Air Force failed to report Devin Kelley's convictions to the FBI
- Thread starter Medic007
- Start date
You are pro choice right? I'm guessing that any number under 1.3million annually shouldn't really grab your attention
Do they take those babies out and grow them some other place? That would be odd.
I hope you are being facetious, because I don't consider you my bitter enemy. We just disagree on this issue.
More and more I believe you are not nearly as simple as you portray yourself to be here - that your inner troll takes over more and more frequently.
To the extent an up to date registry prevents some segment of those seeking a gun illegally from obtaining one the potential for shootings is reduced. Simple right. You get that right. Of course this statement won't meet your standard.
You've as much as admitted that the opinions you put out here are fantasy - in the real world complex problems are not solved with a simple maxim.
So in your opinion every gun owning citizen in America should be required by law - with legal penalties attached (jail?) - to register every gun in his/her possession with a national law enforcement agency because it might - MIGHT! - have an impact on the number of mass shootings. You’re not sure it will have an impact, but just in case, you think it is a good idea for all gun owners to register their guns and pass an inspection on whether the bureaucrat deems him or her fit to own a gun. And it is your opinion that the bureaucrat in charge is miraculously exempt from the character flaws of the rest of us. No bureaucrat with that kind of power over the rest of us will abuse it. Is that what you're saying? It probably seems like I’m trolling to you because I am asking questions you are uncomfortable in answering. Otherwise you would have answered the questions without delay or complaint. Is it possible you don’t answer the questions because you know the answers are counterproductive to your desires? Or do you simply not know the answers, but don’t want to admit it? What is it about the questions that you find so objectionable? No, never mind, don’t bother answering, you probably find that question objectionable too.
You're still not getting it despite its "simplicity." How will an up to date registry prevent a legal firearm owner from committing a mass shooting? That's exactly what Las Vegas was and was tragically the end result of the failure of the Air Force to do their job in the church shooting.
We already know criminals aren't fond of following the law and likely aren't affected by any gun control measures.
Is this just lip service bullshit from you then? We have a set of databases that the backgrounds that are already pulled come from. It didn't prevent Vegas and didn't prevent the church shooting because some agency didn't do its job. Are you saying we need more databases? Certainly the ones we already have need to be much better and folks need to get data to it, but that doesn't need a new law.
For a thread you are so involved in you don't seem to be reading anything but your own posts... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and repeat the first thing I posted in this thread. Who is it that consistently works against funding the necessary staff, regulatory enforcement, and technology to make the NCIS database actually work? Therefore, who is complicit in the failure of the Air Force?
So the failure of the Air Force to report is the fault of the GOP? Uh, ok. I'll counter with the fact that the Obama administration should have been doing a better job at making sure critical tasks were done instead of trying to socially engineer the military into a pink pussy and rainbow hat wearing brigade.
Well crap, I wrote a reply but it’s not showing up. I’ll try again.
Let’s stipulate the Republicans and conservatives have purposely held back funding for a proper collection/database on American gun owners. Let’s agree they are evil SOBs that don’t care how many innocent people get slaughtered. What they care about is the lucrative donations they get from their even more evil overlords and masters at the NRA. That part of the equation is completely agreed upon. So it is no longer on the table, it’s no longer a fallback position for you. You win that point. If only Uncle Sam had more funding so it could hire more administrators and data collectors, and could buy the latest technology, and could hire all the law enforcers necessary to carry out your plan! Then we’d be in business, right?
So, hypothetically speaking, if all the funding was in place, if all the administrators and data collectors were hired, and all the latest technology was at their fingertips, and all the police/FBI law enforcers were on the job, the American public has bought into the plan and has submitted itself to every dictate required of it before it could own a gun, what would be the anticipated reduction in killers commiting mass shootings? How large a reduction, what percentage reduction would this plan provide? How would the perfect database prevent any more mass murders? It’s a straight forward question that Medic and I have asked over and over, and have yet to receive an answer, only subtle insults from you. Are you capable of giving a direct answer?
OK Sparky, you go right on ahead with that. Sometimes I forget you can't fix stupid....
Subtle? Sorry I will be more direct in the future.
Your demand that I (or anyone else for that matter) provide you a precise percentile reduction in one category of use of illegally obtained weapons is absurd. I will say a properly maintained central repository would have denied Devin Patrick Kelley the weapon he used to murder 25 people. Could he have obtained a weapon illegally, of course. Would a sting operation perhaps have intercepted that attempt? Maybe. Would the extra effort to get a black market weapon provided a window for his rage or psychosis to pass? Maybe.
Do yourself a favor, read a bit on this topic so that we can have an actual conversation next time.
As a general rule it is accepted when one resorts to ad hominem attacks on a debating opponent it is because he recognizes he can’t win his point on its own merit. Why don’t you dispense with the insulting behavior and participate like an honorable man?
Last edited:
You clearly haven't followed most of my and Medics exchanges over the years... Good to see he has a fan boy though!
And one, well really two, more questions for you...
Who is asking for a new law? Perhaps funding the laws on the books would be enough, no?
A bit of reading that might shed light on why I am so disgusted: https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/nics-background-check-congress-spending/
There is nothing new here. Dylan Roof slipped through as well on his way to slaughtering 9 people with a weapon he never should have been allowed to purchase.
OK, asking for a percentile reduction was probably over the top. But you still haven’t explained how the perfect database would reduce mass shootings. So far all we’ve had from you is that it might work.
Your dismissal of a black market in illegal guns is jaw dropping. You are familiar of the time our glorious government banned that evil elixir, whiskey, are you not? How did that pan out? The rise of the Mafia, the sudden increased wealth in the Kennedy family and others like them. The recognition that it was a terrible policy. We see the same thing today with the ban on drugs. The black market has made it easier to buy drugs than ever, and has created an underclass of addicts and reprobate dealers, while enriching foreign suppliers. Do you really think for one minute it will be different from guns? I know you’re smarter than that.
Yes, of course I’ve followed your exchanges with Medic. And I’ve found them mildly amusing on occasion, but have always thought it was infantile and not worthy of either of your intellects. Medic and I disagree almost as often as we agree. This time I admit to being a fanboy. What’s wrong with that?
With all due respect in comparing NCIS to Prohibition you are now officially grasping at straws.
You're right, I can't fix stupid. Silly me. Maybe you should stick to pot edibles and pink pussy hats. You're clearly not built for this debate.
Oh, and Obama was in charge when the Air Forced whiffed on doing their job. You can't pass that buck. But hey, at least they were working hard to get chicks with dicks into the military, amiright? Score one for the LBWTRDFASERCB team.
No, the Obama administration led Air Force doing their Pentagon mandated job would have denied Devin Kelley the weapon he used. That's an input error, not an output error. It wouldn't shock me to learn their failures mimicked other Obama administration failures to enforce existing laws.
You might ask your side. They are fairly giddy about wanting a bunch of new laws.
I'v already answered that with agreement. I'll agree again.
Defensive much? The only one to mention the GOP is you. NRA has more than just GOP under their thumb.
Count on you though to make this a contest of teams rather than what is best for society. Bravo Medic, Bravo!
What is jaw dropping is that you apparently refuse to look to other countries' "databases" and gun control laws. If you really wanted to know these things you'd simply look them up. Lots of countries handle this problem. You're just trying to conjure up excuses.
What’s jaw dropping is your refusal to explain the extent to which other countries’ databases are responsible for any reduction in mass killings. What’s jaw dropping is your belief that by creating a police state you will have made life in America great again.
I'm sorry Dan, nobody is going to take the considerable time to explain another country's laws and how it works -- most posters on here have jobs and don't have the time to conduct research for you to nitpick. A database of gun licenses that tracks the guns and who has them is plainly working in Japan. If you can't figure out why and how that database works, you can conduct some internet research on your own.
The problem with your "police state" narrative is that there are multiple countries with successful gun laws and DATABASES (Oh the horror! Do you send your social security check back? Refusing that medicare? I admire how you must decline to get a driver's license.) that plainly aren't police states. Have you been to Australia? It doesn't seem like a police state to me.
Your side of the debate has proclaimed several things the government should do to eliminate the scourge of mass killings, including, but not limited to, a gun owner database, refusing gun ownership to people that are considered mentally ill, penalties for those that don’t report a lost or stolen gun within 24 hours, and others. GL has called that a “good start” implying that there would be more to come. When questioned about only one of those items on the agenda, please explain what would a database consist of, how would it work, who would have access to the information, to what degree it would be successful, your response is one of obfuscation, ridicule and responses designed to deflect. You have left it to me (people like me) to conjure the reality of what it is you want the state to do. So let’s conjure up what I see happening if you get your gun control. Then, if you can find it within yourself to present reasons why my scenario is flawed, other than name calling, maybe we can bring this argument to an end. Agreed?
So, first on your agenda is a thorough database, administered by a professional staff of nothing but well intentioned people who have been given the budget they deem necessary to carry out their mission, the latest technical equipment on the market, with updated equipment as soon as it becomes available, who have been given complete training on how to use the equipment, who, because of their flawless character (no way a-government bureaucrat could possibly have any character flaws, that’s reserved for the sweaty masses they are going to control), a law enforcement agency of size and training thought to be required for the program to succeed, with the understanding and acquiescence of a humbled public that willingly submits to every demand and dictate required of it. Crazy nut jobs would be identified and denied access to any gun. Failure to report a lost or stolen gun within 24 hours of the loss would be subject to criminal penalty. People suspected of defying any aspect of gun control would be subject to round the clock surveillance for as long as the law enforcement agency responsible for the surveillance believed was needed. Certain brands and models of guns would be outright prohibited by the state. Ownership of those guns would put a person in jail for an extended period of time. And that, according to you and David and GL and others, would constitute a “good start” to gun control and would make America a safer place to live, but under no circumstances should anyone see the potential for the emergence of a police state. Only a fruitcake like PoncaDan could see that. How am I doing? Have I got it right so far?
Here are some sticky questions. What information would be in the database? How would the information be collected? Once the information is in the database what would it be used for? Who would have access to the data? Why them? Would a citizen have access to the data that has been collected on him? If not, why not? What if the person entering the data made a typo so the information was flawed? Would the citizen know the data on him was flawed? How would he go about getting it corrected? How would it be determined a person is mentally ill? Would one of the questions on the application be “Are you mentally ill?” Or “have you ever been diagnosed with mental illness?” What if the answer is “yes” but the applicant lied and said “no?” How would the government know? What if the applicant answered “yes, but my therapist said I’m cured.” Would that make him eligible for gun ownership or not? Would the government take his word for it that he was cured, or would it insist on violating doctor/patient privilege and demand that it interview the doctor? Would the doctor come under any suspicion? Would he now need to be investigated? What if the doctor was wrong and the guy bought a gun and shot up his workplace? Would the doctor be held liable? How about the bureaucrat that cleared the shooter? Any repercussions flowing his way?
My point is you are concocting an agenda that in your head seems simple to administer. But in truth it would become a nightmarish labyrinth of nuances and exceptions and corruption of truth. With each controversy your plan would create another governmental solution that would increase the power and scope of the state. Abuse is a given. Look at the IRS and how it abuses people. Hell look at the clerks at the DMV. I am saying it is not out of the question that this might lead to a full blown police state in which the citizenry has been incrementally disarmed to the point resistance would be futile. All because in the beginning we demanded the government “do something.”
No Dan, when questioned, you're been consistently invited to do your own research. David, GL and I seem to be in agreement that there are multiple ways to skin the cat. Some things seem to work. If you have specific questions about the nuts and bolts of the gun database, I don't think that most posters could tell you exactly how the imaginary database would work, any more than they can tell you how how a myriad of other databases work today. People get degrees and make a living working on that stuff, amateur OSU fans are supposed to recreationally construct a database of gun owners?
I suppose I understand your point about government invasion into the gun privacy of americans. Regrettably, all of your historic income, finances, credit card purchases, cars, phone calls, internet use, health care, utility usage, arrests, subscriptions, social security, health care claims, cash withdrawals, social media posts, emails, texts, debts, late payments, children and marriages are all in databases that are accessible by both un-elected, non-state actors and government. This is so apparently obvious to most people that it's hard to get too worked up about a database of gun ownership.
No, I haven't heard anybody claim that "under no circumstances should anyone see the potential for the emergence of a police state." That's more demonstrable alarmism from you, isn't it?
You're fighting yesterday's wars. I respectfully contend you're the proverbial frog in boiling water. You don't want a police state because innocent people get oppressed. I can't think of anything more oppressive than getting shot in the head while attending church with your family. Can you? The reason we have government is to protect individual liberties.
So what would you do to lower mass shootings?
You said I couldn't fix stupid. I was just agreeing with you.
Don't be such a sour ass that I pointed out that Kenya's most effeminate goat herder was in charge during the Air Force screw up. That's what happens when doe-eyed dumbasses elect a community organizer to the highest office.
The answers to some of your questions are here: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-107/pdf/STATUTE-107-Pg1536.pdf
Yes, I’ll state right up front I’m sounding the alarm while a police state can be averted. Like the Founding Fathers advised us to do. Before it is too late and we discover we have been in a pot of water that has been set to boil.
As to what can be done? To begin we need to understand that we are not having a crisis of mass shootings. We do not need to herd together like helpless sheep and beg the government to protect us. The government’s mandate, according to you, is to protect our individual liberties. How is that working out? Your gun control solution reminds me of George Bush’s claim that he had to destroy capitalism in order to save it. You are proposing we violate individual liberty in order to protect it. I don’t know that there’s anything that can stop a cold blooded killer from killing ahead of time. I’m sure that giving up our liberty to a government is not the answer. In other words I don’t think there is an answer to the problem.
