A breakdown in the background check system allowed Dylann Roof to buy gun, but did he?

Dylann Roof, who is accused of killing nine people at a church in South Carolina three weeks ago, was able to purchase the gun used in the attack only because of lapses in the FBI’s background-check system, FBI Director James B. Comey said Friday.

Source

Could the shooting have been prevented? At the very least, if Dylann had been denied the ability to purchase a gun, the universe could have played out in a number of different ways. Would Dylann eventually convince his friends that his intentions were real?

I can’t help but notice the inconsistencies within each of these events and its quite easy to get lost in translation.

“This case rips all of our hearts out,” Comey said. “But the thought that an error on our part is connected to this guy’s purchase of a gun that he used to slaughter these good people is very painful to us.”

He seems to be taking this very hard, almost blaming himself and his agency for the incident. Its hard to tell what really would have transpired, had Dylann been confronted with the inability to purchase a gun.

Roof had been arrested for possession of narcotics in February, a felony charge that alone did not disqualify him from buying a gun. But Comey said Roof’s subsequent admission of the drug crime would have triggered an automatic rejection of his gun purchase if the information had been properly recorded in criminal-record and background-check databases.

Here's the major problem I have with this. There are many inconsistencies surrounding this story unless someone can clear it up for me. He seems to have acquired the gun in a number of different ways according to multiple media outlets.

Roof's father gave him a .45-caliber pistol for his birthday this year, Cowles said.

Link

According to his uncle, Roof received a .45-caliber pistol from his father in April for his birthday, Reuters reports.

Link

A senior law enforcement source told CNN the suspect's father had recently bought him a .45-caliber gun for his 21st birthday in April.

South Carolina is one of 40 states that do not require background checks for private gun transactions, like the one that allegedly took place between Roof and his father. Gun control activists call this the “private sale” loophole.

Link

Carson Cowles told Reuters and the New York Daily News that his nephew, Dylann Storm Roof, got a .45-caliber pistol from his father for his 21st birthday in April.

Link

Mass-murdering racist Dylann Roof prepared for the deadly rampage at a black South Carolina church by honing his killing skills with a 21st birthday present from his father — a .45-caliber handgun.

Link

Then there is this,

Roof's grandfather says it was just "birthday money" and that the family didn't know what Roof did with that money.

He himself bought the .45-caliber handgun used in the shooting last April at a Charleston gun store, according to the two officials.

Link

Now it gets more confusing,

The man suspected of fatally shooting nine people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina on Wednesday, was given a gun by his father as a 21st birthday present in April, his uncle told Reuters on Thursday.

Link

There are conflicting reports on how Roof obtained the gun he's accused of using to kill nine people. CNN and The New York Times have both reported that Roof bought the gun himself at a store in Charleston. The Washington Post and Reuters have reported that Roof received the gun as a birthday gift.

Link

Just another case of media mix-up, or a lack of consistency in keeping a conspiracy from gaining traction? I'm not sure what to think, but many separate media outlets aren't sure either. Is there concrete evidence that his father did in fact give him only money and not a gun?

a reply to: eisegesis

I thought it was reported that it was a gift from his father or uncle? Maybe this is their end game for gun control. Look how easy it was for them to screw this up, so we must get tougher.

a reply to: eisegesis

Even the fictional character Raymond Reddington spells it out. "The Cabal" has you believing movies are make believe/fantasy and real life is reality when in truth it is reversed.

This whole story is BS! You can NOT purchase any firearm if you are convicted of ANY felony. I know because I had my own gun shop in the late 80's early 90's. A felony is a felony no matter what. Since then, laws have changed to include Criminal Domestic Violence (CDV) AND misdemeanors that can have a sentence of longer than a year. The misdemeanor one actually was enacted while I had my gun shop.

I believe the computer alerted on Roof for MK Ultra. The rest is history...

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

You would have to be pretty educated in doublespeak to get away with that.

"Hey, umm, we messed up.. So we need even more control"

a reply to: NightFlight

crap crap crap.
i had a domestic charge when i was 18. im 37 now.
last year i got into pistols.

went to the gun shop to try and buy one. walked out with a pistol no problem. then another and another. no wait. no nothing. took 5 minutes.
got paranoid and started thinking about it.
looked online as best i can and found no record of my #.

decided to drive to the courthouse in the county it happened to ask about it.
sure enough, there it was. a record of it.

i thought i slid through till that point. i was gonna apply for a ccw.
they told me i can not legally own a gun so i sold them all back to the dealer where i bought them.

if i slid through then others do too. the system is far from perfect

no matte if i agree with the program or not. as of now the law states i cant own a gun but i can walk into a licensed dealer right now and 5 minutes later walk out with a pistol.
the thing is for me, once i found out for sure that legally i cant own them i got rid of them.

im betting lots of people out there dont do that

a reply to: Mugly

Was any of the charges for possession, also?

You probably fell through the cracks when Clerk of courts weren't sure about what to send on in to the FBI NCIC disposition during that time. Even now there is some confusion about CDV convictions about the severity or lack of.

a reply to: NightFlight

nope. no possession.
just making a point that have a domestic does not prevent you.
legally it should but that dont mean it does.

of course i fell through the cracks. my point is if i did then others do..probably to the tune of millions of people.
difference is i got paranoid and sold mine back.

not saying i agree with the criteria...only the criteria dont work.
i walked into a local, licensed dealer and walked out in minutes with some killer pistols when i should not have been able to by law

a reply to: eisegesis


Notice the approach is a bit more subtle in this mass shooting but still the same in order. They are at the point now where they start talking about "guns". Now that phase one is out of the way.....all the flap about the flag....now to the gun.

I will say it one more time. Take it or leave it.

The powers that be "this so called cabal" never wanted to disarm you but do want everyone to arm themselves through the teeth so when the time comes they will be able to wind you up and set you loose on each other. Be surprised what civil people are capable of when they cannot get to their money, no sleep, no food, water, electricity, and their families are threatened.


You have to be a true INFP that fits practically nowhere into tribal clicks to see this sort of stuff...which is very basic truth.

Here's the major problem I have with this. There seems to be a major inconsistency unless someone can clear this up for me. He seems to have aquird the gun in a number of ways according to a number of media outlets.

-OP
Very true but sure that won't matter to the media, etc.

Now that the flag controversy is seemingly over with it's removal above the monument on S.C. state grounds. It was well supported in it's removal as well as apparently supported in it's removal from merchandise. A successful test. This will be the new focus and conveniently "supported".

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: eisegesis


Notice the approach is a bit more subtle in this mass shooting but still the same in order. They are at the point now where they start talking about "guns". Now that phase one is out of the way.....all the flap about the flag....now to the gun.

Log, you should start a thread on this very subject. Come Sunday morning, I'll bet the anti-gunners will be making their rounds on the news shows trying to shove "gun control" down everyone's throat.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: eisegesis


Notice the approach is a bit more subtle in this mass shooting but still the same in order. They are at the point now where they start talking about "guns". Now that phase one is out of the way.....all the flap about the flag....now to the gun.

If they didn't make the problem, reaction, solution, SO OBVIOUS, I would wait until all the details were sorted out before making accusations. Their repeated attempts after every incident is getting tiresome and they are beginning to show their true colors.

A fair question to ask anyone on this site is, do you think ANY shooting in the last five to ten years has been completely orchestrated by our government? This is the place to talk about it and this gun grab hysteria is really starting to wear thin. They appear to be pouring it on thicker and thicker.

Like we were just going to hand them over...

Don't make me laugh.

originally posted by: superluminal11
a reply to: eisegesis

Even the fictional character Raymond Reddington spells it out. "The Cabal" has you believing movies are make believe/fantasy and real life is reality when in truth it is reversed.

Ain't that the truth!

The powers that be "this so called cabal" never wanted to disarm you but do want everyone to arm themselves through the teeth so when the time comes they will be able to wind you up and set you loose on each other. Be surprised what civil people are capable of when they cannot get to their money, no sleep, no food, water, electricity, and their families are threatened.

I have to ask though, what would be the point? We're perfectly capable of doing that ourselves and I think most people know who the real boogyman is.

The question is, who would the military represent in a time of crisis? Many have families that are going through the same $hit we're all dealing with. Part of me wishes it would happen already so we know exactly who really stands for what.

I apologize, I'm getting sloppy and might have to call it quits soon. I'm finding that I have to edit every post I make in order to express my thoughts clearly, and that is not a good sign.

a reply to: Mugly

What State are you in? I'd like to look up your laws.

a reply to: eisegesis
Dylan was in trouble with the law for buying drugs.
If he can buy drugs that are illegal, what would prevent him from buying a gun on the black market?

Just more proof that gun laws are just another legal hoop for honest people are made to jump through... just to make lawmakers look concerned and the people that vote for them feel good about themselves.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: eisegesis
Dylan was in trouble with the law for buying drugs.
If he can buy drugs that are illegal, what would prevent him from buying a gun on the black market?

Just more proof that gun laws are just another legal hoop for honest people are made to jump through... just to make lawmakers look concerned and the people that vote for them feel good about themselves.

I don't exactly understand your point.

Maybe it comes down to who you know and where to acquire one? If he was denied like he should have been there may have been more time to reflect on his decision and he could have changed his mind, but no one is going to know that for certain.

This thread is really more about if he did or did not actually by the gun and the media's inconsistencies. It's all in the OP.

a reply to: eisegesis

Thats real interesting and all, but if this kid wanted to kill people, i hardly think stopping him from buying the gun legally would have prevented the shooting. He was in posession of narcotics at one point. He didnt buy those legally either. Its easy to get things illegally.

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: eisegesis

Thats real interesting and all, but if this kid wanted to kill people, i hardly think stopping him from buying the gun legally would have prevented the shooting. He was in posession of narcotics at one point. He didnt buy those legally either. Its easy to get things illegally.

Like I said, the universe works in mysterious ways. While you speculate that he would have still gone through with it, I could speculate and say his friends might have finally taken him seriously and reported him if there was more time between him acquiring the gun. I mean he WAS talking about it to them.

And did he actually purchase the gun himself? Multiple sources are saying he did. His uncle, his grandfather and the investigators all have conflicting stories. While its not unusual for facts to be uncertain pending an investigation, we are on a conspiracy site.

a reply to: Mugly

Your story is a perfect example of why the system needs to be fixed LONG before we enact anymore laws. There is supposed to be a system in place to prevent what you described as happening, yet it failed.

I hope all the posters that chime in against guns read this thread.