November 7, 2017

Existing gun control law barred Devin P. Kelley from buying a gun.

This bolsters that standard anti-gun-control argument that what we need is to enforce the laws we already have.

The NYT reports:
A day after a gunman massacred parishioners in a small Texas church, 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.

Under federal law, the conviction of the gunman, Devin P. Kelley, for domestic assault on his wife and toddler stepson — he had cracked the child’s skull — should have stopped Mr. Kelley from legally purchasing the military-style rifle and three other guns he acquired in the last four years....
Passing more laws is exciting political theater, and there's ongoing enthusiasm for the show (and the attendant opportunities to express contempt for fellow citizens who don't want more laws burdening law-abiding people).

At the NYT, the top-rated comment, with almost 1700 up-votes, comes from Shaun (of Chicago):
Regardless of the "good guy with a gun" narrative that will inevitably arise from the presence of an armed bystander, the fact remains that at least 26 people were killed. Armed bystanders do not make us safer. A society awash in guns is not safer. Only gun control will reduce the incidence of such mass horror.
Does he mean Only more gun control laws will reduce the incidence of such mass horror? More laws complicate life for people who follow law, but the laws already in place should have stopped Devin Kelley.

In this case, the Air Force is squarely to blame. The Air Force! We can't trust the Air Force with routine paperwork?! That is so outrageous that I am horrified that people still want to use this occasion to say, once again, that ordinary people need to sacrifice their guns for the general good.

Ordinary people are observing that monsters like Kelley, who crack the skulls of infants, are still able to get guns. That quite justifiably makes people resist delegating the function of self-defense to the government.

140 comments:

rehajm said...

... the fact remains that at least 26 people were killed. Armed bystanders do not make us safer. A society awash in guns is not safer. Only gun control will reduce the incidence of such mass horror.

So underpants gnomish.

AReasonableMan said...

"A society awash in guns is not safer."

At last, a sensible comment on guns.

Michael K said...

The left is now spreading fake news that there are no laws concerning "long guns" in Texas. I don't believe that is true.

Biotrekker said...

The Neo-Marxist Libprogs want to take away the guns, not control them. In their utopia, only the government has guns. Unfortunately for their desires, that horse long ago left the barn. It is physically impossible to remove all privately owned guns, so their only resort is "political theater" which at least serves to vilify the enemy (conservatives, GOPers ordinary Americans, etc.). As for the efficiency of our military, it has been gutted by the self-same Libprogs, and now is more concerned with social justice issues then doing its job.

Kevin said...

This bolsters that standard anti-gun-control argument that what we need is to enforce the laws we already have.

Which is why this story is dying a quick death on the left. Trump's dismantling of the question by the NBC reporter today likely ended any further interest in the story. They asked, he didn't enable them to create a story with his answer, game over.

It will be on to the election results for the media, and what this means for Democrats.

MadisonMan said...

Federal Laws aren't working, so let's pass more Federal Laws. Maybe these new laws will work this time! Hope Springs Eternal!!

Do Something is what I see a lot. So of course what do Politicians do? They pass laws. It's their bread and butter. Then they can say they did something. Thanks for the check, and I appreciate your vote!

Henry said...

I'm unclear about one thing. Governor Abbott of Texas made a claim that Kelley did not have a permit for his guns.

I'm guessing that there is a distinction between the State of Texas disallowing Kelley's permit request and the Federal Database preventing Kelley from buying his guns. I'd like to have more information on that.

If I could pass a single national gun law, it would permit to purchase. If Kelley didn't have a Texas permit, he shouldn't have been able to buy the guns.

Kevin said...

Armed bystanders do not make us safer.

Except they just did. Ah well, never let the facts get in the way of your argument.

Do armed cops make us safer? By this person's logic, they should be disarmed as well.

Henry said...

Correction -- If I could have each state pass a single gun-control law, it would be permit to purchase.

Ralph L said...

How many other felons has the Air Farce (and every other organization) failed to report?

Quaestor said...

I don't believe that is true.

There are Federal laws concerning the purchase of long guns, which if properly administered by the Federal government would have prevented Devin Kelley from legally acquiring any firearm, including rifles and shotguns. BTW, Kelley bought the gun he carried and used on himself in Colorado.

gspencer said...

"The Air Force! We can't trust the Air Force with routine paperwork?!"

At the time that the Air Force dropped the paperwork ball, who was president setting the tone on military affairs, including (as C-in-C) military competence? In which political party did he claim membership?

Was all this part-&-parcel with "fundamentally transforming the United States of America?"

Ralph L said...

The hero lived a block away and ran out of his house barefoot with his rifle.

Henry said...

Armed bystanders did make people safer in this instance (and there are many other examples). OTOH, the guy who engaged in a high-speed chase of Kelley is certainly brave, but I think it was a foolhardy thing to do. He could have easily killed himself and his passenger, or caused innocent drivers to crash. Even the police have rules about engaging in high-speed chases.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Why do leftists always assume that the bad guy with a gun will be a crack shot and the good people with guns will be utter doofuses and will shoot themselves and each other instead of the bad guy? That's the scenario I always see them come up with - bad guy enters church, starts cooling picking people off, people in pews pull out guns and shoot themselves in the the foot, shoot their neighbors in the head, shoot holes in the wall and do everything but shoot the criminal. And that's why only cops and the military should have guns.

Of course, 15 minutes later they will tell you the cops are all racists.

Quaestor said...

ARM (who else?) wrote: At last, a sensible comment on guns.

Yes, very sensible... to the nose, like a defective septic tank.

Either Shaun (of Chicago) is a thoughtless simpleton or a very successful troll for reasons that are obvious to the well-informed.

Gospace said...

AReasonableMan said...
"A society awash in guns is not safer."

At last, a sensible comment on guns.


And as evidence of the "truth" of this statement, just look at Switzerland. Awash in guns, and completely unsafe.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Under federal law, the conviction of the gunman... for domestic assault...should have stopped Mr. Kelley from legally purchasing the military-style rifle...

Federal law stops everyone from legally purchasing military-style rifles. That's why the one he used was only a semi-automatic.

exhelodrvr1 said...

It's not just the Air Force; it is also common for states and other local governments to not enter this type of information in the system.

EDH said...

Who ever said the left has a problem with cracked skulls in the first place?

Ask Rand Paul.

Matthew Sablan said...

This shooter isn't the first in the history of mass shooters who the existing laws would have prevented. For example, the VA Tech Shooter had so many red flags (like threatening his psychologist!), that he should not have qualified for his weapons purchases.

Yet. Here we are.

Matthew Sablan said...

"At last, a sensible comment on guns."

-- Have you read John Lott's (Jon Lot's? I forget how he spells it) "More Guns, Less Crime?" It is quite literally the most researched book on the subject.

J. Farmer said...

I always find it odd that anti-gun advocates also tend to be anti-prohibitionists on drugs. They correctly point out that anti-drug laws simply create a black market for drugs with all sorts of noxious ripple effects. How would strict gun laws stop people from peddling guns on the streets, just as they already do. It would also do nothing to stop gun thefts. Probably something like three-fourths of guns used in crimes are not committed by the legal owner of that gun. New stricter gun laws would not do much of anything to curb that problem. Mass shootings grab the national headlines for obvious reasons, but they are only a fraction of the total gun crime that is committed in the country. And even how we define "mass shootings" can be manipulated to overstate the problem. Nonetheless, why this country produces so many mass murderers is vexed, but permissive gun laws are very likely not to be the cause.

MaxedOutMama said...

Well - this is a painful lesson and a severe case of negligence, at best.

I don't know whether this murderer would have succeeded in obtaining firearms illegally if the Airforce had properly reported his conviction. But if he were able to get an illegal rifle, then it implies that the only gun control laws which would work are those which would confiscate all weapons in civilian hands. That is why people react so badly to calls for more gun control laws when the ones we have are not being enforced. It's really a call to confiscate weapons, all weapons.

I prefer it when people debate this honestly. But they don't, and therefore when people call for gun control in such circumstances, I now just do a mental conversion and assume that they don't want private individuals to be able to legally hold weapons.

AReasonableMan said...

Gospace said...
And as evidence of the "truth" of this statement, just look at Switzerland. Awash in guns, and completely unsafe.


Switzerland's gun laws would be a vast improvement over our own. They have a well regulated militia, not the army of losers and lunatics with semi-automatics and abundant ammunition that we are cursed with.

Henry said...

And as evidence of the "truth" of this statement, just look at Switzerland. Awash in guns, and completely unsafe.

Also...Finland.

The statistical response is to claim that the USA still has twice as many guns per capita as Finland and Switzerland. However, most gun owners in the USA own multiple guns. The percentage of individual gun-owners is roughly 25%. This is comparable to Switzerland. The number of Finns who own a gun is roughly 12%.



Fernananidinaniade said...

Existing gun control law barred Devin P. Kelley from buying a gun.

Obviously not.

If the politicians want to perform some busy-work they could add some penalties aimed at people who don't fill-out and submit their forms correctly.

Bob Ellison said...

The Air Force is the villain? They come right out and say they should've filed a form, and now the Air Force is the bad guy?

That's not gonna fly.

AReasonableMan said...

Matthew Sablan said...
"More Guns, Less Crime?"


This will be news to Japan, the UK or Australia. 'News' being used in this instance as a euphemism for nonsense.

Matthew Sablan said...

Do you understand the concept of confounding variables?

Henry said...

I would prefer a licensing process like that in Finland, but an acquisition license, such as that in Switzerland, would be good.

Matthew Sablan said...

(Also: he does talk about other countries there, though not as in depth as America. Something you'd know. If you read the book.)

William said...

Bergdahl gets off without jail. This guy gets a couple of years for cracking an infant's skull. Who knew that out military justice system was run by a bunch of bleeding heart liberals..... The old joke is military justice is to justice as military music is to music. More like military justice is to justice as a Barry Manilow ballad is to music.

Laslo Spatula said...

Men need guns to protect their women.

Women need guns to protect their sex holes.

I am Laslo.

MaxedOutMama said...

PS: The recent history of church shootings in the US seems to show that guns in civilian hands do make us safer. An usher stopped the previous shooting. There have been a number of attempts with low casualties in churches where an armed person was present. Some churches do have armed persons who serve as unofficial guards.

Anyway, ARM, what do you believe gun control laws should be in the US? Do you have some specific suggestions?

tim in vermont said...

Cops are a half hour away from my camp in Vermont, if they haven't turned it over to the state police, even further, or a game warden.

Quaestor said...

And as evidence of the "truth" of this statement, just look at Switzerland.

The world is awash in murder and violence statistics compiled every year since the mid-1960s by earnest young "social scientists". The raw numbers they process so passionately are sometimes highly suspect. (For example, if the officially collected information is correct, North Korea has a murder rate four times greater than South Korea. One must conclude Kim's Minitrue is grossly understaffed.) The pattern that has emerged from all this Sisyphean number crunching leaves kneejerk yelpers like ARM and INga without an empirical leg to stand on. The single most predictive corollary isn't the laxity or severity of gun regulation, it's median IQ.

Laslo Spatula said...

In times of such disagreement we should first try to find what we do agree upon.

I think we all agree the guy was a loser.

Okay, that's all I got.

I am Laslo.

AReasonableMan said...

MaxedOutMama said...
Anyway, ARM, what do you believe gun control laws should be in the US? Do you have some specific suggestions?


Much is made of how this country was built by white Anglos and is now to going to hell due to the influx of other cultures. Maybe one place to start in reversing this trend is to adopt the gun laws of Australia or the UK. White men should rise up and reclaim their heritage.

MaxedOutMama said...

ARM, Swiss gun laws are quite similar to those in the US. I don't know how you feel it differs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland

Unless you are arguing for universal service and weapons training?

rhhardin said...

The idea is not to make society safe but to make it free.

J. Farmer said...

@AReasonbleMan:

This will be news to Japan, the UK or Australia. 'News' being used in this instance as a euphemism for nonsense.

They also do not have 40 million black people committing a vastly disproportionate amount of crime. Blacks commit around 50% of the homicides in the country, despite being 13% of the population. When you break these out by sex, considering that men commit far more murders than women, the disparity is even more stark. Also, instead of considering the homicide rate nationally, look at it by state or district. For D.C. the homicide rate is 24.2 per 100,000. In Louisiana, it is 10.3 per 100,000. Compare that to New Hampshire with 1.1 per 100,000 or Vermont with 1.6 per 100,000 or Utah with 1.8 per 100,000.

Matthew Sablan said...

ARM: Since you've decided to make this a race issue, you do realize many of the originally draconian gun laws were designed deliberately by racist Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of the people they wanted to terrorize as the KKK?

brylun said...

Whose Air Force? Why Obama's Air Force! He was Commander in Chief during this and other failures of our military. His people were in charge. Come up with whatever excuses you want, but as Harry Truman said, "The Buck Stops Here."

robother said...

The one constant in my adult political life is the way Progressives constantly cite failure of their programs as demonstrating the need for more of the same: more laws, more funding.

Great Society welfare programs worsen Black illegitimacy and poverty (exactly as Moynihan predicted)? It needs even more funding! Massive funding of inner city education programs to "close the gap" between Black and White students fails to close the gap? We need even more funding! Existing gun control laws are unenforced? We need more gun control laws!

When it comes to the public sector, Dylan had it right: there's no success like failure.

Henry said...

ARM -- What would you propose that is remotely feasible? Proposing gun laws like Australia or the UK is like proposing reindeer herds like Finland.

Consider two parameters:

1. It has to be rolled out on a state-by-state basis.
2. It has to enlist the support of a decent percentage of current gunowners and their friends and relatives.

Propose away.

exiledonmainstreet said...



Blogger EDH said...
Who ever said the left has a problem with cracked skulls in the first place?

Ask Rand Paul.

11/7/17, 7:44 AM


Ask ARM.

He's quite comfortable with political violence as long as the "right people" are getting their heads smashed with bike locks and their ribs broken.

AReasonableMan said...

MaxedOutMama said...
ARM, Swiss gun laws are quite similar to those in the US.


Not really. Concealed carry is largely forbidden and open carry is forbidden. Hand guns require a permit that only lasts 9 months. Records for all guns in private possession are held by the government. Most semi-automatics are banned. See how far you would get getting the NRA to agree to those restrictions.

2yellowdogs said...

Never mind that background checks are a clear infringement on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Almost as bad is the fact that far too many people derive a false sense of security from a flawed, poorly run government system. Ask a veteran what kind of care they get at a VA hospital. Have you talked to anyone at the IRS or Social Security Administration lately?

Throwing more taxpayer dollars at the NICS system or expanding its remit won’t make it any better. It never does. Government programs are black holes of money, with gravitational pulls from which competence and efficiency can’t possibly emerge. But that’s a lesson that we seem to have continually learn and re-learn. The hard way.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/11/daniel-zimmerman/gun-control-push-will-never-succeed-imi-systems-quote-day-enter-win-1000-rounds-imi-9mm-ammo/

Mattman26 said...

Biotrekker has it right. Notwithstanding what libs may say about certain common-sense gun regulations (a concept designed to seem moderate and non-scary), what they really envision is eventual confiscation and elimination of privately owned firearms.

Pretty sure that ain’t gonna happen.

exiledonmainstreet said...

A friend of mine who lived for a while in Japan recounted to me how she once absentmindedly left her apartment door unlocked and slightly ajar and the cross breeze from the windows evidently blew the door open. She was horrified when she returned hours later and found her apartment door was wide open. She expected to find that the place had been ransacked and everything valuable in there had been stolen. Nothing was gone. Nothing had been moved.

Imagine leaving your apartment door wide open in New York City or Chicago - or even Madison, WI.

It's a far different culture.

Humperdink said...

I recall when Clinton was president (that would be Bill) was on his high horse to ban assault weapons. My friend quipped: "Yeah, I'm going to trust my guns to someone who can't even control his zipper".

Quaestor said...

If the politicians want to perform some busy-work they could add some penalties aimed at people who don't fill-out and submit their forms correctly.

Since the existing forms are submitted under existing perjury statutes how is that going to help? The existing law could have prevented Devin Kelley from purchasing his guns lawfully. If the Democrats want some busy work, how about penalties aimed at the overpaid bureaucrats who do whatever it is they do with the paperwork citizens fill out under oath? As it is there's hardly any incentive to honestly do what they are paid too much to perform. In the private sector, incompetence gets you fired. Bureaucratic incompetence gets you a reprimand, maybe, possibly. The civil service ordinances have devolved over the decades into a bureaucracy of bureaucrats often functioning against the better interests of the citizens by keeping the incompetent and lazy at their desks, drawing a fat paycheck, and amassing a comfortable retirement.

MaxedOutMama said...

ARM - anyone who knows jack about the UK can hardly see UK gun laws as the solution. After banning handguns, their use in crime rose not dropped in the following 2 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

But how did it work out over the long term? In 2009, we find gun violence is up 89% overall; it has increased fivefold in a few happy districts:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

It is true that if you look narrowly at homicides with a gun the UK looks better than the US, but in fact since gun control was passed the UK has at least reached parity in violent crime. This is from 2013, but I include it because it is better sourced and attempts to reconcile reporting differences:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

2017:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/20/official-figures-show-biggest-rise-crime-in-a-decade

And where is the UK now? After banning knife sales
https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

and increasing penalties, gangs turned to acid attacks. Shopkeepers are increasingly unwilling to sell common household cleaners such as bleach to minors:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4016850/acid-attacks-uk-london-how-to-treat-burns/

A bleach attack can be rapidly fatal if it is thrown in the face and inhaled - inflammation of the respiratory system and respiratory collapse can kill within 10 minutes.

Expat(ish) said...

Question 11g of the FFA4473 form literally asks:
"Have you been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?

(bold is theirs)

This is what is called a disqualifying question, so he lied on the form.

The form also has a kind of "catch all" question on top saying that you can't purchase a gun if you are legally prohibited from purchasing it. (IANAL, so I've never understood that).

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

-XC

Lyle Smith said...

Not good enough for government work.

George Vie said...

"I'm unclear about one thing. Governor Abbott of Texas made a claim that Kelley did not have a permit for his guns.

I'm guessing that there is a distinction between the State of Texas disallowing Kelley's permit request and the Federal Database preventing Kelley from buying his guns. I'd like to have more information on that."

The Gov was referring to a concealed carry permit (CCW). Texas does not require a permit to purchase or possess a handgun or long gun. A federal background check is performed when the gun is purchased. A permit is not required to openly carry a long gun, but is required to carry a concealed hand gun. I recall reading that the Texas church shooter had appllied for a CCW licensee, and the application was rejected by DPS.

MaxedOutMama said...

ARM - I believe this is current re Swiss gun laws:
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/switzerland.php

The "acquisition license" applies to purchases from dealers. As long as the weapon is legally purchased one needs no license to retain it. Private sales are not regulated. Most militia still keep their service weapons at home - the laws have been changed to allow them NOT to do so, though.

Switzerland is not a violent place, thankfully.

William said...

The police force is staffed with trigger happy racists. Trump is on the verge of a fascist putsch. Now more than ever. ARM needs to commit to weapons training and burying a few assault style rifles in the backyard. The time is drawing near when men like ARM will be our only defense against the ruthless neo Nazis in charge of our government. I hope he's ready for the task at hand.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

AReasonableMan said...

Much is made of how this country was built by white Anglos and is now to going to hell due to the influx of other cultures. Maybe one place to start in reversing this trend is to adopt the gun laws of Australia or the UK. White men should rise up and reclaim their heritage.

In what fucking way is Australia part of our heritage? And our heritage with regard to England and guns is to resist their attempt to take them away, then successfully use them to defend our liberty.

So is this self-taught ignorance, or did you have to spend a lot of years in school to become this mis-informed?

TestTube said...

Well, one set oflaw I would propose -- and Michael K., I would appreciate your insight int0 this -- is to treat the Bad Conduct Discharge as a disqualifying factor for many things, including firearm possession, much as the Dishonorable Discharge is treated now.

My experience in the military (6 years) was that anyone getting a BCD was a total and irredeemable scumbag who didn't deserve rights or decency. I saw lots of scumbags get discharged, but no DDs, and only a few BCDs.

In the old days, such dirtbags would be branded. Perhaps we could use a microchip. That would make verification a lot easier.

Matthew Sablan said...

"The form also has a kind of "catch all" question on top saying that you can't purchase a gun if you are legally prohibited from purchasing it. (IANAL, so I've never understood that)."

-- This is what is known in the vernacular as CYA.

mandrewa said...

It may be that guns in America are actually saving a lot of lives.

I mean we have some real ethnic conflicts. It's a popular meme right now to hate white people. In certain communities that has been true for a long time. It only takes a few people to start acting out their ethnic hatred before you get a lot of people dead.

The awareness that some percentage of their intended victims are armed seems to be a real restraint. I don't know what percentage of mass murders have been in gun-free zones or similar but it's very high. This church was not a gun-free zone. Probably that was why the man was wearing body armor. And he was right. Someone in the area did have a gun, and the terrorist was already bleeding out before he committed suicide.

Anyway if America were disarmed I suspect a lot more people would be being killed than there are now. There are many ways to kill people, but guns make it easier to defend oneself from people that would kill you.

There's also the whole question of living a life of fear. Britain's a good example of that: a lot of people living lives of fear and helplessness. The fear that so many people in Britain live in, I think that explains a lot about what is happening there. Whether they should or not, many people that own guns feel less fear. That changes behavior in positive ways.

Pookie Number 2 said...

So is this self-taught ignorance, or did you have to spend a lot of years in school to become this mis-informed?

In ARM's defense, his entire political belief system favors pithy nonsense over honest inquiry.

Oso Negro said...

I strongly recommend the linked interview with Stephen Willeford to anyone, particularly those who struggle to understand Texas and Texans:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4HEchh0XD8

Todd said...

The "gun debate" is the right's version of the left's "abortion debate" in that nothing the other side can say will sway the "true believers".

Well that and that the 2nd Amendment is an actual, real Amendment versus a made up thing by some guys in robes that allows half the population the legal right to kill the most innocent among us. Other than that, exactly the same.

William Chadwick said...

Today's Installment blog features an amusing exchange between Joy Reid (who is, I gather, some State-shtupping tv personality) and actor James Woods. Reid wonders how "adherents" of the NRA can sleep at night. Woods replies, "With a Beretta on my night stand, in case another Democrat goes on a rampage."

AReasonableMan said...

mandrewa said...
It may be that guns in America are actually saving a lot of lives.


It may be that the moon is made of cheese.

Oso Negro said...

An under-discussed truth is that murder rate pretty much tracks with a population of Sub-Saharan African descent EVERYWHERE in the world. I suspect young men of African descent have lower impulse control. You want to reduce the murder rate, work on that.

Japanese-Americans don't shoot anymore people than do Japanese in Japan. And the Swiss are loaded up with actual automatic weapons.

And frankly, absent firearms, the biggest and strongest can brutalize the weak. At the age of 60, I would rather rely on my aim than on my right hook. I would rather see MORE men carrying openly as a deterrent to would be criminals and murderers.

Laslo Spatula said...

"It may be that the moon is made of cheese."

Of course the whole moon is not made of cheese.

The cheese is only down at the core.

I am Laslo.

Todd said...

AReasonableMan said...

Switzerland's gun laws would be a vast improvement over our own. They have a well regulated militia, not the army of losers and lunatics with semi-automatics and abundant ammunition that we are cursed with.

11/7/17, 7:46 AM


One man's curse is another man's blessing. It all depends on which side of the Constitution you choose to stand on.

Oso Negro said...

Blogger AReasonableMan said...

It may be that the moon is made of cheese.

11/7/17, 8:44 AM


And it may be that YOU will never understand that governments with guns kill the most people of all. In the face of a predatory government, an armed populace stands a much better chance.

William Chadwick said...

I meant "Instapundit" not "Installment." My cell phone (on which I'm typing this) decided I must have meant the latter when I actually typed the former.

Oh Yea said...

"In this case, the Air Force is squarely to blame. The Air Force! We can't trust the Air Force with routine paperwork?!"

But they completed their Transgender Equity Training, gotta have priorities

Sebastian said...

"That is so outrageous" It is so outrageous that a bureaucracy messed up paperwork! They are not supposed to do that! What's happening?

MadisonMan said...

It is so outrageous that a bureaucracy messed up paperwork! They are not supposed to do that! What's happening?

We need a law that forbids it from happening!!

HoodlumDoodlum said...

ARM said...At last, a sensible comment on guns.

A society awash in free speech is neither safer nor kinder than one where individual expression is strictly regulated by a powerful enlightened State.

Think of all the arguments you've seen--some of which inevitably led to violence--that started with an unnecessary or provocative expression on someone's part. Our society is full of such nasty interactions and all of them are preventable. You don't see arguments getting out of hand and leading to violence in places like North Korea, do you?

The First Amendment is neither absolute nor a license to stir up emotions and harm others with unregulated opinion and expression. Any number of studies have shown that people who are subjected to arguments and bullying words suffer measurable emotional and cognitive harm (leading to depression, etc) and, sadly, many such victims are children!

We must ban bad speech. For the children. It's the only sensible thing to do.

mockturtle said...

No doubt we'll hear that 'mistakes were made'.

SeanF said...

J. Farmer: Blacks commit around 50% of the homicides in the country, despite being 13% of the population. When you break these out by sex, considering that men commit far more murders than women, the disparity is even more stark.

That last sentence confuses me. Can you elaborate?

Curious George said...

All branches of service have desk weenies that are hated. The Air Force person, or people, that fucked up are derisively called "Nonners" (NON-sortie producing/generating motherfuckER).

Rusty said...

Pookie Number 2 said...
So is this self-taught ignorance, or did you have to spend a lot of years in school to become this mis-informed?

"In ARM's defense, his entire political belief system favors pithy nonsense over honest inquiry."

He means well. That should be enough to make his argument valid.

Curious George said...

"SeanF said...
J. Farmer: Blacks commit around 50% of the homicides in the country, despite being 13% of the population. When you break these out by sex, considering that men commit far more murders than women, the disparity is even more stark.

That last sentence confuses me. Can you elaborate?"

Let me help "Statistics isn't my strong suit."

Fernananidinaniade said...

SeanF said...
J. Farmer: ...the disparity is even more stark.
That last sentence confuses me. Can you elaborate?


That (usually over) half the murders in the US are committed by about 6.5% of the population.

It's actually more like 2% or 3% of the population, rather than 13% or 6.5%, because it's "black males" between 17 and 25 years-old, or so. They're also the ones getting murdered.

grackle said...

If the politicians want to perform some busy-work they could add some penalties aimed at people who don't fill-out and submit their forms correctly.

To lie on any government form is already a crime. The gun questionnaire is a signed legal document. This is another case where the law is ignored and offenders are given a pass.

AReasonableMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AReasonableMan said...

Many white men, the ones that don't use helmets to play football, seem comfortable with some restrictions on gun ownership. I merely suggested that we (us white men in the US) might want to consider adopting the policies of our genetic brothers, policies that seem to be working out OK in their countries. Fewer guns didn't cause their penises to drop off or the development of man-boobs. In fact, based on my own informal observations, the prevalence of man-boobs is actually higher in countries with a high rate of gun ownership. Yes, yes, I know I correlation does not imply causation.

Mike said...

"More Guns, Less Crime?"

This will be news to Japan, the UK or Australia. 'News' being used in this instance as a euphemism for nonsense.


This comment has the same defect as Bernie's socialist arguments. That is, social-democracy only works in highly homogenous societies like Netherlands and pre-2000 Sweden. Similarly, "gun control" is less of an explanation than Japan's other societal norms and customs. If you think the homicide rate is lower in UK or Australia you're not paying attention. "Total confiscation" worked slightly better there than it would here, but illegal guns are a growing problem in Australia as disarmed settlers ion the wilder areas rebel against being disarmed.

So a more accurate positing of ARM's bleat would be: If we could change America into a homogenous (all ONE race) society of conformists, then we could confiscate everyone's guns too.

Yes that is the BIG DREAM of the Left. It would certainly have made the corrupt election of Hillary easier for your side.

Matthew Sablan said...

Ok. So, I guess this thread kind of confirms that ARM is in no way an actual good faith poster and can pretty much be ignored from here on out.

gg6 said...

I LUV the rhetorical logic of the "NYT top-rated comment":
'Why do I advocate more gun-control? REGARDLESS!'
Right, got it.

JML said...

"Imagine leaving your apartment door wide open in New York City or Chicago - or even Madison, WI.

It's a far different culture."

I was at the Independence Bowl around 10 years ago and stayed at a hotel in Greenwood, LA. For some reason, I left my van's sliding door open all afternoon and night and didn't discover it was open until late the next morning. I was horrified and expected to see my van ransacked, but nothing was missing.

Imagine leaving your car door wide open in New York City or Chicago - or even Madison, WI.

It is a far different culture...

William Chadwick said...

You liberty-fetishists arguing against A "Reasonable" (heh) Man should remember the old adage "There's no arguing religion." This is especially true when arguing with State-cultists. ARM has the Mailed Fist so deep inside him it's a wonder he can sit down at a computer as often as he does.

steve uhr said...

I thought there is no requirement under federal law for background checks for guns purchased at gun shows. So to say there would have been no shooting if the laws on the books were followed seems like a stretch. I reckon Texas doesn't lack for gun shows.

Friendo said...

Brava Althouse!

Argonaut said...

Access to guns is not the problem and a simple thought exercise proves it.

Before the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Clinton gun control of the 1990s, obtaining a firearm was far easier than it is today. My local Sears had a huge display of rifles and shotguns. You could buy a shotgun and ammo at the Western Auto in my small Connecticut town. Friends brought their guns to school and kept them in their cars during hunting season. Heck, schools in New York City had rifle teams with ranges in the basement. Colin Powell recalls taking the subway as a teen in carrying a cased rifle with him.

Yet fewer of these types of incidents.

So what's changed? Has access to firearms gotten easier? No, on the contrary.

What's changed in society? Traditional morals and values are now laughed at by the Hollywood elites. Religion, or simply a belief in a power higher than ourselves that wants us to do good, has been driven as far out of society as possible. Violence is everywhere. Atrocities that would earn a movie or TV show an NC-17 rating in the 1990s are now common place on every cable channel. Porn is rampant. Drugs are rampant. Despite being the most prosperous society in history, cynicism is rampant.

Since the 1960s, it has become much more difficult (nearly impossible) to involuntarily commit someone to a mental health facility.

Men and specifically white hero men are now public enemy number one to the social justice warriors.

Society is rotting from within. (Some would argue this is by design.)

And in a perverse way, the media celebrates and elevates the monsters who commit these horrible acts. So is it any wonder they keep happening?

Gun laws aren't the answer, because it doesn't take a gun to kill a large number of people. History shows this. Trucks, arson, and fertilizer bombs have all taken more lives than a single maniac with an AR-15.

What is the answer? Healing our sick society.



Birches said...

Bingo! Everyone we're supposed to trust seems incompetent. I trust my family and neighbors more than the bureaucrats.

AReasonableMan said...

Argonaut said...
Access to guns is not the problem and a simple thoughtless exercise proves it.


Bad data, even bad imaginary data, is worse than no data at all.

John Borell said...

Oso Negro said...

And it may be that YOU will never understand that governments with guns kill the most people of all. In the face of a predatory government, an armed populace stands a much better chance.


Here, here!

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Friends brought their guns to school and kept them in their cars during hunting season. Heck, schools in New York City had rifle teams with ranges in the basement."

My father did that all the time. He and his friends bought their hunting rifles to school with them and lined them up in the hallway before class.

He also rode a horse to school when he was in grade school during the Depression, which I thought was the coolest thing ever.

Birches said...

oh brother, the fske gun show loophole strikes again...

steve uhr said...

Birches -- please explain why it's fake?

Todd said...

steve uhr said...

I thought there is no requirement under federal law for background checks for guns purchased at gun shows. So to say there would have been no shooting if the laws on the books were followed seems like a stretch. I reckon Texas doesn't lack for gun shows.

11/7/17, 9:38 AM


I believe you are referring to the mythical "gun show loophole" that the media and gun confiscation groups get all warm and moist over.

Anytime a gun is purchased from a licensed gun dealer, a background check is performed. It is the law. Even at gun shows.

What does not require a background check (and legally one can NOT be performed) is a private person to person sale. These often happen at gun shows as people go there to buy and sell guns, sometimes to/from FFLs and sometimes between citizens.

Depending on the state you live in there are some "requirements" for person to person gun sales. As an example, in Florida, you can sell a handgun to any other Floridian with valid Florida ID, is of the proper age, and has answered a required question or two properly.

steve uhr said...

Todd -- okay there is a "private person-to-person loophole," not a "gun show loophole." My point still holds -- he could have fairly easily purchased the guns legally without any background check.

Todd said...

One of the most ironic things I have ever seen (and cheered) was a news story on how a nearby city was having a gun buy-back and the reporter's disappointment when it devolved into a ad hoc gun show with citizens buying up the good stuff before the turn-ins made it to the police.

Many an innocent gun was saved from destruction that day!

Unknown said...

Let us examine ARM's demands. He demands that guns be taken away from in particular NRA people. That law abiding citizens be forced to lose their rights.

Notice that he proffers no solution to criminals, illegals, and other lowlifes who illegally possess a weapon. The Gun grabbers never do offer solutions for that, do they?

Now, what would happen had ARM's ideas been in force with this shooting? The bad guy with a gun, who had it illegally, would not have been stopped. He still would have his illegal weapon; and he still would have gone to kill people.

But the guy who stopped the shooting, the former NRA instructor, would have been prevented from stopping the carnage.
The bad guy, the far left Atheist targeting Christians, would have escaped and probably be killing more people.

That's the solution ARM's preferred laws lead us to. And that's a trivial exercise in logic. Thus, we can deduce that that is the actual outcome ARM wants: more armed criminals murdering Christians or other lawabiding citizens; who are helpless to fight back.

Because if that isn't what ARM and the rest of the gun grabbers plan, then why do they never, ever, ever offer up any plan to take care of the criminals right now who have illegal guns? It's always about disarming their political opponents so they can be murdered by rampaging leftists.

--Vance

Gordon said...

/17, 8:17 AM
Humperdink said...

I recall when Clinton was president (that would be Bill) was on his high horse to ban assault weapons. My friend quipped: "Yeah, I'm going to trust my guns to someone who can't even control his zipper".
11/7/17, 8:22 AM

Oh, he had full control of his zipper. What he couldn't control was his impulse.

So, banning zippers would not help when self control is missing.

Todd said...

steve uhr said...
Todd -- okay there is a "private person-to-person loophole," not a "gun show loophole." My point still holds -- he could have fairly easily purchased the guns legally without any background check.

11/7/17, 10:34 AM


It is not a "loophole" of any kind. Citizens buy and sell their own property all the time. This is just more "property". Would you like to have to go through a government intermediary to sell your used furniture?

he could have fairly easily purchased the guns legally without any background check.

And thanks to the competence of the Government, he didn't have to. Feel better? The Government was involved...

steve uhr said...

Fine. I agree it is not a "loophole." It is just the law. But drawing an analogy between used guns and used furniture is a little weak.

I have no problem with people owning guns for protection, hunting, collecting, etc. I just think everyone should be subject to a background check. Some states require one I believe for all private sales. So it is doable.

JAORE said...

" Only gun control will reduce the incidence of such mass horror."

Yep, that's the thought by many on the left. And they couch their demands as "sensible" gun control.

Time after time it is illustrated that background checks and limiting types of guns does not work to eliminate these shootings. When pointed out some on the left are honest enough to say,"I don't care".

Bottom line, the goal is confiscation. Total elimination of guns from the general population. Oh they'll start with "assault weapons" but they will not end there. Remember how "Saturday Night Specials"* had to be banned?


* Look up the history of the Walther PP-PPK-PPK/s to see what a farce that became.

Char Char Binks said...

Do we need more laws against cracking an infant's skull? Is there some loophole that allowed Kelley to remain a free man after that crime? No civilized society would allow anyone who deliberately cracks a baby's skull to continue to breathe.

Rusty said...

ARMs talking points are right out of "Handgun Control Inc.".
He just wants to feel good about himself and show how morally superior he is to any private citizen who owns a gun.
That is his/their only argument. Agency lies with the object. Not the person.

Unknown said...

By the way, does anyone seriously think ARM was upset that a bunch of Christians at church were murdered in cold blood by a far left Democrat Atheist with a grudge?

I mean, wasn't this guy pretty much the ideal Far leftist? Tried to kill a baby; hated Christians; was an Atheist; and as ARM would put it, "wasn't a pussy" because he actually tried to fulfill William Ayer's dreams of murdering millions of "heretics" to the leftist faith.

--Vance

Bruce Hayden said...

“I have no problem with people owning guns for protection, hunting, collecting, etc. I just think everyone should be subject to a background check. Some states require one I believe for all private sales. So it is doable.”

A couple problems there. Inevitably, such laws are written to apply to any transfers, no matter how short. After all, you don’t want bad guys borrowing guns from their friends, do you? But that means that you can’t rent guns to test them out, or hand your buddy your gun to try it out, or, even, maybe, give your kid a gun for their birthday. Or, maybe even share guns with your spouse. Or, have a gunsmith work on your gun - unless they are an FFL, and transfer the gun onto their best oks, but would then have to background check you to return it to you. Another problem - how are you going to do the background check? Do you have access to the ATF database? Probably not - unless you have an FFL.

The big problem though with requiring background checks for private transfers is that most gun owners aren’t going to participate. Just ain’t gonna happen. Throughout much of the country, the govt(s) doesn’t really know who owns what guns, and most everyone involved is happy with that state of affairs. It is good to have a gun or two that the Feds don’t know you have, in case the gun grabbers get their hands on FFL records. This is esp a problem in rural areas where firearms are traded back and forth like chainsaws and other tools. I was selling an ATV several years ago, and probably half the offers I got would have. had a firearm involved in the transaction. Sold it to a guy who gave me a .40 H&K USP Compact plus cash, but he didn’t finish paying what he owed, so I gave the gun back when he returned the ATV.

PeterK said...

"Governor Abbott of Texas made a claim that Kelley did not have a permit for his guns. "

Kelley had applied for a CHL (Concealed Handgun License) now known as a LTC (License to Carry). His application was denied. In Texas you do not have to have a license to own a hand gun or a long gun (rifle, shotgun, anything not a pistol), BUT you must have a LTC if you wish to conceal carry or to open carry a pistol. Under Tx law you can open carry a long gun not permit/license needed

gregq said...

It's very simple, when they say "what we need is more gun control", what they mean is "every single American citizen who isn't an armed security guard, or a cop, must be disarmed, and no one should ever again be allowed to buy a gun [legally]."

How they can be so stupid as to think that a nation that can't keep people from importing, selling, and buy heroin can nevertheless keep criminals for doing teh same with guns is, frankly, beyond me. But they are so stupid as to think that.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

A.A.: " That quite justifiably makes people resist delegating the function of self-defense to the government."

Thank you!..
- H.Gritzkofe; Maj, USAF, Ret.

Livermoron said...

Steve Uhr: Even in the person-to-person scenario the sale would not have been 'legal'. It is illegal to buy a firearm if you are not legally qualified to do so.
So there was no legal way for Kelley to get that gun.

If we just made it illegal for Democrats to own firearms we would solve 90% of the problem.

stlcdr said...

Blogger steve uhr said...
Todd -- okay there is a "private person-to-person loophole," not a "gun show loophole." My point still holds -- he could have fairly easily purchased the guns legally without any background check.“

No, he couldn’t have purchased the guns legally; he was prohibited at the federal level.

ceowens said...

ARM thinks I am a loser and a lunatic because I have a semi-automatic weapon and abundant ammunition. I do not think he knows me so that is not a very nice thing to write.

I read two blogs, Althouse and The Truth About Guns. They crossed paths today.

Original Mike said...

"Blogger steve uhr said..."I thought there is no requirement under federal law for background checks for guns purchased at gun shows."

You should think about how it is you came to believe that.

Rusty said...

." I just think everyone should be subject to a background check."

Uh. Unless you have a concealed carry permit EVERY gun sale requires a call to the FBI.

I just wish, before you yahoos open your gun controlling pie holes, you actually went out and tried to buy a gun. Then you could at least argue with some authority.
Guns er bad, emkay. Just doesn't cut it.

AReasonableMan said...

ceowens said...
ARM thinks I am a loser and a lunatic


Nothing personal. I have a public health perspective on the problem, not a personal one. The good news is in a generation or two from now the whole issue will be largely moot, as it is in most other civilized nations.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Domestic violence offender was not entered in national database as required by law. No surprise here. It is an unfunded mandate. As a matter of pride and self respect every office at every level of government is disposed to resent impositions from outside their own department.

That said, compliance with this particular unfunded mandate is likely to become an "item of special interest" on future Inspector General visits within the Judge Advocate General chain of the Air Force.

Kirk Parker said...

Henry @ 7:24am,

I'm confused about Gov. Abbott's statement, too. Texas doesn't have the concept of gun permits (nothing comparable to the loathsome FOID of Illinois, nor are they the point-of-contact for any background checks, these all go directly to the federal NCIC.) So what can he possibly be referring to?

J. Farmer @ 7:46am,

Indeed--every proposed new gun law I've ever seen has had a differential effect -- making it proportionally harder and more onerous for law-abiding citizens to buy guns, own them, practice with them, and carry them for self-defense, compared to any effect the law would have on illegal purchasers and possessors.


ARM @ 8:02am,

I'm all with that, provided you are talking about UK gun laws that existed at the time of our separation from them. Heck, even as late as 1900 you could wander into any number of shops in London, plunk down your untraceable cash, and walk out with a revolver or equivalent-to-military-issue rifle with no questions asked as to your identity.

Deal?


steve uhr,

Don't listen to the media on firearms law (or anything else!) Federal law regarding firearm purchases is uniform across all 50 states, and in all locations.

Kirk Parker said...

Hammond,

Since the US military is part of the federal government, how can a federal requirement be an "unfunded mandate"? In this case, isn't it just a "mandate"?

Gospace said...

Todd said...
steve uhr said...
Todd -- okay there is a "private person-to-person loophole," not a "gun show loophole." My point still holds -- he could have fairly easily purchased the guns legally without any background check.

11/7/17, 10:34 AM

It is not a "loophole" of any kind. Citizens buy and sell their own property all the time. This is just more "property". Would you like to have to go through a government intermediary to sell your used furniture?


Don't try to sell that furniture it it can be proved the paint on it is lead free...

Gospace said...

Char Char Binks said...
Do we need more laws against cracking an infant's skull? Is there some loophole that allowed Kelley to remain a free man after that crime? No civilized society would allow anyone who deliberately cracks a baby's skull to continue to breathe.


A swiftly enforced death penalty for a larger category of crimes would likely save far more lives than a gun ban, while simultaneously causing a huge drop in the crime rate. Repeat offenders would go way down.

William Chadwick said...

"Oso Negro said...

And it may be that YOU will never understand that governments with guns kill the most people of all. In the face of a predatory government, an armed populace stands a much better chance."

Indeed. For those looking for some research on the subject, I recommend the work of R. J. Rummel (easily found on the Internet). He's an academic who's made it homicide-by-government his specialty. He estimates that in the last hundred years alone (and I emphasize "alone") the State has murdered somewhere between 150,000,000 to 300,000,000 million people. And that's not war casualties or collateral damage in wars. That's your wise, benevolent ruling class deciding to whack people who somehow get in their way--or just tick them off.

Yeah, that's an institution you want to hand all the guns over to.

It's as if the US were some frontier town in the 1880s Wild West that got word that the biggest, most rapacious and bloodiest gang in the West were heading their way. "Liberal" State-shtuppers are like the townspeople who would say, "Hey, let's turn over all out guns to the outlaws! Or at least let them know we have guns, and where we're storing them! Let's give the combination to all the safes in town, too.
Sure, they've left a trail of murder and robbery every where else in the West, but if we surrender to them, maybe they'll treat us different!"

TWW said...

What he means is gun confiscation which he equates to 'gun control'. That's the rub. That's always been the rub.

Birkel said...

ARM just argued the arc of history is on his side.

Everybody, point and laugh.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Birk, I was trying to contain myself.

HT said...

Existing gun control law barred Devin P. Kelley from buying a gun.
This bolsters that standard anti-gun-control argument that what we need is to enforce the laws we already have.


Wrong on both counts. 1) He bought a gun. 2) Gun control advocates want better enforcement.

William Chadwick said...

By the way, all you "liberals" who think my comparison of the State with an outlaw gang is a false analogy, please climb out of your cocoon and take a look at Franz Oppenheimer's THE STATE. He traces the origins of the State back to bands of plunderers who realized that instead of just going into an area and wiping everyone else and stealing all their possessions once, they could leave some people alive and just take their stuff in increments. (The origin of the tax-payer.)

urbane legend said...

OpenID gregq said...

How they can be so stupid as to think that a nation that can't keep people from importing, selling, and buy heroin can nevertheless keep criminals for doing teh same with guns is, frankly, beyond me. But they are so stupid as to think that.

Heroin batches should have a serial number. Only a licensed dealer should make sales, and only after the buyer has undergone a thorough background check. You know, so no gun owner can buy the stuff.

Jim at said...

Records for all guns in private possession are held by the government.

And the true totalitarian shows himself.

And you wonder why people like me despise people like you.
Despise. Loathe. Detest.

Michael said...

ARM. Other than single shot guns or bolt action rifles all guns are "semi automatic". Some familiarity of the enemy is required for success.

EMyrt said...

I believe I have some insight into the anti-gun mindset (or perhaps that's amygdala-set). I'm an ex-liberal whose mom was a pink diaper baby and very anti-gun, and myself came to guns in my 50s through my husband, who grew up in rural Wisconsin in the kind of mid 20thC gun culture several of you have described.

Based on the nearly overwhelming fear I had to face down just to handle unloaded handguns, I can empathize with what motivates them. Terror.
They simply want guns to go away; they don't need them, hate and fear them as most folks do poisonous snakes, know no one except cops who carry guns. So why wouldn't the world be a better place if all the guns just magically vanished?

For sure it's Underpants Gnome logic, because they are too irrational in their fear and ignorance to really grapple with what it would take to make guns go away: Constitutional Amendment, the practicalities of confiscation in rural America, the impossibility of rooting out and destroying all guns, the not very successful results in Australia, etc.

"You may say that I'm a dreamer." Indeed, it's a compelling fantasy and shared with the like-minded in the media.

AReasonableMan said...

Jim at said...
And you wonder why people like me despise people like you.
Despise. Loathe. Detest.


You should probably get that looked at. It can't be good for you.

William Chadwick said...

AReasonable(sic)Man: You probably should get your inner fascist looked at. That need to use the State to force your will on other people can't be good for you. Certainly not good for society.

Rusty said...

ARM has always been a fascist.

cf said...

Most excellent, well said, well done, Ann of Althouse.