[TigersEye]

I hit that point in post #13. His right to own/buy a firearm was legally denied him. It didn't do any good. What measure would change that? If all guns were outlawed to all people he could still have gotten one. He could also have killed a lot of unarmed people with something other than a gun. Maybe a machete or a kukri? If a gurkha warrior can run down a trench full of Chinese soldiers with rifles lopping their heads off (and they have) then a nutball like this could too.

It makes more sense to me to remove the violently insane from society than to try to remove all inanimate objects from society. He could have gotten a job in a restaurant and stolen a cleaver and some butcher knives. He could have built a big bomb with fertilizer and kerosene or household cleaning products. He could have taken a car or truck and run down dozens when they were gathered outside for a rally. Where does the danger really lie in the object or the person? This ain't rocket science. If common sense makes no headway in your debate I think it's safe to conclude that the people you're talking to have chosen to ignore reason.

[NucSubs]

Wait...you said he had been deemed a danger to himself and others but Belasarius in #16 said the opposite.

And if he was not allowed to buy a gun how did he get one?

You see, their point is the system did not work.

Remember..I am playing devils advocate here.