WOW!!! This is the most brilliant solution to this problem that I've seen so far... let's all carry firearms, make them completely legal for everyone to carry, so that more are on the streets for people like Cho to have access to. Then, when someone pulls his weapon out for defense, everyone else can pull theirs out, and we can have a cool gunfight, just like in the "old west". It's funny, the rest of the world is moving towards the future, and we'd like to step back into the "old west" mentality and days. I'll meet you at the "O.K. Corral" partn'r!

I think you are the only saying that everyone should have a gun. You need to look at history before you say that taking guns is moving to the future. Hittler took all of the guns. Pol Pot took all of the guns. If that is your future, I don't want any part of it.

R.E.A.D. my original post. Never said that we should take guns away... only more stringent controls as to how we hand them out... i.e., ensure that an individual meets a set of criteria other than presenting two picture IDs.

...ensure that an individual meets a set of criteria other than presenting two picture IDs. I mean no insult, son, but you're just plain ignorant on the subject of what one has to do to legally buy a gun in the US. Cho passed a background check. He only slipped through the cracks because his ajudication of mental illness was nto properly reported.

Yes it is related. You are twice as likely to die from being treated by a doctor as being killed by a firearm. If you are concerned about the death of people, you would start with trying to make Doctors safer. That has the possibility of allowing more people to live than getting rid of firearms. If you are not concerned with peoples lives, that just leave that you don't like firearms and want them outlawed. You say that you are blaming it on the fact that people can die from the use of firearms, but that is obviously not true.

I don't care how many times I'm more likely to be killed by a doctor. I happen to have a fantastic doctor, so I'm not worried about those statistics. I am worried that when I send my son to the mall, he doesn't get hit by a stray bullet in a drive by shooting. I am worried that when I send my son to a public school, he's not the first one to be hit by a psycho's bullet. Because according to a lot of people here we should all carry weapons and pull them out whenever we see a gun, just like during the old west. Well, what if my son is the first one the psychotic killer encounters and doesn't have time to reach for his "old west" .45. Bottom line... relating the number of doctor deaths in the country does not concer me and is irrelevant to this subject. We have systems to take care of that problem, it's called medical malpractice lawsuits.

So you are willing to trade your son's life for money. That is sick.

Don't know where you came up with this comment... confused. You must not be reading too well.

You said that you were fine with a doctor killing your son because you could get money for it.

LOL... No Ownership... READ (R.E.A.D) what I said, I said I'm not concerned about doctors killing their patients, as for me, I'm very happy with my medical system (military medical care). Also... this is unrelated. When doctors kill patients, then you bring a malpractice lawsuit against them. We're talking gun control here... not medical malpractice.

No. You said that you were afraid that your son would be killed by a stray bullet at the mall. Your son is twice as likely to die from being treated by a doctor. You said that that does not concern you because there is medical malpractice insurance (money). I know you are talking gun control. You say you want gun control, but is not because people are killed with guns since more people are killed by doctors than guns.

Again... never said that. And Again.... I'm happy with my medical care. If you're not happy with yours, change doctors or join the military and use the one I'm using. Lastly... again... medical malpractice is not related to gun control. Next.

I don't care how happy you are with your medical care. You are still twice as likely to be killed by a doctor as a gun. You don't like guns for some reason and are blaming it on their capability to kill people, but you don't care if people die if you can get money for it.

LOL... face it cpudoc... your afraid of doctors. That must be why you relate gun control to medical malpractice. Real educated comparison.

Nope. Not afraid of doctors, but I do recognize that one of them could kill me and that there is a bigger chance of me dying by the hands of a doctor than by my 14 year old son and either his SKS, AK-47, .30-06 Remington 700, Ruger 10/22, 12 gauge Winchester 1300, or any one else with a gun.

I don't care how many times I'm more likely to be killed by a doctor. I happen to have a fantastic doctor, so I'm not worried about those statistics. I am worried that when I send my son to the mall, he doesn't get hit by a stray bullet in a drive by shooting. I am worried that when I send my son to a public school, he's not the first one to be hit by a psycho's bullet. Because according to a lot of people here we should all carry weapons and pull them out whenever we see a gun, just like during the old west. Well, what if my son is the first one the psychotic killer encounters and doesn't have time to reach for his "old west" .45. Bottom line... relating the number of doctor deaths in the country does not concer me and is irrelevant to this subject. We have systems to take care of that problem, it's called medical malpractice lawsuits.

Do you understand the term "Amendment"? It means a change/addition to an original document. We can always amend the amendment, we're not talking about the bible, we're talking about law --------------------- Then move to change it. There is a process in place for this.

You said: "take guns away from those that do not qualify or are not willing to endure the stringent background checks and licensing requirements for ownership" Now just how are we going to take the guns away from criminals when we cannot keep them away from drugs? Do you really think criminals are going to 'realize' they don't actually qualify to have guns and turn them in?

Easy... If the Europeans can do it, we can...here are some ideas... 1. All those that own a weapon today would simply go through the process, re-register, re-license, get screened, whatever new guidelines/laws the federal government sets. 2. Anyone who does not abide by the new guidelines/laws, that is caught with a weapon, automatically receives a $10,000 fine. Anyone committing a crime with a weapon, and did not abide by the new guidelines, it's an automatic, minimum, 20 year prison sentence on top of whatever his sentence is for the crime itself.

Would that be these Europeans, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6194122.stm where 28% of thier criminals are carrying guns? I have to wonder what percent of our criminals are carrying guns.