The difference is that many MPs now seem to think that being threatened and attacked is an occupational hazard.
MPs (of all parties) are reacting to one of their own being murdered. Anyone could die in a car crash. Anyone could die from cancer. Only an MP can be killed on the way to meet their constituents.
and I agree that they will correctly identify more with the circumstances, though in terms of the formulation, only an MP could die in a car crash on their way to meet their constituents is just as true. Anyone can be murdered..
And once again the question was if it would be taking advantage of tragedy to stand in a by election in this case, how would that not apply if she had died of a brain tumour?
As I have already covered, I think there are better arguments for not standing but even though seem to have problems. When Ian Gow was murdered part of the reason for there being a contested by by election was precisely to show that terrorism would not affect how we acted.