I think we should be cautious about infringing on the privacy of citizens. That said, stricter gun registration laws make sense to me, given that gun ownership is completely voluntary.
We already have laws against specific and real threats or incitement to violence. In a perfect world, your suggestion would be good. Given current events, the results of "monitoring" social media posts (as is being done now by Google and Twitter and Youtube) is fraught with problems. Who decides what language is "extreme" or worthy of an investigation?
I would like to think that if anyone sees something as disconcerting as this guy posted and others like him... someone who knows him (and presumably he was posting it for the benefit of someone)would see the post and be able to put it in the proper context and contact authorities if necessary. Apparently, one of his friends DID see his posts and given his understanding of the shooter, Santino William Legan, he saw no reason to report the guy.
We could (and others will) go on and on about what could have been done to stop this guy. To the extent that his affiliation to a potentially violent organization (whatever the "white supremacist" group he was associated with) could make it easier to profile and narrow down people with the potential to do stuff like this is great.
The bottom line is that we live in a free society. There is likely no way to stop a determined character from killing several random people if he wanted to. Until people accept this reality, the useless arguments about doing more than we do now with regard to the process one goes through to buy a gun... and the emphasis on creating more "helpless victim" (Gun-Free) zones... these sorts of "solutions" will be regularly discussed and implemented and in the case of Gun-Free Zones, will lead to more victims.
Think about it. If you were out somewhere, in a mall or at a bar (Gun-Free Zones) or even as a child in school and you are told someone in the building has a gun. Would you think… “It’s probably a teacher who wants to be able to offer a defense for his students”… Or would you think it’s more likely that it is someone up to no good?
UNTIL IT IS AS JUST AS LIKELY THAT THE ONE WITH A GUN IS A “GOOD GUY” (an armed teacher, or patron of a festival or wherever these guys look at as “soft targets”… (Someone who has completed all of the background checks and other hoops, and he hasn’t been declared insane or convicted of domestic violence and has completed the process required to buy a gun legally…) WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE KILLERS GOING INTO THESE PLACES TO HUNT FOR VICTIMS.
People are killed regularly outside bars and in bad areas of cities, and it isn’t considered a big deal. That, to some extent, is because we know (subconsciously or otherwise) that the victim had some possibility of defending himself. If only the knowledge that it could be dangerous where he intends to go on this tragic night and that should he face a situation… he would benefit from bringing his gun.
When someone goes into a school, government building, private corporation or any other “Gun Free Zone” and kills people… it’s a bigger deal. I would posit that it is a bigger deal because we all know the victims had no chance.
Solving that problem, by allowing qualified people in these formerly “Gun-Free Zones the ability to defend themselves would be a heck of a lot easier than attempting to solve the problem with virtually any gun restrictions… including outlawing of them altogether.
They will likely still have the ability to randomly shoot someone in the free society in which we live. But, at least they would not focus entirely on those who are now the most vulnerable. These people who do this tend to be like the (usually) men who are in a domestic violence case and stalking their wives, intent on shooting them. In which cases, the police will tell these women that to a large extent it is up to them to defend themselves.
