Where have you read any of those statements? It would be nice if you had sources from politicians saying those things.

I have actually seen no one asking for Ban on all guns, can you show where you have seen this.  As for Law enforement are racist, I believe this is your opinion because I have not seen that either.  What I have seen is that people are asking for Law Enforcement officers to be more accoutable for their action, to be better trained and to also create and environment where your bad cops cannot prosper.  As for bans on guns, I have seen people asking for simple gun restrictions and enforcement.  Either way, there needs to be something but in the end Money will rule what actually gets done.

I am not talking about politicians, I'm talking about all the idiot protesters and college student idiot fighters.
You know the ones like Antifa, Black live matter, ect. The ones exercising their free speech by shutting down speeches. The ones protesting cop violence by rioting and destroying businesses and cop cars. Ect.

It is loud and clear all over social media by these people that they want guns banned. They are also very loud and clear that cops are evil.

But don't delude yourselves thinking that politicians don't want guns all banned. Each time some shooting happens, they grab one new thing to ban. First its fully automatic, then its semi-automatic, then its some stock, then its handguns, then it's ect. It's a one step at a time. The old saying, you give an inch, they take a mile.

Heck just read through this topic, many people are saying ban guns. Many people are saying ban handguns (most common gun used for murder only) ect. This is no surprise. Each mass shooting there is political gun laws instantly mentioned. Hell many politicians talk about gun laws before even saying their condolences.
Lets say they ban all the guns he used this time. What happens when the next mass shooting happens and it was different guns used. Ban them then. Heck, many times guns that weren't even used are brought up as things we should ban.

Facepalm....

The difference is we arent saying he has the right to free or subsidised guns. Everyone has the right to health care. Its called Health insurance. If you want it you buy it. Same with guns, if you want them you buy them. 

LOL. Here is my take on what needs to happen.

1: No restriction on type of guns available for purchase

2: Mandatory background check and mental health evaluation every 5 years, every 2 years if you practice any religion.

3: All weapons must be registered to owner, if transfering ownership 2nd rule still applies to new owner

4: Gun safe fitting size of weapon must be purchased or owned and proof must be supplied

5: Coneal carry available for all gun owners in all states provided they have #2 and #3 rules completed and up to date.

Thats decently close to what I would want:

1) Some restrictions on guns that have a high damage capacity (ex. fully auto, rocket launchers, etc) and things which do not support the intent of the second amendment
2) Mandatory background check for all firearms transactions (including private transactions)
2a) Increased funding to every state to help them get all mental health and criminal data into the relevant databases
3) Broadening denial criteria to include all violent misdemeanants, those under temporary restraining order, and those with criminal prosecutions for alcohol or drug abuse
3a) Rights to be renewed after a set period of time depending on review of risk for each demographic
4) Tax incentives to individuals for gun safety equipment such as gun safes, locks or smart guns
5) Federal funding to companies working on smart gun technology
6) Federal funding for research examining topics surrounding firearms such as gun safety equipment efficacy and gun violence risk indicators
7) Federalized concealed carry system which would allow license holders to carry in any state, and normalize the conditions for acquiring a concealed carry license based on risk assessment

Stretch Goal: Mandatory safety training for all gun owners and Mandatory proficiency training and emergency training for all concealed carry holders. 

I'm sure I could find some examples, which probably wouldn't be all that easy in terms of comparison, but whether or not they would be taken seriously is the question. The odds of me showing an incident where 20 people were killed or injured with something other than a gun, and people just saying that doesn't matter because it's a much smaller number than most gun incidents, is quite likely. That's not the point though. What constitutes as a "mass event" also needs to be well defined first.

The fact that finding incidents with high numbers of death and injury using weapons other than guns would be harder, is also do to the fact that guns exist and have for a very long time. It would be like saying, prove to me that people only hunt to eat and survive in today's world. I know I could find a rare example or two, and that's because we have a system where hunting is not necessary in today's world. If you banned the entire market system for food however, everyone would have no choice but to hunt again. The large majority of the population (first world) don't specifically hunt to survive today, just like how mass murderer's will typically use a gun, because it's the most efficient weapon available. If you took that away, they would just use the next best thing, until we ban everything right down to sticks n stones.

Just look at medieval times. Bows n arrows, swords n shield's. Millions died by blades and arrows because that was the best possible weapon at the time, and not just in war. Now we have guns. Take those guns away, and those killers have no choice but to use the next best weapon. You have to remember, this isn't just your everyday criminal we're talking about. This is the worst case scenario, mass murder, type of killer. They are going to hurt many people one way or another, no matter how much planning, or what weapons it takes. Sure, you can say, well at least less people will get hurt, but how many is acceptable and at what cost to everyone else? When that soon becomes the norm, then what? Same thing happens as always. We're not satisfied with the lesser amount of death's, so we ban whatever weapon has become the new killing utensil of choice, and so on. It literally never ends.

How many people in the military have killed their own brothers or sisters in arms on purpose? Very few, and that's because these people are mentally healthy enough to be trusted with weapons, yet very rarely, that worst case scenario still happens. The all encompassing answer is to make sure everyone is mentally healthy, but we all know that's next to impossible, so do we take away all potential weapons as the second best way to solve that problem? If it's as simple as just the guns, then maybe. It's not that simple though. It never is. We put up guard rails and bollards for cars, add airbags, yet people still get hurt and die. We can try all we want to better the situation, but stopping mass killings altogether only happens in the movies (Minority Report).

Life is either a planned out scenario where you have no choice and play it out in reality, or it's a game of choice and chance, from start to finish. Either way, what happens, happens, and sometimes, it's unfortunate. There's nothing wrong with trying to make life better, but all options must be weighed when doing so, and quite often what people end up finding is, greater sacrifices end up being made by the many to help the few. The movies are something that get's this right most of the time. The few giving everything to save the many. They tend to try and allow them to live so everyone feels good about themselves, but that's where the movies and reality differ. Life often ends in tragedy, but usually for the greater good. It sucks, but that's just the way it goes sometimes.

This thought had sort of crossed my mind too.

On the one hand they argue that law enforcement has TOO much power and uses deadly force too frequently against the population without a just reason (at least in case of African Americans so they say), while on the other hand want to essentially disarm civillians which of course means far MORE power in the hands of law enforcement, which almost inevitably means MORE lethal force used..

Though in all fairness, I don't think most of these people are arguing for a complete dissolving of the 2nd Amendment or a total wiping away of all guns on US soil (would be virtually impossible anyway), but rather, that there needs to be stricter gun laws, which I tend to somewhat agree with. Apparently this Paddock guy was able to buy a semi-automatic along with bump stock (to boost its effectiveness) legally from what I've heard. That he was able to land such a powerful weapon that is capable of mowing down hundreds in minutes legally is highly concerning and a major red flag that the US really needs to tighten things up in that regard..

We have an example of removing most guns from society. Australia did this some 15 years ago and haven´t had a mass killing since then.

Do you think everyone should be able to drive any vehicle without license and that every vehicle should be accesible to everyone at all times, including ships, buses and airplanes? Or wouldn´t it be easier to just face the reality that this issue has nothing to do with any right to have weapons, but that people want to play cops and robbers as grownups and that society allows it?