Nah, I think cars are a much bigger threat to our safety. I like how it is never suggested to ban alchohol on account of deaths from drunk drivers, but the obvious and "easy" solution to troubled people going on rampages is to ban guns. That would be great! Because then only criminals would have guns! In fact, I think our police force should not be armed either, lets go all out European here! Policemen armed only with nightclubs. What do you think about that ferris? Sounds fun right? Am I right in assuming you would turn in your resignation the very next day if that happened? I am sure your job can be scary enough at times even with a pistol cliped to you side.

Someone, mentioned that if they banned guns people would still find ways to kill, then somebody else said that you couldn't kill that many people with any other weapon. That is a good point to a small degree. But what about explosives? I am no chemist, but from what I understand they are not too impossible to make with fairly easy to obtain material. That could do a good deal of damage, perhaps a could deal more than 32 dead. Even with a car you could probably nail a good deal a casualties in a very short and swift amount of time. Imagine plowing through an outside eating area of a resturant. Or a large line outside of a cinema. You could deal out a good amount of damage. I admit, 32 might be a bit of a challenge though. If you could get good with a bow, you might could take out a good deal in a short amount of time, much more stealthy than a gun aswell. I can shoot one pretty fast and pretty accurately myself, though I am not pro. I would have to admit 32 targets in that amount of time would be extremely hard. You could gas a dormitory while they are asleep. That would rack up a high death toll pretty quick.

My point is that the invention of the gun was by no means the invention of violence. By no means. Genocides have taken place long before the invention of the gun. Wars were fought, domestic desputes turned violent, people were murdered, all before the invention of the gun. Even if by some odd miracle guns were to cease to exist, people would still be killing people. Does anybody thing we might not ought to go to the source of the situation, people. Wouldn't that be more productive? I know that is what we have been talking about the whole time in here, and I was a big participant in, but doesn't anybody else find it annoying that things like this are used to springboard anti-gun campaigns? Before the blood is even cold we are singing out the evils that are guns and that it is all the fault of guns. Judging by some of the articles I have read, the kid doesn't sound like he was an great guy who one day just snapped, from the sounds of things this was a long time coming. As was McVeigh, and were the shooters in the Columbine case, as were the people involved in just about ever other case like this. Maybe this case is (should be) no more about guns than the incident of a man beating his co-worker to death with a hammer should be about hammers. Child molesters, what is our excuse there? I am sure banning guns would put a hault to that perversion.

Maybe we need to look out for our brothers a little bit better. America had a pretty distinct feel of "I am sorry, I don't have time for you!" that I haven't felt in any other country. I meet a lot of foreigners from all different parts of the sphere and one of the first things they always say about America is how cold and unpersonal we are. Something to think about.

EDIT: Holy crap I wrote a freaken long post. If you skip over my post for the sake of its lenght, please at least read the very last paragraph.