Aaron Alexis: Navy Yard Shooting Suspect

Police have identified Aaron Alexis, a 34 year old from Texas, as the Navy Yard shooter. 13 people are dead, including Alexis.

Aaron Alexis, a native of New York, who served in the Navy from 2007 to 2011 as an aviation electrician’s mate 3rd class, allegedly entered the base early Monday morning, perhaps using another man’s identification card to pass through the gates.

....From 2008 until his discharge in 2011, Alexis was a member of an aviation support squadron based in Fort Worth, Texas, where he worked on C-40s, a military version of the Boeing 737 that the Navy uses as a cargo plane. Law enforcement officials said that he was more recently working as a military contractor.

He was born in Queens, NY. Authorities say he used another employee's ID to enter the yard. But they don't believe that employee was involved. His motive is unknown.

< Sunday Night Open Thread: More Rain | Ohio Report on Death Row Suicide: Prison Guard Logs Falsified >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Josh Marshall asks (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 08:29:09 AM EST
    But how exactly did Alexis ever get a clearance to work for the US military. Alexis left the Navy Reserves without an honorable discharge because of a "pattern of misconduct", always a black mark on a record which can make future employment difficult. Alexis also had two prior gun related incidents over the last ten years - one in Texas in 2010 and another in Seattle in 2004. And today comes word that since August the VA had been treating Alexis for a series of mental disorders included paranoia, sleep disorders and hearing voices.

    So again, how did Aaron Alexis ever get hired for this kind of military contracting work or pass the background check required for such employment? Hoshko told the Journal that Alexis had a secret security clearance from 2007 and that it had recently been re-approved. But we also know that the crush of federal contracting that has led to dramatically reduced standards for these background checks and checks themselves are now routinely outsourced to still other contractors. The case of Edward Snowden is obviously dramatically different than Alexis. But both show up some pretty big holes in the clearance system. link

    So...there goes the "he should have (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 08:56:45 AM EST
    been getting mental health care" distraction, huh?

    Now what?  Ooh, I know: we can rag on the quality of care at the VA!  That's always good for...something; in this case, it just takes us farther down the rabbit hole.

    Here's the transcript of Dr. Orlowski's comments at the hospital yesterday - the ones CNN didn't think worthy of showing in full:

       You know what, we see a lot of trauma. And you know, sometimes it's just, you know --accidents that occur that we get to help people with, because they're accidents. And then you see what I call senseless trauma. And there is -- there's something evil in our society that we as Americans have to work to try and eradicate.

        I -- I have to say, I may see this everyday, I may, you know, be the Chief Medical Officer of a very large trauma center. But there's something wrong here when we have these multiple shootings, these multiple injuries. There is something wrong. and the only thing that I can say is we have to work together to get rid of it.

        I would like you to put my trauma center out of business. I really would. I would like to not be an expert on gunshots and not to be an expert on this. We are -- we do it well. Very experienced surgeons. But, quite frankly, I would rather they were doing their surgery on other things. And you know, it's a great city. It's a great country. And we have to work together to get rid of this. Because we just cannot have, you know, one more shooting with, you know, so many people killed.

        We've got to figure this out. We've got to be able to help each other. We're dealing right now with three innocent people. But my prayers and my thoughts go out to those people who have died as a result of today. And, you know, their families and what they're going to have to go through. So I have to say, you know, it's a challenge to all of us. Let's get rid of this. This is not America. This is not Washington D.C. This is not good. So we have got to work to get rid of this.

    You can also watch the video at the link - it's actually much more moving than the transcript.


    Actually the focus was not on (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 09:33:11 AM EST
    "he should have been given mental health care." The focus of Marshall's post was "how did Aaron Alexis ever get hired for this kind of military contracting work or pass the background check required for such employment?"

    I personally feel that it is a good question to ask. We are spending billions upon billions per year on Homeland Security at the same time federal contracting has led to dramatically reduced standards for background checks and checks themselves are now routinely outsourced to still other contractors and people like Aaron Alexis get clearance to work at a government facility like the Navy Yard.

    digby also adds:

    Let's be clear about something: the federal government is cutting basic social services while funding SWAT gear for local police departments and building up a massive surveillance state ostensibly in order to prevent random acts of terror.

    We are throwing this money down a rabbit hole when we don't spend the time or the money to do adequate background checks to prevent someone with a criminal background from working at a government facility.


    Add to that the tax incentives to companies (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:36:44 PM EST
    to hire ex-military. Not saying that is a bad thing, but it does not exactly promote due diligence in hiring policies.

    I wasn't talking about the focus of (none / 0) (#73)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 09:47:09 AM EST
    Marshall's post, but about Jeralyn's comment that it wasn't the guns that were the problem, it was that Alexis needed mental health care - so that was why, after reading that Alexis was getting care/treatment, I made the comment that I did.

    I feel like there is entirely too much energy spent on coming up with reasons why guns are not a problem - notice I didn't say "the" problem, but "a" problem (someone would surely call me out if I said something that implied it was "the" problem).

    Marshall's question is a good one, and digby's point is an especially good one.  


    Unfortunately, gun advocates rule (none / 0) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 10:19:35 AM EST
    here in the U.S.

    It appears evident based on the events after Newtown that this country currently has determined that mass murders and deaths by firearm, while tragic, are a price that the country is willing to pay to maintain the "freedom" of everyone to own any type of gun or ammunition that they want. The 1st response on this thread quoted below probably illustrates this choice better than anything I could write.

    I don't think its unreasonable to refuse to abridge the rights of 400 million people in response to half a dozen nuts per year.

    I don't agree with this premise but for now the gun rights organization and their members either control the legislators or have proven that they can punish those who vote against them.


    BTW, I would like those (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 10:50:12 AM EST
    stating he should have been getting mental health care to direct me to the legislation that has passed since Newtown at the state and federal level that allocates millions more to improve mental health services.

    Yes, and the bandwagon (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 12:28:49 PM EST
    on mental health advocacy since Sandy Hook seems to be stuck.

    He's a Shooter and a Buddhist chanter too! (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 09:41:42 AM EST
    [Cue Chevy Chase]

    WHITE SETTLEMENT, Texas -- To Kristi Suthamtewakul, Aaron Alexis was a gentle young man who taught himself to speak Thai for his waiter's job and chanted Thai prayers at a Buddhist temple. Alexis wore a golden amulet of Buddha around his neck, she recalled, yet also carried a concealed .45-caliber handgun.

    [While] To a Fort Worth neighbor and a Seattle construction worker, Alexis -- accused of gunning down workers at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday -- was a brooding, menacing figure quick to brandish and fire a gun.

    Once again, the neighbors knew something was wrong.  Perhaps what we really need more of is neighbor control.

    Morning "unh hunh?" (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 10:01:58 AM EST
    "7. If the NSA is so busy collecting information on every single one of us, To Keep Us Safe(tm), if they insist that they have to know everything about us, every purchase we make, every meeting we attend, every communication we utter, if they're so goddamn smart, why didn't they pick up on this guy? Why do they know everything about Barrett Brown and dozens of peace activists and people posting on Facebook and all the innocent people they've entrapped since 9/11, but nothing about Aaron Alexis? They're appealing to the public, for God's sake, to get information on him. What the hell are we paying them billions of dollars for (other than to violate our civil liberties, that is)?

     8. We have to get our ti*s and a**es scoped and groped at the airport, to make sure we're not hiding contraband -- because, of course, so many of us are -- we're all terrorists -- while this guy was allowed to waltz onto a frigging military installation without so much as going through a metal detector. How's that system workin' out for ya, folks?

     9. Land of the Free. Uh-huh."

    --Another Goober With a Grudge

    Alexander's falling down on the job, apparently. Got his priorites confused. Think of all the information you provide to the bank to obtain a credit card. Now envision the NSA reviewing this information.

    re NSA's abysmal record (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 10:53:34 AM EST
    - Bruce Schneier:

    Possibly the best evidence for this position is how well Alexander has weathered the Snowden leaks. The NSA's most intimate secrets are front-page headlines, week after week. Morale at the agency is in shambles. Revelation after revelation has demonstrated that Alexander has exceeded his authority, deceived Congress, and possibly broken the law. Tens of thousands of additional top-secret documents are still waiting to come. Alexander has admitted that he still doesn't know what Snowden took with him and wouldn't have known about the leak at all had Snowden not gone public. He has no idea who else might have stolen secrets before Snowden, or who such insiders might have provided them to. Alexander had no contingency plans in place to deal with this sort of security breach, and even now -- four months after Snowden fled the country -- still has no coherent response to all this.

    i.e. no limits as to what can be accessed, no audit trails, and no accountability.


    Looks like his star trekky bridge (none / 0) (#89)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:02:22 AM EST
    has been hit with a photon torpedo, and the blinding light is dissolving him like a vampire?

    Mostly absent here is acknowledgement (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 03:07:50 PM EST
    the tragedy.  

    Doesn't that go... (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 03:20:49 PM EST
    without saying no matter how you feel about guns?

    Though these senseless tragedies feel so common now it's no longer shocking, which is a pretty sad state of affairs in and of itself.


    It's There... (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 04:09:23 PM EST
    ... in the passion of the posts, people clearly want these tragedies to end and regardless of what anyone claims, at least for me, it's about reducing fatalities, not guns.

    There are a lot of links, thought, and debate in this post, something you will find in most posts that involved life.

    Some people believe more guns will make us safer and some people think less guns will make us safer.  Both side so passionate that there doesn't seem to be any lag from tragedy to debate.

    I personally don't like posts or any public acknowledgement expressing that one is indeed part of the human race who sympathize with people who have been devastated.  Its expected of a few, but for everyone else it's a given.


    "Nuance" - heh (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 05:19:34 PM EST
    Accurately describing someone's quote in the correct context so as to avoid (intentionally?) misleading people is now "nuance".


    BTW - You said Alexis was "just following the VPs advice" (to buy a double-barreled shotgun for self-defense), yet now you acknowledge you have no idea why he bought it ... just this past weekend.

    From fact to laughable "possibility" in two posts.

    Previously involved at least twice (4.88 / 8) (#2)
    by Towanda on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 07:02:06 PM EST
    in use of firearms in, shall we say, questionable situations.

    But he was allowed to continue to purchase and wield guns and apparently even a semi-automatic, of course, because his freedom to do so is so much more important than the freedom to live of more than a dozen people today, and in the very center of our nation's capital.

    All them gun control laws worked really well (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 07:33:01 AM EST
    and will prevent people from ever doing this again.

    Face it: gun control laws are designed to fail and, in failing, give those who like them the reason to enact more of them.  

    As it was, and assuming the accuracy of the report about the sawed-off shotgun, we see this criminal perpetrated a whole string of crimes before one round was fired:
    sawing off the shotgun:  possession of a shotgun with barrels less than 18.5 inches long and without proper tax being paid is a federal crime;
    sawing off the shotgun:  effecting the sawing-off of shotgun barrels to less than 18.5 inches long is a separate federal crime;
    gunsmithing (sawing off the barrels) without an appropriate federal license is a separate federal crime (if you do enough of it - in this instance, once is probably enough);
    transportation of a sawed-off shotgun across state lines (from Va. to DC) without advance written permission from the ATF is a separate federal crime;
    transportation of a gun across state lines into a state where one is not legally entitled to have it is a separate federal crime;
    doubtless under the DC Code (which I'm not intimately familiar with), possession of a shotgun (sawed-off or not) without appropriate permits issued by DC is a separate crime;
    doubtless under the DC Code (which I'm not intimately familiar with), possession of a sawed-off shotgun is a separate crime - chances are DC prohibits them outright;
    doubtless under the DC Code (which I'm not intimately familiar with), possession of ammunition outside the home without appropriate permits issued by DC is a separate crime;
    travelling in interstate commerce while in possession of a firearm (or other weapon) while intending to commit a crime with it in another state (e.g., A is in PA and B is in MD.  A intends to cause harm to B and travels across the state line with a gun, or club, or brass knuckles intending to "get" B, even if he never completes the harm.) is a separate federal crime;

    I can go on. And I haven't even gotten to taking the guns from others after shooting them, which constitute more crimes.

    All those laws were sold as cutting down on or eliminating violence.  "If we just limit a little it will eliminate violence...."  Hell, sawed-off shotguns have been federally regulated since the 1934 Firearms Act and even more harshly regulated since Gun Control Act of 1968.  

    Didn't work, did they?


    Follow your logic (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 10:53:10 AM EST
    If a law doesn't prevent every crime that it's designed to prevent, it's useless/unnecessary.  Now name a single law that doesn't fall within this category.

    Guess we should just eliminate all laws.


    The logic is... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:17:29 AM EST
    the guy broke at least a dozen laws already prior to the murder spree, what's one or a dozen more gonna do?  Mass murderers don't refer to the criminal code.

    Is your logic that we are just a couple laws short of preventing these mass murders?  Cuz I ain't seeing that. The problem isn't a lack of laws, it's a lack of humanity.  A lack of love.  An abundance of hate.


    What they will do (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 12:03:09 PM EST
    They will make it harder for people with a history of mental health issues and/or criminal backgrounds to be able to get their hands on a gun.  Impossible - particularly in every instance? - of course not.  But the more difficult you make it (and getting a gun should be difficult), the more likely you make it that people will be caught before they are able to commit further crimes.

    Sounds good on paper... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 12:30:08 PM EST
    but as a regular customer of contraband, it just doesn't work Yman.  It doesn't really make it more difficult, unless you mean more expensive..that my wallet can attest to.  

    It doesn't? (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 12:41:40 PM EST
    I know you're against almost all laws as a matter of Libertarian principle, Kdog, but the reality is that gun control laws - weak as they are here in the US - do make it more difficult for people who shouldn't have guns to get their hands on a gun.  Not to mention the fact that - if there were no laws against "contraband" - it would be a lot easier for people to get their hands on that, too.

    BTW - I'm in favor of drug legalization.


    I know... (none / 0) (#126)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 01:38:20 PM EST
    but the comparison works...people will get what they want, by hook or by crook.  And there are those pesky unintended consequences with all laws.  More difficult is not difficult enough to make any meaningful difference imo.

    But if it makes y'all feel better, no skin off my back this time, unarmed by choice and wouldn't have it any other way. I just think you're wasting time, and the only difficulties will be imposed on the people we don't have to worry about.


    there are going to be a lot (none / 0) (#128)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 01:55:52 PM EST
    of people who, during that hook or crook time, may have just enough time to think about what they're contemplating doing and either get some help or, at the very least, have a little time window to cool out and get retrieve some perspective.

    Sounds like weak tea... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:13:43 PM EST
    but like I said, it's not my hobby, it's not gonna get or cost anybody my vote.  Knock yourselves out, I'll work on my end spreading the love with random acts of kindness, which might pull somebody off the brink.  

    You know that educational ciriculum (none / 0) (#134)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:19:45 PM EST
    and the mental health program you suggested would inevitably involve a lot of coercion of corporations, shareholders, some healthcare workers, and educators..

    Some would call it yet another assault on Freedom and Liberty..



    I'm sure they would... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    but you well know I ain't that kinda scorched earth libertarian.  I'm a common sense quasi-libertarian who thinks legislation should first do no harm, and second be at least somewhat effective at achieving the desired goal.  

    The desired goal here being less gun violence, key word violence.  If ya think Congress can do that, god bless ya, I have serious doubts.  


    Man sentenced for assisting meth dealing (none / 0) (#163)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 04:45:53 PM EST
    priest, whom he relied on!



    An abundance of adolescent (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 01:23:24 PM EST
    American mythologies and fantasy images of a man with a gun exacting frontier justice..

    Lets not try to pretend that guns and the mythology around them in America aren't part of the complex big picture..


    And the of Course.... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:07:39 PM EST
    ...the United States government leading by example, do whatever the F they want and ultimately winning because they have the bigger and better weapons.

    Ditto for the states some of whom have decided that conflict resolution is BS because you have the right to not back down so long as you got a gun.

    Then at the most local level, cops have been on a shooting rampage lately and with treating the people like they criminals to be dealth with like animals and not ever answering for their misdeeds.

    And not to blame Hollywood, but it is another part off the puzzle, the good guys never put up with jack, that only weak people walk away from any conflict no matter how ridiculous.  Which flows through music and culture and there is just no place one can understand reality and violence except at home, and not many get it there.

    It's woven into our fabric and not to point fingers, but it all invariable ends up at the same exact spot, Corporate America.  From the the military complex, to the gun manufactures, to the lawmakers campaign funds, to the news exploiting peoples fears, to the glamorizing, all of it to sell, sell, sell....

    And what truly remarkable, it's total synergy, Sandy Hook divided us even worse which is making everyone that is preying on us more money.  Scare, divide, bomb.... and of course sell, sell, sell...


    Bingo. (none / 0) (#106)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:53:37 AM EST
    Guess we should just eliminate all laws. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:30:24 AM EST
    A logical extreme is a useful, though often fallacious, rhetorical device for the disputation of propositions.

    Quite simply, a logical extreme is the relevant statement of an extreme or even preposterous position that is nonetheless consistent with the proposition in question.

    Well, that's how Obama behaves - (3.25 / 4) (#109)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 12:04:07 PM EST
    like there are no laws which can constrain him.

    Y'know, "if the President does it, it's not illegal".


    kinda like the way (none / 0) (#125)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 01:28:02 PM EST
    a guy feels when he buys a gun: momentarily omnipotent..like Gary Cooper or Davey Crockett..

    And the more powerless they feel in real life, the more likely they are to try and act out that imagined omnipotence..


    I never felt that way when I bought a gun (2.00 / 1) (#151)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 03:31:25 PM EST
    When I did, I was pleased with my purchase for any of the reasonable reasons one might be pleased with a purchase.  For example:
    • I'd saved for a long time to buy something I'd researched and decided fit my needs and had finally found one in the condition I desired and at the price I felt was fair;
    • I'd bought something which had a lot more value than I paid for it;
    • I'd bought something of some historical/sentimental value and could appreciate it.

    But I never felt "empowered".

    Frankly, your argument is just a variation on the old gun-as-pen1s-substitute trope that anti-gun people are fond of.  It's hardly worth discussion, other than to point it out for what it is - crap, in a word.


    I am Own a Gun... (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 05:03:04 PM EST
    ...and like you it was a unique and enjoyable purchase mixed with a little apprehension even though I grew up with them.  But if you are going to pretend that people don't fetishize guns because you don't, please.

    It's getting nearly impossible to carry on even a normal conversation with the pro gun crowd who is in complete denial about anything that may be perceived as negative.

    Is there a gun problem in the US ?
    Do you have any solutions beyond 'your ideas won't work' ?

    Right.  And while you may not feel empowered with your gun, the way you were demanding apologies and gloating over the CO politicians, you clearly feel empowered over things that are gun related to a level none of the other 2A folks took it anywhere near.  You post was deleted because it was ridiculous, and the rest still remain, they were over the top juvenile jubilation that was second to none here of any topic.

    And why is not worth discussing, because you disagree, really, that's that ?  And for the record, I think it would be abnormal to not hold a gun and feel empowered at some level.  I certainly do, just like I feel empowered when I use other fun and unique things I own, but the gun is more, not sure if it's just cause it looks so menacing or knowing that it may protect me some day.

    My point is that there isn't a GD thing wrong with that or admitting that some people take it way too far, or that others have no business owning a gun, at least one could have a discussion without getting the standard 'not one GD negative thing about guns' snowjob that seems to be the standard operating procedure of late.  

    Which IMO is the number one reason we can't find some common ground that might actually reduce fatalities without infringing on people like you, me, and all the other law abiding gun owners.

    So I ask you again:
    Is there a gun problem in the US ?
    Do you have any solutions beyond 'your ideas won't work' ?


    Crap.. (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 06:22:41 PM EST
    really. So you give no creedence whatsoever to the long discussed and analyzed view that cultural artifacts have a symbolic meaning and import to people over and above their practical purpose?

    That'd be big news to people in the advertising field.. hh972


    Have you ever used it to protect yourself (none / 0) (#162)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 04:43:20 PM EST
    or others in danger of great bodily harm?

    Never had to. (none / 0) (#164)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 04:55:04 PM EST
    Instances of when such might be necessary are really quite rare.  (That's why they make the papers.)

    Then again, I'm really pretty peaceable and don't get into situations where I might have to defend myself, and no longer frequent places where defending others against GBH might be necessary.

    But I do know how.


    I'm talking about power (none / 0) (#181)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 06:38:25 PM EST
    and relative powerlessness and how people in society express their experience of the two, not about Cialis and Viagra.

    Not my experience (none / 0) (#195)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 01:31:52 AM EST
    Mine was more like holding a large really sharp knife, as in I better be really really careful with this thing. Hasn't changed much since.

    I wonder where people get this omnipotent gun fantasy from?


    I have no idea (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 08:53:13 AM EST
    That's a fallacy (none / 0) (#100)
    by sj on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:40:09 AM EST
    that's used a lot around here.

    Is that supposed to be ... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:46:26 AM EST
    His argument is that laws/gun control laws are ineffective because they didn't stop this shooting.  My point is that no law prevents all the crimes it is designed to prevent - it doesn't mean those laws are ineffective or useless.

    But you're right - my point was a "relevant statement of an extreme or even preposterous position that is nonetheless consistent with the proposition in question".


    Thank you, I am right. (none / 0) (#184)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 07:18:54 PM EST
    Your point was a "fallacious, rhetorical device."

    And yet, ... (none / 0) (#200)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 09:03:53 AM EST
    ... you can't even explain why you claim it's "fallacious".

    As usual ...


    Generally speaking, it seems like laws (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 12:06:05 PM EST
    are an outgrowth of determining what acts are wrong, and serve as more of a mechanism for punishment, not prevention, i.e., it is illegal to plan and carry out the killing of another person.  

    So, if laws don't prevent crime, what does?  Would the crime rate be less if we had full employment with a living wage floor?  Would it be less if we could eliminate hunger and malnutrition?  Does having a place to live reduce the crime rate, either because people aren't breaking the law in order to find ways to subsist, or they aren't victims of crime because of their vulnerability?  What role does education play in the reduction of the crime rate?  Are more crimes committed by people with less education?

    If these are the kinds of things that can prevent or reduce crime, why aren't we focusing our efforts there?

    Three guesses, and they're all spelled the same: M-O-N-E-Y.  The money we have but won't spend because in this country, you have to deserve food and shelter and education and health care, you aren't entitled to them.

    But you are entitled to have a gun.  And when you're hungry, out of work, on the street, uneducated, angry, mentally ill, you can use a gun to solve some of your problems.  You can steal money for food.  You can threaten someone for their spot on the heating grate.  You can teach others a thing or two about territory.  You can have some control over your out-of-control life that no law is going to help you with.

    What's the worst that could happen if we made more of an effort to improve the quality of life in these here United States, for all its residents?

    I'm pretty sure we'll never know, but one thing I think we do know: not just what happens when we don't, but what happens when efforts are made to take more away and make life even more difficult.  


    You Know... (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:07:52 AM EST
    ...the easiest thing to do is criticize others ideas and offer nothing.  I actually agree somewhat about bans, but as I mentioned below, at least the left is trying to do what they think is best.

    What is your idea for reducing gun violence in America ?  And I am not being sarcastic, but putting down others ideas without offering any sort of solution is not working.


    With more guns in circulation than people... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:27:05 AM EST
    I don't if there is much we can do, and I'm not a fan of doing something just for the sake of doing something.  Nor a fan of our typical kindergarten legislation..."Crazy Johnny is eating the crayons so none of the kids can use crayons."

    But a couple ideas are free mental health care on demand, more education in schools & PSA's of the dangers and uncoolness of guns, maybe a volunatary campaign with Hollywood and the video game folks to deglamorize the gun and gun violence.  A less violent government and law & order system might help too.  

    But like I said, I don't think there is much we can do.  This is our reality...guns up the wazoo and angry or mentally ill people willing to murder with them.  I don't think this is a problem legislators can alleviate...it's bigger than that.


    news developing that he walked in with a shotgun (none / 0) (#11)
    by DFLer on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 08:41:16 PM EST
    double-barreled, sawed off - as per current reports, then picked up other weapons from his victims - (autos, semi-autos, semis, 18 wheelers - whatever they're called)

    At this point, he should be described as (4.75 / 4) (#1)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 05:16:22 PM EST
    "a" shooter, not "the" shooter; I don't believe authorities have conclusively determined that Alexis acted alone.

    the news is reporting (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 10:27:50 PM EST
    one gunman.

    Well, 5 hours ago they weren't. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 10:42:02 PM EST
    There was still a lot going on, and even the mayor of DC was being hesitant about stating there was only one person involved.

    I have to think that if there's any doubt, you don't want residents putting themselves at risk.

    I'm very tired of people who don't have the temperament or the stability, who have anger issues - and this guy clearly had those kinds of issues - having such free access to weapons.  Second Amendment notwithstanding, when does my right kick in to go about my business without worrying about people like this deciding that today's the day they're just going to start shooting?


    I think another question is (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 06:01:47 PM EST
    How did he get clearance and access to a secure military facility with his history of gun problems, PTSD, and anger issues?

    Seriously... (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 06:11:57 PM EST
    and the more we learn about this guy's problems, the more unbelievable it gets.

    Another mass murder. (4.56 / 9) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 08:11:10 PM EST
    So sorry for the victims. Unfortunately as long as we hand out guns in this country like we hand out candy, this is going to happen again and again and again.

    tiresome argument (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 10:32:59 PM EST
    guns didn't cause him to kill, they were the means by which he expressed his rage or whatever other emotion took over.)

    A homemade bomb would have killed more people.

    Given his past, it seems like lack of mental health treatment, not availability of guns, is a more appropriate factor to focus on.


    There are millions (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 08:39:48 AM EST
    of mentally ill people in this country.  If we cannot even agree to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, we have truly abandoned all reason.

    If only 1% of the population is severely mentally ill, that still amounts to over 3 million people.  Say only 10% of the severely mentally ill are violent, that leaves us with over 300,000 people.  Why can't we keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally ill and violent?

    Guns are the only consumer product designed to inflict great bodily injury.....and we cannot even enact the most basic of regulations.


    Liberal Gun Grab (none / 0) (#186)
    by Jack203 on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 07:47:57 PM EST
    Nah Nah Nah Nah
    (covering my ears)

    Just taking the devils advocate position most tea partiers take.


    Then Why Don't Murders Use... (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:20:38 AM EST
    ...homemade bombs ?

    There is a reason people are fighting tooth an nail over the right to own guns and why murders use them as their weapon of choice.

    The homemade bombs that no one uses is far more tiresome argument.

    That being said, of all the people making those kinds of arguments, you are probably one of the few, if not only who would genuinely support the budget for mental health services.

    But in reality, that is not an option, who is going to propose funding mental health in the budget locked Congress.  They are getting ready to shut down the government over Obamacare, which is normal heath care, there isn't a chance in hell those folks are going to fund mental health services in an meaningful way.  And if a solution doesn't stand a chance of getting funded, it's not much of a solution.


    Great point. (none / 0) (#97)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:32:59 AM EST
    Especially so soon after the Boston Marathon Shooting.

    Oh, wait...


    I guess the "Logical Extreme" (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by sj on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:51:00 AM EST
    isn't the only fallacy commonly used around here.

    You mean the bombing that killed a quarter of the (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:42:49 PM EST
    number of people this one shooting did?  Seems to me guns are a heck of lot more reliable.


    The homemade bombs that no one uses is far more tiresome argument.

    You got Me... (5.00 / 5) (#173)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 06:00:36 PM EST
    Revised for the one who pretends to not get the point:
    The homemade bombs that accounted for less homicides than strangulation, asphyxiating, poisoning or drowning, are far more tiresome.

    Happy Pappy.

    Statisticians would say the number of either homemade bombs used in the US or the number of deaths statistically insignificant at 0.00033, the standard for significance is .05  For the record I am not implying any death is insignificant.

    122 people were strangled, 10 drowned, 98 Asphyxiated, and 10 poisoned, all of which are more likely that being a homicide victim from explosives.  Maybe we those should have been included since they are far more common that homicide by explosive.  I would bet a lot of money that more people were killed by a punch than explosives, but arguing people can kill with their bare hands instead of guns would just sound ridiculous.

    2010 numbers which just so happened to have 4 explosive deaths as well.  Doesn't distinguish store bought explosive from homemade bombs.  But in 2006 & 2007 1 person each year was killed by explosives.


    to J's.

    guns didn't cause him to kill, they were the means by which he expressed his rage or whatever other emotion took over.)

    A homemade bomb would have killed more people.

    OK, it's debatable whether a homemade bomb would have killed more people, but her point is valid, if someone wants to commit violent acts they do not need a gun to do so.

    THAT was the point?!? (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 06:22:46 PM EST
    OK, it's debatable whether a homemade bomb would have killed more people, but her point is valid, if someone wants to commit violent acts they do not need a gun to do so.

    Let me know when someone ... somewhere ... at any point in the history of mankind ... has made a claim to the contrary.


    That was J's point, and (none / 0) (#183)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 07:15:05 PM EST
    Let me know where I ... somewhere ... at any point in the history of mankind ... has made a claim that Steve made a claim to the contrary.

    J made a point. Scott made a different point couched in an argument to her point, and threw in a completely ridiculous and unfactual sentence that he thought directly contradicted her comment.

    I'm shocked anyone could even consider writing that sentence, maybe he's not a runner.


    No, it wasn't (5.00 / 4) (#188)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 08:04:55 PM EST
    I wasn't talking about Steve's comment.  I was talking about your characterization of "J's point", which you claimed was that "if someone wants to commit violent acts they do not need a gun to do so".  Stating an obvious truism is not a "point".

    But since we're (re)characterizing other people's points, I'll do Scott's.  When he said "The homemade bombs that no one uses is far more tiresome argument", he was referring to the argument that homemade bombs represent a risk equivalent (or greater) than that posed by guns.  His statement isn't meant literally - i.e. "no one has ever used a homemade bomb" - but rather is pointing out that people don't simply substitute homemade bombs for guns.  Guns are used to kill more than 30,000 people a year.  Bombs are used to kill less than 10.

    It's not even close.


    It's a an Opinion (5.00 / 5) (#187)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 07:56:18 PM EST
    She's discussing possibilities as if the result were unknown, it's not.  And she used the term 'would', which even you object to.

    I could just state that if the US had banned guns, that man would not have killed anyone.

    The presumption that I know what would have happened is not only stating an opinion as fact, it's not what actually happened, aka reality, which is the man used guns to kill 14 people.  With the added bonus, like my premise, that seems unlikely in that when someone determined to kill people is unlikely not to kill anyone.  Or that a Boston style bomb that killed four would actually kill more than 14.

    The thing I don't get is why make up another set of facts based on nothing but opinion, admitting that guns actually kill more people that other common methods isn't conceding they should be banned, it's acknowledging reality guns are lethal and dangerous at times.  

    That's what everyone needs to do on both sides.  But if we keep acting like what happened didn't actually happen or would have been worse or whatever direction we let our opinions lead us, nothing is going to change.  Acknowledging reality is essential to figuring out a solution, which IMO is not banning a class of guns.  


    IMO it's dealing treating gun ownership like similar to a drivers license, you get caught do 80 in the wrong lane drunk as a skunk, you forfeit that right for a bit.  Walk a straight line and you are good to go, but you keep pushing it and the loss increases.  And without a doubt, the folks who are repeat misplacers of guns get clamped down hard.  

    The NRA already has a pretty extensive list of gun owners and since the NSA has unfettered access, an actual registry would be no break in privacy as Snowden has revealed, they already complete access to pretty much anyone who legally buys a gun/ammo and where what they do with it.  Not to track owners, but to track guns to curb illegal sales.  Nothing more.

    A panel of people with unblemished gun records would be set-up locally to evaluate people who break the rules and determine punishment.  Some sort of system in regards to mental health complaints, again gun owners determining if someone should be evaluated by an actual physician.

    And lastly trying to instill some responsibility and working hard to let responsible gun owners be while ensuring as few guns end up in the hands of crazy and/dangerous.

    But more importantly, getting everyone in the conversations and focusing on solutions instead of confrontation.


    Do you really think (none / 0) (#171)
    by sj on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 05:36:20 PM EST
    that's a gotcha? I really wonder about that.

    Come on, J, that is so disingenuous (4.63 / 8) (#25)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 11:29:20 PM EST
    Homemade bombs require learning to do something, require putting together and mixing chemicals, etc. That is a terrible and illogical comparison.  

    A gun is a quick and easy thing in comparison, which instills in people a sense of immediate power and control that no other single item that small can do.

    I realize "your" side won this argument years ago, and that this country will simply be overrun with firearms as long as it exists. So let's just relax and have a blast, pun intended. I mean, I have no right to live in a gun free anything. Gun owners rule the day, my desire to live free of them means sh*t. I accept that. I don't piss and moan about it like gun owners who've never been in danger from anything but their own paranoid trigger fingers largely.

    And mental health care? What's that? If you know you live in a country with little to no care unless you have a lot of money, and you know guns are available like toothpicks in America, then it seems a tad irrational to somehow just say, oh no, guns play no part. You have just admitted they do with the mental health analogy. A guy with his issues needs mental health care. Should suicidal people who own guns simply be sent home with a pat on the ass and some pills and a pamphlet about how to deal with your guns during about of depression? Of course not, they would not be sent home TO those guns if they expressed those feelings to a medical professional. Would you object? I doubt it. But somehow with a crime like today's, this guy's guns are no part of the equation, they're just props that could've been anything else. If that's so, then why aren't there more mass stabbings, or more bombings, or more people just driving their cars over people on the sidewalk? These things happen, but not like they do with guns? Why? Because guns, as we all know, are different and unique. Saying they aren't doesn't make it so. And pretending the consequences of their proliferation do not exist is really, REALLY strange to me. And just not honest of, in the long run, helpful to society.

    But I'm on the losing side, so shoot me. (Amazing how gun culture invades all aspects of life.)


    My daughter is a cop. (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by cpresley on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 12:49:05 AM EST
    She told me a story this morning about two different people that have approached her in the last 2 days. Both were what are referred to as 5150 (mental problems). They both wanted her to take them in for mental health issues. One has cut himself so bad he has staples holding his skin on his arms, the other one told her point blank he is going to hurt himself or others if he doesn't get help. They have both been before a judge many times and cut loose with only a mandate that they show up in the morning and evening at a halfway house. The courts aren't putting them in treatment facilities where they can receive help. As my daughter said, the courts aren't helping these people, they are leaving it up to the cops who can't help, they can only arrest. That doesn't help anybody.

    Given the current restrictions as to persons who (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 01:22:29 AM EST
    are ineligible to own firearms, mental health care, even if widely available and affordable is not the solution. Only persons who have been committed to an inpatatient mental health care facility by court order are barred from owning a firearm. Therefore, the U.S. public would remain at risk.

    You (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 06:32:31 AM EST
    said it better than I could. I have a family member with schizophrenia and you know what? She can get a gun but can't get mental health care.

    high school kids can make bombs (4.25 / 4) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 01:22:20 AM EST
    You don't need training. You just need the internet.

    Bombs aren't the choice of weapon... (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 07:42:56 AM EST
    ... for people who commit mass killings.  If these mass killers are interested in killing the largest number of people and bombs are easy to make and use, then why do they choose guns?  The same reasons guns are overwhelmingly the choice of weapon for murder.  Guns are:

    1.  Easier to use,
    2.  Easier to transport,
    3.  Easier to conceal,
    4.  Easier to obtain

    In 2011, there were 12 people killed with explosives - that was the highest year in the past 5 years (or more).  There were 12,664 people killed with guns.  Over the past 5 years, there were @ 69,000 people killed with guns - there were 30 killed with bombs.

    It's not even close.


    Oh, for crying out loud...if there's a (4.50 / 6) (#38)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 06:53:51 AM EST
    tiresome argument, it's the one where the ready access to guns doesn't play a role, and other methods can kill more people.

    Given his past, it doesn't seem like he should have been allowed to own a gun.  Not that that would have stopped him from getting one, because we all know that they are apparently as easy to get as a pack of gum.

    In my office yesterday, there were discussions about what to do if we heard there was a shooter in the building.  I feel so much better now that I have a plan.


    J, do you espouse this view in public (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 01:24:25 AM EST
    forums outside CO?  

    That's pretty weak tea, J (none / 0) (#103)
    by sj on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:48:12 AM EST
    Can you fit that on a bumper sticker, maybe?

    On CNN a spokesperson for the hospital (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 03:32:00 AM EST
    Who I believe may have also been a physician was asked why these things keep happening and she began to say that there was a sickness in our society....and then CNN chose to cut away from her.

    Too bad (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 06:37:06 AM EST
    I would have been interested in hearing what she had to say.

    But the networks aren't interested (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 08:43:40 AM EST
    in letting you hear what she had to say b/c it does not coincide with their editorial and corporate agendas.

    Ga, do you think (1.00 / 4) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 03:36:01 PM EST
    she had anything to say that proved anything??

    I posted both the trasncript of (5.00 / 5) (#155)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 03:43:19 PM EST
    the doctor's remarks and the link to them and the video; why don't you read/watch it and decide for yourself.

    But what, may I ask, would she have to prove?  That she's weary of seeing the emergency rooms, surgical suites, ICU's, family waiting rooms and rehab areas full of the results of rampant gun use?

    I mean, they're only on the front lines of the clean up, so why wouldn't she have something to say about it?


    Using that Logic... (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 04:18:01 PM EST
    ...there is no reason what-so-ever for you to post.

    Opinions matter Jim, even the ones you don't like.  People should not have to remain mute because it doesn't match your or anyone's paradigm.

    Maybe if the right quite dismissing experts they might learn a things or two, can still disagree, but nothing wrong with hearing what a gunshot expert has to say about gunshots.


    Of course they cut away... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 07:55:34 AM EST
    that's the million dollar question that is difficult if not impossible to answer...this societal sickness, societal disorder, whatever we wanna call this societal suicide phenomenon.

    This is the question we must find an answer too, a treatment for this disorder.

    I wish more gun control law was a magic wand, but it ain't.  As scribe noted, the guy broke countless laws prior to the carnage, what the f*ck is one or two or twenty new ones gonna do?  Nada.  

    The only legislative avenue I can think of that might do some good is a ban on the manufacture and importation of these weapons, and even then the black market will still find a way if people want them.


    It's a psychological thing too (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 08:05:24 AM EST
    Many Americans relationships to their guns.  As if a gun makes us more of a person or is a problem solver.  It isn't as if I didn't grow up around a couple of guns either, but my family's attitude about it was that in the course of your regular day, what to do with these things is a damn nuisance.  And my family always feared them around the children and the youth, they didn't take photos of us with them and show them off proudly as if a gun is somehow something more than a hunk of metal that projects things.  As if it makes your kid cooler to photograph him/her packing heat.

    that hospital is apparently a top trauma unit (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by DFLer on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 08:13:35 AM EST
    in the area. They treat so many gunshots wounds there, that military Drs. do stints there, for training in treating gun wounds

    Yes, that was interesting and creepy (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 08:35:02 AM EST
    How she described that military doctors can keep their skills sharp when we don't have a war by working with them, so they do and they rotate the military trauma doctors in and out of there regularly.  That was sobering

    That's been going on regularly (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 08:46:01 AM EST
    and on an official basis since the Reagan administration.  It may have been going on even earlier on an unofficial basis.

    Chicago would be a better (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 03:37:52 PM EST
    training place.

    Per the FBI Crime Statistics database (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 04:25:41 PM EST
    Chicago was 79th in homicide rate in 2012, just behind Bangor, Maine.

    Maybe Tennessee (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 04:25:52 PM EST
    Even using an apples-to-oranges comparison of a city to states, Chicago's murder rate is lower than Alaska or Louisiana.  Heck, if you look at more than just this past year where Chicago's rate was much higher than normal, Chicago would be on par with the 10 states with the highest levels of gun deaths - Alaska, Louisiana, Montana, Alabama, Wyoming, Mississippi, West Virginia, Tennessee, Nevada and New Mexico.

    "Go West young woman!" (or South)


    Chicago.. (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 06:10:49 PM EST
    Jim heard on the radio Bill Ayers and the New Black Panthers are teaching violent revolution there.

    Here's a link to the video of her (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 09:35:55 AM EST
    comments, and to the transcript.

    Dr. Janice Orlowski

    Very moving.


    Tell me how you really feel? (1.40 / 10) (#10)
    by redwolf on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 08:26:30 PM EST
    Mass shootings excite you don't they?  Such a wonderful chance to make political points at the expense of the dead.

    Apparently (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 09:05:19 PM EST
    you want to shut that conversation down because it makes you uncomfortable. That is your problem not mine.

    COnversation? (1.56 / 9) (#22)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 10:44:52 PM EST
    You do not want to have a conversation, you only want to spout your knee-jerk rhetoric lobbying for gun control..  

    I did (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 06:29:32 AM EST
    not even mention the word gun control but whatever. Fact of the matter is we are going to continue to have a lot of mass shootings and murders until the majority of Americans get sick of it and start trying to have a grown up discussion instead of a reacting to people squealing about how someone wants to take their guns away.

    BS (1.40 / 5) (#60)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 09:15:30 AM EST
    You have your agenda regarding gun control, as you just made clear, so please stop telling others that they want to shut down "conversations" because you clearly are not interested in anything resembling a conversation about guns.

    When you have a person who wants to kill other people in a random fashion they have reached a point where they will find a way to do it. That is clearly the problem here, not guns.

    If you were worried about random deaths you would be lobbying for getting rid of automobiles.

    A third of mass killings didn't involve guns at all. In 15 incidents, the victims died in a fire. In 20 others, the killer used a knife or a blunt object. When guns were involved, killers were far more likely to use handguns than any other type of weapon.

    USA today


    Let them find a more difficult way (5.00 / 7) (#68)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 09:39:24 AM EST
    If you were worried about random deaths you would be lobbying for getting rid of automobiles.

    1.  It is extremely rare for a car to be used as weapon to commit murder.  They don't even register as a weapon in the FBI stats.

    2.  Car deaths are accidental deaths.  We need cars because their utility far outweighs their cost in terms of lives lost in car accidents.

    3.  The number of accidental automobile deaths is high because - at every given moment of every day - millions of people are using automobiles.  The same is not remotely true for guns, yet the number of firearm deaths and automobile deaths is about the same.  

    4.  If you want to treat guns like cars, let's do it.  Mandatory training, mandatory licensing, mandatory insurance, mandatory registration, mandatory tracking of transfers ... etc., etc.

    Great idea!

    Yes (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 10:50:13 AM EST
    Great point... cars don't kill people, people kill people, and great that you have pointed out that intention to kill is a major factor in homicides.

    And it is extremely rare for guns to be used to intentionally kill people.

    300million guns in the US..  31,672 deaths by firearms.

    250 million motor vehicles in US 33,687 motor vehicle deaths.

    But when you add intention to kill aka homicide the numbers drop..

    16,259 homicides, and 11,078 are from firearms.

    So out of 300million firearms in the US there are 11,078 deaths caused by firearms.

    .00375% of guns in the US are used in homicides.

    that is a seriously low statistic to argue that gun control would have any impact on gun related homicides..  


    11,078 murders with guns (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:04:41 AM EST
    that is a seriously low statistic to argue that gun control would have any impact on gun related homicides.

    Not to mention an additional 70,000 injuries every year.

    Guess we just a different idea of what a "seriously low statistic" is.

    BTW -  

    300million guns in the US..  31,672 deaths by firearms.

    250 million motor vehicles in US 33,687 motor vehicle deaths.

    But when you add intention to kill aka homicide the numbers drop..

    Uhhhhm, ... wrong again - unless you're thinking that that 19,302 suicides by gun were accidental.  Not to mention that (using your original argument about cars) - if you "add the intention to kill aka homicide" - the number of car deaths drops to @ zero.

    But nice job at ignoring the necessity/utility/daily use of cars as compared to guns.


    Goal Posts (none / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 01:50:12 PM EST
    Car deaths are accidental deaths.  We need cars because their utility far outweighs their cost in terms of lives lost in car accidents.
     The number of accidental automobile deaths

    I thought we were not discussing accidental deaths... and if you want to compare accidental deaths across the board gun accidents are low..

    And sure, I have no problem treating guns like cars.. registering, training etc..  that should be mandatory.


    Then stop moving them (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:52:40 PM EST
    I pointed out that car deaths were accidental because some people are making an analogy of gun deaths to car deaths, suggesting we outlaw cars because more people die from car accidents than gun violence.  It is, of course, completely ridiculous for a number of reasons:

    1.  The vast majority of gun deaths are intentional deaths where the gun is being used as it was intended - to kill.  Not true with cars.

    2.  Guns are used as weapons to kill @ 30,000 people every year, including 11,000+ murders.  Not true with cars.

    3.  Millions of cars are in use every moment of every day, yet the number of accidental deaths by cars barely exceeds the number of intentional deaths from firearms which are rarely being used.  It's like claiming that motorcycles present less of a risk than cars, because far more people die in car accidents (36,676) than motorcycles (3,112) - 1999-2003.  In reality, more people travel far more often by car than motorcycle, and the risk of dying when equalizing by miles traveled is over 25X greater by motorcycle.

    4.  Cost benefit analysis - Accidental deaths by cars are tolerated because the benefits/utility of cars greatly outweighs their cost.  A modern society would have great difficulty functioning without motor vehicles - assuming it's even possible.  Civilians owning guns?  Not a problem.

    Let's register all guns (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 10:39:25 AM EST
    Done. That was easy.

    Obliterating others quickly (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:54:54 AM EST
    seems to be the path of least resistence to a lot of the empathetically-challenged in the U.S, why make it easier for them?

    Guns may not be THE problem, but they're certainly A problem..

    Being committed to being in continual denial about that elementary fact, is another "agenda" people seem to have..  


    Yeah... (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:50:34 AM EST
    Man, if people would just stop murdering people with guns you wouldn't have pop-in to tell us how aweful we are and how grand you are for implying in what one could only describe as the words of a seriously damaged brain.  To even think something so vile is just sad, but to put it on paper as something you believe is just frighting.  

    You are who need protecting from; irrational beliefs with an seriously unhealthy infatuation and obedience to inanimate objects that kill tens of thousand of innocent people each and every year and absolutely no emotional acknowledgement of the people they kill and name.


    I'll tell you how I feel (4.43 / 7) (#44)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 07:48:45 AM EST
    .... after reading your comment ... disgusted.  Also amused by the desperation and utter lack of logic, ...

    ... but mostly just disgusted.


    I don't think its unreasonable (2.86 / 7) (#36)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 06:35:01 AM EST
    to refuse to abridge the rights of 400 million people in response to half a dozen nuts per year.

    A single shot projectile weapon is simple to make, trivial for a single shot zip gun if you have access to ammunition of any kind. Then just like this guy did, bootstrap to better weapons by killing the owners.

    Explosives are a little harder, but the internet is full of recipes.

    Common thread in the last three, mental illness, victims disarmed by local regulations.

    Do you have a link (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 10:40:31 AM EST
    to substantiate that there are 400 million people in the U.S, who own guns? That number seems rather high considering:

    As of July 1, 2013, the United States had a total resident population of 316,663,000,[1] making it the third-most populous country in the world.

    Now I know I don't own a gun, quite a lot of my friends do not own a gun and to the best of my knowledge most babies and toddlers don't own guns, so I'm curious to know how you came up with the number of 400 million.


    I didn't say own (none / 0) (#197)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 08:04:25 AM EST
    I said abridge their rights, which includes preventing non owners whether they want to own or not from owning.

    ALL rights are "abridged" (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 08:52:52 AM EST
    There is not a single right that is unqualified or unlimited.

    The extra 85 million people whose rights are being abridged are people yet to be born?


    Great... (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 10:48:16 AM EST
    ...if they are so easy to make, let's stop manufacturing them.

    Problem solved.

    BTW, when was the last homicide in the US committing using a zip gun ?

    There is a reason people use guns.

    For the record, those same 400 Million, which is over double the people who can actually buy guns in the US, are being deprived every day of those rights you are holding up, or does the term 'arms' in the 2A not include autocratic weapons, grenades, and sawed off shotguns ?  Cause those rights were infringed upon in 1934 with public backing.  And beyond a few outliers, the public is generally in agreement with that curtaining of the 2A.

    But it doesn't matter anyways, we are so saturated with guns, that it be odd is if someone who wanted one couldn't get one, sane or not.  Just seems to be that maybe halting manufacturing of the weapon responsible for the most deaths of innocent people each year would have almost no effect gun owners.  No guns taken, just each year the weapon of choice for murders would no longer be manufactured.

    Something, my god, as much as the gun lobby speaks of mental health, how much has the NRA given to anything related to helping the those folks ?  It's a talking point for deflection, no one means it, as it stands the Fed is locked in a budget crisis, has anyone on your side proposed any sort of legislation related to the mentally ill ?  Paul Ryan got a big fat budget for mental health services hid away somewhere ?  Because where I stand the same people blaming mental health services are the same ones slashing those budgets.

    Frick, give the country a bone, at least pretend you think helping the mentally ill is a viable option or stop using it as a talking point.  And while you might not like what the left proposes, at least they are working on what they believe are solutions, what is the right doing to stop people being murdered in the US by guns ?

    You keep telling us our ideas won't work, then what will ?


    Sad to say that considering the ever growing (none / 0) (#3)
    by gbrbsb on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 07:07:15 PM EST
    list of rampage killers over there my only surprise here is that the alleged shooter (or one of them) is of the much rarer black variety and not your common place bored or disgruntled white!

    Comparing statistics of US rampage killers with those of European countries the US clearly has way more than it's fair share so I find it hard to not conclude that the much higher figure has to be related to gun laws, the death penalty, insalubrious prison conditions, and the nigh to sacrosanct right to bear arms...  that's what I call being dead right!

    No he (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 08:05:08 PM EST
    was not but the majority of mass murders over the last number of years have been committed by Caucasian males.

    Duh, 70% of the population. (1.57 / 7) (#9)
    by redwolf on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 08:23:18 PM EST
    All things being equal you'd expect about 70% of mass killings done by white males.  Oddly if you look the underlying numbers Asians are massively over represented in mass killings of a single incident.

    White makes are not 70% of the (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 09:10:02 PM EST
    population. That would closer to the number of Caucasians in total in the country. In the 2010 census the country was about 72.4% Caucasian. So doing a rough estimate of slightly less than half being Caucasian males that would probably make them about 34-35% of the country.

    Is the question (1.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Char Char Binks on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 07:08:48 PM EST
    why most mass killers are male, or why they are white?  Mass killers are undoubtedly disproportionately male, but all the stats I've seen indicate that whites ("Caucasians", if you insist) are not disproportionately prone to violent crime, or crime in general, and far less likely than some others.

    Asians over-represented... (none / 0) (#24)
    by unitron on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 11:24:58 PM EST
    ...as shooters or victims?

    As shooters. (none / 0) (#30)
    by gbrbsb on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:09:06 AM EST
    V-Tech shooter was not (none / 0) (#8)
    by Towanda on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 08:13:02 PM EST
    a Caucasian male, either.

    But most are, yes, and disproportionately so in terms of the percentage of Caucasian males in the country's population.

    As unusual in this shooting, from the stats I've seen, is the number of male victims.  

    Even higher than the proportion of Caucasian males among mass shooters is the extraordinary proportion of women and girls targeted by the sick @#$%^^##!s.


    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 09:12:17 PM EST
    it seems that girls tend to get murdered at a higher rate in general but with mass shootings it does not seem to be typically the case as they don't seem to care whether the victim is male or female.

    I'd love to see statistics (none / 0) (#23)
    by SuzieTampa on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 10:49:57 PM EST
    on the gender of victims. I couldn't find that on a quick Google search. Offhand, I can think of a couple of killers who targeted women specifically.

    I wish there was more conversation on why boys and men commit so much violence.


    Because they're icky nasty boys, of course. (1.00 / 2) (#41)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 07:33:58 AM EST
    Your question answers itself.

    No, it's not an easy answer (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by SuzieTampa on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 09:22:08 AM EST
    It would be too easy to blame testosterone.  I think there are various factors, including societal messages that it's OK, even heroic, when boys and men use violence against those who have disrespected or dishonored them. Games in which the player "kills" others are marketed to boys and men and they are the majority of players.  

    It's the same reason America (none / 0) (#132)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:13:41 PM EST
    is the only country that makes superhero movies..

    And the only country where you see "Who is John Galt?" bumperstickers..

    We've fetishized and mythologized egoism and indivualism to the point that we're now turning out, more-and-more of these dangerously anti-empathetic, anti-scoial types..

    These deranged shooters are frustrated, perverted
    victims of the "rugged indivualist" mythology the same way molesting priests are victims of the spirtual purity myth..



    The United States isn't the only country (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 03:01:38 PM EST
    The United States isn't the only country to enjoy superheroes. There are comics, cartoons/anime, and movies about superheroes throughout the world. They all share the same general superhero requirements, but also include their own culture

    'Ra.One' - India

    'Casshern' - Japan

    'Zebraman' - Japan

    'El Santo' - Mexico

    'Krrish' - India

    'Cicak-Man' - Malaysia

    'Kekko Kamen' - Japan

    'Mr. India' - India

    But women grow up in the same culture (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by SuzieTampa on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 05:52:18 PM EST
    We need to break the link between committing violence and affirming manhood. A woman who carries a gun may feel strong and independent. But it makes many men feel more manly.

    The majority of superheroes are men, by the way.


    Testosterone is a hell of a drug. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Thanin on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:12:18 AM EST
    I have seen the stats on gendering (none / 0) (#33)
    by Towanda on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 04:27:20 AM EST
    of mass shooters and of their targets/victims, and the gendering is unmistakeable.  The stats exist.  I'll look for them.

    Interesting timing? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 09:22:11 PM EST
    WAPO Live Blog:
    The U.S. Navy said shots were fired around 8:20 a.m. [Sept.16] at the Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters building

    This AP article is date time stamped 9 hours earlier, at 11:30pm Sept.15:

    Sunday, 15 September 2013 23:31 Eric Tucker And Brett Zongker, The Associated Press

    WASHINGTON - Several people were injured in a shooting Monday morning at a building at the Washington Navy Yard, the U.S. Navy said, and authorities searched for an active shooter.

    A defence official, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak during an active attack, also said there were at least several injuries.

    The Navy said shots were fired around 8:20 a.m. (1220 GMT) at the Naval Sea Systems Command headquarters

    Okay, I looked at it briefly (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by sj on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 10:15:41 PM EST
    and I can't reconcile the time stamps.

    Occam's razor (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 08:53:24 AM EST
    Also here... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 10:24:49 PM EST
    ABC News:
    WASHINGTON September 15, 2013 (AP)

    Police, FBI: Shooter reported in military building at Washington Navy Yard; at least 1 victim.

    Both are AP stories. AP put this out on their newswire 9 hours before it "happened"?


    Cue the nut- case (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 01:11:08 PM EST
    conspiracy theorists in 5...4....3....2....1

    Lol! (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:02:35 PM EST
    Questions not within the official "approved question" parameters do generally attract them like flies, don't they? ;-)

    Somebody screwed up (none / 0) (#99)
    by sj on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:37:39 AM EST
    I wonder if there is any way to fix a flawed time stamp. Add a correction/update to the article? Correct the hardware that has the wrong datetime?

    I have a feeling that (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 04:56:51 PM EST
    the same loonies who were saying that Sandy Hook was "staged" and never happened will use the errant time stamp to show that the Naval Yard shootings were staged.
    Either that, or that they were "pre-planned" by the government to discredit gun ownership.
    Or something.

    I emailed the publisher of one of them (none / 0) (#116)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 12:48:43 PM EST
    No answer yet, but so far it looks like it was published - or at least went out on the AP newswire - before it happened. Very curious.

    I'll be interested to hear (none / 0) (#117)
    by sj on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 12:50:55 PM EST
    the results of they reply.

    Me too. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 12:57:28 PM EST
    IF they reply...

    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by sj on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    or "if". That may have been a better word choice than "of"...



    Or... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 10:33:02 PM EST
    Obama did it (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 08:44:42 AM EST
    He and the illuminati....and those who killed Vince Foster.

    You're trying to throw (none / 0) (#180)
    by sj on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 06:31:06 PM EST
    bait into a discussion that is neutral. Very trollish.

    It is an easy answer (none / 0) (#190)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 09:43:15 PM EST
    Those who like to entertain truther-like conspiracies should not be so thin-skinned.

    wev (none / 0) (#191)
    by sj on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:07:28 PM EST
    It seems to (none / 0) (#194)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 01:08:00 AM EST
    matter to you.

    Oh (none / 0) (#196)
    by sj on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 02:13:19 AM EST
    sorry. Did you say something?

    A building (none / 0) (#39)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 07:28:01 AM EST

    A building with many commissioned naval officers, none of which were permitted to carry a side arm!!  This is another example where a so called "gun free zone" made the place safer for the mass murderer rather than for the victims.


    Are you freaking (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 07:44:35 AM EST
    kidding me? They had armed guards there that this guy got past. You guys NEVER take into consideration the element of surprise in these situations. It would not have mattered if they had guns because they did not know he was coming and the guns he used were guns that he got off the people AFTER he killed them. Perhaps you need to learn some of the facts of the case before making a knee jerk conservative comment like that.

    You betcha (1.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 08:12:41 AM EST

    He got weapons from the guards he killed.  They were surprised, no doubt about that.  However, once the shooting started the element of surprise was pretty well lost.  

    Because of the "gun free zone" policy the shooter knew he would not be surprised by return fire from his disarmed victims and would have several minutes of risk free killing time.



    More (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 08:25:41 AM EST
    knee jerking on the top of previous knee jerking. Being a gun free zone made NO difference. He had semi automatics that mow people down. People with guns would have been mowed down just as much as those without guns. What you are expressing is the sickness of the gun mentality---that if you have a gun you are not going to get killed. Time after time this this has been proven to be untrue. The few times it works is when someone brandishes a gun in front of you and those are very few.

    More guns is the answer? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 08:42:58 AM EST
    The problem is that you will always have mentally ill people who are not in treatment or resistant to treatment.  

    The more people who have guns and the more guns there are, the more likely you will arm the mentally ill and violent.  

    And all the capital punishment deterrent in the world will not matter.


    As is usual in these matters (none / 0) (#63)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 09:28:20 AM EST

    As is usual in these matters it took a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.  That's a fact.  Period.

    The "gun free zone" just made sure that good guys near at hand were disarmed and armed good guys had to come from some distance away. Thus giving the shooter more time to shoot more people.



    True, with more guns (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 10:34:01 AM EST
    you will have more shoot-outs.  

    Yes, a good guy with a gun can shoot a bad guy with a gun.....And, with so many bad guys (mentally ill people who should not pass background checks) with guns, you will need more good guys with guns.

    We should have guns everywhere, so when the inevitable mentally ill person starts shooting, the good guys can out shoot that person--at some point.  The good guys will always win the shoot-outs in shopping malls, churches, bars and restaurants...

    And all those mentally ill people with guns will be deterred by the idea they will be shot too!


    We just cannot have any infringement of the right to carry "arms," whatever that terms means, in order to prevent mentally ill people from having guns....  


    "A good guy with a gun" (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 10:48:02 AM EST
    By that, I presume you mean a cop with a gun?  Is someone arguing that cops shouldn't carry guns?

    I know, I know ... you're suggesting that "good guy" civilians armed with guns would stop these shootings earlier and prevent deaths.  So as long as the "good guys" go through the stringent process of getting a permit to carry a gun, they will make us safer?  Guys like Aaaron Alexis?

    But just to clarify, how many armed civilians have stopped mass shooters?  I'm curious as to how it compares to the number of unarmed civilians that have stopped shooters.


    Funny fact (4.40 / 5) (#61)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 09:21:34 AM EST
    At NRA headquarters, visitors are not permitted to carry guns (except into a shooting range with a separate entrance.  They also can't bring them to Ted Nugent concerts.  Weird, huh?  You'd think they'd want to be "safer" by having more armed civilians so they could stop these mass shooters.



    No doubt about (2.50 / 4) (#65)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 09:33:32 AM EST

    Your point is well taken.  Commissioned naval officers, some trusted with nuclear weapons custody, are no more trustworthy or sober on the job than your average concert goer.  That is quite the revelation.



    Naval Officers... (4.25 / 4) (#112)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 12:26:01 PM EST
    No military officer is allowed to carry an unauthorized weapon in uniform.  In the Navy that is a very select few: pilots, seals, and security/JAG.  And they are only allowed to carry weapons issued to them.

    What is quite the revelation is that you just made up a talking point out of whole air.  Even more interesting is your belief that you somehow are more of an expert on Naval security than the US Navy.  And the final act of desperation, taking a swipe at the Navy when you are exposed as a liar.

    There is a big whopping point in their if you care to look, the United States military, presumably the world more foremost experts on guns, doesn't think it's most trusted personnel, officers need to pack heat to establish order.  That in your words, people 'trusted with nuclear weapons custody' manage to do it without arming everyone to the T.


    Thats the point (none / 0) (#138)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:32:14 PM EST

    No military officer is allowed to carry an unauthorized weapon in uniform.

    Since 1993 only government weapons can be carried and then only when duty requires.  That is what makes a gun free zone.  


    Reading comprehension (4.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 09:46:38 AM EST
    Yeah - I wouldn't want to address the hypocrisy of the NRA/"gun free zones are the problem!" crowd, either.

    Yes (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 09:38:34 AM EST
    And no smoking at gas stations..  another funny fact.

    Well, why not? (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 09:45:23 AM EST
    The argument being raised is that "gun-free zones" are more dangerous and we'd be safer if people were allowed to carry guns everywhere.  Yet the biggest proponents don't allow people to bring guns to their headquarters/concerts.

    If possession of guns makes them safer, why not?

    BTW - Interesting comparison - more guns allowed in office buildings/concerts to smoking at a gas station.



    Guns At NRA (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 10:52:11 AM EST
    All that gunpowder in the same place poses a similar danger that smoking would at a gas station.

    And yet, ... (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 12:15:56 PM EST
    ... the NRA and Nugent argue that more people walking around with guns would make us safer - like more people smoking at gas stations would make us safer.

    Just not at their gas stations.



    Does That Extend to... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 03:19:33 PM EST
    ...gun shows and gun stores, which have infinitely more gun powder on hand that 10 NRA offices ?

    How about actual gas stations, since apparently gun power is so dangerous as getting it anywhere near other flammables seems to be behavior so risky as zones are needed.  Should we set up gun free zones where guns are bought and sold, or is it just that one place where this danger exists, two if you count Nugget events.

    What is your argument here, too much gun powder in one area, even in the safety of a shell, can spontaneously combust, what is the hazard exactly ?

    And for the record, gasoline has a higher flash point then a cigarette ember.  You can put cigarettes out in gas, the danger is non-existent.  Much like your apparent belief that too many loaded guns in one area is dangerous for a reason other than the obvious, which would be a guns intended purpose.


    Oy (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by sj on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Lots and lots of logical fallacies.

    Hahahaha (1.67 / 3) (#130)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:05:08 PM EST
    You imagine yourself as logical..  funny.

    Incredible (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by sj on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:21:52 PM EST
    I typed one sentence and you misinterpreted it. I think that's a new record.

    On second thought (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by sj on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:26:34 PM EST
    misinterpreting one sentence isn't a new record at all. It is actually more like SOP (Standard Operating Procedure). As I recall you are an artist. I hope it is in the visual arts.

    That's nonsense; I heard multiple (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 08:26:11 AM EST
    reports, one from someone who worked in the building, that it was most certainly not a gun-free zone.  This officer stated that he - and many others - were permitted to carry a gun in the building, and in fact, it is believed that one of the guns the shooter used was one he took from one of them.

    That you post this kind of BS is why no one takes anything you say seriously; I guess what I'm curious about is whether you manufacture it yourself, or have truckloads delivered daily, so you can keep shoveling it in our direction.

    On second thought, I'm not that curious.


    Military officers (none / 0) (#71)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 09:46:36 AM EST

    Military officers have been prohibited from carrying sidearms on base since 1993.

    Its not BS it is Executive Order.  You will note that the Fort Hood shooter was shot not by a member of the military, but by a civilian policewoman.



    Your article doesn't say what you claim (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 10:14:04 AM EST
    Even the Moonie Times isn't claiming what you are.

    Military officers have been prohibited from carrying sidearms on base since 1993.

    Its not BS it is Executive Order.

    What executive order?  Be specific so we can look up the actual text.  (Hint - your claim is BS.  There is no executive order).

    BTW - Another gem from the Moonie Times editorial:

    All the public shootings in the United States in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.

    Another "fact" that is completely and utterly false.


    Abdul must have gotten an especially (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 10:21:47 AM EST
    large delivery of manure recently, if the amount he's dishing out is any indication.

    MPs are armed (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:35:04 PM EST
    Anyone specifically working security is armed.  All other troops and officers cannot be "armed".  Like my husband, he cannot carry a sidearm or anything concealed.  He can have a secured in a case personal weapon if he intends to head to the range to practice that day or the very near future but he is not allowed to carry arms on his person on base or post when not in a war zone, only MPs and security personnel.

    During the Fort Hood shooting, a lot of police work was contracted out because we needed our MPs to work in war zones but with the winding down of Afghanistan the MPs are returning to their old work and the gates of the bases and posts as well.  Sequestration is beginning to wedge out the contracted security too slowly.


    I guess the man in the uniform they (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 10:18:10 AM EST
    interviewed who said he and others were authorized to carry a gun, and could have if they had chosen to, was lying.

    Not that the media is always good with details, but in all the coverage I listened to and watched via NBC4, the local affiliate, I never once heard them talking about the gun-free zone.  In fact, I heard them discussing that, generally, officers who are carrying will wear hats to signify that.

    I realize the right-wing media is aflame over this gun-free zone thing, but I did not get the impression from anything I heard in local coverage, with assists from the network reporters, that such was the case at the Navy Yard.


    Here is the Army regulation of March 1993 (none / 0) (#94)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:21:59 AM EST
    So, ... (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:33:34 AM EST
    1.  Not an Executive order.
    2.  Not even a navy regulation that would apply in this case.
    3.  Not a "gun-free zone" barring all commissioned naval officers from carrying guns (BTW - Why did you limit your false claim to only officers?)

    Like many employers, the Army doesn't like the idea of hundreds of thousands of its employees bringing their personal weapons to work, unless they get permission in advance.

    Strange, huh?


    Applies to...the Navy (none / 0) (#118)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 12:51:47 PM EST
    Reading the link would help.

    This Directive:
    Applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Military Departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Unified and Specified Commands, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, and the DoD Field Activities (hereafter referred to collectively as "the DoD Components"). The term "Military Services," as used herein, refers to the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps.

    1. It applies to the Navy.
    2. The order creates gun free zones on military bases.  That is, like every other gun free zone possession of a firearm is prohibited to everyone but authorized law enforcement or security personnel.  Your local school is a gun free zone, but if Obama visits the Secret Service types will not be checking their guns at the door.  Neither would the local police officer.

    If you have any evidence that naval officers are free to bring personal side arms on base, please provide it.

    So would some facts (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 01:25:02 PM EST
    1.  Like links to back up your original (false) claim that this was an Executive Order, or

    2.  "A building with many commissioned naval officers, none of which were permitted to carry a side arm" - except, of course, for MPs and any other officers who had received permission to carry their personal weapon.

    3.  "Guns free" - So by "guns free zone", you don't actually mean free of guns - you simply mean that people who are carrying guns have to have authority to carry them legally.  IOW - just like every, single place in the entire country.


    Reading comprehension (none / 0) (#142)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:45:36 PM EST

    "A building with many commissioned naval officers, none of which were permitted to carry a side arm" - except, of course, for MPs and any other officers who had received permission to carry their personal weapon.

    Of which there were exactly none.  Because you missed in the regulation:

    Only Government - owned , and Government - issued weapons and ammunition are authorized to be carried by DA personnel while performing official duties.

    A "gun free zone" if you don't understand the term is one that prohibits firearms by other than those with a legal duty (not mere permission) to carry.


    I know what "gun free" means (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 03:08:15 PM EST
    It means free of guns - as in, none are permitted.  In reality, firearms are permitted, both to MPs and to others when they receive permission to carry them based on need.

    But as a general rule, the military doesn't think it's a good idea for servicemen to be allowed to carry guns (either government-issued or their own) in their offices.  Just like the NRA and Ted Nugent ...

    BTW - I know we're talking about a military base in this instance, but do you care to list the number of mass shootings stopped by an armed civilian?


    issued arms vs. personal side arms (none / 0) (#143)
    by the capstan on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:48:29 PM EST
    The order creates gun free zones on military bases.  That is, like every other gun free zone possession of a firearm is prohibited to everyone but authorized law enforcement or security personnel.

     Prohibits the carrying of non-Government owned or issued weapons or

    i believe the latter sentence would describe the guns and ammo issued to military personnel who are NOT law enforcement or security personnel.  Have the services stopped issuing arms and training all of their personnel?  Back in my day (waa-ay back to WWII) the weapons issued soon became closer than a twin brother.


    Shot by a civilian police woman (none / 0) (#193)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:59:58 PM EST
    Because all of our MPs were needed for war zones.  The MPs are coming back now, contracted civilian security positions not being rehired for once they are vacated.

    Assault rifle nonsense (none / 0) (#101)
    by AmericanPsycho on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:42:29 AM EST
    The media was quick to blame an AR-15 for what happened.. but apparently he didn't have one. Strange.

    Apparently it was Shotgun (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Slado on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:43:58 PM EST
    And two pistols.


    Make's Biden's famous "Shotgun" quote seem kind of stupid.


    I thought of Biden too... (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:53:59 PM EST
    "Buy a shotgun".

    Sh*t I think handguns are the worst of the bunch.  See some arsehole walking down the street with a shotgun or an AR-15 you know right away you've got an arsehole in the vicinity...it's the concealed handguns that give me the creeps the most.


    Hey, he was just following the VP's advice: (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 03:33:53 PM EST
    "Buy a double-barrled shotgun".

    The other part of the VP's advice - to shoot through the door at suspected intruders - is pretty much guaranteed to get the follower convicted in just about any state in the country.


    No, he wasn't (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 03:55:17 PM EST
    When Biden advised people to "buy a shotgun", he was responding to a question about how someone was supposed to defend themselves if Congress passed an assault weapon/high capacity magazine ban.

    As inaccurate and disingenuous as most of these claims ...


    Well now, we don't know what was going through (none / 0) (#166)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 05:00:43 PM EST
    his head when he decided to buy his shotgun, do we?  And we'll never know.  For all anyone knows, he may have been concerned for his safety and bought the gun for that purpose, and only later decided to do wrong with it.

    Moreover, the vast majority of people are relatively low-information folks who don't pay attention to nuance.  If the Vice-President says "buy a double-barrelled shotgun", the're likely to take it as his endorsment of that kind of product.


    I Dare you to Find One Person... (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 05:20:46 PM EST
    ...who bought a gun because Joe Bidden said they needed one to protect themselves from Congress.  If you find one, take their gun away because clearly have issues with reality.

    And just making up stuff up about what he may have thought/done, that incidentally kind of proves a point.  More guns, does not mean more safety.  And just maybe if his mental and past gun issues were taken seriously because of solid legislation that wasn't blocked, that gun may not have been there waiting for him when he snapped.


    I don't think anyone bought a shotgun because (none / 0) (#185)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 07:24:22 PM EST
    Biden "said they needed one to protect themselves from Congress", mainly because he never said that.

    Biden was speaking about defense of the home.

    More to the point, every one of the disqualifiers in the federal firearms laws, i.e., situations which deprive one of the right to possess a firearm, requires an adjudication, usually by a judge, or a pending felony charge against the potential buyer.  For the record, you should go and read the ATF Form 4473 and its instructions. This form, used for the "instant background check" lists the disqualifications and explains them.

    And lying on the form is a separate offense.


    OK... (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 08:10:10 PM EST
    ...so there is a start, revamping a form gun owners don't like.

    And to point out the obvious, but idiotic government forms are not reserved for firearms.

    I have a motorcycle I can get titled in my name because the guy I bought it from left the country and I didn't get a signature on a form.  I have a signed title, but in Texas a bill of sale is needed which I did not know.  My choice is to forge his name or apply for some sort of claim that requires posting what I consider a ridiculous bond.

    Lucky for me I own two identical bikes and can swap reregistration/plates, but I will be screwed in a wreck or if it gets lifted.


    From fact to funny "possibility" (none / 0) (#170)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 05:21:01 PM EST
    See my reply below.