When an irate moviegoer in Florida shot and killed a man in an argument about the alleged victim's text messaging during the movie, the anti-gun groups were predictably all over it. From the Brady Campaign:
Many in the media appear to be blaming texting as the reason for the shooting. Texting is not the issue. This incident is an example of what happens when there are more loaded guns in public places, without any concern about who can carry those guns and where they can carry them.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, in one of at least five Facebook posts about the shooting, promoted a tasteless cartoon, referring to what they call the "morally bankrupt logic of the National Rifle Association."
For the anti-gun groups, condemnation of "Stand Your Ground" laws in Florida and elsewhere--a popular pastime with that crowd ever since the shooting of Trayvon Martin--is no longer enough. Now it's concealed carry in general (and presumably open carry would not make them any happier) that is to be blamed.
The Violence Policy thus triumphantly trumpeted the shooting as "the Latest Example of a Concealed Carry Killer":
The shooting in a Florida movie theater Monday in a dispute over texting during a movie preview is just one of hundreds of fatal incidents perpetrated by private individuals legally allowed to carry concealed weapons.
What these groups do not want to talk about is that the accused is not only a retired police officer--an "Only One"--he was a captain of "Only Ones," and indeed "a well regarded" one, according to the Christian Science Monitor. But wait a second--police are the ones we're supposed to trust with guns, aren't they? For example, back when the Brady Campaign was desperately (and futilely) pressing Starbucks to ban guns (which still has not happened, the Demanding Moms' lies notwithstanding), the campaign's spokesman Doug Pennington was quoted in the Seattle Times:
Starbucks hasn't done that. "So far, Starbucks hasn't said what seems to be an obvious kind of policy, that 'no guns are allowed in our stores unless you're a police officer,'" Pennington said.
Heck--cops even get nice, safe, friendly-sounding names for their guns, while the same guns in the hands of private citizens are demonized as "assault weapons."
Granted, Captain Curtis Reeves, Jr. (ret.) is no longer an active-duty cop, obviously. Still, no one seems to have dug up anything in his post-retirement history that would raise any red flags indicating that the man once trusted to lead other law enforcers had suddenly become inclined to criminal violence. Indeed, it seems as if he could easily have qualified to carry a firearm nationwide, under the Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act--a law that drew at most halfhearted resistance from even the most rabid anti-gun groups.
In another indication that anti-gun groups are not asking us to stop trusting cops with guns, even when they retire, the groups have all enthusiastically supported proposed laws banning "high capacity" magazines, despite the fact that those laws would explicitly exempt both active and retired police officers from the bans as this column most recently discussed here:
The federal bills differ from each other in some respects, with the magazine bans in H.R. 437 and S. 150 being subsidiary components of larger bills banning so-called "assault weapons." They all share one interesting "feature," though--not only do they exempt "Only Ones," even retired cops are given a pass on the ban.
. . .
With Lautenberg having departed the world of the living, we will never learn his explanation of what he believed would bring about a legitimate law enforcement need to "kill a lot of people very quickly" (not exactly "peace officer" work, that), and we'll certainly never learn why he thought retired cops should have that capability.
Finally, guess what else the anti-gun groups would prefer not to talk about in regard to this shooting--it happened in a "gun free" zone, according to the Tampa Bay Tribune:
The theater chain, based in Birmingham, Ala., has a “zero tolerance” policy for weapons, and signs are placed in the theaters to tell patrons that guns and knives are not allowed, said Molly McFerran, a spokeswoman for Cobb.
“That is on every door as you walk into the building,” she said.
That's weird--all those signs did nothing to stop a police captain from allegedly murdering a man? It's almost as if we cannot trust our security to either "Only Ones," or to signs declaring guns verboten.
- Who are the 'Only Ones' we can trust with guns?
- Do anti-gun groups oppose 'assault weapons' for retired California 'Only Ones'?