What solution do you propose?

It's interesting that Fissinger would not "delineate all of the evidence that debunks that neccessity" (for protection). I challenge her to produce any such evidence. It's illogical to claim that self-protection is not necessary and then to say "these people are a clear danger to the rest of society", and "But the need for precaution is manifesting itself much closer to home." Which is it? Do we need protection or don't we?

Fissinger claims that there are those who carry without a permit, so how does not passing this law keep people who carry without a permit (though it is currently against the law to do so) from acting violently? No law can keep us safe. Any law that claims to so leaves us in danger of becoming complacent.

Our only viable option is to be ready and willing to protect those we love, but only as a last resort should we take up arms.

"That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment, to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion. Yet arms, I would beg leave to add, should be the last resource, the dernier resort." -GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to Mrs. George William Fairfax, Sep. 12, 1758

What we need is education and a healthy respect of guns, not articles bashing what is misunderstood. I dare Fissinger to spend time on a gun range and actually bother to ask gun owners why they own. If she were willing to give up her elitist view, she would find that the majority of gun owners are not driven by violence.