I think we should wait to know more about this Crime. Did he obtain his weapons legally? Would a red flag law have prevented it? How could this have been prevented?
The killer in Buffalo should have been subject to the Red Flag law there, but the person doing the psych eval didn't seem him as a threat. He was wrong.
Therein lies the rub. I as a gun owner don't want to be considered a criminal-before-the-fact -- but a disgruntled ex could say I'm unstable and al of a sudden a red-flag law could pull me in. Whether or not I'm actually unstable is a judgment call, and even professionals get it wrong sometimes as happened in Buffalo.
I'm in Germany and I didn't hear of the Texas tragedy until I first woke up about two hours ago -- I don't have much in the way of detail. But the solution isn't to go after everyone who owns a semiautomatic rifle as though we were all insane.
And those of us who support gun ownership, and the people who see the mass shooting, see two different tragedies. Gun owners see the Buffalo shooting and know that the firearm was purchased legally in a state with all of the restrictions that are being called for nationwide, including a red-flag law and say, "See, the gun laws don't work."
People who don't support gun ownership see the same event and say, "See, we need stricter gun laws."
As a gun owner, I'd be willing to compromise on background checks on secondary sales, beefed up background checks, and red-flag laws, but my support of those is conditional -- any new requirement has to come with a sunset clause or milestones to measure its effectiveness. If it's ineffective, there's no point in having it. And no calling for more such laws until the sunset period is achieved, because that would both affect the measurement and because we want some sort of line in the sand.
But compromise is never offered, "You have something we don't want you to have and we're going to take it" is not a compromise.