>>>But that is the point. Our culture is the product of our history. And guns exist - lots of them. the question is what social policies can minimize the impact of evil.
>>
>>The real question we should be asking is how do we make that number of guns much lower. It won't be easy and it won't happen fast, but sooner or later, we have to tackle the problem.
>>
>
>But again the problem is not the guns but who has them, Oddly the very people who wnat more gun laws are often softer on the prosecution of crime committed with those guns. I certainly understand the wish for less violent culture and I would be perfectly happy if owning a gun required all kinds of restrictions - the problem is that to people who want to use a gun to break the law gun laws aren't really much of a problem.
>

But what percent of the guns that are currently in violation of gun laws start out as legally owned guns. I don't think there are a ton of manufacturers out there making guns for the black market. People buy guns legally and then they're stolen or they sell them or ... Over time, fewer legal guns would lead to fewer illegal guns.


>>>It is glib to say that guns don't kill people - people kill people. But there is some truth in it. Violent gangsters in Scotland ( and the Krays in 60s London ) used swords. Okay, maybe harder for mass murder, but if you're the guy getting whacked it isn't much consolation to know you're part of only a small group.
>>
>>No, not if you're the one, but it is consolation to the ones who don't get killed because other weapons are much less efficient.
>
>Yes, bombs are much more efficient. Did you see what the death toll was in Baghdad on the day of the VT shooting. I really believe the change must be cultural, not tinkering with trying to limit the means.

Yes, bombs are more efficient, but we don't seem to be having a lot of problems with people with mental illness blowing things up. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's certainly not the weapon of choice.

Tamar