[7] The circumstances of the shooting led to an examination of gun politics in the Czech Republic and police rules of engagement against active shooters.

[9] Due to similarities between the perpetrators, the shooting was compared by Czech media and experts to an explosion that took place two years before in Frenštát pod Radhoštěm, another Moravian town lying 90 km northwards.

[10] Before the shooting, Kovář's family became worried about his mental state to the point that they contacted authorities in connection with his possession of a gun license.

[13] Armed with a CZ 75B semi-automatic pistol, which is manufactured in the town, and an Alfa 820 revolver,[1] Kovář opened fire without any warning immediately after entering the restaurant, shooting his victims directly in the head.

[16] The policemen were armed with the standard equipment for Czech police officers: holstered pistols (mostly with variants of CZ 75 that was also used by Kovář), body armor, and a select-fire rifle stored in their cars.

[16] Not knowing the status of the civilians, the police decided not to return fire, covered the exits, and waited for the arrival of a tactical unit.

[16] At 12:56 pm, Kovář called a Prima TV station crime news reporter, claiming that he was being harassed by multiple people and that he had hostages whom he threatened to kill.

[22] Kovář was the son of a worker in the local Česká zbrojovka Uherský Brod (ČZUB) firearms factory, the largest small arms manufacturer in the country.

[1][16][23] As more information about Kovář's notoriety among neighbors surfaced, focus of investigation shifted towards the circumstances under which he gained and retained a gun license and firearms.

According to Section 23 of the Czech Firearms Act, an applicant may not be granted a license if they have committed more than one misdemeanor against public order in the previous three years.

[29] The Czech government had made a decision to introduce a central registry for all misdemeanors in October 2014, planning to have the system working within two years.

[26] According to the Uherský Brod mayor Patrik Kunčar, Kovář's family members tried to prevent him from having the license renewed by pleading with his general practitioner not to grant him the necessary health clearance, since they felt threatened and considered him mentally unstable.

[9] A few days after the shooting, the Ministry of Interior announced its deliberation about making the gun license registry accessible to psychiatrists in order to give them the ability to report to police possible changes of mental state of their patients having an impact on their eligibility to possess firearms.

[33] Police were criticized for acting in contradiction with their own rules of active shooter engagement which, inter alia, include the following:[34] One of the main topics of debate after Kovář's rampage became the way police dealt with him, especially whether the first two responding officers were, under the circumstances, supposed to immediately engage and neutralize Kovář, and whether the decision to wait for the arrival of the tactical unit was sound.

[8] The debate became more vocal after a cook, who managed to escape the rampage, claimed that she heard a slow series of single shots coming from the restaurant after the police had retreated.

[16] According to the Chief of the Zlín Regional Police Department, Jaromír Tkadleček, the Uherský Brod district units present had enough manpower and equipment, including select-fire rifles, to engage Kovář.

[37] According to Tkadleček, even if URNA had its headquarters directly in Uherský Brod, it would not have changed anything about the timing nor the manner in which the police engaged Kovář.

Meanwhile, the Minister of Interior commented that the police were already in the process of hiring 4,000 new officers (about 10% of its total manpower), thus reversing cuts enacted by previous governments.

[39] Within a minute, the local police station chief arrived and ordered them to stand down, began securing the perimeter, gathering information, and preparing an engagement plan.

[39] The fact that the police rules allow passing of command during engagement had been condemned a week earlier by Member of Parliament Stanislav Huml, who pointed out the Czech firemen's rules, according to which the first person in charge at the place of engagement remains in charge even if a general happens to come to join an operation afterwards.

[41] As of May 2015, the only direct outcome of the inquiry into the police response to the shooting was the lowering of wage of a dispatch officer, who advised the policemen over the radio not to engage "so that nothing worse happens".

According to MPs, the police left much to be desired in regards to communication and most importantly, they wrongly decided to believe Kovář's claim of having hostages even though the witnesses could have readily confirmed that everyone inside was most likely dead.

[44] Some members of parliament, such as Miroslav Antl, Chairman of the Senate Constitutional Committee, commented that the licensing process is thorough enough, and pointed out that he considers carrying a concealed firearm to be a necessity due to a variety of reasons, especially during a time of rising threats of Islamic terrorist attacks.

[46] MF Dnes pointed out that despite the steady rise of firearm ownership in the country since abolition of restrictive communist legislation after the Velvet Revolution, the number of intentional homicide victims has been steadily falling since its peak in 1994.

[25] During a press conference on 26 February 2015, Chovanec introduced five areas that were to be scrutinized in connection with the Uherský Brod attack: the communication of national police with municipal authorities, possible changes in crisis plans, operational range of tactical teams, and enhanced training of policemen.

[17][18] Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka, who was on a trip to South Korea at the time, said in a statement, "I am shocked by the tragic attack that happened today in Uherský Brod.