The historic Union Station in Kansas City became the latest backdrop for a mass shooting as gunfire near the end of the Chiefs’ Super Bowl celebration.
The people that got hurt & even died from getting trampled as people shoved to get away from the active mass shooting event did not differentiate either.
Yes but making that argument might be a bit easier if it’s shown that MORE GUNS doesn’t really equal more good guys with guns, it means more people in arguments that end up deadly.
Don’t you think that if we are ever going to stop this kind of thing we have to address the reasons? When tiny disputes erupt in gun fire, that’s a very good reason to implement more gun control. It’s evidence that widespread gun availability does NOT actually make us safer. When it’s an unmedicated kid killing strangers or whatever, then people get to hide behind the “we don’t know why this happened, if only there was a good guy with a gun” etc.
To the victims, yeah it probably matters little. To people reading headlines? Yeah terrorism is different than school shooting type crimes which are different from your average “this is why guns are banned at bars”.
It could be terrorism when it’s in a crowded stadium.
It could be gang related, which means it’s part of a larger continuous conflict.
It could just be drunk idiots.
If it were the first option that would have major ramifications for the safety of stadiums and other large functions. More rules, less attendance, etc.
If it’s drunk idiots, we’ll arrest them, treat the victims, put another entry in the book of reasons why there shouldn’t be open carry in crowded venues, and move on.
Yeah, we just can’t get our government to care. But if it smells like terrorism, we have a track record of invading people about it. And not necessarily the people responsible.
In the US we need to differentiate between the Taxi Driver/Columbine variety from the “why I oughtta” variety.
The bullets do not differentiate.
The people that got hurt & even died from getting trampled as people shoved to get away from the active mass shooting event did not differentiate either.
Do we, though? Neither of them should have access to guns.
Yes but making that argument might be a bit easier if it’s shown that MORE GUNS doesn’t really equal more good guys with guns, it means more people in arguments that end up deadly.
And it’s so stupid. As if the reason for a mass shooting matters.
Don’t you think that if we are ever going to stop this kind of thing we have to address the reasons? When tiny disputes erupt in gun fire, that’s a very good reason to implement more gun control. It’s evidence that widespread gun availability does NOT actually make us safer. When it’s an unmedicated kid killing strangers or whatever, then people get to hide behind the “we don’t know why this happened, if only there was a good guy with a gun” etc.
To the victims, yeah it probably matters little. To people reading headlines? Yeah terrorism is different than school shooting type crimes which are different from your average “this is why guns are banned at bars”.
IT’S THE GUNS DUDE
It does.
It could be terrorism when it’s in a crowded stadium. It could be gang related, which means it’s part of a larger continuous conflict. It could just be drunk idiots.
If it were the first option that would have major ramifications for the safety of stadiums and other large functions. More rules, less attendance, etc.
If it’s drunk idiots, we’ll arrest them, treat the victims, put another entry in the book of reasons why there shouldn’t be open carry in crowded venues, and move on.
It seems to me like both have major ramifications for the safety of large functions.
Yeah, we just can’t get our government to care. But if it smells like terrorism, we have a track record of invading people about it. And not necessarily the people responsible.