Kansas City Only Justifies Gun Control If You Know Nothing About It

AP Photo/Reed Hoffmann

We knew that the moment news broke of a shooting at the victory parade for the Kansas City Chiefs, we'd see a push for gun control. This is an inevitable as death and taxes.

The question is always how good will the arguments end up being.

With Kansas City, it's really kind of hard to justify some of the things people are trying to push considering the person who initiated the shooting had a stolen gun.

That's not going to stop some people, however.

It was shaping up to be a perfect day in downtown Kansas City, Missouri. The Kansas City Chiefs won its second straight Super Bowl and third in the last four seasons. Not only that, but it was Valentine’s Day and love was in the air. As the Chiefs rode in through a thrall of fans and onlookers, it felt as if nothing could ruin this day. What comes next is something straight out of a movie; however, that movie was not a rousing feature film, but one of horror. 

After a personal dispute took a turn for the worse, an armed individual began shooting. This person injured at least 20 and killed one. This incident has spurred reactions from across both the political and sports realms, but, above all, has indicated a need for strict gun control laws in America. 

Since the Constitution was ratified in 1791, the Second Amendment has granted American citizens the right to bear arms, more commonly known as possessing guns. While the point of gun control is not to take away guns from Americans. Rather they ensure that the usage and acquisition is done differently. Many across the country, particularly the Conservative side, think that “gun control” means “gun banning”. 

First, I'm a libertarian, not a conservative, and there are more than just two ideologies in this nation.

But with regard to "gun banning," we understand that not every bit of gun control is a gun ban. What we say is that gun control is a slippery slope that will inevitably lead to gun bans.

And that's because that's precisely what we've seen.

Further, you can't say gun control isn't about banning guns and is just a means to "ensure that the usage and acquisition is done differently" when the president is consistently pushing to ban an entire category of firearms.

In fact, later on, the author explicitly mentions banning certain kinds of guns. He knows he's lying there, but that's what anti-gunners do. They constantly lie about what they want. It's just a handful of "commonsense solutions." 

Until someone passes those and then they move on to the next set of "solutions." They keep coming up with ways to restrict our rights, generally ignoring all the ways the last set of "solutions" accomplished nothing.

And that's the thing. The author acknowledges the Second Amendment, but then blows right past the point where the right to keep and bear arms is, in fact, a right. You don't just trample on rights because it's convenient.

Yes, shootings like Kansas City are awful and this one was far tamer than something like Uvalde or Route 91 massacres. However, people like this never seem to understand that the issue here isn't guns but that people are losing their ever-loving minds.

Until and unless we start taking a people-first approach to mass murders as a whole--not just those that use a firearm--we're not going to make any headway at all. Gun control won't fix it, either, because gun control doesn't work.

From all of the information released to date, the Kansas City shooting was sparked by a dipstick pulling a stolen gun and deciding to shoot someone who said something vaguely threatening but wasn't an imminent threat... while they were running away. He broke numerous existing laws in the process, so spare me the talk of how we need more laws on this.