Therein lies the problem with our gun laws. The man had no police record and passed all legal qualifications and background checks required for gun ownership. My problem is with the necessity of anyone owning a firearm larger than a pistol for personal protection or a rifle or shotgun for hunting.O Really wrote:I always find it more disturbing when they say a shooter's firearms "were all purchased legally" than if he had stolen them or bought them black market. But in this case, it brings up an interesting question. The guy had 40 guns, all "legal" but nobody - family, friends, gun shop people - found that peculiar in the least? So let's say that for all intents and purposes, he was just another "good guy with a (big collection of) gun." Just exactly the type of guy the NRA buys Congressmen to protect. It would appear, with the evidence available today, that there is no way to tell the difference in a "good guy with a gun" and a potential mass shooter. Well, unless the guy with the gun is Black, Muslim, Mexican - then he's a bad guy. If he's wearing camo with an NRA patch - then he's a good guy. I think I've got it.
Weapons that can rapid fire are good for one purpose only and that's to kill people.
His wealth allowed him to purchase a number of weapons, all legally. Unfortunately, mental incapacity can't always be detected in a gun store, and it sure can't be legislated. I believe the only answer is to completely ban and outlaw possession of weapons that can be turned into WMD's.