I'm glad you posted this because it neatly delves into what I was going to say: anything short of severely limiting semiautomatic guns of all kinds (not just AR-15s) in civilian hands is us fooling ourselves that we're doing "something."
Time and time again, the gun acquisition process is so lax that it rarely stops wannabe mass shooters. The stores that sell the guns, who want to make money by moving product, rarely deny the shooters. One exception was the Pulse shooter in Orlando who was denied by the first store he went to because he gave out bad vibes. But sadly of course, he succeeded at the next store. Not that the screening process for owning a deadly weapon should come down to "bad vibes" but even that is practically nonexistent.
The current background check worked as intended. Much like many shooters who had issues, this kid was emotionally troubled; he wasn't mentally ill. The background check bars you from buying a gun if you have a criminal conviction, known issues with domestic violence or involuntarily committed. There is no psychological screening of any sort, so nothing prevented this kid from legally buying a gun. So several factors that would bar even more people (like personal temperament) are never taken into account. (If you want to see how personal temperament bars people, Google search "Road rage shooting" with
any city you wish and you'll find hits again and again). Furthermore, mentally ill people aren't necessarily violent. So when conservatives say it's mental illness while dismissing the deliberate planning by pretty much 100% of shooters, it's just another dismissive Hail Mary so that the country is right back to inaction.
When there is evidence a shooter is mentally (not just emotionally) troubled like the Newtown shooter, it was easy to circumvent not being able to personally buy a gun by: having a mother who stored guns in his room. There are two things that would have stopped that shooting: maternal common sense or not being able allowed to own such guns in the first place. Any supplemental background check law trotted out by Democrats blithely obscures that failing to go through a background check wasn't the problem (ditto for this TX shooting where people are talking about the two bills passed in the House but stalled in the Senate).
Some gun control advocates like to focus on AR-15s being deadly. And while AR-15s are civilian versions of a military weapon and long guns have better accuracy than pistols, focusing on AR-15s underestimates the threat of all semiautomatics. It was so long ago that people have already forgotten, but the VA Tech shooter killed 32 people (wounded 17) with two pistols. So the bottom line is if you want to kill countless people in mere seconds, you don't need an AR-15.
So any action to curb these shootings, while welcome, is piecemeal at best. But I also know there is no political will (not even by Democrats) to be bold. Trying to also recall 400 million guns already in circulation is a daunting (even impossible) logistical nightmare. So to sum up Fradi's cynicism from a few posts ago, expect more of the same ol' same ol'.