For Want of a Gun . . .

If Steven Daniel Furtado had been allowed to carry a gun for his own protection he and his sweetheart might still be alive. But NO. Not in California, where a "weapon" is still described as something "that can be directed at a person in such a way as to cause him discomfort or injury." It was that way in the sixties when I first took up the sales of less-than-lethal self-defense items and it remains so to this day. This is so "vague" and wide it even covers my hands and feet, which I can CERTAINLY "aim at someone and cause him discomfort or injury." Did the ex-boyfriend "project something at Steven" that could injure him? Was what he used LEGAL? No. But if Steven had been armed, maybe he and his girls would still be alive. A typical result of liberal anti-gun laws. (Sacramento Bee)