EEE said, "How is that a country deals with a mass problem like Tylenol being spiked with poison years ago but we can't solve this gun issue?"

----

The difference is the 2nd Amendment. It's an excuse, really. You'd think that a strict interpreter of the Constitution, like Anton Scalia, would see the 2nd Amendment as a "dead" item - meaning only what it meant in its original context. To me, that says the right to bear arms extends only to the right to have arms similar to those of the day. We acknowledge this implicitly by not allowing the public to own nuclear warheads or fighter jets. No one is really clamoring to take away peoples revolvers or shotguns, the typical items of home protection. It's the automatic and semi-automatic weapons that would seem to me to be NOT covered by the 2nd Amendment. And its the volume and speed of death brought on by shootings using that type of hardware that is the worst of this problem.