re: #106 kirkspencer

I want to know how the shooter got the guns. See, I hear a lot of flailing — a lot of assumptions.

There’s the mental health issue for example. To which I have to ask: if the weapons belonged to the shooter’s parent what good do mental health restrictions for ownership make?

Quantity? One rifle and two pistols. We don’t know anything yet about the weapon owners (whether the shooter or the shooter’s parents or someone from whom he stole them). It may be that they could ‘qualify’ for the weapons as an amateur competition target shooter. (An AR-15 chambered in .223 isn’t a hunting rifle. But it’s good for competitions.)

You are not going to shut down weapon ownership. Given that fact, the limits you can emplace need to be effective — which means dealing with family/friend use of the weapons.

It’s going to have to be more than registration and ownership. That’s just one of the facets to address. And education is going to be key here - mandatory safety training of some sort. (Probably with purchase, but heck, why not work it into the public education in general around 6th or 7th grade?) And part of the education is getting an understanding that the gun is a tool to be respected and understood and thus start to dispel some of the mythology that revolves about it.

Beyond that is addressing what was referred to as “nut control”. There needs to be systems in place to identify, *and help*, people with mental issues before they go overboard and decide to take their own lives - and unfortunately sometimes decide to take things out on others beforehand. Preventative actions about this are going to be cheaper in the long run (both culturally and economically) then keeping the same mindset and developing a fortress mentality about all the possible places a nut might decide to go off.