you were to do that, if you moved next door to me.
Because then you’d be the one violating the behavioral norms of the tribe, essentially saying to all the world, “I’M FUCKING CRAZY!!” And no matter what you said about me on your sign, nobody - even any larcenous teens in the neighborhood - would take it seriously. But your house, not mine, would be the one they’d egg.
Needless to say, I don’t want any of that shit. So no sign in front of my house. But you can put up whatever sign you want on your own property; be my guest.
