Ralph: The Litany of Failures That Led to Mass Murder. And You Think GUNS Are the Problem?

(courtesy worldartsme.com)

The Air Force never reported the Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church murderer despite his criminal conviction.

The Army never reported Gabby Gifford’s shooter despite his failed drug test. The community college that he attended was scared sh!tless of him but did nothing.

Douglas High School never reported the murderous little puke who gunned down a couple of dozen people, but it did ban his backpack. Way to go!

The mother of the Sandy Hook baby-killer did nothing despite her son’s growing isolation and fascination with mass murder. So, he killed her. Karma?

The Washington Navy Yard killer was cited at least eight times for misconduct while in the Navy, was arrested three times and claimed that he heard voices in his head. His punishment? He was granted a security clearance.

The Aurora theater massacre was committed by a guy who was obviously out of his mind and dangerous, but the University of Colorado psychiatrist who examined him didn’t tell authorities even after the lunatic told her that he fantasized about killing a lot of people.

The Pulse Nightclub shooter had an accomplice, wasn’t shy about his allegiance to ISIS, threatened to shoot his police academy classmates and told co-workers at the security firm (!) that employed him that he wanted to kill people.

The Columbine police were warned about the two shooters by the parent of a potential victim. The shooters were arrested and placed in a diversion program where they successfully conned their case worker. They continued to post threats, which were ignored.

The list can go on and on, but the point is made. People know, but they say nothing. Authorities know, but they do nothing. And people die by the score because politicians know the real problem, but they’d rather score political points by complaining about guns.

If you’re not completely p!ssed off, you should be.


  1. avatar AnotherAZguy says:

    Exactly. Way past time to get rid of the mentally ill homicidal maniacs.” It does not matter how they created their carnage. They just need to GO.

  2. avatar Toni says:

    yep completely agree. bring back mental assylums for the insane, hang draw and quarter those who commit treason (such as obummer, killary and the plethora of high ranking FBI officials that are being uncovered) bring back the stocks for simple crimes and hang the serious offenders mental health problems or not. a week in the stocks with all the grocers providing all their not fit for sale produce along with a few good lashings with a cat’o’nine for simple offenders like shoplifters to a month or so for assault to that followed by public hanging would deter most offenders

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      Capital punishment has a deterent effect on the rational. Men who would go to a school and murder children are beyond irrational. The point of this article seems to be that there are people who are telegraphing their violent insanity to such a degree (not like infotainment James Yeager rants, but absolutelty bat crap insanity) that they need to be dealt with.

      1. avatar Toni says:

        yes i agree however it also prevents repeat offenders. also in saying this i would only apply the death penalty in cases where the evidence was absolutely conclusive but if it was also later found that the police or whoever had falsified the evidence then they would face the same penalty be it the death penalty or simply jail time. there should be no room for corruption at any level but i am not talking petty offenses like a minor speeding ticket or jay-walking but real crimes like theft, rape, murder etc etc. again if a person falsely accuses someone of a crime (a common example of this is rape) then that person should face the same max penalty as the person they falsely accused instead of walking away with no repercussions as as currently happens. again in all cases actual evidence needs to be applied

        1. avatar Jean says:

          You said rape twice.

        2. avatar Toni says:

          and your point is? in the brackets i was pointing out that Rape IS a very common crime to be falsely accused of. men are often accused of rape when no such has occurred in fact i know of a number of cases where a make is charged with rape only to find that he was out of town or even out of state at the time the rape supposedly occurred. yet the women who falsely accuse these men then walk away with no repercussions? sorry but they should be charged and then face the same jail time as the one they falsely accused would have. also i am a woman saying this not just a disgruntled male getting their feelz out of joint SARC
          i have also heard a number of women talking about doing this sort of thing to get back at a male that has rejected them

        3. avatar Wiregrass says:

          You need to relax a little and go watch Blazing Saddles.

  3. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “People know, but they say nothing. Authorities know, but they do nothing. And people die by the score because politicians know the real problem, but they’d rather score political points by complaining about guns.”

    It’s almost… *almost* like that’s what they intended to happen all along.

    Nah, that’s paranoid talk.

    My prediction – An announcement for a “School – mass-murder threat hotline” in short order…

    1. avatar DoomGuy says:

      Law enforcement agencies and political organizations creating a crisis so they can forward a “solution” they can push as a simple solution when in reality it’s an agenda they’ve wanted so they can seize control of the government?

      Nah, that can never happen here… oh wait… already has…

      Never mind. Divert attention… RUSSIANS!!!

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        There are 370,000,000 people in this country. If even just 0.001% of them are screwed up enough to do something like this, then that’s 3,700 people out there who will do this with no coercion whatsoever. The government doesn’t need to “false flag” these kind of incidents any more than it “needs” to steer an asteroid in to the earth; it WILL happen…… unless their goal is to look incompetent, then they are succeeding.

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          5+% are obvious criminal trespassers and we can’t muster the balls to solve that. But we’re going to address crazy/demtard?

    2. avatar doesky2 says:

      Let’s not forget about the Pamela Geller darw mohammed jihadist attacker that was groomed by a FBI agent which told the jihadi to “Tear up Texas”

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Evidence please.

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          The Feral Bureau of Instigation link to that event has been public knowledge for so long that I thought everybody simply accepted it as true. Cops detained the Feral Instigator Agent at the scene of the crime.

          This was one of the top three results in a simple search I ran, and it gives links to affidavits and such:

        2. avatar Kenneth says:

          AND, since we all know(or should, if at all informed) that the FBI has been instigating, supporting, and aiding these sorts of things using any of the mentally ill that they find milling around, and we know that the FBI was called to investigate THIS PARTICULAR mentally ill at least TWICE( the bail bondman back in Sept + the call from January that they now admit they “did not follow protocol” on), is it really a stretch of credibility to suggest that they knew about this shooter and aided him too? Perhaps so they could pretend to show up to “stop” him just in the nick of time? And somehow that got screwed up, as tends to happen with the plans of idiots and fools?
          The SEALS don’t call the FBI “F***kin Bunch of Idiots” for nothing.

  4. avatar Jon in CO says:

    It’s way easier and cheaper to ban guns than actually put in the foot work to check, help, or committ these people. The education system is to blame. Zero tolerance for any sort of attempt at violence of any sort, and just let these pubescent boys “talk” about their feelings. Let them fight it out, break stuff, burn that anger-induced energy. The feminization of men in this country, and worldwide for that matter is creating so many issues, and then instead of figuring out what to do, we drug these people up on massive amounts of pharmaceuticals. Then, one day they decide to stop taking them and they snap.

    1. avatar Texican says:

      Jon, I agree with your reasoning regarding the liberal mindset and action plan. But it won’t be easy or cheap to ban guns! They haven’t quite figured that out.

      1. avatar mick1706 says:

        I don’t believe Jon is advocating banning guns. I believe what he is saying is that the liberal mindset is to ban guns rather than try and help these people get help. It’s easier to ban rather than go to the effort to make them productive. Besides liberals are always great at spending someone else’s money.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          They will use the Leftist concept of ‘Nudge’ to take semi-autos of eventually *every* type from us.

          In the not-distant future, they will control all three branches of government again like what Obama had when they crammed that shit-sandwich ‘Affordable Care Act’ down our throats.

          First, another ‘Assault weapon’ ban that will include all detachable magazine weapons. Next, will be mandatory registration of existing semi-autos. Later, all transfers of registered weapons will be banned.

          Not all at once, mind you. They can’t swing that the first time around. I fully expect a new ‘AWB’ and registration scheme from them as soon as they can swing it. The rest will come later.

          Oh, and I fully expect them to ban ‘Ghost Guns’ first time they can pull it off.

          It wouldn’t surprise me if they went as far as to add all semi-autos into the ’34 NFA, with all the paperwork aggravation that entails…

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          EDIT – Check out this tweet from Trump today:

          “Just like they don’t want to solve the DACA problem, why didn’t the Democrats pass gun control legislation when they had both the House & Senate during the Obama Administration. Because they didn’t want to, and now they just talk!”


        3. avatar DoomGuy says:

          @Geoff PR

          Great… so now trump is selling us out and going Bush 41 on us?

          What’s next? Ruby Ridge, Waco and Lavoy Finnicum 2.0?

        4. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

          @ Geoff PR, Why would he say that…Are you suggesting he’s going to betray his constituency…? For Knee-jerk RINO gun control…That would end his presidency, period…If he flip-flops….

        5. avatar Jon in CO says:

          Correct. All people are doing is paying lip service to the easy(ier) route. Instead of actually trying to solve the problem, they cry about how everyone has the right to live and blah blah blah, and then blame everyone else for not doing anything. Again, personal responsibility plays absolutely no part in American society, especially in American politics.

        6. avatar California Richard says:

          They couldn’t do it in 2009 and 2010 (the AHCA years) and they couldn’t do it in 2013 after Newtown. I doubt they’ll be able to do it in the forseeable future. That doesn’t mean we sit back and dreadnaught, but I have faith (at least on the national level) that things will remain fairly calm.

        7. avatar Jon in CO says:


          If they’re going to add semi’s to the registry, that would require amnesty to open the registry up. I’ll have some thousands on hand to register every receiver I can get ahold of.

        8. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “@ Geoff PR, Why would he say that…Are you suggesting he’s going to betray his constituency…?”

          Arron, I think he’s rubbing their nose in it…

        9. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Jon – No need re-open the full-auto registry, they will add a *new* semi-auto registry….

    2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      Zero tolerance usually means zero intelligence. If you had zero tolerance for violence kids couldn’t wrestle or play dodge ball (an admittedly psychotic if fun game) or football for that matter. Kids would be imprisoned way too frequently with a zero tolerance for violence. A threshold is necessary or almost every act would be included.

    3. avatar CZJay says:

      I hear from people that take those drugs that the drugs make them feel nothing. They feel dull, soulless, emotionless, indifferent to living, they lose empathy. That sounds great if you want to turn that person into a mass murderer — maybe soldiers should take those drugs before they enter combat.

      I think giving people drugs is like calling for “gun control” laws. The drugs are not the solution for the problem. The problem needs to be address otherwise you are just trying to delay the inevitable.

      If you have something that is bothering you to the point that someone wants to put you on drugs, you/they need to identify the root cause and figure out the course of action that will bring you closure so you can move on happily. Self medicating or getting a prescription won’t erase the issue that plagues you.

      When people stop taking the drugs because the drugs create more problems, the issue that caused them to get on drugs remains and it eats away at that person. They don’t want to feel like a zombie, but they don’t want to feel the pain. If they can’t fix the issue, they will want to escape forever and they might want to punish others before they go.

      Unfortunately, in current America, most people don’t care and some instigate (willfully or not). When people are divided, they can’t/don’t show compassion to their fellow humans.

      1. avatar Jon in CO says:

        I’ve seen plenty of kids on Ritalin and similar drugs, and I know plenty of people on Xanax and things of the sort. You’re correct, they are absolutely lifeless, and on the flip side, I’ve seen them completely emotional, without any capacity to think clearly or logically. Either way, it’s a bad effect.

      2. avatar California Richard says:

        Soldiers these days don’t have the kind of problems with killing that we had pre-Korean War. SLA Marshall’s combat studies lead the US to refine training to the point where instead of 10% of soldiers pulling triggers its almost up to 100%. Modern solders get in trouble for shooting when they shouldn’t (in some lawyer’s opinion) rather than not shooting when they should.

        Also, the symptoms you describe associated with taking psych meds, are the same symptoms assiciated with severe PTSD. I think its the last thing our soldiers need.

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          What a load of BS.

          SLA Marshall has long been demonstrated as largely full of crap on this subject. His “stats” on use of firearms based on no actually data/research.

  5. avatar Rimfire says:

    Excellent commentary Ralph, as usual. Thanks for taking the time to put into words what many of us aren’t as skilled to express so eloquently. In few words you pinpointed the failures of today’s society and the PC world we have fallen into. Very well done! And Thank You!

  6. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    Of course banning guns is the answer, Ralph.

    You just gotta believe! 😜

    (If it helps, you can clap your hands.)

  7. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Exactly, Ralph. See something, say something.

    Part of the problem, though, is that sites like TTAG are replete with jackwagons who, in the face of overwhelming evidence of someone being street rat crazy, albeit not necessarily guilty of any specific crime, will nonetheless decry ANY move against such people, arguing that it’s the government policing pre-crime. Well.

    Pre-crime or not, as I’ve said in here many a time and oft, if you don’t cull the wackos from society, then a certain percentage of them will act on their violent fantasies or impulses in blood splashing fashion…….and you’ll lose your gun rights in the wake. That’s irrefutable.

    It’s coming down to them or us. You persist in letting these crazies walk the streets and it’s just a matter of time before they act, giving crisis exploiting liberals ammunition to legislate away our rights.

    1. avatar DoomGuy says:

      I agree let’s just round them up and imprison them for the rest of their lives, or euthanize them; no trial no jury just a medical board straight to execution. It doesn’t matter if they’re American citizens and they’ve committed no crime. It’s for the greater good. After all they’re crazy they have no rights.

      You’d do better in 1930’s Germany and the Soviet Union. You need to ask yourself if you really believe in due process and the Constitution yourself; because to me you sound like a raving liberal who screams about how the military needs to come in and deal with gun owners.

      1. avatar Red in CO says:

        Well said, DoomGuy

        1. avatar DoomGuy says:

          Thank you.

          It just makes me so mad that people on “our side” don’t want their rights tread on, but for people they think are “expendable” they’re more than willing to shred their constitutional rights.

          It’s disgusting.

    2. avatar Wacko in name only says:

      “It’s coming down to them or us”
      “It’s coming down to them AND us”
      Despite our “feelings”, we are still all in this together.
      Matthew 25:45
      “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

  8. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Well until they pass the National Thought-Crime Act most of these guys are going to keep slipping through the cracks because they are needles in a very big haystack. The best defense is to make sure they are met with return fire after their first victim or two.

    1. avatar DoomGuy says:

      Even after they pass the National Though-Crime Act these guys will still “fall through the cracks.”

      The Fed.gov, globalist republicans and the DNC can’t be bothered to go after real criminals, terrorists and actual threats to national security. That’s their constituency.

      And they need them to maintain their manufactured “crisis” pass those kinds of laws so they can subjugate freedom-loving Americans like us.

    2. avatar binder says:

      Oh, they have the National Though-Crime Act in other places, and God help you if you ever get trapped in it.
      “go after real criminals, terrorists and actual threats to national security” You belong in 1930’s Germany, you would fit right in.

      1. avatar DoomGuy says:

        I don’t even know how you get that steaming load of ignunce from what I said.

        The police/government doesn’t go after real criminals or terrorists anymore, they use laws to make criminals and “domestic terrorists” out of ordinary Americans. They want power and control over the government to get rid of the constitution. A real solution would be to abolish the FBI, ATF, DEA, DHS etc. but people are too brainwashed and scared to be free.

        If stating that fact makes me a Nazi then I guess go ahead and think that. I’m confident enough in my anti-Nazi views, so go ahead and lie on me.

        1. avatar Binder says:

          “I agree let’s just round them up and imprison them for the rest of their lives, or euthanize them; no trial no jury just a medical board straight to execution. It doesn’t matter if they’re American citizens and they’ve committed no crime. It’s for the greater good. After all they’re crazy they have no rights.”.

          I really hope that was sarcasm, if not

          Hail Victory!

        2. avatar Binder says:

          Oops, I realized it was sarcastic. So many of the comments about people complaining about the FBI not protecting us was starting to piss me off and I read your stuff out of context. I anything it was more of local PD’s responsibility that anyone else. But honestly I doubt they could have done anything unless he wanted to be arrested. He was not stupid.

      2. avatar DoomGuy says:

        If you can’t tell it was sarcasm, then I feel bad for you.

      3. avatar DoomGuy says:

        You’re good.

  9. avatar SkyMan77 says:

    Thank you Sir… It’s always a breath of fresh air to hear your take on these matters…

    Was it a mistake or are they doing it on purpose!!! <<< Removing tin helmet now but I really wonder…

    I like many here are very tired of the anti/regressives pissing down our necks and telling us that it's raining… We have ample data sets now. Time for mature minded critical thinkers to step up, make a difference and see this through… Mind numbing Political Correctness (or whatever they've re-branded that to be this week) is not worth any lives ESPECIALLY our children’s!!!

    A good start would be MUCH more accountability for those handing out SSRI/RSSI drugs like tic tacs…

    1. avatar John in AK says:

      There is, unfortunately, another way of looking at the widespread prescribing of mind-and-mood-altering drugs to control peoples’ behavior and allow them to ‘function’ with others–and that is, simply, coming to the conclusion that if a person requires powerful medication to maintain sanity, stability, and the very ability to coexist in common society without acting out or being a nuisance, let alone presenting a real threat, that person should be in an institution–not out in the general public.
      For better or for worse, before the inception of these ‘miracle drugs,’ those who couldn’t ‘fit in,’ those who were ‘retarded,’ those who were ‘not quite right in the head’ were NOT pushed into the Mainstream at any cost, but were kept at home or put in ‘homes,’ instead of being medicated into submission. Surely, that was unpleasant for those afflicted–but it protected the rest of humanity from them.
      It may be appropriate at this juncture to reevaluate just how ‘kind’ and ‘humane’ it is to try to drug a mentally-ill person (and that includes everybody that’s not just like ME, of course/sarc) into a state of relative sanity, while at the same time planting a possible ticking ‘bomb’ amongst the unsuspecting public.

  10. avatar BLAMMO says:

    I’m completely pissed off.

    Excellent synopsis.

  11. avatar strych9 says:

    I can’t comment on most of the cited incidents but I do have some knowledge of the Aurora shooting and the workings of the UCD system that “dealt” with James Holmes.

    Before I go farther, someone’s probably going to accuse me of being soft on this. I’m not. That fucktard shot friends of mine killing one and permanently disabling a couple of others.

    The problem is “the system” or rather an interplay of a few systems. The Anschutz Campus folks canceled Holmes’ pass cards and booted him from the university. They were shit-scared of him but reckoned there wasn’t much they could do. See, they’re part of the UCD medical system and as such they know how the Mental Health facility at UCD Denver works and what the applicable laws are. This campus actually does a TON of mental health research.

    Had they reported James Holmes here’s what very probably would have happened:

    1)They report James Holmes both internally and externally. The cops question the kid and nothing happens because he has rights. Internally UCD determines that he’s a threat to himself and/or others.

    2) Holmes is sent to the UCD mental health lockup in Denver for a 72 hour hold and evaluation.

    3) When it gets to the last day of the hold Holmes is advised of his rights. This means he is told point fucking blank what to say to get out and what sorts of statements will keep him locked up. Time passes and an release interview is done. Just before this interview starts he is again told point fucking blank what to say if he wants out and is advised of what sort of statements will keep him in.

    4) Holmes, being crazy but not stupid, probably says what he’s told to say, well really avoids saying what he’s been told not to say, and is released. At that point he’s also informed of how he ended up on a 72 hour hold including who said what to put him there. Unless he makes serious and pretty specific threats against others or suggests that upon release he plans to off himself he’s gonna be free to go. Again, he has rights.

    5) Holmes is now free to go. If the university truly believes he’s dangerous (which they did) they can file for a legal review of his status to take him before a judge and get an adjudication. From the time they file the paperwork to the time they first get the guy in front of a judge averaged, at the time, about six months. They can file for this to expedited but that will probably cut it down to about 60 days.

    6) Unless he’s caught committing a crime Holmes is now free to prowl around for a minimum of 60 days and he knows that the university are the ones who put him in that facility. He’s probably more than a little ticked at them over this so now the university has a guy who’s 100% free to do whatever he wants for at least two months AND they now have a huge target on their back.

    So they opted to cut him loose, not report him and hope that he didn’t do anything terrible rather than take action that would have probably made their campus Holmes’ target or, at least, would have greatly upped the odds of this.

    Now, you could say that the cops could keep an eye on him at this point and tragedy could be avoided. To that I say this: You clearly know exactly fuck all about the Aurora PD. Thinking they’re going to do that is a joke, especially considering where this dude lived, less than a block North of Colfax and about two blocks East of where there are a TON of shootings. Even if they put people on him (which APD wouldn’t have) those people would have constantly been pulled off watching Holmes when some banger robbed the gas station half a block South of his apartment, some gangsters shot each other up on Colfax or when something sketchy went down at the Zephyr Lounge, which is pretty much constant.

    So yeah, the whole system is pretty well fucked and unraveling this bowl of spaghetti to get something useful done is gonna be hard.

    1. avatar binder says:

      Well that is the real problem. The only ones the system really works on is crazy and stupid. Crazy and and not stupid and you just have to hope to body count is not to high. Most of the world has given up on protection from self incrimination because it is too hard. The danger though is depending too much on the goverment because they have way more guns and are typically even crazier. Free life is dangerous, get over it

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        The point isn’t depending on government. The point of my post, if you bothered to actually read it for content, is that you can’t depend on them in any way and that the folks saying “We need to fix X” don’t really understand what they’re talking about. It’s not as easy as “fixing X” because there are other problems with other systems.

        If you really did want to fix this, which would actually be a massive reduction in government, you’d have to “reform” (significantly cut) something on the order of half a dozen systems. Each of those has their entrenched interests and, rather than guns, they have something far more dangerous and difficult to deal with: A shitload of politicians and lawyers arrayed against anyone who wants to actually streamline the system.

        Then on top of that you’d have all the various satellite groups that hang around each of these systems. Each of those groups would also fight you tooth and nail to prevent any reform because the system being bloated, inefficient and stupid is how they make their money.

        1. avatar Binder says:

          “The point isn’t depending on government.” But then you want to go and reform it? And get over the fact of bureaucratic bloat, people have been complaining about if for thousands of years. The scary part is when governments get too efficient. Because I can guarantee you, they are not going to use that efficiency to protect your rights.

  12. avatar Sal Chichon says:

    This article. All gaddamned day this article. Well done, and well said.

  13. avatar Quest says:

    The more times our system fails, the more I’m willing to strengthening the restriction on gun ownership from people who don’t quite fit into the NICS system, but any reasonable person with their full history would say shouldn’t be granted access to a gun.

    What do you all think? What specific changes to the NICS criteria would you be willing to compromise on? I know compromise is generally a non-starter, but to be honest, the more these things happen with no compromise, the crazier the anti-2a folks become and the more public opinion shifts against us…

    So, what do we do?

    1. avatar DoomGuy says:

      Well you’re either playing right into their narrative, only more and more infringements by government can fix the failures of not enough infringements of government.

      So you’re in favor of stripping people of their rights just because they’re expendable to you? Without a judge? Do you think we should go into people’s private records?

      Because a veteran with PTSD would more than fit your criteria for having his gun rights stripped. No due process just have some liberal VA hack tell the FBI he’s a danger.

      When you advocate for such things remember they can and will happen to you, and think about some nosy bureaucrat digging into your business.

      Why not abolish the NICS system entirely? It’s unconstitutional security theater that doesn’t work. How about cutting back the government? How about actually standing up for the constitution and the rights of everyone, and not just the rights of yourself and the people you don’t deem expendable.

      Freedom means that sometimes evil is free to do evil things. Freedom is a frightening prospect, but I’d rather live in a dangerous and free society with the ability to protect myself. At the end of the day stop putting your protection in the hands of the Feds.

      I can’t believe we have such hypocrites on “our side”.

      1. avatar Quest says:

        I agree with you in large part. There is definitely an incrementalism in the degradation of our 2a rights, and we need to be highly aware that any ground given will never be regained, and will be further degraded after more and more senseless tragedies occur. This really is a critical point to never forget and always be aware of.

        Yet, I know that I would rather not live in a world with no 2A restrictions, where someone with KNOWN Islamist beliefs can buy a fully automatic rifle with 100 round coffin magazines (I’m exaggerating here obviously, but we are imagining a perfect 2a world). Frankly, most terrorist attacks we have seen to date have been pure amateur hour. Imagine when 5 teams of 5 hit soft targets in America with professional skill. Do you really think the second amendment would survive the aftermath? The the atavistic rage of soccer moms will be arisen to 11^2? I don’t want to see that day, nor the terrible aftermath to our Constitution that would result. But we really should put some impediments in place before Murphy’s law hits us and this happens.

        The question I am posing, is what are the reasonable bounds by which we can reduce the probability of those events, without trampling too far upon our rights? Have no doubt – there will be further tragedy, more terrorism, and with every event there will be a crescendo of public desire to “do something.” Either we do something on our terms now, or we are powerless to do anything when the Dems have all 3 branches of government in the near to far future.

        You can stick your head in the sand and be a rigid stick in the mud (which is a position I respect), or you can engage in some degree of debate. I’m only asking for opinions on this question.

        1. avatar DoomGuy says:

          I’ll continue to be the rigid stick in the mud.

          The soccer moms are the problem, they want the islamists and the illegals unfettered access into the country because they vote on their emotions and not on logic.

          The soccer moms have ruined this country, and yet you play into their narrative. Let them come out with their draconian gun laws, and let them welcome the illegals and the islamists with open arms. They’ll alienate Americans more than we will.

          Don’t blame me when they take 1000 miles for your one inch. Concessions only embolden them. Unfortunately, when the soccer moms demand the government send the next Lon Horiuchi after me (because they are too chickens*** to do their own dirty work) I won’t be around to say “I told you so”.

        2. avatar DoomGuy says:

          And to answe your question, “By what reasonable bounds?”

          My answe is: None.

          You cannot stop bad people from doing bad things preemptively by taking “a little bit” of freedom. Because invariably the government will “fail” at stopping the bad things. Which will lead the sheep and the rabid soccer moms to demand more and more and more freedom to be taken away.

          It will ultimately lead to a total police state where he FBI runs the entire country, and even still bad things will not be stopped. The only people who will be ensared by the system will be the innocent and law abiding. Because such a system is ripe for abuse by nosy and power hungry bureaucrats and busybodies.

          Again. I’ll be the rigid stick in the mud who would rather set forth into the dangerous, wild and beautiful frontier of a truly free society, than don the chains of a peaceful, safe, and comfortable tyranny.

          PS Let’s stop letting in people from countries who hate us and only come here to leech off our welfare system, steal jobs from Americans, and commit crimes.

        3. avatar Quest says:

          DoomGuy, I gotta say, I respect your opinion, and truly would love to live in that nation state (assuming you have a decent immigration policy).

          I’m going to post here something I wrote when debating an anti-2a individual, regarding the need to document and prosecute straw purchasers, by tracing private party transfers (i.e. closing the “gun show loophole”). Here goes the quote:

          “I don’t know how to bridge that gap between the gun control and gun rights advocates. I have a feeling that there might be a way using blockchain technology, but I’m not enough of an expert on the topic to really make a proposal. My thinking would be that all private party transfers enter an encrypted database, but the database would be have uni-directional tractability inbuilt , i.e. you could trace a gun’s serial number from a gun used in the commission of a crime up the chain of owners, but the government would be unable to simple query the database downward, looking to see who owns what guns. I think something like that could actually be the common ground that would satisfy centrist NRA types…”

          I’m not even sure that technology is feasible at this point (and whether or not the encryption would be hack proof), but I feel I gotta throw it out into the public domain, as it could be a compromise position.

          Any opinions are welcomed.

        4. avatar DoomGuy says:

          Thank you. I just wish we didn’t have to face the prospect of people taking our rights while real threats are ignored and we’re decried as “racists” or “conspiracy nuts” for pointing them out.

          And to answer your question. I don’t think the technology is there. At least not there on such a large scale for such technology being used to try and protect privacy. Neither is the willingness of a government agency there to use such a system to protect people’s privacy.

          And for such a query to take place, a warrant should be a requirement to access such a system and only in the event of a crime that involves a victim (murder, armed robbery, etc.) and there would need to be a voucher created in the system in the event of the issuance of such a warrant in order for the search to take place, and the voucher should have a 24-48 hour time limit.

          Once such search has taken place and the gun traced, then the query and all information regarding is destroyed and made inaccessible to any government agency. Also make any query into such a system almost prohibitively expensive that it disincentivizes LEO’s and Agencies from trying.

          But then again, it begs the question, who safeguards such a database from abuse and misuse, and who ensures it’s not politicized and used to spy on Citizens.

        5. avatar Toni says:

          yes and that last is exactly why such a database is such a huge risk to liberty. it is too easily used by corrupt agencies. also making it prohibitively expensive is not going to be a deterrent to govt agencies, after all the money they use is the taxpayers money not directly their own. the PD’s are funded by taxpayer $$$$$$$$$$ no matter if local, state or federal. also most on the left and in govt positions think of it as govt money not as citizens money that has been removed from them via legalized theft. otherwise it is a good idea with good merit to it but as we both have said also fraught with dangers as well

  14. avatar Red in CO says:

    And yet, what can actually be done? If no crime was committed, but someone’s “obviously unstable” (I’ll give you 2 nanoseconds to decide if there’s any potential for that criteria to be abused), then, what, lock em up? Due process means that sometimes evil goes free. Deal with it or leave for somewhere like Singapore, where it’s mind-numbingly safe but you have no rights and due process is extremely limited.

    Pre-crime type policies ultimately work in one of two ways. Either they cast a deliberately small net, which won’t catch all the bad guys but is also highly unlikely to entangle anyone who is and will continue to be innocent. Or, they cast a deliberately large net, in which case they will catch more of the bad guys (though still not all) but also more innocents, and a wide net system has far more potential for abuse. As for myself, I prefer the small net and the extreme difficulty of getting someone involuntarily committed. Encourage people to, and let them, tool up. That’s the ONLY solution that is a net benefit to society.

    1. avatar DoomGuy says:

      “Due process means that sometimes evil goes free…Encourage people to, and let them, tool up.”


      It’s our right to Keep and Bear Arms, and it’s our responsibility to take charge of our own protection, but Americans don’t think like that anymore. They want to be able to live oblivious to a dangerous world and then bray to mother.gov to keep them safe when they don’t take responsibility for their own lives.

  15. avatar Chadwick says:

    Yeah I’m pissed off. We are kept in the dark about the real facts, nobody is held accountable, our pro gun legislation is sidelined, and then somehow we are threatened with losing more freedom! How the hell does this fly in a world of fully functioning adults? Oh right… I forgot that liberals aren’t fully functioning nor are they adults. F#$in politicians that are supposed to be on our side f&$k us and the Marxist pigs on the other side f+$k us too. Yeah I’m pissed off and yeah my piss is pointed at the whole left and a lot of the so called right.

  16. avatar former water walker says:

    Well said Ralph. May I add Soldier of allah and San Bernardino to the list. Oh and crazy boy in Oregon. Signs aplenty but “gunz”.

  17. avatar DENK says:

    Hey Ralph, Good article, but one minor correction. At Columbine, the Agency that screwed the pooch was the Jefferson County Sheriffs Office. The lazy ass detective that failed to investigate the complaints about Klebold and Harris. the gutless school resource officer that fled when confronted by the gunmen and the POS libtard Sheriff John Stone, who earned the sobriquet “The Coward of Columbine” for preventing an Ad Hoc entry team from making entry to rescue students early in the incident, they all wore the green Keebler cookie elf uniform of the Jeffco S O. There is no “Columbine” police department in Colorado. There is a Columbine Valley Police Dept, but it is little 3 man caretaker department with no responsibility for Columbine High School, which is in the Jeffco S O’s jurisdiction. They screwed it up, they own it. Let’s give credit where credit is due.

  18. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:


    Action comes from keeping the heat on. No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough.

    Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals

  19. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:


    In the beginning the organizer’s first job is to create the issues or problems.

    Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals

  20. avatar James69 says:


  21. avatar Mmmtacos says:

    Still wondering how Paddock got all those guns and ammunition into his suite at the hotel that has enough cameras around to tell if you even so much as drop a hint to your buddy playing blackjack. Where is that investigation going, anyway?

    1. avatar Binder says:

      You do realize that it is a convention town and people moving large numbers of bags and boxes into their room is a common occurrence. As for the casino floor, well I think they typically have to deal with a lot more scammers than mass murders.

  22. avatar troutbum5 says:

    Well said, Ralph. This is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to address. I copied and pasted the text to a Facebook post so some of my rabid anti gun friends would read it. No way would they sully themselves by visiting a pro gun website. I gave you and TTAG credit, of course.

    1. avatar Binder says:

      OK, you do realize that Ralph is stating that there is no way that the government can protect us from people with guns. So what exactly do you think that you anti-gun friends are going to think the solution is? Or do you have a way to fix the government, because honestly I can’t think of one. And trust me, kicking them all out is not going to work.

  23. avatar ironicatbest says:

    rattlesnakes are venomous, a law needs passed banning rattles

  24. avatar Jack Mehoff says:

    Our problem is we assume people are just like us. They are not. Mass murderers and sociopaths are not like us. Most of us do not know how they think or operate. We need to treat them as we do rabid animals. Take them out of society. Stop making value assessments and trying to determine right from wrong. Hannibal Lector needs to be removed from society. Why is this so difficult?

    The more people with guns, the higher the probability he will be caught in the act and neutralized, hence limiting the long term cost of incarceration. Cost benefit analysis at its finest.

    1. avatar Toni says:

      exactly. there is no benefit in either locking them up or in letting them loose on society to wreak their damage. either is a massive cost on society. yet another reason why ALL people need to be well armed because the ones that are dangerous and dumb will like this guy try to kill large numbers at one time but will by virtue of everyone else being armed be quickly neutralized. the dangerous but smart ones will try other ways usually by single attacks on those they see as vulnerable (as with most serial killers and con artists). if law enforcement does not eventually catch up with them they will eventually pick on someone who will neutralize them again to the advantage of the rest of society. sadly some of these find their way into positions of power be it police or in govt and that is when they become the greater danger to all of society. these ones must be taken down no matter the cost

  25. avatar Louis says:

    Another one for the list is Nidal Hasan who was an obvious danger that was ignored for political reasons.

  26. avatar Mk10108 says:

    “Hands up don’t shoot” was a lie perpetuated my MSM. NRA’s “Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bag guy with a gun” is the truth and either demonize or ignored by MSM. Truth is school districts and law enforcement do not want the responsibility of protecting our children.

    The one solution that respects 2A, allows murderers anonymity, helps police unions, and limits the carnage is legislation passed providing law enforcement presence on school property while allowing teachers and administrators to lawfully protect students and themselves is training for counterattack by use of arms.

    The only undisputed way to end an attack with a gun is counterattack with guns. Counterattack either kills the murderer, forces surrender or the killer commits suicide.

    By assigning responsibility to school districts and law enforcement the charge of protecting our children in schools and government providing both legislation and funding will mass shootings be minimized or ended because killers will know they will die in a gunfight.

  27. avatar Jon Burrows says:

    I for one think that being mentally ill should not be a get out of jail free card for murder. As I’ve said for years, “guilty by reason of insanity”. It’s time to institute punishment that’s really a deterrent, and by that I don’t mean the death penalty, I mean public torture. Too bad criminals in this country will always have more rights than law abiding citizens, thanks to our POS government.

    1. avatar Toni says:

      why do you think in several of my posts i have suggested the stocks with daily floggings with a cat’o’nine and heaps of rotten produce there for the public to throw at the offenders

  28. avatar Jross says:

    This is what happens when we become obsessed with feelings. In an effort to avoid hurting them we hurt everyone else.

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