Uvalde shooting investigation focuses on police response

I didn't think so. But hopefully you grasped why your question was such an absurd one without me having to explain it to you.

 

I know why you think it's absurd. But then again you can't recognize a single way to use firearms in a way that reduces the risk of death.

So what exactly was it that limited the number of possible deaths in Uvalde? You claim he killed as many people as possible. Why wasn't 50 people possible?

 

That's amusing as hell, considering you're the one stating as if were an undisputed fact that 19 armed and trained LEOs couldn't defeat a single 18-year-old punk who may have never even shot a firearm before. That they didn't is a fact, and a problem, and why they didn't is a question that badly needs to be answered, but you're the silly one claiming they couldn't, which is a very different thing. Not only could they have, ultimately they did, even if nowhere near soon enough.

 

You do know that guns exist, right? And that Citizens of the United States have, and ought to have, an absolute right to own them, right?

 

More importantly violence that occurs in their absence can certainly be just as if not more horrific. See: the entire history of the world prior to the invention of firearms.

 

If guns in general are to blame then there should be a school shooting all day every day. This is not the case because only a tiny fraction of the population are motivated and willing to carry out such an attack. It makes no sense then to regulate the vast majority of people who are not motivated or willing to do such things in an attempt to regulate those that are.

A similar argument would be that if .1 percent of the population is at risk of death from peanuts, we need to ban peanut ownership for the rest of society.

 

The fact that it's still difficult for private citizens to own a nuclear weapon.

Another dumb question. I'll keep answering stupid questions so long as I have nothing better to do. Can't guarantee anything as soon as I do.

 

The fact that they couldn't is proven by the fact that they DIDN'T. Simple as that. It's no wonder you're into astrology if you can't grasp that simple FACT.

Why they COULDN'T is a good question to ask. But a band aid is not going to cure the gun epidemic.

The only possible reason why you could say they "could" and "didn't" is if you make up some conspiracy in which they were on the side of the shooter. Clearly that's not the case. Anything else boils down to "they couldn't"

 

Given that I joined the NRA at age 12, yeah. I also defended the 2nd amendment in debate competitions a number of times. I have also been shooting since I was about age 5. I have half a dozen guns in my closet.

You do know you apparently can't even understand my point?

 

Interesting. It was only possible for him to kill 21 people with 2 rifles and over a thousand rounds of ammunition because nuclear weapons. Great point.

But we still have to address why 50 wasn't possible. Did something happen that caused him to stop? Did he get a sternly worded letter from the U.N.? Maybe he had a sudden bout of appendicitis? Late for a job interview? Why did he stop?