Gun Club knew better than our government

The Aurora crazy gets turned down from joining a gun club yet our government saw fit to award him with a $26,000 grant of which he used the proceeds to buy up all kinds of weapons, safely gear, and ammunition, then proceeds to go crazy in a crowded movie theater.

Yet some people want government to step up gun control measures?

Are you people serious?

To paraphrase Obama...The Aurora shooter didn't do this on his own, he had help from the government.

Originally posted by Carseller4
The Aurora crazy gets turned down from joining a gun club yet our government saw fit to award him with a $26,000 grant of which he used the proceeds to buy up all kinds of weapons, safely gear, and ammunition, then proceeds to go crazy in a crowded movie theater.

Yet some people want government to step up gun control measures?

Are you people serious?

To paraphrase Obama...The Aurora shooter didn't do this on his own, he had help from the government.

can you provide a link, I gotta read that, also what was the grant for, school?, they provide grants for a ton of people, they didn't know he would go nuts, or did they?

Originally posted by hapablab


can you provide a link, I gotta read that, also what was the grant for, school?, they provide grants for a ton of people, they didn't know he would go nuts, or did they?

washington.cbslocal.com...

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) - James Holmes, the alleged gunman in the recent theater shooting that left 12 dead in Aurora, Colo., was previously awarded a $26,000 federal grant.

Seems like the gun club knew this guy wasn't stable and turned him away, yet our government just threw 26 large to this guy like it was candy.

reply to post by Carseller4


If you have to be misleading to win an argument, you LOST before your fingers hit the keyboard.

Holmes was awarded a prestigious grant from the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. NIH is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

reply to post by Carseller4


Yeah. Like Barack Obama was sitting at his desk wondering who to throw 26K at.

You are so full of it.

Does that surprise you any? Our government funded Iran-Contra, The Taliban in Afghanistan when Russia invaded, they even funded the people who blew JFK's brains out (by LBJ's order) and then LBJ had the presidential desk aboard AF-1 raised so he could look down on everyone. Does it really surprise you what a man sitting in the Oval Office can order to have done? I don't put anything passed Obama, he isn't even american.

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher

Holmes was awarded a prestigious grant from the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. NIH is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

reply to post by Carseller4

 

Yeah. Like Barack Obama was sitting at his desk wondering who to throw 26K at.

You are so full of it.

How often do you think gun clubs turn away new members?

Sorry, but I think this whole concept might be a little over your head.

Understandable though...not your fault.

Originally posted by Carseller4
The Aurora crazy gets turned down from joining a gun club yet our government saw fit to award him with a $26,000 grant of which he used the proceeds to buy up all kinds of weapons, safely gear, and ammunition, then proceeds to go crazy in a crowded movie theater.

The article you cited does not connect the stipend with the ammo purchases, though, frankly, that is not unlikely. The real issue is, how and why would "the government" (in this case, NIH) know this guy was crazy? His only encounter with law enforcement his entire life was a single speeding ticket, hardly a red flag. He was an honor student in a PhD program in a difficult subject, neuroscience.

Where's the red flag here? On what basis would the government (a) not give him a stipend and (b) not allow him to buy firearms or ammo?

Yet some people want government to step up gun control measures? Are you people serious?

Apples and oranges and not pertient to your point. But I agree with it as a stand alone. More gun control is like trying to stop drunk driving by making it difficult for sober people to buy cars. It makes no sense and does not work. If more people had been armed in that theater this guy would be dead by now. But a sign at the entrance said "No firearms." Obviously, the gunman did not read the sign.

A timeline would be nice.

The news give us all of the facts out of sequence.

I'm seeing responses that are not making the obvious connection.

Which is.....

The gun club, which this guy tried to join, saw something that was not quite right and turned his membership down, but our government said "sure, no problem, take $26K of hard earned taxpayer money, and go crazy." (literally)

What did the gun club know that our government didn't?

Who would be better policing guns in the country? A simple gun club or our inept government.

Please someone, make the connection.

The connection, that you are trying to make is clear.

The question is when was the grant given?
When was the gun club denial?
When did he start to withdraw?

I can take any number of events, out of sequence and in hindsight, to make anyone look crazy.

Originally posted by Carseller4
I'm seeing responses that are not making the obvious connection.

Which is.....

The gun club, which this guy tried to join, saw something that was not quite right and turned his membership down, but our government said "sure, no problem, take $26K of hard earned taxpayer money, and go crazy." (literally)

What did the gun club know that our government didn't?

The gun club guy made a call to the shooter's residence (perhaps. This is not nailed down) and listened to an incoherent message on the answering machine that apparently spooked him. He made a "gut level" decision on the spot that something was wrong and acted intuitively on the spot. He had no regulations to follow protecting this guy's rights. He denied the shooter membership, which he had the right to do.

The NIH, on the other hand, didn't get an incoherent message. They looked at grades, transcripts, and probably a properly done application to make their decision on offering a stipend. That's kind of their job, to encourage science education and all, and they are held to very specific and detailed laws and regulations on how they can judge an application. You can't discriminate, you know, and this guy, being an honor student and all, looked squeaky clean on his application. No red flag.

In terms of his buying weapons, once again, he was squeaky clean. He was not on any watch list. He wasn't a felon. He hadn't been in a mental institution. He wasn't on the BATF list as unable to buy a firearm. If he's not on the list, they cannot prevent him from purchasing a firearm. They don't even record it; they just check it. The gunshop has to keep records, but the government does not.

In short, and in answer to your questions, there was no REASON--at all--to deny him a stipend, which was competitively awarded, nor to deny him firearms. The gun club guy sniffed a rat, and he was right. But the government, under both its guises, had no evidence at all. There was no bona fide reason to deny the shooter.

reply to post by schuyler


Excellent, you made the OP's point quite well.

The government despite all of its rules, regulations and fairness is fail.

A private group was far better able to asses the individual and the situation and do the right thing.

reply to post by Carseller4


Yeah and if the government HAD stepped in to try to do something to someone ordering 7,000 rounds of ammunition - you'd be b****ing about that too.

Originally posted by Carseller4
I'm seeing responses that are not making the obvious connection.

Which is.....

The gun club, which this guy tried to join, saw something that was not quite right and turned his membership down, but our government said "sure, no problem, take $26K of hard earned taxpayer money, and go crazy." (literally)

What did the gun club know that our government didn't?

Who would be better policing guns in the country? A simple gun club or our inept government.

Please someone, make the connection.

edit on 24-7-2012 by Carseller4 because: (no reason given)

Did the government call him to ask him questions, only to get an answering maching going "Har har har Yarrr Im a pirate!! Yarr !!! Imma get me peices of eight and go drinking rum me hearty yarrrr! Grab yer whenches and drop yer dacks lads!!!"

or was it a student they were giving the cash to?

As it was I thought they refused him membership because he sounded like a nutcase on his answering machine.

?

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by schuyler

 

Excellent, you made the OP's point quite well.

The government despite all of its rules, regulations and fairness is a failure.

A private group was far better able to asses the individual and the situation and do the right thing.

How is this an issue? You give someone who appears mental membership to a gun club, and you're negligent. The gov did what they do. That is, grant funding to students like him. They had no idea what he was going to do.

What you're suggesting is that money for such things must be passed via hoop jumping and background checks and bureaucracy. Wasting a lot of resources, when this guy was the exception, not the rule.

And you can bet if they did this sort of checking, many people would be denied due to being 'not quite right'..

fixed your typo by the way, memes are getting annoying.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by schuyler

 

Excellent, you made the OP's point quite well.

The government despite all of its rules, regulations and fairness is fail.

A private group was far better able to asses the individual and the situation and do the right thing.

You are so intent on blaming the government that you fail to see the point. The two entities were working off different sets of evidence. Also, there were other "private groups" involved that also didn't do anything.

1. The FFL(s). (FFL=Federal Firearms License) A "private group" or groups sold the shooter his weapons, of which he had at least four. Whether he bought them all at the same place or not, we don't know. If he bought them online, they STILL had to go through an FFL. These guys are under constant siege by the government and anti-gun groups. You think they are not wary? If there had been a hint of something amiss, they never would have sold him firearms. But they didn't catch it. So much for these private groups.

2. Ammo dealers. If the amount of ammo was deemed "excessive." they could have stopped the sale. They did not. So much for those private groups.

3. Tactical gear. This guy had a bullet proof vest, other body protection, and all kinds of SWAT-type gear. Who sold him that? Isn't that the most unusual thing of all? If I go in and buy a Glock, no one is going to question me, but a bullet proof vest? That screams INTENT here, yet no one stopped him. So much for those private groups.

4. Bomb making material. Apparently he had a lot of gunpowder, chemicals, fuses, and commercial fireworks material to make his booby traps. Commercial fireworks? I used to be involved in commercial fireworks. You can't just buy them anywhere. Not everyone can buy them. You have to be on tap for a show. Who sold him all this stuff? Wasn't that the least bit suspicious. So much for that private group.

So your idea that a "private group" did the right thing fails upon examination. Even the gun club owner failed. He didn't grant him membership, but he also did not contact the authorities. If he was so suspicious, why didn't he report it? "Yeah, this guy has a strange message on his answering machine I can't understand. I'm suspicious. Why don't you go arrest him?"

To claim that the government failed because the NIH gave him a grant to study in graduate school is absurd. To say the government failed because he wasn't in a BAFT database listed as ineligible to buy weapons is also absurd. On what basis could he have been denied? None. What had he ever done wrong in his life? Nothing. Then to claim "private groups" did better is equally absurd. They did worse. Unlike granting a stipend for education, at least buying weapons and ammo and tactical gear and bomb making material is relevant to the issue, and all these private groups failed.

Very, very weak argument, guys.

Watch the club owner get sued for discriminating against the "different".

Originally posted by Carseller4
I'm seeing responses that are not making the obvious connection.

Which is.....

The gun club, which this guy tried to join, saw something that was not quite right and turned his membership down, but our government said "sure, no problem, take $26K of hard earned taxpayer money, and go crazy." (literally)

You might be eligable for a physchological exam yourself...

Let me get this straight....

The NRA has fiercely and successfully lobbied for no background checks.

As a result anyone, in over 30 states in the union, can show up at Gun Shows and pay cash for an AR-15 (Automatic Rifle) like the one Homes used or order the guns and ammo over the interent, no questions asked.

How often do you think THIS happens????

Gun shows give terrorists easy access to firearms

Thanks to the political clout of the U.S. gun lobby, a member of the terrorist group Hezbollah, Ali Boumelhem, was able to buy weapons at Michigan gun shows without undergoing a police background check.

www.usatoday.com...

But YOU want to REGULATE ACADEMIC GRANTS??? with full psychological screenings???

THAT needs more regulation???

Did that Gun Range owner report his concerns to the police? If not, then what the hell are you talking about?

So he noticed the guy sounded nuts....and yet decided that was OK as long as the guy didn't join his Gun Club.

Welcome to the NRA.

Dumbest threadd I have read in a while.

Originally posted by schuyler


A private group was far better able to asses the individual and the situation and do the right thing.

What other group would be permited to asses the individual as the gun lobby has sucessfully lobbied to prohibit background checks in the majority of the states?

And what good was that assesment when no action was taken?

Even if the gun club owner had thought to take action...what action could he have legally taken?

So many holes in logic here...