I can understand SPB's point. Viewed from a safe distance these atrocities look like a novel form of population control. Many Americans love it, so what the hell? (How many in Roseberg campaigned against their own sheriff's views on gun control when he wrote to the Vice President?)

I'm not sure whether the views ascribed by SPB to some Republivcans is actually party policy. If it is, they might consider providing a gun to every toddler. The cost could be offset by savings on the law-enforcement payroll. It would cerainly push up the body counts, though I would suggest simple six-shooters so that toddlers are limited to six murders without reloading.

On the question of law enforcement, the US has an admirable record of murdering perps rather than wasting time and money on bringing them to trial. This is just as the perps would expect. Staying alive to face their own shamed and ruined families and to dwell for a few years on the wider misery they've sown would lack glamour.

Ebbie is right that the glorifying terminology is unhelpfu. At the very least let's call them "gunpersons" rather than "gunmen" and have some positive discrimination. That way a few women might be encouraged to get involved. My impression - again from a distance - is that blacks are also under-represented.