David Hardy's Of Arms and the Law and Sebastian's Snowflakes in Hell have pointed out something interesting about what is not happening in the wake of the massacre in Crandon, Wisconsin. The country's major civilian disarmament (aka "gun control") groups have not had a word to say about our country's most recent shooting massacre.
This seems, at first glance, rather surprising. As Mr. Hardy points out, the Brady Campaign, for example, has been quick to jump on shootings in which the death toll was significantly smaller. The fact that the killings were committed with an AR-15 (the dreaded, so-called "assault weapon") makes the silence all the more deafening–the push to ban "assault weapons" is the Violence Policy Center's bread and butter, I thought (didn't their founder and executive director, Josh Sugarmann, invent the "assault weapon" terminology?).
Immediately after the Virginia Tech killings, and lasting for months afterward, the Brady Campaign website prominently featured this expression of "outrage":
Now, a rampage ends with seven dead, most of them teenagers (one as young as fourteen), and they can't even muster a bit of annoyance? They're not even a bit miffed? What is different about this mass shooting that makes it so much more tolerable?
Could the reason for their apparent willingness to tolerate this shooting be that the killer was a law enforcement officer? Could it be that murders committed by agents of the government are less outrageous than those committed by private citizens? Could it be that bringing attention to the carnage wrought by an armed police officer is incompatible with an agenda of citizen disarmament?
With at least one of the so-called "gun control" groups, the silence should not be surprising–the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has already gone on record as saying that "the government must have a monopoly on force" (more here).
Dictators throughout the world, and throughout history, would certainly agree with the CSGV about that. Interesting choice of ideological allies, isn't it?