Text Us: 870870
Studio: (504)260.1870
Toll Free: (866)889.0870
| More

Scoot's Blog

Email: scoot@wwl.com
Twitter: @scootwwl
Facebook: Scoot on the Air



Scoot: Should everyone be allowed to carry guns?

Will gun rights advocates denounce retired cop shooting man over cell phone argument?

Contrary to the belief of some Americans – not everyone should be armed and not everyone should be carrying a gun with them wherever they go – not even retired police officers!

The news story about a 71-year-old retired Tampa police officer who has been charged with 2nd degree murder following an argument over texting at a movie theater is attracting national attention.  And why not?  The story seems to prove that not everyone should be armed and carrying a firearm wherever they go in public.

Police say that 71-year-old Curtis Reeves got into an argument over 45-year-old Chad Oulson’s texting while watching the movie, “Lone Survivor” at a theater near Tampa, FL.  Police report that when Oulson refused to stop texting a confrontation escalated and Reeves summoned a staff member from the theater. With about 10 people watching, Reeves shot Oulson, who died later in the hospital.  Oulson’s wife, Nicole, was slightly injured when she tried to protect her husband.

The 71-year-old retired cop claims that he was the victim.  An attorney for Reeves said that he had a right to defend himself when Oulson, portrayed as the aggressor, threw an unknown object at him, which was identified as popcorn.

A man who was waiting to go into the movie with his son said that the object thrown was, indeed, popcorn.  He said that he was shocked that someone would have a gun with them at a movie theater.          The witness said that Oulson fell on him and his son when he was shot and blood was coming out of his mouth and ended up on their clothes.

This is one of those freak incidents that will give ammunition to both sides of the gun control debate.  First of all, what current or proposed gun laws  would have prevented this tragedy?   I do not understand how any gun control laws would have had an impact on the type of person who feels the need to be armed all the time – even while going to a movie.  And what leads to someone feeling this need to be armed while attending a movie?

Sadly, there are many Americans who are gun-happy and they are not criminals until they allow their overzealous attitudes about guns to hijack their rational thinking.
Where is the NRA and where are the gun-rights advocates when it comes to stupidity among those who promote carrying weapons everywhere?  This is a fact – if 71-year-old Curtis Reeves did not take a gun into the movie theater with him, then 45-year-old Chad Oulson would not be dead and his wife and other innocent bystanders would not have witnessed a horrific shooting at a movie theater! Reeves used a gun to protect himself against popcorn???  I’d like to think that retire cops are tough enough to deal with popcorn being thrown at them.  If not, then there should be some reconsideration of the training of police officers.

This mentality is not reserved for retired police officers.  The real question is – would the 71-year-old retired cop have gotten into a heated confrontation with the younger 45-year-old man if he didn’t have a gun?  I doubt it.

The Second Amendment protects our rights to bear arms for protection – not to bear arms for the purpose of giving us confidence that we would not otherwise have if we didn’t have a gun.  Gun rights advocates should denounce this use of a gun to gain credibility on their side of the gun-control debate.  Silence equals hypocrisy.
And if anyone felt like they needed a gun to go to a local movie theater – why would they even go?
 


Tags :  
Topics : Entertainment_Culture
Social :
Locations : Tampa
People : Chad OulsonCurtis ReevesNicole




 
01/14/2014 8:22PM
Scoot Blog: Will gun rights advocates denounce retired cop shooting man over cell phone argument?
Please Enter Your Comments Below
01/15/2014 6:56AM
Do you really want an answer, or are you being rhetorical?
"And what leads to someone feeling this need to be armed while attending a movie?" Since I'm not sure which, I'll answer anyway. The reason folks feel the need to be armed is that we live in a nation that glorifies "gangstas", the bulk of which are hardened criminals who have been to prison many times and don't give a rat's backside about your politics or how much you "care" or any of that other stuff. If you are unfortunate enough to cross one of them, they have absolutely no remorse about instantly becoming violent, and indeed many of them think it's funny to do so. I know the retired LEO in the theater was wrong, he didn't attempt to de-escalate the situation as he should have, and he should be dealt with accordingly by his own actions. However, that does NOT mean that otherwise law-abiding citizens shouldn't have the ability to defend themselves from unwarranted aggression by criminals.
01/15/2014 3:19PM
Gangstas
It's telling that the above comment stereotypes and fears "gangstas" but says nothing about those who have an overinflated survivalist cowboy mentality - who can be just as much of a threat to average people. I have heard them talk and read their postings. They will threaten elected officials in the most crude and vile manner. They will CHEER when Trayvon Martin gets shot and say they idolize people like George Zimmerman. Scoot, there are people in this country who are very angry and fantasize about using their "rights" to get one over on the "others" they feel are "taking their country." They are every bit as much thugs as any "gangsta" in the urban areas.
01/15/2014 5:05PM
Scoot Response!
The previous comment accurately assesses a problem in America.
01/15/2014 5:46PM
You people crazy
No law ever proposed would stop a retired cop from carrying a gun. Even in California, the most restrictive state, exempts officers and retired officers from laws restricting ownership and concealment. Stop making up strawman arguments, it's pitiful.
01/15/2014 10:05PM
People who shouldn't have guns
Today the supreme court heard an argument on behalf of a Tennessee man who was convicted of violent assault against his girlfriend/mother of his children. His argument was that his violent act should not prevent him from buying a gun - despite the fact he clearly injured her and committed a crime. His lawyer is arguing because his intent wasn't to injure her and it just happened, the crime was wrongly classified and this sociopath should be allowed to buy weapons. Justice Scalia seems sympathetic. This country is insane when we can't even tell a domestic abuser NO GUNS.
01/16/2014 7:48PM
Go on thinking that...
Go on thinking that some middle-aged white American firearm owner and NRA member is as dangerous to you as hardened criminals and gangsta thugs. Liberal-progressives, living in a fantasy land. /SMH
01/17/2014 5:36AM
Please find REALITY!
What if Reeves pulled out a knife and stabbed Oulsen? What if he pulled a taser and tased and he fell and hit his head? What if he pulled a baton and cracked his skull? What if..... My point is that if Reeves was going to be emboldened by carrying a weapon, the fact that it was a gun is irrelevant. The issue, if you are going to disect this argument, is the mentality of the person. Judge the actions, not the tools used.
01/17/2014 10:03AM
Absolutely
Government employees and retired government employees should be barred from owning or possessing weapons. The problem isn't the armed citizen, it is the armed government thug or in this case the retired government thug.
01/17/2014 11:30AM
Ex post facto "logic"
I'm a gun rights advocate. No, I won't denounce this man. First of all, I have no idea what happened. I figure I should let the courts settle the issue. Second, my enemies and adversaries don't denounce what I consider properly-denounced, not even when I rhetorically ask if they will. So, by the golden rule of reciprocity, it would be stupid for me to do so when they ask. I, for one, am not your trained seal. Contrary to the belief of some Americans – not everyone should be armed and not everyone should be carrying a gun with them wherever they go – not even retired police officers! The news story about a 71-year-old retired Tampa police officer who has been charged with 2nd degree murder following an argument over texting at a movie theater is attracting national attention. And why not? The story seems to prove that not everyone should be armed and carrying a firearm wherever they go in public. This is a non-sequitur. Ex post facto logic. Using the benefit of hindsight, you determine that, since he's been accused of committing a crime with his gun, he shouldn't have been allowed to have it. Do I really need to point out the error of that kind of thinking? Like this: Bob gets drunk and plows his car into Jane's minivan, killing her and her kids. Does this mean we should have prevented Bob from owning a car, being allowed into bars, etc? Joe buys a building, rents it out as apartments, then burns it down for the insurance money. He forgot to check it thoroughly first, and a family was trapped inside and died in the fire. Does this mean Joe should have been denied the right to purchase the building? The gas can, gas, or matches he used to burn it down? Maurice stabs his wife with a kitchen knife. Does this mean we should have prevented Maurice from buying that kitchen knife? From getting married? I feel like a fool even giving your "arguments" this much attention. They don't warrant it.
01/17/2014 11:32AM
Mea culpa
Actually, my examples should read, "Bob is accused of getting drunk and plowing his car into Jane's minivan," "Joe is accused of arson," "Maurice is accused of stabbing his wife," etc.
01/22/2014 6:42PM
A gun is different
Sure, there are lots of weapons besides guns, and lots of things that can be turned into weapons. But firearms are in a separate class by themselves, and arguments in defense of gun rights based on an assumption that guns ARE like other weapons have an incorrect foundation.
01/22/2014 7:00PM
Retired NRA member vs thug
Well, in this case anyway, apparently the retiree may have been the most dangerous person in the theater. If convicted, he will be the only one who shot somebody that day for texting/throwing popcorn. Hmmmm...the ironic part is that I'm sure Mr. Reeves believed firmly that carrying a gun made him safer, and potentially those around him safer too. Maybe he was even thinking about Aurora when he carried his gun in - if there's a shooter he can use his own weapon to protect people. That scenario could have taken place but didn't. Instead, he himself allegedly became the shooter. So, using NRA logic, what was needed that day was ANOTHER good guy with a gun to take down the first good guy with a gun. Where does it end? When everyone is packing and ready to draw on anyone who throws snacks?
Title :
Comment :
Recent Posts
Categories
Tag Cloud
No Tags Found !
Archives