The only question I have is why a man who is discharged for misconduct and a history of mental problems....have an active pass to get on to the base in the first place?
Just a thought on mass shootings
- Thread starter raaizin
- Start date
- Status
Item 1...Report that no AR was involved. Shotgun and two handguns.
Item 2...Mass shootings are not a significant portion of overall shooting deaths. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-17...of-murders.html
Item 3...Crazy and/or psychopathic people will always kill other people. The way they do it will evolve as required. Explosives will become the norm if guns are rounded up. When the squishy-soft people dismantled the mental health pathways of old and replaced them with ... nothing, crazy people have noplace to go and are infiltrated into every crack of society and are often overlooked and free to move about.
Item 4...There will always be squishy-soft people chasing the shadow because it's too "judgemental" to actually stop people doing actual bad things.
IMHO, at least.
Item 2...Mass shootings are not a significant portion of overall shooting deaths. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-17...of-murders.html
Item 3...Crazy and/or psychopathic people will always kill other people. The way they do it will evolve as required. Explosives will become the norm if guns are rounded up. When the squishy-soft people dismantled the mental health pathways of old and replaced them with ... nothing, crazy people have noplace to go and are infiltrated into every crack of society and are often overlooked and free to move about.
Item 4...There will always be squishy-soft people chasing the shadow because it's too "judgemental" to actually stop people doing actual bad things.
IMHO, at least.
Good points, all.
Note that while he HAD an AR-15 he did not use it.
It appears his weapon of choice was a SHOTGUN! The very same weapon RECOMMENDED by our Vice president!
I can't wait to see the spin...
Note that while he HAD an AR-15 he did not use it.
It appears his weapon of choice was a SHOTGUN! The very same weapon RECOMMENDED by our Vice president!
I can't wait to see the spin...
The news media keeps changing what weapons he had. Some of the most recent news reports I have heard say that he had a shotgun and a handgun and he obtained another handgun from a security guard he shot. At this point I don't know if he even had an AR-15 or not. One of these days we may finally find out what weapons he did have. But if he had a shotgun the Vice President actually recommended that people use shotguns for self defense.
At any rate the anti-gun people will make a big deal out of this regardless what weapons he had and the funny thing is these shootings keep happening in places of the country where there are strict anti-gun laws.
At any rate the anti-gun people will make a big deal out of this regardless what weapons he had and the funny thing is these shootings keep happening in places of the country where there are strict anti-gun laws.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Good points, all.
Note that while he HAD an AR-15 he did not use it.
It appears his weapon of choice was a SHOTGUN! The very same weapon RECOMMENDED by our Vice president!
I can't wait to see the spin...
Yeah, but the VP recommended a double barrel (no idea what this shooter had, other than I doubt it was a double barrel). The VP also wanted us to shoot it in the air, apparently so no one would get hurt--maybe he thought we should use blanks or something.
Good points, all.
Note that while he HAD an AR-15 he did not use it.
It appears his weapon of choice was a SHOTGUN! The very same weapon RECOMMENDED by our Vice president!
I can't wait to see the spin...
Yeah, but the VP recommended a double barrel (no idea what this shooter had, other than I doubt it was a double barrel). The VP also wanted us to shoot it in the air, apparently so no one would get hurt--maybe he thought we should use blanks or something.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Here's a thought - how about less of these ridiculous high powered weapons like the AR-15 used in this one floating around.
Pandora's box
Here's a thought - how about less of these ridiculous high powered weapons like the AR-15 used in this one floating around.
Pandora's box
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Here's a thought - how about less of these ridiculous high powered weapons like the AR-15 used in this one floating around.
An AR-15 semi auto isn't a high powered weapon. It is THE SAME gun as a hunting rifle.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post2839239
The ignorance surrounding firearms in the United States, especially with all the political agendas, is scary.
Here's a thought - how about less of these ridiculous high powered weapons like the AR-15 used in this one floating around.
An AR-15 semi auto isn't a high powered weapon. It is THE SAME gun as a hunting rifle.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post2839239
The ignorance surrounding firearms in the United States, especially with all the political agendas, is scary.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Here's a thought - how about less of these ridiculous high powered weapons like the AR-15 used in this one floating around.
here we go...it was a shotgun, and two pistols. AND, AR's are hardly high powered, firing a .223 projectile.
Here's a thought - how about less of these ridiculous high powered weapons like the AR-15 used in this one floating around.
here we go...it was a shotgun, and two pistols. AND, AR's are hardly high powered, firing a .223 projectile.
Originally Posted By: Silk
Originally Posted By: Astro14
the early American belief that everyone had a right to both personal and collective defense.
But is this relevant in the 21st Century ? Yes, because other people have guns and they might kill you...it just goes around in circles. It seems the American culture is very resistant to change, for example the rigid rejection of the metric system, all sorts of excuses why the old British system is superior and easier to use. Blinkers on, look straight ahead and deny.
Yes it is relevant. If the 2nd Amendment does not allow folks to own modern rifles, handguns or shotguns then by that logic the 1st Amendment (free speech) should not apply to the internet, text messages, youtube and television.
Before every knee slap reaction takes place why not learn things such as FACTS. The United States has a pretty LOW homicide rate per 100,000. Note Mexico, a country which bans firearms has a higher homicide rate. Hearing about mass shootings does not correlate with mass homicide rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
The police pick-up pieces and respond to crime AFTER it has happened or occuring. They do not prevent crime which means they are reactionary. Therefore folks have a right to protect themselves when the police aren't nearby. When seconds count the police are minutes away.
Finally, under NO circumstance are the police legally responsible to help you in any sort of crime. Whatsoever.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
the early American belief that everyone had a right to both personal and collective defense.
But is this relevant in the 21st Century ? Yes, because other people have guns and they might kill you...it just goes around in circles. It seems the American culture is very resistant to change, for example the rigid rejection of the metric system, all sorts of excuses why the old British system is superior and easier to use. Blinkers on, look straight ahead and deny.
Yes it is relevant. If the 2nd Amendment does not allow folks to own modern rifles, handguns or shotguns then by that logic the 1st Amendment (free speech) should not apply to the internet, text messages, youtube and television.
Before every knee slap reaction takes place why not learn things such as FACTS. The United States has a pretty LOW homicide rate per 100,000. Note Mexico, a country which bans firearms has a higher homicide rate. Hearing about mass shootings does not correlate with mass homicide rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
The police pick-up pieces and respond to crime AFTER it has happened or occuring. They do not prevent crime which means they are reactionary. Therefore folks have a right to protect themselves when the police aren't nearby. When seconds count the police are minutes away.
Finally, under NO circumstance are the police legally responsible to help you in any sort of crime. Whatsoever.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Here's a thought - how about less of these ridiculous high powered weapons like the AR-15 used in this one floating around.
An AR-15 semi auto isn't a high powered weapon. It is THE SAME gun as a hunting rifle.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post2839239
The ignorance surrounding firearms in the United States, especially with all the political agendas, is scary.
This. If it the gun is black it's automatically scary to ignorant politicians. How many of these politicians have ever been to a firing range? During the gun debates I heard politicians claiming automatic weapons such as the AR-15 should be banned. Despite the AR-15 is only semi-auto. Another politician suggested that banning manufacturers from producing high capacity magazines would be a good idea as the magazines would be used up over time and folks would have to buy low capacity ones. They apparently didn't understand magazines are re loadable.
I heard politicians asking how someone can buy "hundreds of rounds" of ammo as if this insinuates someone is preparing for war. Most gun owners I know buy hundreds of rounds every other week.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Here's a thought - how about less of these ridiculous high powered weapons like the AR-15 used in this one floating around.
An AR-15 semi auto isn't a high powered weapon. It is THE SAME gun as a hunting rifle.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post2839239
The ignorance surrounding firearms in the United States, especially with all the political agendas, is scary.
This. If it the gun is black it's automatically scary to ignorant politicians. How many of these politicians have ever been to a firing range? During the gun debates I heard politicians claiming automatic weapons such as the AR-15 should be banned. Despite the AR-15 is only semi-auto. Another politician suggested that banning manufacturers from producing high capacity magazines would be a good idea as the magazines would be used up over time and folks would have to buy low capacity ones. They apparently didn't understand magazines are re loadable.
I heard politicians asking how someone can buy "hundreds of rounds" of ammo as if this insinuates someone is preparing for war. Most gun owners I know buy hundreds of rounds every other week.
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/09/17/fbi-no-ar-15-was-used-in-naval-yard-shooting/
Looks like the FBI confirmed that he did not have an AR in the shooting. Lets see the spin.
Looks like the FBI confirmed that he did not have an AR in the shooting. Lets see the spin.
Originally Posted By: TechnoLoGs
Military......... Constitutional "Well-regulated militia." Thi scan be both Police, (whom are citizens) AND PEOPLE.
Military servicemen have them in their home as can we..
Tell me why we cant...
This is your guy never convicted, has weapon, ends life with taking others out. It's sad.
And it is not the AR's fault, nor AK, favorite poster gun of the anti-gun.
I think I should address a couple of misconceptions here...
First, military servicemen do NOT have their issued weapons in their home. When in garrison (here at home, not deployed), those weapons are locked up in an armory. They're tightly controlled.
Second, personal weapons are PROHIBITED on military bases. So, servicemen are not armed on base unless they're performing security guard duty. Ironic, but true...the whole base is full of trained, capable people who are completely disarmed because of their respect for the regulations...
Third, this shooter was separated from the Navy Reserve for a pattern of misconduct. The general discharge that he received is the result of disciplinary action and involuntary separation from the Navy. Had his service been without incident, he would have received an honorable discharge. Simply put: he was kicked out.
Finally, previous gun regulations have been so poorly crafted that they include military and police. Specifically, the Lautenberg amendment prohibits anyone with a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence from possessing or using a firearm...and that includes servicemembers...so, I had sailors that could not carry the M-4 rifle, or M-9 pistol. However, a crew-served weapon is not "possessed" by the individuals in the crew...so, my "Lautenberg" sailors are permitted to man a .50 caliber machine gun (the MA-2) or the M-240 machine gun (both fully automatic) as these are not possessed by an individual and are operated by a crew...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban
Military......... Constitutional "Well-regulated militia." Thi scan be both Police, (whom are citizens) AND PEOPLE.
Military servicemen have them in their home as can we..
Tell me why we cant...
This is your guy never convicted, has weapon, ends life with taking others out. It's sad.
And it is not the AR's fault, nor AK, favorite poster gun of the anti-gun.
I think I should address a couple of misconceptions here...
First, military servicemen do NOT have their issued weapons in their home. When in garrison (here at home, not deployed), those weapons are locked up in an armory. They're tightly controlled.
Second, personal weapons are PROHIBITED on military bases. So, servicemen are not armed on base unless they're performing security guard duty. Ironic, but true...the whole base is full of trained, capable people who are completely disarmed because of their respect for the regulations...
Third, this shooter was separated from the Navy Reserve for a pattern of misconduct. The general discharge that he received is the result of disciplinary action and involuntary separation from the Navy. Had his service been without incident, he would have received an honorable discharge. Simply put: he was kicked out.
Finally, previous gun regulations have been so poorly crafted that they include military and police. Specifically, the Lautenberg amendment prohibits anyone with a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence from possessing or using a firearm...and that includes servicemembers...so, I had sailors that could not carry the M-4 rifle, or M-9 pistol. However, a crew-served weapon is not "possessed" by the individuals in the crew...so, my "Lautenberg" sailors are permitted to man a .50 caliber machine gun (the MA-2) or the M-240 machine gun (both fully automatic) as these are not possessed by an individual and are operated by a crew...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
The only question I have is why a man who is discharged for misconduct and a history of mental problems....have an active pass to get on to the base in the first place?
Great question...wish I had an answer...as that answer will help us "vet" future sub-contractors...
The only question I have is why a man who is discharged for misconduct and a history of mental problems....have an active pass to get on to the base in the first place?
Great question...wish I had an answer...as that answer will help us "vet" future sub-contractors...
JHZR2
Staff member
AR/AK/Shotgun, crazy is crazy. Any Navy folks that have been in 197 know that there are atriums where the cafeteria and entryways are. It was an old factory. Apparently the shooter was shooting down at folks going in and out of the cafeteria. Id imagine that a shotgun would have better coverage than an AR. Point at the door and fire.
Saw a cartoon that had a guy with a bat standing over a dead body. Another guy in the frame said, "You beat him! What's the matter with you?" Another frame had a guy holding a choke rope over a dead body. The other guy said, "You strangled him! What's the matter with you?" The third frame had a guy holding a knife over a dead body. The guy said, "You stabbed him! What's the matter with you?" The last frame had a guy with a handgun standing over a dead body. The other guy said, "You shot him! We have to do something about guns!"
You will never convince people who think guns should be outlawed and taken away from citizens to see any other point of view.
By the way. All sailors are trained to handle firearms just as all sailors are trained to fight fires.
You will never convince people who think guns should be outlawed and taken away from citizens to see any other point of view.
By the way. All sailors are trained to handle firearms just as all sailors are trained to fight fires.
Last edited:
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: yeehaw1960
By the way. All sailors are trained to handle firearms just as all sailors are trained to fight fires.
Doesnt mean that he is a good shot against a scurrying public from four decks up. Id think the shotgun slightly improves probability. That was my logic behinds why he used that vs the AR.
Where he got the shorgun or AR from in there is beyond me. The police at the gate dont carry them, nor do the guards at the entry to that building. The closest place where shotguns are readily carried in public is the Marine Corps barracks across M St. Maybe they have one in the guard trailer at the entry... Maybe thats why he had to shoot the guards. Makes me sick even thinking about this and trying to figure out his logic.
He was apparently working there for NMCI tech refresh, so it may well have been snuck-in that way. As I understand it, he shot the main gate guard (M and Isaac Hull), so he was packing something. Why he needed to do that is not understandable given that he was a contractor there and probably had a CAC. But crazy is crazy and this is so unfortunate.
By the way. All sailors are trained to handle firearms just as all sailors are trained to fight fires.
Doesnt mean that he is a good shot against a scurrying public from four decks up. Id think the shotgun slightly improves probability. That was my logic behinds why he used that vs the AR.
Where he got the shorgun or AR from in there is beyond me. The police at the gate dont carry them, nor do the guards at the entry to that building. The closest place where shotguns are readily carried in public is the Marine Corps barracks across M St. Maybe they have one in the guard trailer at the entry... Maybe thats why he had to shoot the guards. Makes me sick even thinking about this and trying to figure out his logic.
He was apparently working there for NMCI tech refresh, so it may well have been snuck-in that way. As I understand it, he shot the main gate guard (M and Isaac Hull), so he was packing something. Why he needed to do that is not understandable given that he was a contractor there and probably had a CAC. But crazy is crazy and this is so unfortunate.
I'm sure some Active Duty Sailors and Airmen couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a rifle. Maybe not even a shotgun! I spent 20 years and 10 minutes in the Air Force and knew plenty of folks who never did master handling a weapon.
Originally Posted By: yeehaw1960
You will never convince people who think guns should be outlawed and taken away from citizens to see any other point of view.
By the way. All sailors are trained to handle firearms just as all sailors are trained to fight fires.
Completely agree with your first point.
His firearms training, in Reserve boot camp, was likely minimal...and as an Aviation Electrician's Mate, he likely never handled one again...
You will never convince people who think guns should be outlawed and taken away from citizens to see any other point of view.
By the way. All sailors are trained to handle firearms just as all sailors are trained to fight fires.
Completely agree with your first point.
His firearms training, in Reserve boot camp, was likely minimal...and as an Aviation Electrician's Mate, he likely never handled one again...
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Silk
Seeing as these things happen mostly in the USA, it seems it's just a culture thing. Something that's not likely to change, and denial doesn't get you any further along to resolving the problem.
This floored me. Waited to see if any others caught this slur. These things happen all over the world. Much more often than the following incomplete list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_murderers_and_spree_killers_by_number_of_victims
Seeing as these things happen mostly in the USA, it seems it's just a culture thing. Something that's not likely to change, and denial doesn't get you any further along to resolving the problem.
This floored me. Waited to see if any others caught this slur. These things happen all over the world. Much more often than the following incomplete list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_murderers_and_spree_killers_by_number_of_victims
Originally Posted By: Astro14
...The question before us, though, is how to enforce the equally valid precept that criminals and the mentally ill should not be allowed to enjoy that freedom to bear arms. Each one of these mass shootings had, at its heart, a shooter who was mentally ill...in this case, a shooter who was kicked out of the Navy for anger issues and who had a shooting incident a few years ago.
This is so true.
This guys case is clear cut. Perhaps I can share why we may be at the point where some veterans needing a little guidance may not want it.
My race is run. The boys are out in the world. The wife and I, successful in life, are comfortable in our retirement. However, I have had forty plus years of inexplicable bouts of sadness. The newspapers label my few public speaking occasions as "emotional". They were. How do you speak to your community after 9-11, or in front of the traveling wall without becoming emotional. One fellow that shared similar early life experiences convinced me to go to the Veterans Administration.
The VA was quick to get me evaluated and rated for the presumptive and physical factors in my case. I have no complaints. I like my treatment team and am very satisfied with their caring and competencies. I feel the love and love them in return. They overwhelm you with information and notifications. I actually read those things. One part of their disclosure specifies I agree the VA can share my medical records with Law Enforcement, for National Security Matters, and When Required by Law.(VA notice IB 10-163 P96272) After reading that, I never gave the care team one hint of why I decided to enter the VA system.
The quandary is how to help people that need a little intervention, without taking their rights. The rights to be free in my community, to keep and bear arms, and to travel without an asterisk next to my name, are more important to me than some possible emotional comfort in my old age. I long ago learned the coping mechanisms necessary for my situation. They will serve me well until I die.
I fear others that may really need help to develop coping skills are staying away from the medical arena for fear of the government. And it is only going to get much worse as the government intrudes further into the doctor-patient relationship. I predict many more mentally ill mass murderers will arise. Because of distrust of the government medical mechanisms designed to quickly strip those seeking help of their fundamental rights.
The policy of promising an angry homicidal person quick loss of rights, job loss, and loss of status is sure to fail. Of course, would you expect any other policy from our government. I don't have any answers. Just personal knowledge.
...The question before us, though, is how to enforce the equally valid precept that criminals and the mentally ill should not be allowed to enjoy that freedom to bear arms. Each one of these mass shootings had, at its heart, a shooter who was mentally ill...in this case, a shooter who was kicked out of the Navy for anger issues and who had a shooting incident a few years ago.
This is so true.
This guys case is clear cut. Perhaps I can share why we may be at the point where some veterans needing a little guidance may not want it.
My race is run. The boys are out in the world. The wife and I, successful in life, are comfortable in our retirement. However, I have had forty plus years of inexplicable bouts of sadness. The newspapers label my few public speaking occasions as "emotional". They were. How do you speak to your community after 9-11, or in front of the traveling wall without becoming emotional. One fellow that shared similar early life experiences convinced me to go to the Veterans Administration.
The VA was quick to get me evaluated and rated for the presumptive and physical factors in my case. I have no complaints. I like my treatment team and am very satisfied with their caring and competencies. I feel the love and love them in return. They overwhelm you with information and notifications. I actually read those things. One part of their disclosure specifies I agree the VA can share my medical records with Law Enforcement, for National Security Matters, and When Required by Law.(VA notice IB 10-163 P96272) After reading that, I never gave the care team one hint of why I decided to enter the VA system.
The quandary is how to help people that need a little intervention, without taking their rights. The rights to be free in my community, to keep and bear arms, and to travel without an asterisk next to my name, are more important to me than some possible emotional comfort in my old age. I long ago learned the coping mechanisms necessary for my situation. They will serve me well until I die.
I fear others that may really need help to develop coping skills are staying away from the medical arena for fear of the government. And it is only going to get much worse as the government intrudes further into the doctor-patient relationship. I predict many more mentally ill mass murderers will arise. Because of distrust of the government medical mechanisms designed to quickly strip those seeking help of their fundamental rights.
The policy of promising an angry homicidal person quick loss of rights, job loss, and loss of status is sure to fail. Of course, would you expect any other policy from our government. I don't have any answers. Just personal knowledge.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
