Trump was never in danger...but we are...

Some technical info on the latest Trxmp assassination attempt.

Unlike the last time, he was never in any danger.

The details released by the FBI/Secret Service are as follows:

I've got some experience with this kind of rifle. I wish I didn't. My hands will never feel clean. But it's a standard rifle designed for infantry assault and trench warfare. Both of these situations are close-range engagements. Even for covering fire, it is not a long-range weapon. Certainly not a sharpshooter weapon. Not the kind of assassin weapon you see in movies and on TV. It's not even a hunting rifle designed to take down deer from across a meadow or ravine.  

Regarding range, the difference between 300 and 500 yards is enormous. Think in terms of American football fields. Three football fields vs. five football fields. It’s like saying “it’s somewhere between 50 and 80 degrees outside.” How would you dress? Five hundred is mathematically and topographically a world of difference from 300, especially with regards to firearm accuracy.

An AK47, even lying down with bi-pod support of the barrel and a good scope is accurate at 100-150 yards, if the person is a trained soldier and a very good shot, and the rifle and site have just been serviced. The weapon's wikipedia article cites the maximum accurate range at 328 yards, which seems a stretch from my experience, and would at least require an extraordinary and highly trained shot. One hundred and fifty meters is half the distance of the three football fields that has been cited as the closest range from which the shooter pulled the trigger. Even if we take the "maximum" cited on wikipedia, it's a highly highly unlikely range for the kind of accuracy required to hit a human sized target.

And remember, the suspect in custody has zero military experience.

[One has to wonder whether they stretched the range all the way back from 500 to 300 yards to suggest plausibility. But, now I am sliding into conspiracy theory and I really don't want to do that.]

It's hard to believe this was a serious attempt on his life. More likely a deluded individual or a protest stunt (no, I'm not suggesting a covert campaign op). Seems from reports on the suspect’s background like it's someone who doesn't want Trump to be president as he'll abandon support for Ukraine.

Still, egregious thing to fire a rifle at a presidential candidate (or, you know, anyone really) even without any plausible chance to hit them. 

Of course, it's potentially politically disastrous for the Harris campaign. Not only because of sympathy for a targeted victim. But because deeply embedded in our culture is the notion of persecution as a sign of truth. In other words, if they are persecuting you, it's because you are yourself a sign of something true that the powers that be are desperate to suppress. Think of the rhetoric of Protestant dissenters and Puritan colonists in North America. Think of Isaiah 53 and the suffering servant passage, whether taken as a prophecy of the People of Israel or Christ. It's the logic of Christian martyrdom, all the saints who suffered for the truth.

And then there's all the shameless cretins wringing their hands about inciteful extreme rhetoric from the left. Neither of the shooters in either assassination attempt were/are affiliated with the Democratic Party or anything on the left. They weren't triggered (yeah, felicitous term) by rhetoric from the left. The first was a registered republican. The second voted for Trxmp in the past.

And nothing Harris or Harris supporters are warning about Trxmp is more extreme than Trxmp's violent rhetoric. "She'll destroy our country!" We could all go on.  

For fact's sake...