On 27 Aug 2012 12:02:14 GMT, Han wrote:

"ChairMan" wrote in :

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#

The type of gun the shooter used is legal (I believe) everywhere in the US.

Chicago? DC?

It was illegal for him to have it without a license in New York City.

It was illegal for him to CARRY it without a license. I don't know the NY gun
laws well enough to know if it was illegal to posses. If not, the above
sentence contradicts the first.

He bought it in FL years ago, I believe legally.

Point?

Eventually we might find out
when exactly he bought it, whether he had a background check (no reason
that I have seen published that he should have been refused), and how he
transported the gun into the city. So indeed, under current law, he evaded
detection as a nut case

If this is true, how would you propose that "nutcases" be "detected" in the
future? You do know that it is already illegal for a certified "nutcase" to
possess a firearm?

despite there having been an order of protection against him.

So the system doesn't work but you want more of what doesn't work? Why? So it
infringes on the non-nutcases (who are the only ones who will follow the law)?