The column alleges that Florida's lax gun law is responsible for the actions of Arthur Kane, who killed one man, wounded another, then killed himself after losing close to $15 million in the stock market crash. I fail to see how the lax gun law had anymore to do with the murder than the services of the stock brokerage firm had to do with the loss of Kane's fortune.
As a responsible gun owner, I don't favor the everyday wearing of sidearms, not do I favor any stricter control of firearms except for plastic handguns. However, I don't feel that the column fairly addressed the issue of gun ownership. By showing only the extreme cases as examples, and not acknowledging the responsible gun enthusiast, the article was one-sided and unfair.
I'm sure if Kane couldn't get his hands on a firearm, he could have carried out his nefarious actions by some other means.