>It would probably be more useful
>to talk about banning cheap
>weapons of any kind, and/or
>large capacity capability for firearms.

Agree, in a society such as the USA, completely eradicating firearms is probably an exercise in futility, but we can certainly start with rapidly-repeating firearms - is there really a need for these in society (i.e. hunting) outside of law enforcement or the military? Hunters probably just want the rifle that fire off a couple rounds at a time instead of mass-spraying hundreds of bullets in two minutes.

>I personally think the most effective
>discussion would be in regard
>to personal responsibility for access
>to weapons, access by children
>and by anyone for whose
>use they are not intended.
>Safety proof them, separate the
>guns from the ammo,
>and lock both securely. Those
>things and maybe some other
>relatively simple and doable precautions
>might lessen a certain category
>of gun related tragedies.

Right, but Adam Lanza clearly had time to put guns and ammo together before making his way to the school - even if they were both securely locked, Adam likely had a way to get ahold of them, being familiar with his mother's way of keeping house.

The bigger question to me is whether we should be focusing on the gun issue or on taking steps to identify those with possible mental or anger issues and ensuring they have a safe outlet to release their anger/frustrations/whatever ... or a combination of both? Whatever the reason and while the details are still fuzzy on the case, it's clear that Adam Lanza had no business in being in a household with guns present.