Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mass shooting in Texas

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

  • Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    I gotta ask, did you even watch that vid you are promoting?

    It makes the same case I do; enforce existing laws instead of making up new ones.

    I like that one, and it really does make good points, such as the fact that of 80,000 felony attempts to buy guns only 44 cases were prosecuted.

    Nailing the guys who are breaking the law isn't collective punishment.... do you even know what those words mean?



    I most certainly will; he does not rely on ominous music, flashy graphics or any other extraneous BS, just facts & figures and common sense guided by decades of study.



    Then give it a try.
    As is the case with so many other things, you may find that it is harder than it looks.


    I hear this every time somebody has no argument against the points made, and they have to turn against the entire concept of stored video content being made available to the general public.
    Sorry, but it is a new age, this sort of thing is here to stay.
    It is the 21st century, get used to it.
    Now let's compare what you said, when you intervened...

    This is you

    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    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.
    If now you try to argue that it is a matter of enforcement (debatable for reasons I will explain later) why did you try to put the blame of the failure to the "my laws" which I assume means "the liberals' laws"?
    This is like having a liberal telling you "your immigration laws failed!" It does not make sense, does it? If people in certain states (more than 30 according to the NRA) do not want to enforce laws, then the problem is with those who do not want to enforce it, and not with the law. And notice how it is not that all states decide to report only 80% of their felonies. This shows that you cannot explain the results by simply pointing at the federal government.

    In addition, the lack of enforcement is often the result of having toothless laws and loopholes. . So it is far from obvious that the laws do not need to change to close loopholes and bring real consequences to those who do not follow the law. I cannot recall a case in which the federal government is so incapable to enforce tough laws that out of 80,000 felony attempts only 44 are prosecuted as the NRA video mentions (and as you seem to accept). These numbers cannot be explained away by arguing that it is just a result of lack of enforcement. To give you another indicator of poor enforcement for comparison, ICE has deported about 230,000 people in a single year out of a population of illegal immigrants of about 11 million. This is a FAAAAAAAAAAR better ratio of enforcement success than the number NRA gives for the felony attempts to purchase guns (44 out of 80,000)
    Last edited by pamak; 10 Nov 17, 00:28.
    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


    • By the way,


      https://armedservices.house.gov/news...-former-airman


      Washington, D.C. *ĖChairman Mac Thornberry (R-TX) released the following statement regarding the Air Force's handling of the criminal records of former Airman Devin P. Kelley:

      "News that the Air Force failed to notify the FBI of Devin Kelly's military criminal record is appalling. I understand that Secretary Wilson has initiated an investigation, but I don't believe that the Air Force should be left to self-police after such tragic consequences. Furthermore, I am concerned that the failure to properly report domestic violence convictions may be a systemic issue. I commend the DOD IG for opening a broader investigation that will cover the entire department. This morning, I directed committee staff to work closely with the IG and DOD as the Committee begins our own comprehensive oversight of this matter.Ē
      I agree with the above...
      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


      • And yes, the law does not have teeth!
        I suspected it, but now I have PROOF!

        from

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922


        (6) Neither a local government nor an employee of the Federal Government or of any State or local government, responsible for providing information to the national instant criminal background check system shall be liable in an action at law for damagesó
        (A) for failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful under this section
        ; or
        (B) for preventing such a sale or transfer to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm.
        THIS IS WHY we have states report only 80% of their felonies to the national database!
        And I have a feeling that in the military we will also see many "mistakes" of failure to update the national database!
        If people by law are not liable, the issue is the law itself and not the failure of its enforcement!
        Last edited by pamak; 10 Nov 17, 02:33.
        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


        • This is another troubled military officer who has all the signs of becoming a problem someday.


          FORT BRAGG, N.C. ó Authorities have barred an officer from a North Carolina military post after allegations that she threatened people.

          Multiple media outlets report a spokesman at Fort Bragg says Lt. Col. Anna M. Heres has been barred from the post by the garrison commander.

          Spokesman Tom McCollum said the alert was issued because of specific threats from Heres directed at certain people. McCollum said the threats were not made to the general public nor to Fort Bragg as a whole.

          According to McCollum, the alert was initially issued on Nov. 3 from Womack Army Medical Center. The post's Department of Emergency Services alerted law enforcement agencies and guards at the access control points to prevent Heres from getting in.

          Officials are aware of Heres' current location, but wouldn't identify it.
          http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...g-threats.html
          "Never argue with an idiot. They'll just drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience" George Carlin

          Comment


          • Am I too late for the calls for common sense gun control in this shooting?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by armor11 View Post
              Just because you can't stop them completely doesn't mean you can't make it a lot harder and avoid some casualties. Or reduce certain types of firearms significantly.

              If high velocity semi automatic weapons with large capacity magazines were as difficult to obtain as machine guns, there would be a whole lot less deaths....maybe not this year or the next, but in time.

              Even a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
              Oh bullcrap. If you cared a tenth as much as you are trying to portray, you would know that semi automatic rifles aren't used nearly as much in homicides as gun grabbers would have you believe.

              Go look up the actual deaths from semi automatic rifles. Then go look at yourself in the mirror and apologise for perpetuating a false narrative.

              Take that single step.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                Because they talked to everyone he met with. They're interviewing people he went to school with.

                The Feds seldom enforce the laws you are quoting. Less than 100 in the last five years, and some of those were selling in bulk.

                Why was he turned down for a security guard license? I don't know, that has nothing to do with law enforcement, but I expect it had to do with a bad conduct discharge. Or maybe not.

                The guy was facing 26 counts of murder in a death penalty state, and you're worried because he lied on a form? Since this thread started a couple hundred people have lied on that form. Even more have gone around the form by purchasing from private individuals.

                What difference does any of this make?
                Before he killed those 26 people, before he wounded the others, you know damn well his record would have kept him from LEGALLY purchasing weapons.
                You also know that his lying on the ATF form, would have garnered him federal charges that would ha e taken him off the streets.
                But because someone screwed up, and failed to follow protocol he slipped through the cracks.
                The Air Force brass have admitted it. This has nothing to do with Texas law enforcement. So donít take it personal.
                This guy violated the terms of his plea agreement. But because that agreement was never shared with the Feds, he operated right under the radar.
                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
                  By the way,


                  https://armedservices.house.gov/news...-former-airman




                  I agree with the above...
                  It doesnít matter, law enforcement is for sissyís,
                  Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                  Comment


                  • Easy quiz.
                    You are a Texas law enforcement officer, you pull over a citizen for a traffic violation. When you run the drivers information it comes back that he is on parole and not allowed to possess firearms.
                    Upon returning to the vehicle you see a firearm on the backseat.
                    Do you
                    A. Because the driver is in violation of a federal law, you return his drivers license and issue him a citation for the traffic violation and let him go on his way.
                    B. You arrest the driver for violation of his parole?
                    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                      Before he killed those 26 people, before he wounded the others, you know damn well his record would have kept him from LEGALLY purchasing weapons.
                      You also know that his lying on the ATF form, would have garnered him federal charges that would ha e taken him off the streets.
                      Neither are true, as I have noted in earlier posts.

                      Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                      But because someone screwed up, and failed to follow protocol he slipped through the cracks.
                      And for the last time: there is no protocol. The Feds would not have charged him. It does not work that way.

                      Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                      The Air Force brass have admitted it. This has nothing to do with Texas law enforcement. So donít take it personal.
                      I don't take it personal. I'm trying to explain to you that you have completely missed the entire point. People like you are why the AF brass said what they said: because your inability to listen to facts make it much simpler to shut you up with a simple lie.

                      Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                      This guy violated the terms of his plea agreement. But because that agreement was never shared with the Feds, he operated right under the radar.
                      What radar?

                      There's no radar.

                      If someone violates the terms of the plea agreement a warrant will be issued for them (eventually, the lag time is often months). But there isn't an agency that is going to hunt him down. The warrant goes on the computer in case the guy surfaces.

                      Given he had a one year mental commitment, the odds are overwhelmingly good they wouldn't even bother to issue a warrant, and if he was arrested he would be released on his own recognizance, and get a court-ordered exam weeks or months later, which might, but probably wouldn't, result in another brief stay.

                      Because being mentally ill is not a crime.

                      And none of this would prevent him from getting a firearm.

                      I'm done. You're like a stuck record. The guy was one of several million insane people walking the streets of the USA. That's not a crime. No one tracks their movements, because it is a free society.
                      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 Urban hermit View Post
                        Easy quiz.
                        You are a Texas law enforcement officer, you pull over a citizen for a traffic violation. When you run the drivers information it comes back that he is on parole and not allowed to possess firearms.
                        Upon returning to the vehicle you see a firearm on the backseat.
                        Do you
                        A. Because the driver is in violation of a federal law, you return his drivers license and issue him a citation for the traffic violation and let him go on his way.
                        B. You arrest the driver for violation of his parole?
                        C. Parole status is not provided on routine traffic stops. It isn't easy to come by, either. Parolees have right, remember?

                        Just making stuff up is silly, UH. You haven't a clue how the system works.

                        Texas has a statute banning felons from possessing firearms, and we enforce it. But if the guy was on parole for a Federal offense we would likely secure the weapon and release the guy unless the Feds got a detainer very, very quickly. Which would be exceeding rare.
                        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
                          Neither are true, as I have noted in earlier posts.



                          And for the last time: there is no protocol. The Feds would not have charged him. It does not work that way.



                          I don't take it personal. I'm trying to explain to you that you have completely missed the entire point. People like you are why the AF brass said what they said: because your inability to listen to facts make it much simpler to shut you up with a simple lie.



                          What radar?

                          There's no radar.

                          If someone violates the terms of the plea agreement a warrant will be issued for them (eventually, the lag time is often months). But there isn't an agency that is going to hunt him down. The warrant goes on the computer in case the guy surfaces.

                          Given he had a one year mental commitment, the odds are overwhelmingly good they wouldn't even bother to issue a warrant, and if he was arrested he would be released on his own recognizance, and get a court-ordered exam weeks or months later, which might, but probably wouldn't, result in another brief stay.

                          Because being mentally ill is not a crime.

                          And none of this would prevent him from getting a firearm.

                          I'm done. You're like a stuck record. The guy was one of several million insane people walking the streets of the USA. That's not a crime. No one tracks their movements, because it is a free society.
                          Iím a stuck record?
                          Since when is this a free society to the point that known felons on parole are allowed to possess firearms?
                          Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Reimnitz View Post
                            This is another troubled military officer who has all the signs of becoming a problem someday.



                            http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...g-threats.html

                            The shooter wasn't an officer. But there are thousands of potential mass shooters running around. Every local police agency in the USA has a half-dozen people they figure for a 'headline grab' someday.
                            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 Urban hermit View Post
                              He beats a child, breaks his skull, caves in his rid cage, beats his wife, and you are ok with that.
                              It happens every single minute of every single day in the USA. Literally.

                              I have literally arrested hundreds of subjects for domestic violence, many much worse than this goober has done. I've arrested the same guys over and over again.

                              This is not a new problem. There is no real cure. Jail or prison time seldom does any good.

                              And every one of them can buy a firearm all day long, because only licensed dealers have to fill out your stupid form, and it is done on the honor system. No one knows how many firearms are sold by private individuals, but it is likely thousands a day.
                              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 Urban hermit View Post
                                Iím a stuck record?
                                Since when is this a free society to the point that known felons on parole are allowed to possess firearms?
                                Since always. It is only a crime if you get caught. There's no one really checking up on them. Oh, sure their PO will ask them 'sticking by the rules?" when they check in, and why would a convicted felon lie?

                                You are a stuck record because people keep telling you 1+1=2 and you keep says 'nuh-uh! Its 3.24987!'
                                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

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X