The UK and Europe: tight gun control, and very little gun carnage.

Japan and East Asia: virtually no guns, virtually zero gun carnage.

The U.S.: no meaningful gun control and extremely high violent crime rates; frequent gun carnage, including horrific school shootings so common they barely make the U.S. news.

The connection between guns and gun carnage is obvious to pretty much the entire world. But as long as gun control is prevented by U.S. electoral politics, then school shootings will continue to be a regular occurrence; and pretending otherwise is just a waste of time.

The U.S. is already armed to the teeth. When, exactly, will the U.S. become a "polite" society? and when is crime going to be deterred as a result of all of this weaponry?

You admit (through your silence) that where there are guns, there will be gun carnage -- especially in the U.S., which is awash in both. Yet you seem to be saying that if guns were not easily and readily available, the same crimes, including the same massacres of school children in America, would occur anyway, with criminals instead utilizing fire and sword.

I doubt that, and note that gasoline and all manner of knives are widely available in the U.S.; yet to my knowledge American school massacres always involve guns. In fact, I'm unaware of any American school massacre that has not involved the use of guns. It would seem that guns are the weapon of choice, so to speak, for those who slaughter American school children, just as guns enable and empower criminals in the U.S. generally.

But no worries: your guns are of course untouchable. No Democrats even talk about gun control anymore -- except those who trip over themselves fruitlessly trying to pander to the red-state gun "enthusiasts". My point is merely that with gun control off the table, it is not possible to seriously address school safety in America. This hopelessness is illustrated by the relatively few letters this discussion has generated among Salon's readers.

Xanthro, I did some quick "research" into gun violence statistics, devoting most of my limited time to two sites that appeared pro-gun. Two things were readily apparent:

1. U.S. gun carnage rates are most comparable to the worst statistical examples the developing world has to offer (South Africa, Colombia, Brazil, Mexico -- and Northern Ireland, before the peace), and are far, far higher than the rest of the developed world.

2. It looks like virtually every country has a non-gun homicide rate that seems to fall in a range between 0.5 and 3.0 per year per 100,000 residents; whereas gun carnage rates vary a great deal. Most interestingly, Canada, whose culture most resembles that of the U.S. (sorry, Canada), was listed as having a non-gun homicide rate of 1.40, less than but similar to the U.S.'s 1.98. However, Canada's gun homicide rate was only 0.76, far less than the U.S. (3.72). It was the same with Scotland (2.05 non-gun but only 0.19 w/gun), Finland (2.38 non-gun but only 0.86 w/gun), and so on down the line.

And that was a site that I believe was trying to make the case against gun control. Another site compared homicide rates in East Asia versus the U.S. The results, once again, prove that the lack of meaningful gun control results in much higher rates of crime and violence:

1991 Homicides (per 100,000 residents)

D.C. 80

Houston 37

Atlanta 51

New York 29

Singapore 1.8

HongKong 1.6

Tokyo 0.9

These results, though hardly surprising, should shame every red-state "values" voter.

I am unaware of any Democrats who are calling for gun control. The only time guns are even mentioned in political campaigns these days is when Democratic candidates have themselves photographed duck hunting, etc., to try to reassure gun "enthusiasts" that nothing will be done to stop the carnage ravaging America. Not that it ever helps said candidates, who are villified by people like you regardless of their pro-gun positions, simply because they are Democrats. Meanwhile, my only point is that with both major political parties competing to see who can most ardently defend your "rights" of gun owners, America will continue to suffer the sickening school shootings and workplace massacres that shock the civilized world, but that hardly raise an eyebrow in the U.S.

Stellaa, what a well-written and totally right-on post. To expand on your last point, we in America have always assumed that the German character must contain a fatal flaw -- a defect that enabled the rise of fascism. Of course we also knew that such a thing could never happen here. Americans and their 200-year old Institutions would never allow it.

And now we see not only that such a thing could happen, but that it has happened quite easily. All it took to bring down the American Republic was a perfect storm that included: 1) a flawed electoral system that enabled an extreme right-wing clique to seize power, despite not receiving the most votes in 2000; 2) an isolated yet uncannily-timed terror attack on 9/11; and 3) the concentration of media control in a few GOP-friendly hands.

Yes, Powell, Woodward, and a few other well-placed individuals (the Clintons and Tom Friedman certainly) might've changed history had they been willing to risk their "access". But the key has been the concentration of media control in a few corporate hands; and those few notables who did have the courage to speak out were marginalized as kook fringe extremists (Sens. Byrd & Kennedy) or silenced entirely (Donahue) by the media.

The lesson is that once an extreme right-wing clique gets its hands on the levers of power AND the mass media, game over. Better luck next time, humankind.