Now, I've seen a lot of talk about so-called ghost guns and gun control. I've seen a lot of people saying these firearms need to be banned or, at least heavily restricted.

But in a letter to the editor, someone hit on something rather interesting.

Normally, in a highly publicized killing as this, national gun control groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action & Guns Down America come out before all the facts have been gathered and demand Congress come up with a comprehensive gun control plan. They’ve been completely absent from this shooting, and the gun hasn’t been the focus at all as is in most shootings. The alleged killer has been the focus for a change, imagine that, they’re actually focusing on the person who pulled the trigger, but in a sick and perverse way. Certain media has been idolizing the killer with justification to the shooting. 

...

Do these gun control groups condone such a heinous crime as justification against the corporate world? Is that why they're all sitting quiet for a change?

It's a fair question.

After any other high-profile killing that involves a firearm, we tend to see the usual suspects on prime-time news talking all about how we need gun control, we need to restrict things so these incidents don't happen again.

Then, of course, we hit back by pointing out all of the ways gun control wouldn't have stopped anything. For example, banning "ghost guns" wouldn't have stopped the alleged killer from getting a gun. He had a clean background check, after all. He could have gotten a firearm and likely only went the 3D printing route because he thought "gun tracing" might lead police to him.

But they're being pretty quiet. Not absolutely silent, mind you, but they're not beating the drums like they tend to after most high-profile incidents involving a firearm.

As the letter writer notes, a lot of people on that side of the fence are tickled with Thompson's murder. They're likely quiet because they don't actually mind what happened. More than that, they want to see more of it.

It's a perverse way to see them finally shut up about gun control.

Yet it's also illuminating.

See, my first political response was to note that Thompson was lawfully disarmed in New York City and that while he may not have wanted to carry a firearm anyway, he couldn't have if he'd decided he did. This isn't any different than anything else I might write regarding a high-profile murder in the Big Apple.

For me, it doesn't matter who Thompson was. What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong and I stand up for what I think is right even if I don't particularly care for the person to whom something wrong is happening.

Clearly, I have a stronger moral compass than your typical anti-gunner.

I wish I could say that was shocking, but it's not. Over the years, I've seen a lot of disgusting nonsense come from these same people; people who will talk about needing particular laws restricting our rights in specific was as a mass murder is happening. They routinely call for restrictions that just happen to be what they wanted all alone before the facts are in, then never blink when the facts turn out to invalidate their calls to action.

But if you comment how gun control didn't work in a particular instance, you're vile for daring to inject politics into a tragedy.

So I'm not surprised that they're quiet now, relatively speaking.