I don't understand this stuff. First off, is it really a problem? This happens every so often, but it's not like it's an epidemic. Which seems to state that we have a lot of gun control laws now which significantly reduce this number. You should understand that the number is never going to be zero. That's the problem I see with a lot of these hindsight arguments. In this case, this guy who may have had certain things in his past got a gun and shot up a lot of people. So we say, the parents should have been required to to have him diagnosed as mentally ill. Oh, the military who refused him should have done it. Oh, some "organization" should have had him evaluated. I don't know if people stop to think about what it is they are saying. The guy is a nut job, but does one have to be a nut job to be rejected by the military? If the military doesn't want someone, do they have the rightful power to make them have a psychological evaluation? I mean, that's pretty nuts. Did the school have responsibility to this?
In the end, the amount of government power and databasing required to do as you people want will only serve as a roadblock to ourselves. Maybe we don't want crazy people talking in public. What if one incites a riot? There are consequences and repercussions for choosing freedom. One of which is that we cannot full blast let the government go for every sensationalized or over-emotionalized case we come about. Another is that we will have a certain amount of crime. Crazy people getting guns, that's not going to stop. In some perfect world, maybe all the stop gaps are in place...maybe there's just no crazy people. But in our world, the government is limited and the rights and liberties of the individual are recognized. We cannot just start making "organizations" who make people have mental evaluations in order to exercise a right. That's crazy. Maybe people who suggest that should be forced to be diagnosed as mentally ill. Hell of a lot more dangerous than a lone gunman.