Nearly 14k posts under your belt, and you're still having trouble comprehending posts, ot thoroughly reading posts.
I stated the first problem; hint: posturing on both sides.
There's a bone for you.
Readers,
This is one of the reasons I don't respond directly to her anymore.
She fails to state a problem, then blames me for not inferring it.
I only
suspected her "problem" was the second and third sentences of the OP. However, I was absolutely
certain something was screwy from her saying gunners demands for "more guns" is a knee-jerk reaction (post #6). Oh, it couldn't possibly be somehing people have looked at and thought about for a while. No, its a knee jerk reaction.
Her rambling conflation of causes in the first post--mental health, poverty, the so-called war on drugs--was another clue something was screwy.
But, look a little closer and it becomes apparent that the knee-jerk reaction of pro-gunners (sic) is to her a "problem". Not, the violation of rights that results in dead and wounded defenseless victims. No, the problem she wants to address is butting heads or whatever. She says to drop it. But, doesn't say what to do in its place, despite being expressly asked and given the opportunity.
Her dim view, her emotional view, of the people involved in the argument--both sides--shines through in her first sentence, "...just don't get it." She's last person to have standing to accuse others of an emotional reaction.
At best we've been treated to a bunch of off-base belly aching that, among other things, accuses pro-gunners of knee-jerking.