To control or not control? Preventing a new VT massacre

Evidently while I was away from the web, a lot happened in the world.. Most of it overshadowed by the horrible tragedy that took place at VT this Monday (nice sum-up available here) – no doubt a tragic and horrible event that once more helped me lose yet another piece of my rapidly decreasing trust in mankind as a whole.. Yet, somehow, possibly while looking at the comments to this post, my anger towards the gunman and everything that happened quickly faded in the light of my wonder, amazement and downright anger that this so quickly turned into a heated debate over ye olde gun-control issue.

The fact aside that I feel somewhat humiliated on behalf of the lives lost in this episode and those left behind seeing that this is instantaneously turned into a political debate, I was shocked to see that some people would actually advocate the fact that this proves why stricter gun-control would be a bad idea!

Maybe I’m just from a too peaceful neck of the woods, maybe growing up in a small, friendly nation with tight gun-control and a low rate of violence has left me unable to understand the view that people having ready access to gun would make gun-related crimes less frequent? HUH? However is that supposed to work? The fact aside that lose gun-control makes it easier for a would-be psychopath to get his hands on a gun, wouldn’t readily available guns create even more fear and anxiety in society, creating even more fear and gun-related incidents? Accidents?

For the love of God, can someone (possibly someone from God’s own country) please explain to me how more guns are to create less gun-related violence? I’m confused and/or horrified.