Why we need MORE guns, not less
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by mcar (a host of the General Discussion forum).
See, if the 7-year old here had had a gun, how much better would things have turned out..
(sarcasm)
A seven-year-old boy and his parents were shot dead inside their Ohio home by a man who police said lived across the street.
All the victims suffered multiple gunshot wounds, the Associated Press reported.
Three officers fired their weapons at {shooter, Kirk} and he was hit multiple times, the Dispatch reported.
Kirk, who police said was “a neighbor who knew his murder victims,” was taken to Mount Carmel West, where he died.
The neighbor was once considered a friend of the family, John Anderson's brother, Jason Lozier, told the Associated Press.
Kirk had previously been over the Anderson home and shared meals, but had been in some kind of argument in the past couple of months with John Anderson, Lozier said.
"My brother never really took it seriously. It was nothing ever serious," told the AP.
A motive for the triple murder was not immediately clear.
http://news.yahoo.com/boy-7-parents-murdered-intruder-142300945.html
Sigh... he couldn't just slash their tires?
= new reply since forum marked as read
terrible 
Would you mind editing your headline to read "fewer" instead of "less"? Thanks. 
Heads up everyone for a grammar lesson.
The word few or fewer refers to individual items. Less to a collective group. Example: I have less milk. You have fewer glasses of milk.
Guns are individual items. Ammunition would be considered collective, although bullets are individual. So, you have fewer guns after someone broke into your house and stole three of them. And since they took some of your bullets you have fewer bullets. Although, overall, you have less ammunition. But fewer weapons. Especially if you still have the knives. 
Hope that is helpful.
