[Moneyguy1]

Again....the duels between advocates and the rest of the world.

Frankly, as I have posted before, I am NOT in favor of banning firearms, nor am I in favor of legislation that makes it impossible to own same.

What I AM tired of is the asinine mantra of : "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." That may be true, but if anyone with a modicum of common sense reads the knee jerk responses that "NOW I'm gonna start to carry" you can see the fear that proliferation breeds. Is Lott correct that if everyone carried, things would be more civil and peaceful? For some reason, I seriously doubt that would be the case. THere is always going to be the crackpot who will get his hands on a firearm and do damage. I shudder to think how many more victims there might have been if the students were also armed, firing at whoever they thought was the perp.

I do not agree that it is universally difficult for someone to kill with a firearm. Unless your intended victim is similarly armed, the physical damage to you as the shooter is nil. There is a physical, emotional and psychological disconnect. Hand to hand combat involves risk to both parties; an armed individual against one who is not armed is a one sided contest.

"Guns do not kill people. People with easy access to guns kill people."

I have wondered about the trouble spots in the world where firearms really do proliferate. Seems as if in these places the death tolls are pretty high, relatively speaking. Anyone have any independently gathered data on this?