Rick Santorum Suggests Unarmed 'Soft Target' Shoppers Tempted El Paso Shooter
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
U.S.
Rick Santorum Suggests Unarmed 'Soft Target' Shoppers Tempted El Paso Shooter
Mary Papenfuss, HuffPost 14 hours ago
Former GOP Pennsylvania senator and one-time Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum indicated Sunday that El Paso Walmart shoppers were tempting “soft targets” to a mass shooter because they weren’t armed.
When CNN State of the Union host Jake Tapper asked about the Texas shooting Saturday that killed 20 people , Santorum responded: “So they go after soft targets, that’s exactly right. The whole point is that when you restrict guns to law-abiding people, you make more soft targets.”
He indicated stricter gun control laws would end up taking weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, making them more vulnerable to criminals — even though that’s not the case in Texas.
Texas is an open-carry state where shoppers could legally have been armed — but the law didn’t have any impact on the Walmart attack. Tapper pointed out to Santorum that alleged gunman Patrick Crusius , 21, did not appear to be deterred by the possibility of any armed shoppers. In addition, it wasn’t likely that a gunman could have easily determined who was armed and who was not to make any decision about a “soft target.”
Santorum, now a conservative CNN commentator, was parroting the narrative of gun control foes who argue that everyone is safer if everyone is armed. He also claimed, without evidence, that in “several” shooting instances this year, armed “law-abiding people actually come, not police ... and stop these things.”
In fact, it was police, not armed civilians, who stopped the attacks in both El Paso and later that night in Dayton, Ohio, where a gunman killed nine people in yet another mass shooting. Last Sunday, police also stopped a mass shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in California that killed two children and an adult .
Tapper also read a list of poll numbers that indicated Americans overwhelmingly support increased gun safety measures.
Check out the video up top.
Also on HuffPost
Two Mass Shootings In Less Than 24 Hours
Two separate shootings in the United States have left at least 30 people dead, dozens injured and a nation left to pick up the pieces.
Love HuffPost? Become a founding member of HuffPost Plus today.
This article originally appeared on HuffPost .
Tags
Who is online
113 visitors
What. A. Fucking. Scumbag.
Does anyone still listen to what this frothy mixture has to say?
LOL
What do these two parrots have in common?
And I was going to suggest that Santorum wouldn't know the business end of a rifle from his ass.
I was wrong. Now...I wonder if he will be carrying that rifle with him when he goes to Walmart?
That soft target is between his fucking ears.
IQ? penis size? adherence to religious values? all of the above? I give up.
Well, you know Catholics are all about "temptation", right?
Soft targets are definitely a common factor in many shootings whether it's an individual murder or a mass shooting.
On the other hand, it may not be a very useful observation. I would say 99% of everywhere is a pretty soft target. The exception is going to be places like police stations, airports, and courthouses where there are metal detectors and lots of armed security.
Of course not. Simply allowing people to be armed does not automatically mean that some significant portion of the populace will go to the mall with a weapon. There is no reason to assume that particular cause and effect unless the law requires people to be armed. Obviously it doesn't.
Do we know if that Walmart open or concealed carry inside the store? I haven't been in a Walmart for quite some time but the ones here in Phoenix all state no weapons allowed. So just because a state is an open-carry state does not automatically guarantee that people can carry.
And the incident in Ohio, forgive me but that was in a bar district. Last thing I want people in a bar to be doing is open carry.
Uh, yeah, me, too. Alcohol and fire arms do not mix
Old article. Quail hunts often involve alcohol consumption...
Funny how he shot his friend in the face while quail hunting. Not ha ha funny.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Plus the target location was a Walmart store, Walmart sells guns and ammunition. Walmart is not a "soft" target.
just because a place sells guns and ammo doesn't mean they are a hardened target either , guns and ammo might be present but they are not readily or easily available for use, and not all walmarts sell guns.
The local Walmart here has some shotguns and a small selection of small cal rifles , policy is none of the associates ( employees) can be armed , security is also un armed , local LEO does walk throughs occastionally , under contract mainly because this particular store has the highest rate of shrink ( shoplifting) in the nation. And the walmart here is not a "gun free zone" and conforms with what state law is . they could make it a GFZ if they so chose but have decided not to .
I don't know how that would help unless Walmart suddenly made it easy to access both the weapons and the ammo.
Of course it is. Are there metal detectors, bullet proof glass, and armed guards? No. Soft target.
But like I said, most of the world is a soft target.
So, by your logic, would you like to list a few non-"soft" targets that are open to the public? A few locations that meet your requirements of metal detectors, bullet proof glass, and armed guards.
Just 3, name 3 that are open to the public. You can do it.....
by your logic
By my logic? What are you talking about? What logical connection are you trying to refer to? Have you been reading? I said 99% of the world is a soft target. Do you disagree with that?
Sure. Courthouses. Schools. Banks. Airports. Sporting Events.
Court houses have bullet proof glass? Where I live court houses do not have metal detectors, they have one or 2 that they move around for only special trials/hearings.
FAIL!
Schools have bullet proof glass?
Another FAIL!
Again, no bullet proof glass, and for the most part no armed guards (except for cheap heist movies).
Still, FAIL!
Seriously? Are you actually claiming that football or baseball stadiums are surrounded by bullet proof glass? They have people checking bags as you enter, but none have metal detectors. Look around, there are no "armed guards" either, it would scare away the paying customers.
Final FAIL!
[ deleted ] I have seen some or all of these things at the places I have mentioned. You need to get around more before you start declaring that things don't exist. Or do a little easy internet research before shooting off your [ deleted ] mouth.
Those bulletproof transaction windows aren't just used in banks, either.
No, of course not. But at transaction windows? Sure. Absolutely.
Never claimed they don't exist, just claimed that the very very few places where they are all present makes your claim of a "soft" target basically a description of everywhere.
You claimed that if they don't have, "metal detectors, bullet proof glass, and armed guards" they are soft targets, yet none of the places you listed have all 3. Those are your words, your definition of "soft target", not mine.
Your examples are also meaningless, because a sports stadium has 2 or 3 small pieces of bullet proof glass over 1 square mile of property, is ingenuous at best, and more likely just an out right misrepresentation of your claim of a "soft target" example. I must also point out that banks, sports stadiums, schools, and courthouses have all had mass shootings.
Oh yes, you were very equivocal, even handed, and measured in your repeated spamming of "FAIL" in all caps. What was I thinking?
Actually, some do, but it was intended as a list of things that harden a target. One, two, three, or even other things I didn't mention will do. Is it your intention to be needlessly pedantic? Because it's working.
Which is why more and more of them are moving to the increased security measures I mentioned.
I still don't understand what your point is in trying to argue with me. I have asked this before and I will give you another chance to respond. I have stated more than once that 99% of the world is a soft target. Do you agree with that or not?
All I have done with the examples is to illustrate how a target may be hardened. What exactly is your beef with that?
Twisting my words now? Your examples were the fails when compared to your definition of "soft target".
That's not what you said. Trying to back out of your own words now?
Again, we are not discussing future, we are discussing current "soft targets" and which ones you are claiming are NOT "soft targets" today. I am responding to your claims and your words. Now you are trying to change your claims to get out of you untenable position..
I am trying to clarify what I was saying so you better understand my thoughts. But you don't seem to care about that. You want your own interpretation so you have someone to hate and argue with. If you don't want to let me speak for myself, then I don't need to talk to you. Have a nice day playing with yourself.
As long as people want to only regurgitate talking points or place blame the issue will never be resolved.
Who is regurgitating talking points?
I think Santorum is using a talking point (not that there's automatically anything wrong with that) but he's using it in a way that's not relevant.
Sometimes that talking point might be a legitimate one. For example, if it's really hard for people to carry weapons in a jurisdiction or if the target is a school, where we would want extra protection all the time. Those are situations where something could have been done in advance to dissuade an attacker. As near as I can tell, though, it has no application to a mall in Texas.
Please explain how calling a "soft target" a "soft target" is somehow offensive.
I think being offended might be a bit of an extreme reaction, but I also think his observation is a little beside the point. I would prefer not trying to make every place we go to in this world a hard target. I'd rather create a country where lunatics and guns (or whatever else they can use) come together less frequently to commit mass murder.
He's right of course--being a "soft target' is asking for trouble. Therefore, obviously the victims are to blame. (What they should've been doing, if they had any brains, was not to go out in public without wearing full body armor).
After these three recent mass shootings, it would be fair to say that anyone who chooses to be out in public in America as a soft target (i.e. without full body armor) is at fault if violence occurs.
Just watched the old case against John Orr the serial arsonist from Southern California last night...
Part of his personal defense against the murder charges by arson, was that people, employees and shoppers are responsible for
knowing where the exits are, and always being aware of their surroundings. He blamed the victims too.
Absolutely full tactical body armour everywhere all the time in public is the obvious solution, think about it daycares, schools, churches, businesses, parks, movies, etc would all be safe. Shouldn't be that difficult to enact this as law as precedent has already been set.