Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mass shooting in Texas

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    You can argue all you want, the Airforce has already admithey failed to notify the FBI and the ATF of his conviction which would have stopped him from legally purchasing weapons. Those are the facts.
    So he would buy them from non-dealers, or even illegally. So what?

    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    Their failure to follow protocol place every LEO that came into,contact with this man is extreme danger because of the lack of information about his violent nature. I shouldn’t have to tell you how important a background check is.
    You don't, because background checks are worthless. A lot of areas simply don't do them.

    Nor are all gun sellers required to perform checks.

    Not to mention the tens of thousands of illegal weapons transfers every year.

    Just because you pass a law does not mean it stops a problem.
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
      So he would buy them from non-dealers, or even illegally. So what?



      You don't, because background checks are worthless. A lot of areas simply don't do them.

      Nor are all gun sellers required to perform checks.

      Not to mention the tens of thousands of illegal weapons transfers every year.

      Just because you pass a law does not mean it stops a problem.
      Passing laws is how politicians justify their paychecks. That is all.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
        So he would buy them from non-dealers, or even illegally. So what?



        You don't, because background checks are worthless. A lot of areas simply don't do them.

        Nor are all gun sellers required to perform checks.

        Not to mention the tens of thousands of illegal weapons transfers every year.

        Just because you pass a law does not mean it stops a problem.
        And just because a laws does stop a problem does not mean you should not pass it...
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
          If you believe your constitutional rights can not be taken away think again.

          https://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...03/guncard.pdf
          Except that ATF only investigates crimes involving multiple weapons are organized crime, and local agencies don't enforce Federal law. And it still requires due process to be declared a prohibited person.

          In Texas, where he committed the offense, it still requires (as in every state) due process.

          He was denied a carry permit by the state.

          You can't get around it, UH: you cannot incarcerate people for being mentally ill, and you cannot deny someone their rights for any length of time without due process. This is America.
          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by pamak View Post
            It is pretty obvious that there was conflicting information.

            The link BREITART used to justify a headline that he was an atheist who was calling people stupid, ALSO includes the information that his linkedin profile revealed that he was a USAF veteran AND an ex-Bible studies teacher. So anybody who rushes to pass as facts his "ASSUMPTIONS" regarding his actual profile without even reading what he actually said, is a hack!

            THis is Bretibart

            http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/...stians-stupid/



            And this is from the Daily Mail

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-atheism.html



            The difference between the leftist MSM and the links you bring is that ONLY the latter decided to create a headline about the shooter's religious beliefs after choosing, of course, the pieces of information that fit their narrative and dismiss contradictory information or alternative interpretations.


            And something else: Notice how ALL the sources you bring are based on the SAME Daily Mail article. Notice also how the British were able to find first the classmates of the shooter and talk to them..You know, it is very easy that I can claim I am John Johnson and was a classmate of this guy who was a fanatic Christian fundamentalist who preached the Bible in his social media which apparently nobody can check. It seems that if the British newspaper got this information first, it did so by talking to some people in internet (and I give them the benefit of the doubt that they did not simply invent the whole thing). And finally, as I said from the beginning, it is the issue of the context of his remarks. So even if he did posted things "against Christians," you have to see if this was a reflection of a general philosophical belief or a result of his confrontation with the PARTICULAR church and Christians associated to his mother in law...
            Why are you so afraid to admit he was an atheist? The level of mental gymnastics you are doing to deny this is impressive.

            It's not like I'm saying atheism made him a shooter or that all atheists are culpable. Far from it. So there's no need for this frantic attempt to deny the obvious. He was an atheist. He claimed as much on Facebook. His personal contacts all confirm this. That's just how it is. That doesn't make atheists bad or make atheism his motive in the shooting. It's just the basic truth and trying to deny it is neither necessary nor productive.
            A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

            Comment


            • The guy was an Atheist. Capital A. The vast majority of atheists (little a) are really just secularists. The capital A Atheist is the one that actively denies the possibility of a God or Gods as opposed to the little a version that says there is no God but really doesn't care if there is or not.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                Why are you so afraid to admit he was an atheist? The level of mental gymnastics you are doing to deny this is impressive.

                It's not like I'm saying atheism made him a shooter or that all atheists are culpable. Far from it. So there's no need for this frantic attempt to deny the obvious. He was an atheist. He claimed as much on Facebook. His personal contacts all confirm this. That's just how it is. That doesn't make atheists bad or make atheism his motive in the shooting. It's just the basic truth and trying to deny it is neither necessary nor productive.
                This is like asking me why I am afraid to admit that I beat my wife...

                What I point s the issue of journalistic standards I see when people dismiss contradictory information and create headlines which they present as facts based only on selected information from third sources which invoke internet rumors because they want to push a specific narrative that panders to their audience. THIS is what I pointed when I talked about Breitbart's fake news tactics. And again, without context you do not know if he was a real atheist who was lashing out against Christians, or if he was a rejected christian who was lashing out against the particular Christians who rejected him. On top of this, when somebody feels that the issue of if he was "atheist" or not is important for a headline, it shows that he has has an agenda which is far from what you say. I mean that if they really did NOT want to push the narrative that atheists [are] bad or " atheism being a contributing at least factor for his motive in the shooting, they would simply follow the practices of other less biased sources which simply reported ALL available information (including information that he was a Christian) without making headlines about his personal beliefs based on a selective use and interpretation of the available information.

                But, hey, we are talking about a source which panders to an audience accustomed to link personal religious beliefs, such as those related to the Muslim religion, with moral failings. And a big part of the same audience also believes that today we experience a moral decay because Christianity is not anymore the foundation of our morality. Recall that Breitbart was strongly supporting the lunatic Evangelical candidate for the US Senate who was pushing the same narrative.
                Last edited by pamak; 08 Nov 17, 17:47.
                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by pamak View Post
                  This is like asking me why I am afraid to admit that I beat my wife...

                  What I point s the issue of journalistic standards I see when people dismiss contradictory information and create headlines which they present as facts based only on selected information from third sources which invoke internet rumors because they want to push a specific narrative that panders to their audience. THIS is what I pointed when I talked about Breitbart's fake news tactics. And again, without context you do not know if he was a real atheist who was lashing out against Christians, or if he was a rejected christian who was lashing out against the particular Christians who rejected him. On top of this, when somebody feels that the issue of if he was "atheist" or not is important for a headline, it shows that he has has an agenda which is far from what you say. I mean that if they really did NOT want to push the narrative that atheists [are] bad or " atheism being a contributing at least factor for his motive in the shooting, they would simply follow the practices of other less biased sources which simply reported ALL available information (including information that he was a Christian) without making headlines about his personal beliefs based on a selective use and interpretation of the available information.

                  But, hey, we are talking about a source which panders to an audience accustomed to link personal religious beliefs, such as those related to the Muslim religion, with moral failings. And a big part of the same audience also believes that today we experience a moral decay because Christianity is not anymore the foundation of our morality. Recall that Breitbart was strongly supporting the lunatic Evangelical candidate for the US Senate who was pushing the same narrative.
                  1. He wasn't a Christian. If he is, then I'm Indian because dang it if I can't get enough of that tandoori chicken they cook at India Rasoi.

                  You do present an interesting intellectual curiosity though. You insist he is a Christian based on an unsubstantiated claim he made on LinkedIn, but don't want to admit he is an atheist based on multiple accounts of his personal contacts saying otherwise. The solitary claim of a mentally deranged man you want to take to be absolute truth, but the testimony of many who knew him you call fake news. As Spock says, fascinating. Why do you believe his LinkedIn profile, but not his personal relations?

                  One more thing. You say that the mere making of anti Christian statements do not automatically make him an atheist. But that does kind of indicate he isn't a Christian. How do you rationalize being a Christian and being anti Christian at the same time?

                  2. I never said Breitbart is a great news source. But Breitbart and CNN are telling the same story. You're complaining about a non issue.
                  Last edited by Pirateship1982; 08 Nov 17, 19:05.
                  A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                    1. He wasn't a Christian. If he is, then I'm Indian because dang it if I can't get enough of that tandoori chicken they cook at India Rasoi.

                    You do present an interesting intellectual curiosity though. You insist he is a Christian based on an unsubstantiated claim he made on LinkedIn, but don't want to admit he is an atheist based on multiple accounts of his personal contacts saying otherwise. The solitary claim of a mentally deranged man you want to take to be absolute truth, but the testimony of many who knew him you call fake news. As Spock says, fascinating. Why do you believe his LinkedIn profile, but not his personal relations?

                    2. I never said Breitbart is a great news source. But Breitbart and CNN are telling the same story. You're complaining about a non issue.
                    1. I did not insist that he is a christian. I insisted that we have conflicting information! And I also explained that your example of people going to Indian restaurants even though they are not Indians fails to show that people who are not Indians DO have motives to go to Indian restaurants because they expect some service. Plus, the Linkedin information talks about an x-Bible teacher which is far from your argument of an atheist who may decide to attends church to accompany his religious partner. The same is true with his fascination with gun cultures. This also does not fit with the typical image of an atheist. And it was not that I accepted his claim that he wanted to attend the church. This information came from other sources as my initial quote showed. On top of this, without context, I certainly will not accept the claims of some media which talked through internet to some who may or may not be his classmates. As I said, his attack against the Christians may be simply a response to his rejection by the Christians of this particular church. Without bothering to find the context of what he said, one can distort his words quite easily.

                    2. And no, Breitbart and CNN are NOT telling the same story. The headline choice makes a BIG difference about CNN's and Breitbart's intentions to tell or imply a particular narrative!
                    Last edited by pamak; 08 Nov 17, 19:46.
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                      Except that ATF only investigates crimes involving multiple weapons are organized crime, and local agencies don't enforce Federal law. And it still requires due process to be declared a prohibited person.

                      In Texas, where he committed the offense, it still requires (as in every state) due process.

                      He was denied a carry permit by the state.

                      You can't get around it, UH: you cannot incarcerate people for being mentally ill, and you cannot deny someone their rights for any length of time without due process. This is America.
                      His conviction by the military court was not reported to the FBI, or the ATF, that failure allowed him to purchase weapons.
                      There is a reason every gun dealer is required to submit an ATF form 61446
                      https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
                      Questions C. F. and Question G would have prevented him from possessing a weapon.
                      There is no way around it AJ, the system screwed up.
                      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by pamak View Post
                        And just because a laws does stop a problem does not mean you should not pass it...
                        I get your drift, but what law has ever stopped anyone from doing what they want to do or intent to do?
                        Laws are made for people that obey them, and most of us do, but some do not, and more laws on top of the laws we already have won't do a damn thing to people that disobey them now, they will disobey them in when new ones are made, there are no laws that can be made against gun ownership in the USA other than repealing the 2nd, and I don't see that happening, and then what is one to do about the over 300 million firearms owned by people in the US?
                        It is what it is!
                        Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
                          I get your drift, but what law has ever stopped anyone from doing what they want to do or intent to do?
                          Laws are made for people that obey them, and most of us do, but some do not, and more laws on top of the laws we already have won't do a damn thing to people that disobey them now, they will disobey them in when new ones are made, there are no laws that can be made against gun ownership in the USA other than repealing the 2nd, and I don't see that happening, and then what is one to do about the over 300 million firearms owned by people in the US?
                          It is what it is!
                          The point is not to stop. Laws in the case of mass shooters will not stop crimes (never do) , and will not deter such sick individuals.The point is to insert one more obstacle to someone who wants to shoot people and give him one more opportunity to screw-up things when he tries to get guns from illegal sources or give the authorities one more opportunity to catch him in the illegal act of trying to get a gun in the black market.
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pamak View Post
                            The point is not to stop. Laws in the case of mass shooters will not stop crimes (never do) , and will not deter such sick individuals.The point is to insert one more obstacle to someone who wants to shoot people and give him one more opportunity to screw-up things when he tries to get guns from illegal sources or give the authorities one more opportunity to catch him in the illegal act of trying to get a gun in the black market.
                            Wrong analogy. The system shouldn't add complexity and layers hoping to catch the bad guys through volume. This is the reverse of what Admiral Rickover did with the Navy's nuclear power program where the same sort of any mistake is costly and unacceptable is the potential outcome.

                            What you need are competent operators and a clear set of rules as to what needs to happen. Right now you are relying on anything from reasonably responsible people and competent operators to idiots to input the information needed to screen individuals. Raise the competence and standards of those putting in the NICS / NCIC information and hold them to a high standard rather then relying on redundancy.
                            I'd rather have one really competent individual doing the screening than five idiots who haven't got much of a clue.
                            Rickover made sure that people in the nuclear power program knew their $h!+ inside and out and could do their job in their sleep if it came to that. If you didn't, you got tossed out. There's no reason why a similar attitude couldn't be put into this system other than the hurt feelings of some moron at Walmart who can't understand why his barely got a GED and is paid minimum wage @$$ has to get the one guy in the store that gets paid well to run all the checks on some slob buying a firearm, and Progressives saying that it's "unfair" that idiots are being sidelined in this system.

                            This is the sort of a degree in art history is equal to one in theoretical physics or that a GED equals an AP high school diploma thinking that the Left does (in particular). In this case, it's what gets people killed.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by pamak View Post
                              The point is not to stop. Laws in the case of mass shooters will not stop crimes (never do) , and will not deter such sick individuals.The point is to insert one more obstacle to someone who wants to shoot people and give him one more opportunity to screw-up things when he tries to get guns from illegal sources or give the authorities one more opportunity to catch him in the illegal act of trying to get a gun in the black market.
                              No, you believe in collective punishment, you want all gun-ownders found guilty until there are no more gun owners... as all gun-grabbers eventually admit when pressed on the matter.
                              Your Laws FAILED.
                              In 3 instances the killer should have been prevented from being able to buy guns by law and the data wasn't entered and all of those 20,000 anti-gun laws failed to stop this.
                              I don't really think law # 20,001 would make any difference, except to make things harder for people who legally own guns.

                              And BTW, yes, he was an atheist, and everyone knows it. Are you denying it because you can only perceive Atheists as being on the Left?
                              Seems that way, but I'm here to tell you that's a dumb assumption.

                              Reality check time-
                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5T2Il8et4k





                              More good stuff-

                              Last edited by The Exorcist; 09 Nov 17, 00:56.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                                Wrong analogy. The system shouldn't add complexity and layers hoping to catch the bad guys through volume. This is the reverse of what Admiral Rickover did with the Navy's nuclear power program where the same sort of any mistake is costly and unacceptable is the potential outcome.

                                What you need are competent operators and a clear set of rules as to what needs to happen. Right now you are relying on anything from reasonably responsible people and competent operators to idiots to input the information needed to screen individuals. Raise the competence and standards of those putting in the NICS / NCIC information and hold them to a high standard rather then relying on redundancy.
                                I'd rather have one really competent individual doing the screening than five idiots who haven't got much of a clue.
                                Rickover made sure that people in the nuclear power program knew their $h!+ inside and out and could do their job in their sleep if it came to that. If you didn't, you got tossed out. There's no reason why a similar attitude couldn't be put into this system other than the hurt feelings of some moron at Walmart who can't understand why his barely got a GED and is paid minimum wage @$$ has to get the one guy in the store that gets paid well to run all the checks on some slob buying a firearm, and Progressives saying that it's "unfair" that idiots are being sidelined in this system.

                                This is the sort of a degree in art history is equal to one in theoretical physics or that a GED equals an AP high school diploma thinking that the Left does (in particular). In this case, it's what gets people killed.
                                I love your judgement of what is good or bad analogy...

                                I guess, I can bring Clausewitz in the conversation to say that forcing potential shooters to develop more complicated plans increases friction and the probability that their plan will fail. And there is no reason not to make their life (and plans) more complicated because it is not like you are risking starting a thermonuclear war. And recall again the NRA video. it seems that the failures of the system are not simply the result of incompetent operators. It is the result of lawmakers who create laws without teeth regarding how to report felonies to the national database...
                                Last edited by pamak; 09 Nov 17, 01:45.
                                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X