Someone brought this story to my attention: link
The short version- this guy, Andre, stabbed his girlfriend to death, along with her two young kids, and cut out their hearts (well, actually, part of his girlfriend's lung which he thought was her heart). Even though he is obviously insane, and doesn't seem to understand that what he did was wrong, he was convicted by a (not fully-informed) jury and sentenced to death. He has plucked out his own eyes, eating one of them. He has tried to kill himself and seems to believe his victims are still alive.
The State, though its spokescritter, claims he is mentally ill, but not insane, and is putting on an act in order to avoid punishment. Horse pucky.
Anyway, I had commented that this situation was "Sad all around".
Then I was asked should people like Andre be able to "keep and bear arms"?
The question misses the point.
"Should" gravity exist? The right exists, it isn't a case of "should it" or "should it not".
It isn't within my rights to decide that for any person, nor is it within the authority of any State to make that decision for anyone.
A person shouldn't murder. It doesn't matter what tool is used. In this case Andre used 3 knives. If he wanted to murder he could easily have done so with bare hands. Any "law" that seeks (dishonestly) to restrict Andre's right to own and to carry weapons would not have affected his ability to murder. It would only disarm those he chooses to victimize.
I support Andre's right to own and to carry weaponry, and I wish he had been shot and killed when he went on his killing spree. This wasn't a case of too many guns, but of one too few.