>>>>>>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.

Well it might catch some. I read once that a robber ghad been caught when, on his gun licence or gun application, under "purpose for having a gun" he wrote "bank robbery". Nice to see that some of the stupidist, and therefore potentially more dangerous, can be caught.

I know, I know, the MOST dangerous of all time turns out to be a college kid.