I don't understand how your right to gun ownership is so encapsulating. Just the mere mention of any form of gun 'control' seems to spark a reaction like this.
Is it really the be all and end all of life? For people to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if they can't see?
I may be mistaken, but I get the idea that this dominates the brains of some American's a bit too much.
Perhaps I don't 'get it' because I live in a different part of the world. 
I for my part never understood why not all people had the American view on guns, no matter their own gunlaws. How can you not think that owning a gun for self-defence is a right? It has puzzled me since I was 5 years old and my dad told me how hard it was to legally get a gun in Sweden vs. America.
I suppose I used to too. I love gun's. Used one in the army (although spent more time polishing and cleaning the mofo than firing it)
When I first moved into this house alone (before the urchin) i paid a lot of money for a Beretta pistol. I was scared (Birmingham is twinned with scumsville) and had been burgled at my previous address. I came home to find them still upstairs ransacking my knickers drawer. Hence the reason i got the pistol.
I rarely talk about it, and don't brag about it because it is gone. One night while I was asleep on my sofa someone came through my patio door (ok ok it wasn't locked) and took the fucker from my hand. While I slept.
Despite this, I still kept my views about owning a gun and that didn't change until I became a mom and this coincided with several 'massacre' incidents in the US involving children. This made me believe that children have a right to grow up free from fear of being gunned down in their playground and that their right to do this supersedes anyone else's right to own a gun. I know it is not that simple. I can conveniently make it simple living in England. 
I ask you this with as much respect as possible... (seriously, no attempt at trolling)
Do you believe that another's rights end where your feelings begin?
Do you side with safety or freedom?
What if someone wanted to take away coffee because a child had a caffeine overdose? Would you have the same opinion?
What if someone wanted to take away cars because a child was hit by one? Would you have the same opinion?
I can't muster the minimal amount of energy required to answer your caffeine and car question. I think my sarcasm would confuse you too much.
FWIW I really couldn't give two shits and a fuck if you have guns. Stories of people shooting each other in America cause me little or no reaction. Gangs, police, burglars - I am indifferent. I wouldn't bother to comment if it was limited to these groups.
It isn't, though, is it?
I can't speak for the world and his wife but I tend to take notice when kids are massacred. Call me crazy, but those tiny white coffins bother the hell out of me.
I don't have the solution. Maybe some of the things suggested might not work. Fucking try? JUST TRY MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT HARDER FOR NUTTERS TO GET HOLD OF THESE WEAPONS!
Do nothing and the past will keep repeating. Any potential nutjob in the making already knows how to go out with a bang. They know already who to target to make 'world' news?
Or just don't bother. Keep your kids as sitting ducks. Then whine again about your rights every time it happens. If it hasn't already, it will soon become less shocking. Hurt less. You could even extend your 'rights for all' to kids themselves! Opportunity knocks for someone to design a nice lightweight weapon to fit in a school satchel.
My answer to you is about as respectful as your questions to me. Still happy to talk to Rage or Lit who have not asked silly questions.
A better solution is to treat the "nutters" before they shoot anyone. Rather than viewing them as evil, view them as sick. If you're looking to prevent school shootings, then take steps to prevent people from becoming school shooters. Stop bullying: 87% of school shooters were victims of bullying. Institute a system to allow for quick intervention if someone discusses a shooting. Fund more social workers in schools. These are all steps that could help. Ultimately, the problem isn't the guns; it's the people. Guns are just tools: they can be used for good or for evil, depending on the user.
If you think TA's trolling, even though he said otherwise, then believe so. However, I ask his question again: do you generally believe that it's better to be safe or to be free in areas where those values conflict? It seems like you have chosen safety over freedom. I would choose the opposite.
Source
How would you find them? How would you spot the loner who might bring his dad's gun to school one day but leave be the other loner who is, I dunno, a spazz, like you and me? And if the former said "no, I promise, I won't shoot anyone, never even entertained the idea", would you bring him in by force?
And how would that be supporting your notion of personal freedom?
Your logic is faulty, Odeon. Although it seems to work, you can't work backwards from who is destined to be a school shooter. People have free will, and they control their own destinies. It's a matter of probabilities and warning signs. As for the actual process, here are two links that outline the general principles.
How is my logic faulty? I asked how you'd spot the nutters you wanted to treat. I pointed out that it isn't a realistic option because you'd have to find them first.
Yes, quite a few of them were bullied but guess what: even more people were bullied but never went on to shoot anyone.
Call me crazy but I'd not limit myself to a single plan t prevent future shootings; I'd make sure to limit access, too. I know, it hurts your 'merican notions of freedom but that is a more fundamental difference between you and me than anything else here.
You seem like a rational person, Semi, rational and reasonable, but I sense the opposite when discussing guns.
Guns are not about freedom, basically. They have nothing to do with it other than on the surface, they are tools that can be used for just the opposite. In fact, they are more often used for just the opposite, in spite of what your 18th century principles would suggest.
A gun is a tool in the sense that a screwdriver is a tool. I already said that. Whether it is used for good or evil depends on the user.
Which is sort of what I said, above, but I do believe a comparison with a screwdriver is fundamentally flawed. Pretty sure most armies aren't equipped with screwdrivers.
But the question here is why the fuck anyone in their right mind would think it's OK to give a gun to someone legally blind, shrug and say that they are just as liable as anyone else?
You talk about prevention in one case but reject the idea in another.
I don't see any contradiction. Responsible gun ownership is a matter of individual capability. You keep posting bare assertions instead of backing yourself up, as if we're all supposed to accept without proof that no legally blind people is capable of using a gun. There are many types of blind. Do you think that all blind people see nothing except a cloud of black?
Rather than letting stereotypes of the blind rule the discussion, let's have some evidence. Here is a series of pictures that depict the US definition of "legally blind". Look especially at the last one. Would you argue that an individual with that impairment couldn't go to a shooting range and safely blast a few holes in a paper target?
These image are approximations, created to give someone with normal vision *some* idea of the problems involved. A very simple addition would be to add how poor lighting conditions affect the vision, but even that would have to be simulated.
But if this was about a tool used at a shooting range, I probably would not protest too much. But that's not the case here, is it? Be honest.
