>>
>>But, Bill, in a sense, you're entirely correct. If the gun was not there, it would not have happened. In any way you cut it, if you reduce the accessibility of guns in general, the less of these kind of incidents would happen.
>
>enter people capable of reading and building small bombs.

Not entirely the same, you can build small bombs with commonly available chemicals, but this is something you'll have to plan in advance and is not something you'd apply when you step out the bed with a bad mood. A gun is too easy to use to kill lots of people. Add the accidents that happen with those to the mix, there is quite a difference.

>>Personally, it makes my heart puge out to see that people love their guns more than those kids who lost their lives. A real modern society does not need guns, except for military, law enforcement and hunting. There is no reason why (semi) automatic guns should be in use by any other than the military.
>
>agreed. But I prefer the swiss way of teaching grown ups to handle and keep safe low grade military weapons.
>And not really an unsafe place to live.

I'm not entirely up to date with all the ins and outs, but AFAIK the Swiss allow guns for their national defence (militia) and will receive millitairy training how to handle the gun. Automatic weapons are forbidden and there are strict rules in terms of transport and storage.

>>I appreciate that it is part of the American history and culture, but you'll have to face the fact (and not those fabricated by the gun lobby), that you are not creating a safer society with guns. Of all western countries, the US is the most violent country and widely spread availability of guns has everything to do with this.

>too sweeping a statement for me. Having forefathers easily P.O. and melting pot culture with
>no clear behavioral rules in place at state level might be part of it as well.

That indeed might play a role in this. The more reason to do something about it.

Walter,