I subscribe to Western concepts of government, thanks; hence my disaffection towards my own government. That said, the guy in Denver went on a rampage because he was mad, AND because he had easy access to the means with which to go on the said rampage. Had there been stricter controls in place, the chances of him getting his hands on those same weapons would probably have been a lot lower. How does it make sense for it to be legal for any random guy on the streets to buy virtually any weapon that he wants? That appears to be what has happened in this case. It's not about where the police was when it happened; it's about how it was even allowed (to use this word loosely) to have happened in the first place. This is perhaps an extreme example and yes, Singapore isn't really the right comparison, but I can't help but think of this massive manhunt for this national serviceman (a kid of 18 or 19) who ran out of camp with an assault rifle because he was pissed at his girlfriend. One guy stole a rifle and the whole country panicked. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't need to worry about being shot by some loony when I re-watch the Dark Knight Rises in IMAX this weekend.
And yes, I think that's relatively normal, except the requirement that you need to be wounded which seems a bit stringent. That said, it's rational because citizens can't go around shooting people and claim that they were threatened. The government and the law has to protect the interest of the alleged offender as well.
The weapon buyer should have a clearance from a psychologist, but other than that, we'll have to agree to disagree.