Originally Posted by dropnosky

No he didn't, and whats your point?

He died with two handguns and a rifle. Whether or not he owned them is preposterously unrelated to the fact that if legislation existed that prevented his MOTHER from owning them, he wouldn't have had the kind of access to such dangerous tools that he actually did have.

Whoever owned the dam things, they were legally owned, as has been the vast majority of weapons used in mass killings. Who cares if the killers themselves actually owned the weapons or not? The law abiding citizens they stole them from would be affected by legislation, which would impact availability.