Here we go again: except this time a more confounding shooting. A 71 year old retired police officer and S.W.A.T. team veteran, enraged
by the victim's texting in a theatre, shoots the much younger, bigger
man, who responded to his scolding by throwing a bag of popcorn at him.
Someone comes forward to tell of a similar conflict with this shooter
that did not escalate but bore the signs of edgy confrontation.
Should more or fewer citizens carry concealed firearms? Is the presence of a concealed firearm appropriate in every public venue? What is sufficient provocation to justify its use? If someone possessing a lawful firearm exhibits signs of mental or emotional instability, is there a mechanism for further investigation to determine if such possession should continue short of civil commitment? And is this "stand your ground"? This one forces us to look even harder at our gun laws.
By no account would this be justified as self defense. As a corollary, nor is it stand your ground. There simply was not the type of danger or provocation required. But was this elderly shooter, experienced in firearms use generally and violent conflict resolution specifically, cognitively compromised? As a partial defense or mitigation, that may be what's going on. Small comfort to the victim's family. He's the poster boy for the N.R.A., the guy we WOULD trust with a concealed gun. So much for the gun lobby's position that the presence of such individuals are necessary to stop an Aurora type theatre shooting. They pose their own risk.
Once again, with its ease of use, a handgun as designed, caused a quick death from close range. They embolden one so armed to use it without adequate reflection rather than back down. Could it be that for many concealed gun carriers, the pump is primed to find a chance to use it? Many questions left unanswered in this scenario. We cannot prevent all unjustified or thoughtless shootings, but we can do more to reduce them.
