>>>> Not everyone deals with stress the same and some people have alittle more experience dealing with stress under extreme conditions. Some people have witnessed the damage guns do in person as well and it is not something they would grab in anger.
>>>
>>>Then I would say you don't know yourself.
>>
>>That was fairly presumptuous. You know her better then she knows herself?
>
>Of course not but I can have my opinion.

But for that opinion to have any weight you'd have to know something that contradicts the facts that Tracy states. Everything I know about her lends a lot of believability to what she said.

Like Tracy and John, I've had access to lethal weapons, including firearms, every day of my adult life. I don't have a lot of anger problems but I used to find myself in situations where being armed seemed rational. Trained people who have weapons learn that weapons are not there to resolve anger issues and resorting to their use in those circumstances can often get you dead.

I completely agree that many many people shouldn't have guns. But since it is increasingly difficult for the state to rule on someones sanity or emotional balance I don't think legislation is going to keep guns out of the hands of those who are arming themselves to give credance to their anger. Institutionalizing people before (or even after) they harm others might, but that is not politically correct.