Gun control

[AFPheonix]

Ok so the system worked. There was nothign in his background to indicate that there was a reason to deny him a firearm. I see no problem with what you just posted boozy.

Yes. It worked so well that someone who had a court injunction to get psychological help was allowed to buy 2 bloody handguns. A COURT ORDER did not show up in the background check. What the hell.

[Boozy]

I'm sure that if every student from the age of eleven had a gun issued as standard, most people going apeshit would be cut down before they got to five kills. I'm also sure there would be many more schoolyard fights that ended at a morgue.

I agree with pretty much everything you've had to say on this topic Raps, and especially on this point.
When people seriously believe that the solution to gun violence is to add more guns, I would suggest that we have reached a point where intelligent discourse on the subject is no longer possible. Gun culture in America has become a religion. Reasonable debate can't occur when firearm possession is considered an integral part of who Americans are as people. When someone says that "Guns are just a tool, nothing more" in one breath, and then "Death before disarmament" in the next, reason is tossed out the window. Facts are useless here.
Americans love their frickin' guns. The tragedies at Virginia Tech and Columbine is the cost of this love affair. Its theirs to pay. I'm going to stay safe and sound in Canada.

[xld17]

Okay, so I think my original account was deactivated because I never posted anything, but this one interests me. I go to the other big Virginia college, and actually went to high school with the shooter. (Way to build up a reputation on a first post, huh.)

I don't know where anyone else lives, but Virginia has some of the laxest gun laws in the country. You don't have to register your firearms and all you need to get a concealed carry permit is proof of training, a photo ID, and the form. In a very suburban area, we frequently see people walk in to restaurants with their weapons.

Blacksburg (Va. Tech) is in a much more conservative/rural area than where I'm from and even though almost any kid in that building could have had a gun, none did. Point being, just because people could arm themselves, doesn't mean they will. Even if someone was carrying a concealed weapon, if this guy had come in blazing with something fully automatic, odds are that your average citizen isn't carrying anything that could match that fire power.

The thing that needs to be accepted before any debate about guns can continue, is that they will never be made entirely illegal in America. The next step is attempting to regulate them to safe levels. I'm not totally anti-gun. We have always had them in the house and I occasionally go target/skeet shooting with my father. I would like to see military grade weapons banned because let's face it, you aren't going to do anything good with a Tech 9, M-60, or armor piercing rounds. You could hunt the rabbit, but it's pretty hard to eat something that is just a splatter.

As for licensing, I'm not really fond of the idea of telling the government what I own, but I do think guns need to be harder for the average citizen to obtain. Depending on what news outlet you have been following, less than a year ago, another kid from the same high school went rambo on a police station. He had four guns on him and killed two cops. At his parents' home, they found more twenty more guns including an improperly-licensed AK-47 and over 2,500 rounds of ammunition. Clearly this was overkill if the argument is that guns are necessary to defend yourself.

Meaningful background checks would be nice, but nothing this particular kid had in his record (The claims of stalking have been over-inflated by the media. The girls actually reported him as, "annoying.") would have triggered his being denied a weapon. I think the best we could realistically do toward ending gun violence would be to ban the automatic weapons to minimize damage and try to keep guns out of the hands of people who are known to have been violent in the past.

The culture as a whole is a large part of the problem and most of the time guns are glorified in an unrealistic way (I don't think there is an actor in the world who understands what a recoil is, and I would love to actually see some of them stick those hot barrels down their pants.), rather than being respected as tools which come with inherent dangers and responsibility. It's nice that some people can handle this, but many more can't and that is why so many people are killed every year by guns.

But still, they just aren't going away. The danger of driving cars is actually a pretty good analogy for guns. Some people will drive carefully, never speed, keep their hands at 10 and 2 and wait until they get home to drink their latte or use the cell phone. Others will get drunk, try to shave on their way to work or drive stick while eating a burger, fries and a shake. Some people will buy and use gun locks, keep their weapons and ammunition secured and take classes. Others will keep them loaded and in reach of their young kids, use them while drunk, or decide that shooting up a class full of college kids will somehow make life fair.

By choosing to live in a society that allows guns (and cars), we also have to accept the inherent risks that go with them and with the potentially irresponsible people who will also use them. To get rid of all gun violence, we will have to get rid of all guns. We as a society have essentially decided that occasional acts of gun violence are acceptable in order to continue free gun ownership.

[ditchdj]

Heh. You guys should read about what was REALLY happening in New Orleans after Katrina and the subsequent breakdown of law enforcement. Read about the nursing home that stocked up on food and supplies for two weeks and was forced to hand it over when armed looters came by and forced everyone out. Read about those neighbors whose guns saved them from getting pilfered by armed criminals and looters. We live by a major fault line where I live and a disastrous earthquake that could destroy the entire corner of this state is expected soon. I know that whatever's left of MY property is staying right here because I have a gun to make sure that happens. A gun is a sure necessity to survive a catastrophe or civil disturbance.

[Ree]

One can argue all they want about guns being "art" and "showpieces" and of "historical significance", but the fact remains that guns are still designed only for one purpose, and that is to kill.

Fine, I can agree that guns, in many cases, are used for sport or to hunt for food.

Will someone please explain to me how the types of guns used in the killings this week could possibly be used in sport or to hunt down food?

In many cases, there would be nothing left of the poor animal if these guns were used for hunting.

This guy purchased a killing machine using the system.
True, we have no way of knowing when a person will reach their breaking point and go apeshit on the community, but when there is documented proof of mental instability and homicidal speech or writings, why does it not show up in a record search somewhere?

You know what, though? I don't know how gun control can be the answer.
Canada has had gun control in place for many years now, and there was a college shooting not that long ago.

"Sept. 13, 2006 Montreal, Canada
Kimveer Gill, 25, opened fire with a semiautomatic weapon at Dawson College. Anastasia De Sousa, 18, died and more than a dozen students and faculty were wounded before Gill killed himself."

Granted, there are fewer school shootings in Canada, so perhaps the limited access to guns helps somewhat, but the fact remains that guns are still out there, and people are still dying from guns.

I don't think it's necessarily the access to guns...it's the type of guns that people have access to.

In those shootings that have taken place, I have to ask just how many of them were the result of Daddy's hunting rifle?

It seems to me that, if people didn't have access to these guns that allow multiple shots only seconds apart, the mortality rate in the killings might not be quite so high.

So, I don't think we should be telling people they simply cannot own a gun, but I do think there needs to be limitations on what types of weapons are available to the public.

It won't eliminate the problem completely, but maybe it will slow it down somewhat.

[Dreamstalker]

A few of my netfriends who attend VT do have concealed carry permits, but having a firearm on campus is immediate expulsion IIRC.

So, I don't think we should be telling people they simply cannot own a gun, but I do think there needs to be limitations on what types of weapons are available to the public.

I agree. IMO, banning guns completely won't do much, as the determined nutjobs will manage to get them. A ban on military grade weapons is probably the way to go. If a civilian wants to test-fire one of the big-caliber guns, it could be done on a dedicated range with the appropriate supervision.

I tried to have a reasonable discussion with my mom about this...it once again turned to "violence is bad, guns are bad and I don't know why you can't see that"...

[rahmota]

Ok welll lets see how to respond here.

Hmm. The system did work. From everything I have read there was no mention in them of him having a court record. And the "stalking" comments where inflated by the media as was pointed out. Just because there are people who do not have a record but still wind up having issues does not mean the system has a problem. It means society does not have as strong a sense of personal responsibility as it should.

As long as we do not punish criminals and do not teach or otherwise convince people that in the end of things they are the only ones responsible for their own lives and their own families. Yes there are police in place. They however cannot be everywhere. They cannot be trusted to be there when I need help. I am the only one that can be trusted to be in my home or my place when I need herlp. Therefore I must be ready, willing and capable of defending my family, my home and myself from any threats.

And we cannot have a government that spies on its own people watching for someone who might be showing signs of instability. For so many reasons. One of which is the risk of false positives. I play superheros and dungeons and dragons and such and have emailed people in my group about the various plans and games. Including using the words like massacre, death, genocide. Heck if we spied on people this board would pop up as a flagged conversation. It would cause more issues and problems and more chaff to wade through to find the real problems. So we have to do our best to be responsible for our own lives and to watch out for the potential problems we can be aware of.

I still dont see the problem with full auto or otherewise military weapons. If society and people can be taught to be responsible. If criminals who commit crimes are punished instead of "rehabilitated" or treated like they are sick. Murderers are not sick they are evil and deserve to hang. End of story. DO that enough and people will realize that it is not glamorous or fun to go on a killing spree and then it is only those who are truely cold and dark who will be a threat. And for the most part society, at least in the areas I have been, is filled with responsible people. I know 3 class 3 holders. (Class 3 being the federal liscence that lets you own full auto firearms) All 3 of these people are responsible, kind, and decent people that I would trust with my back in a problem.

I agree with DitchDj in the event of a large natural disaster it is the responsible armed citizens who bring peace back to the streets or at least their small corner. Not the police, not the military, not the government, not anyone except the ARMED responsible citizens. If the citizens had been stripped of their rights and abilities to defend themselves then the problems and looting and vultures in New Orleans would have had free reign to loot, plunder rpae and pilalge. It would have been the sacking of Rome all over again.

Dreamstalker:

few of my netfriends who attend VT do have concealed carry permits, but having a firearm on campus is immediate expulsion IIRC.

That is a sad comment indeed that to try and have the ability to defend yourself you are thrown out of college. Bah on the administration for setting things up for a tragedy like that. Its almost like they didnt care about the students safety and wanted a tragedy to occur.

Raps said:

We're perfectly free to go around. If we can prove we need a shotgun to hunt wildlife or protect our herds, we can get one. After that, we have the police and armed forces to defend us. We're free to go around our business - you know, like working or relaxing - without being insecure enough to need a weapon. It's a matter of perspective.

Ok I was not as aware of the amount of "freedom" you have to own firearms. That is still an overly restrictive and scary proposition you have stated though. This is putting your life and your safety in the hands of some government flunky who may be on a powertrip, may not like you or otherwise decide for whatever whim to deny you a firearm. Even if you might need one. One of the reasons the citizens are armed is to do away with the kinds tellign us what to do with our own lives. And like I said earlier you cannot trust that the police, sheriff or armed forces are goign to be there when you need them. Heck in a worst case scenario they may eb the ones you have to defend yourself from. That has happened too many times in the history of the world to be compleately free of that mistrust. Loonies are not just on one side of the badge.

An armed person has to put the gun down at some point. Would be pretty embarassing to be killed by the gun yo bought to protect your family, eh?

Yes and that is why the weapons need to be stored safely, the home defended in layers and constant vigilence against invaders. I do not have the fear of being killed by one of my own weapons. Of course I am at most 5 feet from a weapon in my home at any one time. But then again anythign can be a weapon if used properly. It is as you say a matter of perspective.

How about simply teaching people that guns are dangerous, rather than that and how to use them? The truth is that guns are there to kill.

That is a part of a responsible teaching of firearm safety. You cannot understand that the tool you are using can cause harm if it is not presented to you. I have 4 children ranging from 7 to 12. They all understand that firearms can be harmful or deadly. I took a watermelon out of the garden and shot it to show them the effect a bullet has. I have taken my 12 year old hunting. They understand that a firearm is not a toy and not something that should be disrespected.

You missed my point, I'm afraid. I'm not saying it's necessary, but I am saying that people have it far easier than they ever did

Ok true things are relative. It is a matter of ones perspective. If society advances and people are elevated in wealth then that is all well and good. However american society (and any capitalist society) does not distribute that wealth and availability or access to resources evenly. So some people are going to be treated unfairly and be angry or frustrated about that. This is a social problem that needs to be addressed to help resolve any other issues.

Boozy said:

When the system "working" means that a legally purchased weapon is used to gun down 33 people, I would submit that something is wrong with the system.

No the system is not broken or wrong in this case. The system is not designed to prohibit innocent or at least recordless individuals from obtaining a firearm. Therefore the system did work as he did not to all the information available to the authorities responsible have a record.

And one more thing I want to address, Ree said:

It seems to me that, if people didn't have access to these guns that allow multiple shots only seconds apart, the mortality rate in the killings might not be quite so high.

It does not matter how many seconds apart the bullets are fired. This tragedy in VT could have occured with him having a black powder flintlock. If there is no armed opposition to a murderer then that murderer will have all the time in the world. Given the lack of response by the authorities in the VT case (according to what I have read) it wouldnt have mattered what sort of firearm he was using. 1 round or a hundred rounds the end result is the same if people are not able to defend themselves.

IN closing for this tiem all I have to say is that I do not agree that firearms control or restrictions is a good thing, a needed thing or a useful thing.

[Boozy]

No the system is not broken or wrong in this case. The system is not designed to prohibit innocent or at least recordless individuals from obtaining a firearm. Therefore the system did work as he did not to all the information available to the authorities responsible have a record.

I believe you misunderstood what I said, because this statement appears to be a response to something else entirely.
I did not say the current system didn't work. The current system did work. The current system allows people without criminal records to purchase weapons, and it did so in this case. I said the system itself is problematic.

After all, a lot of people don't have criminal records until they shoot somone. If I were a family member of a victim I wouldn't be happy with people saying, "Now that we know, we just won't give him a gun next time."

[rahmota]

Maybe I didnt make myself clear when i responded.

The system as it is now is not broken. The system is designed to keep known criminals from obtaining a firearm. An innocent person by definition is someone who has not done something that would result in a criminal or official record against themselves. Therefore if a person should sudden stray from the path of responsibility then as you put it you wont know it this time but next time. An unfortunate thing but a risk that must be taken because the alternatives are much more harmful and evil.

The alternative would be to design a system where thoughtcrime is a part of it. Where you treat each and every citizen as a potential criminal and deny them the basic and fundamental rights of the constitution and free citizens. Might as well turn over your adult status and let the government or others think for you and not be a responsible adult.

The system as it is works. There is no really better system that cannot lead to denial of innocent people's rights and governmental abuses. Criminals will always have firearms no matter what one does. It is only fair and right for a citizen to have firearms to defend themselves. You cannot trust the government, the police or anyone else to come to your defense so it is better to take the risk that someone like cho gets a firearm than to deny one person who needs a firearm to defend themselves. I still say that the body count at VT would never have gotten out of the single digits if there had been responsible armed students there.

And if I was a family member I would not be happy with the authorities bumbling the ball on their response time. the college for prohibiting students from being able to defend themselves, the college for not responding appropriately and forcefully. Etc....

[rahmota]

I looked up cho. Since he was not convicted or committed and only held for observation there would be no record of his "psychological" issues. As the system is rightfully setup as innocent until proven guilty it worked. He was not found to be insane so there is no record.

True he was probably not the most stable person and his personal attitudes not endearing we cannot automatically assume the worst out of him. Innocent until proven guilty.

It is a difficult and can be cruel and painful thing to do sometimes but it is necessary to have a society that believes in personal rights, freedoms and responsibility. SOmetiems bad thigns happen but for the most part the system worked as it was designed. There was no real and verifiable indications that cho was going to do this. And without destroying personal freedom, personal liberties and treating everyone like a criminal and instituting thoughtcrime where no one is allowed to act or think in a manner not approved by the governmental nannies there is no way you can prevent something like this from ever happening again. There is no way to prevent criminals from having firearms. The only people that can be prevented from having firearms and being able to defend themselves are law abiding decent responsible citizens.

[Boozy]

it is better to take the risk that someone like cho gets a firearm than to deny one person who needs a firearm to defend themselves.

I think that's probably the crux of the issue. I disagree with the preceding statement on its face. But that doesn't mean the statement itself is wrong or illogical in any way - its just a matter of personal values.
When we agree to live in a society of laws, we all agree to give up some of our personal freedoms. We agree to give up our freedom to continue driving when we're at a red light so that when we're at a green, we can proceed safely. We agree to give up our freedom to steal someone's things in return for them agreeing not to steal ours. There are no laws of physics preventing us from driving through red lights, or walking out on the bill in a restaurant. We are naturally free to do these things if we choose. But we agree to give up these freedoms so that we can live together peacefully. Society doesn't work if we all do whatever we want, whenever we want.
Some people are willing to give up less than others. Some people don't want to give up guns. There's no reason they should have to - its simply a decision about the kind of society one wants to live in. Like I said, I'm pretty comfortable with Canadian gun laws. A lot of Americans may find them too restrictive. Its a pretty big cultural difference.

[Rapscallion]

Ok welll lets see how to respond here.

Hmm. The system did work. From everything I have read there was no mention in them of him having a court record. And the "stalking" comments where inflated by the media as was pointed out. Just because there are people who do not have a record but still wind up having issues does not mean the system has a problem. It means society does not have as strong a sense of personal responsibility as it should.

The system needs updating, as Boozy has pointed out. When someone who is under psychological observation/evaluation is not red-flagged on the system, the system is risking the lives of the country's citizens unecessarily.

As long as we do not punish criminals and do not teach or otherwise convince people that in the end of things they are the only ones responsible for their own lives and their own families. Yes there are police in place. They however cannot be everywhere. They cannot be trusted to be there when I need help. I am the only one that can be trusted to be in my home or my place when I need herlp. Therefore I must be ready, willing and capable of defending my family, my home and myself from any threats.

The police cannot be everywhere, true, but let's compare gun crime. In the US, where guns are part of the culture and easy to obtain, gun crime is relatively high. In the UK, where guns are not part of everyday life and are hard to obtain, gun crime is relatively low. See what I'm getting at?

And we cannot have a government that spies on its own people watching for someone who might be showing signs of instability.

To a reasonable level, we must. I've snipped, but posting on a board like this would be impossible to observe, but being under psychological evaluation should raise a red flag in any reasonable system.

I still dont see the problem with full auto or otherewise military weapons. If society and people can be taught to be responsible.

Big 'if' there.

I agree with DitchDj in the event of a large natural disaster it is the responsible armed citizens who bring peace back to the streets or at least their small corner. Not the police, not the military, not the government, not anyone except the ARMED responsible citizens.

Only the armed citizens who are responsible have a duty? How about the unarmed responsible citizens? Do they just do what the gun-wielders say?

Raps said:

Ok I was not as aware of the amount of "freedom" you have to own firearms. That is still an overly restrictive and scary proposition you have stated though.

Scary? I can walk down almost any high street in any town in the UK and know that the people I'm passing do not carry weaponry. Sounds safer to me.

This is putting your life and your safety in the hands of some government flunky who may be on a powertrip, may not like you or otherwise decide for whatever whim to deny you a firearm.

I've yet to be convinced that it's unsafe not to own a gun.

Even if you might need one. One of the reasons the citizens are armed is to do away with the kinds tellign us what to do with our own lives.

Part of me really, really hopes you live in an area with an HOA who is really, really petty, but it's a very unworthy part.

Yes and that is why the weapons need to be stored safely,

How about not around at all?

This is a social problem that needs to be addressed to help resolve any other issues.

Looks like that's something we agree on in this, but only this bit

And one more thing I want to address, Ree said:
It does not matter how many seconds apart the bullets are fired. This tragedy in VT could have occured with him having a black powder flintlock. If there is no armed opposition to a murderer then that murderer will have all the time in the world. Given the lack of response by the authorities in the VT case (according to what I have read) it wouldnt have mattered what sort of firearm he was using. 1 round or a hundred rounds the end result is the same if people are not able to defend themselves.

In Napoleonic times, the black powder flintlocks managed to fire approximately three times a minute. A flintlock user would generally be able to fire once (I'll ignore the relative accuracy of the weapon) before being tackled by the people he didn't hit. Can you come up with something more realistic here, please? I can. A fully automatic weapon would be able to gun down many more people before they could reach they properly stored and responsibly held weapons than a glock handgun.

Rapscallion

[rahmota]

OK first off I'll agree with the comment that it is a cultural perspective issue. I grew up in a rural region with firearms being a daily part of life. Even if it was only in the background with them hanging on the wall or people talkign about them. A sense that you cant trust the police or the government to be there for you so you have to be ready to defend yourself. A different perspective and not in my opinion a wrong one or a bad one.

Raps said:

When someone who is under psychological observation/evaluation is not red-flagged on the system,

Ok here is the problem I have with that. He was not committed to a psychological hospital or counseling. The courts had him evaluated and from what i can gather it appears that he passed that eval. So there is no record of it in the firearm system because as far as theya re concerned he was Innovcent until proven guilty. And he was never proven guilty. So in my mind the system still worked and does not appear broken to me. Because to change it otherwise would make it guilty until proven innocent or otherwise surrender too many rights.

And yeah to live in a polite society one must compromise on many things. But a person has to draw a line somewhere. If you do not draw that line then those who wish to wield power will keep pushing you back until it is too late to stand up to them.

In the US, where guns are part of the culture and easy to obtain, gun crime is relatively high. In the UK, where guns are not part of everyday life and are hard to obtain, gun crime is relatively low. See what I'm getting at?

I do see what you are getting at but then again looking at the overall cultural attitudes and histories of our two nations I also see a big gulf in things and attitudes of that nature. And please do not take offense as this is just one yank's POV and not meaning to be insulting or anything. But America is a young country, we where founded on personal freedom and liberty and our history is one of mistrusting authority and relying on our own two hands and power. While the UK and Britain is a history of submission to government and authority and letting another who claims authority over a person is allowed to rule you. Which leading this thought back into the firearms yes we have more firearm crimes and more firearms in general. A lot of that is because it sells media. You dont hear about the times when a law abiding citizen defends his family and loved ones from a criminal with a firearm. You dont hear about the times when a bad guy was chased off because a citizen had a firearm. That sort of good news is not sellign media. And while you guys may not have the same level of firearms crime all other forms of crime are not much different than us from what I have seen. I may be wrong but then I might not be.

To a reasonable level, we must. I've snipped, but posting on a board like this would be impossible to observe, but being under psychological evaluation should raise a red flag in any reasonable system.

Thoughtcrime is still thoughtcrime. When you open the door to criminalizing thoughts and feeligns and ideas or "observing" people because they show signs of potential problems or criminal activity then you get into an area of oppression and slipperiness that leads to the death of republics and the rise of totalitarian regimes.

Only the armed citizens who are responsible have a duty? How about the unarmed responsible citizens? Do they just do what the gun-wielders say?

Ok that was poorly worded. But the difference between being a victim and not in that scenario and situation is if you are armed or not. Every citizen has the duty to what they can to improve their world, armed citizens have better tools to do so.

Scary? I can walk down almost any high street in any town in the UK and know that the people I'm passing do not carry weaponry. Sounds safer to me.

I guess its a matter of persepctive. In my hometown I've seen people walking down the street with shotguns on their shoulders and the local police doesnt hassle them in the slightest. Firearms are a common part of the culture here and people know to be responsible with them or they get punished. If the law dont get them their own family or others will. Appalachia is still rather old fashioned in that regards. And to be perfectly honest I am happy that the concealed carry law passed. This means that responsible citizens can no longer be harrassed and hassled for packing iron. I feel safer knowing that an armed citizen is not too far away if a criminal decides to try and mug, rob or do harm.

I've yet to be convinced that it's unsafe not to own a gun.

And I've yet to be convinced that its safer not to own a firearm. To put my life in the hands of a government or authority that doesnt give a rats arse about me, doesnt know me except as a tax identifier number and may not have the resources to be able to have forces in place when I need them.

Part of me really, really hopes you live in an area with an HOA who is really, really petty, but it's a very unworthy part.

Hehe I live on a small farm of only 64 acres. It is in a rural part of OHio where it is 12 miles to the nearest town big enough to have a mcdonalds. 6 miles to the nearest gas station. I think the nearest home owners association is 25 miles away out by the lake. I am the master of my dominion and on my farm I am the authority. The fire department takes about 15-20 minutes to get out here, life squad is about the same and depending on where one of the sheriff deputies are on patrol they can be right down the road only a minute away or if they are coming from the other end of the county up to a half an hour away. America is a large country. Ohio is 34th in size and covers 44,825 sq mi while Britain covers 80,800 square miles a little bigger than Nebraska our 16th largest state. It took me and my friend 6 days to drive across the country and I think we saw about 2 dozen cops in that entire time. I think we saw 1 cop in all of WYoming. You just cant rely on the cops being there when you need them in a country this big.

Ok so maybe the example of blackpowder was not the best but the point is still the same. If people are not willing to stand up and defend themselves then they will die. It does not matter if the person is firing three round a minute or 300 rounds a minute if you do nothing then you die. Your only choices are run or fight or die. If you cannot run that limits you to fight or die. I know which choice I will take.

Boozy: I'll agree its a cultural thing. The culture I grew up in and live in and am a part of accepts that firearms are a necessary and safe part of our lives. That people can choose to do harm or good. I am quite comfortable wwith america's firearms laws even if they are starting to edge towards overly restrictive. I am not comfortable with canada's firearms laws.

[Ryu]

well how many people are going to defend against a machine gun without having a gun themselves?
whereas with a regular gun its very possible to defend against without any type of weapon at all

[KaeZoo]

The system needs updating, as Boozy has pointed out. When someone who is under psychological observation/evaluation is not red-flagged on the system, the system is risking the lives of the country's citizens unecessarily.

Raps, you're proposing a system where every person who undergoes psychiatric evaluation is reported to the government, and that information becomes public (as it must, if it's going to be available to gun dealers). Would you like to guess the most immediate and noticeable effect of this policy? That's right: people who need help will avoid being evaluated at all costs. As long as we're talking about a system that risks lives.

The police cannot be everywhere, true, but let's compare gun crime. In the US, where guns are part of the culture and easy to obtain, gun crime is relatively high. In the UK, where guns are not part of everyday life and are hard to obtain, gun crime is relatively low. See what I'm getting at?

Some alternate dimension, I'd think. Laws do not dictate culture. Laws arise from existing cultural beliefs. There are millions and millions of gun owners in the USA. No magic wand will make those weapons disappear. No legislation will change those people's beliefs. Pass a law against them and you will turn a substantial portion of those gun owners into criminals, when currently they frankly pose no danger to anyone.

A large number of responsible, harmless gun owners will resist an attempt to forcibly disarm them. No laws will make them change their minds.