>>>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/from/ET/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Since he was never prosecuted for any crime, he was able to purchase the weapons. However, there is ample evidence that he was mentally ill... This article doesn't mention his English teacher contacting the police earlier due to disturbing writings (that was on morning news)
>>>>>
>>>>>As you seem very reluctant to ban guns in the US I would have thought additional tax on them could be used to pay for additional checking of the buyer and of their justification for buying a gun.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nick
>>>>
>>>>Justification? I thought all the buyer needed in the U.S. was to show a lack of any criminal record. Does he also have to show some sort of justification?
>>>
>>>Yes thats right. But some investigation of what the gun is for would be a good idea plus evidence of training in how to use it. Its an offense to use a car without a license proving you have been trained how to use it, the same should be true of guns.
>>
>>Personally, I feel that is reasonable, and I would comply. However, I have noticed a trend that most hunters/gun enthusiasts seem to be Republican and are against more regulations and government interference in general.
>
>Yes the training could also incorporate some element of checking you aren't a complete nutter. It wouldn't be foolproof but it would probably have caught this guy.

Now when you talk about that, you are approaching a slippery slope. What is definition of a complete nutter? If I took depression medicine 5 years ago in college, should I be qualified to buy a firearm today?