Well, would you look at that: every teenager in the age-of-stupidity years is carrying a weapon in the army, and we hardly hear about horrific cases. Amazing.

Would you look at that indeed—those teenagers are under a regime, a framework, and military discipline. And even so, there is quite a bit of smuggling and theft from the army. In the United States weapons are freely available, and would you look at that (or maybe not), the reality there is completely different.

I mean when they go home on leave. We have not heard about shooting incidents in various arguments and scuffles. So fine, let it be more open but under legal regulation. No need to go to the extreme like America, and no need to go to the extreme like the current situation in Israel.

The question is starting to become ill-defined. I do not have a sharp line or criterion, and I assume you do not either. In general, I do not see what there is to gain from this. Only to lose.

My view is that in order to deny a person his rights, you need a justification. As long as nothing has been proven otherwise, I tend to think a person has the right to defend himself with a weapon. True, it has been shown that America is problematic. Okay, so not like America. There is still a long way to go before that.