Multiple Casualties In Shooting At Washington Navy Yard
A shooting interrupts Washington D.C.'s Monday morning.
Several people have been killed and an unknown number of others injured in a morning shooting at the Washington Navy Yard:
As many as two shooters, including one in fatigues, killed at least four people and wounded eight others in a rampage at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday, police said, spreading fear and chaos across the region as authorities tried to contain the incident.
Initial reports were marked by confusion, but by late morning, police said at least one of the shooters was “down.” It was unclear whether that means the suspect was in custody, wounded or dead. They said that another suspect may have been pinned down in a building on the installation in Southeast Washington near Nationals Park.
Gunfire was heard shortly before 11 a.m., two and a half hours after the first shots were fired, an area where police believed that person was barricaded. Police were sweeping Building 197, the Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters where the shooter was apparently holed up. The number of shooters still was unclear.
At least two police officers were shot. Police on the scene said one is a D.C. Metro Police officer who was shot twice in the leg and was evacuated on a helicopter that took off from a rooftop. The other was a base officer. The D.C. officer, a male, was concious at MedStar Washington Hospital Center and his chances for survival were good, hospital officials said.
Janis Orlowski, the chief medical officer at Washington Hospital Center, said three victims in all were brought to the center, all in critical condition but alert, responsive and able to talk with doctors. The victims were also able to speak briefly to law enforcement officers before undergoing surgery or treatment, she said.
The other two victims at the hospital were female civilians, Orlowski said at a press conference. All are likely to survive.
Ten public and charter schools and a public school administration building in the District were placed on lockdown as a precaution, and flights out of Reagan National Airport were briefly halted, causing delays even after they began departing again.
Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, the chief of Naval Operations, was evacuated from his residence at the Navy Yard complex shortly after the first report of shots fired, Navy officials said.
Greenert, a four-star admiral and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was safely evacuated to the Pentagon along with his wife, Darleen, said Cmdr. Ryan Perry, a Navy spokesman.
The U.S. Navy said that three shots were fired around 8:20 a.m. at Building 197, where about 3,000 people work.
Rick Mason, a program management analyst who is a civilian with the U.S. Navy, told the Associated Press that a gunman was shooting from a fourth floor overlook in the hallway outside his office. He said the gunman was aiming at people in the building’s first floor cafeteria.
David Stevens, a Navy contractor, was on the phone talking in building 197 when he heard an initial volley of shots fired. He heard people shouting that a shoorter was on the building’s fourth floor.
He said he ran to the edge of a glass atrium that overlooks all the floors and glanced up, only to hear a “second deluge” of shots. The fire alarm sounded, and people began exiting the building.
Stevens described the building as very secure. He said employees must present an ID at the entrances. Visitors must have security clearance to get in.
“It’s unbelievable that someone could get a rifle in there — if that’s what the shooter had,” he said.
As is typically the case with these kinds of incidents, the four hours or so that have unfolded since this news first broke have been filled with multiple unconfirmed and conflicting news reports about what may have happened here. The biggest point of contention, outside of the usual disagreements about casualty figures, is the reports that have been coming out about multiple shooters. For hours, some news outlets were reporting that there were two or as many as three shooters and others were saying that there was only one shooter. Each outlet, of course, claimed to have had law enforcement confirmation for their reports. Shortly before noon, though, local officials held a press conference, and the D.C. Chief of Police seemed to confirmed the multiple shooters story, at least for now:
Police say as many as two gunmen may still be at large near the D.C. Navy Yard Monday after a shooting that began in a heavily secured building and left a number of people dead.
One other gunman has been killed, Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier said at a midday press conference.
Initial reports had said that 11 people were shot on base and four had died, but Lanier said that information was preliminary. “There are multiple victims inside deceased,” Lanier said.
They are seeking two other people as “possible” gunmen, Lanier said. One was a white male, wearing a khaki military-type uniform and a beret hat. He was armed with a handgun, and was last seen about 8:30 a.m., Lanier said.
Lanier also said police were seeking a black man, aged about 50, who was wearing olive drab and was armed with a “long gun,” though she did not give any other details about the weapon.
Now, to be honest, those descriptions are pretty much useless. A white guy and a black guy in a major American city, perhaps dressed in military-style fatigues in a city where there are a lot of uniformed people walking around on a daily basis? And it’s all based on what Lainer herself described as a “possible” link to the shooting? That doesn’t seem like its very helpful. Especially when other media outlets are reporting that there was a single shooter and that he appears to have been a retired Chief Petty Officer who had worked at the facility as a civilian. In any event, there will be more to come I’m sure. If there really were multiple shooters then that suggests a radically different motivation than if it was only one person. But, perhaps, we should wait until there’s more information before speculating about that.
Update: At a just concluded press conference, D.C. Mayor Vincent Grey confirmed that “at least” 12 people are dead as a result of the shooting. There was no specific confirmation on the number of wounded or what condition they might be in. Law enforcement continues to say that they are on the lookout for two men who may be connected in some way to the shooting in that they were seen in the area of the shooting with firearms.
Update #2: Various news outlets are identifying the dead shooter as 34 year old Aaron Alexis of Fort Worth, Texas who apparently may have worked at the Yard as a civilian contractor at some point but apparently used someone else’s Identification to get on base this morning. Additionally, the D.C. Police have announced that one of the two men they were looking for has been identified and is not a suspect.
As per usual…the real story won’t be clear for at least two days.
Until then we should all just assume it’s Obama’s fault.
What is left to be said?
Doug, clearly you haven’t learned: people want news now, they don’t care if it’s wrong.
Doug, that’s so old-school.
Typically, the reporting is all over the place. 1 shooter. No, two. No, three! Err, maybe. One down, possibly two at large. No, wait…
It’s a hopeless muddle right now. Maybe by tonight we’ll have a coherent story. Maybe tomorrow.
Latest – 15 shot and 8 dead!
CNN now says that twelve victims are dead. One of the shooters is dead, and two others are still on the loose. The dead shooter was a black male; the two remaining shooters are currently described as one black male, one white male. These are not exactly detailed descriptions.
Hopefully it’s not just “workplace violence” again.
Another philosophy debate gone wrong
Curious…what are you hoping it is?
@C. Clavin: “Curious…what are you hoping it is?”
Something he can blame on Obama.
@ wr…
based on past performance…bill can, and will, blame Obama for absolutely anything that happens.
Another great day for the NRA and the gun manufacturers, eh? Gosh, I wonder which company will get to take credit for these kills? Colt? Glock? I know the competition is fierce.
@C. Clavin:
He desperately wants it to be a Muslim.
@michael reynolds: Another great day for the NRA and the gun manufacturers, eh? Gosh, I wonder which company will get to take credit for these kills? Colt? Glock? I know the competition is fierce.
Yet another mass shooting in an officially-designated gun-free zone. Geez, it’s like these shooters have no respect for rules and laws…
@bill: It’s violence, and it is at a workplace. What label would you prefer?
@Jenos Idanian #13: “Yet another mass shooting in an officially-designated gun-free zone. Geez, it’s like these shooters have no respect for rules and laws…
Yes, that’s why the sane members of this civilisation would like to pass a few laws to make it harder for crazy people to buy guns. But of course you’re opposed to that.
Say, how’s your idol Zimmerman doing these days? A great, upstanding human being, a role model to us all, just as you’ve always said. Let’s all have a cheer for arming wife beaters and other slimeballs!
So Jenos…you, in all your wisdom, are saying if it wasn’t a gun-free zone it would’t have happened? That ease of availability isn’t a contributing factor…it’s the lack of weapons that is at fault here?
Funny…This apartment complex is not a gun-free zone:
http://newsone.com/2712306/donald-maiden-jr-dallas/
Nor was this home:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/20/us/michigan-boy-accidental-shooting/index.html
Nor was this SWAT Vehicle:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/03/child-shoots-swat-officer-with-his-own-gun-at-california-literacy-fair/
So apparently your theory…and the theory of the nut-jobs you parrot…is total f’ing BULLSHIT!!!
Just STFU…idiot.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Umm, yea. Sort of like burglars, rapists, arsonists, extortionists, kidnappers, and other criminals have no respect for rules and laws. In spite of the law, people commit crimes.
Are you advocating eliminating the rule of law because it’s all just too darned hard? Or is it just “another day, another whine” for you?
@ wr
I guess the “GZ” that Jenos has tattooed on his ass inside a big heart is not as cool as it was a few weeks ago.
I will go one step further. It would be worth the loss of life to him if it was a Muslim.
@ anjin-san/wr…
don’t worry…it’s not a permanent tattoo…his mommy won’t let him have one of those…it’ll wash off in a couple days…assuming he washes.
Shopkeeper fights off armed robbers with his shoe
Offered without comment.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Yes, yet another example of how there just are not enough guns in this country. You’d think that every employee of the Navy Yard would be armed with an automatic weapon, but no, liberals and progressives don’t want those employees to work in a safe workplace environment.
Well, it was Bill Clinton, who in 1993, decreed military bases “gun-free” zones for non-security personnel.
Claims that criminals won’t respect gun-free zones (leaving aside the arbitrary and fraudulent distinction between “law-abiding gun owners” and “criminals”, everyone is law-abiding until they aren’t) are a strawman argument. Yes, you’re right, some suicidal type determined to take as many people as they want with them couldn’t care less that a place is a “gun-free zone”. But much gun violence is NOT premeditated, it’s done by individuals who carried, legally or otherwise, never intending to kill anyone but found themselves in some dispute or misunderstanding that got out of hand. Remove the guns from the equation and nobody can get hurt. There are plenty of studies showing that these sorts of gun bans reduce the overall likelihood that any given person will end up with a bullet in them, and when evaluating these sorts of policies that is the only metric that matters.
Such worthless ‘news’. What a waste of bandwidth.
Unfortunately, you can’t rely on the main stream media to tell us the whole truth of this tragedy; whatever the whole truth turns out to be.
For example, its been 12 years now and has the MSM told us the truth that building 7 was deliberately imploded by controlled demolition? No they haven’t. They still side with the government approved story of a few office fires bringing down the 47 story steel framed building.
Expect to hear the CIA processed story of the tragedy of today.
God loves you all.
@Raider: Now there’s a blast from the past! Raider, you need to update your conspiracies.
Raider’s a troother. That explains a lot. Get back in your bunker, nutjob!
Raider = Tomb Raider = Indiana Jones = Jenos???
@C. Clavin: i’m hoping it wasn’t happening, but it is. what were you hoping, that it was a white guy upset at the gov’t.?
@JKB:
We all know that Navy Shipyards are the most dangerous places in America (except for Elementary School Playgrounds in Connecticut, and Movie Theaters in Colorado.)
@ bill…
That’s total nonsense. Your original comment had nothing to do with hoping it wasn’t happening.
@ bill…
Nice you immediately make it a black/white issue…sop for you.
@JKB:
That is really the most empty comment I have ever read. Obviously, military bases are NOT “gun-free zones for non-security personnel.”
@john personna:
Uhhhh John? Yes they are. Except at the gun ranges. Makes total sense if you think about it. Was doing some warranty repairs on some units that had just been occupied by a bunch of guys just repatriated from Iraq. Talk about on edge, these guys were wound up.
@OzarkHillbilly:
I get where you are coming from, but that’s not where JKB was at.
The worlds military organizations have long had controls for weapons handling. Those got people weapons, and training, and geared up for action.
The worlds military organizations have long had controls for searching “visitors” and generally disliking them to carry weapons on base.
None of that changed with some 1993 Clinton decree.
I mean what, if anything did change?
(I remember a documentary film about the old, continuous, strategic bomber flights. It included pilots getting their pistols as part of prep, wearing them for the flight, and then clearing them and returning them at the end of each flight. They certainly didn’t carry loaded pistols all day, prior to 1993.)
Really this “gun free zone” thing is some kind of Winger Constructed Reality(tm).
It makes sense to them, and is another one of those self-validating beliefs, with becomes more real to them with each repetition, even if no one else can figure out what they are talking about.
I have no interest in chickensh!t no gun zones or in most of the nibbling at the edges of gun laws.
When you buy a gun you increase the likelihood of murder, suicide and accidental death.
When you sell a gun you increase the likelihood of murder, suicide and accidental death.
When you manufacture a gun you increase the likelihood of murder, suicide and accidental death.
People need to stop doing all of the above. If you’re not a cop or a soldier or a rancher shootin’ varmints, you have no need of firearms. And when you make the decision to obtain a firearm you make days like today more likely. You feed the gun cult, you flood the country with guns, you empower the manufacturers, and you are doing a bad thing that hurts the society you live in.
Owning a gun is an anti-social act, the moral equivalent of burning toxic waste in your back yard.
@michael reynolds:
While I’m more open to hunting and target shooting than michael, I must admit he is right about every one of his:
Those are the stats.
@john personna:
Oh, I’m fine with target shooting if you have a registered gun in the custody of a licensed shooting club.
@michael reynolds:
Duck Hunting: A Way of Life in the Mid-South
To me it comes back to “be a vegan, or stop complaining.”
And certainly intelligent controls are possible which support hunting and target shooting. All you need is a double-barreled shotgun for birds. You don’t need an AR-15, the spree killer’s choice.
@this:
What kind of nitwit down-voted that?
Can you name a military organization in the world which does not have controls on its weapons and soldiers?
Even the Swiss, who issue guns and ammunition to their militia, put big red tapes and seals on ammunition blocks, and inspect periodically to see that none of them were opened without permission.
Seems like a wannabe terrorist attack or an extremely disgruntled individual.
@john personna: My guess would be because of the mention of Clinton. Merely mentioning Clinton in a non negative light will make some people’s heads explode.
Those same people say Obama is responsible for polarizing the Nation.
@C. Clavin: sure, if he was white then we all know what would spew from your mouth. most people immediately think “muslim”, after that they think some wacky gun nut (usually white). now it’s just more black murders so it’ll go away soon. feel better now?
Apparently this guy has had trouble involving firearms before…so yeah the solution is not in limiting the access of nut-jobs to guns…but to arm everyone so we are living in the Wild West.
Just imagine that theatre in Aurora…a bunch of people firing guns in the dark.
Imagine Sandy Hook and a bunch of teachers firing guns with youngsters in the cross-fire.
Why are the gun-cultists such idiots?
I’m not interested in taking their precious penile-replacements…just making them control them as if they had half a brain.
@ bill…
If everything you type is about race…you are probably a racist.
Just sayin’
@C. Clavin: Raider = Tomb Raider = Indiana Jones = Jenos???
Blow it out your ass, Clueless Cliffy. I have no patience for Truthers, Birthers, or any of a variety of other conspiracy idiots.
Oh, and toss in the “Bush stole the election!” morons, and the nutjobs who still insist that Bush lied us into Iraq. No use for them, either.
The vast majority of mass shootings take place in official “gun-free zones.” If the mere presence of guns was enough to cause a shooting, why has there never been one at a gun show or a firing range? Why don’t NRA meetings routinely end in shootouts?
This appears to have been a specific, targeted revenge-style shooting, but most others happen where the shooter is fairly secure that he (or she, but almost always he) will not be confronted by armed would-be victims.
The Fort Hood shooter was taken down by civilian police; not one of the service members shot were armed.
@C. Clavin: What kind of trouble did he get into with firearms?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Ah, maybe your causality is reversed?
Places with concern implement extra gun controls, and then you say “see!”
I mean, shit, courthouses have metal detectors … obviously the are crying for shooters.
http://www.thv11.com/news/article/273588/2/Accidental-Shooting-at-Hot-Springs-Gun-Show
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/03/16823532-american-sniper-author-chris-kyle-fatally-shot-at-texas-gun-range?lite
That took about 30 seconds.
Any more stupid things you want to type?
The NRA Myth of Gun-Free Zones
@ Matt… Apparently he shot some tires in Seattle over a parking dispute…and in Fort Worth there was an incident with neighbors he didn’t like.
@ JP…
Certainly you do not expect a parrot like Jenos to be interested in facts???
@ Jenos Idanian #13
Supporting data?
Seems like your position is “Guns don’t kill people, gun free zones kill people” – that’s pretty lame, even for you.
Obviously if it weren’t for Speed Limits…there wouldn’t be so many speeders.
And no kid would ever get stoned in the school parking lot…if they weren’t drug-free zones
To begin with.
What an idiotic argument. Well there are no idiotic arguments. Just idiots who make arguments.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Ex-Navy sniper, another military vet killed at Texas gun range
By Greg Botelho and Josh Levs, CNN
updated 8:23 AM EST, Mon February 4, 2013
CNN) — A former Navy SEAL known for claiming a record number of sniper killings in Iraq was one of two men shot dead at a Texas gun range, allegedly at the hands of a fellow military veteran, officials say.
Chris Kyle, the author of the best-selling “American Sniper,” and Chad Littlefield, also a veteran, were gunned down Saturday afternoon on the grounds of the expansive Rough Creek Lodge and Resort in Glen Rose, Texas, southwest of Fort Worth, law enforcement officials said.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/justice/texas-sniper-killed/index.html
Seriously…try to imagine sitting in a theatre…enjoying a movie…and someone walks in and starts firing.
Now imagine an idiot like Jenos or bill or JKB is sitting in the row behind you…and they start firing back.
And you are caught in the cross-fire.
Sleep tight, everyone.
Well, in this instance, the “AR-15” was taken from one of the first victims. He only brought the shotgun, which was legally bought from a licensed dealer after a NICS check. Plus, he apparently had an active security clearance as late as July.
Well the …why didn’t that person kill him? Instead of giving up his weapon?
Kind of blows a hole in the “arm everyone” theory, eh?
Oh wait…I’m sure you will explain it for us.
@JKB:
That would be sad, but it would also refute the “gun free zone” idea. Not “gun-free enough?”
@C. Clavin:
Why would I fire back since you’d protect me? …..for a while. Then after your shield potential is used up, I could fire back without distress your sensibilities.
And lawful gun owners are not New York City police officers, we are actually responsible for our firearm discharges and anyone struck who is not an imminent threat. Lawful gun owners can’t just shoot someone who doesn’t comply, nor who put their hands in their pockets without risking life in prison.
@john personna:
The firearm was taken from security personnel. Who could readily be targeted since they were the only people armed, everyone else helpless to act to save the officer or stop the killer from proceeding.
Bullshit…this guy has had a couple previous incidents…but was allowed to purchase guns recently.
The problem with you cult members is that you have this fantasy about yourselves as heros. When you are really just dangerous idiots.
And you still didn’t answer the question.
@JKB:
dude.
That’s so stupid it defies description.
Your theory is that armed people will stop armed perpetrators. But only if EVERYONE is armed???
You’re a fool.
@JKB:
But why didn’t the security personnel use their firearms to protect themselves…? Or are you now admitting that having a weapon didn’t do anything to protect them, but instead only made them even more of a target?
@C. Clavin: Based on what the incident in Seattle and what the police are reporting I can confidently say the police didn’t enforce the law as they should of. I can’t believe they let this guy off with a light slap on the wrist. He freaking threatened people and shot out the tires of a car in city limits during a self admitted moment of “blackout rage”. He put people’s lives at risk because of a petty dispute. He should of had the book thrown at him for that stunt. IF they had properly charged him the guy would of lost his right to own a firearm.
Having said that I don’t think losing the right to own a firearm would of stopped this fellow but having a felony conviction conviction might of kept him from getting involved with the navy yard.
At the very l east this individual was clearly unstable and needed serious anger management work..
See…right here is the problem with today’s Republicans…their theories, from gun control, to economics, to healthcare…are all just really stupid. Yet when confronted with their stupidity…they just double-down on the stupid.
A friend passed away today after a long illness. Her husband is not only heartbroken, he is also ruined financially. These guys worked hard and played by the rules.
You have to love American exceptionalism.
@Rafer Janders:
Or are you now admitting that having a weapon didn’t do anything to protect them, but instead only made them even more of a target?
Yes, so the lesson is everyone should be armed except uniformed personnel. Then we will truly be safe.
No Mantis…because then they will just have another excuse…another hair-brained theory about how more guns are the only answer to gun violence…an the rest of us are nuts because we can’t see it.
@C. Clavin: just how many decks of race cards do you go through per year anyway? you should be pissed that it was a black guy, it just furthers the stereotype and disproportionate amount of violence perpetuated by said race. reality is not racism, it’s just real and you have difficulty dealing with it- at least it wasn’t gang related.
@Matt:
Another remarkably insightful comment.
Bill…
You keep bringing up race…not me.
Just sayin’
@Bob @ Youngstown: See all I did was mention Clinton and I got a downvote too…
How many times now have I read comment threads like this in the last year … and the shooting incidents keep happening. And this site doesn’t even track the toddler shooting incidents like some other sites do.
Acceptable losses Steve, acceptable losses.
@Steve V: Kids/people die daily from thousands of things from tubs to disease. Swimming pools are statistically deadlier to kids then guns.
@OzarkHillbilly: Knife, not gun. Don’t exaggerate—not even by omission.
@Matt: Proving my point. I’ve read the exact same comment a dozen times this year. Surprised no one has mentioned cars and knives yet.
@Raider: That’s because it isn’t true. I suppose you think the video showing the tower falling on it was an animation created by the conspirators?
I’ve actually been on the Washington Navy Yard, and have been in the building many times where this happened. Though it has been a decade, I don’t expect the security measures to have changed much. I was first there a week after it opened ~ 8/2001 (maybe as late as 1/2002).
First off, think of the Navy Yard as a business park with a security fence around it. Experienced civilian security guards checking IDs at the gates (we don’t need military to man gates). I’d guess 70-30 Civilian/military, bunch of engineering and logistic specialists. The military is mostly Engineering Duty Officers (repair and building specialists) and Line Office Acquisition Specialists. There is even a museum and the Naval Archives on the site. Want to research the war patrols of USS Halibut in WW II, this is where you go (I just read the memoir of her CO, “Take Her Deep!”). There is even a Navy Exchange (it is small).
Twenty years ago this was a scary location (along with Army Ft McNair adjacent). Ten years ago I jogged the area by day, not by night.Today, decent neighborhood.
Same as most bases with ID and sticker, you can drive on (but good luck finding parking). The idea of 100% strip search every day going to work is ludicrous. I never drove to the Navy Yard, either taking the Metro or the shuttle buses. There are 3000 workers in this building alone, and it is maybe 10% of the folks working on the Navy Yard.
BUT, to get into the building (as opposed to the open spaces and dining facilities) you have to show an adequate badge and go through a metal detector. This is the part I don’t understand.
@JKB: Is it a shocker that the reich-wingers, like you, lie at every opportunity?
He bought the AR-15 and the shotgun onto the base, he secured the handgun from the police officer he wounded. Not to mention, what good is a handgun versus an AR-15?
Let’s see… this guy with a history of gun violence was able to legally obtain a gun (and a security clearance), took it into a city with some of the strictest gun-control laws, and on to a base which was a “gun-free” zone, and the solution is more gun control laws?
What’s that about doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results?
Now Jenos has gone from Gun Free zones cause gun violence…to the gun laws that the NRA has worked to keep weak are indeed weak…so just give everyone guns. Even though…as JKB so usefully pointed out above…that apparently didn’t work here.
Next will be the Chicago murder rate.
Is the gun industry paying you? Or are you just a mindless dupe.
Don’t answer…we all know the answer.
Jenos…
Sti waiting for you to reconcile this statement of brilliance with the…you know…facts…the truth..
Until you can do that you should do like Jan…skulk into whatever hole you came from.
Of course you are not smart enough to do that.
This sounds right to me. I’d like more info on the prior incidents and how they were handled.
@Matt:
And we regulate swimming pools (and cars, and other things that are dangerous) in various ways. We’ve been over this. You can’t just say “but swimming pools!” The stats are a starting point, and a fair one, but if you want to say something intelligent you have to keep going.
Calibrating the regulations on dangerous things properly makes sense, and requires that one balance the utility of the thing against the potential for harm. We do this all the time, whether it’s alcohol (particularly wrt to drunk driving), pools, cars, fireworks, or whatever. We may or may not get that exactly right, and may have to revisit those things (e.g, Marijuana).
It’s not shall we regulate firearms, it’s how exactly shall we regulate. I’d be happier with regulations that were both: a) looser than Connecticut (or DC); and b) applicable nationwide. Of course, they must be deemed Constitutional by SCOTUS.
@Timothy Watson:
That statement does not specify which weapons he took off the police officer, one or all? It is an example of the find journalism conducted by failed English majors, I suppose.
how this guy got any type of “clearance” is weird.
@JKB:
That statement does not specify which weapons he took off the police officer, one or all?
Yes it does. Stop embarrassing yourself talking about failed English majors and learn how commas work.
@Timothy Watson:
This report on the other hand has actual facts with source citations:
And to those who might seek to suggest that being armed didn’t help these officers, I would point out that having a firearm doesn’t make you invincible, it gives you a chance to save yourself and others in the face of an imminent threat. Doesn’t everyone deserve a chance? And others having guns. instead of just the security officer, would mean more people having a chance at stopping the killer even if he’s able to target the uniformed officer because he goes unnoticed until he fires.
All kinds of red flags were up on this guy.
But the gun lobby, and the cultists that blindly follow it in march step, will not allow any sort of meaningful regulations that will recognize those red flags and do something about it.
Sure he shot out some guys tires over a parking dispute…but you can’t take away his right to a well-regulated militia over something like that.
Sure he was hearing voices…but you can’t abridge his right to commit mass murder because of something like hearing voices. Hell, Michelle Bachmann heard voices telling her to run for President. Anyone can hear voices.
This country is being played for a fool by the gun lobby. Even gun owners are in favor of meaningful background checks. But that will change…because the more this happens, the more blood that spills on the hands of the gun lobby…the more it becomes inevitable.
@JKB:
Wow. That statement clearly indicates he took the handgun off the police officer. Also, if you’re going to make a snide comment about other people’s language skills, perhaps you ought to proofread. Maybe you just failed English…
The details are still fuzzy. One report says this, another says that. Whether he brought the AR-15 with him or took it off someone else will become clear eventually, just as the weaponry used in the Newtown incident eventually became clear after initial confusion.
So your vision of America is a place where everyone is walking around shooting at each other?
Let me ask you Einstein…you come walking around the corner and this guy is involved in a fire-fight with an armed citizen. You pull your penile replacement…which one of the two do you shoot at?
You are just another pussy living in a Walter Mitty fantasy land. Guns don’t make you a big man JKB. A little intellect might. But it’s probably late for that.
Sorry…that was an insult to pussys.
Fact is that if shooter had no gun there would not have been shootings at the Navy Yard yesterday. Yes, NRA, Morning Joe and such gun lovers like most GOPers and Fox News, will focus on videos and other reasons for the shooting but the absolute truth is that w/o a gun these people would not have been shot. Guns are the instrument for all these shootings. Reasons leading up to their use are multiple but controlling the use and access to guns in our country, the most violent in the world, is the only way to reduce this carnage of human life taking place daily in our country. Every elected official in Wash D.C. has the blood of innocent citizens on their hands again. Karma will come to them in many ways, but mostly individually.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Let’s see… this guy with a history of child abuse was able to legally get a job as a teacher, took a job in a city with some of the strictest anti-pedophilia laws, and at a school which was a “child abuse-free” zone, and the solution is more anti-pedophilia laws?
Between the incident in Seattle when he shot out the tires of a car in a “rageout” because he was “disrespected” by some construction workers and later mental health issues, this is a guy who really shouldn’t have had access to firearms. I didn’t see what, if anything, the Seattle cops charged him with for the tire-shooting incident.
It doesn’t seem like his stint in the Reserves helped at all (if anything, it probably taught him some marksmanship).
Based on the articles out now, it seems he was the sort of guy who is always aggrieved. Somebody was always being unfair to him: disrespecting him, discriminating against him. But he was such a nice boy (eyeroll).
@JKB:
And others having guns. instead of just the security officer, would mean more people having a chance at stopping the killer even if he’s able to target the uniformed officer because he goes unnoticed until he fires.
Because in a chaotic scene filled with gunfire, the best thing would be for hundreds of plainclothes civilians to also draw weapons. What could go wrong!
I’m starting to think these “arm everyone, all the time” nuts derive pleasure from these massacres, and their only problem is the body count is too low.
@Matt:
Yeah, I well remember that case in Newtown last year when a guy carried a swimming pool into a school and drowned to death 20 children and six adults in a matter of minutes….
This is going to be second-guessed (as it should be). What does it take to be declared mentally unfit?
Being declared mentally unfit would’ve revoked his security clearance, but as I understand things it wouldn’t have required that he surrender guns he already owned. Would it have prevent him from (legally) buying more?
Every word out of the mouth of gun cultists is a lie.
Talking about other causes of death is a lie, because you know damned well we do our best as a society to minimize risk with those other causes even while the gun cult refuses ANY actions at all on guns. Gun cultists know this of course but repeat the talkiung point anyway, which makes it not merely stupid, but dishonest: a lie.
Snarking about the ineffectiveness of the pitiful laws they’ve allowed to pass — always local, never national — is a lie. They know they’ve crippled every attempt to deal with their obsession which makes the snark itself a lie.
There exists not a single rational argument that explains private, unrestricted ownership of guns. None. Zip.
The sum total of what they have is cowardly paranoia, juvenile hero fantasies and bullying.
@JKB:
Others having guns would mean more people having a chance to (a) shoot each other and (b) get shot by the police when the cops show up and there’s a bunch of civilians waving guns around in a shooting zone.
Seriously, what the hell do you think the cops are going to do? They’re going to shoot everyone.
@Rob in CT:
Someone with knowledge of the mentally disturbed person’s situation has to petition a court. The mentally disturbed person gets legal representation and is interviewed by a psychiatrist. Then, a hearing is held before a judge who specializes in mental health cases. The petitioner, the mentally disturbed person and his/her lawyer, and the psychiatrist are present. The judge hears testimony and makes a decision on treatment (voluntary/involuntary, outpatient/inpatient, a combination of those).
I’ve sat in on dozens of such hearings. You’d be surprised how difficult it is, and how mentally ill a person has to be before they can be declared “unfit.”
And even if they are, unless a record is sent to the state agency responsible for the background check that licensed firearms dealers are required to make, it won’t make any difference (see Cho, Seung-Hui).
I know this was all gone over repeatedly after Sandy Hook, but if the health care system in America is broken, the mental health care system is doubly so.
I missed this bit before.
So we have: 1) an incident in Seattle in ’04 where he shot out the tires of a car in a “rageout”; 2) he joins the reserves; 3) he accidentally discharges a gun while cleaning it, resulting in a bullet entering an adjacent apartment; 4) he is discharged from the Navy Reserves for a pattern of misconduct (including the accidental discharge incident); 5) he finds work as a contractor and obtains a security clearance; 6) he is treated by the VA for mental health and other issues, including “hearing voices” and 7) he murders 13 people.
It is often the case when there are these spree killings that a sign or two got missed, but wow. That’s a lot of signs.
@ Rob…
I don’t have the stats at hand…but it seems to me that every one of these nut cases…Aurora, Tucson, Sandy Hook, etc…had all kinds of red flags flying. We need to make sure that people like this do not have access to guns. It is also critical that they get the mental care they obviously need. Let’s be clear…Republicanists are not interested in either of those things happening.
I can see where a VA Dr. might assume that denying him his clearance, and thus his job, would only make his mental issues worse. That’s a judgment call…always very easy to criticize in hind-sight. But with everyone having unfettered access to deadly weapons the judgement has to be made on the conservative side. And when that judgement is made then his weapons need to be confiscated, and his ability to procure more weapons stopped.
@C. Clavin: You’ve actually insulted Jenos unfairly for once!
Hmm. Would I be correct in assuming that the folks treating him at the VA would not be able to be file such a petition?
Actually, no, I’d expect it to be hard.
I don’t really doubt that, however I’d add that it seems to me that part of the problem is simply one of coordination. In the Seung-Hui Cho case, one arm of the government failed to communicate properly with another.
Edit: another question for you! If he had been declared mentally unfit but not committed (say, out-patient care), would have be required to surrender any firearms he owned?
@Rafer Janders:
People like JKB don’t think.
They begin with their emotional need: gun. Must gave gun. Make dick bigger! Make me strong man! Let me shoot negroes! Also: revolution!
They start with crazy, then cover it up with tissue-thin rationalizations that actually just redouble the crazy. A rational person like yourself points out that some jackass with a gun playing hero looks to the cops exactly like the shooter has no impact on them at all. Reason has no impact. The fact that their arguments are blown apart has no impact.
All they can see is their own crying need. It’s all about them. So the whole country is held hostage to these dishonest, immature a-holes.
Yes, being an adult can be dangerous but sometimes being an adult means doing adult things, like risk being shot to stop an imminent threat. But carrying a firearm, you must be cognizant of the danger when in the vicinity of police. They react violently to the sight of a firearm in hand. As such, you holster your firearm or otherwise remove it from your hand before they arrive or come to bear. The same advice goes for undercover or off-duty police as well. When the cops show up, empty your hands if you haven’t done so already.
On the other hand, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. So you can draw, fire, secure the shooter and have a cup of coffee while waiting for the police. Twenty minutes for the first officer to arrive a Newtown.
Or you may just drive the shooter to cover until the police arrive to secure his capture. Or, as is often the case, the shooter suicides upon armed resistance. But, if armed, and you act, the shooter cannot just go about his killing unopposed.
@Rob in CT:
They probably could, but if he was already voluntarily seeking treatment, they likely wouldn’t see a need unless he got worse and started refusing.
In Virginia, at least, he would have been prohibited from possessing firearms during the period he was considered “unfit” or “incapacitated.” I’m not familiar with the procedure, though, and it’s been about 10 years since I sat in on a hearing.
@JKB:
On the other hand, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. So you can draw, fire, secure the shooter and have a cup of coffee while waiting for the police. Twenty minutes for the first officer to arrive a Newtown.
You and the other nuts live in a fantasy world with yourselves as the heroes. The real world will never align with your fantasies, and meanwhile they get people killed.
Hmmm…It is possible Alexis did not use an AR-15 at all. From CNN:
Just goes to show how much of the initial reporting about events like this turns out to be incorrect.
Then again, this correction may itself turn out to be incorrect…
Wow…JKB…you’re my hero….
Seriously…people this f’ing stupid are allowed to possess firearms?
Honestly…this thread should…in a just world…be enough to take away JKB’s guns.
He has shown that he is clearly not operating in the real world. Deliusional. Mentally disadvantaged. Unable to process factual information.
If the NSA is reading this…do something…
@JKB:
I bet you’ve imagined this thousands of times, haven’t you? The criminal dead at your feet, his would-be victim gazing at you with adoring eyes, you sitting on a chair, a cup of coffee in hand, the cops pull up, sirens blazing, and you slowly get up, palms spread wide, not smiling, no, but letting a little laconic grin crinkle the corner of your eyes and mouth, as you walk over to them and say “hey, boys, no need to rush, I got this one….”
“Hey Sarge”, a cop calls out as he kneels over the body, “one shot! He got him with one shot, right between the eyes! No need for the medics — just call the hearse!”, and the sergeant pushes his cap back on his head and whistles in appreciation at how cool a customer you were when under fire…..
“Dang it, JKB! You’re doin’ our job for us, now?” the Sarge says. He’s pretending he’s angry with you but you know it’s just for show. He’s glad it was you, and not him, who had to face the crazed gunman.
“Hey, just trying to help, Sarge”, you answer. “Just tryin’ to help…..”
Oh my gosh, yes you have. This is your stand-by, your go-to fantasy, the one that doesn’t let you fall asleep at night as you run it over and over and over in your head…..
@JKB:
Yeah, just like the armed security guard at the Navy Yard. Oh, wait, no, he was shot.
@Mikey:
Thanks for the info.
@ Mantis..
“…You and the other nuts live in a fantasy world with yourselves as the heroes…”
It’s important to note that JKB rely’s on firearms to make himself into a make-believe hero. Holding that gun makes him ohhhhh-so powerful. He requires a prosthetic device. He, by himself, comes up inadequate.
This woman in Georgia was a real hero.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/21/decatur-georgia-michael-brandon-hill-school-shooting/2680407/
That’s real bravery.
JKB is just another pussy brandishing a gun.
@Mikey:
Well, if that one proves true it wouldn’t really change the revealed preference for these kinds of guns.
Ah well, the horse left the barn in 1934. That would have been a good time to designate repeating arms for civilian use, and both semi/full auto for police and military. A low magazine capacity on repeating arms would not have hurt either.
Now of course we have the AR-15 as a certain demographic’s iPhone. You own one to own one, to tell your friends you own one. Not because you have sane use for one, over say a lever action 30-30
@Rafer Janders:
We could add … “as we rolled in we saw you, but you being an old white guy, we knew you had to be on our side.”
I think they are talking about mental fitness as a job/task- related determination. Is this person mentally fit for the job? A person might be unfit for temporary reasons, such as a death in the family. It does not require a diagnosis of a recognized mental health disorder. A therapist might make the determination, but they are given the standard to be applied by the employer. If unfit, they will either lose their job, be reassigned, or placed on leave. Absent any procedure required by union or civil service requirements, there is no legal assessment. I don’t think this would have anything to do with his ability to have a gun, which as Mikey says would require a legal process comporting with due process.
Tragically, this is quite true.
Four dead at Benghazi: the greatest disaster in American history since Pearl Harbor.
Twelve dead at the Navy Yard: hey, these things happen.
Clavin, do you melt down on every thread? I never noticed it before.
Calm down, it’s okay. Everyone else is a pussy. You’re a real man.
@john personna:
Yeah, that’s true. I just put it up as info.
Nope…just those who are.
You’ll note I called out the bravery of the woman who didn’t need a gun.
Per usual…your evaluation is flawed.
@john personna:
Well, in actuality and not fantasy it goes a bit more like this:
The criminal dead at your feet, his would-be victim gazing at you with adoring eyes, you sitting on a chair, a cup of coffee in hand, the cops pull up, sirens blazing, and you slowly get up, palms spread wide, not smiling, no, but letting a little laconic grin crinkle the corner of your eyes and mouth, as you walk over to them and say “hey, boys, no need to rush, I got this one….”
Suddenly your grin fades as all you hear is “hands, hands, let me see your hands!”
“Boys, no, I ain’t the shooter, I’m the good gu….” you try to yell, but those are the last words you’ll ever say as suddenly one nervous cop, seeing the coffee cup in your hand, yells “gun! Gun! I see a gun!” and lets off a shot, and the other five cops, hearing the shot, also start firing. You crumple in a hail of bullets, wondering how, how did this happen, it wasn’t supposed to happen like this, it wasn’t….and then all is blackness.
@ Rafer Janders
Wrong, wrong, wrong. In JKB’s fantasy, the waitresses are asking them if they can get undressed now, or should they wait to get back to his place.
Reality has no place in a this fantasy…
If only even more people had guns…it wouldn’t have happened like this….
Kind of like Republicans and tax cuts. The answer to ever economic condition is to cut taxes.
The answer to every public safety issue is to arm more people.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Because, NRA Meetings, Gun Shows and Firing Ranges are places to congregate, meditate, and celebrate life, that’s why. Also, why would people attending those meetings kill loved ones?
@bill:
Why are Conservatives obsessed with race?
Because it’s just another symptom of their ignorance.
Sort of like the “this is war, men die” we got when talking about 4000K Americans dead in Iraq. But four dead in Libya? Catastrophe…
@al-Ameda: I don’t know, ask one. This is about reality and how this story will go away quickly because the perp is black. Already the story is notably scarce on yahoo. And there were a few attempts to throw some white suspects into the mix, they didn’t materialize though.
Navy Yard – MPD on scene in 3 minutes, base security already engaging shooter, active shooter team on site in 7 minutes.
Benghazi – attack went on for hours, no US forces permitted to respond, no teams, even investigative on site in weeks, no legitimate effort to find those responsible in over a year.
Well…it’s about reality according to bill…which has nothing to do with reality.
@JKB:
Oh, and Obama had a pressing fund raising engagement he just couldn’t reschedule.
Females own guns too but they do not commit mass murder. Yes, they also have mental health problems and watch video games too. These observations just clould the issue and do nothing to resolve the access to guns in our country. W/o a gun a human being cannot shoot another. We are not all created equal but it sounds good. Explain why 99.9 percent of mass murders and shootings are done by males.
@Rafer Janders: “Boys, no, I ain’t the shooter, I’m the good gu….” you try to yell, but those are the last words you’ll ever say as suddenly one nervous cop, seeing the coffee cup in your hand, yells “gun! Gun! I see a gun!” and lets off a shot, and the other five cops, hearing the shot, also start firing. You crumple in a hail of bullets, wondering how, how did this happen, it wasn’t supposed to happen like this, it wasn’t….and then all is blackness.
I can cite several real-life examples of shooters stopped by civilians (or, in one case, off-duty cops present as students) without your scenario playing out. Can you cite any examples of something like your scenario playing out?
Here, I’ll give you two: the Appalachian School of Law shootings, and the New Life Church shootings.
There’s an idea in science that one solid experiment trumps a thousand theories, or something like that. I’m not trying to be rude to you (I save that for those who are already rude), but we hear the same horror stories every time these incidents happen, and I can’t recall EVER hearing about a case where would-be victims with guns actually did make the situation worse.
But if there is an example, I’d bet on it being in NYC. NYPD officers have an astonishingly consistent record for shooting innocent bystanders, but the examples I can think of involve unarmed innocent bystanders…
From Josh Marshall. A very interesting read.
http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/09/meet_thomas_e_hoshko_hes.php
@JKB: Benghazi – attack went on for hours, no US forces permitted to respond, no teams, even investigative on site in weeks, no legitimate effort to find those responsible in over a year.
And let’s add in survivors all being compelled to sign non-disclosure agreements to never ever discuss what happened. There’s an awful lot of effort being expended to make sure no one ever finds out the details of what was apparently nothing really significant…
Just like there has never been a shooting at a gun show, or gun range.
of course that was immediately proven wrong. You still refuse to answer for that. Pussy.
Appalachian School…you are conveniently ignoring the FACT that those students were also current and former law enforcement officers, and that the killer was out of ammunition by the time they got to him.
New Life Church…you are conveniently ignoring the FACT that the person in question was a security officer for the church, who also happened to be a former cop, and that the church had put its security team on high alert earlier that day due to another church shooting nearby.
If your opinion is based on mis-information, factual error, and total BS…then you opinion is total BS.
@ Jenos Idanian #13
Still waiting for you to support this claim…
@anjin-san:
When I first saw this in another thread I thought it was a typo (the other time I recall it was specifically American casualties), but have seen this a couple times. 4000K is 4000×1000 or 4,000,000.
@ Grewgills
Quite correct.
@JKB:
Exactly: far, far worse than starting a war under a false pretext and having 4,000 American troops die in a completely unnecessary war. Benghazi is the worst foreign policy disaster in American history.
Gates was quoted claiming 640K ought to be enough for anybody and they made fun of him for that.
Let’s take a breath and look at the de-evolution of this thread.
12 people are dead in a domestic shooting, but, but … Benghazi!!!
JKB and Jenos, you should seriously seek treatment.
@rudderpedals:
That was before graphics, and especially digital photography, came on-line. He certainly did not expect 2M shots of the cat casually attached to emails.
@john personna: He probably expected we’d go on posting uuencoded kitty pr0n on netnews.
Well this is getting bad for the gun control nuts, looks like there was no ak involved at all- he took Joe Biden’s advice and got a shotgun. And he had security clearance as well, so now they’ll look into making the area more secure…… It’s like putting a condom on after sex.
@C. Clavin: get real !
@bill:
Do you really think that was smart?
Do you really think the old argument “you can kill someone with a steak knife, so gun control doesn’t matter” really holds together?
Whether or not this guy had an assault rifle, we can still make the cost-benefit analysis. We can ask what non-crazy reasons have for owning such things, and how they change the odds of violence.
The only non-crazy idea I’ve heard for owning a high capacity semi-automatic rifle (or for that matter, full-auto) is “it’s fun.” Nevada is full of ranges that will let you shoot full auto, because its’ fun. The crazy justifications all come in for why you’d actually need to own the damn thing, and keep it in your home.
A shotgun, which can be used for hunting, clay shooting, and home defense can also be misused in crime. Yes, like a steak knife. It is also a lot harder to kill 12 people with a steak knife.
This is all very simple to the non-crazy audience.
@bill:
Joe Biden is to blame for most mass killings these days.
@bill:
This story is scarce on Yahoo? That must mean that the “main stream media” is burying it.
@ bill…
You should note that it was JKB who said that the perp killed a security officer and took his AR-15.
JKB is hardly a gun control nut.
Although I would be willing to bet he is not able to control his weapon well.
@JKB:
TRUE.
LIE. In fact, US forces were not “permitted” to respond because US forces were not physically able to respond in a safe and effective manner. As Defense Secretary Gates said “It’s sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces. The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm’s way. And there just wasn’t time to do that.”
LIE.
LIE.
Three major lies in one sentence. Impressive.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Yes.
Here you go — an off-duty federal agent shot by a Nassau County cop because the cop couldn’t tell if the guy with the gun was the good guy or the bad guy:
THE NASSAU COUNTY lieutenant who fired the lethal bullet that hit a federal agent is beside himself with grief over the accidental death of a fellow cop, his lawyer said Thursday.
Lt. Chris Geraghty is trying to cope with the death of Special Agent John Capano, 51, who worked for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, as they both struggled to thwart an armed robbery in Seaford, L.I., on New Year’s Eve….
“They came around back of the pharmacy and heard yelling and went to the front,” Davis said. That’s where they saw Capano — who was off-duty at the time — and James McGoey, 43, struggle for his realistic-looking black-and-silver pellet gun….
“Who’s the good guy? Who’s the good guy?,” Geraghty screamed. But no one answered.
Geraghty entered the struggle, Davis said, and became the fifth hand on the weapon.
Capano had some control of the gun at one point, Davis said, and then the firearm discharged. “The bullet went right past his face,” Davis said. Thinking he was being shot at, Geraghty went into survival mode and fired back, striking Capano, Davis said.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nassau-lt-chris-geraghty-grieves-friendly-fire-shooting-atf-agent-john-capano-sends-family-condolence-letter-article-1.1001650#ixzz2fBhWEri0
@C. Clavin: Oh, Cliffy… as I said about the Appalachian shootings, the off-duty officers were not there as officers, but students. Their presence was blind luck.
And the New Life Church shooting… Jeanne Assam was a disgraced FORMER cop who had been fired for cause and was a church member who was a part of the VOLUNTEER security force made up of church members. Essentially, the Church membership organized their own militia, with no formal recognition or status.
And while I don’t like to ask or speculate about people’s true identities here, I’m going to discuss your chosen identity. Cliff Claven was a pathetic loser barfly and know-it-all who lived at home with his mother — quite the role model there.
And to boot, the actor who played him — John Ratzenberger — is a very successful actor, entrepeneur, and noted conservative.
Just which aspect of your namesake appealed to you? Or was that just another case of you being incredibly stupid and ignorant?
@john personna:
An idiot nitwit John. They look at who posted, not what they posted.
@Rafer Janders: That’s a hell of a story, Rafer, and I appreciate you citing it. It sounds like there were mistakes made across the board, and one good guy killed another.
I don’t think one can draw any widespread conclusions from that example. It looks like both the cop and the agent made errors that they should have been trained to not make. The BATF agent apparently didn’t even try to identify himself, and the cop went into a hand-to-hand situation with his gun drawn. I’m no cop, but both of those seem to be bad moves.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
I don’t think one can draw any widespread conclusions from that example.
But he does think one can draw widespread conclusions from his example. Because shut up, that’s why.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Benghazi ….
Let’s compare, shall we: Which is worse?
(1) 1983 bombing at a Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon – 241 military personnel killed.
(2) 2012 attack on American diplomatic mission in Benghazi – 4 Americans killed.
Answer: Clearly, #2.
So Jenos…your examples and theories from the very top of this thread…have been wrong and misleading and generally counter to your position. So you resort to attacking my pseudonym?
Good for you fool.
Go away like Jan did.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
They were trained not to make those errors. But training only takes you so far, and in the heat of the moment, people, even well-trained law enforcement professionals, screw up. And they screw up in a way that can’t be fixed.
But consider that you said these men should “have been trained” not to make these errors, and they still made them — well, armed civilians WON’T EVEN GET THIS TRAINING IN THE FIRST PLACE. So they’re even more likely to shoot first and ask questions later.
@anjin-san: (quoting Josh Marshall)
A Secret security clearance is really pretty easy to get. It’s basically just a questionnaire and a NAC (National Agency Check) to see if there is a police record. It costs about $200 to do the NAC.
We know Alexis did have run-ins with the law, but even then, the adjudicators take the “whole person” concept, and if the trouble was relatively minor and in the past, they usually grant the clearance.
I am still surprised, though, that Alexis got a clearance in 2007 after his shooting-out-the-tires incident in 2004. That’s only three years and he was already an adult at the time (adjudicators are generally more lenient with things done as a teenager, since teenagers are generally pretty immature).
As it seems with all of these incidents, there are multiple layers of questions and many opportunities were missed.
See…they weren’t cops…they were students…because…shut up.
and, and, and, and BENGHAZiiii!!!!!!
What a loser.
@Jenos Idanian #13: “And while I don’t like to ask or speculate about people’s true identities here, I’m going to discuss your chosen identity. Cliff Claven was a pathetic loser barfly and know-it-all who lived at home with his mother — quite the role model there. ”
This from a “man” who takes his identity from a Star Wars novel? I’m sure Clif is really a-hurtin’ now…
@C. Clavin: oh, the msm were throwing the ak/ar’s around yesterday- i don’t really read all the post’s (up to 150ish now) and misidentified the shooter(s) several times in their quest to break a story. it’s kind of funny to read and print the initial news feeds and then compare them a day or so later when the story get’s clearer and the info is correct. they were trying to sell him as a Texan (when he’s from Queens) as that gives the gun grabbers a stiffy!
so he was a wacked out ex military guy with buddhist tendencies and a thai girlfriend that just dumped him (losing a thai gf would alone send many men over the edge)
@ bill…
Just to be clear…I don’t want to get rid of guns…just get them out of the hands of the unstable.
But if the suit fits…wear it.
@Mikey: Agreed, Secret tickets just get you on base and in buildings where classified information is handled without needing an escort. They don’t come out and say it but all clearances aren’t processed with the same scrutiny. This guy was a tech refresher that swapped out old network equipment with new equipment. Had he been in a job where he needed access to classified data to work…he never would have been cleared with the issues flagged in his background. For a guy who worked the equivalent of the Geek Squad however, minor things are overlooked. (Except for the tire shooting, I’m thinking he didn’t report this and they never found it)
Without being cleared, he and everyone in his company would have had to be escorted on the premises all day by someone who is cleared and supposed to be supporting the mission of the organization…an enormous waste of manpower. So you’ll find alot of people on Military bases with Secret clearances in jobs that require constant access to a facility and freedom of movement…HVAC repairmen, furniture installers, etc
Read the usual spectrum of ideas in this thread but still feel the crux of the issue is being overlooked. Why do Americans gravitate to violence as a means to make a statement or solve their problems?
I’m reminded of how Americans are fixated on having flat bellies—so you have a cottage industry built around targeting belly fat. There are devices, exercises, special foods, etc all designed to burn and target that stubborn belly fat. However, concentrating on a specific area of fat is a fools errand! You can’t spot reduce fat!…the idea that you can is quackery; a marketing scheme. Neither do I believe you can spot reduce “gun violence”. You must reduce your overall percentage of body fat in order to flatten your belly. Likewise, without reducing the overall level of violence in this country, any attempts to target “gun violence” are going to vastly underperform. I mean, in the absence of semi-automatics, who here would be satisfied with 6-10 as the new mass killing? This could easily be achieved with revolvers and hunting rifles/shotguns.
I disagree with Michael Reynolds hyperbole about guns but at least he’s come to the right conclusion— that a cultural remedy is our only option for meaningful changes. There is no legislative path out of this folks. Smoking went from being the norm 50 years ago to being viewed as utterly disgusting today. We need the same shift of attitudes as it pertains to violence.
@Rafer Janders: But consider that you said these men should “have been trained” not to make these errors, and they still made them — well, armed civilians WON’T EVEN GET THIS TRAINING IN THE FIRST PLACE. So they’re even more likely to shoot first and ask questions later.
I’m going to ignore the idiots who I was considering when I mentioned the “rudeness” thing, and once again fall back on empirical evidence: the two examples I cited involved a former cop (fired for misconduct, but goddamn if she hasn’t redeemed herself) and two students who happened to be off-duty cops. If we extend the topic from “mass shootings” to “armed private citizens dealing with a variety of crimes” in general, I can find a hell of a lot more stories where the private citizen taking action made things a lot better than there are stories of it making it worse.
Of course, the vast majority of them never make the news, because often the gun isn’t fired. Hell, the liquor store clerk who swatted away a would-be robber’s gun and shoved his own gun into the guy’s mouth only got attention because there was a hell of a sensational video.
To me, the question boils down to “do you respect and trust your fellow citizens to generally do the right and responsible thing, or not?” I’ll admit that my belief in that took a bit of a hit when my fellow citizens elected Obama twice, but I’ll still put my trust in them.
Which is why I am both such a Second Amendment militant, and don’t actually own any guns. I trust people to generally do the right thing. And for me, “the right thing” doesn’t require me to own a gun. I could get one, but I don’t feel the need or desire the responsibility.
Which, I guess, makes me “pro-choice” on guns. I made mine, and others can make theirs.
@Pharoah Narim: I disagree with your notion, but I respect greatly your idea of using “culture” to make the change instead of law. I’d suggest, however, not using smoking as your metaphor, but drunk driving — there are still quite a few people pushing for “smokers’ rights” and people who are fierce and proud smokers, but you’d be hard-pressed to find any such attitudes on behalf of drunk drivers. They’re the true pariahs.
@Rob in CT: We also regulate guns but you prefer to pretend we don’t.
Oh and BTW he didn’t use an ar-15 or an ar-15 shotgun. He used a shotgun then a pistol he took off an officer..
BUt remember if only we had even more gun laws this never would of happened because it’s not like he would of just used a cop’s gun….
@john personna: what’s ok in nevada might not be in ny or dc- anyhow the whole point is that this guy skirted the law and did everything by the book. sure, like all mass killers, he was crazy and shouldn’t have been wandering the streets- but that’s the fault of society. how he still maintained any sort of military clearance is going to be interesting.but really, if he was as diabolical as he seems he would have just blown up the place, it’s not that hard to kill en mass if you really want to. he knew he wasn’t getting out of there alive. and no, you don’t close, you don’t win the steak knives!
@C. Clavin: wow, i agree with that- gonna by a lotto ticket
here’s more detritus from the nyt’s….what a hack job; they purport that this guy is all Texan now- although he grew up in NYC (Queens) and that Virginia state law prevented him from buying an ASSAULT rifle….which is totally false. he actually tested the AR-15 and then bought the shotgun.
In other words I’m going to ignore anyone who doesn’t agree with my factual misreading of events.
They were students…not cops…because…shut up, that’s why.
You’re a moron.
I basically agree with this, with an important caveat: the cultural shift about smoking went hand-in-hand with laws and other rules (non-law rules set by private businesses and such). Smoking was banned inside restaurants, bars, etc. There was much whining, though it was fully justified on workplace safety grounds alone (I, for one, never really whined about it. I was a smoker at the time of the great shift, but I remembered *hating* second hand smoke and it’s obvious that my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose and all that).
Now it could be said that this badly needed cultural shift regarding violence is already underway, given the drop in violent crime over the past 20 years. Or maybe it’s lead. Or demographics. Or mass incarceration. Or, more likely, a combination of all of those things and a few others I’m not thinking of. I don’t know.
What I do know is that nothing of value would be lost if our society became a bit less enamored of violence.
@Matt:
No, I pretend no such thing. I know we regulate guns. I think we do it badly. And by the way, I don’t really care about AR-15s. I’m of the opinion that an “assault weapons” ban has nearly zero utility, and therefore don’t want one.
Though I will say I’m glad VA law prevented this guy from buying one, to the extent it might have helped him kill a few more people. Not that it’s at all certain that it would have.
Jenos:
Drunk Driving also involved The Law (about which there actually is some whining – you can find it if you want – about how .08 is too low a limit and how awful MAAD is).
Of course there are categories of risks for categories of firearms. The Austrailain system deals with that very rationally:
Firearms Categories, Australia
Our problem is that we are a long way from rational and intelligent.
As with many of our problems we must design laws for buy-in from the irrational elements which hold such political power.
You can see that in this thread…the most vociferous defenders of gun violence; JKB, bill, Jenos…peddle mis-information and factual errors in defense of their positions. When confronted with actual facts…they deny them. (this syndrome is not limited to guns)
Rational and intelligent requires a fact based discussion. As is typical of our current political climate…one side is just flat-out un-interested in facts.
@C. Clavin:
I was just reading about Starbucks’ change in policy.
As I read it, the store tried to be neutral on policy, accepting local open carry laws, but then crazy people started showing up at Starbucks because they could carry their guns.
Guns flocked to their stores, and sensible people recoiled.
@Rob in CT:
FWIW, the stats are that removing the assault rifles would indeed reduce the death toll:
So with one mass shooting per month since 2009 (about 45?) and an extra 3 deaths per shooting, that’s an extra 144 deaths.
Math correction:
45 x 0.28 x 2.9 = 36.54
I’m going to assume pun-intended…
Funny you brought that up…the Tobacco Industry has a strongwell-funded lobby that fights tooth and nail against regulation, denies the dangers inherent to it’s product, and peddles lies in order to defend itself…just like the NRA and the rest of the Gun Lobby.
How many people needlessly died in those 50 years because of the propoganda spread by the tobacco lobby…and it’s purchasing power over Congress?
How many people are going to have to die while we wait for culture to overcome the lies and purchasing power of the Gun Lobby?
Drunk Driving? Apples and orangutans. Which is why Jenos made the comparison.
@bill:
BTW, it is actually possible to distinguish between law enforcement Remington 870s and sporting models. The law enforcement models have shorter barrels (down to 14 inches!) and support larger magazines.
Rationally, we could restrict magazine capacity for civilian use.
@C. Clavin:
That was an unconscious linkage!
Frum…one of the few remaining real Conservatives…has an intelligent post up about gun regulation.
Key takeaway:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/17/what-if-we-treated-guns-like-cars.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Flatest+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest%29
I’m sure the supporters of gun violence will jump right up and explain to us why it’s totally wrong…
Well, what many have learned from this is that people, with mental health problems and a history of run-ins with the law in incidents that involved the use of a gun, can easily get a gun. Not that most of us didn’t know that already.
I can see why the NRA supports the Second Amendment rights of such people.
@Rob in CT: Drunk Driving also involved The Law (about which there actually is some whining – you can find it if you want – about how .08 is too low a limit and how awful MAAD is).
Yeah, but The Law changed because of the social attitudes. When drunk driving was a great source of humor, the limit was .10. It was the change in attitudes that led to the lower limit.
Again, if you can get the attitudes of enough to change, you can pull off the big changes easier. Of course, I disagree and will argue against that, but I think it’s a better approach than simply bigfooting it with a law.
Buzzfeed has a good list of mass shootings and would-be mass shootings stopped by people with privately-owned firearms.Yes, several of them use the phrase “off-duty police officer,” but in each and every case the off-duty cop was present as a coincidence, not as part of their duties or in reaction to the incident.
One was at a school, and an assistant principal was an Army reservist with his gun locked in his vehicle.
One was the owner of the dance hall who had his own shotgun at hand.
Two were legal gun owners who just happened to be nearby.
Americans, by and large, tend to do the right thing when given the chance.
Let’s be clear…Drunk Driving is not an analogue of Gun Violence…to say it is is to intentionally mislead…which is why Jenos is parroting those who do so.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
In the case of gun ownership, ‘by and large’ tending to do the right thing leaves a lot room for gun violence. But that’s okay, Americans are willing to put up with gun violence and occasional mass shootings as the price to pay for unfettered Second Amendment rights.
By the way, have you ever been in a public place – like a park, or a plaza – and noticed a non-security person carrying a gun? Did you feel safer? I have, in a major public park in San Francisco. I was waiting at a corner of the park to meet friends, and I saw a guy seated on a bench, his jacket fell open and I noticed a gun in the big pocket of his jacket – I left that place in the park. Average people with guns in public places do not make me feel that that is a safer place.
@john personna:
36 is a fairly small number, when compared to the overall number of deaths from guns (especially if you include suicides, woah boy). This is why I said “nearly zero utility.” Not zero, but low, at least in comparison to the good that could be done if we could somehow figure out how to meaningfully reduce the supply of guns (overwhelmingly handguns) to folks who shouldn’t have them (properly calibrating that is, of course, hard).
Jenos:
I generally agree that culture typically goes first and law second. I think they have a reinforcing effect, though. You get past a tipping point, put something in law, and then that pushes the culture farther.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
In another thread James memorializes Gerald Read, 58.
I think some of you are going a bit Stalinesque on us. One death is a tragedy, more are just statistics.
@john personna:
To be fair, John, any reasonable discussion of gun regulation has to include some cost/benefit analysis. Or, as Frum put it:
So of course we talk statistics. Unless you want policy driven purely by emotional reactions to individual traged, and I know you don’t want that.
@Rob in CT:
I don’t know why we shouldn’t try to dot every i, and cross every t, in creating a rational gun control policy. I think we can, while preserving hunting, target shooting, and even home protection.
At the same time we can try to make good plans for mental health issues.
There are plenty of happy nations which we generally regard as both democratic and free which do have such rational policies, restricting guns most useful for crime and preferring guns most useful for sport.
Basically you have to be crazy to think Australia or Canada is are tyrannical states … but that is the kind of crazy that shapes our policies.
@Rob in CT:
I believe I do have the statistics on my side, and others side is, whatever the words, accepting statistical deaths as necessary to our current “freedoms.”
In the concrete, the nation should require California’s “bullet button” and eliminate large capacity magazines, both through a retrofit or trade-in policy.
This has the advantage of saving lives, but also of setting a pattern for rational policy.
We should start being sane, as a practice.
@Rob in CT: As a contribution to the ‘cars v guns’ line of this thread maybe my little idea would be a small contribution. I think that an insurance requirement should be established. The premiums would be paid by the gun manufacturer and everyone down the distribution chain. Beneficiaries would be the survivers & family of victims of mass shootings; they would get enough awarded that they’d be rich. There’d be a hell of an incentive to do thorough background checks which the taxpayers would not have to pay for.
So when off-duty a cop is required to consciously block out the months and months of on-going training he or she recieves? A cop is a cop…24/7. You…are a moron…24/7.
@john personna:
That’s not quite a complete argument. We accept deaths to increase freedoms in other areas. Automobile travel, for example. And smoking is still legal, as is eating an unhealthy diet and not exercising enough.
The difference–and the thing that would “complete” your point–between those areas and guns is that we work to minimize the harms in those areas. We’ve worked for decades to increase auto safety, and as the David Frum piece to which @C. Clavin linked shows, it’s been a great success. A combination of legislation and cultural change has worked to reduce smoking-related deaths. Government and private organizations work to promote healthy eating and exercise.
But what do we have with guns? We don’t work to minimize the harms. The only reason gun deaths are down over the last 20 years is because crime in general is down. Any attempts at even the most reasonable regulation are shot down (pun semi-intended) by gun rights organizations.
I agree with the Supreme Court that the 2nd Amendment protects a right enforceable by individuals. But no right is so absolute it is immune from regulation. We regulate many other rights without destroying them, why should guns be any different?
A 30-round magazine isn’t a right, it’s a convenience.
Not a bad idea. I’ve heard several versions of this and you would imagine it could be workable.
One huge caveat….Can you ever imagine the Gun Lobby allowing Congress to pass such a thing? The idea is laughable.
One of the big reasons drunk driving is not like gun violence is that the NRA had expressly forbidden the expenditure of federal monies to study gun violence and it’s causes.
If we can’t even study the problem…then no way we can make progress towards mitigating it.
@C. Clavin:
I consider the fact that we’re a nation of 315M people and nearly as many guns to be a public health issue, and yet Congress has passed laws that expressly forbid agencies like the CDC to conduct studies.
We pay a big price for our cult of gun ownership.
@ C. Clavin…
Imagine if the Tabacco Lobby had succeeded in preventing the CDC, or whoever, from looking into the hazards of smoking.
That’s where we are with the NRA.
The sway this lobby has over our Government…and the blood they have on their hands…is astounding.
In large part it is because of idiots like Jenos and JKB who mindlessly buy into their crap. But largely it’s the fault of everyone of us for letting it happen.
@Mikey:
I what you did there was expand what I implied by quoting “freedoms.”
@JohnMcC:
I think there are better precedents than insurance in other nations’ systems.
In fact it’s a lot like health care. Pick one.
@C. Clavin: And we all know that in those years Jenos would have been loudly proclaiming that cigarettes are no threat to anyone’s health, and in fact that not smoking causes cancer.
@ wr…
And if for some reason you do get cancer…the cure is to smoke more!!!!
@C. Clavin: Its a fair analogy but not a perfect one. For one, you can only call pee lemonade for so long before being exposed as a liar. Despite what the ditto heads in the smoking industry said, I think people got the picture that smoke went in the lungs and people developed cancer—on the flip-side; smoke didn’t go in someone eles’s lungs and they didn’t get lung cancer–generally speaking that is.
What’s not so obvious is how much effect proposed regulations will have on “gun violence”–specifically mass shootings (lets be honest, there is a collective national “meh” when it comes to routine urban violence in which poor people are mowed down). The Public has as impirical comparisons the spectrum of bans and regulations on drugs. People just aren’t convinced that the handful of crazy people that go on a rampage yearly can be twarted with additional regulations. You can buy anything in this country if you’re willing to pay. So in the short term, say we deny mass shooters access to assault weapons and 30 round clips and they take down 6 people a pop (down from the average 9 in these incidents). O.k.–these folks are crazy, with a little practice you can increase your efficiency in reloading. They’ll adapt.
Back to your analogy about smoking however, we should be increasing our intolerance for violence the same as we did for second-hand smoke. We go light on violent behavior that doesn’t involve guns when it clearly is a predictor of future violence in a large percentage of cases. We can’t deal with violent people properly because the criminal justice system is fixated on drug enforcement…that’s what pays the bills and gets all the grant money so officers can have the latest tactical gear and ride around in assault vehicles. If your a jerk that shoots out tires…you’ll be home the next day as if nothing happened.
@al-Ameda: yes, there’s no link on yahoo today at all. Yesterday I had to look for one and it disappeared later in the day.
It’s weird how people want congress to “do something” about guns when the most obvious thing that should be done pertains to figuring out why homicidal maniacs are free to roam the streets until they snap. All of these mass murderers have something in common, they’re mentally unstable and on some kind if medication. Notice how the msm tries to bury that fact in favor of showing guns on tv? Maybe there’s a link between psychotropic drugs and homicidal / suicidal tendencies ?
Possibly, though you may want to consider that there is probably a correlation because if you’re mentally unstable you’re likely to have some meds, and if you commit mass murder you’re likely to be mentally unstable. That doesn’t mean the meds made you murder.
As for the rest… oy veh.
@bill:
A few points:
(1) 315M people and 300 million guns – we’re awash in guns.
(2) It’s a supply side problem – Supply the weaponry and the “demand” for violence will follow.
(3) Determinism, Cause/Effect – I watch all kinds of movies and programming with a fair amount of gun violence and I’ve never once contemplated buying a gun to go out there and “solve problems.”
(4) Conclusion: About all you can do is pay your dues to the NRA and hope for the best.
@ bill
Do you actually think Yahoo is a serious source for news?
@bill:
I think it has something to do with the “Liberty” aspect of the 5th and 14th amendments. You can’t just go around locking people up because they seem weird. In hindsight every maniac’s psychosis seems obvious … before they snap it isn’t so clear.
The willingness of self-described libertarians to trample the very concept of “liberty” in order to protect one minor, specific liberty (the right to own guns) is staggering.
@al-Ameda: By the way, have you ever been in a public place – like a park, or a plaza – and noticed a non-security person carrying a gun? Did you feel safer? I have, in a major public park in San Francisco. I was waiting at a corner of the park to meet friends, and I saw a guy seated on a bench, his jacket fell open and I noticed a gun in the big pocket of his jacket – I left that place in the park. Average people with guns in public places do not make me feel that that is a safer place.
I once lived in the next apartment from a guy with a decent-sized gun collection, and he’d sometimes clean them on a common deck we shared. I also had a customer with a handgun in a holster enter my place of business, and he was no cop. In both cases was I the least bit worried or concerned. I showed the customer a smidgen more respect and gave him a healthy bit of personal space, but it didn’t faze me in the least.
I know I’m an odd duck in a lot of ways, and maybe this is one more, but I don’t freak at the mere sight of a gun. I simply note it and keep myself aware of the gun, its possessor, and their demeanor, and show a smidgen more respect than I do normally, but it doesn’t scare me at all.
@bill:
From the link above:
That says that mental health issues, while important, are not enough in and of themselves.
This is why a rational approach would approach it from both ends, with reasonable mental health interventions, and reasonable gun controls.
Only combined can we make a best attempt to reduce gun violence.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
The fact that you feel the need to keep an eye on them and give them more respect and more space tends to cast doubt on your assertion that they don’t scare you at all. It seems they scare you at least a little, or you wouldn’t be reacting to them in the way you describe.
@ Grewgills
Successful intimidation. Mission accomplished.
I own a few guns, and I enjoy shooting, something I have been doing for 40+ years. That being said, seeing a civilian armed in public makes me uncomfortable. I don’t know what his motives are, I don’t know what his state of mind is, and I don’t know if he is competent to handle/carry a deadly weapon.
Just the fact that someone is taking part in an action which is designed to intimidate makes me question his state of mind and character.
@bill: “…all these mass murderers have something in common, they’re all mentally unstable and on some kind if (sic) medication….”
?Link.
@Grewgills: The fact that you feel the need to keep an eye on them and give them more respect and more space tends to cast doubt on your assertion that they don’t scare you at all.
It’s not fear, it’s respect. If I was scared, I’d ask them to leave or avoid them or call the cops or get really nervous. Instead, I just raise my own self-awareness and manners up a notch or so.
The message I get from someone armed is “I’m a serious person who has chosen to take on a certain level of responsibility, and I would appreciate it if you would respect that.” And, as the saying goes, since an armed society is a polite society, I will be polite.
And I know that if Shit Gets Real, there’s someone present who at least MIGHT do more than hide under a desk or hope like hell the cops get there in record time. The odds of it happening are incredibly slim, but you never know.
The students at Virginia Tech probably thought that they’d never have any problems, because guns were banned from campus. I think even the campus cops were unarmed. (I don’t have time to check.) And I know how that worked out for them.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
You admire them simply for carrying a weapon?
There are plenty of people that I respect and I don’t feel the need to keep an eye on them or give them extra space. The actions you describe are the actions of someone that is at least a little worried that the person they are keeping tabs on is a threat, ie there is at least some level of fear. I respect my parents. I don’t feel the need to keep an eye on them and give them extra space.
or someone that will try and play hero and make the situation that much worse.
Really???
You’re still spouting “arm everyone” no sense???
Even though every example you have is cops in a civilian situation?
What a maroon.
@JohnMcC: really, in this day and age of “google”, you demand a link….?
here’s a bone, go chew on it- you’re welcome, it took a 10 whole seconds, but you can keep digging and find more if you want- there’s a plethora of them so you may discount a few but in the end it’s pretty obvious that the msm is avoiding ticking off their advertisers. (aka- big pharma)
@anjin-san: it links stories all over the place, but really- 2 days later and they’re done? the last 2 wacko’s were in there for a week or so while the gun grabbers fell all over themselves- now they have nothing to fall on for some reason.
@Grewgills: You admire them simply for carrying a weapon?
“Respect” has quite a few definitions. Ever heard the term “respect someone’s boundaries?” I have found that armed people have slightly greater boundaries than the average non-armed person, and I accept that and don’t try to violate it.
We ask people to “respect” the law, “respect” their elders, and the like. There’s no implied admiration there.
I generally try to “respect” the rules of this site, and the authors here. I don’t succeed anywhere near as often as I wish I did, but lately I’m really trying to just ignore a couple of the cretins here who don’t feel the same level of respect I do for the site and the authors. Yeah, I kinda suck at it, but I do try.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
That doesn’t speak well of the armed populace.
Why give them special deference that you don’t offer to other classes of people?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Why do you show more respect than normal is the pertinent question? Why would you be more aware of the gun, the possessor’s demeanor ?
When I go out to dinner with my wife and children, why should I have to be distracted by another diner who is armed? Why should I have to be aware of the possessor’s demeanor, why should I have to be more respectfull to that person than to other diners or my family.
Why should I have to tolerate that?
I don’t, I leave and I tell the manager why I’m leaving.
@Grewgills: That doesn’t speak well of the armed populace.
Why give them special deference that you don’t offer to other classes of people?
They have exercised their right to choose to move about armed. They are responsible for the weapon or weapons they carry, and are responsible to make sure that nothing untoward happens to that weapon. That includes no one tries to grab it away from them, no one tries to knock it out of their hands, or whatever.
If I’m in a restaurant and I see a waiter carrying a tray of hot food, I show them respect by not crowding them, not moving their personal space, giving them a bit of extra room, etc. That’s not fear or admiration, but respect and courtesy. Likewise, I’ll show a bit of extra courtesy to someone carrying a gun, pretty much for the same reason: I don’t feel like adding to their burden.
Alternately, I could confront them and challenge their reasons for carrying the gun. I could make imputations about their manhood, their perceived need to compensate for inadequacies, and challenge them to confront me without their gun to back them up. I don’t do such things, because I’m not an a-hole.
But back to the shooter, and this shooting in general: it’s now coming out that the shooter was a black male, a Prius driver, an Obama supporter, and his weapon of choice was a Joe Biden-approved shotgun. Should we draw any conclusions from any of these factoids?
I almost feel I should offer my sympathies that he wasn’t a white male Tea Partier. How heartbroken so many of you must have been when that came out…
@Jenos Idanian #13:
In particular that you said you keep an eye on them and their weapon and you are more polite to them than to others is what struck me. You give the waiter enough space to accommodate the tray of hot food. You don’t feel the need to keep an eye on all the waiters and all of the trays they carry while you are in the restaurant and you don’t feel the need to me more polite to the waiter because of the tray. That says to me there is something else in play. I would suggest that something is a not so subtle intimidation and regardless of their intent they are instilling fear in a substantial fraction of the people around them.
What the hell is that about and why would I want the shooter to have a certain background?
His politics would only matter if that was his motivation. It wasn’t. Disturbed people come in all political and social backgrounds. Him being a disturbed tea partier, or a disturbed left wing activist, or a disturbed monty python fan doesn’t make it more or less tragic.
What a f’ing idiot you are.
It’s all team sports for you.
It’s not about curbing gun violence.
It’s not about saving live that would be needlessly ended.
Every life is precious only applies to abortion…and hoping your team wins that fight.
It’s always whose team wins.
Not whats right.
Not whats wrong.
Just the political score.
Moron.
@C. Clavin: Fine words of outrage. Too bad it’s from the jackhole who made the very first comment on this thread:
As per usual…the real story won’t be clear for at least two days.
Until then we should all just assume it’s Obama’s fault.
I await your condemnation of yourself.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
.
Exactly what burden is someone who is carrying a gun bearing that they deserve more respect than any other person? Is it the weight of that gun? Is it the weight of their insecurities? What is that burden?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
So, you were somewhat intimidated? Why does the gun-carrying person deserve more respect and more personal space than any other customer? It was the fact of the visible presence of the gun – right?
Jenos…
I should condemn myself for making a sarcastic comment/prediction on your (and your types) fetish for team sports???
You are one dumb motherf’er.
@C. Clavin: How dare you be right about how a certain breed of internet losers cares about nothing but his team “winning.” Clearly the fact that you predicted Jenos would react this way is the only reason for his actions.
@Jenos Idanian #13: So you’re obsequious to the armed while claiming to “respect” them? What a shock — scratch a right-winger and you find someone desperate for a strongman to control every aspect of their lives, even as they scream about “freedom.”
@wr: Your obsession with me has gone way past the cute/endearing stage, spud…
@al-Ameda: So, you were somewhat intimidated? Why does the gun-carrying person deserve more respect and more personal space than any other customer? It was the fact of the visible presence of the gun – right?
I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
So, you are intimidated by the presence of a person carrying a gun – which makes sense, otherwise why would you show that person more respect and more deference that you would any other ‘average’ patron.’
On the other hand, if that is not true explain to me why I have drawn the wrong inference from your comment.