Texas Church Shooting : Thread

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
There are several questions that are being ignored and should be asked:

How did a person who was dishonorably discharged get ahold of and own a firearm?

He was not allowed to, according to law and statute.

There are questions as to why he did such.

Because the air force didn't report it IAW federal law.

So why was he denied a gun permit (to carry in TX as TX doesn't require a permit to purchase guns?)

Yes the AF failed to enter the conviction into NICS, but it should be thought out that there was two standards applied here. One of which apparently was working properly, the other did not. Why two different standards?

a reply to: JBurns

The concept doesn't come from a specific bible verse. It comes from a belief that self-defense is a natural right of all living things, and if you are a religious person you believe this right is naturally granted to you by your Creator. It's not a difficult concept to understand, but non-religious folks like to mock it because they can't argue logically.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
There are several questions that are being ignored and should be asked:

How did a person who was dishonorably discharged get ahold of and own a firearm?

He was not allowed to, according to law and statute.

There are questions as to why he did such.

Because the air force didn't report it IAW federal law.

So why was he denied a gun permit (to carry in TX as TX doesn't require a permit to purchase guns?)

Yes the AF failed to enter the conviction into NICS, but it should be thought out that there was two standards applied here. One of which apparently was working properly, the other did not. Why two different standards?

We haven't learned why he was denied the carry permit yet. It's possible Texas doesn't use the NICS database to do their background check for that, and there was information in their database that flagged him.

a reply to: JBurns

I've had similar thoughts. Remember all the data breaches early on because of almost no security. Put the blame on the people who accessed and promote those who failed their job.

www.bbc.com... so the texas gun man had escaped a mental hospital in 2012

The gunman who killed 26 churchgoers in Texas escaped a mental health clinic in 2012, according to a police report. El Paso officers who detained Devin Kelley were told he was "a danger to himself and others". Kelley had been sent to the hospital after he was court-martialled for assaulting his ex-wife and stepson during his stint in the US Air Force. He was "attempting to carry out death threats" against "his military chain of command", the report states.

that would put him firmly in the mentally adjudicated defective category and the only way people with mental illness are denied firearms legally ,it seems every form of law that was supposed to prevent him from buying firearms as a prohibited person failed at multiple levels . has any one found out where he got his guns yet?

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Yes, he purchased them from a few different licensed dealers. All of them performed background checks. He passed. Some outlets keep focusing on the fact that he lied on the form, but that's irrelevant. That's why they run it through NICS, to make sure you're not lying. The disqualifying info just wasn't in the database. Air Force #ed up big time.

a reply to: JBurns

Correct. The constitution does not grant rights, it limits governments intrusion on rights.

Each of those rights has regulation. Press? Pornography? Pedophilia Imagery? Speech? Threaten to kill someone, perhaps the President and revisit your right to free speech.

The rights specifically cited as "endowed by our creator" are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

*And that neither includes the right to own guns, nor is that the constitution, that is the declaration of independence.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

it seems every form of law that was supposed to prevent him from buying firearms as a prohibited person failed at multiple levels

The Air Force didn't have the data updated in NICS to account for his situation. He was therefore not shown as a person who cannot purchase firearms. Plenty of discussion here and in the news.

a reply to: roadgravel

i asked because there was the airforce thing that should have been a DQ,he was institutionalized and escaped that should be 2(or was it part of the air force one) the domestic violence one and the general douche behavior to his dog . i mean thats like at least 3 red flags that should have been glaring red flags

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Holy crap.

He escaped a mental institution in El Paso? For plotting to kill the AF officers involved in his court marshal?

That is why he was denied a gun permit in TX.

Now, why doesn't TX apply the same check on people purchasing guns?

a reply to: soberbacchus


He wasn't denied a "gun permit." He was denied a "concealed carry license."

What different standards? When someone has a disqualifying entry, it must be entered into FBI NICS to show up on the background check.

These are instant criminal background checks, so the data is stored in their system and actual calling/research/field work is extremely rare and almost never happens. If they can't give a "proceed" right away, you go into "delayed" status. After 3 days, if no "deny" or "proceed" comes back the FFL has discretion to approve or deny the sale.

The Air Force failed to do its job by entering this prohibited person into the instant check system.

For example, I purchased a new Glock 17 Gen 4 pistol the other day. I walked into the store, selected my pistol, filled out 4473 and was approved instantly. I took the gun home with me same day, less than an hour after walking into the store.

Technically, since I have a CCW permit (we got a tax break for still getting them the first year Constitutional carry law was passed) I don't even have to do the standard background check. In my state, a concealed carry permit allows the FFL to transfer the firearm without doing a NICS check. However, the specific FFL I purchased my Glock from didn't allow that by policy. Regardless, the instant check was quick and accurate ensuring no unnecessary delay stood between my 2A rights and I.

My point is that NICS works very well, provided it is properly utilized! We can't have any forced-hire flunkies in the government forgetting to do their job, otherwise we end up with a situation like this. Fortunately, the armed Citizen didn't run from the threat when the buck literally stopped at his bare feet. It shouldn't have been his problem to deal with, but like most law abiding armed Citizens, they bravely answered that call to duty when it was forced upon him by the actions of the incompetent Air Force guy who forgot to enter Kelley in NICS.

Can anyone see why government isn't the answer to regulation? They are the ones who screwed this up/dropped the ball, yet some here would like to see them take a greater roll in this? No thanks. I think the firearm community can police itself, with the help of local government assets and clearance to access NICS. This would greatly reduce the "attack surface" for a prohibited person trying to acquire a firearm.

a reply to: soberbacchus

You realize in the entire bill of rights only one condition is placed on the people right?

Peaceable.

All things we say and do must reflect that condition.

If 99.9% of gun owners are peaceably exercising their rights, and even defending themselves in accordance with the principles of a peaceable nation, then onerous regulation seems more like an INFRINGEMENT, than a means to structure ordered liberty.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Holy crap.

He escaped a mental institution in El Paso? For plotting to kill the AF officers involved in his court marshal?

That is why he was denied a gun permit in TX.

Now, why doesn't TX apply the same check on people purchasing guns?

The gun purchase uses the national NICS database. Obviously that institutionalization wasn't in there. Being institutionalized doesn't always get you disqualified either. It's only if you're involuntarily institutionalized or adjudicated mentally deficient. If you voluntarily check yourself in for treatment, that doesn't count against you.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: soberbacchus

Can anyone see why government isn't the answer to regulation? They're are the ones who screwed this up/dropped the ball, yet some here would like to see them take a greater roll in this? No thanks.

From my personal experience working with the red tape of government bureaucracy, I am in full agreement. Everything the government touches because more expensive than it needs to be and grossly inefficient. This is why I'm a small government guy. For things that absolutely have to be done by the federal government, like a national army, ok, we have no choice. But anything that can be handled at the State and local level or by the private sector, should be. It's almost always going to be a better solution.

Why are authorities now saying that there was no religious (or anti-religious) motivation, and that it was all about his in-laws?

He killed or wounded almost everyone in that church, and was known for his preachy form of atheism and mocking of Christian believers.

Obviously, his form of atheism, what I call seething atheism was a major factor in his motive.

a reply to: face23785

I think it's very relevant when the US is ranked #1 in the world in mass - shootings. The fact that all you can relate to this alarming statistic is that "the US has a lot of sick people" just tells me you're averting the question. Guns make it a whole lot easier for someone to kill. It's so simple, you pull the trigger, and the person is expired. You move your sights to another target. It's like a video game, isn't it? Cowards who murder innocent people with guns are the same cowards that go row - by - row with their gun, silencing crying babies in a church. Guns are huge motivators to commit murder and it's right there under your noses and you refuse to make the connection.
I'll ask again: what is this mass - shooting phenomenon and why is it committed so much (the most in fact) in the United States? How come we don't hear about US mass - killings where other murder tools were used, in comparison?

originally posted by: Lolliek

originally posted by: TheJesuit
jeez what the hell is wrong with people

I ask myself that very same question almost daily nowadays

In normal circumstances there is nothing wrong with people... IMHO people who are acting out in this extreme way are conditioned to blow a gasket somewhere on the line.

I hope that I am not the only one who notice that there is a (dirty) "campaign" going on to change the peoples opinion about gun ownership. Having the US citizens disarmed is such a vital part of the NWO agenda that those capable of organising 911 are prepared to sacrifice some more citizens to get the legislation altered..

Maybe far fetched but this is still a conspiracy site...isn't it. Anyways.. MK-Ultra comes to mind... The narrative is that this mind contrl program has been stopped many decades ago...but I refuse to believe that such a promising weapon is abandonned by TPTB. Can you imagine how sofisticated the mind cntrol technology must be by now if it has been researched and developped ever since its conception in the 50's....maybe much earlier under a different name by the nazi's.

What happened there in texas has some of the hallmarks of a black op with the shooter unable to talk about it after the event.

I am afraid that more of such shootings will occur with the goal to frustrate the population to the extent that they will protest on the streets to demand all guns to be turned in to make a safer society.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: soberbacchus

You realize in the entire bill of rights only one condition is placed on the people right?

Peaceable.

All things we say and do must reflect that condition.

If 99.9% of gun owners are peaceably exercising their rights, and even defending themselves in accordance with the principles of a peaceable nation, then onerous regulation seems more like an INFRINGEMENT, than a means to structure ordered liberty.

I question 99.9% and "Onerous".

a reply to: soberbacchus

Then you're being disingenuous.

The absolute vast majority of lawful gun owners, 99.9%, didn't kill anyone. That is the truth.

So the first part of your "question" is done.

If the first part is an untrue condition related to the second, then onerous regulation not being so is also untrue.

Let us not forget that this would have been MUCH WORSE, had there not been an armed citizen with his rifle to end the bloodshed.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: soberbacchus

You realize in the entire bill of rights only one condition is placed on the people right?

Peaceable.

All things we say and do must reflect that condition.

If 99.9% of gun owners are peaceably exercising their rights, and even defending themselves in accordance with the principles of a peaceable nation, then onerous regulation seems more like an INFRINGEMENT, than a means to structure ordered liberty.

I question 99.9% and "Onerous".

While there's no way to collect data on the crime rates of all gun owners, here's a piece you may like to read on concealed carry holders:

Concea led carry permit holders have lower crime rate than police

Concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding. Between October 1, 1987 and January 31, 2015, Florida revoked 9,366 concealed handgun permits for misdemeanors or felonies. This is an annual rate of 12.5 per 100,000 permit holders — a mere tenth of the rate at which officers commit misdemeanors and felonies. In Texas in 2012, the last year the data is available, 120 permit holders were convicted of misdemeanors or felonies – a rate of 20.5 per 100,000, still just a sixth of the rate for police. . . .

If I'm doing my math right, that's about a 0.02% crime rate. So 99.8% law abiding. And of the crimes committed, not all were murder so 99.9% non-murderers would likely be accurate for concealed carry holders.