How come government officials always engage in this form of security hypocrisy?

Glock sales in AZ are double what they were last year at this time. Tells me what I kinda expected would happen.

Because guns don’t save you. You are more likely to shoot your neighbor accidentally, or you kid shoot its sibling.

@BarnacleBill that all depends on where you live and how responsible (a quality that I’ll say that many Americans seem to lack) you are.

It’s that knee-jerk reaction, like what happened after 9–11. We freak out so much, we try to institute ridiculously expensive amounts of security in order to make us feel better. It doesn’t actually improve our security nearly as much as we would expect, given how much we are spending on it.

So it’s a psychological benefit, and of course, only Congress needs it. They are important, and people want to shoot them. Ordinary people don’t need security like that.

Of course, gun control is a very polarizing issue, and, as usual, liberals trot out data and conservatives trot out beliefs. Since security is a very emotional issue, the conservatives are much more likely to win. Few people care about scientific data (truth) in normal circumstances. When their emotions are running high, practically no one cares about any truth except the one that exists only in their heads.

Because they are looking out for number one, which is what they do best. They are scared we might go back to “the bad old days” when the government feared the people and not the other way around.

Imagine for a moment that everyone at the gathering had a gun. How quickly will they react and how many will actually hit the prime target. Will they all get them or will random shots be fired and others who wouldn’t have gotten killed or hurt will get hurt by others trying to protect themselves. When you turn, how do you know you are shooting the right person? It might be someone trying to protect themselves as well. Not many people can say they are skilled enough to be in a gun fight. What if the shooter is someone who is in far away with a high power rifle and picks people off from a distance. Just creating enough caos where people react and don’t think.
Lets say its not at a gathering. Your in a parking lot and someone sneaks up on you and puts a gun to your head. Now you own a gun but its in your back pack. Won’t do you any good unless they let you put your hand in the bag to get something. Even then, they may shoot you at the site of the gun. In a panic state, would you be able to get a kill shot before they get their shot?
I don’t think guns is the solution nor do I think taking them away is the solution either. If someone is determined to kill someone else than there are many ways to do it.
As for increase security? I don’t see why not. In a world of wackos, you never know (if your well known) when a wacko decides you are the source of their problems and they should kill you or be incited to kill you.

It’s not just government officials. One recent example of “security hypocrisy” was Rose O’Donnel, who was rabidly anti-gun for everyone… except her own security guards. : /