MARK SMITH MORE COLUMNS Advertisement

This business about guns at public meetings brings up a variety of questions, none of which is being addressed by the writers of letters to the editor who are exercised about the issue.

Most of the letters, if not all, are written by people who have never been involved in an indoor gunfight and the total chaos that would ensue once when starts.

They all seem to imagine that such a dreadful event would be straight out of the movies, with the shooters clearly marked and inconvenient innocents not blundering in the way and spoiling a "clean" Wild West-style high noon affair.

So let's consider what would actually happen.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that some nitwit gets over-excited at a town board meeting, whips out a handgun and starts pulling trigger at Laurayne or Dave or whoever. And let's say there is at least one armed sheriff's deputy or officer on hand, and that there is one private resident there, also armed with an unseen weapon.

First, the dozen or more people on hand are not likely to sit there quietly. Some, maybe all, including Dave, Laurayne and their colleagues, are probably going to start jumping up, running in a variety of directions, throwing themselves down, getting in each other's way, etc., and believe me, they won't be getting into line and not panicking to file out, as in a school fire drill.

Second, the law enforcement officer is going to pull his weapon and try to stop the shooter, in all likelihood by shooting him.

Third, the armed private resident, if he hasn't spoiled his underwear or been knocked down by the other attendees or turned into Fredo from "The Godfather," is going to draw as well.

Fourth, the sheriff's deputy is likely to notice the armed private resident pulling a gun and think, "Holy smokes, there's two of 'em."

The deputy will not ask the armed resident, "Uh, pray tell, whose side are you on?" and wait patiently for an answer. He will probably open fire on either or both armed individuals he believes are a threat to life, limb and the pursuit of happiness. The bad guy will perhaps, excitedly, try to hit his original target as well as the sheriff's deputy and, now, the armed resident.

The net result?

Well, it won't be one bad guy dead and handshakes all around. It may well be a bloodbath with, say, one victim of the original shooter; a dead armed resident who wanted to help, shot either by the deputy or the original shooter, or both; and several other folks who were simply trying to get out of the way. If you've never been in close-quarters combat, you can't even imagine what a mess it can be.

Saying, "Well, take a course at Front Sight" is virtually meaningless. Nothing against that business, but there is a reason why combat soldiers go through months upon months of intense training and more after that. Part of the reason is so they don't do each other in when someone unloads at them, and "a course" isn't sufficient.

Just because you lug a weapon around doesn't make you the least bit competent. Even in military training, the assumption is that your guys are on one side and their guys are on the other, not all intermingled when the first shot goes off.

Finally, the likelihood of all this happening is about on the order of being attacked by a shark or struck by lightning or having your favorite bridge fall down, i.e., far beneath any degree of serious danger that requires drama queens to strap on the big iron just to listen to the usual boring and polite exchanges one hears during the usual public meeting.

* * *

And while we're on the subject...

I wonder how many people give any serious thought to just what the Flagman is "protecting."

Ray supports the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, and he deserves credit for doing so. Unlike too many individuals, he actually thinks about that and doesn't just take it for granted. Anyone who considers the Constitution and really does see it as a living document deserves some credit and respect.

But is he actually "defending" anything? Is he challenging some clear and present danger? Is he displaying any noticeable bravery? Is he placing his life and liberty in even the slightest jeopardy?

Not really.

Ray, in fact, is himself protected by the laws of the town and the state and that very constitutional amendment.

In other words, the Flagman is simply acting as a law-abiding citizen of Nevada and the U.S.

The law is protecting him, period.

He is doing no more than you do when you obey the speed limit or halt at a stop sign, or when you choose not to shoplift a jar of dry-roasted peanuts at the supermarket. You're obeying the law.

No problem with the Flagman, bless him, but I do have a problem with those who overstate his activities in dramatic terms that are not warranted.