More of the same

As the world knows, shooting sprees are rather common in the US. So far, 5 occurrences since the beginning of the year 2008. It's none of my business to have a say on that matter of course, though I'm a little surprised by the arguments advanced by those among the Americans who advocate that:

1°) It's part of America's history and culture. Like maintaining a pattern of social relationships from the time of the colonists is something positive per se. Well, all right, this is none of my business, once again.

2°) More surprising, those people say that the best way to prevent these killings is to provide more guns and rifles to everybody so that would-be killers would think twice before attacking or could be shot before they cause too much havoc. Hmmm... Well, maybe is this argument valid in the end, what do I know?

But why not apply this very same logic to nuclear weapons? The more H bombs there will be, the safer the world also will be, won't it? So why did the US and the Ussr negotiate for years during the cold war in order to diminish the overall number of each other's nuclear warheads? Weren't these negotiations held in the name of peace? These talks even led to international disarmament treaties.

And following the same argument of providing weapons to everybody to secure everybody's security, why wouldn't the Iranians be allowed to get their nuclear bomb then? Are certain weapons the exclusive privilege of those who already possess them? Like "I have a gun and I don't want you to have one because I hold a superiority position I don't want to lose".

But wait... isn't that the mindset of thugs and criminals who indulge in mass killings?

Did I miss some part of the reasoning here?