1. Some people see this incident and immediately try to think of ways it could have been prevented.
2. Some of us see this and immediately try to think of what kind of weapons we'd need to return fire effectively.
Count me in Group #2.
Indeed, and that made me think of a contra-argument to the gun grabbers... if they think they can just ignore the 2nd amendment, why not ignore others, like, oh, the right to peaceably assemble? No large crowds of people and this whole massacre wouldn't have happened.
In fact, you could strike a bunch of other rights before you get around to the right to bear arms, and save far more lives. You know, if we're going to be ignoring the constitution or treating it as a "living, breathing document" that's subject to change at the whim of whomever currently pulls the levers of power.
The same liberals who so carelessly throw out the implied statement that an amendment isn't necessarily binding, or means what it clearly states, are the same who hide behind the first amendment like a child cowering under their blankie, so maybe we need to start threatening some of their beloved rights and see how they react.
I formally propose an end to any gathering of over 10 people, because it's the only way to ensure any mass murderer will be able to kill more than 10 people in one attack, no matter the method. Violations will be a felony (just like NFA violations).
After all, these high-capacity crowds are just mass murders waiting to happen... nobody really needs more than 9 friends at any one time.
For my next decree, I'll override the "free exercise thereof" clause and ban Christianity. Haven't those Christians caused enough trouble already?