What gun laws would of prevented the reacent shootings?

watching MSNBC today the anchor made this statement while background checks would not have stop the lattest shooters from acquiring their weapons we need universal background checks

Maybe just enforcing laws would be a start.

None, evil exists in the world and will always exist. Take every gun away and destroy them then they use machetes, or shall we ban all cars and trucks. What is beyond my belief is that we have still not been hit by a chemical attack ( of great proportion) so in conclusion no guns there are dozens if not hundreds of other ways.

Obviously none except tighter restrictions on owning guns. For example, the UK requires all gun owners to have a good reason for owning one or they don't get a licence, and doesn't allow handguns. That works pretty well - the last time the UK had a mass shooting incident was in 1996.

The phrase is "would have" and there is no such word as "reacent".

Okay, since the guns were purchased legally how about a complete ban on guns? That would have definitely prevented the shootings.

Now I'm not proposing we ban all guns, but I just wanted to show how your argument is stupid.

The problem is pro gun people will shoot down every regulation because its not 100% completely foolproof perfectly going to stop every possible shooting. They don't care about regulations that might reduce the rate of shootings or make it harder and less likely to happen. They basically expect every shooter to be a highly determined genius that can navigate around every rule put in place to stop them.

1) red flag laws most likely would have stopped what happened in Dayton, since this guy had been shown to be dangerous and violent since he was in high school

2) marking right wing extremist groups as terrorist groups may have stopped the shooter in El Paso since there is a good chance he would have been on peoples radar following everything he spewed online

It is already illegal to murder someone.

It is already illegal to shoot someone except in legitimate self defense.

It is already illegal for rights-suspended convicted felons and mentally ill people to possess a firearm.

Having proof of identity and passing a background check are already required to buy a firearm in a commercial sale.

Realize that until 1967 one could buy a firearm through the mail with a money order and have it sent to General Delivery with no ID requirement for pickup. If the problem was firearms then there would have been mass shootings when one could buy them anonymously. There also weren't mass shootings in the 1970s or 1980s - which was before the backgrounds checks were required for commercial sales.

Regarding mass shootings, the common factor in mass shootings is unaddressed mental illness, and that is true of both the Ohio and Texas shootings which recently happened. The families, friends, and associates of the shooters almost always KNOW the shooter is dangerously mentally ill but there is NOTHING they can do about it. The only long-term treatment option is psychotropic drugs, and a side effect of the drugs can be to make the patient even more paranoid/delusional. Some kids are effectively turned into sociopaths by the drugs.

It is not a coincidence that the modern phenomenon of mass shootings started in the same decade (the 1990s) the mental hospital system for the USA was dismantled.

It's not just gun laws. The one guy showed clear signs of violent tendencies and mental health issues, with hit lists of his high school colleagues, but everyone- the school, his family and the other kids, kept it quiet. There was no record of his instability which might have kept him from being able to purchase guns. There need to be more systems in place to spot these mental issues and deal with them.

Saying homicide is illegal while arming mentally disturbed people is like insisting gambling is illegal while hosting a casino.