nope, this is what happens when you dont have your guns in a secure place.
now this is what happens when you ban law-abiding citizens from having guns:
http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/violence_increase_with_British_gun_ban.htm
its a common mis-conception that the ability for the populace to aquire guns legally increases crime, it actually increases crime when you make guns illegal for everyone because the criminals, funnily enough, dont care what the law states. Where as people like me do, so when the criminal comes into your house, you now have to phone 999 and hope that he doesnt kill you or your family instead of the criminal being worried that you have a 9mm in a quick-access safe.
go look at the statistics, the states/countries with minimal gun laws have less crime, the states with gun laws where you cannot carry have crazy ammounts of crime i.e. LA, Detroit, Chicago, NYC, because the criminals know that you wont be able to defend your self and your family...
anyway, back on topic, what intrigues me is that the story advises he is on trial without a jury, but the constitution specifically states that if you are accused of a crime you will face a jury of your peers, which this 17 year old maniac has been denied.