It's been almost two years now since Gabby Giffords famously said, "No more guns" during an interview. Her aides tried to walk it back, but she was adamant.

The organization has since pretended that never happened.

However, when she said that, I assumed she meant for you and me. Obviously, the police and military would still have guns. After all, who would enforce gun laws other than the police? And if they're going after armed people, they need guns themselves, right?

But it seems that I might have been giving them too much credit.

You see, Giffords posted this on X on Monday.

Victor Perez died yesterday four days after being shot nine times by Idaho police. Another family and community has been torn apart by an unjust act of gun violence.

This should never have happened. Victor deserved to be protected. He deserved to live. https://t.co/d83CAQQk7Q

— GIFFORDS (@GIFFORDS_org) April 14, 2025

"[A]n unjust act of gun violence," eh?

Now, I've talked about this incident before. In fact, not even a full week ago, I compared it to the Austin Metcalf murder and the self-defense claims there. As such, I'm familiar with what police say transpired.

They received a call that someone, possibly intoxicated, was running around, chasing people with a knife. The police rolled up and saw Perez, still holding the knife. He apparently fell at some point, but got back up. Officers told him to drop the knife.

Not only did he not drop the knife, he advanced toward officers, at which point they did what any sane person with a firearm would do when someone who has reportedly been threatening others with the knife in his hand starts coming toward you. They lit him up.

His status as being autistic never entered the equation because, first, there was no way officers could have been aware of this fact. Then there's the fact that being autistic doesn't mean you can't be violent and dangerous. 

My own take is that this was a good shoot, and while Perez might not have actually been a threat to anyone, that's a gamble no one should have taken.

But why is Giffords talking about this like some senseless murder on the streets of Chicago or some mass shooting in rural Arkansas? This is a gun control group, even if they frame it as "gun safety." They're treating this officer-involved shooting as if it's relevant to their cause.

The only reason for that I can come up with is that when Gabby Giffords said, "No more guns," she also meant to take them out of police holsters.

That's a bold position for anyone to take, though we all know they'll never come right out and say it.

It seems pretty clear, though. I mean, they're a "gun safety" group, so why are they kvetching about an officer-involved shooting unless they also want to disarm the police?

Now, I'm a believer that carve-outs for police are absolute BS--they should apply to everyone--but groups like Giffords pretend folks like you and I are the problem, not the police, which is what causes those carve-outs in the first place.

My days of not taking Giffords seriously are certainly coming to a middle.