So let me get this straight...Our federal government gave 2000 assault rifles to Mexican drug cartels, who then killed a couple hundred people (and counting) with them; this same government gave Jim Holmes $26,000 with which he bought an AR15, two Glock 23s, a Remington 870, 6000 rounds of ammo, body armor , yada yada, and used to them to shoot 70 people, killing 12. And because of stuff like this, responsible, law-abiding gun owners need more restrictions placed upon their God-given rights? Yeah, that sounds about right.
I just find the prevalent logic surrounding this debate to be flawed. Guns were used in this massacre, so they want to ban guns. But no one wants to ban the car that got him there, or emergency exits in movie theaters, or body armor for that matter. Just the guns.
The whole thing is especially ludicrous in light of the fact that this guy was able to booby trap his apartment with some very sophisticated explosive devices. If he had been unable to obtain firearms (which seems like wishful thinking to me), what would have stopped him from devising an even more deadly plan to kill people? Amazing so many can't think even one step beyond their knee-jerk, gun control reactions to events like this.