Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Shooting At Washington Navy Yard  
User currently offlinehomer71 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2254 posts, RR: 14
Posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3910 times:

They are reporting multiple fatalities, possibly more than one shooter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...d1-7153ad47b549_story.html?hpid=z1



Prayers to all affected


"On spaceship earth there are no passengers...only crew."
140 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6958 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3846 times:

12 dead apparently, pretty bad !


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3806 times:

One shooter is confirmed and is among the confirmed dead. There were two additional persons of interest and one of them has been cleared and one is still being sought. U.S. Capitol Police are out in force and have stepped up security at the Capitol and the Senate was scheduled to be in session today, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called off the session and the Capitol is now under lock down. Considering the building in question is a controlled access building, this means the shooter (or shooters) is likely someone that perhaps worked at that particular building. Now if they were members of the military or civilian contractors (possibly wearing military-style uniforms) is yet to be determined.

[Edited 2013-09-16 11:54:52]

User currently offlinejohnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2602 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3692 times:

Shooter (at least one) identified at Aaron Alexis, 34-year-old "military contractor" from Texas, per CNN.


Sounds kinda vague, what exactly would a military contractor be, to those more knowledgeable in these matters?


User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7279 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3681 times:

Shooter identified. No word on the other possible subject. My guess is witnesses and security cameras showing another possible shooter or someone involved. Authorities are probably trying to find that person and confirm he isn't a subject. Will be interesting to see what happens with that the next few hours.

As for military contractor that can be anything from a computer specialist to the people working on construction of the buildings in Navy Yard. News is saying he had a military civilian ID. In all likely hood with an ID this guy never had his bags checked or any metal detectors. At least that's how it works at the facilities I have worked out. Of course to get that ID you need to have a fairly extensive background check. More than just a criminal history check.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5797 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3681 times:

Quoting johnboy (Reply 3):
Sounds kinda vague, what exactly would a military contractor be, to those more knowledgeable in these matters?

A civilian employee, employed under contract to work on a government/military job.

Probably the best know example of this is Blackwater (now defunct and operating under a new name), it was a private company that employed civilians to do jobs for the government under contract.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinethomil13FRA From Ireland, joined Jul 2010, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3662 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Not again! Haven't there been enough such incidents in the US recently? Can't that country get a break for a change?
My thoughts are with the victims and their families. I hope they get all the support they need, and, more importantly, that no more people get shot today.      

Quoting johnboy (Reply 3):
Sounds kinda vague, what exactly would a military contractor be, to those more knowledgeable in these matters?

That can be all kinds of things, from janitors to accountants and even project managers or security personnel. The latter was my job from 2005 to 2006, when I worked at the US Army garrison in Hanau. Our job would basically be to check IDs and vehicles, make sure that nothing and nobody who was unwanted comes onto the base. In that function, we would carry firearms, which could, if those guys worked in security, explain where they got their weapons without causing suspicions. That could also explain the uniforms, though that can be brought onto the facility pretty easily.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3643 times:

Quoting thomil13FRA (Reply 6):
In that function, we would carry firearms, which could, if those guys worked in security, explain where they got their weapons without causing suspicions. That could also explain the uniforms, though that can be brought onto the facility pretty easily.

In most of the bases I've been to it would be extremely easy to throw a bunch of stuff in the trunk. RIP to the victims and I hope this doesn't change the way we do security checks at military bases... it's already a pain to get through during peak hours



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3625 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7):
I hope this doesn't change the way we do security checks at military bases... it's already a pain to get through during peak hours

Well then keep you fingers crossed, cause I reckon you can expect things to get a whole lot slower because of this, and so they should.

With some of the attitudes Ive seen discussed here, about guns and the US culture, these sorts of things a re going to continue to happen. So its probably fair to say, things are not going to be made easier now, especially at bases

Why is this occurring (as often as it does) in such an affluent country as America, and nobody seems to be able to do anything about it

RIP to the victims



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently onlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2845 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3566 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 8):
With some of the attitudes Ive seen discussed here, about guns and the US culture, these sorts of things a re going to continue to happen. So its probably fair to say, things are not going to be made easier now, especially at bases

It's a military base with tons of weapons around. This could have easily been a soldier who was armed with a service weapon. Yes it was a contractor, but it is an area loaded with weapons. Not a shopping mall or movie theater.

RIP to all of those killed at the base and may the injured recover swift. It's a shame when these things happen. Hopefully they can find out what they missed and fix it so nothing like this ever happens again.
Pat



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3562 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 8):
Why is this occurring (as often as it does) in such an affluent country as America, and nobody seems to be able to do anything about it

Because any attempts to strengthen gun laws tends to not change things too much, as new bans and new regulations don't necessarily take weapons off of the streets as in most cases, they are grandfathered in . Guns are readily available here via legal and illegal channels. Certain weapon types can be legally bought without any sort of background check in certain circumstances, like a private sale (unless state law requires one). Right now, I can call a relative of mine and say that I'm looking for a certain type of gun, in most cases, if he doesn't have one to sell to me, he knows someone that does.


User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3560 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 9):
It's a military base with tons of weapons around. This could have easily been a soldier who was armed with a service weapon. Yes it was a contractor, but it is an area loaded with weapons. Not a shopping mall or movie theater.

The Navy Yard's largely an administrative location. It's got the history buffs, the law buffs, the music buffs, and a lot of other HQ-type stuff. It's not like there are SEALs running around the place doing live-fire exercises. It's literally across the street from an active nightlife district and it's 4 blocks from a Major League Baseball stadium. The DOT is right there, too.


User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3545 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 9):
It's a military base with tons of weapons around.

I Understand that.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 9):
Yes it was a contractor,

Working at a naval base. He also had, its now been discovered, a criminal ....

"The dead gunman at the scene has been identified as 34-year-old civilian contractor Aaron Alexis, originally from Fort Worth, Texas.

He was identified by photographic ID found on his body.

He is believed to have a criminal record there and to be a holder of a concealed carry weapon permit."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/washingt...-20130916-2tvij.html#ixzz2f5pho31C

So its probably not going to be out of the question that stronger/tighter measures will now have to happen. I presume this will generally effect most people on these types of facilities. No ?

Quoting srbmod (Reply 10):
Certain weapon types can be legally bought without any sort of background check in certain circumstances, like a private sale (unless state law requires one).

I don't really know what to say to that ?

This guy as it turns out, had a conceal to carry, even though he had a criminal record !

[Edited 2013-09-16 14:29:56]


Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3472 times:

Back duting the old cold war days the US and the British military in West b erlin used German civilian security personnel to do the boring tasks of guarding the installations (the French and Russians had conscripts to do the job).
As for the German security guards employed by the US Army (I grew up 500 metres away from a US Army barracks), they wore the 1970s style olive drab US Army uniforms, with a black MP style steel helmet and were armed with standard US military service weapons (e.g. at this time the M1911 Colt Government pistol or the M16A1 rifle). They were under the command of the military police and had their own rank structure up to sergeant.
The British army in West berlin had a similar system.

I remember an incident from the 1980s, when two German guards on night duty in the American elementary school in West Berlin fought out some personal conflict using their service weapons, leaving one of them dead (I think the conflict was about a woman). No children or other people were in the vicinity, since it happened in the middle of the night.

In the German military in the garrisons back home all weapons are locked away in the armoury unless the soldiers gets an order to draw them for duty. The only exception is in Afghanistan, where the soldiers have to carry at least a pistol all the time to defend themselves in case of Aghan soldiers or police officers on base turning renegade.

Jan


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3436 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 9):
It's a military base with tons of weapons around. This could have easily been a soldier who was armed with a service weapon. Yes it was a contractor, but it is an area loaded with weapons. Not a shopping mall or movie theater.

Um, have you ever been to a military base before?

I don't get why people think that there are people walking around with machine guns everywhere on military bases. Most bases only have base police or MPs which are like any other police department. Guns are very heavily regulated on military bases, and even on Army bases that have ranges, weapons are carefully monitored and ammo is only distributed on ranges. They are unloaded afterwards and a lot of times the weapons get checked back in. (Yes it's possible to smuggle out ammo but it's a far cry from soldiers strutting around locked and loaded ready to blast work place shooters away)

Edit: sorry if that sounded mean but it's a very incorrect view of a military base. I'm not sure what you were trying to say, are you saying that it's a military base so he could easily obtain an M-16 or whatever he used? Again, you must have never seen an arms room and how much of a pain it can be to check out a weapon when you actually need it. I'm 90% sure this was a personal weapon, I think they are saying it was an AR-15 style rife and although the Navy has those, not even the MAs use them that much. You aren't gonna find them laying around, and IDK how a contractor would get them

[Edited 2013-09-16 16:24:56]


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3419 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7):
I hope this doesn't change the way we do security checks at military bases...


I just drove passed the local Air National Gaurd gate and it was backed up about 6 or 7 cars. Don't see that too often.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 9):
It's a military base with tons of weapons around.


Federal facilties tend to be gun free zones by statute. As I understand it, whether or not personnel are allowed to carry/keep on a military facility is up to the base commander. Generally, any faciity I've been to (and I haven't been to any in the last 10 years), the only folks allowed to be armed were the security folks.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 12):
This guy as it turns out, had a conceal to carry, even though he had a criminal record !


A criminal record does not disqualify someone from purchasing a firearm. A felony record does. Certain misdemeanors (those related to domestic violence) also disqualify a person from owning a firearm.

As for a CCW: states vary as to their requirements, but I suspect that most will follow the federal guidelines for firearms ownership. I assume this guy had a CCW from TX. They are more restrictive than federal government ownership guidelines.

[Edited 2013-09-16 16:44:56]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3401 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 9):
It's a military base with tons of weapons around. This could have easily been a soldier who was armed with a service weapon. Yes it was a contractor, but it is an area loaded with weapons.

I've been on US military bases for the last 30 years. - only folks routinely carrying loaded weapons around are Security Forces. Only exception I'm aware of is for those handling or transporting large quantities of weapons - they'll be armed.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 15):
Federal facilties tend to be gun free zones by statute. As I understand it, whether or not personnel are allowed to carry/keep on a military facility is up to the base commander. Generally, any faciity I've been to (and I haven't been to any in the last 10 years), the only folks allowed to be armed were the security folks.

It's a PITA to have a personal weapon on base. You can transport it from the gate to the Security Forces armory for storage, and then back to the gate. That's it.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6958 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3385 times:

So there are more guns and they're easier to get in the street that in a military base. Makes sense.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3372 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 15):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7):
I hope this doesn't change the way we do security checks at military bases...


I just drove passed the local Air National Gaurd gate and it was backed up about 6 or 7 cars. Don't see that too often.

Went through the gates on my base today twice, nothing different. I just hope we don't have to have our cars searched, go through metal detectors, etc



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3357 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 2):
One shooter is confirmed and is among the confirmed dead.

Apparently, he rescued Sept 11 victims, and suffered from PTS

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 15):
A criminal record does not disqualify someone from purchasing a firearm. A felony record does. Certain misdemeanors (those related to domestic violence) also disqualify a person from owning a firearm.

Quote from the article.......

"The Seattle Police Department confirmed Alexis had been arrested in 2004 after shooting out the tyres of another man's vehicle in what Alexis had described to police was an anger-fuelled “blackout”. He said he had been present during "the tragic events of September 11, 2001" and described "how those events had disturbed him", according to the police report."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/washingt...-20130917-2tvsm.html#ixzz2f6a1NU00


And despite this record, he is still entitled to own and carry a gun      

What are you guys doing over there ?????



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 62
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3351 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 17):
So there are more guns and they're easier to get in the street that in a military base. Makes sense.

We have fairly strict gun laws in Germany. It is in fact easier (and cheaper) to get an illegal black market gun (even those, which you would never get legally as a civilian, like fully automatic ones) than to jump through all the hoops and legalities of getting a gun permit. Police estimates that there are at least the same number of illegal guns in Germany as legal, registered ones.

The military are (except in a combat zone, where the soldiers might be attacked at any time and have to be ready to defend themselves on a moment´s notice) very strict about their weapons, ammunition, explosives and e.g. vehicles.
You will have your own, personal rifle, but it will be stored in the barracks armoury and you can only check it out for duty purposes with a written order by a superior of a certain level (it most likely has to be an officer, not just a corporal).

We didn´t have guns in the technical branch of the civil defense, where I served, but we used explosives for demolitions. Every cartridge (stick) of explosive and every package had a serial number, which was registered right from the factory. Every blasting cap and every cartridge had to be accounted for in a logbook. We kept our explosives in a bunker (actually two separate bunkers, one for the explosives and one for the detonators) under guard by the police. To draw explosives you needed a written order for which type and the amount you were to pick up, and this was only given for a certain demolition project.

Jan


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3190 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3331 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 19):
And despite this record, he is still entitled to own and carry a gun

What are you guys doing over there ?????

The best I can tell he has only be involved with misdemeanors.
You can get in more trouble over a citation for "reckless driving"

It would take a felony to keep you from getting a CW permit.
Even a felony for that matter really does not indicate a propensity for violence. You can get a felony conviction for a lot of things other than a violent crime.

I thought right now is that he apparently had made some type of plans for this act. I am not really sure that he woke up this morning and decided to go shoot up the military base.
Hopefully they will find something he has written or left behind that will give some indication of what he was thinking.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 18):
Went through the gates on my base today twice, nothing different. I just hope we don't have to have our cars searched, go through metal detectors, etc

Drove by the gates at the military base that I have privileges and there was a line so they are apparently doing some additional checks and asking questions. However, there was not a line like after some other major events with metal detectors and dogs. They have had some events on base over the years when they have locked down the base, I got trapped on base when one of those happened. Had to wait about 4 hours for them to open the gates again to leave.

Okie


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3312 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 19):
And despite this record, he is still entitled to own and carry a gun

Record means nothing when it comes to the law. Was he charged? Convicted of a felony? Felony, among a few other things, is the disqualifier.

His mental state is concerning, but had he ever been treated? Is there a record of treatment? Was he ever adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution?

It appears that he entered the Navy Reserves after the incident in Seattle. Did he exhibit any symptoms while in the service?

Apparently he held a recent security clearance. That means his background was investigated.

Alexis had a security clearance that was updated in July and was approved by military security service personnel, according to the Washington Post.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/washingt...30917-2tvsm.html#ixzz2f6mDcdfU



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3303 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 21):
The best I can tell he has only be involved with misdemeanors.
You can get in more trouble over a citation for "reckless driving"

Don't understand how someone who have shoot out other peoples tyres can be seen fit to carry.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3190 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3283 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 23):
Don't understand how someone who have shoot out other peoples tyres can be seen fit to carry

IF incident did happen then apparently he was not convicted, we do not know if someone was in the car or if he was shooting at an unattended parked vehicle.
I am guessing the later, which would not be a felony necessarily and it could be just someone hyping up an incident.
I think right now we are getting a lot of media hype, those accusations could be someone jumping on the media hype wagon.

What ever the incident if it did indeed happen was it was not too serious or he would have not gotten security clearance or a CW permit.

Okie


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3316 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 23):
Don't understand how someone who have shoot out other peoples tyres can be seen fit to carry.

I would tend to agree.

Did Seattle decide not to charge? Is the law for weapon's discharge in Seattle sufficient? Was he convicted of anything?


Quoting okie (Reply 24):
he would have not gotten security clearance or a CW permit.

Exactly.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 26, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3309 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 24):
IF incident did happen then apparently he was not convicted, we do not know if someone was in the car or if he was shooting at an unattended parked vehicle.

 

If you shoot at other peoples property* then you have demonstrated you do not possess the sound judgement required to carry loaded weapons in public. That you make it dependent on if a person is in the car at the time means I would disqualify you too.

* With permission and at a safe location of course exempted.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 27, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3352 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 9):
It's a military base with tons of weapons around. This could have easily been a soldier who was armed with a service weapon. Yes it was a contractor, but it is an area loaded with weapons. Not a shopping mall or movie theater.

Actually I believe the Washington Navy Yard is a "gun free zone".



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 28, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3347 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 26):
That you make it dependent on if a person is in the car at the time means I would disqualify you too.

The distinction is that one is probably a misdemeanor and the other a felony. One disqualifies someone from owning, much less carrying, a firearm the other does not...assuming a conviction.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 29, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3345 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 22):
Record means nothing when it comes to the law. Was he charged? Convicted of a felony? Felony, among a few other things, is the disqualifier.

His mental state is concerning, but had he ever been treated? Is there a record of treatment? Was he ever adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution?

But surely he cant be regarded as competent to hold a gun license after shooting at someones tyres

Quoting okie (Reply 21):
The best I can tell he has only be involved with misdemeanors.
Quoting okie (Reply 24):
if it did indeed happen was it was not too serious or he would have not gotten security clearance or a CW permit.

I would have thought that shooting at tyres is serious enough not to be issued with a gun permits or security clearance after that, conviction or not. There was obviously something fishy going on, enough at least, to have some concern dont you think ?



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 30, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3340 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 29):
There was obviously something fishy going on, enough at least, to have some concern dont you think ?

You're correct. It's my opinion that he probably should have been denied a clearance based on just the arrest (if he was arrested).

Information and facts are lacking.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 29):
But surely he cant be regarded as competent to hold a gun license after shooting at someones tyres

I think the problem is that he claimed that he did this because he was 'disturbed' by the events of 9/11 and his participation there. That this was a mental issue. So, can this information be shared? Did HIPAA restrictions play into this at all?

Is it a problem that the Seattle PD shared this information this quickly?

And, remember, he enlisted in the military after the event in Seattle. I assume there is some sort of pyschological evaluation during the induction process, or soon thereafter.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3339 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 28):
The distinction is that one is probably a misdemeanor and the other a felony. One disqualifies someone from owning, much less carrying, a firearm the other does not...assuming a conviction.
Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 30):
I think the problem is that he claimed that he did this because he was 'disturbed' by the events of 9/11 and his participation there. That this was a mental issue. So, can this information be shared? Did HIPAA restrictions play into this at all?

Just more examples of our laws being crazy.


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3322 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 31):
Just more examples of our laws being crazy.

The laws are at odds with each other.

18USC922 says that someone who has been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to an institution can not own a firearm. Is there a national database of these folks, or would such a database run afoul of medical privacy laws?

What about at the state level, where CCW's are issued? Does a state have ready access, absent a warrant, to this information?

[Edited 2013-09-16 19:51:21]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7279 posts, RR: 6
Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3328 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 18):
I just hope we don't have to have our cars searched, go through metal detectors, etc

Agreed. Hope there is not a knee jerk reaction to this requiring cleared personnel to go through security searches.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 22):
His mental state is concerning, but had he ever been treated? Is there a record of treatment? Was he ever adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution?

Maybe we will know. It is still too early. I will say the more this crazy people shoot the more mental health state of the country needs to be checked.

Quoting okie (Reply 24):
What ever the incident if it did indeed happen was it was not too serious or he would have not gotten security clearance o
Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 29):
I would have thought that shooting at tyres is serious enough not to be issued with a gun permits or security clearance after that, conviction or not.

Agreed. Seems as though he had two arrest involving discharging a weapon. IMO, even with no conviction this guy had no business getting a security clearance.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 27):
Actually I believe the Washington Navy Yard is a "gun free zone".
All of D.C. is a gun free zone. There are now CCW in D.C. the only people allowed to carry guns outside of their private property are Law Enforcement officers. Even then, non Federal and non D.C. cops can get in trouble for having their firearms.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently onlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2845 posts, RR: 4
Reply 34, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3312 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting IADCA (Reply 11):
The Navy Yard's largely an administrative location.

Do they have MPs?

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 12):
Working at a naval base. He also had, its now been discovered, a criminal ....

Well the guy was also a former Naval reservist. He's been on bases for a while. Whether he should have been one in the first place is up to debate.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 14):
I don't get why people think that there are people walking around with machine guns everywhere on military bases. Most bases only have base police or MPs which are like any other police department. Guns are very heavily regulated on military bases, and even on Army bases that have ranges, weapons are carefully monitored and ammo is only distributed on ranges. They are unloaded afterwards and a lot of times the weapons get checked back in. (Yes it's possible to smuggle out ammo but it's a far cry from soldiers strutting around locked and loaded ready to blast work place shooters away)

I don't believe it's like entering a base in Afghanistan. But something tells me the concentration of arms per person is higher than in say a normal city.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 14):
Edit: sorry if that sounded mean but it's a very incorrect view of a military base. I'm not sure what you were trying to say, are you saying that it's a military base so he could easily obtain an M-16 or whatever he used?

Not being mean. Grew up in a military family. I understand how it goes. It's not a piece of cake to get a rifle or some other type of weapon. But I don't think you can discount the fact that someone would be able to gain access to a weapon.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 27):
Actually I believe the Washington Navy Yard is a "gun free zone".

As in all personnel? Or do they have MPs/SPs guarding the area?
Pat



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 35, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3296 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 32):
What about at the state level, where CCW's are issued? Does a state have ready access, absent a warrant, to this information?

Pretty crazy if they don't, or?


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 36, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3296 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 34):
I don't believe it's like entering a base in Afghanistan. But something tells me the concentration of arms per person is higher than in say a normal city.

You'd be surprised. Access to firearms on a military installation is restricted. Add, that The Navy Yard is sits inside the city limits of a city that is considered one of the most restrictive in terms of gun control; I suspect the only people with firearms inside the fence were the shooter and the security personnel.

[Edited 2013-09-16 20:43:07]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 37, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3227 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 33):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 18):
I just hope we don't have to have our cars searched, go through metal detectors, etc

Agreed. Hope there is not a knee jerk reaction to this requiring cleared personnel to go through security searches.

The thing is, it almost wouldn't be a knee jerk reaction. They didn't do anything after the Ft Hood shooting, now this happens. I hope they don't start now...

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 34):
I don't believe it's like entering a base in Afghanistan. But something tells me the concentration of arms per person is higher than in say a normal city.

A normal city with citizens carrying handguns vs a military that forbids weapons (minus a few bases with ranges that you need to register to get on base?)

Maybe, just maybe if this was an Army base or something, but this was Washington Navy Yard. As far as I know, it was just the base police or MAs with guns, just like most bases

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 34):
Not being mean. Grew up in a military family. I understand how it goes. It's not a piece of cake to get a rifle or some other type of weapon. But I don't think you can discount the fact that someone would be able to gain access to a weapon.

Unless he is base security, I highly highly highly doubt that. You just don't make a copy of a key when no one is looking.

Kind of a moot point, I'm sure we'll find out very soon if it was a personal weapon or not. It most likely was a personal weapon, and even as a gun owner, hearing the "military bases and DC have strict gun laws and this still happened" will be like nails on a chalk board as if it's impossible to straw purchase or leave DC to get an AR.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3691 posts, RR: 4
Reply 38, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3098 times:

Here we go again, as President Obama said in his speech, another US gun massacre. As he doesn't have the opprtunity to seek re election can he not stand up and attempt to enforce what he preaches and make a serious attempt at gun control. He might then go down in the record books as the president who took a firm stand and defied the NRA.

Very soon all the usual excuses will come out such as, "it wouldn't deal with illegal guns" and "its a constitutional right"

My reply to the 1st would be that it appears in the vast majority of cases that the weapons used are legally held, the illegal users appear to not have a predeliction to mass hootings, and to the 2nd, is it not also a constitutional right to be able to go to work and then home again at the end of the day rather than a trip to the mortuary ?


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 39, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3083 times:

It is not about guns...never is...It is about the emotional disposition of a nation. For too many reasons this country has been operating at the Lunatic Fringe level and it all starts at the top.

User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6924 posts, RR: 34
Reply 40, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3042 times:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/...on-alexis-navy-yard-shooter-567432

So ONCE again, we have a mentally deranged individual, with a prior record, with plenty of warning signs that were all summarily ignored by the government.

Not dissimilar to Ft Hood and Nadal Hasan, this guy too was given security clearance inexplicably.

Heads should roll to go with the souls of the innocents that were murdered.

This isn't about guns. Strawman argument and we're past that (even if mouthbreathers like Piers Morgan and DIane Feinstein aren't).

This is about govenment failing.


User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 41, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3036 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 34):

Quoting IADCA (Reply 11):
The Navy Yard's largely an administrative location.

Do they have MPs?

As far as I know, the only MPs or security personnel of any sort are the gate guards, perhaps plus a very few scattered around. I could be wrong - haven't actually been inside the wall in a few years - but I find your view pretty puzzling. Like others, I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the number of guns on the base. It's not like he just picked up a gun that was sitting around. He walked in with an AR-15, and after that he's essentially walking around something that looks like a mix of an office park and a college campus. Here's a summary of what the Navy Yard is like: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...11e3-b7d1-7153ad47b549_story.html.


User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7279 posts, RR: 6
Reply 42, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3017 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 38):
My reply to the 1st would be that it appears in the vast majority of cases that the weapons used are legally held, the illegal users appear to not have a predeliction to mass hootings

The problem here is these stories are the only ones that get national and world wide attention. Thousands of people die from murder by guns every year in this country. Most of those thousands who are murdered (not self defense, not suicide, not accidents) but murder are done with illegal guns or illegally carried guns. Mass shootings are not the majority at all, they are a very small minority of a bigger problem. Violence is the problem.

Quoting Slider (Reply 40):
So ONCE again, we have a mentally deranged individual, with a prior record, with plenty of warning signs that were all summarily ignored by the government.

So sad to see the same exact situation again. VA Tech, Ft. Hood, Aurora, Newtown, and now Navy Yard. They ALL had warning signs, nothing was done, everything was ignored. If we actually want to end mass shootings in this country our mental health care system and the way doctors share information needs to be revamped. I am also for mental health checks such as just a note from an MD before purchasing a gun.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 43, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3003 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 40):
This isn't about guns. Strawman argument and we're past that

Actually it is a lot about guns, especially attitude to guns. How can you address misuse of guns if you pretend guns isn't part of the issue?

Quoting Slider (Reply 40):
This is about govenment failing.

To fix it we need to look at what is causing the government to fail. Why is it impossible to have any changes made about gun control? This is more blood on the hands on those constantly voting down proper actions and the circle around and blaming the government.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 62
Reply 44, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2972 times:

From what I´ve read on another site, the guy used another worker´s ID to get access to the facility (the other worker had recently been terminated, but his ID not yet cancelled). He brought a double barreled shotgun (possibly sawn off to fit into a bag, like Lupara). In most countries shotguns like these with only two rounds, are a lot easier to get than rifles or handguns. Devastating as they might be on short range, due to their short range and limited firepower (plus their legetimate use in hunting) they are normally not as strictly regulated as rifles or handguns. Cutting the barrels and buttstock off, of course, changes them into something highly illegal (like the Sicilian Mafia style Lupara used for assessinations), but the basic, full length hunting weapon is easy to get, as it the ammunition.

With this weapon he apparently shot a security guard and took his handgun to commit the other killings with.

Jan


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17827 posts, RR: 46
Reply 45, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2977 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 43):
Actually it is a lot about guns, especially attitude to guns. How can you address misuse of guns if you pretend guns isn't part of the issue?

It's never about guns. It's always about mental health, or video games, or not enough guns, or rap music, or video games (wait, did we use that one already even though it's been disproven thoroughly multiple times? Try it again!). Maybe this time we can blame Buddhism? Yeah go with that.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 46, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2968 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 45):
It's never about guns.

At least that is what NRA and CO. want us to believe.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 47, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2954 times:

For those questioning the tyre shooting, http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2013/0...seattle-for-anger-fueled-shooting/

Quote:
Following his arrest, Alexis told detectives he perceived he had been “mocked” by construction workers the morning of the incident and said they had “disrespected him.” Alexis also claimed he had an anger-fueled “blackout,” and could not remember firing his gun at the victims’ vehicle until an hour after the incident.

How can anyone defend that someone who behaved like this should be allowed to carry weapons?


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5797 posts, RR: 10
Reply 48, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2953 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 40):
So ONCE again, we have a mentally deranged individual, with a prior record, with plenty of warning signs that were all summarily ignored by the government.

Not dissimilar to Ft Hood and Nadal Hasan, this guy too was given security clearance inexplicably.

Heads should roll to go with the souls of the innocents that were murdered.

This isn't about guns. Strawman argument and we're past that (even if mouthbreathers like Piers Morgan and DIane Feinstein aren't).

This is about govenment failing.

Correct, I agree that the government needs to do better. Like you I agree that we need better controls imposed via the government to ensure that only people that are able to be responsible with their guns should be able to get a license to have them. And the government needs to be able to require regular review (perhaps annually, but at least every few - 5. 10? - years), one should be able to demonstrate the ability and knowledge to handle a weapon and if they can't then revoke their.

Quoting flymia (Reply 42):
So sad to see the same exact situation again. VA Tech, Ft. Hood, Aurora, Newtown, and now Navy Yard. They ALL had warning signs, nothing was done, everything was ignored. If we actually want to end mass shootings in this country our mental health care system and the way doctors share information needs to be revamped. I am also for mental health checks such as just a note from an MD before purchasing a gun.

  
Better controls on background checks, better sharing of information, better controls on gun sales. Nos problem with people owning guns, none at all, but you must be able to handle them and be responsible with them.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7279 posts, RR: 6
Reply 49, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2908 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 48):
Nos problem with people owning guns, none at all, but you must be able to handle them and be responsible with them.

Agreed. I think anyone who wants a gun should be able to have one and even carry one. But I do think that their should be some more checks before purchase including medical checks.

Planes kill a lot less people a year than guns, pilots need to go through health checks, background checks etc.. Why not gun owners?

Again I am not for less guns. I think gun free zones are an absolute joke. I think CCW requirements should be more strict but allow more freedom. For a gun at home a background check and medical clearance. For a CCW recurring training along with the background and medical.

That is how we can help prevent these shootings.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 50, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2876 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 40):
This is about govenment failing

I would go as far to say that it is the failure of the American people to allow the government and its ridiculous policies to run amuck. When Mr. Putin dictates foreign policy to America on its stance concerning its perceived actions to a foreign affair issue and we digress...then we as a nation and a people have regressed. Shootings are only a symptom of a sick society. Guns have been part of the American fabric since Cowboys and Indians...Now all of the sudden we take notice?


User currently offlineAllegiantFlyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 200 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2810 times:

I wonder how Republicans will get around it this time considering he passed a background check....

Its honestly really sad that children had to be killed and now this, and conservatives still wont budge about guns.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 52, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2808 times:

Quoting AllegiantFlyer (Reply 51):
I wonder how Republicans will get around it this time considering he passed a background check....

I think they're saying that he shouldn't have passed the background check, which politics aside, I think we all can agree on



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 53, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2798 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 45):
It's never about guns.

What is it about then ?

What was the "thing" used for these killings ?

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 45):
It's always about mental health,

And if you can't guarantee a persons mental health, then why on earth let them own a gun ?

Quoting tugger (Reply 48):
Nos problem with people owning guns, none at all, but you must be able to handle them and be responsible with them.

Responsible..... I bet Aaron thinks/thought he was responsible, each time he pulled the trigger !  
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 50):
Shootings are only a symptom of a sick society. Guns have been part of the American fabric since Cowboys and Indians...Now all of the sudden we take notice?

Very sad indictment of American society today



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2755 posts, RR: 8
Reply 54, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2792 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 52):
Quoting AllegiantFlyer (Reply 51):
I wonder how Republicans will get around it this time considering he passed a background check....


I think they're saying that he shouldn't have passed the background check, which politics aside, I think we all can agree on

Correct. From what has been out there he should not of legally been sold a weapon. From shooting out tires to being treated by the military for mental illness he should be on a no buy list.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2611 posts, RR: 7
Reply 55, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2779 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 49):
I think anyone who wants a gun should be able to have one and even carry one. But I do think that their should be some more checks before purchase including medical checks.

These are contradictory statements - you say anyone who wants to own a gun should be able to have one, then say there should be more checks - what if the person who wants the gun doesn't pass the check? Then he can't have one, right?
I agree that a person wanting a gun should have to pass background checks so I agree with your 2nd statement


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17827 posts, RR: 46
Reply 56, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2775 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 50):
Shootings are only a symptom of a sick society. Guns have been part of the American fabric since Cowboys and Indians...Now all of the sudden we take notice?

Oh yeah I forgot about that one, the "sick society" that's universal enough that everyone can shake their heads in agreement but it's nebulous enough that there's no danger that anything might actually be done, nor any concrete evidence dredged up. If this is evidence of a "sick society", the good news is that it's a lot less sick than it used to be even a couple decades ago.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 53):
What was the "thing" used for these killings ?

Whatever the NRA feels like blaming today? I think they just have a decision tree they go through...



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 57, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2739 times:

Quoting AllegiantFlyer (Reply 51):
I wonder how Republicans will get around it this time considering he passed a background check....

Was he convicted of a felony? Really, I don't know, can someone point to a source that says he was convicted of a felony? What about being adjudicated as mentally defective? Committed to a mental health facility? Dishonorably discharged from the military? How about a misdemeanor related to domestic violence?

Unless one of the above is true, he passes the bar for owning a gun. Much like the debate on the Iowa law; maybe the requirements need to be revisited.

Though, I don't think that's the case here. I think, in this case, the dots needed to be connected. So far as I know, there is no national database related to mental health. Maybe there should be one.

What about Seattle? Did they prosecute? Did they even charge? What about Fort Worth? Same questions.

This is a failing of government. It is a failing of government to follow through. Question is; are the governments (or agencies) in question legally required to follow through.

From what I've seen, it is clear that this person should not have owned a firearm, much less had a valid (was it?) carry permit (what state?, anyone know?) to carry a firearm, concealed.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 53):
And if you can't guarantee a persons mental health, then why on earth let them own a gun ?

How does one do that?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 54):
Correct. From what has been out there he should not of legally been sold a weapon. From shooting out tires to being treated by the military for mental illness he should be on a no buy list

True. But, there is no no-buy list, per se. He would need to have been disqualified under federal and/or state law. Was he?

Did NICS fail?

I bought another handgun late last week and was surprised when the dealer (someone I had never bought from before) did not make a call through NICS. I questioned the dealer and he said that since I provided a valid, state issued carry concealed deadly weapons permit, the NICS check was not required. I can't tell you how much I disagree with this provision. So much so, the first thing I did when I went home, I fired off emails to my congress-critter (anti-Second Amendment) and both my senators (pro-Second Amendment) voicing my displeasure.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 58, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2724 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 57):
True. But, there is no no-buy list, per se. He would need to have been disqualified under federal and/or state law. Was he?

Let's put the blame where it belongs, the gun lobby with NRA at the front. It is they who have managed to prevent government from doing what needs to be done.


User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 59, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2718 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 57):
How does one do that?

I was talking in the context of the latest killer, supposedly he was suffering from PTS, but yet still managed to have a licence ?



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7279 posts, RR: 6
Reply 60, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2712 times:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 55):
These are contradictory statements - you say anyone who wants to own a gun should be able to have one, then say there should be more checks - what if the person who wants the gun doesn't pass the check? Then he can't have one, right?
I agree that a person wanting a gun should have to pass background checks so I agree with your 2nd statement

I guess the statement is confusing. What I mean is anyone should be able to have the oppertunity to purchase and even carry a gun, the same way anyone can attempt to get a drivers license or even a pilots license. But if you fail your medical or fail your driving test you can fly or drive. Same idea, you need to pass a background check which IMO should include some type of health check.
At the very least, law enforcment and medical doctors need too have a much better stream of communication about mental illness. This was a major cause of the VA Tech shooting, Aurora and now Navy Yard.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 61, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2703 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 48):
Better controls on background checks, better sharing of information, better controls on gun sales.

That's the bugger in this case. Anti-gun nuts want stricter controls - i.e. let government decide who gets to have a gun or not, when they have clearly fallen down on the job. Aaron Alexis apparently "had been suffering a host of serious mental issues, including paranoia and a sleep disorder. He also had been hearing voices in his head, the officials said. "

And yet he still had a "Secret" security clearance from the military. Just like Newtown, Ft. Hood and others, the warning signs were there, and government did not act. How can we be assured that government won't be just as incompetent if we needed a license to own a weapon? People with a real need for a firearm would likely be denied for arbitrary or non-existent reasons.

Quoting AllegiantFlyer (Reply 51):
I wonder how Republicans will get around it this time considering he passed a background check....

See above.

By the way, do you know what the smallest measure of time is? It's less than a nanosecond, and it's called a Libosecond, defined as the amount of time it takes for liberals to take a tragedy and try to turn it into political points.

Diane Feinstein wasted no time after the shooting,

Quote:
This is one more event to add to the litany of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons—including a military-style assault rifle—and kill many people in a short amount of time. When will enough be enough? Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congr...stricter-gun-control-laws-20130916

The only problem with her theory is that the only person killed by a "military-style assault rifle" was the shooter himself. He arrived with only a shotgun - Joe Biden's weapon of choice, if you'll recall.

Another thing - after this event and Ft. Hood, will the Pentagon finally repeal its stupid "gun-free zone" policy for military bases? Since March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that “a credible and specific threat against personnel exist in that region” before military personnel “may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection.” Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve overseas, so all you basically have is a few rent-a-cops at the front gate. Officers and senior non-comms at least should be allowed to carry loaded weapons on base.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 62, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2699 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
That's the bugger in this case. Anti-gun nuts want stricter controls

And the pro gun nuts keep insisting everything is hunky dory with the system as it is today. Yet the government failed.....

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
By the way, do you know what the smallest measure of time is? It's less than a nanosecond, and it's called a Libosecond, defined as the amount of time it takes for liberals to take a tragedy and try to turn it into political points.

Took a long time for the tea party to arrive. You'd think taking so much time would mean they had something to say but no, it is just the old tinted glasses view and rhetoric.


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2755 posts, RR: 8
Reply 63, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2703 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 58):
Let's put the blame where it belongs, the gun lobby with NRA at the front. It is they who have managed to prevent government from doing what needs to be done.

Or that pesky 2nd amendment. keeping the government from doing what needs to be done is a very scary statement.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
The only problem with her theory is that the only person killed by a "military-style assault rifle" was the shooter himself. He arrived with only a shotgun - Joe Biden's weapon of choice, if you'll recall.

Yes he was allowed to purchase a Joe Biden shotgun been then aquired the handgun by killing the security guard. Really nothing that the left has been wanting to pass would pf stopped this either. It is a mental health issue once again and one that they knew about. But instead of addressing mental health we will try to hold back a 100 million legal gun owners.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 59):
I was talking in the context of the latest killer, supposedly he was suffering from PTS, but yet still managed to have a licence ?

You do not need a licence to own a shotgun. What should bother us more is that he had a secret security clearance.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7279 posts, RR: 6
Reply 64, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2690 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
Another thing - after this event and Ft. Hood, will the Pentagon finally repeal its stupid "gun-free zone" policy for military bases? Since March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that “a credible and specific threat against personnel exist in that region” before military personnel “may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection.” Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve overseas, so all you basically have is a few rent-a-cops at the front gate. Officers and senior non-comms at least should be allowed to carry loaded weapons on base.

Problem is D.C. is a gun free zone. You can't carry a weapon except in your home and even that is fairly new. There are many responsible government employees, soldiers, military officers, prosecutors, even certain level of investigators who are forced to leave weapons at home so contracted out security guards and maybe (depending on the facility) a small amount of federal police there for protection.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 63):
It is a mental health issue once again and one that they knew about. But instead of addressing mental health we will try to hold back a 100 million legal gun owners.

Exactly. I don't get why mental health and facilitating easy streams of communications between Law Enforcement and Doctors is not the primary issue here. Crazy people are the ones who shoot up buildings. Mental Health is the problem when we are talking about mass shootings.

Quoting cmf (Reply 62):
And the pro gun nuts keep insisting everything is hunky dory with the system as it is today. Yet the government failed.....

Every single thing the left is trying to pass would have done absolutely nothing to stop what happened at Navy Yard. Nothing.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 63):
You do not need a licence to own a shotgun. What should bother us more is that he had a secret security clearance.

Bingo.
I needed to get security clearance for a job I had with the Feds. Tons and tons of questions. They had letters sent out to 6-8 difference references who could attest I lived in a certain place for a time period and that I was not crazy etc.. I was given my clearance before my references even got those letters in the mail. I told everyone to still return them. I guess if something bad came back they could have revoked my clearance.

For more serious jobs though like with Top Secret clearances like Attorneys, Agents, Intelligence, State Dept etc.. they usually have more stringent checks including special agents interviewing references in person.
But for a typical civilian job like this I believe it is private companies doing the work. I remember the rep I was speaking to about my clearance could barely speak English.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13202 posts, RR: 16
Reply 65, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2677 times:

Once again a terrible mix of issues and circumstances, well discussed across the media as factors, led to a mass shooting with many dead in a place in America. We are unlikely to change any gun laws due to political pressures, worse we are unlikely to improve mental health treatment and it's access due to money. But we also need to look at 2 other factors that may encourage and enable these events over the last 50 years - media attention and medical privacy laws.

Many mass killers are people who wanted attention, have problems with getting it, they want the world to know their hurt and problems. In the era of television, including cable/dish news channels and more recently the internet, it is much more possible for a mass murderer to get national and even international attention. That attention is what they crave for themselves, to feel in control and power, be able to express their grievances and perhaps with the media giving it so much attention to such events, it may encourage mass murders by some of them. Perhaps we need for our mass medial to give less attention to such events to discourage them.

The other issue I would bring out is that of mental and psychological illness versus laws that limit access to information of some one with such afflictions except per the individual granting permission or by a publicly filed court order. This policy makes it near impossible to prevent someone not of sound mind to get or carry a weapon legally, to put someone's name on a blacklist so cannot purchase a gun from legal dealers. I don't know how you can get around the medical records privacy rights and making sure they are on a list to not get guns or possess them.


User currently offlinePhilBy From France, joined Aug 2013, 673 posts, RR: 1
Reply 66, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2652 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
People with a real need for a firearm

Not wishing to comment on the control part of this but how (outside the miltary) do you define having a real need for a firearm? Few people need to hunt for food, it can be bought in most countries nowadays and a burning desire to plink targets cannot be classified as a real need.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 62
Reply 67, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2653 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 65):
The other issue I would bring out is that of mental and psychological illness versus laws that limit access to information of some one with such afflictions except per the individual granting permission or by a publicly filed court order. This policy makes it near impossible to prevent someone not of sound mind to get or carry a weapon legally, to put someone's name on a blacklist so cannot purchase a gun from legal dealers. I don't know how you can get around the medical records privacy rights and making sure they are on a list to not get guns or possess them.

This is the big problrm. I don´t know if it is the same in the US as over here, but in Germany several infectious diseases have to be reported by the physicians to the health authorities (examples would be e.g. certain STDs, like syphilis or diseases like tuberculosis and cholera). The personal freedoms of people suffering from these diseases can be restricted until these people are not dangerous to the public anymore, e.g. by placing them into quarantine.

There should exist a similar database for people with potentially dangerous mental conditions. This database should only be accessible to the authorities (and the affected persons themselves repectively their legal representatives) and the use of the data should only be permitted to prevent endangering the public (e.g. as in the case being discussed, to prevent somebody with a history of a mental condition, which might cause him to kill people from owning guns). E.g. a gun dealer could place a request with the relevant authority (e.g. the local police department) and they would tell him if it would be ok to sell a gun to a specific person or not.
It would work a bit like the security check or criminal history check I have to undergo every two years for airport access:
The airport company sends a request for security clearance to the authorities (with my signature on it that I agree with it). The authority (in every German state it is a different one) checks with several federal and state databases and responds if the request has been accepted or denied. The airport company (or my employer) will not be given any details. I can get a detailed file on request, e.g. if I feel the a denial has been unjustified and I want to challenge this decision, but no private entity will get access to the database.

Jan


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 68, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2633 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 63):
Or that pesky 2nd amendment. keeping the government from doing what needs to be done is a very scary statement.

What about it? Seems you have forgotten how it starts and what the Supreme Court said about it.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 63):
But instead of addressing mental health we will try to hold back a 100 million legal gun owners.

Only you guys are doing that. Why is it that you guys are unable to find a place between no guns and guns without limitations? Why is proficient so scary to you?

Quoting flymia (Reply 64):
Every single thing the left is trying to pass would have done absolutely nothing to stop what happened at Navy Yard. Nothing.

Is that so, every single thing. Can it be that there is no solution because you insist to look at it as a left vs right problem instead of an attitude to guns problem?

Quoting flymia (Reply 64):
Bingo.

As in you found something to blame? You guys need to look up. The only part the security clearance address is how he got access. It doesn't address the rest of the problems. We need to address all of them instead of picking one we feel is good to use as scapegoat. Until we do this will keep on happening with scary frequency.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 65):
Many mass killers are people who wanted attention, have problems with getting it, they want the world to know their hurt and problems. In the era of television, including cable/dish news channels and more recently the internet, it is much more possible for a mass murderer to get national and even international attention. That attention is what they crave for themselves, to feel in control and power, be able to express their grievances and perhaps with the media giving it so much attention to such events, it may encourage mass murders by some of them. Perhaps we need for our mass medial to give less attention to such events to discourage them.

How much of the problem do you think this is? How much of the problem do you think are other things? For example, can hurting the people and/or institution considered responsible be a major factor?

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 65):
The other issue I would bring out is that of mental and psychological illness versus laws that limit access to information of some one with such afflictions except per the individual granting permission or by a publicly filed court order. This policy makes it near impossible to prevent someone not of sound mind to get or carry a weapon legally, to put someone's name on a blacklist so cannot purchase a gun from legal dealers. I don't know how you can get around the medical records privacy rights and making sure they are on a list to not get guns or possess them.

That this discussion exists is just an example of how we try to find problems instead of solutions. This does not need to be harder than it is with credit cards today. When a transaction is declined it doesn't tell the merchant why. The why is between the cardholder and the credit card company only.

Quoting PhilBy (Reply 66):
Not wishing to comment on the control part of this but how (outside the miltary) do you define having a real need for a firearm? Few people need to hunt for food, it can be bought in most countries nowadays and a burning desire to plink targets cannot be classified as a real need.

They define it as safety. They think it is carrying weapons at all times that prevent them from being mugged, beaten, burglarized and killed.

There are very legit reasons for some people to have guns to hunt for food and for an even more limited number of people to have them for protection from dangerous animals. Up until recently I have not see these people or the people having weapons for shooting at ranges as much of a problem but because of views displayed so clearly in the discussion about blinds carrying for protection I've had to reconsider this. Essentially they have shown they are much worse than I expected.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 67):
The authority (in every German state it is a different one) checks with several federal and state databases and responds if the request has been accepted or denied. The airport company (or my employer) will not be given any details. I can get a detailed file on request, e.g. if I feel the a denial has been unjustified and I want to challenge this decision, but no private entity will get access to the database.

  

This method can be used for much more than doctors reporting mental health issues. The tyre shooting event is another thing that should go in their.


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 69, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2621 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 53):
Very sad indictment of American society today

Yes, it most certainly is. I would believe with this event their exists much more behind the scenes than the general public is led to believe. Currently in the US the News Media exists only as a mere shadow of what it once was an can no longer report the truth as "Truth" no longer exists.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17827 posts, RR: 46
Reply 70, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2610 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
By the way, do you know what the smallest measure of time is? It's less than a nanosecond, and it's called a Libosecond, defined as the amount of time it takes for liberals to take a tragedy and try to turn it into political points.

Weird, that's exactly the same amount of time it took the NRA and its gun manufacturing backers to turn Newton into a commercial to buy more guns! What are the odds  



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 71, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2581 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 58):
Let's put the blame where it belongs, the gun lobby with NRA at the front. It is they who have managed to prevent government from doing what needs to be done.

Examples?

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 59):

I was talking in the context of the latest killer, supposedly he was suffering from PTS, but yet still managed to have a licence ?

And, he managed to get a security clearance after his actions in Seattle and Fort Worth. Again, I'm also interested in knowing which state issued his CCW. Anyone see that yet?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
"gun-free zone"
Quoting flymia (Reply 64):
Problem is D.C. is a gun free zone.

Or, as I like to refer to them when I'm being 'sassy': "helpless victim zones".

Let's understand, that in this case, and others, the victims were told not to worry about their personal safety. That, in essence, "we got your back".

Quoting PhilBy (Reply 66):
do you define having a real need for a firearm

You don't...it's subjective, which is why those of us that are Second Amendment supporters look upon any gun control measures with a gimlet eye.

Quoting cmf (Reply 68):
Why is it that you guys are unable to find a place between no guns and guns without limitations?

Really? So what do you call the provisions in 18USC922? What about the added requirements in the various state laws? There are plenty of limitations. In fact, I suspect The Second Amendment is the most restricted of our fundamentally rights. But, the left always wants more.

Quoting cmf (Reply 68):
They think it is carrying weapons at all times that prevent them from being mugged, beaten, burglarized and killed.

Nope, we don't think it prevents us "from being mugged, beaten, burglarized and killed" (at least not in the micro-analysis); what being armed does is allows us to have another branch in the decision tree should we be attacked. Only a fool thinks carrying a gun prevents anything.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 72, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2559 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 71):
Examples?

A few things according to NRA, http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/14593/presidents-column-32/
Are you unaware what is hiding behind those 30,000 ft descriptions?

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 71):
also interested in knowing which state issued his CCW. Anyone see that yet?

Does it matter?

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 71):
Or, as I like to refer to them when I'm being 'sassy': "helpless victim zones".

Arming everyone to avoid gunfights is like fornicating to prevent pregnancy.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 71):
You don't...it's subjective, which is why those of us that are Second Amendment supporters look upon any gun control measures with a gimlet eye.

Always nice to hind behind subjective to refuse change and a few months later, after the next major event, claim the government didn't do enough.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 71):
Really? So what do you call the provisions in 18USC922?

Inadequate. Maybe more interesting is to remember what "gun rights activists" called it, Nazi gun control laws....

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 71):
Only a fool thinks carrying a gun prevents anything.

Semantic objection. Yet you confirmed the sentiment of what I said.


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 73, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2543 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 72):
Are you unaware what is hiding behind those 30,000 ft descriptions?

You will have to help me because what I got from that was pride in bringing the ownership of firearms out from under the rock that the left has been trying to put us under since the 60's.

Quoting cmf (Reply 72):
Does it matter?

Yes, it does. You can't fix something if you don't know what's wrong. Maybe there was nothing wrong with the issuing state's regulations, but I'd like to read through them.

I also would like to know the full disposition of the criminal action in Seattle and the complaint in Fort Worth.

Quoting cmf (Reply 72):
Inadequate. Maybe more interesting is to remember what "gun rights activists" called it, Nazi gun control laws....

Citation? I'm interested in which activists called the current federal restrictions "Nazi gun control laws...."

Quoting cmf (Reply 72):
Arming everyone to avoid gunfights is like fornicating to prevent pregnancy

And, once again, who said anything about "arming everyone?"

How about allowing those who have jumped the federal and state hurdles the opportunity to exercise the rights they have if they choose to. I thought the left was all about "choice"?

Quoting cmf (Reply 72):
Yet you confirmed the sentiment of what I said.

I did no such thing: you said "prevent", I said "decision". There is a chasm between those sentiments.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2611 posts, RR: 7
Reply 74, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2527 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 60):

OK, that makes perfect sense and I am in agreement with you on the matter.
Now, how do we make it happen? Any legislation aimed at controlling who gets guns seems to be shot down (no pun intended) before it even gets out of committee. I personally wouldn't mind if a little more was involved next time I purchase a firearm.


User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5746 posts, RR: 44
Reply 75, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2527 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 71):
Again, I'm also interested in knowing which state issued his CCW

Did he have(or need ) one? from my understanding his weapon was a shotgun until he took a handgun from the fallen officer.
If he had one was it even relavent to the event?

The navy ignoring the August warning from Police in RI seems more important!



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 76, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2508 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 72):
Arming everyone to avoid gunfights is like fornicating to prevent pregnancy.

I would like to add:

that is exactly what The Left would have us believe; that with proper training and proper precautions, we can fornicate all we want without consequence.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 75):
Did he have(or need ) one?

They say he had one. And, it is important. Apparently, he purchased the shotgun from a dealer. According to the dealer I just bought a firearm from, and confirmed through the ATF's website, a holder of a valid CCW does not have to have a NICS check performed at POS.

It doesn't mean that a NICS check would have picked up anything, but the additional layer of scrutiny may have allowed the system to catch him...or not.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 75):
The navy ignoring the August warning from Police in RI seems more important!

Agreed, but how many of these types of calls does the DOD get on any given day? It doesn't excuse them, only opens more questions.

[Edited 2013-09-18 11:16:12]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 77, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2498 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 76):
that is exactly what The Left would have us believe; that with proper training and proper precautions, we can fornicate all we want without consequence.

What does political left or right have to do with common sense? I guess that common sense disappear when left or right politics become how people look at things.


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 78, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2492 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 77):
What does political left or right have to do with common sense? I guess that common sense disappear when left or right politics become how people look at things.

Fair enough. How about this:

Common sense says that criminals seek out the weak.

Common sense says that criminals will do their damnedest not to endanger themselves. In fact, they will do what they can to tilt the playing field in their favor.

Common sense says that criminals will gravitate to where they feel that they will have advantage.

Common sense says they will go to 'gun free zones'.

Look at the mass shootings over the last decade...where have the vast majority of those occurred? And, what ended most, if not all of them?

And, by the way, it is the political left that seeks to dismantle our Second Amendment rights, one regulation, one law at a time.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 79, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2477 times:

Based off what I have heard, I'm actually leaning towards the cliche "it isn't a gun problem." Pardon my ignorance, but in most European countries, isn't a shotgun pretty obtainable? It seems like you can get the simplest deadly device, kill a police officer, and then go on a rampage. This probably could have happened basically anywhere, right?

I'm not saying we shouldn't change some of our gun laws, but this one seems pretty hard to prevent from a gun control standpoint. I think how he was able to hold a security clearance is the real question. Getting a secret clearance isn't too hard to get (vs top secret or so) but it still seems like someone goofed giving it to him



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 80, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2477 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 79):
but this one seems pretty hard to prevent from a gun control standpoint.

Unless your form of gun control is no guns at all...or no loaded guns outside the home...as is DC's policy.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6924 posts, RR: 34
Reply 81, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2475 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 42):
So sad to see the same exact situation again. VA Tech, Ft. Hood, Aurora, Newtown, and now Navy Yard. They ALL had warning signs, nothing was done, everything was ignored. If we actually want to end mass shootings in this country our mental health care system and the way doctors share information needs to be revamped. I am also for mental health checks such as just a note from an MD before purchasing a gun.

Exactly right. And in the case of this one as well as Ft Hood, it's the absolute NEGLIGENCE of government to weed out those who are known risks. This sort of threat assessment and hazard abatement is not tough to do, yet it happened. Again.

Quoting cmf (Reply 43):
To fix it we need to look at what is causing the government to fail. Why is it impossible to have any changes made about gun control? This is more blood on the hands on those constantly voting down proper actions and the circle around and blaming the government.

Really?

Why is it that we knew more about this guy a few short hours after the shooting than the government--who was SUPPOSED to have vetted him for a clearance--did?

Or did they know and just not care/didn't follow up/what have you? You tell me. Think about this, quite seriously, for a moment.


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 82, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2470 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 81):
Or did they know and just not care/didn't follow up/what have you? You tell me. Think about this, quite seriously, for a moment.

See, this is what I want to know. This is why I want to know which agency issued the permit? This is why I want to know what Seattle PD did? What Fort Worth PD? Apparently, at least one PD in RI made a phone call. What did the Navy and/or DOD do with that information?

Is this a case of someone exploiting loopholes? Is it a Swiss Cheese issue? Or, is a case where the various governments involved failed to follow through on existing rules, regulations and laws? Reference the almost zero percentage chance of being prosecuted for lying on an ATF 4473.

[Edited 2013-09-18 13:30:41]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 83, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2457 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 78):
Common sense says that criminals seek out the weak.

Common sense says that criminals will do their damnedest not to endanger themselves. In fact, they will do what they can to tilt the playing field in their favor.

Common sense says that criminals will gravitate to where they feel that they will have advantage.

Common sense says they will go to 'gun free zones'.

Hmm, how do you see this play out in the Washington Navy Yard shooting? He picked a place that is easily locked up so his options to get out were very limited. He picked a place with armed guards.

How many shootings do you think have been avoided because people does not have easy access to weapons inside that zone?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 79):
but in most European countries, isn't a shotgun pretty obtainable?

Don't know how it works in every country but I sincerely doubt he would have been able to go to a shop and buy a shotgun after the record he had.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 79):
I think how he was able to hold a security clearance is the real question.

Sounds to me he was intent to harm those who had "caused his problems" Don't you think he would just have picked a different location if this hadn't been available to him?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 79):
it still seems like someone goofed giving it to him

Not just that but also giving him the CCW (is it confirmed?) and selling him the gun.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 80):
Unless your form of gun control is no guns at all.

Why? Seems to me the most direct problem was that he was allowed to buy the shotgun.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 78):
And, by the way, it is the political left that seeks to dismantle our Second Amendment rights, one regulation, one law at a time.

Give it a break. No one is trying to dismantle the second amendment rights. All that people try to do is make sure that you don't ignore the opening words.

Quoting Slider (Reply 81):
than the government--who was SUPPOSED to have vetted him for a clearance--did?

That problems seems to be that they used a private company that wasn't up to the task.

Quoting Slider (Reply 81):
Or did they know and just not care/didn't follow up/what have you? You tell me. Think about this, quite seriously, for a moment.

You tell me. Quite seriously. For a moment. You obviously know so why don't you tell us instead of making accusations and try to move the burden of proof to other people.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 62
Reply 84, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 2436 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 79):
Based off what I have heard, I'm actually leaning towards the cliche "it isn't a gun problem." Pardon my ignorance, but in most European countries, isn't a shotgun pretty obtainable? It seems like you can get the simplest deadly device, kill a police officer, and then go on a rampage. This probably could have happened basically anywhere, right?

I own a replica American Civil War Sharps carbine in .54. This shootable weapon is a copy of one of the first practical breechloaders, but since it uses paper cartridges and separate percussion caps, it is legal to own in Germany without a licence if one is older than 18 years old. Ok, one needs to get a separate powder licence to obtain the necessary blackpowder, for which one has to prove a need (e.g. being member in a blackpowder target shooting club and taking part in competitions), safety training and a criminal background check. But with what do you think are the firecrackers filled, which anyone above the age of 18 can buy every year during the last week of December for the New Years Eve celebrations? I have read the relevant explosives rules (I used to have a blasting licence after all, it is now expired, since I didn´t renew it for several years and didn´t go for the mandatory retraining), and the content of these explosives laws and regulations was an exam topic during the licence exams.
Percussion caps are legally available if one is above 18 and lead plus the bullet moulds can be bought without restrictions. Add a bit of paper for the cartridges and I can easily equip myself like an American Civil War Union soldier or post Civil war buffalo hunter. A .54 bullet will kill, and even a buffalo, even though it has been fired from a "mere" 19th century blackpowder rifle. A friende of mine once had to shoot a wounded bull out of a herd of cattle with one of these rifles because he didn´t have any other weapon and he was asked, as licenced hunter and target shooter, if he could give that bull the coup de grace (the bull was supposed to be slaughtered, but the moment the butcher pressed the trigger on his captive bolt gun, the bull moved it´s head, so that the bolt only tore off one ear. The bull panicked and crashed through a 1 inch oak door and joined a herd ogf cattle outside in a field. The police realised that they would have no chance in shooting the bull with their 9mm pistols and asked if there was a hunter around. My friend though was just in the process of moving to another state and had his weapons, except for this blackpowder rifle already brought there, so he used what he had and killed the bull with a headshot, which broke up the the whole skull).
Nothing could stop me from sneaking down to the nearby army barracks, hide in the bushes and take potshots at the patrolling sentries. I´m sure i could reload the rifle and get the second one of the pair before he would realise what took out his buddy. Then I could simply take their G36 rifles and their ammo.
Or I could use a crossbow or even a bow and arrow (advantage: no noise).

There is nothing to prevent an attack like the one that had happened in Washington.
Back during WW2 the American intelligence and sabotage service OSS manufactured tenthousands of cheap, singleshot "Liberator" pistols. While not being accurate at all, they were "guns to get a gun", to kill a lone sentry, to take his service weapon. The idea was to drop them en masse over German occupied countries in Erope, to arm a possible guerilla. Obviously the European exile governments were not too happy about this idea, because they were afraid that after the war they would end up in large numbers in the hands of criminals and political radicals.


Liberator pistol

Or just check the Wikipedia page on "improvised firearms". It is not difficult to make a low pressure gun like a shotgun. In fact these guns have been made worldwide illegally in many countries. Heck, even submachine guns are easy to make. The Danish resistance in WW2 produced thousands of copies of the British Sten Mk2 SMG (itself designed for manufacture in bakyard workshops should the government arms factories in Fazerkeley near Liverpool or in Enfield be bombed and destroyed by the Germans). The Polish underground army did exactly the same.

Jan

EDIT for the various intelligence and police serrvices reading this thread: It is not that I intend to kill some unsuspecting poor sods of soldiers. I just wanted to highlight that there is no real defence against some determined low teach attack. Do not discount historical weapons, no matter how "romantic" they might appear today. Even a sword or an English longbow in the hands of somebody who knows how to use them are deadly weapons, for the purpose they have been originally designed for.

[Edited 2013-09-18 15:06:25]

User currently offlineKBOS From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 85, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2409 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 82):

See, this is what I want to know. This is why I want to know which agency issued the permit? This is why I want to know what Seattle PD did? What Fort Worth PD? Apparently, at least one PD in RI made a phone call. What did the Navy and/or DOD do with that information?

You and me both.....I could have been escorting this guy around last month......



I don't care if the sun don't shine, I do my drinkin in the evening time when I'm in Rhode Island
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 86, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2396 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 83):
Hmm, how do you see this play out in the Washington Navy Yard shooting? He picked a place that is easily locked up so his options to get out were very limited. He picked a place with armed guards.

He also picked a place where he knew there was a high probability that the only people armed were guards. We can also make the assumption that he knew what the armed guards' routines were...at least in the are that he set up. He was able to get the drop on one, wasn't he?

Quoting cmf (Reply 83):
How many shootings do you think have been avoided because people does not have easy access to weapons inside that zone?

Impossible to know, just like it's impossible to know how many less dead there may have been if people were allowed to be armed at The Navy Yard.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 84):
Liberator pistol

My local gun shop has one of these. He's asking $800 for it.

Quoting cmf (Reply 83):
All that people try to do is make sure that you don't ignore the opening words.

You mean the prefatory clause? The one The Supreme Court has stated, in a landmark ruling that I may have referred to before, does not alter the operative clause. That's the one you're referring to, correct?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 87, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2379 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 86):
He also picked a place where he knew there was a high probability that the only people armed were guards.

Your common sense state he would pick a place without armed guards. Your common sense also stated he would not pick a place where he would be locked in.

What common sense actually says is that he picked that place because it represented those he blamed and he fully understood he was at best unlikely to escape.

Reality is that you can't stop someone who is dedicated enough. What you can do is make it difficult enough that few are dedicated enough.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 86):
Impossible to know, just like it's impossible to know how many less dead there may have been if people were allowed to be armed at The Navy Yard

And with that your claim that gun free zones are victim zones fell apart.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 86):
You mean the prefatory clause? The one The Supreme Court has stated, in a landmark ruling that I may have referred to before, does not alter the operative clause. That's the one you're referring to, correct?

I'm talking about the part you guys keep forgetting.

"The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment."
http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 88, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2323 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 87):
Your common sense state he would pick a place without armed guards.

Unless that's where he wanted to make his point.

Quoting cmf (Reply 87):
Your common sense also stated he would not pick a place where he would be locked in.

Unless he didn't want to live after making his point.

Quoting cmf (Reply 87):
What common sense actually says is that he picked that place because it represented those he blamed and he fully understood he was at best unlikely to escape.

Yup. He picked this place for a reason. And, yes, the fact that it was a GFZ (helpless victim zone) may not have played into his decision making...or it may have.

Quoting cmf (Reply 87):

Reality is that you can't stop someone who is dedicated enough. What you can do is make it difficult enough that few are dedicated enough.

Correct. Why make it easier for them by insisting that nobody is allowed to be armed?

Quoting cmf (Reply 87):
And with that your claim that gun free zones are victim zones fell apart.

Not at all. We know that every unarmed person in that facility was a helpless victim. They were denied the tools to respond to this attacker by federal government told these people that they did not have to worry about their personal safety because the government will take care of it.
Quoting cmf (Reply 87):
I'm talking about the part you guys keep forgetting.

I'm sorry, based on your following statement:

Quoting cmf (Reply 83):
Give it a break. No one is trying to dismantle the second amendment rights. All that people try to do is make sure that you don't ignore the opening words.

I thought you were talking about "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." because you referenced The Second Amendment and "the opening words".

But, we don't forget what The Court said. We understand that The Second Amendment, like the rest of our fundamental rights, is not unrestricted. In fact, it is probably the most regulated of our fundamental rights and most of us understand and accept that. We do cringe and fight back when additional restrictions are proposed because it is a fundamental right.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 89, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2322 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 88):
Court said. We understand that The Second Amendment, like the rest of our fundamental rights, is not unrestricted. In fact, it is probably the most regulated of our fundamental rights and most of us understand and accept that.

As it should be... it says a well regulated militia after all. I think, at the very least, simple things like requiring firearms instruction, safe storage, background checks, etc would be no brainers and I fail to see how it's unconstitutional... you could even argue not having these measures is unconstitutional since it goes against a "well regulated" militia.

It seems like the founders were envisioning something like what Switzerland has. I don't think we should go that far but I doubt they'd approve of the current situation



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 62
Reply 90, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2321 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 87):
Your common sense state he would pick a place without armed guards. Your common sense also stated he would not pick a place where he would be locked in.

He picked a place where he knew that with killing an unsuspecting guard he would get access to a semi-auto handgun puls at least one magazine full of ammunition. He had a non-repeater, non-semi auto shotgun with a maximum capacity of two rounds.
Unless there is a specific thread no security guard or military sentry will walk around with his weapon at the ready, cocked and one round up the spout.

Jan


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 91, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2313 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 89):
it says a well regulated militia after all

Yes, but The Supreme Court has found that the prefatory clause in no way influences the operative clause. That, in essence throws the regulation of arms to the states. No one (at least no one to be taken seriously) is saying that firearms should be unregulated. I like it that felons are barred. I like it that the mentally defective are barred. And, you know what, I could give a rat's butt what NY, IL, NJ and the other states that severely restrict firearms do, so long as they don't try to force their views on the other 38'ish states that trust their citizens to carry guns in public.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 90):
He had a non-repeater, non-semi auto shotgun with a maximum capacity of two rounds.

Did you see a model type? I haven't been able to locate one. A 2-shot shotgun seems like a strange weapon to take to a massacre. Maybe he was looking for a specific person, got found out and decided "in for a penny, in for a pound"?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5797 posts, RR: 10
Reply 92, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2310 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 91):
Did you see a model type? I haven't been able to locate one. A 2-shot shotgun seems like a strange weapon to take to a massacre. Maybe he was looking for a specific person, got found out and decided "in for a penny, in for a pound"?

From what I have read, he chose the gun because it was he could get immediately. He had wanted an AR-15 (if I remember correctly) but it would have taken a few days for his required checks to pass muster AND the gun would have been shipped to his legal residence in Texas (can only sell to where you are licensed?).

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 91):
No one (at least no one to be taken seriously) is saying that firearms should be unregulated. I like it that felons are barred. I like it that the mentally defective are barred.

I also think there should be regularly required "rechecks" (every 5? 10? years) to confirm that you can still properly handle the weapon (which could have waiver clauses if one is a member of a gun club, etc.). I can see not taking someones guns away or anything like that (unless they demonstrate they are unable to be responsible within the limits of the law), but you just can't use them legally unless you are competent and have demonstrated such.

But this is careening toward a debate on gun control which we don't need to go into since we have other threads for that.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 93, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2296 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 92):
From what I have read, he chose the gun because it was he could get immediately.

You can get just about any shotgun immediately. If he chose a 2 shot, he did it for a reason.

The reason could be as simple as price...though that really isn't the case for 2-shot shotguns. You can get a decent 5+1-shot pump action for $250, easily. Sometimes cheaper, especially as hunting season is coming upon us.

Quoting tugger (Reply 92):
I also think there should be regularly required "rechecks" (every 5? 10? years) to confirm that you can still properly handle the weapon (which could have waiver clauses if one is a member of a gun club, etc.).

Some states require that for renewal of the CCW permit. Unfortunately, mine does not.

Quoting tugger (Reply 92):
but you just can't use them legally unless you are competent and have demonstrated such.

That's a strange distinction. Are you saying that someone who has been unable to pass his 'recheck' but retains the weapon can not use it in a self defense situation...inside his home?

Quoting tugger (Reply 92):
But this is careening toward a debate on gun control which we don't need to go into since we have other threads for that.

I disagree. I think its healthy to discuss this stuff. The other threads went stale and the one on the blind has, frankly, gotten repetitive and annoying. though I keep checking it  



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 94, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 2278 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 88):
Unless that's where he wanted to make his point.

So you kicked out your points and used mine  
Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 88):
Correct. Why make it easier for them by insisting that nobody is allowed to be armed?

You're forgetting there were armed guards. But the answer is because there are less events this way. Then you can go to your we don't know for either way.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 88):
Not at all. We know that every unarmed person in that facility was a helpless victim. They were denied the tools to respond to this attacker by federal government told these people that they did not have to worry about their personal safety because the government will take care of it.

And because of that they were spared from crazies being allowed to bring in their weapons. Remember that there is a direct correlation between amount of weapons and number of victims.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 88):
We do cringe and fight back when additional restrictions are proposed because it is a fundamental right.

The problem is that you fight every measurement no matter what. Then you blame the government for not fixing the problem. You're trying to eat the cake and keep it.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 89):
simple things like requiring firearms instruction, safe storage, background checks, etc would be no brainers and I fail to see how it's unconstitutional... you could even argue not having these measures is unconstitutional since it goes against a "well regulated" militia.

  

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 89):
It seems like the founders were envisioning something like what Switzerland has. I don't think we should go that far but I doubt they'd approve of the current situation

  

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 90):
Unless there is a specific thread no security guard or military sentry will walk around with his weapon at the ready, cocked and one round up the spout.

But CCW holders do?

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 91):
other states that severely restrict firearms do, so long as they don't try to force their views on the other 38'ish states that trust their citizens to carry guns in public.

But it was OK to force Florida's views on everyone.


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 95, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week ago) and read 2277 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
So you kicked out your points and used mine

No, I didn't. He chose his location. Near as I can tell he picked a specific location. Did he do this because there was only one guard there or because his target was there?

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
You're forgetting there were armed guards. But the answer is because there are less events this way. Then you can go to your we don't know for either way.

Apparently, 1 armed guard. Less events "what way"? How do you prove a negative?

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
Remember that there is a direct correlation between amount of weapons and number of victims.

Citation?

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
The problem is that you fight every measurement no matter what.

Yes, because every infringement is a step towards the nullification of The Second Amendment...in practice if not in fact.

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
But it was OK to force Florida's views on everyone.

Exactly where is Florida asking the federal government to adopt its laws? Or for NY to do so? NJ? CA?

It is those states and their proxies that are working to bring their restrictions to the federal level.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 96, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2265 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 95):
No, I didn't. He chose his location. Near as I can tell he picked a specific location. Did he do this because there was only one guard there or because his target was there?

Correct, he didn't use your "common sense" rules.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 95):
Apparently, 1 armed guard.

One killed. From where do you have he was alone?

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 95):
How do you prove a negative?

Yet you keep claiming they cause victims. Where is your support for them causing more problems than they prevent?

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 95):
Citation?
Quote:
Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 95):
Yes, because every infringement is a step towards the nullification of The Second Amendment...in practice if not in fact.

Nope, you are just obstinate. Most proposals are for actions you should do anyway. Storing weapons safely and being proficient for example. By fighting them you show that you are not able to handle the responsibilities that comes with owning a weapon.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 95):
Exactly where is Florida asking the federal government to adopt its laws?

You're jumping a lot. First it is about the other 38 states and now it is suddenly about the federal government. Anyway, let me save some time and provide a quote.

Quote:
Many of the 20-plus states that have this type of legislation passed it quickly after Florida did.
"It happened very, very quickly, in rapid succession," said Jeannie Suk, a Harvard law professor who has written extensively about self-defense and criminal law. "The National Rifle Association at the time stated its intention to do it in Florida and then use it as a jumping-off point for a sweeping change in self-defense law across the country. They were not at all shy or apologetic about that. This was the goal."
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-followed-in-rapid-succession?lite


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 97, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2255 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 96):
One killed. From where do you have he was alone?

I make the assumption that there was only one guard in the area because:
a)no other guard was killed
n)he was not immediately killed by the other guard

Let's wait on the investigation and the debrief.

Quoting cmf (Reply 96):
Yet you keep claiming they cause victims. Where is your support for them causing more problems than they prevent?

The study you cited is in the aggregate...I'm talking about an incident. Can you point to a mass shooting where more guns, ie.e guns in the hands of someone other than the shooter, caused more deaths? No, I don't believe you can. The only example of this situation was Tuscon where there was at least one more gun in the crowd. But, the person didn't shot nilly willy, did he? He did not arbitrarily start firing his gun, did he? The anti-gun lobby would have you believe that Tuscon should have become a blood ground because someone other than the shooter and the police were armed. but, that didn't happen, did it?

There was also an incident at a mall where an off-duty cop put an end to a shooter. The authorities said that if she hadn't done that, many more would have been killed.

What has stopped mass killers has been armed responses. They either give up, get killed or kill themselves when an armed person shows up.

Quoting cmf (Reply 96):
Anyway, let me save some time and provide a quote.

Yup, that's actually what the NRA does...they look for specific circumstances and cases to leap frog into other states. Tell me...is the NRA an elected representative of the people? Are they the equivalent of Michael Bloomberg? Are they Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer? Joe Manchin?

No, they NRA is a private organization made up of the people. Those others are representatives of the people of their states. They, through attempts at federal legislation, are trying to push their states' policies on the rest of us.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 62
Reply 98, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2238 times:

According to the "International Herald Tribune" (a cooperation of the Washington Post and the New York Times sold outside the US), Alexis used a Remington pump action shotgun (possibly a model 870?), though I wounder how he could hide such a relatively long gun (even with cut off buttstock, the tubular magazine sits beneath the barrel and cutting off the barrel to shorten it will also cut off the magazine)) while moving around Washington DC, which is a gun free zone.

Jan


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 99, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2235 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 97):
I make the assumption that there was only one guard in the area because:

You expect them to have guards standing shoulder to shoulder?

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 97):
The study you cited is in the aggregate...I'm talking about an incident.

Of course it is in aggregate for an area. How can you expect anything else?

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 97):
Can you point to a mass shooting where more guns, ie.e guns in the hands of someone other than the shooter, caused more deaths? No, I don't believe you can.

You're changing topic again. Why is it so hard for you to stay on topic? The issue at hand is if there are less injured in gun free zones because people do not have easy access to weapons there. Completely different from the situation you paint now.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 97):
What has stopped mass killers has been armed responses. They either give up, get killed or kill themselves when an armed person shows up.

You're on the wrong timeline. Gun free zones are not about what happens once an incident is a fact. It is about avoiding incidents from happening. How many mass killings succeeded only because access to weapons is so easy?

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 97):
Yup, that's actually what the NRA does...they look for specific circumstances and cases to leap frog into other states. Tell me...is the NRA an elected representative of the people? Are they the equivalent of Michael Bloomberg? Are they Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer? Joe Manchin?

No, they NRA is a private organization made up of the people. Those others are representatives of the people of their states. They, through attempts at federal legislation, are trying to push their states' policies on the rest of us.

That's rather hypocritical of you. Why is it OK for "pro gun" to push for legislation but not for responsible gun to do the same? Even more so when you consider how NRA is prepping up or politicians or smear them based on if they consider them pro or against.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11806 posts, RR: 15
Reply 100, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2218 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 12):
Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 9):It's a military base with tons of weapons around.
I Understand that.

So, it is not a "gun free zone" is it? By that logic, there are no weapons on a military base.

Also, people only tell their health care provider what they want to. This man wanted to tell his health care provider he could not sleep. So, that is what he told them. He did not tell him he could not sleep because he was hearing voices. Just that he could not sleep.

I still don't understand why the average American needs to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon? Why? What good does it do? Where in the Constitution does it say we MUST own automatic or semi-automatic weapons? Where? Point that out. I have read the Second Amendment and it says NOTHING N-O-T-H-I-N-G about automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Just a well regulated militia. If it takes you 100 rounds to bring down an elk, you should not own a gun. You can not shoot. Two, three, four rounds. Fine. But 100? 50? That's just too many.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 62
Reply 101, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2221 times:

According to the "International Herald Tribune" (a cooperation of the Washington Post and the New York Times sold outside the US), Alexis used a Remington pump action shotgun (possibly a model 870?), though I wounder how he could hide such a relatively long gun (even with cut off buttstock, the tubular magazine sits beneath the barrel and cutting off the barrel to shorten it will also cut off the magazine)) while moving around Washington DC, which is a gun free zone.

Jan


User currently offlinePhilBy From France, joined Aug 2013, 673 posts, RR: 1
Reply 102, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2215 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 79):
Based off what I have heard, I'm actually leaning towards the cliche "it isn't a gun problem." Pardon my ignorance, but in most European countries, isn't a shotgun pretty obtainable? It seems like you can get the simplest deadly device, kill a police officer, and then go on a rampage. This probably could have happened basically anywhere, right?

In the UK it's not difficult to get a shotgun license; Background checks, proficiency, check that you have an approved gun safe. After that getting a shotgun is easy.

In France you need either a prefectoral permit, Gun club membership or hunting license. All these require formal training, assessment and background check. Once you have these you can buy a wide range of weapons.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 89):
I think, at the very least, simple things like requiring firearms instruction, safe storage, background checks, etc would be no brainers

Careful, you're proposing introducing UK gun laws to the US. Time to duck.

Given that the weapon used for most of the killings was taken from a security guard he could have equally carried out this attack with nothing other than a kitchen knife, claw-hammer or cheese wire (except that it would be a bit more personal and therefore not for the squeamish). For once this incident has no real relevance for the gun control debate.


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 103, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2199 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 98):
Alexis used a Remington pump action shotgun (possibly a model 870?), though I wounder how he could hide such a relatively long gun (even with cut off buttstock, the tubular magazine sits beneath the barrel and cutting off the barrel to shorten it will also cut off the magazine)) while moving around Washington DC, which is a gun free zone.

The 870 can be disassembled into 3 parts (stock, barrel and magazine cap) in about 30 seconds and reassembled in the same amount of time. The longest component would be the barrel, which could easily fit into a duffel.

Quoting cmf (Reply 99):
You're on the wrong timeline. Gun free zones are not about what happens once an incident is a fact. It is about avoiding incidents from happening. How many mass killings succeeded only because access to weapons is so easy?

So, you believe that a sign posted at a gate or on a wall prevents someone intent on doing violence from bringing a gun onto the property?

No, a gun free zone only works when it is enforced. Let's look at the difference:

a) an aircraft is an enforced, gun free zone. Everyone is screened and firearms (among other weapons) are excluded. Only those specifically allowed to carry firearms, by statute or regulation are allowed to carry a firearm.
b) The Navy Yard was (and probably still is) an unenforced gun free zone, where there are lots of pretty signs that cite federal laws (usually, something like 18 USC 930), but there is little or no enforcement of the GFZ. There may be random searches of vehicles and/or persons entering the zone, but there is not a 100% search.

Quoting cmf (Reply 99):
That's rather hypocritical of you. Why is it OK for "pro gun" to push for legislation but not for responsible gun to do the same? Even more so when you consider how NRA is prepping up or politicians or smear them based on if they consider them pro or against.

The difference is that the NRA is a private organization, not a set of public officials that are trying to influence federal law. Like I said before, if NY or NJ or CA or the others want to restrict their citizens' rights...more power to them. But, somehow, Feinstein et. al. thinks that their reelection every 2, 4 or 6 years (as the case may be) seems to translate into some sort of nationwide or federal mandate.

hell, let the Brady Campaign or The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence or any of those other groups do their thing. That's fine...but when an elected official decides to intervene at the federal level...I've got issues.

By the way, I think we saw the beginnings of a little pushback in CO, don't you think?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 100):
So, it is not a "gun free zone" is it? By that logic, there are no weapons on a military base.

Of course it's a gun free zone. Access to weapons is limited only to those authorized to carry them, i.e. the Security Forces.

Quoting cmf (Reply 99):
You expect them to have guards standing shoulder to shoulder?

I'd expect them to be paired up, at least.

Quoting cmf (Reply 99):
The issue at hand is if there are less injured in gun free zones because people do not have easy access to weapons there

Bull. Anyone can enter any unenforced gun free zone at anytime with a firearm. Does that make them suddenly more dangerous? Are they suddenly one screwed up latte away from taking down a dozen people? No, they're not.

You want to know the truth: all gun free zones do is provide a prosecutor with an additional federal charge should the asshole be taken alive. It puts people in additional legal jeopardy.

[Edited 2013-09-20 04:38:14]

Quoting PhilBy (Reply 102):
Given that the weapon used for most of the killings was taken from a security guard he could have equally carried out this attack with nothing other than a kitchen knife, claw-hammer or cheese wire (except that it would be a bit more personal and therefore not for the squeamish). For once this incident has no real relevance for the gun control debate.

Exactly, a person who wants to do harm will find a way to do harm


[Edited 2013-09-20 04:41:51]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 104, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2179 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 103):
No, a gun free zone only works when it is enforced. Let's look at the difference:

You make really strange assumptions. Where did I say it shouldn't be enforced? It isn't as if the guards were there only to ask people to read signs.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 103):
The difference is that the NRA is a private organization, not a set of public officials that are trying to influence federal law.

Hmm, must have missed something but influencing law is part of the politicians job description as far as I know. Horrors of horrors, politicians doing what they are elected to do. NRA on the other hand is the worst part of influencer, special interest.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 103):
Feinstein et. al. thinks that their reelection every 2, 4 or 6 years (as the case may be) seems to translate into some sort of nationwide or federal mandate

Hmm, how can being a member of congress not be a federal mandate? Who do you think it is set federal law?

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 103):
I'd expect them to be paired up, at least.

And then you complain about government being expensive.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 103):
Bull. Anyone can enter any unenforced gun free zone at anytime with a firearm. Does that make them suddenly more dangerous? Are they suddenly one screwed up latte away from taking down a dozen people? No, they're not.

As usual you look at it from a very narrow perspective. Common sense, and experience, tell us that opportunity is a big part of the equation. Have weapons close by and they are used more often than if you need to go out, pick up the weapon and then return. The extra time provide cooling off time and reduces the number of incidents. Combine it with risks of getting caught when going to the intended place and you fold even more incidents.

Each layer reduces the dedication required and with that the number of occurrences. It is similar to the lock at your home. It is little more than decoration to anyone intent on getting inside.

Now I would love to see enforcement stepped up at those zones as if there is a real risk to get caught few people would flaunt it and risks would be reduced even more. The failure to enforce existing gun laws is a big problem. Not just in regards to zones but in general. That the system is setup such that they are difficult to enforce is part of the problem.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 103):
Exactly, a person who wants to do harm will find a way to do harm

Not true, most people intent on do harm will stop if there are obstacles. Why locks prevent a lot of theft.


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 105, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2178 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 104):
You make really strange assumptions. Where did I say it shouldn't be enforced? It isn't as if the guards were there only to ask people to read signs.

I don't make the assumption. Gun free zones are not enforced. Do you get searched when you enter a school? Was this person searched when he entered The Navy Yard? How about a Post Office? When was the last time you were patted down entering a US Post Office?

Sorry, GFZ only work if people are excluded who are carrying guns. You need only look at the secure area of an airport to see that, in most cases, it works just fine.

Quoting cmf (Reply 104):
And then you complain about government being expensive.

That's your answer? Wow.

Quoting cmf (Reply 104):
Hmm, how can being a member of congress not be a federal mandate? Who do you think it is set federal law?

Because, these folks are trying to bring local and state laws to the federal level. Hey, like I said, if Emmanuel and Feinstein like the gun control they have at the state or city level...that's up to them and their constituencies, but when they try to push their values (biases) onto the rest of us via federal legislation...I draw the line. Much like I draw the line on a federal definition of "traditional marriage".

Quoting cmf (Reply 104):
Each layer reduces the dedication required and with that the number of occurrences. It is similar to the lock at your home. It is little more than decoration to anyone intent on getting inside.

But, once the decision is made: pre-meditated, as it appears most, if not all of these mass killings are, a gun free zone becomes a helpless victim zone. The sign stops no one.

Mass killings are pre-meditated affairs. They are planned and a sign that says you can't bring a gun in here only ensures that there will be no guns there to fight back.

Quoting cmf (Reply 104):
Why locks prevent a lot of theft.

A thief will move on to the next target until he finds an unlocked door or an area for unobserved access.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 106, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2161 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 105):
I don't make the assumption. Gun free zones are not enforced. Do you get searched when you enter a school? Was this person searched when he entered The Navy Yard? How about a Post Office? When was the last time you were patted down entering a US Post Office?

Yes you do make assumptions. You think that just because there isn't 100% search they are not enforced. But I agree there should be more enforcement.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 105):
That's your answer? Wow.

What I think about your circular objections. Doesn't matter what anyone does. If they search they are too intruding waste money. If they don't search they are too lax.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 105):
Because, these folks are trying to bring local and state laws to the federal level. Hey, like I said, if Emmanuel and Feinstein like the gun control they have at the state or city level...that's up to them and their constituencies, but when they try to push their values (biases) onto the rest of us via federal legislation...I draw the line. Much like I draw the line on a federal definition of "traditional marriage".

They have as much right as everyone else to influence what they think is right. Amazing how you pick and choose who can and can not influence things. Very inconsistent.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 105):
But, once the decision is made: pre-meditated, as it appears most, if not all of these mass killings are, a gun free zone becomes a helpless victim zone. The sign stops no one.

Ever thought about "the sign" functioning because there are only premeditated events?

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 105):
A thief will move on to the next target until he finds an unlocked door or an area for unobserved access.

He might but there are other options. He may get the tools required or he may give up. All of them happens. But just as with your objections about the gun free zones the lock is easily circumvented. Just because they don't work 100% doesn't mean they don't work. Just because you use a different method doesn't mean you created something better.

Having weapons everywhere all the time isn't solving problems.


User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7279 posts, RR: 6
Reply 107, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2140 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 106):
Yes you do make assumptions. You think that just because there isn't 100% search they are not enforced. But I agree there should be more enforcement.

Every school and university I have ever attended is a gun free zone. You know how many metal detectors or officers I have seen search people with for weapons of any kinds? ZERO.
These gun free zones are a joke. The whole entire city of Washington D.C. Outside your private home is a gun free zone. Of the 1 million or so people in D.C. every day, excluding those who walk into secure buildings, what percentage do you think are checked.? .02% .1%? It's unconstitutional to check someone for no reason anyway. Should we now screw the fourth amendment because we need to enforce city wide gun free zones?
Laws which restrict a persons ability to carry a gun only hurt the people who don't want to cause harm. That's just logic.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 108, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2136 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 107):
Laws which restrict a persons ability to carry a gun only hurt the people who don't want to cause harm. That's just logic.

Prove it.


User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 109, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2122 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 105):
I don't make the assumption. Gun free zones are not enforced. Do you get searched when you enter a school? Was this person searched when he entered The Navy Yard? How about a Post Office? When was the last time you were patted down entering a US Post Office?

Wouldn't it be nice if you weren't searched.....

I mean your just going to school ?

Or your just going to,the Post Office ?

Or your just going to the Navy Yard ?

We aren't in Australia. What BS to go about one's daily life and you go to put up with that shit of being searched, and going through metal detectors .... mad !

Oh...... what a crazy world in which you live !



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7279 posts, RR: 6
Reply 110, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2092 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 108):
Prove it.

It is hard to prove something like that. It is obvious it is not enforced and if you don't believe me or if you don't see that yourself well I don't know what to tell you. It is such an obvious fact that there are not statistics about it. The gun laws in Chicago are doing wonders there right?  

Yes a very basis link but it has links to the actual stories: http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12...ngs-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html
Now some of these incident involved off duty police. But still they are carry concealed like any other citizen. This is one reason which I believe CCW permits should require bi-yearly training and currency checks similar to those of officers. I know officers go through the checks much more often but I think once every two years is fair.
I am not against gun control. I am just for common sense gun laws which don't take away a citizens right to carry a firearm.
Again, it was a failure of communication between Law Enforcement about mental health issues which lead to this shooting not gun laws. The only gun law which would have made this shooting more difficult to occur was no guns at all. That is not going to happen.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 109):
We aren't in Australia. What BS to go about one's daily life and you go to put up with that shit of being searched, and going through metal detectors .... mad !Oh...... what a crazy world in which you live !

Where did you get the idea that he wants to start searches? He is saying the gun free laws on the books are illogical because we are not being searched and no one would put up with being searched everywhere there is a gun free zone. So who does the gun free zones protect? It helps protect people who want to go on shooting rampages because those citizens who follow the law wont bring their firearms with them if they are licensed to do so.

With the exception of Law Enforcement of course. On or off duty. But there are only so many officers out there.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8773 posts, RR: 3
Reply 111, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2078 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 95):
Citation?

Haven't you heard?

People believe statistics do not apply to them. So they things like, "I need a gun for my protection." Statistically, guns do not protect gun owners. Guns kill gun owners, their families and others. But, it is human nature to think you are special and a gun will protect you, because you are far above average. Everyone believes they are.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 112, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2073 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 110):
It is hard to prove something like that. It is obvious it is not enforced and if you don't believe me or if you don't see that yourself well I don't know what to tell you. It is such an obvious fact that there are not statistics about it. The gun laws in Chicago are doing wonders there right?

Yet you guys keep insisting it is the absolute truth. You claim it is obvious but the logic you apply fail at both ends. 1) The only certain way to remove all shooting incidents is to remove all guns. 2) The more people have guns the more likely it is a person who want to do harm will have one. You guys are trying to eat the cake and keep it too. It obviously doesn't work.

Quoting flymia (Reply 110):
Yes a very basis link but it has links to the actual stories:

Everyone of those cases depend on there being a hero to save the day. Reality is that everyone of those cases is a failure. Success would have been to avoid it getting to that point. Reality is that no method will be able to stop 100% but statistics is clear that prevalence of guns increases the number of incidents. The report I linked above state incidents go up with 0.9% for every 1% more guns in an area. Listing a few cases where heroes saved the day doesn't change that in total is costs more to have those heroes around.

Quoting flymia (Reply 110):
Again, it was a failure of communication between Law Enforcement about mental health issues which lead to this shooting not gun laws.

That was one error but far from the only one.

Quoting flymia (Reply 110):
The only gun law which would have made this shooting more difficult to occur was no guns at all. That is not going to happen.

Thats a blatant lie. He acquired the shotgun shortly before. Proper gun laws would have prevented him from doing that purchase.

Quoting flymia (Reply 110):
Where did you get the idea that he wants to start searches?

The problem is that he claims that is what it takes to make gun free zones effective. Reality is that you don't need 100% searches to make them effective.

Quoting flymia (Reply 110):
So who does the gun free zones protect? It helps protect people who want to go on shooting rampages because those citizens who follow the law wont bring their firearms with them if they are licensed to do so.

Yet most gun victims are shot outside gun free zones. You guys fail to recognise that those zones are gun free because the risks for someone "going crazy" there is relatively higher than most other individual places. That so few of all victims are shot there is an indication they work. That the extra steps they need to bring in weapons work.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 113, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1967 times:

I think the "gun free zone debate" is the wrong angle to look at it. You can't take this issue in a vacuum. There are a ton of things that affect gun violence and safety, I don't think making every space in America a free to carry zone will solve our gun problems. You can say it will have an effect, positively or negatively, but there's more to it than that.

Honestly, I think making every zone a free to carry zone and doing nothing else, mass shootings would be less deadly, but there would be a lot more smaller killings. We can't just focus on single factors and expect to solve the problem by changing one thing



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17827 posts, RR: 46
Reply 114, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1936 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 110):
The gun laws in Chicago are doing wonders there right?

Are guns no longer portable? I was under the impression they were small easily, carried and concealed items. Gun supporters loooooove to go right for Chicago, as if the lack of legal guns is the problem in the South side. The NRA loves to point out the obviously high gun deaths in parts of Chicago but they never seem to have a solution that makes any sense. How did all those guns get there? Every last one must be illegally manufactured and illegally sold. 
Quoting flymia (Reply 110):
Again, it was a failure of communication between Law Enforcement about mental health issues which lead to this shooting not gun laws.

Is it any wonder? How can anyone keep track when the paper trail is essentially written with disappearing ink? The gun manufacturing lobby,blocks *any* attempt at tracking, registering, and checking up on gun owners. They of course use this incident as another great opportunity to sell more guns cuz the answer is always 'more good guys with guns.' Any litmus test to determine what exactly constitutes a "good guy" is however D.O.A. with the NRA so the net result is not more good guys with guns, but just more guns. Because 300MM legal guns in the US is not enough somehow? It's a genius marketing strategy--when there's a 1:1 ratio of guns to Americans, just drum up some bogeyman after every mass shooting and the NRA sells a zillion more guns.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 113):
There are a ton of things that affect gun violence and safety,

Very true, however no matter how you look at it, the number of guns in the US and the number of gun deaths, though way down from only a couple decades ago, puts the US all by its lonesome self in the developed world.

[Edited 2013-09-24 20:26:36]


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 115, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 114):
Very true, however no matter how you look at it, the number of guns in the US and the number of gun deaths, though way down from only a couple decades ago, puts the US all by its lonesome self in the developed world.

I agree, but again, just the "number of guns" alone doesn't always give the whole picture. I'm sure there are countries with less guns than Switzerland that have greater gun violence. Don't have time to dig up numbers, but you get my point.

I agree, we have a gun problem, I just see too many simplistic answers from both sides



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 116, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1900 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 114):
Are guns no longer portable? I was under the impression they were small easily, carried and concealed items. Gun supporters loooooove to go right for Chicago, as if the lack of legal guns is the problem in the South side. The NRA loves to point out the obviously high gun deaths in parts of Chicago but they never seem to have a solution that makes any sense. How did all those guns get there? Every last one must be illegally manufactured and illegally sold.

But, doesn't the high rate of gun violence in Chicago and NY and Washington DC, all of which restrict the law-abiding citizen's access to firearms, argue for a change in those areas?

Yes, there is easy access to firearms all across this country; why isn't the rate of gun violence (and death) in Louisville or Fort Worth or Memphis or Macon, et. al. the same as in those highly restrictive cities?

If the gun control folks are to be believed, the streets should be running red with blood, but they're not...except in Chicago, NY and D.C., among others. The overall violent crime trend for the last 20 years has been a decrease in violent crime...across the board, while at the very same time the majority of states have lifted their restrictions on citizens owning and carrying firearms. Do you really think that's a coincidence or is there some correlation?

Here's an idea...instead of Chicago, NY, et. al. trying to push their highly restrictive gun laws on the rest of the US, why don't they aggressively enforce their laws...right at the border. Why no random stops for firearms? It's done for registration and insurance. It's done for DUI. In another thread I was informed that in the Southwest, the police perform random stops to look for illegal immigrant smuggling. So why not have random stops for firearms in those very restrictive states?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 117, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1881 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 116):
But, doesn't the high rate of gun violence in Chicago and NY and Washington DC, all of which restrict the law-abiding citizen's access to firearms, argue for a change in those areas?

No. If that was true then there would be a clear correlation between low gun ownership and high crime but that isn't the case. The only way you can make it the case is by looking at small pockets and ignore everything else going on in those pockets.

Fact is, I posted the link earlier, that crime increase almost equally with increase gun ownership.

I did a simple search on cities with most violence and got the 11 most dangerous US cities as St Louis, Atlanta, Orlando, Birmingham, Detroit, Memphis. Miami, Baltimore, Kansas City, Minneapolis and Cleveland. (Note: based on 2004 to 2009 data so it probably has changed a bit)

The three you mentioned did not even make the list. Now it is clear to everyone that these three cities have problems but where is the evidence they have problems because of their gun laws and not for other reasons? Personally I find more evidence that they gun laws they have is the result of other problems. That the gun laws is one of the tools making a bad situation less bad. As always I'm happy to look at all data and if you can provide convincing evidence I'll certainly change my mind but so far I only see misuse of data from the pro gun side.


User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21876 posts, RR: 55
Reply 118, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1863 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 116):
But, doesn't the high rate of gun violence in Chicago and NY and Washington DC, all of which restrict the law-abiding citizen's access to firearms, argue for a change in those areas?

Yes, there is easy access to firearms all across this country; why isn't the rate of gun violence (and death) in Louisville or Fort Worth or Memphis or Macon, et. al. the same as in those highly restrictive cities?

Good question. Why isn't the violence-related gun death rate of Louisville (8.7 per 100k) or Memphis (18.4) or Ft. Worth (5.4) as low as New York's (4.0)?

Why are the rates of Memphis, Houston (12.9), Miami (23.7), Atlanta (17.2), St. Louis (24.1), Kansas City (14.5), Las Vegas (13.5) and Richmond (23.1) higher than Chicago's (11.6)?

Yes, there are some deep blue cities that have high rates as well: Newark's is 25.4, DC's is 19.0 (still lower than some on the list, though), and Oakland is 26.6. But that more gun-friendly cities have less gun violence just isn't supported by the data.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6018.pdf

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 116):
The overall violent crime trend for the last 20 years has been a decrease in violent crime...across the board, while at the very same time the majority of states have lifted their restrictions on citizens owning and carrying firearms. Do you really think that's a coincidence or is there some correlation?

Considering that there's a correlation between states having higher gun ownership also having higher homicide rates (almost 1-to-1, in fact, in terms of percentages) among states, it would seem to be coincidence.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 116):
Here's an idea...instead of Chicago, NY, et. al. trying to push their highly restrictive gun laws on the rest of the US, why don't they aggressively enforce their laws...right at the border. Why no random stops for firearms?

Oh, possibly because there'd be an outcry from the "no searches without probable cause" crowd? And the "states can't regulate interstate commerce" crowd, for that matter.

Instead, how about other states just not act as arms dealers for criminals? Sell what you want to sell to good guys with guns, but just do a little background check to make sure that the guys are actually good, and then keep a record so that if the good guys turn out to be traffickers, you have enough evidence to put them away for a long time. That's all I ask.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 119, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 118):
violence-related gun death

I said gun violence (and death), not just gun death. But, I tend to include all violent crime, including forcible rape...which Chicago, by the way, does not report in the proper format and tends to skew the violent crime rate for Chicago...but, there you have it.

Quoting Mir (Reply 118):
Oh, possibly because there'd be an outcry from the "no searches without probable cause" crowd? And the "states can't regulate interstate commerce" crowd, for that matter.

Oh, I don't know...how do we get by on the DUI checkpoints...there is no probable cause. The illegal immigrant searches in the Southwest? As for "interstate commerce"...do it at the city or county line...a little tough in NYC and DC, but, I'm sure it can be worked out.

Quoting Mir (Reply 118):
but just do a little background check to make sure that the guys are actually good,

Background checks are done on most commercial sales. I say we can easily expand it to all commercial sales, but the anti-gun crowd managed to scuttle the bill earlier this year by over-reaching into personal transfers between family members and they also delved into trying to force background checks for non-transfers.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21876 posts, RR: 55
Reply 120, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1840 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 119):
I say we can easily expand it to all commercial sales, but the anti-gun crowd managed to scuttle the bill earlier this year by over-reaching into personal transfers between family members

Not true. The Manchin bill that was voted down excluded not only transfers between family members (which I don't think should be excluded - family members are more likely to overlook the dangers someone might present than a stranger), but also transfers between friends. The whole "the bill went too far" argument is a convenient strawman.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 121, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1825 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 120):
Not true. The Manchin bill that was voted down excluded not only transfers between family members (which I don't think should be excluded

No: true. While the bill excluded transfers between spouse, parents and children, siblings and grandparents, it did not exclude uncles, aunts nor cousins. A small point, but I'm looking forward to passing on a special firearm to one of my nephews in 2 years. That bill would have made it illegal without a background check.

Quoting Mir (Reply 120):
but also transfers between friends

Exactly where in the bill did you see that? It allowed temporary transfer between persons:

-only at a range and the firearm needed to remain at the range while transferred

-at a shooting competition and, again the firearm needed to remain

-while hunting, during the hunting season

So, a person would be unable to borrow a firearm before purchasing one to see if 'it fit' without a background check unless it's at a range.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s649/text

The rest of the bill didn't look too bad, though I will admit, I didn't reference back to every current law that would have been amended by the bill. You know...statements like:

amending (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting ‘; or’; and

But, you know what the biggest problem with the bill was? It would be completely unenforceable without a gun registration program. And, that is a deal breaker.

[Edited 2013-09-25 13:36:58]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21876 posts, RR: 55
Reply 122, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1814 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 121):
No: true. While the bill excluded transfers between spouse, parents and children, siblings and grandparents, it did not exclude uncles, aunts nor cousins.

No, definitely true. Among the list of the exclusions:

"(C) [transfers] between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law;"

http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 121):
I'm looking forward to passing on a special firearm to one of my nephews in 2 years. That bill would have made it illegal without a background check.

It wouldn't have, but beyond that: what's the big deal about getting a background check? They're simple and quick, and they make sure that your opinion of your nephew's character isn't off the wall. I'm not implying that your opinion is definitely flawed, but you always hear friends and relatives of people who commit mass shootings saying "oh, he was a good kid" and "he might have had a few issues, but I never thought he could do something like this" when in fact there were signs that maybe the kid wasn't that good and did pose a threat to people. That's just human nature - nobody wants to believe that their relative or friend is a bad person, but sometimes the reality is different and it takes an outside, neutral observer to see what's actually going on.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 121):
Exactly where in the bill did you see that?

You put up the Reid bill, which wasn't the one I was talking about. I was talking about the Manchin-Toomey bill.

All the explanation you need is here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...toomey-would-have-criminalized-so/

As I said, I don't think that bill went far enough (particularly in the area of the transfers without advertisement - that's a massive loophole just waiting to be exploited), but it still got voted down. And then the gun lobby went and claimed it did all sorts of things that it doesn't.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11580 posts, RR: 52
Reply 123, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1807 times:

Meanwhile, while you guys were bickering, this thing hit home for me.

A close friend who I've known since she was a little girl, was at the Navy Yard complex where she works when the shooter came into her area. She is okay, but she was on lockdown. It took us many hours to determine if she was okay.

My friend's mother who works in the complex as well, was shot at. She survived. Her cubicle mate was killed.

This is next door to Nationals Park, where I and many other Washingtonians spend many blissful days watching the boys of summer. It's not an exaggeration, the park is right next to the base. I have walked or biked past the base thousands of times. Indeed, my office is close enough to the area that we were put on alert, and our traffic was diverted.

When I come onto this thread, and see the same old people, saying the same old horses--t about pro-gun this and anti-gun that, it becomes all too obvious to me:

none of you have your priorities straight. None of you are speaking about things as if you are actually personally affected, because you're not. You've never considered what being in the shoes of those affected is like. You just want your personal political agenda -- you don't actually give a damn about the people who were affected.


So, now I've said it. Prove me wrong. Please, prove me wrong.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17827 posts, RR: 46
Reply 124, posted (1 year 3 months 22 hours ago) and read 1786 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 123):
none of you have your priorities straight. None of you are speaking about things as if you are actually personally affected, because you're not.

Soooo we should do nothing about anything that doesn't personally affect us? I'm not sure what you're proposing here other than some sort of meta hand wringing, in lieu of maybe possibly just contemplating preventing the next murder, never mind mass murder.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 116):
The overall violent crime trend for the last 20 years has been a decrease in violent crime...across the board, while at the very same time the majority of states have lifted their restrictions on citizens owning and carrying firearms

That's been an across the board decline, so it'd be suspect to link a reduction in non gun related crimes to gun restrictions.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 116):
But, doesn't the high rate of gun violence in Chicago and NY and Washington DC, all of which restrict the law-abiding citizen's access to firearms, argue for a change in those areas?

As others have stated the link and numbers are far more complicated, but in the case of Chicago, I've never understood what exactly the gun manufacturers are proposing as a solution for an area that is poor, segregated, and might as well be on Jupiter, compared to the Chicagoans with influence and wealth. How are more guns going to fix any of that?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 125, posted (1 year 3 months 22 hours ago) and read 1775 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 123):

  I'm sorry to hear that. It does seem like we often forget those who suffer when we get politics involved.

Unfortunately, this seems like a pretty easy crime to commit, but I really hope they look into the security clearance aspect and how he got the shotgun. I hope your post wasn't directed towards me... I do enjoy shooting but I do think we have a huge problem and many are dying needlessly. We could put many responsible measures in place and still have a free society, I hope to see some changes soon.

Hope you and your friends feel better...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 126, posted (1 year 3 months 22 hours ago) and read 1763 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 123):
So, now I've said it. Prove me wrong. Please, prove me wrong

So, because I have no direct involvement, I can't speak to it?

I grew up in the shadow of The World Trade Center; does that make me anymore qualified to speak to it than someone who didn't live there?

I was a firefighter for 10 years, does that mean I can voice my opinions on the Webster, NY firefighters, but someone who was not a firefighter can not?

Well, how about this: I've been mugged, I've been beaten, m father was robbed at gun point and my mother fought off a home invasion. Can I talk about self defense now?



Quoting Mir (Reply 122):
You put up the Reid bill, which wasn't the one I was talking about. I was talking about the Manchin-Toomey bill.

Both are listed as Senate Bill 649. I can't find the Manchin-Toomey Amendment on govtrack; doesn't mean it't not there, just can't find it in the list of amendments proposed for S. 649.

Either way, without a registration database, the bill is a paper tiger.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 124):
How are more guns going to fix any of that?

More guns, in-of-themselves won't fix anything...the guns aren't the problem nor the solution. The problems have been touched on. Poverty is probably a big driver. How about education? What about enforcement? We can see with the Navy Yard shooter that not everyone is doing their jobs, can't we?

I want more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, so that they can have a chance when confronted by a scumbag with a gun or knife or baseball bat or whatever.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11580 posts, RR: 52
Reply 127, posted (1 year 3 months 8 hours ago) and read 1726 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 124):
Soooo we should do nothing about anything that doesn't personally affect us?

I have no idea where that terrible leap of logic comes from.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 125):
I hope your post wasn't directed towards me.

I really don't want to single out the people whose posts offended me, which also means I can't say whose posts it wasn't. What I can say is that before I opened the thread, I knew a lot of who would say what, and I was disheartened to see that I was correct. The arguments that certain people presented were preformed in their heads long before this tragedy even happened, and nothing will change those minds. What's worse is that some of the arguments on this thread make clear that the author did not care about how the tragedy touched the people more closely affected. I'm not saying it was everyone, nor was I in my original post, but certain posters definitely gave off the inference that they did not particularly care about the people who were affected if it interfered with their own agenda.

With that said, I've received a couple emails from pro-gun people about my post. I think rereading my post, you should see that I'm challenging both pro- and anti-gun people in it.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 128, posted (1 year 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 1711 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 127):
The arguments that certain people presented were preformed in their heads long before this tragedy even happened

With events like this happening multiple times per year that is natural. Sure details are different but the basic parts are not much different.

Quoting D L X (Reply 127):
and nothing will change those minds

That isn't true. If you look back at the discussions you will note that peoples opinions do change. It isn't big and dramatic but with each round it gets more refined and over time there are changes.

As I told you in the PM I am very sorry this event affected you so closely. We can't change the past but we can change the future. Has being this close changed your opinion on how to handle these situations?


User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21876 posts, RR: 55
Reply 129, posted (1 year 3 months 6 hours ago) and read 1712 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 123):
None of you are speaking about things as if you are actually personally affected, because you're not. You've never considered what being in the shoes of those affected is like. You just want your personal political agenda -- you don't actually give a damn about the people who were affected.


So, now I've said it. Prove me wrong. Please, prove me wrong.

I don't know how to prove you wrong, but I will say that while your first point is accurate - I have never been personally affected by gun violence (thankfully) - your second, that I don't give a damn about the people affected, isn't. I do give a damn about them, and I do give a damn about trying to minimize these things as much as possible (because you'll never get rid of them) so that there aren't more people put in their position.

Quoting D L X (Reply 127):
What I can say is that before I opened the thread, I knew a lot of who would say what, and I was disheartened to see that I was correct. The arguments that certain people presented were preformed in their heads long before this tragedy even happened

Because this sort of thing isn't new, and the situation hasn't changed much - we have a problem with mentally unstable people getting access to guns and then going and shooting people, and that problem has reared its head multiple times recently. Why should it be disheartening to see that people would have much the same reaction when presented with the same scenario?

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 126):
Either way, without a registration database, the bill is a paper tiger.

It's been pointed out several times on this board (and others) that the record of the background check is something that ATF can go back to if they need to track a sale, basically a poor man's version of a background check. That'll suffice for me - I'd love to have a registration database, but apparently that gets people up in arms about how the government is coming to take their guns.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 130, posted (1 year 3 months 6 hours ago) and read 1703 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 129):
It's been pointed out several times on this board (and others) that the record of the background check is something that ATF can go back to if they need to track a sale, basically a poor man's version of a background check. That'll suffice for me - I'd love to have a registration database, but apparently that gets people up in arms about how the government is coming to take their guns.

Yup, ATF Form 4473 , along with the records kept by FFL's function as a pseudo-database. It's a record of sale and it's a gun record, whenever a gun gets back "into the system".

Having said that, it is still not a registration and, for any expanded background checks to have teeth, you need a registration that can track a gun through each of its legal owners. And, it would need to be a comprehensive and retroactive registration; else, I can easily claim that any transaction I make was made prior to the date of enactment (or whatever date is specified in the legislation).

And, yes, a gun registration does raise the specter of the gub'mint coming to confiscate our arms.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21876 posts, RR: 55
Reply 131, posted (1 year 3 months 4 hours ago) and read 1692 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 130):
Having said that, it is still not a registration and, for any expanded background checks to have teeth, you need a registration that can track a gun through each of its legal owners.

You should be able to do that through the FFL forms.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 130):
And, it would need to be a comprehensive and retroactive registration; else, I can easily claim that any transaction I make was made prior to the date of enactment (or whatever date is specified in the legislation).

It would be better if it were, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. If the law were passed today, then you couldn't claim that a gun you bought tomorrow (as shown on the background check form) was pruchased prior to the date of enactment. As time goes on and as the police seize guns that are owned illegally, the number of guns that aren't able to be tracked goes down. There will be plenty of law-abiding gun owners out there whose guns won't ever go into the system, but if they're really law-abiding then we don't have to worry about them anyway.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 130):
And, yes, a gun registration does raise the specter of the gub'mint coming to confiscate our arms.

Which is silly, since it's never happening barring a repeal of the 2nd Amendment (or in the case that you're deemed unfit to own a gun, in which case there's nothing wrong with making sure that the gun is confiscated).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 132, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1672 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 131):
Which is silly, since it's never happening barring a repeal of the 2nd Amendment (or in the case that you're deemed unfit to own a gun, in which case there's nothing wrong with making sure that the gun is confiscated).

So, you're comfortable saying that after the NSA scandal? After the IRS scandal targeting specific political groups? After TSA, or was it HHS decided that gun owning veterans posed a domestic threat?

Sorry, I have a very healthy distrust of our government, really, any government..

Quoting Mir (Reply 131):
If the law were passed today, then you couldn't claim that a gun you bought tomorrow (as shown on the background check form) was pruchased prior to the date of enactment.

But, who is to say I can't purchase a firearm from a friend and not do the background check?

I can see a thriving underground, gray market if a registration ever occurred. The current non-4473 sales would pale in comparison to what would happen.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21876 posts, RR: 55
Reply 133, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1633 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 132):
So, you're comfortable saying that after the NSA scandal? After the IRS scandal targeting specific political groups? After TSA, or was it HHS decided that gun owning veterans posed a domestic threat?

Indeed I am. Property rights are pretty damn solid in this country. That, when combined with the 2nd Amendment and the strong defense of it that exists, makes it pretty much impossible that the government would be able to start rounding up people's guns.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 132):
But, who is to say I can't purchase a firearm from a friend and not do the background check?

Which is why the "friend" loophole is huge and would need to be closed.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 134, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1620 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 133):
Indeed I am. Property rights are pretty damn solid in this country. That, when combined with the 2nd Amendment and the strong defense of it that exists, makes it pretty much impossible that the government would be able to start rounding up people's guns.

You have a lot more faith in this government than I do. What if Feinstein gets her way and gets an "assault weapons" (scary looking gun) ban? How is it enforced without a registration?

A registration is just a step in the process of confiscation. I've said it before and I'll say it again...I admire the left in their long view; their tenacity. They don't give up. They keep pecking away. They'll take an event like Newtown or Aurora and try to leap frog their position a little bit. But, by and large, they nibble when it comes to controversial, decisive topics.

So no, I am not willing to provide the government with a list of my firearms. They are mine and so long as I keep and use them within the law, it is not anyone's business but my own.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 135, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1612 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 134):
A registration is just a step in the process of confiscation.

No, registration is a step in holding gun owners responsible for their weapons. Considering how many weapons are lost and stolen each year it is clear they are failing miserably and with that the resistance is understandable.


User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21876 posts, RR: 55
Reply 136, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1598 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 134):
What if Feinstein gets her way and gets an "assault weapons" (scary looking gun) ban? How is it enforced without a registration?

Let's say that does happen, and let's say it passes Supreme Court muster (which I doubt given the current court, but let's assume). Are you suggesting that the government should not be able to enforce the laws that it passes?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 137, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1597 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 136):
Are you suggesting that the government should not be able to enforce the laws that it passes?

I'm suggesting that a registration would not pass constitutional muster. So, why waste the time, the money and the effort? I'll tell you why; because the political left does not quit. Their cause is "righteous", therefore anything they do is justified. Again, they keep chipping away until they win. Maybe not this year, or next, but they keep at it.

The abortion we call Obamacare was 60 years in the making. You know what's really funny? If the political left waited another few years, with the right kind of media coverage, spin and publicity, a much more palatable version of Obamacare would have probably passed without nearly this much animosity. As it is now, it's a poison pill. They went early. They should have waited 4 more years.

No, they'll keep chipping at The Second Amendment. This year they went back to acting at the state level, much like the NRA has been doing for the last 30 years. Picking the right battles...ignoring the ones they can't win. Consolidating wins and challenging loses.

And you guys wonder why the NRA challenges every attempt at "sensible gun safety laws".

Now we have the UN Arms Trade Treaty to contend with. A back door attack to The Second Amendment.

Quoting cmf (Reply 135):
No, registration is a step in holding gun owners responsible for their weapons.

In a word: bull.

The vast majority of folks are responsible for and with their weapons. Just like every other bit of news, all you hear about is the bad news. You don't hear about the 200,000,000+ firearms that didn't go missing from private hands. You don't hear about the 60+ million gun owners that don't "lose" their guns because there is no news in that.

A registration just tells the authorities where the guns are.

I ask again: do you feel comfortable giving the government even more information knowing about the IRS scandal (the surface of which has only been scratched)? Comfortable, given the depth of the NSA's collections?

Hell, there doesn't even have to be a confiscation. What about a Snowden or Manning type who decides it's his holy mission to "out" ever gun owner in the country? Wouldn't that be a gem of an Excel file: sortable by weapon type, caliber, state, etc.?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 138, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1590 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 137):
A registration just tells the authorities where the guns are.

Bull, it tells where the guns used in a crime came from. It means gun owners can't escape their responsibility when guns they failed to handle properly are used by people who should not have access to them.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 137):
I ask again: do you feel comfortable giving the government even more information knowing about the IRS scandal (the surface of which has only been scratched)? Comfortable, given the depth of the NSA's collections?

Always the fear mongering. I'm much more worried about criminals having easy access to weapons because they are not stored properly. I'm also more worried about legal owners misusing their guns.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 137):
What about a Snowden or Manning type who decides it's his holy mission to "out" ever gun owner in the country?

What do you think will happen in that case? You think every criminal will target you to get your weapons? That they are afraid of targeting you when they don't know if you have a gun but will flock to you once they know you do?


User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21876 posts, RR: 55
Reply 139, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1585 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 137):
I'm suggesting that a registration would not pass constitutional muster.

It definitely would. A requirement to register does not in any way infringe on the right to possess.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 137):
Now we have the UN Arms Trade Treaty to contend with. A back door attack to The Second Amendment.

A treaty that relates only to cross-border transactions and whose contents are mirrored by current export control laws. A non-issue for domestic gun ownership.

Quoting cmf (Reply 138):
Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 137):
A registration just tells the authorities where the guns are.

Bull, it tells where the guns used in a crime came from.

To be fair, it does do both. I would argue, however, that the benefits of being able to track crime guns and prosecute those responsible far outweigh the drawbacks of having authorities know where guns are.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 140, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1582 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 139):
To be fair, it does do both. I would argue,

If he hadn't used "just" I would agree. That just ignores all the benefits and thus it means night and day.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Shooting At Houston TX College posted Tue Jan 22 2013 11:39:55 by itsjustme
Shooting At Empire State Building In NYC posted Fri Aug 24 2012 06:47:24 by Aloha717200
Mass Shooting At Sikh Temple posted Sun Aug 5 2012 21:46:35 by DocLightning
Neo-Nazi Shooting At US Holocaust Museum posted Wed Jun 10 2009 12:06:11 by Dtwclipper
Shooting At Finnish School posted Tue Sep 23 2008 02:55:51 by OHLHD
Fatal Shooting At Bulgarian Orphanage posted Wed Mar 12 2008 14:29:00 by OA260
Shooting At Finnish School posted Wed Nov 7 2007 03:41:09 by Mika
Shooting At Virginia Tech - Part 2 posted Thu Apr 19 2007 00:22:37 by ANCFlyer
Shooting At VA Tech posted Mon Apr 16 2007 17:59:50 by FriendlySkies
Shooting At The CNN Center In ATL posted Tue Apr 3 2007 20:07:04 by JetBlueGuy2006