Air Force failed to report Devin Kelley's convictions to the FBI

[Ponca Dan]

So any regulation that fails to completely eliminate all potential for harm is instantly of no use or value? What about about decreasing the problem by keeping a subgroup of the crazy folks seeking to do harm from purchasing the means to do so?

How do you feel about felons carrying firearms?

I'm not going to be surprised when you have no problem with it.

Of course if a regulation reduces a criminal problem it would be considered to have value. But one has to weigh the good it does with the harm (and potential harm) a regulation might cause. As Wyoming has pointed out a handful of crazies has created havoc, for which the typical government response is to saddle 330,000,000 people with onerous restrictions. And at the same time it sets up the potential for huge government overreach. The regulations that have been bandied about on this board could ultimately result in the gov't having access to a mega database of the personal/private lives of many millions of people. A Samantha Powers type person might decide to use her security clearance to "investigate" her political opponents, and leak any embarrassing information to the press. Or a Donald Trump type person might choose to raid someone who is innocent of any misdeed but has said mean things about his tiny hands. As I have said repeatedly to those that seek government solution the onus is on them to show exactly what they want the government to do, exactly what procedures they they want, and show in great detail how it will solve the problem about which they are concerned without violating individual rights. I don't think that's expecting too much. Maybe we disagree.

As regard the topic of felons carrying firearms. I no more want to see them carry firearms than Medic waking around with a gun strapped to his thigh. If you mean do I think it should be illegal for a felon to have a firearm I suppose it depends on the felony involved. Has the felon served his time, paid the price for his sin? Would that matter? I don't know. Did I surprise you? (Probably not.)

 

[Medic007]

Was about to say the same thing. I guess @Ponca Dan thinks we should not have speed limits, since they do not prevent every driver from speeding.

Speed limits and databases aren't comparable. Speed limits are designed to limit speed which is a physical factor in car crashes. What Ponca Dan is asking is how will a database prevent mass shootings if the mass shooter can legally purchase firearms. The correct answer is that it won't. Our current background system isn't perfect and could use a lot of funding and support to make it robust, but it won't prevent me, a legal gun owner, from going out and killing a bunch of people tonight if I decide that's how I'm going to spend my evening.

 

[Medic007]

I no more want to see them carry firearms than Medic waking around with a gun strapped to his thigh.

Well. Huh. But what if my thigh was covered by some sexy mesh pantyhose? What then?

 

[Ponca Dan]

Well. Huh. But what if my thigh was covered by some sexy mesh pantyhose? What then?

Don't get me excited!

 

[CowboyJD]

Of course if a regulation reduces a criminal problem it would be considered to have value. But one has to weigh the good it does with the harm (and potential harm) a regulation might cause. As Wyoming has pointed out a handful of crazies has created havoc, for which the typical government response is to saddle 330,000,000 people with onerous restrictions. And at the same time it sets up the potential for huge government overreach. The regulations that have been bandied about on this board could ultimately result in the gov't having access to a mega database of the personal/private lives of many millions of people. A Samantha Powers type person might decide to use her security clearance to "investigate" her political opponents, and leak any embarrassing information to the press. Or a Donald Trump type person might choose to raid someone who is innocent of any misdeed but has said mean things about his tiny hands. As I have said repeatedly to those that seek government solution the onus is on them to show exactly what they want the government to do, exactly what procedures they they want, and show in great detail how it will solve the problem about which they are concerned without violating individual rights. I don't think that's expecting too much. Maybe we disagree.

As regard the topic of felons carrying firearms. I no more want to see them carry firearms than Medic waking around with a gun strapped to his thigh. If you mean do I think it should be illegal for a felon to have a firearm I suppose it depends on the felony involved. Has the felon served his time, paid the price for his sin? Would that matter? I don't know. Did I surprise you? (Probably not.)

You might do a little research into what is actually in the NICS database before thinking up all these wild speculations about how it could be abused. The procedures are all already there. Including the present prohibitions for possession of a firearm under the Brady Act.

Or not.

I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind. You've made it pretty clear you're not prone to doing so or taking criticism of your stated beliefs. We're good here.

Did you surprise me? Maybe a little bit....to the extent that you didn't clearly and expressly think felons shouldn't be prohibited by the state from carrying firearms at all....considering your stated views re: anarchy.

 

[Ponca Dan]

You might do a little research into what is actually in the NICS database before thinking up all these wild speculations about how it could be abused. The procedures are all already there. Including the present prohibitions for possession of a firearm under the Brady Act.

Or not.

I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind. You've made it pretty clear you're not prone to doing so or taking criticism of your stated beliefs. We're good here.

Did you surprise me? Maybe a little bit....to the extent that you didn't clearly and expressly think felons shouldn't be prohibited by the state from carrying firearms at all....considering your stated views re: anarchy.

Hopefully you’ll forgive me for not trusting the procedures about which you describe. As I previously mentioned established procedures did not prevent Ms. Powers, the UN Ambassador, from circumventing procedures several dozen times. It appears the US Aur Force disregarded procedures that resulted in the Texas church shooting. I’m a little skeptical of any government agency/agent following procedures if he/she decides to bypass them.

In what way have I made it clear I’m not prone to taking criticism of my stated beliefs? My anarchism is purely theoretical, purely philosophical. An attitude I have taken about 45 years to develop. That has included countless criticisms from friends in all walks of life. I may not agree with a criticism. But I haven’t thrown too many tantrums at those who disagree with me, unless their disagreement includes needless insults on myself.

I take great pride that I maybe surprised you a little!

 

[CowboyJD]

Hopefully you’ll forgive me for not trusting the procedures about which you describe. As I previously mentioned established procedures did not prevent Ms. Powers, the UN Ambassador, from circumventing procedures several dozen times. It appears the US Aur Force disregarded procedures that resulted in the Texas church shooting. I’m a little skeptical of any government agency/agent following procedures if he/she decides to bypass them.

In what way have I made it clear I’m not prone to taking criticism of my stated beliefs? My anarchism is purely theoretical, purely philosophical. An attitude I have taken about 45 years to develop. That has included countless criticisms from friends in all walks of life. I may not agree with a criticism. But I haven’t thrown too many tantrums at those who disagree with me, unless their disagreement includes needless insults on myself.

I take great pride that I maybe surprised you a little!

Again, you might want to look at what is ACTUALLY IN the NICS database before wildly speculating about how it could be misused. Or maybe just state that you're against any possible solution to excessive gun violence that involves the state in any way....because that is fundamentally your regular position.

I understand you don't think you have thrown too many tantrums at those who disagree with you unless their disagreement includes insults.

We're just gonna end up disagreeing about that and leave it at that.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Again, you might want to look at what is ACTUALLY IN the NICS database before wildly speculating about how it could be misused. Or maybe just state that you're against any possible solution to excessive gun violence that involves the state in any way....because that is fundamentally your regular position.

I understand you don't think you have thrown too many tantrums at those who disagree with you unless their disagreement includes insults.

We're just gonna end up disagreeing about that and leave it at that.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[Ponca Dan]

For those gun control advocates who insist their demands are for our own safety and protection, for those who belittle the ones who are concerned about our liberty and privacy, for those who think the government’s only desire is to keep us secure, that tyranny could never happen here, because safeguards and procedures have been put in place to see to it that government agents cannot violate our rights, I present you with this article. (It’s not about guns but the principle is the same. I hope you are able to see that.)

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/11...t-steals-liberty-and-fails-to-deliver-safety/

 

[GL97]

Before GL jumps in and wants to argue history and that Heller is bad law....I'm more interested in what can be done to mitigate damage under the present state of the law rather than theoretical jurisprudential discussions about the 2nd Amendment.

I am all for seeking to mitigate damages under the present state of law. The problem is though, there is a certain segment of Americans who stand in the way of any attempt to modify the gun laws in this country. Even laws that a vast majority of Americans support.

Heller is bad law and will most likely either be overturned or rendered useless in the future IMO. However, till that happens, it is the legal framework we must operate under and I understand that.

 

[JimmyBob]

This thread was entertaining until some folks left ol' Medic hanging out there in his mesh pantyhose.

 

[Ponca Dan]

He's commented on not needing DUI laws before, so I am certain.

Please allow me to correct your mischaracterization. I have not commented on not needing DUI laws before. What I have said is that a person who drives impaired but makes it home safely without causing any harm to anyone else has not violated anyone’s rights. When he drunkenly crashes into another vehicle at that point he has violated rights. Whether there should be DUI laws have not been discussed by me on this board.

 

[CowboyJD]

Please allow me to correct your mischaracterization. I have not commented on not needing DUI laws before. What I have said is that a person who drives impaired but makes it home safely without causing any harm to anyone else has not violated anyone’s rights. When he drunkenly crashes into another vehicle at that point he has violated rights. Whether there should be DUI laws have not been discussed by me on this board.

A distinction of form rather than substance.

If someone doesn't violate someone else's rights until they drunkenly crash into them, does the state have a need or should it have the authority to penalize driving impaired but making it safely home in your preferred anarchistic utopian society or not?

 

[Ponca Dan]

A distinction of form rather than substance.

If someone doesn't violate someone else's rights until they drunkenly crash into them, does the state have a need or should it have the authority to penalize driving impaired but making it safely home in your preferred anarchistic utopian society or not?

A drunken driver has violated a law, but not anyone’s rights until he causes actual harm. I think the distinction is rather substantive.

 

[imprimis]

The failure by the military services to report criminal convictions to the NCIC database is not a new revelation. A report from 1997 shows that the Navy failed to report the outcome of 94 percent of its criminal cases. The Army failed to report 79 percent and the Air Force 50 percent.

Got to input the data in order for the gatekeepers to retrieve it.

http://www.timesheraldonline.com/ge...-failure-to-report-church-shooters-conviction

 

[davidallen]

Thanks for your response, but, no, it doesn't really clarify anything for me. A database lists all those people prohibited from legally purchasing a firearm. A nutcase that heretofore has given no one any cause for alarm will not be on the prohibited list. He takes his legally purchased guns and kills a slew of people. What did the database do to prevent such a crime? I have a lot of trouble seeing how a national database eliminates the problem. If it is if no use in eliminating the problem about which we seek answers, why should there be a national database at all?

Right because if you can't solve for every possible scenario there is nothing that can be done....

 

[CowboyJD]

A drunken driver has violated a law, but not anyone’s rights until he causes actual harm. I think the distinction is rather substantive.

Not to the question of whether the law is needed or justified.

But, whatevs.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Right because if you can't solve for every possible scenario there is nothing that can be done....

Not the most mature answer you could have made. Why don’t you try to provide a substantive answer? How does a national database prevent mass shootings? It has been stipulated on this thread that a national database is needed to prevent future killings. Please explain to this unenlightened soul how it would do that. Is that so hard to do?

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Not the most mature answer you could have made. Why don’t you try to provide a substantive answer? How does a national database prevent mass shootings? It has been stipulated on this thread that a national database is needed to prevent future killings. Please explain to this unenlightened soul how it would do that. Is that so hard to do?

Japan has one regarding guns. Read up on their gun violence and death rate and their system of gun control.

There are lots of other countries that have successful gun controls with databases too. Go to google.com and you can enter questions that will take you all types of websites that show you what countries are doing with gun databases.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Not to the question of whether the law is needed or justified.

But, whatevs.

Oh, sorry, my bad. If we're going to have laws this one is needed and justified. Satisfied?

 

[osu_orangestreak]

Japan has one regarding guns. Read up on their gun violence and death rate and their system of gun control.

There are lots of other countries that have successful gun controls with databases too. Go to google.com and you can enter questions that will take you all types of websites that show you what countries are doing with gun databases.

Japan had 12 gun deaths in 2013, we had over 11,000.

They be doing everything wrong over there, why even try.

 

[imprimis]

Meanwhile in Chicago they're on track to exceed last years total of murders.

http://heyjackass.com/

 

[Ponca Dan]

Japan had 12 gun deaths in 2013, we had over 11,000.

They be doing everything wrong over there, why even try.

I'll try one more time and then I'll give up. If Japan (or any of the other countries cited) has a gun database, and has very low mass shootings as a result of the gun database, how did the database do it? How did the database reduce mass shootings? You people want a gun database. You insist it will reduce mass killings. Please, PLEASE, explain to me how it reduces mass killings. Saying "other countries do it" is not an answer. You sound like my daughter when she was a teenager and wanted to go to Tulsa to a nightclub, and when she was told she couldn't go she replied "but ALL the other kids are going!"

 

[Been Jammin]

I'll try one more time and then I'll give up. If Japan (or any of the other countries cited) has a gun database, and has very low mass shootings as a result of the gun database, how did the database do it? How did the database reduce mass shootings? You people want a gun database. You insist it will reduce mass killings. Please, PLEASE, explain to me how it reduces mass killings. Saying "other countries do it" is not an answer. You sound like my daughter when she was a teenager and wanted to go to Tulsa to a nightclub, and when she was told she couldn't go she replied "but ALL the other kids are going!"

I have pointed out, ITT, some ways it might help to reduce the number of people killed in mass shootings. Granted, I'm just guessing, but just because we don't know that it will help does not mean that it will not help.

It seems to me that ease of access is a problem, whether you want to talk about the LV shooter, the church shooter, or gun violence in Chicago.

If we enforce current laws designed to keep guns out of particular individuals' hands, that should help.

If the various subsets of armed forces does a better job of reporting criminal activity to the organizations that would prevent the criminals from buying guns, that should help.

Anything that we can do to limit the easiness of acquiring certain weapons, or improve the chances that said acquisition might set off a red flag, that should help.

There are plenty of ways to skin this cat. I can promise you that saying "there is nothing we can do" or "now is not the time to discuss it" is not going to do anything to help fix the problem.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I have pointed out, ITT, some ways it might help to reduce the number of people killed in mass shootings. Granted, I'm just guessing, but just because we don't know that it will help does not mean that it will not help.

It seems to me that ease of access is a problem, whether you want to talk about the LV shooter, the church shooter, or gun violence in Chicago.

If we enforce current laws designed to keep guns out of particular individuals' hands, that should help.

If the various subsets of armed forces does a better job of reporting criminal activity to the organizations that would prevent the criminals from buying guns, that should help.

Anything that we can do to limit the easiness of acquiring certain weapons, or improve the chances that said acquisition might set off a red flag, that should help.

There are plenty of ways to skin this cat. I can promise you that saying "there is nothing we can do" or "now is not the time to discuss it" is not going to do anything to help fix the problem.

Thanks for the reply, Been. Of all the people on here you seem to be the least emotional. I do want to point out, however, that I have never said "there is nothing we can do," or "now is not the time to discuss it." Hell, I'm trying my best to get people to discuss it. From my vantage point it appears to me that people like sys and GL have heard people on "their team" say "we should do this, or we should do that," and because it came from "their team" they support it tooth and nail. When asked to give detailed support they respond by saying "the answers can be found. Look it up." Where's the discussion in that reply? As to your comment, there are a lot of "ifs" and "maybes" involved. I'm unwilling to sacrifice an iota of my liberty on the off chance that something might work. (Of course, I'm unwilling to sacrifice an iota of my liberty for almost anything. Our Founding Fathers warned us to be eternally vigilant in defense of freedom. I take their warning seriously.)

 

[Been Jammin]

I'm unwilling to sacrifice an iota of my liberty on the off chance that something might work. (Of course, I'm unwilling to sacrifice an iota of my liberty for almost anything. Our Founding Fathers warned us to be eternally vigilant in defense of freedom. I take their warning seriously.)

Fair enough. Let me ask you something. Do you envision a point that you might change your mind on the above? For example...what if there is a mass shooting every week? What if there is a rash of mass shootings where the targets are schools? Can you imagine a scenario where you would be willing to "sacrifice an iota of your your liberty" because the situation has escalated to the point that you are willing to admit that the system is broken and needs to be fixed?

 

[07pilt]

Meanwhile in Chicago they're on track to exceed last years total of murders.

http://heyjackass.com/

People get shot in Chicago a lot, which proves my point that that gun laws are fine the way they are, if anything they are too restrictive.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Fair enough. Let me ask you something. Do you envision a point that you might change your mind on the above? For example...what if there is a mass shooting every week? What if there is a rash of mass shootings where the targets are schools? Can you imagine a scenario where you would be willing to "sacrifice an iota of your your liberty" because the situation has escalated to the point that you are willing to admit that the system is broken and needs to be fixed?

Ouch! That's a tough one. I am going to say I cannot envision a scenario where I would be willing to sacrifice liberty. I think if things became so bleak, mass shootings every week, for example, the government would turn into a tyrannical monster, even worse than it is now. You have to understand mass killings are the province of government (wars). No government is going to allow any competition in that regard - ever! What's the saying: "Never let a crisis go to waste." Mass killings every week would be too good an opportunity for the state to pass up. Sys and GL would get what they have always wanted, a state that would put every one of us under its heel. So in the scenario you paint we would all lose our liberty whether we wanted to or not. Just my kookbird outburst of the day!

 

[Been Jammin]

Ouch! That's a tough one. I am going to say I cannot envision a scenario where I would be willing to sacrifice liberty. I think if things became so bleak, mass shootings every week, for example, the government would turn into a tyrannical monster, even worse than it is now. You have to understand mass killings are the province of government (wars). No government is going to allow any competition in that regard - ever! What's the saying: "Never let a crisis go to waste." Mass killings every week would be too good an opportunity for the state to pass up. Sys and GL would get what they have always wanted, a state that would put every one of us under its heel. So in the scenario you paint we would all lose our liberty whether we wanted to or not. Just my kookbird outburst of the day!

So, for you, the only 2 options are...

-don't change anything

or

-things get so bad that the result is martial law (which you, and most everyone, would consider to be an absolute nightmare).

So, to me, it seems logical that it is possible that there might become a point, that things are getting worse and you look at losing some of your current liberties as a better option than heading in the martial law direction.

 

[Ponca Dan]

So, for you, the only 2 options are...

-don't change anything

or

-things get so bad that the result is martial law (which you, and most everyone, would consider to be an absolute nightmare).

So, to me, it seems logical that it is possible that there might become a point, that things are getting worse and you look at losing some of your current liberties as a better option than heading in the martial law direction.

At what point in this conversation have I said "don't change anything?" You are projecting an attitude on me I don't have. What I have a hard time seeing is a governmental solution. A governmental solution will result in one of two possibilities IMO. A gradual loss of liberty as the government tries an incremental crackdown on gun ownership. What GL called a "good start." Or, in the weekly mass killings about which you speculated, an immediate, tyrannical response. In both cases we would be told it's for our own good. The government is here to help. In both cases the impact on our liberty will be substantial. I assume the first possibility, a gradual imposition of gun control, is what will play out. If you are interested there is a book by Robert Higgs, titled "Crisis and Leviathan" which I think most people would find worth their time.

 

[Ponca Dan]

At what point in this conversation have I said "don't change anything?" You are projecting an attitude on me I don't have. What I have a hard time seeing is a governmental solution. A governmental solution will result in one of two possibilities IMO. A gradual loss of liberty as the government tries an incremental crackdown on gun ownership. What GL called a "good start." Or, in the weekly mass killings about which you speculated, an immediate, tyrannical response. In both cases we would be told it's for our own good. The government is here to help. In both cases the impact on our liberty will be substantial. I assume the first possibility, a gradual imposition of gun control, is what will play out. If you are interested there is a book by Robert Higgs, titled "Crisis and Leviathan" which I think most people would find worth their time.

Here’s a short book review.

https://fee.org/articles/book-revie...rowth-of-american-government-by-robert-higgs/

 

[wyomingosualum]

Japan had 12 gun deaths in 2013, we had over 11,000.

They be doing everything wrong over there, why even try.

While that stat might be true, it is not reflective of the overall murder rate. People find other ways to commit murder. Currently, Japan’s murder rate is about 1 per 100,000 population. Ours is 5 per 100,000. Still substantially higher, but not nearly as skewed as what you present.

 

[CowboyJD]

Oh, sorry, my bad. If we're going to have laws this one is needed and justified. Satisfied?

I believe I said whatevs.

You seem angry and argumentative and really wanting to get into it with someone.

That's not me.

I said whatevs.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I believe I said whatevs.

You seem angry and argumentative and really wanting to get into it with someone.

That's not me.

I said whatevs.

No, not even remotely angry. Not interested in “getting into it with someone.” You asked a question. I failed to answer. You asked again and I answered, asking if that was satisfactory. Not sure how you get angry out of that. Oh well, whatever.

 

[Been Jammin]

I see your "whatevs" and raise you a "whatever".

 

[CowboyJD]

No, not even remotely angry. Not interested in “getting into it with someone.” You asked a question. I failed to answer. You asked again and I answered, asking if that was satisfactory. Not sure how you get angry out of that. Oh well, whatever.

Not entirely accurate, but whatevs.

 

[Medic007]

I see your "whatevs" and raise you a "whatever".

Whatever...

 

[CowboyJD]

Whatever...

I know, right?

 

[Ponca Dan]

I know, right?

I’ll chalk that up as an inside joke, because I have no idea what’s so funny.

 

[GL97]

From my vantage point it appears to me that people like sys and GL have heard people on "their team" say "we should do this, or we should do that," and because it came from "their team" they support it tooth and nail. When asked to give detailed support they respond by saying "the answers can be found. Look it up." Where's the discussion in that reply?

I support measures that are common sense and ones I believe would make a difference. I support measures that have shown success in other countries. It has nothing to do with someone or some team telling me what I should support.

I gave you examples of what I would support when asked and discussed them. However, there was no point in continuing to go back and forth with you when you made it clear that you will fight to your last breath to oppose such measures...

I don’t care if your “meaningful gun control” has the positive effect you hope for. I don’t care if it’s a failure that you then demand even further erosion of my liberty. I don’t care if you confiscate every gun in America to enforce your policy. And if your policy has the exact consequences you hope for, and there’s not another mass shooting ever again, I will still oppose it to my last breath.

What is the point in having a discussion with you about gun control when this is your position? Even if certain gun control policies had success in reducing gun violence, you would still oppose them. That is what you posted.

And this is why posters eventually tell you to go look it up, or google it, or just move on. They come to the realization that you aren't going to change your mind. So there is no point in continuing the back and forth.

I am going to say I cannot envision a scenario where I would be willing to sacrifice liberty.

And here you are again showcasing what I am referencing. To you, embracing some new gun control measures signals "sacrificing liberty." You have embraced an extreme position on this issue and aren't willing to budge.