It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Not the NRA or Trump Supporters or Gun Dealers have blood on their hands...the US Air Force Does

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:16 PM
a reply to: matafuchs

I just saw this, but the "gun grabbers" won't admit where the fault lies... They rather lie and continue to claim that "we must have gun control" in order to appease their "authoritarian ego".

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 04:46 AM
a reply to: matafuchs

Seems these days no one wants to be held to their own stupid actions,there comes a point in time when one must fend for himself,physically and mentally,blaming gun owners and sellers,kind of like blaming a car dealer for selling a car someone ran people over with,face it people it'a an inanimate object,needs a person to use it

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 04:49 AM

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: matafuchs

So there are threads about the NRA, and gun laws and Conservatives and gun dealers but it seems like the 2nd Amendment was not to blame. It was the US Air Force.

the Air Force admitted on Monday that it had failed to enter the man’s domestic violence court-martial into a federal database that could have blocked him from buying the rifle he used to kill 26 people.

“The Air Force has launched a review of how the service handled the criminal records of former Airman Devin P. Kelley following his 2012 domestic violence conviction,” the Air Force said in a statement. “Federal law prohibited him from buying or possessing firearms after this conviction.”

The 2nd Amendment is what ended this tragedy and instead of criticizing like numeorus actors and politicains it should be praised. Like our President stated.


President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference with Shinzo Abe, Japan's prime minister, not pictured, at Akasaka Palace in Tokyo, Japan, November 6, 2017. Trump: Texas shooting is a 'mental health problem,' not about guns 8 Hours Ago | 01:19 President Donald Trump said Monday he believed the Texas church shooting was caused by a "mental health problem," and not because of a problem with domestic gun laws. When asked whether U.S. gun control measures could have been the key to the Texas shooting, Trump replied, "Mental health is your problem here." "This isn't a guns situation," he said, before adding, "This is a mental health problem at the highest level. It's a very, very sad event." At least 26 people were killed and about 20 others were wounded after a gunman opened fire during a Sunday service at a Texas church. The victims ranged in age from 5 to 72-years-old. Speaking at a joint press conference in Tokyo, Japan, alongside Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Trump described the shooter as "a very deranged individual."

So, because of a lazy clerical error a man was able to obtain a weapon and kill almost the entire congregation of a church. This is horrible. Whole families gone. Children killed out of hate. He showed the warning signs. We cannot let this happen again.

Do you really think this guy couldn't have acquired weapons either way?

The blood is on his hands, no one else's.

Not pointing at you but, I'm really getting tired of the blame game...anyone other than the shooter.

nwtrucker....I quoted you because you spell out the main problem (on this and other issues) of the blame game but there is three parts that are needed to show the whole picture.

One....almost all tragedies/killings/incidents/ect it isn't one thing and/or person that causes it. In short it does not exist in a vacuum. To use what I learned when I got my pilots licence a term called "chain of tragedy or chain of events"
In short an aircraft accident involves a series of decisions/incidents/ect that link together to end in the tragic result
If one or more "links" had not happened aka "broken" the incident may (note MAY not guaranteed) have happened or been altered in some way for a lesser result.

Two.....people want to make one person/incident/issue/item/ect the SOLE cause and to take SOLE responsibility thus absolving the other factors/items/people of any blame or responsibility.

Lets look at an example....someone owns a ford pinto (known for its faulty gas tank system) and is hit from behind by a drunk driver. The resulting accident kills the pinto driver in a flaming ball .
Now what the (and while the example may not have happened this is what ford tried to do) ford motor company will claim no fault on the fatal design but it was the sole fault of the drunk driver...Ford has no fault in this persons death.

But the reality is YES the drunk driver is responsible for KILLING the ford driver AND SHOULD BE held to full responsibility on that. But the ford design was a LETHAL flaw and ALSO is responsible as much as the drunk driver. Because the fault could have been triggered (one example) of a simple accident with someone who was not drunk .

Three.....evil people will do evil things. you are NEVER gonna be able to always stop them....sad , tragic but none the less true.

Now how does these three points apply to this tragic situation?
Like this

this man was (yes anti pc but straight to the point) a CERTIFIED WACK JOB EVIL MAN who was determined (for whatever reason in his twisted mind) to kill his target and anyone around it.
He is RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY DEATH and if he had survived should have been given the death penalty for his actions.

The air force ROYALLY SCREWED UP to the point of SOMEONE (yet to be determined) GUILTY of gross negligence resulting in the death of alot of people.

Does the FACT the air force person didnt do their job and the air force in general didnt have (at this time of knowledge) a check to make sure it was reported absolve or lessen their responsibility? NO

Does it mean the air force has a much culpability as the murderer because their policies were not followed?
NO it doesnt
the service responsibility and level of punishment should be gauged by if they have a track record of not reporting to a data base that he is (under the law not public opinion) not to have a weapon. If they have no such track record it was a tragic accident .

The clerk that was directly responsible for not reporting this guy to the correct database should be held accountable and punished for gross negligence (UNLESS it was proven they did and the state agency dropped the ball) but not as a murderer UNLESS they had CREDIBLE EVIDENCE of a specific threat to do harm and/or to his now intended target.

Yes a gun was used....but it was a tool , nothing more so no fault to it what so ever.

the current laws are not to blame or hold any sway since the proper people did not due their job in reporting and murder is ALREADY ILLEGAL ....

There is NO PROOF that any new law proposed , that IF his name on this data base, and if he didnt have a gun that this would not have happened.....

so where am I going with this ?

in short and to sum it up simply....

Hold EACH PERSON/ITEM/LAW/ECT responsible ONLY WITH PROOF of their part, If their part was deliberate and/or indifferent and ONLY TO THE LEVEL that it plays in it.

But no matter what the ULTIMATE person responsible and CANNOT BE LESSENED by other factors .
That evil people will find a way to do evil things. you will NEVER be able to always stop them before they attempt/do it..You have to let others be able to defend themselves

Tell me would you absolve a criminal from them escaping from a prison because someone else left the door open?
Or would you PUNISH him and the fool who did that?


posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:34 AM
The AF screwed up. But those pesky loopholes lobbied by the NRA gives a way out. Gun shows and private sellers don't have to do background checks, state or federal.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:42 AM
a reply to: MOMof3

every gun show I have ever been to does background checks.

the USAF... where drinking under age will follow you the rest of your career... crack a babies skull and well we wont do all the paper work.

So disgusted..

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:54 AM
I am not sure I would blame the Air Force. DV laws are tricky. If you have a conviction, that means no guns or military. Naturally, the military isn't going to want to boot their members because of it for many reasons. One is DV laws are BS in many cases.

I was arrested for it once, NOT convicted. A verbal argument led to neighbors (apt) calling cops. They left, but came back an hour later an arrested me because their supervisor said to. My crime? I told her to F off. They said, because she felt "threatened" (she didn't) that it counts as a dv. Here in Michigan, your 1st offense is a freebie, BECAUSE of this reason. If it happens a second time, then you are convicted. Called the spousal abuse act or something.

Anyway they said I would never be able to go back in the Army if I was convicted, and even my public defender said it was bs but that I didn't have to worry. My bottom line is, DV cases should go by a case by case basis.

Check this out, in MI, a DV means no guns, but a domestic assault is not on the list. Hit the person, just don't cuss at her!
edit on 7-11-2017 by iTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:58 AM
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

Might have missed it but if he was convicted in a general court martial it is supposed to be a felony conviction, all the news I have read just called it a court martial so hard to know for certain.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 08:02 AM
a reply to: Irishhaf

he didn't get a Dishonorable he got a BCD, depending on what the sentence is with a BCD you may still be eligible to buy a firearm.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 08:04 AM

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Ahh, an Irish 'expert' on the U.S.. I bow to your wisdom....NOT.

Screw your 'laws'. The shooting was already against the 'law'. 300-330 million rifles and handguns in the hands of the civilian population. 3 TRILLION rounds.

More than all the armies in the world combined, plus , plus. Yes?

Fathers teaching sons for generations. Do you really think they're giving them up? I can't help but wonder if you'd be under the English thumb if you batch had a similar spine.

English actually.

Not an expert, it's not an expert subject. In any case I was calling out someone who made a rabid statement that cannot possibly be verified, but if anything, could possibly be verified the other way round.
However, you don't need to be an expert either to listen to the way people defend an attitude to decide if it's defensible or indefensible in the face of reality.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 08:20 AM
a reply to: smurfy

Right, but the statement is verified and you simply didn't read any of the links, rather you just responded with your personal thoughts on the matter which...are wrong.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:18 AM

originally posted by: MOMof3
The AF screwed up. But those pesky loopholes lobbied by the NRA gives a way out. Gun shows and private sellers don't have to do background checks, state or federal.

A licensed firearms dealer is required to run a background check on a buyer regardless of venue, including when they're at a gun show. The requirements on private sales vary depending on state law.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:36 AM
a reply to: vor78

In Texas private vendors at gun shows are not required to do background checks. So Kelley could have bought weapons no matter his background.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:51 AM

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
If a disagreement did break out, it usually ended in threats to "call your folks and tell them you're acting like a fool" which was a wonderful diffuser of issues.

True story. I grew up in a small west texas town and it was pretty similar.


The real kicker here is that the air force will likely not suffer any outlay of cash for this mistake.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:14 AM
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I read an article where the USAF said the did not input the conviction in the system, they are laying claim to responsibility. (least thats how it reads to me)

Why would they do that if it still would have left him eligible to purchase a firearm?

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:26 AM
a reply to: Irishhaf

that's true from what i read, if there is no information on record why he revived a BCD they wouldn't know that he wasn't eligible. not all charges / convictions in a BCD disqualify you from certain rights. it had to be a felony conviction

If he would have had a dishonorable on his record, even though there was no charge/conviction listed, he wouldn't have been able to buy a firearm.

there is some debate from what i've read, so i can't say that's gospel.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 11:27 AM
Apparently it's not just the Air Force and it wasn't an error. It comes down to the way the military reports domestic abuse cases. As in they don't have a distinct charge for domestic violence.

If you look at the NICS Indices there is only one DOD employee on there for domestic assault. At the same time there are almost 11,000 on there for dishonorable discharge.

The Military Is Reporting Almost No Domestic Abusers to the Main Gun Background Check Database

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 11:57 AM
a reply to: Xcalibur254

i would think as i said before that if he had a Dishonorable Discharge on his record he wouldn't have been able to buy four guns, even if the reasons were not listed. because with a Dishonorable Discharge you lose the right to vote and own a weapon.

not all crimes that you can get a conviction and receive a BCD and wind in in Leavenworth for a year, are felonies.
and it appears that he got a BCD and not a Dishonorable as reported at first. if there was nothing to show them that he was prohibited from buying a firearm a BCD might not throw up a red flag.

Kelley was court-martialed in 2012 for two counts of assault on his then-wife and assault on their child, Stefanek said. In addition to the bad conduct discharge, Kelley also received a reduction in rank and confinement for 12 months.
Texas church shooting: How was Devin Patrick Kelley discharged from the Air Force?

but your right they need more people to do the job so this kinda sh@@ doesn't happen again.

edit on 7-11-2017 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:07 PM

"Church shooter escaped mental health facility after attacking wife and stepson in 2012"

quote: CBS News

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:30 PM
a reply to: scrounger

Excellent articulation. In general, I'd agree.

Apparently, one can add the shooter had been on some form of psychotropic, as well. As was the Vegas shooter and, I believe, about 80% of the mass murderers of late. Worth looking into, at least.

edit on 7-11-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:40 PM
a reply to: matafuchs

In regards to the title, the only one with blood on their hands IMHO, is the guy who shot up the church.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in