"Suzanne" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> Sorry, I'm not as intelligent as you are, but I don't care to solve your
> inconclusive riddle (if its one). Listen, you have your problems where
ever
> you live, but keep in mind that guns are not your solution to your
> predicament. You got one, he's got two. I'm only imagining a society
without
> guns so that we can prevent Columbine. You can fathom that if you have any
> sense.
>

Guns were NOT the cause of Columbine.
It was the fact that 2 boys were constantly allowed to be abused in their
school to the point where their only way of responding was violence.
And notice that all the gun laws currently in place did NOTHING to prevent
them from ILLEGALLY acquiring firearms to do what they did..
More gun laws would not prevent another Columbine. Just take Dunblane
England as an example. That occurred in a country with far less guns in the
hands of the public and even more restrictions on the accessibility to guns
by the public. Idem for the University of Montreal Massacre in Canada, and
the Port Arthur massacre in Australia.

On the other hand contrary to what the gun-controllers claimed when Florida
became a shall-issue state. Florida did NOT become the "Gunshine State".
Instead the rate of crimes agains individuals dropped much faster that in
those states that remained with gun-control..
IN the same way, compare Alexandria Viriginia, a bedroom suburb of
Washington D.C. and Washington D.C.By your premise D.C. should be a lot
safer than Alexandria, because Virginia is a concealed-carry state while
D.C. has a near-total ban of gun-ownership. And yet Washington has been the
murder capital while Alexandria is nearly crime-free.

Disarming the population does NOT disarm the criminals. It only makes the
law-abiding defenseless.
And your dreams of Utopia are just that. Dreams