(November 5, 2017 at 4:04 pm)c172 Wrote: I'm not making a point. Just adding another detail.

---

Wow. I failed to see 20 dead from this.

Which one? This last one was 26 from the reports I got. 

Pulse and Vegas were even bigger, but when the fuck are we going to stop making firearms so damned easy to obtain? 

I always hear the far right say, "Just keep them out of the wrong hands". AND RUN from their own arguments when we agree.


There is no pragmatism coming from that side. All they have is "No" and "sell more and do nothing'.

It has been reported that Kelly sent threatening texts to his mother-in-law. I am very curious as to what his beef with her was.

(November 7, 2017 at 11:38 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(November 7, 2017 at 6:37 am)Aroura Wrote: So, yet again the guns were purchased legally, not black market.  In this case, due to an error in criminal reporting on behalf of the Air Force.

Sigh. Not that this fact matters. They are coming to get your guns, go buy moar.

It's a federal felony for a prohibited person to even attempt to possess a firearm, regardless of what the background check reports.  In addition, someone who purchases a firearm through otherwise legal channels commits perjury in doing so (this has been the case since 1968).  https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Not that this excuses the AF's negligence in the matter, or makes things right, or that I otherwise disagree with you, but to suggest that this was a legal purchase is incorrect.

What I meant was, they firearm was not acquired on the underground market, or through some other illegal means.  He went in, appeared to be allowed to buy it, and did.  I get what you are saying, and it is correct.  But a lot of people say, if bad guys want guns and they cannot get them, they will just buy them from criminals or whatever.  My point is even though he shouldn't have been able to, he still got it easily, and not buying FROM other criminals.

I'll except claims about someones face book when i see scree caps . But still at least we have the source of such rumors.

(November 7, 2017 at 1:58 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(November 5, 2017 at 4:04 pm)c172 Wrote: I'm not making a point. Just adding another detail.

---

Wow. I failed to see 20 dead from this.

Which one? This last one was 26 from the reports I got. 

Pulse and Vegas were even bigger, but when the fuck are we going to stop making firearms so damned easy to obtain? 

I always hear the far right say, "Just keep them out of the wrong hands". AND RUN from their own arguments when we agree.


There is no pragmatism coming from that side. All they have is "No" and "sell more and do nothing'.

At the point I posted that, it was only 20. Within minutes of that, it was revised to 27, then down to 26.

I'm not completely against firearms for people who are able-bodied and sound-minded, but "assault" rifles came up between me and my mother in the car the other day, and I didn't realize that apparently means military-grade guns (which I know this was). No reason for stuff like that on the market.

(November 7, 2017 at 2:32 pm)c172 Wrote:

(November 7, 2017 at 1:58 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Which one? This last one was 26 from the reports I got. 

Pulse and Vegas were even bigger, but when the fuck are we going to stop making firearms so damned easy to obtain? 

I always hear the far right say, "Just keep them out of the wrong hands". AND RUN from their own arguments when we agree.


There is no pragmatism coming from that side. All they have is "No" and "sell more and do nothing'.

At the point I posted that, it was only 20. Within minutes of that, it was revised to 27, then down to 26.

I'm not completely against firearms for people who are able-bodied and sound-minded, but "assault" rifles came up between me and my mother in the car the other day, and I didn't realize that apparently means military-grade guns (which I know this was). No reason for stuff like that on the market.

Neither am I. That is the part I fucking hate. i hate the worshipers trying to claim that when we say "Hey guys, what we are doing is not working" they have been so fucking deeply indoctrinated by the NRA and companies, they stupidly think the sane are calling for a 100% ban on all firearms. NO WE ARE NOT!

I cant say this enough. NO WE ARE NOT! Just like Nadar was not calling for an end to cars for saying "your products suck".

We cant keep making them at the volume we are. We cant keep obstructing the idea of keeping them out of the hands of the mentally ill, terrorists, domestic abusers, workplace grudgers, teens, gangs. It does not matter. If what the right claimed was working, which it is not, we should expect to see less firearm deaths but we are not getting those results.

That says to me, that this has always been about money, CEOS and shareholders and a profit lobby. Just like big oil fought for decades to keep lead in gas. Just like big tobacco kept it's horrible marketing to maintain it's profits.

This has never been about rights for the industry or their lobby. This has always been about profits.

The right always says, "Just keep them out of the wrong hands" AND WE AGREE, then shout "NO!" even when we agree with them.

More about a reliable political wedge issue than profits...but sure, any additional profit is value-added. Not only does it drive a wedge between red and blue, it drives a wedge between blue and blue, and blue and independent.

I keep finding reasons to say this, but the only way to win the game is not to play it.

(November 7, 2017 at 2:22 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(November 7, 2017 at 11:38 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: It's a federal felony for a prohibited person to even attempt to possess a firearm, regardless of what the background check reports.  In addition, someone who purchases a firearm through otherwise legal channels commits perjury in doing so (this has been the case since 1968).  https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Not that this excuses the AF's negligence in the matter, or makes things right, or that I otherwise disagree with you, but to suggest that this was a legal purchase is incorrect.

What I meant was, they firearm was not acquired on the underground market, or through some other illegal means.  He went in, appeared to be allowed to buy it, and did.  I get what you are saying, and it is correct.  But a lot of people say, if bad guys want guns and they cannot get them, they will just buy them from criminals or whatever.  My point is even though he shouldn't have been able to, he still got it easily, and not buying FROM other criminals.

No, this guy flew under the radar. The AIR Force did not report his domestic conviction which got him booted out. 

But again, that is still a side issue. The Va Tech shooter never got properly diagnosed. BOTH LEGALLY bought their firearms.

The only thing I agree with regardless of motive, regardless if it was workplace grudge, regardless if it was a family grudge, regardless if it was Muslim, motivated, Christian motivated, or mentally ill, like you said, EASY ACCESS IN ALL CASES.

"Criminals" is the other bullshit dodge. NO SHIT, but that does not change someone can be legal, or not be vetted properly at time of buy. It is still possible to be legal at time of buy then murder someone after a legal buy.

Point being, it still remains we make way too many and they are way too easy to obtain.

(November 7, 2017 at 2:22 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(November 7, 2017 at 11:38 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: It's a federal felony for a prohibited person to even attempt to possess a firearm, regardless of what the background check reports.  In addition, someone who purchases a firearm through otherwise legal channels commits perjury in doing so (this has been the case since 1968).  https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Not that this excuses the AF's negligence in the matter, or makes things right, or that I otherwise disagree with you, but to suggest that this was a legal purchase is incorrect.

What I meant was, they firearm was not acquired on the underground market, or through some other illegal means.  He went in, appeared to be allowed to buy it, and did.  I get what you are saying, and it is correct.  But a lot of people say, if bad guys want guns and they cannot get them, they will just buy them from criminals or whatever.  My point is even though he shouldn't have been able to, he still got it easily, and not buying FROM other criminals.

Just goes to show how we cannot rely on government bureaucrats to protect us.

(November 7, 2017 at 6:38 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(November 7, 2017 at 2:22 pm)Aroura Wrote: What I meant was, they firearm was not acquired on the underground market, or through some other illegal means.  He went in, appeared to be allowed to buy it, and did.  I get what you are saying, and it is correct.  But a lot of people say, if bad guys want guns and they cannot get them, they will just buy them from criminals or whatever.  My point is even though he shouldn't have been able to, he still got it easily, and not buying FROM other criminals.

Just goes to show how we cannot rely on government bureaucrats to protect us.

Or god.