That's why Greg Abbott says "hey man, nice shot"

But to be slightly serious for a moment: I wonder what Abbott would say if you asked him: do you think America failed these innocent victims?  To me or you or any non-psychopath, this question seems extremely easy: there are legitimate debates to be had over the degree to which government should get involved in day-to-day life, but at the bare minimum, a country has to be able to ensure that its people aren't constantly murdered.  We call countries that can't do that "failed states," and then everything else that they can and do do seems kind of trivial by comparison.  Yes, we've built a more-or-less functional interstate highway system, and that's impressive and everything, BUT WE CONSTANTLY LET PEOPLE BE RANDOMLY SLAUGHTERED.  Kind of overshadows your accomplishments.

But what would Abbott feel ideologically constrained to say?  "Everyone has guns all the time everywhere with zero regulation" is his intellectual philosophy.  How can he bring himself to accept that it could lead to any sort of moral failure on the part of the country he pretends to love so well?  Sure, he might have the self-possession and ghoulishness to say something like "yes, I'm ashamed of the fact that by not arming every single teacher with flamethrowers and anti-aircraft missiles we allowed this to happen," but other than that, I think his only option might be to swallow the cyanide capsule.

I also wonder what gun fetishist parents tell their kids who are freaked out about the latest shooting.  Sure, to the general public they can spew out some word vomit about arming teachers and mental health and running away in the confusion as everyone loudly debunks their "points," but dang, man, they're your kids.  Don't you think they deserve a serious answer?  And yet, if you don't want to abrogate all your stated beliefs, how can that stated answer be anything but, "yes, sometimes children are senselessly murdered at school.  But you see, if we wanted to stop the murders, we'd have to do away withe murder weapons, which are sacred and holy.  So be comfortable knowing that statistically, it's highly unlikely that you personally will be murdered.  Love you sweetie, good night?"  I mean, it's true enough that any one person is unlikely to be a victim, but I dunno, man, telling your kids that they probably won't die but there are more important concerns?  Damn, man.  This is not a flattering conclusion, but I feel like they've internalized the idea that their kids are probably safe and they simply don't care about the possibility of the kids of people they don't even know dying.  I mean, sure, they'll act all sad and pious after the latest such event, but if they took at all seriously the idea that even if their kids are okay, other people's kids lives are just as important, they would be too horrified to continue the gun-worship.

(Of course, it's obvious enough that, while there are certainly true believers, quite a lot of gun fetishists definitely don't give a fuck about guns; they've just perceived, accurately, that obsessively paying obeisance to them is a great way to consolidate their base.  I'm at even more of a loss at the psychology of people that nihilistically two-faced than I am at the legit worshippers.)

I guess my only point is that, in just sadly concluding that gun violence must continue and if possible get worse, right-wingers have openly given up on the idea of civil society.  They don't like it; don't want it.  So maybe it's a bad idea to keep electing the fuckers?  IDK.