It's easier to get a gun than to get a puppy

What ridiculous nonsense. I've never seen a "free guns to a good home" sign.

Yes, getting a pet from a rescue or shelter can be difficult but from a private seller it's just a cash transaction.

But I admire the click bait headline.

While the other examples in the article are fitting, obtaining a pet is the one example that is almost exactly like when buying a gun in the US: when buying a puppy from a private seller, you don't have to go through any checks.

In the Netherlands, to get a drivers license you need schooling (often 20 or more lessons of an hour), a written theoretical exam (of the rules and when you should break and when you are (not) allowed to drive etc), and a practical exam with a trained examinator (is that the word?) working at CBR. If you succeed, you can go to the city hall and request a license, which you receive in 1 to 2 weeks. Total costs: 2000 or more euros, taking months. It is really too easy in the US and A.

The only thing that makes certain guns more dangerous than other instruments is the ability to kill more than one person in quick succession. Unfortunately a bomb can do this even better -- and bomb building is old knowledge (except for atomic bombs which are too difficult and expensive for the average person to build.) We already make it very hard to acquire a fully automatic weapon. Bombs however?? TNT can be purchased in the form of those blockbuster fireworks. I am not sure what the solution is to terrorism. It doesn't seem that banning guns is a proper solution. And I'm not a fan of the great surveillance state either.

But if practically, arms cannot be made totally unavailable, and love cannot be taught -- then isn't the only solution to use intelligence to root out the pernicious?? I am just in a world of hurt over these tragedies and wonder what our best defense is against these loons.

As we pride ourselves on elegance of technological and purely algorithmic or sociological solutions, as HNers, it is hard to succumb to a state where "The cost of life is a risk of death at the whim of one who does not value life."

In some countries, this fragility of life is an accepted cost of living. Even if we confronted a person from that terorized country and asked them about terrorism, we'd probably be met with bitterness, nihilism, and support of practical solutions like vigilantism and an armed vigilant populace.

So where does the intelligent, socratic, and elegant hacker solution lie?

Because technology has always been about giving us more control of our environment. Making us live longer and more securely. Giving us freedom from the unexpected so we can do whatever it is that we want to do, as long as it does not hurt others.

And it seems rather terrible that despite all our advancements, someone with the least scientific or intelligent minds carrying antiquated tech like a metal tube and pieces of iron with black powder, to be able to destroy that security.

Will we all wear bulletproof suits in the future when polymer technology allows for paper thick protection? Effectively removing guns as an attack vector. And beyond that, much much later into the future, opting to upload ones brain into the cloud or a robotic body, effectively protecting against any and all physical attacks?

Since these futuristic solutions don't exist now, and have their own flaws like digital hackers -- whats our solution for the current day?

Looking forward to responses and discussion about full solutions. Because the classic rhetoric about gun control merely appeals as a way to decrease statistics but doesn't actually solve the issue in its entirety.