This is a circular argument. Someone shoots a bunch of people in a close place, say, a high school or elementary school or theater or nightclub. The questions are raised. How and where did he get the guns? Who is he? A terrorist? A nut case? Why?
Then there's the discussion about how to prevent this. Same arguments. You can't because if you pass a law or a standard, all that will do is drive the shooter to the black market, or he'll steal them and do it anyway, yada, yada, yada. Then on to "Obama and Hillary want to take your guns away from you." Then nothing, until someone else murders people by the dozens with a semi-automatic military style weapon.
Granted, a heavily enforced law with strict background checks and high standards for purchase won't stop every shooting. There will be those who will get their hands on guns anyway. But what is clear is that a significant number of shootings, more than half, could have been prevented by extending delays and expanding denials of sales. And the fact of the matter is that neither President Obama nor Hillary Clinton, no, not even Bernie Sanders, have proposed anything close to what they are accused of. That argument is nothing but subterfuge for those who aren't observant enough to think for themselves. It's as untenable a position as asserting that any kind of gun control at all is a violation of individual second amendment rights.
What will it take? When terrorists realize that it is easier, and much less risky, to buy weapons in the US at gun shows and in states where the threshold for purchase is incredibly low, than it is to risk exposure by stealing them or buying them on the black market in Europe, maybe some change will happen. Oops. Too late.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ying-guns/