> That you can do.

Explain how. Bullets are naturally covered by the "right to bear arms," which would otherwise be an empty phrase.

> no claim to any any moral authority over the rest of the world.

No one here has made that claim.

> You made a big thing of the Twin Towers bombing, starting a war

Yes, I must acknowledged that we responded when attacked by a foreign foe that had already blown a hole in a US Navy vessel and had officially declared war on us in a 1998 statement by bin Laden, for which we'd also shown forbearance. Britain subjugated India and repeatedly appeased Hitler. That led to war and no end of other stuff, but likewise has nothing to do with strict or lax gun laws, or civilian homicides committed by (according to the cited figure) 1/10,000 of the otherwise very law-abiding US population?

What's more, according to the link there were 551 homicides of all kinds in England and Wales alone (never mind Scotland and Northern Ireland) in 2013 - a dozen times the gun homicides your post chooses to focus on. Still a very low rate, but showing once again that many murderers don't even need guns.

Gun homicides in the US are actually in decline. Nobody is sure why. And as Ebbie cogently notes, few Americans (the people affected) even want to "ban all guns." As posts on this thread show, the claim that we "don't even twitch" is laughably false.

Some countries need no more than a "twitch" to pass legislation that is far more dangerous than the laws of a slow-moving republican democracy. Fortunately I don't live in one of those places.

I notice too that the US doesn't even make the top-twenty list of nations with the highest murder *rates* per 100,000 population (2010-2011). Most of these nations are Third World countries inhabited by the peaceful "earth people" of New Age song and story.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/262963/ranking-the-20-countries-with-the-most-murders-per-100-000-inhabitants/

Just FYI.