Felon's gun possession raises concerns

When gun control doesn't work, it's time for more gun control. Here are the highlights:

Officers shot a convicted murderer Saturday night after he took aim at authorities following a two-hour standoff. He had a shotgun and two handguns on him, even though convicted felons aren't allowed to carry guns. Gun control advocates say the case has implications for tighter controls on illegal trafficking.

What??? Didn't he know it was illegal to be in possession of a firearm? I guess he did:

Peters' rap sheet includes 23 convictions, starting with a murder in the 1970s. Since then, he'd been back to prison for two more decade-long sentences -- for drugs, a felony assault, and repeated gun possession.

So let me get this straight. This guy has been convicted of TWENTY-THREE crimes, and has been released to menace the public over and over. The courts had him in their grasp, and decided to let him go. They even knew he was illegally obtaining guns, and yet still allowed him to roam freely.

Now when he commits another crime, again with a gun, the response is that we need more restrictions on law-abiding citizens to try to prevent him from having access to guns? Do you see anything wrong with this picture?

Let me make a different proposal: If you can't trust someone to lawfully use a gun, they belong in jail. If they're trustworthy enough to release to the public, they're trustworthy enough to own a gun.

Let me put it another way: If the convicted and released felon is the sort of person who you'd suspect might commit another crime, what makes you think that he won't be able to get a gun just because it's against the law for him to have one? If you think he's likely to commit another crime, why are you letting him out of the slammer to begin with?

If he is indeed reformed and worthy of regaining his freedom, then so be it. Whatever you decide to do with him, leave me and my freedoms out of it.