Question of the Day: Would A “Proper” NICS Check Have Stopped The Sutherland Spring Spree Killer? If Not, What Would Have?

Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church (courtesy statesman.com)

The mainstream media are focusing their attention on the Air Force’s failure to report the Sutherland Spring spree killer’s criminal history to the FBI. If they had, the thinking goes, Devin Kelley couldn’t legally have purchased any of the four firearms he used in his attack. He wouldn’t have had the weapons he used to massacre congregants at the First Baptist Church. The NICS check would have prevented mass murder. Are you buying that? I mean . . .

In a country with 300+ million guns, in a state where more people own guns than pickup trucks (Texas accounts for a third of all U.S. pickup truck sales), how hard would it have been for Mr. Kelley to obtain a couple of pistols and an AR-15 illegally? How hard is it for any criminal, crazy or terrorist to obtain an illegal firearm? Or alternatively, commit mass murder without a firearm?

If we accept that NICS is security theater, what would have, or could have, stopped Mr. Kelley?

comments

  1. avatar Salvatore says:

    Answer: No

    What would have? Being shot in the face when he walked in.

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      This ▲

    2. avatar The Punisher says:

      Straight to the pit of misery.

      Dilly Dilly!

    3. avatar Ing says:

      I am in full agreement.

      However, I’ll note that there are no guarantees. This option can fail, too. But it beats sitting there helplessly wondering why the government didn’t save you.

    4. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      There were many chances to stop this killer before last week’s murders. His mother could’ve swallowed. His father could’ve thrown him in a wood chipper during a drunken rage. His ex-wife or inlaws could’ve killed him after caving in his infants skull. The air force should’ve locked him up for attempted murder for 20 years, too. So many things.

      1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

        ” His ex-wife or inlaws could’ve killed him after caving in his infants skull,”

        The ‘old fashioned way’ some what frowned upon these days, but always effective.

        1. avatar H says:

          He tried that with the 11 month old. Should have gotten life.

    5. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      Bingo.

      END ALL GUN FREE ZONES NOW!!!

      1. avatar DUG says:

        Churches in Texas are gun free zones. They must post proper signage or publicly announce their policy in a bulletin or on a website etc. I live in Texas and always carry in church….legally.

        1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

          A recent law too if I read correctly somewhere?

          I say it’s time for some real common sense gun legislation.

          National Reciprocity NOW!!!

          End all gun free zones NOW!!!

    6. avatar Hank says:

      Agreed. Personally, I like the idea of a hypothetical sub machine gun cambered in .44 auto mag, used by a good guy, firing a 12 round burst into this guys nuts and guts, so he bleeds out in excruciating pain for a few minuets before he’s sent to hell.

    7. avatar Big Bill says:

      While certainly a satisfying answer, the problems of doing this without landing in jail are obvious.
      Someone could have drawn down on him, and escorted him outside, while calling 911. The police then could have trespassed him, which might have ended the problem for the day, or might not have. It wouldn’t have solved the problem of someone so batshit crazy that he woke up and made a decision to kill some people that day.
      What would have? I don’t know. I do know that had the Air Force followed the law and reported his court martial, he wouldn’t have been able to legally buy or posses any guns. We all know, though, that the legalities simply aren’t enough to keep people from doing just that.
      Our current system of keeping these people off the streets is obviously not working. What would need to be done to make it work? I don’t know enough to say, but there are obviously those who do, but just as obviously, they aren’t being listened to.
      We live in an imperfect world, and the pie-in-the-sky solutions of the anti-gunners are also obviously not working, and can never work the way they think they should. In countries where the anti-gunners have their way, mass murders (even with guns) still happen. At the same time, we can’t simply lock up everybody someone thinks might commit some horrible crime.
      Life is tough.
      And then you die.

  2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    412+ million guns, but who’s counting?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Danny, anybody tells you they know the number of guns in the US any closer than +/- several hundred million is full of it. From BC until at least 1968, nobody kept any track at all, manufactured, imported, whatever. There is no such number, my guess is over a billion.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        Both Dean Weingarten and I track this. I come up with 412 million as of September, 2017. Dean’s numbers are slightly higher. However, I believe they are close. I’ve read articles stating 600 million and I cannot get behind those. When you really begin to grind the numbers, you’ll see that a few million is a rounding error, but 100 million difference is almost insurmountable.

  3. avatar Erik says:

    Exactly what stopped him, a good guy with a gun at the right place at the right time. Only thing better would have been someone in the church being able and prepared to shoot back.

    Increase the number of people with a gun and the number of good guys with guns increase, thus increasing their chances of being in the right place and time.

  4. avatar Ken says:

    The answer to the header questions are “no”, and “nothing”.

  5. avatar strych9 says:

    Stopped? Maybe, unless he was dedicated in which case he would have gone black market for the acquisition.

    Delayed, sure.

    What would have stopped him? Other than an extra hole or two in his head? Again, not much if he was dedicated.

    Dedication + moderate intelligence + a willingness to die = very hard to stop.

    1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      Suicide attacks are pretty much impossible to stop, see all the suicide bombers in Israel, Iraq, Indonesia, wwii Kamikaze pilots, etc.

      The average criminal is intending to, at least temporarily, “improve” their circumstances by taking whatever from an easy target but generally thinking they can get away with it, and they certainly aren’t planning to die.

      A suicidal perp doesn’t actually care about their own life or any other, or at least has somehow come to peace with the thought of going out in a blaze of “glory” taking out all their enemies or people they have determined should pay. No hostages, no demands. It seems they only thing that stops them is some resistance and the threat of potentially getting captured alive.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Generally speaking I think there are some technical differences between a suicide attacker and a spree/mass shooter. However, since both generally want to die, when it comes to the event itself, I think any distinctions we might draw are distinctions without meaningful differences.

        That said, prior to the event I think there are meaningful differences where the spree/mass shooter is usually someone that can be stopped more easily than the suicide attacker since the suicide attacker usually isn’t “crazy” and therefore takes precautions to try to prevent their attack from being detected by LE before it goes off. The “crazy” mass shooter OTOH doesn’t really understand or care about “opsec” and therefore has usually exhibited warning signs prior to doing something horrific.

        Jared Loughner, Adam Lanza, Seung-Hui Cho, James Holmes, this jerkwad in Texas and host of others all were known to be fucked in the head and dangerous before they did their thing. Off the top of my head the only terrorists who were known to people outside their immediate family were those two assholes in San Bernardino who were suspected by their neighbors but those folks didn’t want to say anything for fear of a PC backlash.

        1. avatar Johannes Paulsen says:

          The Las Vegas mass murderer is still a bit of an outlier, no?

    2. avatar Noishkel says:

      The only real way a background check could have stopped this would be is the NICS system had a direct line to the police when an escaped mental patient tries to buy a gun. But given that the Air Force and FBI both know this guy was out there but never followed up on it than, no. Let’s not the anti’s hide the systemic failure by the Federal government in dealing with this waste of skin.

      1. avatar Sian says:

        This right here.

        The one way a background check would have stopped him, is if he had been flagged as a prohibited person and an escaped mental patient, and upon trying to purchase the first firearm, police would be dispatched to immediately apprehend him.

        Unfortunately, this happens exactly never.

      2. avatar little horn says:

        yep, once again our incredibly inept government simply can not do ANYTHING right.

      3. avatar Roymond says:

        That direct line couldn’t allow them to prosecute; that would violate the fifth amendment. But it sure would have allowed them to be aware!

  6. avatar fiundagner says:

    Unless I am mistaken a quote-unquote proper check was done. unless the story has changed the local police reported after he escaped from his involuntary commission to a mental institution. so the appropriate information was provided to the system and the system still failed to prevent the sale of the weapons.

    had the person involved, I refuse to use his name, decided that Firearms were not available so they could use or would use something else gasoline is available on every other Corner in the United States. kerosene butane and Propane as well as matches are available in every state and nearly every square mile with the prevalence of Walmart Kmart Sears Etc. matches and dryer lint are available everywhere. Cars and alcohol are available everywhere.

    short of Our Benevolent government wrapping Us in bubble wrap tying us to our beds and spoon feeding us liquefied food there is no way to stop someone who is committed intent on committing harm from committing harm.

    having said that: a proactive defense, AKA armed citizens, is your best chance for preventing or mitigating set harm. I also highly Advocate everyone taking at least a basic first aid class so that once somebody gets hurt you can minimize the impact of the injuries

  7. avatar troutbum5 says:

    A longer confinement time and a dishonorable discharge might have prevented it. Unfortunately the JAG probably offered a deal, he took it and pled guilty, and got a sentence a lot more lenient than he deserved. The military justice system, along with the rest of the military, is going soft and PC.

    1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

      The “leadership” just wanted him and his problems to go away. The lazy way.

    2. avatar Big Bill says:

      “A longer confinement time and a dishonorable discharge might have prevented it. ”

      A common misconception.
      The length of time one is sentenced to in a case like this is immaterial. The conviction on a domestic violence charge in and of itself makes one a prohibited person. The failure isn’t one of time spent in jail, but rather one of the Air Force simply failing to follow the law. (And one of the escape from a mental institution not being properly reported. And the fact that he was involuntarily committed to such an institution in the first place wasn’t properly reported. As usual in cases such as this, we learn, after the fact, that several things went wrong.)

  8. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Stopped – no. Delayed – maybe. Maybe long enough for him to get incarcerated for a lessor offense. But guys like this slipping through the cracks is only half the problem with NICS. The other side of the coin is the majority of rejected purchases are false positives preventing the perfectly law abiding citizens from purchasing weapons for legitimate self defense.

    The only thing that would have stopped him would have been if sentenced for more than a year in prison after he fractured a toddler’s skull. He probably shouldn’t have been let out until at least 2040.

  9. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Are there background checks for heavy-duty chains, padlocks, gasoline, and matches?

    As someone else pointed out earlier: he could just as easily have chained/padlocked the doors, doused the wooden building in gasoline, and set it ablaze.

    Evil people are neither compelled nor constrained by laws, in carrying out their evil purposes.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      Exactly
      Society had their chance to lock up and put away the key on this guy who was so depraved he cracked the skull of a child and beat his wife/girlfriend. All the signs were there yet they were ignored. The only way we can stem the tide of crime is to change our philosophy about incarceration. It is very simple, regardless of the crime, simply ask yourself: Do I trust this guy with a gun? If the answer is NO then they don’t belong among us anymore.

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      I think that might have been me who said that.

      He seemed to be clearly committed to perform a mass murder. Failing the NICS check would have simply forced a change in HOW he was going it.

      Fire would be the most obvious. Two common household cleaning products to make poison gas. A dump truck to drive into building. Many options available. If anything they make guns look inefficient.

    3. avatar little horn says:

      too late. a guy in china or japan did that and killed a bunch of kids. bet you didnt hear about that on the news when it happened. nope. wouldn’t fit their “this kinda killing only happens in America” narrative.

  10. avatar David says:

    What I haven’t heard is an explanation on why he wasn’t immediately taken back to the mental institution from which he escaped. Seems to me that if someone is involuntarily committed they need to stay there until their case is resolved.

    1. avatar John says:

      Another attack on defenseless civilians brought to you by the creators of Fast ‘n’ Furious.

  11. avatar CZJay says:

    His family knew he had problems since he was little. They knew he was angry at his ex wife and her family. They knew he was a violent person. They knew he has a strong dislike of religious people. They knew he bought guns when he wasn’t allowed to because of his mental health, his conviction and his early discharged from the military.

    The shooter’s family could have stopped him. They could have sent him to a mental institution. They could have informed the police about him buying guns when he was prohibited and that he was threatening his ex wife and her family.

    It’s common to hear the family say they had no idea that their family member would do such a thing, yet they had all the info necessary to come to a conclusion that their family member is going to commit violence and/or suicide.

    Even if the family didn’t commit or aid in the act, should there be a law to hold them responsible if there is proof they were aware and decided not to do anything simply because they didn’t want to get their family member in trouble? If you don’t want to send your family member to a mental institution and you take them into your home, should you be in some way held accountable for their crimes while they were under your care?

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      I agree with your view. First, the AF court-martial only gave him 12 months incarceration, though the presentment states he applied potentially lethal force to the infant’s head. No doubt his second wife and his father knew he was acquiring firearms, and found it puzzling that he passed checks -should have called the police to inquire.

      Time after time family members know a person is angry, occasionally abusive, abusing drugs or alcohol, making threats, etc….but they seem, with great regularity, to be unwilling to call in help. His father surely must have realized something was amiss, both as to the NICS passes and his son’s acquiring firearms despite an apparently serious long-term personality disorder topped by mental illness.

      I agree with those who point out that gasoline was an alternative. Yet, all the arguments about “the family should have intervened or called in help” would have applied, and might have prevented even some alternative method of destruction. Or so it seems to me.

      I would also point out that the guy had a reputation before the second marriage, so not pursuing a relationship with him would have, in hindsight, saved that particular congregation.

  12. avatar Ian in Transit says:

    No, successful background check would not have stopped him. Only thing that would have prevented this is if his ex-girlfriend had shot him dead when he fractured her child’s skull and severely beat her all those years ago.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Yeah… I definitely blame her.

      1. avatar Ian in Transit says:

        Not blaming her. But her protecting her child would have prevented this particular tragedy more effectively than anything the government could do.

  13. avatar Badabing says:

    Texas refused his application for a concealed carry license. What did Texas know that NICS did not know?

    1. avatar Icabod says:

      Yet he had a license to be a security guard. That had to have included a background check.

      1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        Which he failed and was fired.

      2. avatar Ranger Rick says:

        This question has yet to be answered.

    2. avatar Brett in TX says:

      The Texas CHL background check is far more in-depth than a NICS check. All arrests must be listed and the state of Texas will investigate the final disposition of those cases. Even if you are legally eligible to buy a firearm there are several crimes (including many misdemeanors such as simple assault or disorderly conduct) that will prevent you from being able to get a CHL in Texas.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        Hwe was denied a carry license not because of the background check per se, but because the check brought up questions which he failed to answer, so the application was cancelled. As I understand it, anyway.

  14. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    No, of course, not. The Sandy Hook killer was barred from his attempted rifle purchase–not by background check, but by waiting period–and he just found another source of weapons.

    If you have the motivation and mission to forfeit your life in exchange for destroying numerous other people’s lives in a spree shooting, then you’re too far gone for half-hearted half-measures like background checks. You’ve become the ghoulish poster boy for the expression “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.”

    I know nobody wants to hear that these things are inevitable, that we can’t just do nothing, but to some extent they are. We can encourage people to arm for self-defense, but someone else will always be disarmed. We can encourage institutions to harden their security measures, but someone else will always be a soft target. We can encourage people to “see something, say something” about kooks in their lives expressing suicidal and homicidal ideation, but there will always be kooks whose warning signs go unnoticed or who deceive investigators.

    Most of these spree killers are complete failures in life. Like serial killers and assassins, they’re seeking easy infamy from their deeds, without having to do the lifetime of hard work most historic figures have done. Sure, it’s a fraudulent fame, generated by a counterfeit sort of accomplishment, but it’s close enough to real for someone who’s never been close to success at all.

    If we could deny these people that semblance of celebrity they get from these events, minimize the publicity, and replace the public’s curiosity with universal, silent scorn for the killer, then maybe they’d just kill themselves quietly when they’re out of options in life and not bother anyone else.

    Other than those suggestions, just about everything else, including perfect background checks, falls into the category of ineffectual, feel-good, security theater.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      I don’t agree that Sandy Hook was inevitable. His mother knew he should be nowhere near guns, yet made guns an entertainment for him. His father knew he was non-compliant with the psychiatric drugs prescribed, and yet gave him Christmas money “to buy a rifle.” That family was simply terribly irresponsible, rationalizing every oversight. I am not reluctant to consider both parents responsible. I’m so tired of the excuse making. In neither Sandy Hook nor the Sutherland case was it a question of overlooking minor problems and histories. In both cases the histories of mental illness, violence, abuse, and threats appear to have been major.

  15. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Question of the Day: Would A “Proper” NICS Check Have Stopped The Sutherland Spring Spree Killer? If Not, What Would Have?”

    Well, there was a “proper” NICS check, and he passed BG, HOWEVER, it was the AF that failed to report his crime(s), incarceration and subsequent BCD…

    Nothing could have or would have “prevented” this event, when there is evil to do, the evildoer will find a way, that being said, I’ll reiterate my comment from the other day, IF there had been ONE person carrying, there may have not been 26 bodies on the floor…

  16. avatar Greg says:

    Why do we keep going there. It wasn’t caused by the gun, it was caused by the killer. This situation was caused by an individual with no regard for life, who decided to kill everyone in that church, then decided to use a gun to do it. Take away the gun and you don’t save a single life, you just change the way those people are killed. Toxic gas, Fire, explosion, etc, would all end up in the choices for the killer, and probably even more effective for his goal.

    1. avatar WayneMHK says:

      The idea that in 2017 we’re still blaming an inanimate object for violent acts committed by humans is just a sad state of affairs.

  17. If laws were passed after some gun-obsessed nut attacked newton.

    None of the various spree shootings we had would not have happened.

    The “good guy with the gun” failed to save 26 people.

    I still don’t see Europe, Canada, Japan or Australia turning into authoritarian dictatorships like this fake news website is claiming.

    These types of incidents still arent happening over there like you liars claim, But they seem to be happening almost everyday here.

    Once again and probably the next month after that. More innocent freedom loving Americans will suffer because of your selfish anti-american hobbies and your refusal to compromise. Prayers and support won’t do jack squat. Passing more useless “feel good” that arent based in reality that nutbars like you support would not have stopped what happened in texas. Your “good guy with a gun” DID NOTHING to save 26 innocent people. Where is this armed polite society you anti-freedom nutbags promised us?

    This happened in a tyrannical red state which has a murder rate on par with little rock, AK and new orleans, LA and much higher than NY or CA.

    I’ve been around the world many times to know your “more guns, less crime” beliefs are complete utter shit.

    And I plan to take another trip to japan or probably British Columbia in a few weeks or so because I don’t waste money on useless armaments that are more likely to kill you than stop a crime.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Why do you come back to soil our shores? STAY in one of those 3rd world cesspools and help them make it into the socialist utopia you believe in. Take some illegals with you.

      1. Another weak and useless comeback.

        You morons are so cute crowing about this “good guy with a gun” in spite of the fact that there is still 26 dead…and how about that armed guard in Las Vegas…good guy with a gun, shot for his efforts…how many dead there? A good guy can’t stop these events in advance, they can only participate in the carnage once it starts…that is still too little, too late.

        At-least those “socialist utopias” which are ironically capitalist I went to have LOW crime and excellent police response, LACK of homelessness and poverty, BETTER Economy, EXCELLENT education, SUPERB Healthcare and MORE PERSONAL FREEDOMS. Meanwhile in this country more Americans are dying from gun violence, people are suffering from easily avoidable illnesses like heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Junk food is far more available and cheaper than healthy food, education is lacking due to increasing costs and student being forced to believe in your right wing propaganda ever since the Russian stooge got elected.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          Delta has flights leaving every day.

        2. avatar Huntmaster says:

          If he puts his address on here, I’ll send him a ticket. He has to pay me back only if he returns.

        3. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

          Liar. Jesus Campos was unarmed because he wasn’t allowed to carry a weapon. Mandalay Bay casino is a gun free zone.

          26 lives were lost because Willefords gun was in a safe. The part we are celebrating is that it wasn’t 50. And the piece of trash shooter was stopped by responsible gun owner who is an NRA member.
          All done before the cops even arrived.

          The only thing left here to do is have your picture on a milk carton saying LIAR.

    2. avatar WARFAB says:

      “If laws were passed after some gun-obsessed nut attacked newton.

      None of the various spree shootings we had would not have happened.”

      Please describe and explain the “laws” that would have stopped this.

      1. Universal background checks would’ve actually stopped this. These would’ve have required states to report criminal and mental health records of people and would’ve weeded out dangerous people from getting weapons.

        The clauses in the bills would’ve also allowed stricter enforcement of gun laws and better access and care to the mentally ill.

        But you NRA nuts rejected because somehow keeping people from dying is “tyrannical”.

        You nuts made your bed, Now own it.

        We have to suffer for your selfish outdated “right” that stopped being useful when we as a society evolved from the primitive tribal concepts that you snowflakes continue to hold as truth.

        Have you given it thought that most Americans don’t want to arm up?

        1. avatar ACP_arms says:

          The Air Force didn’t send the guys record after being charged with domestic violence (=no gun for you now) to the FBI, and after when he was arrested at a bus station after escaping from the loony bin (that he was sent to involuntarily (= no gun) the local police sent that info to the FBI who didn’t enter it in to NICS. And he was dishonorably discharged (=no gun) from the Air Force. So you should be blaming the Air Force and FBI for not stopping this one.

        2. avatar Greg says:

          No, more gun laws would not have stopped the killing. Even if you magically made all guns disappear would it have stopped the killing. The guy killed people and he just happened to use a gun to do it. He could have used any number of methods to murder. Until we stop knuckling under to this approach that it was the gun that did this we will never be able to address the causes, if that’s even possible.

        3. avatar ACP_arms says:

          Wow, I make a smart ass comment and you respond but if tell you about the chain of failure of the hole thing I don’t get a peep out of you.

          Classic!

        4. avatar Sian says:

          “Universal background checks would’ve actually stopped this. These would’ve have required states to report criminal and mental health records of people and would’ve weeded out dangerous people from getting weapons.”

          HE PASSED THE BACKGROUND CHECKS YOU TREMENDOUS BOOB

          the requirements to report criminal and mental health records are there. There is just no consequence for failure, as the USAF/DOD did.

          Even if he had been flagged, so what? He wouldn’t have been arrested on the spot, like he should have. He simply would have shifted to another tactic, like a truck or a bomb or fire, or just acquired weapons illegally, you know, just like terrorists do in Europe on a weekly basis.

        5. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

          “Universal background checks would’ve actually stopped this”

          LIAR

        6. avatar Big Bill says:

          “Universal background checks would’ve actually stopped this.”
          Certainly. They stop every other nutjob and criminal from getting guns.
          Oh, wait… They don’t. So much for UBCs.
          Try again.

    3. avatar ACP_arms says:

      So concernedamrican, how long before you snap?

      1. And tell me then nutbar?

        I don’t need a gun because I’m not an insane fringe dweller.

        How many innocent people had to suffer for your “right”?

        Who is going to protect us from you when you decided to lose it?

        1. avatar ACP_arms says:

          Who is going to protect us from you when you decided to lose it? That’s interesting question because your automatic response is going to be the police, armed police at that. And why is that? because you think everyone else is like you, someone that doesn’t trust themselves with a gun. Now you don’t have to have a gun and I won’t make you have one if you don’t want one.

          One more thing, if the day comes that I lose it you’ll be safe, why? because I won’t harm anyone else but myself. The only problem with that is I have too many things I want to do and if kill myself I’d never be able to those things.

        2. avatar ACP_arms says:

          One more thing, I just want to wish you bravery and courage for the five to ten minute at least wait you’ll have waiting for the police to show up.

    4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      ‘The “good guy with the gun” failed to save 26 people.’

      Which proves the value of keeping your mags loaded in the safe.

      If a good guy with a gun saves 10 out of 36 people he’s still a good guy with a gun and he still saved 10 people. Unfortunately in this case there weren’t any good guys with guns in the church, but one being a block away was still better than none. The good guys with guns and badges were 20 miles away.

    5. avatar Icabod says:

      You mention Australia. Two things. First the country still has a gun problem. They still have mass shootings. The are illegal guns. Homemade, hidden or smuggled in.
      Second there is New Zealand. Same culture, same laws, but the did not do Australia’s dryconian ban grab. Strange, they haven had any mass shootings.

    6. avatar John says:

      You, “…still don’t see Europe, Canada, Japan or Australia turning into authoritarian dictatorships…” Only because you are unable or refuse to see it, not because it isn’t happening.

      http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/17/europes-free-speech-apocalypse-is-already-here-france-germany-spain/

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/world/europe/germany-36-accused-of-hateful-postings-over-social-media.html

      http://www.dailywire.com/news/17807/british-police-just-imprisoned-man-posting-mean-joshua-yasmeh

      http://www.dt.se/blaljus/brott/kvinna-atalas-for-hets-mot-folkgrupp-efter-inlagg-pa-facebook

      Story after story of people being arrested or otherwise harassed by their governments for having ‘wrong’ thoughts.

      1. avatar anarchyst says:

        I’ve had it with these Europeans who claim that their countries are “better off” with disarmed populations. We AMERICANS had to bail your European @sses out of TWO “world wars”…for (not necessarily) the right reasons. Take away the crime stats from the American inner cities, and you will find that the misuse of firearms rate in the United States is well below that of just about every other country on earth.
        Look at the anti-free speech laws that exist in much of Europe (and yes, even in Canada) that have resulted in 80-year-old grandmothers being prosecuted for uttering “politically incorrect” (but truthful) speech. Or how about “merrie ol’ England” where homeowners have been prosecuted for using “too much force” against home invaders, quite often the occupants receiving stiffer sentences than the invaders.
        No, Europeans…clean up your own messes first before lecturing us on your version of “gun control” (actually people control)…

    7. avatar frmrdav says:

      So, who’s Mike going to have make these posts while you’re away? 2Asux?

    8. avatar P-Dog says:

      Weaksauce:
      1) Kelley “passed” 4 background checks, one for each gun. Having “Universal ones” wouldn’t have stopped him from passing these 4 because of incompetence from the Air Force
      2) It is sad that 26 people died, but had Kelley not been stopped by Steven Willeford — who stopped Kelley with an AR15! — more lives could have been lost. Kelley had plenty more ammunition and his car was running, he was off to do more carnage. Willeford, our good guy with a gun, prevented more lives from being lost. Had someone(s) in the Church been CCW’ing, perhaps most of the 26 lives could have been saved
      3) Funny you mention Europe. France has very strict gun laws, of course that didn’t stop terrorists from causing one of the worst mass shootings of all time in Paris. Likewise, I’m not sure you’re aware, but currently Europe is going through an Islamic jihadi wave, where there are numerous mass killings from not only guns, but Trucks of Peace. Also funny that you mentioned Japan, where a mass killing from a knife attack killed 19 people last year. Evil exists everywhere, we are seeing it happen a lot here, but it doesn’t prevent it from happening elsewhere.
      4) When you mention the red state of Texas, the actual gun homicide rate is on par with California, according to FBI stats. California, which has an A+ rating from the Brady campagin in terms of gun control. California has Universal BG checks, assault weapon bans, waiting periods, and gun rationing, yet mass shootings happened in recent memory (San Bernardino). CA gun laws sure didn’t stop that from happening, and funny how you forgot about that.

    9. avatar ACP_arms says:

      Keep in mind that France had a very deadly event that a truck was used and the driver ran down and killed 86 people, in NYC a guy used a Home Depot rental truck and killed 8.

      You don’t need a gun to kill people.

    10. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      If laws were passed after some gun-obsessed nut attacked newton.

      The Newtown attacker already violated – what? – a dozen and a half or so existing, firearm-related laws. I’m sure the next law would have made a real difference, though.

      None of the various spree shootings we had would not have happened.

      Your double-negative ironically results in a true statement. There is no law that would have prevented an evil person from carrying out evil purposes.

      The “good guy with the gun” failed to save 26 people.

      The “good guy with the gun” limited the death toll to 26. He interrupted the attacker in the progress of his attack, and forced the attacker to stop his attack and to flee.

      I still don’t see Europe, Canada, Japan or Australia turning into authoritarian dictatorships like this fake news website is claiming.

      And yet, rights protected by the first, second, fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments are violated in each of those countries.

      These types of incidents still arent happening over there like you liars claim, But they seem to be happening almost everyday here.

      Already demonstrated to be false, with others citing myriad sources.

      Once again and probably the next month after that. More innocent freedom loving Americans will suffer because of your selfish anti-american hobbies and your refusal to compromise.

      We’ve been “compromising” for a century. When we finally started taking back our constitutionally protected rights, violent crime rates started plummeting.

      Prayers and support won’t do jack squat. Passing more useless “feel good” that arent based in reality that nutbars like you support would not have stopped what happened in texas.

      Right. Having the scumbag behind bars, where he demonstrated repeatedly that he should have been, would have stopped it. Having people inside the church who were carrying that day would have stopped it.

      Your “good guy with a gun” DID NOTHING to save 26 innocent people.

      Again, he limited the death toll, by stopping the attack.

      Where is this armed polite society you anti-freedom nutbags promised us?

      Sometimes, polite society is being too polite by putting up with unconstitutional “gun-free zones”, and foolishly complying with rights-infringing policies at places such as churches. You see, the law-abiding tend to abide by laws, and be long-suffering in the face of policies that endanger them.

      This happened in a tyrannical red state which has a murder rate on par with little rock, AK and new orleans, LA and much higher than NY or CA.

      Take a look at the county-by-county homicide rate, and get back to us.

      I’ve been around the world many times to know your “more guns, less crime” beliefs are complete utter shit.

      The plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”

      And I plan to take another trip to japan or probably British Columbia in a few weeks or so…

      Bye, Felicia.

      …because I don’t waste money on useless armaments that are more likely to kill you than stop a crime.

      200K to 2.5MM defensive gun uses, vs 11,000 homicides (and vs 600 accidental deaths), annually. Your math skills need work.

  18. avatar Specialist38 says:

    He was “had” in a mental facility.

    First he escaped and then they evidently let him out.

    The “state” evidently no longer saw him as a threat.

    It could be they were only worried about him killing people on an Air Base.

    His family and the world-at-large was not their problem.

    1. avatar John says:

      The perp was a wind-up-doll. He was let loose in the hopes (or expectation) he would create mayhem.

      Another real – life experience brought to you by the creators of fast ‘n’ furious.

      This would be wall-to-wall mass media coverage if not for the inconvenient fact of the archetype patriotic American affiliated with the evil(tm) NRA responding to the situation with an evil(tm) black rifle.

  19. avatar Joe R. says:

    If there were some form of excising or exorcism of his POS evil (D)NA and mutant-bas-TURD brain mass and function . . .

    THEN HE WOULDN’T HAVE NEEDED TO BE SHOT, AT ALL.

    1. Where is your so-called evidence that the killer was a Democrat or anti-fa supporter?

      Brietbart, fox news and whatever fake news websites don’t count.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        U

        R

        NOT

        FROM

        HERE

        No FV<Ks to give – Kill a commie for Mommy

      2. avatar Sian says:

        Rabidly anti-religion athiests tend to be democrat.

        The only NRA member involved in the shooting was the NRA licensed instructor who hastened the perp towards his Room Temperature Challenge.

  20. avatar little horn says:

    stopped, no. at most, an inconvenience i suppose.

    its weird if you really think about it.

    A guy goes to buy a gun, he reads that felons are banned, remembers he is one, is informed of the penalties if he is caught with a gun, takes the advice and walks out. he doesnt seek one out illegally. He is, firearm related, unarmed. Since he is willing to obey the law in this case, but obviously not the one that made him a felon, has the law really prevented anything? he wanted the gun merely for recreational and hunting and defense purposes.

    Another guy goes in lies on his form, slips through the cracks gets his gun. Never commits a crime with it. The law obviously prevented nothing here.

    Another guy goes in, lies on the form, is rejected upon BGC, leaves and buys one illegally. never commits a crime WITH the gun, other than owning it. Again, the law prevented nothing here either.

    Then we have the ones that make the news. The ones that legally or illegally obtain their weapons and kill innocent people. Again, the law prevented nothing from happening.

    So i guess when you break it down, it doesn’t really do anything EXCEPT to people who are RATIONAL in the first place. I guess thats what we get for being nice guys.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      “Another guy goes in, . . .” TELLS 100% TRUTH on the form, . . .is APPROVED. . .

      Walks across the street and does the same amount of carnage in the church that he finds there. . .

      NICS CHECK PROTECTED NO ONE FROM ANYTHING.

      IT’S ALL THE HONOR SYSTEM. THE ONLY THING (EVER) PROTECTING YOU FROM SOMEONE ELSE, IS THE OTHER PERSON’S LACK OF A PIQUED DESIRE TO DO YOU HARM AT THAT MOMENT.

      [sic] OPEN THE POST 1986 ROLES FOR FULL-AUTO FIREARMS, AND YOU WON’T LIKELY HAVE A SINGLE INCREASE IN SHOOTINGS. (MAYBE IN VICTIMS BUT
      A G A I N
      THE ONLY THING KEEPING YOU FROM THAT, ANYWAY, IS A SHOOTER’S LACK IN PIQUED DESIRE TO HARM LOTS OF PEOPLE [OR OTHER MEANS MIGHT BE OBTAINED AND EMPLOYED – i.e., Columbine aholes wanted to bomb, Tampa jihadick initially wanted to burn the club down {if you don’t think so, you are only mentally playing with yourself}]).

      YOU WILL, HOWEVER, BE ABLE TO MORE PROPERLY ARM YOURSELF, SHOULD THERE BE ANY DESIRE OR NEED, ON YOUR PART, TO EXERCISE YOUR WILL UNDER THE 2ND PARAGRAPH OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

  21. avatar Maxi says:

    What did not stop him? Laws. Why would one care about gun laws if you face 10 times life (or in texas definetly death) for 26 murders anyways?
    There is no point in gun laws. Either you use them properly or criminally. And if you use them criminally, well, it’s a crime, so how about charging them for the crimes and not the tools?
    Now, what did stop him? An Ar-15. Good old lead.
    I could go on about how germany has 5 million legal and 20 million illegal guns. But what is the point in that, either you get the point or you are retarded anyways and always writing the same arguments is getting kinda boring and repetitive.

  22. avatar Macofjack says:

    What is a proper NICS check? If you mean following the law and giving jail time to anyone not following the law, maybe, but then he could have waited and run over as many as possible with a rental truck, blown them up or some other sick way to kill people. The only way to stop a sick mind is to lock it away or kill it! Sad but true!

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      “a proper NICS check” is where they kneel in front of you, and with a double overhand grip . . .

      Ohh “NICS check”

      Anh, I’m going to stick with my answer.

  23. avatar former water walker says:

    Stopped? Slowed down mebbe. The gangscum in Chiraq manage fairly well obtaining gunz(without them being checked)…multiple opportunities to stop this cretin. Anyone investigate his daddy who he allegedly called?!? How about the Bernie connection?

  24. avatar anarchyst says:

    One common denominator (that is being overlooked) in EVERY mass-shooting in the last 40 years or so has been the FACT that EVERY shooter was on some type of psychotropic drug…EVERY SINGLE ONE…now THAT is something to look in to…

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Meh. Everyone with pneumonia is on antibiotics, thus it must be that antibiotics cause pneumonia.

      They were on psychotropic drugs because they were crazy; the drugs didn’t make them crazy. Didn’t cure them either.

      Crazies used to be placed in hospitals, but that’s gotten too expensive. Now we dose them up with drugs and wait for them to explode.

      1. avatar anarchyst says:

        If you did your “homework” and looked up the FDA “black box” warnings regarding psychotropic drugs, you would find that these drugs are dangerous in themselves. especially when ceasing to take them. All kinds of “psychotic breaks” are not only possible, but are the norm. Cessation of taking these drugs must be done under medical supervision, preferably in a hospital setting. While these drugs can result in improvement to one’s life, they must be carefully administered.
        I stand by my statements…these drugs are dangerous to the general public…

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Meh again. I’ve read the black box warnings. Murder is not one of the potential side effects.

          Crazy people are crazy. Period. They commit crimes because they’re crazy. We let them walk among us — which makes us as crazy as they are. Maybe crazier.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Wait one, if [said drugs] increase their desire to commit suicide, that could open up the doors to death by cop, or a whole host of other inhibitions that they no longer have.

          I’ll wait for the psych. community to fully weigh-in, before replying with a high middle-finger and am “FU to you and yours”.

  25. avatar TEOTW, I feel fine says:

    It depends…

    Would a “proper” NCIS check have resulted in him being arrested by the local authorities while still standing in the Academy for lying on his 4473? Would those lies have led to him being in prison for five years?

    I mean, if we’re going to talk about how effective laws can be, we should probably talk about actually enforcing them.

    Sure, after 5 years in federal prison he probably could have found his way to acquiring a gun he wasn’t legally allowed to own and carried out his killing spree, but that would have given those churchgoers a few more years on the planet, as well given his federal cellmates a chance to explore his child abuse background. With any luck, his 4473 lie would become a life (death?) sentence.

    1. avatar Vern Green says:

      Truth was stated by this guy ^^^^

  26. avatar W says:

    “If we accept that NICS is security theater, what would have, or could have, stopped Mr. Kelley?”

    Confinement. Or, as we used to call it, justice.

    Kelley was charged with:
    – Making death threats against superior officers.
    – Bringing weapons on base to carry out death threats.
    – Being confined to a mental health facility.
    – Escaping from a mental health facility.
    – domestic abuse, battery, battery of an infant, of a dog, etc.

    Why the USG thinks is copacetic to release this obvious problem into the general population is beyond most of us general population dwellers. Maybe it’s like Major Hasan Nidal (Ft Hood shooter). Get this guy out of my arena, make him someone else’s problem.

  27. avatar Grumpy says:

    A good defense plan requires multiple layers because given enough time and planning, any can be breached. It is not a question of if a strategy will fail, but when. Sooner rather than later if a government entity is involved. A background check is merely the 1st layer and a good guy with a gun is the last layer. The trick is how to allow all the layers to work together in order to mitigate the risk, not to rely one one or the other.

  28. avatar Sid says:

    Would A “Proper” NICS Check Have Stopped The Sutherland Spring Spree Killer?

    No.

    If Not, What Would Have?

    A bullet.

  29. avatar Vern Green says:

    What would have?

    How about a father who knows that he raised a shit stain. The one that knows his son had spent a year in confinement for fracturing the skull of his infant step son. The father that knows his beast of a kid got arrested for cruelty to animals.

    The minute such a father realized his little monster bought a gun, should have made an intervention. When he bought two, he should have had more to say, when he bought an AR, he should have called the cops himself.

    I love my kids, but I am not above tough love if I ever realize one of my young men ever turned into a monster like this guy.

  30. avatar Republic if you can keep it says:

    Nothing can truly be done to stop these people. We can only deploy enough sheep dogs to limit their chances at success. Recognizing this is the price we pay to live in a free society.

  31. avatar Stinkeye says:

    I think a good start at prevention might have been to LOCK THE FUCKER UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY AFTER HE BROKE A BABY’S SKULL.

    Just a suggestion.

  32. avatar Ralph says:

    “If Not, What Would Have?”

    A dose of 12 gauge buckshot to his balls would have been a significant deterrent.

  33. avatar Anymouse says:

    Step 1: Have proper NCIS records
    Step 2: Prosecute people who lie on form 4473 and fail NCIS check.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      “Step 2: Prosecute people who lie on form 4473 and fail NCIS check.”

      This does the same thing as forcing other types of crime underground; it makes it harder to actually slow the crimes down. (I’m not saying don’t do it, I’m only pointing out a downside to doing it.)
      Someone who wants a gun, but knows he will fail a NICS check, will simply find another method of getting a gun. This is a reality we know about. Those who say a NICS check will stop such acts are just not living in the real world. Denial isn’t a river in Egypt.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Someone who wants a gun, but knows he will fail a NICS check, will simply find another method of getting a gun. This is a reality we know about.

        We now have over two decades of experience with FFL background checks, post-Brady bill implementation. The reality is that, prior to the Brady bill, “prohibited persons” got on the upper end of 10-15% of their firearms from FFLs; and since implementation of the Brady bill, “prohibited persons” get on the lower end of 10-15% of their firearms from FFLs.

        What hasn’t changed is that “prohibited persons” got, and still get, 40% of their firearms through theft, and 40% of their firearms from direct transfers from family/friends/acquaintances (read: fellow gang members).

        There’s not much more activity to drive underground. Some eventual “prohibited persons” acquire firearms lawfully through FFLs, after passing a BGC, despite their intended use of those firearms. Some existing “prohibited persons” pass FFL BGCs while unlawfully purchasing firearms (something we’ve seen time and again). Some “prohibited persons” will get complicit acquaintances to perform unlawful straw purchases. Some “prohibited persons” will unlawfully acquire firearms through some extremely low percentage of third-party private transfers.

        But at the end of the day, if we’re going to have a BGC system, at taxpayer expense and that inherently infringes upon the rights of the law-abiding, that system better have complete and accurate data, a simple appeal process, and swift prosecution of legitimate denials.

        The current BGC system is none of those things, and I doubt that it will ever be.

  34. avatar Darkman says:

    Laws do not stop evil. NICS will not stop evil. Evil is incarnate. It has always been around and will always be around. Evil will exist as long as good exists. it is the balance of time. Yin and Yang. One must accept this and be prepared for it. Only then can we hope to fight against it when it shows itself. Each person Must be prepared to protect themselves at all times. Even the sheep must learn to fight as the sheep dog must sleep sometime. Hoping someone or something else will protect you is a sure path to destruction. Believing in fairy tales is for children. Accepting responsibility is what adult do. Stand against evil or die at it’s feet. Just stop whining about it being there.

  35. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Let’s break it down:

    Relatives / Friends:
    Anyone in his family that knew he was a disturbed violent psycho could have reported him or had him committed as soon as he became a danger to himself and others.

    Fail.

    Community:
    Neighbors, co-workers, acquaintances that knew he was a disturbed violent psycho could have reported him or had him committed as soon as he became a danger to himself and others.

    Fail.

    Authorities:
    Anyone with a badge and a sense of duty could’ve arrested him once he committed violence.

    Anyone in a judge’s robe could have sentenced him to jail once he was arrested.

    Fail.

    Institutions:
    The AF could’ve not screwed up their job and reported him to the NCIS and recommended further treatment.

    Did he have a therapist or mental exam? How was he allowed to walk free?

    Fail.

    Lots of ways this could’ve been avoided but people don’t want to deal with other people’s problems or are too self absorbed to notice. Well this is what happens when you don’t nip it in the bud.

    It’s a pity the burden falls on innocent people to clean up the messes of people that obviously can’t be bothered.

  36. avatar MDH says:

    In a word, “No”. A determined killer will use whatever means are available to commit mass atrocities. I can think of several methods which would have been at least equally as easy and even more effective, and would not have required a firearm of any kind.

    The only common denominator for mass killings is a sense of gratification for the killer. It’s about asserting power and control, and the method is irrelevant.

    If firearms are banned, they’ll use improvised explosives, gasoline bombs, vehicles, poison, poison gas, knives, swords, machetes, bare hands, the list goes on.

    Under the best of circumstances, every human life hangs on a gossamer thread. Killing humans in wholesale numbers isn’t a problem.

    Identifying homicidal psychopaths before an atrocity of this nature takes place is the challenge of the modern era.

    In this case, there was a military court marshal resulting in a domestic violence conviction, a history of the psychopath physically and substantially harming his family, and escaping a mental hospital.

    Would a properly informed FBI NICS background check have prevented an atrocity at this location?

    Absolutely not.

    The availability or absence of firearms wouldn’t have made a dimes worth of difference to this determined homicidal psychopath.

  37. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    The pre-cogs could stop him.

    they exist, right? Minority Report was a documentary?

    1. avatar MDH says:

      Pre-cogs, as in psychics? You’re spinning. Close surveillance – maybe. People live their lives and reveal their their innermost thoughts on the internet.

      This individual will have searched methods, techniques, approaches, and responses before committing this, and other horrific acts.

      Cross referencing his criminal background and internet activities should have raised enormous red flags.

      No excuse for this.

  38. avatar ATTAG Reader says:

    Many of you have pointed out that for the anti’s, it is all about the narrative. Therefore it does not matter if he could have been stopped. If the USAF and subsequent law enforcement agencies had done their jobs and reported his behavior to the NICS, he would not have been able to purchase his weapons legally. He might have lied on the 4473. He might have bought his guns in private sales. He might have gotten a Fast and Furious AK from an MS13 hoodlum. He might have burned the church down or run a truck through the service. In all those situation, the narrative would have been about him, the criminal psychopath. Or at worst about universal background checks. It would have been difficult to make the narrative about the gun. With him having passed the back ground checks, the failures of the system notwithstanding, the anti’s are making the narrative about the AR. For those 23 senators, it’s again about the gun. In my mind, the failure of the system has enabled the anti’s to go after their true target, semi-automatic rifles.

    1. avatar MDH says:

      Solid point. Make the mass murder about the chosen instrument, rather than addressing the motivations and intentions of of the mass murderer.

      Hitler’s strategy was to first disarm the populace, and then to murder his chosen victims at will. The circumstances and method are exactly the same, only the scale is different.

      The formula is clear, and unfortunately(pretty much) works every time. Select a disarmed target (something that is unlikely to shoot back because “disarmed”) — attack and kill at will.

      The wild card in this scenario was an NRA firearms instructor who happened to be on the scene, had access to arms, and who exercised his 2nd amendment right to personal, civil, and public defense. God bless him.

      What matters in this scenario is not the mode of attack, but the ability of a lawfully armed citizen to defend against it.

  39. avatar cisco kid says:

    Yes it would have worked but to work the States and Military must comply with the Brady Law to turn over mental records to it and we must vet all gun purchases as well as have safe storage laws which would prevent tens of thousands of guns from being stolen or funneled (second hand guns) onto the streets of our major cities. Guns laying around the house are the cause of accidental child shootings of which result in 10,000 children a year being maimed and killed in accidental shootings. http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/the-toll-gun-violence-children

    Nearly 10,000 American children are injured or … – MSNBC

    http://www.msnbc.com

    A new gun study shows that injuries from firearms send nearly 7,000 kids to the hospital every year, and an additional 3,000 children die from gunshot wounds.

    Nearly 10,000 American children are injured or … – MSNBC

    http://www.msnbc.com

    A new gun study shows that injuries from firearms send nearly 7,000 kids to the hospital every year, and an additional 3,000 children die from gunshot wounds.

    No other civilized country permits legal gun sales on street corners or at gun shows where any nut case that just got out of a mental institution or a crook just released from prison can buy all the guns he wants. No Right Wing Fanatic that is sane can argue that these factors are the primary reason we have so much murder , mayhem , freeway’s turned into shooting galleries by enraged bizerko’s and snipers out to pick off people going to work and rivers of blood flowing down our city streets on an hourly basis. Its mass insanity that horrifies civilized countries and the American people have just plain had enough of it as no civilized country can even function under such conditions.

    Gun owners have no one to blame but themselves for the coming bans and also the Morons of the NRA more concerned with payola rather than heading off the coming confiscations and bans by refusing to do anything about the insanity. The 2018 and 2020 elections will spell the end for gun ownership as we now know it in the U.S. and unfortunately it will be with outright bans and confiscations. California has already passed a law that will confiscate and melt down all assault rifles and the bans on the East Coast have all been ruled Constitutional by a corrupt Supreme Court that rules with public opinion rather than what the Constitution actually says. In other words take the Constitution and wipe your dirty ass with it because it is totally ignored by the Supreme Court, a power mad dictatorship appointed for life who’s rulings would not fool even a retarded monkey in a zoo.

    Yes gun owners are living on borrowed time as mass public panic and hysteria all well founded I might add will demand in 2018 and especially in 2020 that the Democrats put an end to the madness which they surely will unfortunately rather than just vet all gun purchases and require safe storage they will seize on the mass hysteria as an excuse to ban most modern firearms and the ammo to go with it and the corrupt Supreme Court has ruled all the prior East Coast gun bans as well as the new California confiscation law all constitutional. In other words take the your Constitutional rights and wipe your ass with them. Scalia is dead and gone and rotting in his grave and the new Supreme Court is only too willing to piss on his grave.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      A new gun study shows that injuries from firearms send nearly 7,000 kids to the hospital every year, and an additional 3,000 children die from gunshot wounds.

      No, 3,000 children do not die due to gunshot wounds every year. That number includes non-children:

      In the 2009 Kids’ Inpatient Database (KID), 7,391 children under the age of 20…

      Children are, by definition, under the age of 15.

      Let’s look at those numbers, too:

      …4,559—resulted from intentional firearm assaults. 2,149 of those injured were accidents, and 270 were suicide attempts.

      Over 4,500 were intentional firearm assaults. Note that it doesn’t say who is doing the assaulting, or the ages of the assailants. What are we looking at here? Largely, 15-19 year old gang bangers, doing what they do.

      The attempt to conflate gang bangers shooting each other up with injuries to actual children is nothing but a blatant appeal to emotion logical fallacy.

      The CDC keeps numbers regarding injuries and fatalities to children, broken down by age group. For example, here are the numbers for 2014 (see page 44 and following):

      https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf

      Accidental injury, firearm (age < 15): 49
      Intentional self-harm, firearm (age < 15): 174
      Homicide, firearm (age < 15): 225

      Total firearm-related deaths (age < 15): 448

      Not 3,000. Fewer than 500.

      No other civilized country permits legal gun sales on street corners or at gun shows where any nut case that just got out of a mental institution or a crook just released from prison can buy all the guns he wants.

      And that includes the US, considering that such sales are also not legal here, either.

      No Right Wing Fanatic that is sane can argue that these factors are the primary reason we have so much murder , mayhem , freeway’s turned into shooting galleries by enraged bizerko’s and snipers out to pick off people going to work and rivers of blood flowing down our city streets on an hourly basis.

      Prohibited persons get their firearms (illegally) through theft (40%) and acquaintances (40%). No law that you could possibly pass would change those behaviors.

      Its mass insanity that horrifies civilized countries and the American people have just plain had enough of it as no civilized country can even function under such conditions.

      Violent crime has been on a sharp decline over more than two decades. How on earth did we survive the 80s and 90s, if violent crime is such an epidemic today?

      Reminder: have the self-discipline to refrain from ad hominem, or don’t both replying.

  40. avatar cisco kid says:

    To chips in the head

    Quote——————-Prohibited persons get their firearms (illegally) through theft (40%) and acquaintances (40%). No law that you could possibly pass would change those behaviors.—————–

    You flunked reading comprehension and live in your own myopic fantasy world. I have advocated mandatory laws for safe gun storage. Every civilized nations in the world has people lock their guns up. You on the other hand in your own bizarre little world see no need to stop criminals from just walking in to a house or gun store and loading up with stolen guns.

    And yes laws change behaviors very quickly when next door neighbors see violators of gun laws being hauled off to prison and lose all their assets. Even guys like you would get the message very quickly.

    Gun laws in Australia and Britain were obeyed by millions of people and yes mass shootings were stopped. Again if you were sane you would accept what history has already proven.

    Quote————————-
    No other civilized country permits legal gun sales on street corners or at gun shows where any nut case that just got out of a mental institution or a crook just released from prison can buy all the guns he wants.————–quote

    quote————-And that includes the US, considering that such sales are also not legal here, either. quote——————————–

    Hey chips in the head don’t you ever get tired of out right lying and distorting reality and trying to twist the truth. Yes you can buy guns out on the street and yes you can go to gun shows and by guns without paper work. Its done in many States that have lax gun laws and the second hand guns and stolen guns get funneled right onto the streets of Chicago and other large cities. Its perfectly legal in my state to go to a gun show or go out onto the street and buy all the guns you want with no paperwork involved. Any nut case or criminal can get one because their is no background checks on second hand guns and no mandatory safe storage. WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND GENIUS. This is pure insanity and only a nut case like you chips in the head would argue otherwise. Yep criminals and nut cases consider you their best friend because as long as we have guys like you on their side they get all the guns they want. When they have to go through background checks they get died a sale. AGAIN WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND.

    And your arguing about the dead body count of children and/or their horrific crippling’s shows that for you the body count can never be too high as it might inconvenience you to sign for the purchase of a gun or lock them up in a safe. Afraid you would be denied purchase. It seems the only logical reason your against this.

    Normal people who are not nut cases consider any amount of senseless loss of human life a tragedy while you argue that dead body counts can never be to high if it would inconvenience you in the slightest. You need to see a shrink because normal people do not think this way.

    If you were in Japan and had to go through the police interview before being given a firearms i.d. card you would not only be denied this because of your above bizarre responses but probably be placed under mandatory psychiatric care as well. Your constant denial of how guns get into the hands of criminals and nut cases and your denial that nothing can be done about it when other nations have done much to prevent senseless gun deaths shows your not playing with a full deck of cards.

    In conclusion you can deny the success of other nations in dealing with gun deaths, you can deny that criminals and nut case can buy all the guns they want because of our total lack of a Federal gun universal background checks and mandatory storage and you can rant about how you could not care less about how high the body count is but normal people think otherwise and history is on their side.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      What part of “If you can’t refrain from ad hominem, don’t bother replying” did you fail to understand?

      I have advocated mandatory laws for safe gun storage. Every civilized nations in the world has people lock their guns up. You on the other hand…see no need to stop criminals from just walking in to a house or gun store and loading up with stolen guns.

      If you have evidence that safe-storage laws reduce firearm theft, please produce such evidence. Unless and until you do so, your argument is specious.

      Yes you can buy guns out on the street and yes you can go to gun shows and by guns without paper work.

      Nice attempt at moving the goal posts. Your original statement: No other civilized country permits legal gun sales on street corners or at gun shows where any nut case that just got out of a mental institution or a crook just released from prison can buy all the guns he wants.

      No sale of a firearm to a prohibited person is legal. Sales to prohibited persons on street corners are already illegal. Sales to prohibited persons at gun shows are already illegal (and quite rare, given that somewhere around 99% of firearms sellers at gun shows are FFLs, and by law conduct background checks for transfers at gun shows.

      Its perfectly legal in my state to go to a gun show or go out onto the street and buy all the guns you want with no paperwork involved.

      Not if you’re a prohibited person, it isn’t. If you’re a “nut” or a “crook just released from prison”, you’re a prohibited person.

      And your arguing about the dead body count of children and/or their horrific crippling’s…

      That was your argument, not mine. I merely pointed out that your numbers were false, and your argument an appeal-to-emotion logical fallacy.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        Quote——————–:If you have evidence that safe-storage laws reduce firearm theft, please produce such evidence. Unless and until you do so, your argument is specious.—————-Quote

        Chips in the head you are a nut case. Safes do indeed stop many thefts as the average street punk simply leaves when he sees a safe and moves on to easier pickings and even if he attempts to crack a safe he knows that there many be hidden security alarm systems and that he has only minutes to break into the safe. He also does not know when the owners may be back or if the neighbors are becoming suspicious of a strange vehicle at the house. Your shouting to the world your demented.

        Quote———————-Nice attempt at moving the goal posts———————Quote—————

        Quote——————No sale of a firearm to a prohibited person is legal. Sales to prohibited persons on street corners are already illegal. Sales to prohibited persons at gun shows are already illegal——————–

        Now your pulling a Herr Drumpf tactic, when you are guilty and have been made a fool of yourself you accuse the other person of your own stupidity. Your the one moving the goal posts because you have no defense against my statement that without vetting criminals and nut cases can buy all the guns they want at gun shows and out on the street and yes its legal for people to do so and the seller has no idea as to whether the buyer is a law abiding citizen or a crook or nut case. You have ranted against universal back ground checks but have no logical reason why except that you do not want to be inconvenienced to sign for all gun purchases therefore you are aiding all criminals and nut cases who want to buy guns without paperwork. You can squirm, attempt to dodge the truth and attempt to twist the truth and blatantly lie but the truth is that you have no logical argument against universal background checks . The Brady Bill has prevented tens of thousands of people from buying guns that should not have them and would catch tens of thousands more if all guns sales were vetted. Your asinine counter argument is that if the law is not perfect and just one criminal gets lucky and gets a gun then we should scrap the whole idea of vetting all guns. Only a demented lunatic would ascribe to such nonsense. Your other argument ahs been no one would obey the new law or again if they did and if a couple of people managed to avoid the law then again we should do nothing and not even attempt to keep such a law. Again nothing more than the ranting’s of a lunatic.

        If your sole purpose was to prove that either your an absolute fool or a lunatic you have succeeded brilliantly. History has already proven you wrong on all counts.

        quote————————–
        And your arguing about the dead body count of children and/or their horrific crippling’s…

        That was your argument, not mine. I merely pointed out that your numbers were false, and your argument an appeal-to-emotion logical fallacy.—————————

        Again you dodge the truth by claiming no body count is too high to inconvenience you to sign for a gun. Only a nut case would argue that x amount of dead bodies are ok and that you could not care less if x amount of dead children are below a certain number. Sane people are aghast at such statements. Its like Hitler when he told one young solider “Losses can never be too high”. Just another statement that you have made that mimics the life of Hitler and his demented ideas. Sane people never make such ranting’s.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          So now, have you not only demonstrated yourself incapable of refraining from ad hominem, but you have just Godwinned yourself.

          You have no data. You have no arguments. Your words have been weighed, measured, and found wanting.

      2. avatar cisco kid says:

        to chips in the head

        Quote———————————–So now, have you not only demonstrated yourself incapable of refraining from ad hominem, but you have just Godwinned yourself.

        You have no data. You have no arguments. Your words have been weighed, measured, and found wanting.
        quote————————-

        Admit it you were out of your league you got your ass whipped and in the process made a fool of yourself with your outrageous nut case ranting’s.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Ad hominem on top of ad hominem. You have nothing else in your arsenal.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email