Question #1. Why is this shooting somehow more horrific or deserving of more attention or special-casing than other shootings and murders that happen every day?
Then there’s this:
[U.S. Senate Sergeant-At-Arms Terrance] Gainer said he does not believe more members of Congress should carry guns. “Violence prevention is a very difficult matter. Preventing homicides is very difficult. I think every chief and sheriff across the nation is trying to figure out how best to do that. Putting more guns in the mix is not the answer. It may be part of a solution to have more police, more law enforcement. But we shouldn’t just turn to guns as the how to end violence,” he said.
But you see, more police, more law enforcement…. they are only considered for the mix because they have guns! If you put more police in the mix, you are putting more guns into the mix. Or if you want, how about removing the guns from the belts of those police and put them into the mix. Will that still achieve your desired effect? No. You want more police in the mix because they have guns.
What you’re saying is you want more of a police state. You want more nannies to watch over us. You don’t want the allow the citizenry to be empowered. Because I tell you, no matter how many more police you put into the mix, it will never be enough. Police can’t be everywhere to protect us all.
Oh wait… you’re not interested in protecting us all. Just your elite selves.