I think you're misunderstanding my point as well. Your statement implied they released him because they believed him to be mentally well, but what I'm saying is that just because they released him doesn't mean he was mentally well.

We do need better gun control. We also need existing gun control to actually be enforced. His two-week stay should have disqualified him from owning a gun, yet it sounds like he was not only allowed to continue to own guns, but he was allowed to continue to work as a firearms instructor. That shouldn't happen.

To be clear about something, I'm someone who believes that people should have a path to being able to own guns, including actual high-power weapons like anti-materiel rifles, if they want to. However, not everyone should be able to get one, in order to do so they should be required to pass tests, mental health evaluations and background checks, the depth of which would increase with the power of the weapon (a basic double-barreled shotgun would be easier to get than a Browning M2, the latter of which would involve a metaphorical colonoscopy and MRI courtesy of the FBI and ATF). Additionally, I believe there should be laws about what can or can't be advertised as gun storage; many lockboxes, for an example, are often advertised as being a good solution for gun storage. However, they're often so flimsy and weak that a toddler could open one by accident without even needing a key. Finally, I believe that if your gun is used in a crime, then you should be considered complicit; with your only defense being that your gun was properly secured prior to the crime and that you reported the weapon as missing the moment you discovered it to be gone (aka within a reasonable amount of time).

I know this runs against the views a lot of people around here have as it would permit someone to own a heavy machine gun if they wanted to. However, if I'm not mistaken, there is at least one European country (possibly more) with similar systems. Finland, for an example (unless this was changed within the past 5yrs or so), allows you to own any firearm. The catch is that it's very hard to legally obtain something like a Browning M2 because you have to have a museum/collector's license and justify your purchase, which can be difficult to do. You also have to be willing to let the cops stop by and check in on you whenever they feel like it, even if that happens to be at 3am. Yet Finland doesn't have the issues that the US does because they're very strict about who can or can't buy weapons and which weapons they can buy.

The reason why I hold this view is because I believe people should be allowed to do what they want so long as they aren't hurting others directly or indirectly (within reason, otherwise christofascists could claim gay people are hurting them spiritually or some bullshit). I know there are tons of people out there who could be trusted to own, take care of, and properly store pretty much any firearm imaginable. A law that completely bars them from being able to own a firearm because of something that another person, or group of people, have done just doesn't sit right with me. However, I also recognize that it's far too easy for people to be able to acquire a gun and we need more restrictions in order to weed out the people who'd use them to harm others.

Edit: I guess what I was trying to say, or what I wanted to say, is that in my opinion, gun control is like painkillers for a broken leg. The painkillers help, but if the cause of the pain isn't addressed then you'll eventually end up back where you started. Would it decrease the number of mass shootings? Yeah, probably. However if you don't fix the mental health system and normalize mental healthcare, you'll probably get people who are even more radicalized and aren't afraid of resorting to other measures.