disqualified? how do you explain what she said? i don t know exactly what dana meant. i haven t spoken to her about this. i certainly think given what was known about in man and indeed what students who are victims said afterwards, namely, they saw this coming, that it was predictable. they knew immediately that it was him that it would be a good thing to introduce some sort of system where people who are on the radar are of their peers and of the authority. this guy seemed to have been contacted 37 times, tips that went to the fbi. it would have been good if we had some sort of system in place wherewith very robust due process authorities could investigate. and if they found that there was a problem, do something. that s the trick, though, right, charles? doesn t currently exist. you need to be adjudicated
that s where we have to be careful here. because there is this argument in the aftermath of mass shootings. we saw an awful lot of it in an unhelpful townhall held at the wrong time. you see in this argument you have to do something. we don t all agree we have to do anything. marco rubio is against arming teachers. he did say he would do certain things. no, i agree. just saying why don t we just do something, why don t we try that, there s nothing to lose is not a standard across the board. not arbitrary things. absolutely. why do you say arbitrary? charles, we agree. you should do things that are calculated to make a real difference and base it on debate and data and research in the area. there is no question about that. no reason just to throw out any kind of solution that will work. but at the end of the day, it s
loesch. she said this guy shouldn t have been taoeubl bable to buy a gun. they accept rules changes that would keep someone his age or his health status from getting a gun. joining us now is charles c.w. cook, editor for the national review online. charles, just so people understand, you have spoken extensively about your feelings about the defense of the second amendment, its application to this. you and i got sideways online yesterday. it made me realize, man, this fighting has got to stop. we have to have a conversation where everybody is involved. otherwise, nothing is going to change. so thank you for taking the invitation. let s start with that question, charles. dana said he shouldn t have been able to buy a gun. that means, what, by age you would change eligibility for him to get a weapon? or because of his treatment and track record, even though he wasn t adjudicated mentally ill or had a criminal record, he would have been somehow
of evidence. recent studies out of washington and colorado show background checks do a great deal when applied to private sales. in large part because you can t determine ahead of time where those sales take place because they are private. they re not commercial. the government regulates commercial gun sellers. right. i think in a sense this is something of a red herring. it comes up every time. the argument in favor of extending back ground checks is much stronger when it comes to crime in general. right. perhaps to suicide than it is here. right. and one reason but those matter too, charles. that s why i bring it up. they do. we re focused on school shootings. 1% of overall gun crime. there is a much bigger issue. i don t know why there would be resistance especially for lawful people. why wouldn t you have all sales applicable to a background check? well, the first argument, this is always good to remember when government gets involved, whether the war on terro
this is something we should po lit size. it is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic. this is a political choice we make. this day happens every few months in america. we are collectively answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our enaction. charles, a passion plea by the president. i do wonder though, yes, there s mentally illness across the globe. i guess howard would agree with me some european countries are far more advanced taking care of middle illness. what do we do if you re a defender of the second amendment but you find these attacks and