Funny thing (actually - "sad thing") is the comments below the article - particularly the idiots like "Cindy" who make comments to the effect of "if you take away all the guns, then criminals will not have guns and there will be no need for anyone else to own one to protect themselves". What a moron. I gaurantee the first time someone assaults her with nothing more than sheer strength, that she will probably think twice about that comment. Well.... maybe not. She seems pretty stupid to begin with. She even makes reference to the guy who shot up everyone in Binghampton in a way that made him sound like a law abiding gun owner to begin with. She missed something though (as most liberals do) - he wasn't legal to begin with. He wore a bullet proof vest in this multiple-murder (which is what is should be called anyway - a multiple murder, not a "shooting spree". A "shooting spree" should be a reference to having a good time at the range, not a violent crime that took someone's life). A bullet proof vest is illegal in that area from what I've read - only cops allowed to own that material there. So he was a criminal even before he pulled the trigger the first time. She also misses the point that the guns didn't kill anyone - a person did. The guns were simply the instruments he used. If he wanted to kill those people anyway, and guns weren't available to him, there were plenty of other ways he could have done it. Suicide bomb comes to mind.... (Oh yeah CINDY... nobody's used that one, have they???.... Dumba**!)
All the best,
Glenn