One thing that never seems to change is that before we even know anything about a mass shooting, we have gun control activists screaming all about what kind of laws we need.

It’s the same stuff we usually hear from them. Usually, it has nothing to do with the shooting and wouldn’t have had any kind of an impact even if such a law had been in place.

The same held true following the shooting in Odessa.

Now we know how the killer got his weapon.

The gunman who killed seven people and wounded 23 others in a rampage across West Texas on Saturday obtained the assault-style rifle used through a private sale after he was banned from having a firearm because he was diagnosed with a mental illness, media reported.

…

The gunman who killed seven people and wounded 23 others in a rampage across West Texas on Saturday obtained the assault-style rifle used through a private sale after he was banned from having a firearm because he was diagnosed with a mental illness, media reported.

Private firearm sellers are not required to run background checks on potential buyers, but they are not allowed to sell a weapon to a person who has been flagged by law enforcement under federal law.

…

[The killer] had been rejected when he tried to buy a gun and his name was run through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, said John Wester, assistant special agent in charge of the Dallas office of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

For once, there’s a mass shooter who might not have been able to get a gun if there had been a universal background check system in place.

Maybe.

As noted in the above-quoted section, knowingly selling to someone you know can’t pass a background check is already illegal. Did the person who sold the killer his gun know that the killer had previously failed a background check? If he did, he’s not only culpable for that act but it would also suggest one key problem with universal background checks, and that’s enforcement.

Even if the seller was oblivious to the killer’s status as a prohibited person, there’s no guarantee that he wouldn’t have gotten his hands on a firearm anyway. Hell, the same seller may have still conducted the sale without a background check even if such a check had been required. As I previously said, enforcement is a problem.

At the end of the day, though, one thing hasn’t changed. This is the clear result of a deranged mind that seemed to believe killing the innocent was a thing that he should do. No amount of gun control is going to stop that. They could use a van or even a knife. They’ll still be deranged lunatics regardless of what weapons they use.

But removing guns from the law-abiding citizen is not now, nor has it ever been the answer to this or any other problem. If only anti-gunners would grasp that for a change.