Red, not sure I follow you and I'm interested enough to want clarification on what you're asking me to imagine?

Natron
1. Why not use IED terminology? Isn't that pretty much an EXACT description of what we believe was used?

2. Of course I blame the gunman in the shootings. But unlike you I don't believe that all problems have exactly one solution. Yes, the gunman was a whackjob. An in all liklihood if he had access to knives only, he'd have killed people with them. But, and this is critical, since he had access to a less lethal weapon, he'd have a much lower chance of killing the same number of people.

3. At least one point of anti-bomb laws is to be able to arrest people with bad intentions BEFORE they commit the crime, vs. after. You get a tip about someone buying a truckload of fertilizer, you can act before they blow up a government building.

To the rest -- I think guns are a super complex issue. Please don't let my fencing here with Natron make you think I belive otherwise. I do think a legitimate conversation should be had about how to balance the benefits of gun ownership for personal safety and sporting activities against the idea that anyone can buy any imaginable weapon (machine guns, gatling guns, howitzers, whatever), and do so free of any required training, at any age, and without any concern about their mental health.

These are complex issues, and I support neither the draconian position of outlawing all guns of any kind, nor the equally draconian position that all weapons are fine anywhere/anytime.