OK, Jerry, fair enough. But once again I would ask what is the point in the context of this discussion? Training and good intention is sometimes not enough when it comes to combating terrorism. Shall we stop? Training and good intention is sometimes not enough in granting a drivers license, shall we stop? Training and good intention is sometimes not good enough, shall we abolish flying? The knee jerk response to these rhetorical questions is that I am being ridiculous, but I am not in the context of the observation you made.

I return to the predicate that this debate should be built on. And that is that guns, legal and illegal, are part of the fabric of this collection of States. I make the distinction regarding States with the intent of showing why comparison of us to countries like England, Scotland, Wales, or any other, isn't a valid comparison. The closest to a valid comparison would be Canada, and even that great country doesn't have the diversity of tradtions that exist in the United States. Even if one could ban weapons, the only thing that could be banned would be legal weapons. In far too many jurisdictions, the police are already outgunned by illegal weapons. While you would have some minor adjustment in overall death rate due to accident, you would have a rise in deaths due to violent crime. That is shown to be the case in every jurisdiction where guns are banned or severely restricted. Criminals would not stop their violent ways. Another way to demonstrate the point would be to ask this question. What is to be gained by taking guns out of the hands of lawful, trained and responsible gun owners like myself? There is nothing to be gained, and it certainly won't stop the horrific events that usually spawn this debate.

Mick