In a world of enhanced background checks, what would have been the grounds for preventing him from buying?
Also, is there a way to detect "stockpiling," like buying multiple handguns in one sitting?
Short of a ban, I'm just having a lot of trouble seeing how more "half measures" will have an impact on things like this.
That said, I'm not necessarily for a ban either.
An easy way would be to have a nationwide database/license/permit system. The grounds for preventing him from buying could/would have been him being on a no-fly list and being looked at as an ISIS sympathizer. Another element of this, specifically in conjunction with terrorists, is better cooperation and sharing of information between the federal government and local law enforcement.
Do you guys seriously not see it in my posts when I say "we need to take steps towards making it more difficult to aquire weapons".
I'm all ears for a suggestion. So far you guys just keep repeating that gun ownership is unecessary, that gun crimes would reduce if it weren't for availability, gun death stats would drop if it was harder to buy, I'm a weirdo cause I ghost hunt, etc.
Just once, tell me how we go about making it more difficult for John Q. Terrorist to aquire a gun legally and or illegally?
I see it, but then I see you make a lot of arguments that seem to go against your own statement, basically giving up on the idea because he would have figured it out somehow.
St. Paul and knapp made great points similar to the one I did earlier - if you make it more difficult, the goal is to increase the friction, not to just stop the whole thing altogether. You increase the likelihood of time/money/distance/conviction being deterrents in a person's head, you increase the likelihood of him accidentally making a mistake that notifies officials, you increase the difficulty of getting his hands on what he has to get his hands on, and you don't stop everyone, but you at least give the law a better chance to catch the guy, and you make it difficult enough that
some, not all, of these people give up because the effort/work involved is too much.
It's really sad, especially with the poignant reminder that Obama predicted something like this two weeks ago. 'Because of the NRA, I cannot prohibit suspected terrorists from buying a gun.'
As far as HOW, there have been many ideas already thrown out in this thread. Expanded and universal background checks with a centralized ID/permit system (especially at gun shows and private sales), more robust mental health requirements, repeating check-ups every X number of years, laws preventing particular types of people from being able to purchase guns period (such as domestic abusers and people on terrorist watch lists), MAYBE a ban on particular assault weapons (this is still entirely reasonable, as there is no need for these to exist outside of the military, but for some reason people freak out about this; maybe because of the fear-mongering associated with the word ban).
The most frustrating thing about all of this is that psychology and neurology tell us that in the wake of tragedies, instead of being able to have some humility and ask what we can do differently, people become surer of their beliefs and more entrenched in their camps as a survival mechanism to feel grounded in the midst of perceived upheaval.
