Okay I finally got to that part of the economist that contained the letters. About guns. And the very interestingly-worded debate. Where you can just about sense the tiny little 'fuck you' behind the words.

Sigh how bothersome. I tell you what. We should have guns. So we can shoot people before they kill 22 people. If people who don't feel like committing mass murder bring guns to school, that is. So. Not only that, we should therefore make everyone carry a gun. So next time anyone who feels pissed with the world can whip out the gun, but he won't be able to kill too many people, cause by then all the other people will also have whipped out THEIR guns and shoot at him. And with the psychomotor skills of the general population, the bystanders will have to worry. But it's okay, cause self-defense is a very good way to plead innocence in court.

And if you want to kill people, then you know what to do. Provoke some little brat who watches far too much violence videos. Little brat tries to act cool and go Huh hands where I can see them sucker! And you, after conveniently positioning your enemy behind the little brat, go BANG BANG BANG.

Eh walao self defense leh. Not your fault right. And besides, guns protect you against tyranny. Like if another hitler comes and decides to turn the oogalooga men and women (cause we're equal opportunity like that) against you in Holocaust II (Bigger and bloodier! Don't miss it!), you can whip out your gun and shoot someone dead and that'll help because it would totally convince the oogalooga (wo)men who are attacking you that you are NOT dangerous and NOT their enemy and that you DO deserve to live.

Yayyy. Hooray for guns. After all, if we've been doing so well with people killing others with knives/poison/sleeping pills/frozen fishes (otherwise known as blunt objects), we REALLY need guns on the scene to er. Stop killing. Cause that was what guns were invented for, you know.