• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Shootist Jeff

The Official consolidated MASS SHOOTING thread

332 posts in this topic

Since this is a recurring theme and its hard to keep track of all the hundreds of threads on the subject - gun nutters and gun grabbers alike - post your comments here:

 

OK, I'll start...... two three observations from this latest occurance of mental instability violence.

 

1. It looks like what the gun nutters have been saying for a while is true. Lack of Enforcement of the existing laws and the need to beef up the penalties for the use of a gun in a violent act played a major role in this shooting. It seems the shooter was arrested in Seattle in 2004 for shooting out a neighbors tires with a handgun in an "anger fueled Blackout". He was booked on malicious mischief. Malicious mischief? Really? Then has another incident where he shoots through a neighbors ceiling whom he had a "contentious relationship" with. So two different crimes using a gun and two different PDs and DAs who did nothing. And he was still able to pass a background check with those events plus a known and long history of mental disorders.

 

Evidence is building to the point where it is evadent that the common GLARING theme among mass murderers is mental disorder and instability and society doing nothing about the problem. No "universal background check" system proposed by the grabbers has yet to address this issue. I have strongly and loudly advocated for mentally unstable people to be identified and prevented from acquiring weapons.

 

2. It looks like the shooter used a plain jane shotgun owned by everyone who hunts birds and and other small game. Worst case - he had a "riot gun" with an 8 round tube. 8 rounds is now "high capacity??? What's interesting, very telling and not surprising in the least is that the major news orgs are totally down-playing the fact that he entered with only a shotty and then acquired the AR-15 from a security guard once he was in. Because that story doesn't play well that an average shotgun was used in the genesis of the attack - the press are glossing over the weapons issue and still emphasizing the AR-15 as somehow being the evil weapon. That would be like someone breaking into a National Guard armory, getting their hands on an M-249 and then the press and the gun grabbers saying: "See, we told you machine guns were bad!"

 

Are we going to hear a call by Andy Cuntmo, Diane and others to ban shotguns now? What are the chances?

 

3. Oh yeah. It STILL took a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. The fact that other good guys with guns were ambushed and killed by surprise is irrelevant. In fact in roughly about 10% of cop killings - they were killed with their own gun. Are we actually discussing disarming cops so we don't have guns for criminals and the mentally unstable to have access to - as it appears to be in this DC mass shooting case? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that most of the posts from "gun grabbers" are pointed towards background checks and the rest of the points you refuted were either obvious trolls or meant in humor right?

 

It is nice to see the gun fetishists are ready for a battle :mellow: I'm sure none of the voices in the lamestream right wing MEDIA have a vested interest...at all. It isn't like they are going to politicize this event to their own gain, i mean that is what "THEY" do.

 

They are just reporting, on those people reporting, on that story that shouldn't be reported on for so long, for longer then they are. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!

 

Yes i am sure over the course of rash speculation throughout the day certain media types have said things that no longer make sense, politicians are going to play to their interest groups and in the end NOTHING will happen. Congress is pretty awesome at nothing after all.

 

Gun Fetishists are already waving the "Gun Free Zone", as if that is something new in military/federal facilities or in any way attributed to Obama, which it isn't.

 

The misinformation from both sides is staggering.

 

The worthy questions are obvious, how he managed to maintain a security clearance being primary among them. Explaining to police that he blacked out from rage and shot up a car isn't something that i would think would fly, did it? Was there a conviction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, we're "gun fetishists" now? Nice. Do they make latex I can wrap my rifles in and little leather handcuffs for the stock so the rifles will be obedient finally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worthy questions are obvious, how he managed to maintain a security clearance being primary among them. Explaining to police that he blacked out from rage and shot up a car isn't something that i would think would fly, did it? Was there a conviction?

 

Not according to this report

 

SEATTLE (AP) - The man identified as the shooter in the Washington Navy Yard slayings had been arrested in Seattle in 2004 for shooting out the tires of a parked car in what he described as an anger-fueled "black out."

 

Two construction workers building a new home told police that Aaron Alexis walked out of a home next door on May 6, 2004, pulled a pistol from his waistband and fired three shots into the rear tires of their parked car.

 

 

Court records show he had a hearing and was released on the condition he not have contact with any of the construction workers. A message left for the attorney who represented him at that hearing, Raymond Connell, was not immediately returned.

 

Seattle police said Monday the case was referred to Seattle Municipal Court for charges of property damage and discharge of a firearm.

 

There's no record that he was ever prosecuted, and a spokeswoman for the Seattle City Attorney's Office, Kimberly Mills, said her office never received the report from police so did not review it for possible charges.

 

 

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Navy-Yard-shooting-suspect-arrested-in-Seattle-in-04-after-anger-fuled-blackout-223980371.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that most of the posts from "gun grabbers" are pointed towards background checks and the rest of the points you refuted were either obvious trolls or meant in humor right? Are you talking to someone else? An imaginary friend maybe? What points did I "refute"? Since I started the thread, there were no other points to refute. I attempted to make some points/observations. Can you be more clear?

 

And I was certainly not trolling. And I support background checks. Which the shooter apparently passed last week with flying colors when he bought his shotgun at a gunshop. What would YOU suggest we do wrt to background checks that would have prevented this?

 

It is nice to see the gun fetishists are ready for a battle :mellow: I'm sure none of the voices in the lamestream right wing MEDIA have a vested interest...at all. It isn't like they are going to politicize this event to their own gain, i mean that is what "THEY" do.

 

They are just reporting, on those people reporting, on that story that shouldn't be reported on for so long, for longer then they are. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! Huh???? PUI?

 

Yes i am sure over the course of rash speculation throughout the day certain media types have said things that no longer make sense, politicians are going to play to their interest groups and in the end NOTHING will happen. Congress is pretty awesome at nothing after all. ibid

 

Gun Fetishists are already waving the "Gun Free Zone", as if that is something new in military/federal facilities or in any way attributed to Obama, which it isn't. Who's saying that?

 

The misinformation from both sides is staggering. I'm not sure its misinformation. But it seems to be very selective information coming out of the media regarding the weapons used. They are very specific about the AR-15 (which was not his) and seemingly very deliberately down-playing the shotgun he bought and used to gain entry. The WaPo or the NYT (can't remeber which) tracked down his purchase of the shotgun to a VA dealer the week prior. So they KNOW what kind of gun it was. The fact that they are not saying leads me to believe it is a run of the mill shotty, probably a pump 12 ga shotgun exactly like what millions of people use to hunt and target shoot with. Had it been some super-tactical 150 round drum fully auto EBS - I'm sure the press would have been playing that up to no end. But the narrative that it was not a high capacity, evil black assault rifle with a mind of its own will not play well to the gun grabbing liberal public.

 

The worthy questions are obvious, how he managed to maintain a security clearance being primary among them. Explaining to police that he blacked out from rage and shot up a car isn't something that i would think would fly, did it? Was there a conviction? I think I posed those specific questions. did you miss that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So these two clowns qualify as gun fetishists?

 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/rifles-near-appleton-farmers-market-lead-to-police-debate-b9996773z1-223514231.html

According to the recording:

 

The men are walking down the street when they see a police car's lights go on and they see officers approaching. As the officers order the men to put their hands against the wall, the police ask why they're carrying the guns that way.

"For self-defense," Branstrom says.

"These are real AR-15s guys. I'll cover them both," says one officer, who levels his own weapon at the men as another officer begins questioning them.

Police ask if the men are headed to the farmers market.

"Yeah, we were just going to do some shopping," Branstrom says.

"Do you understand how that might create a disturbance if you're walking around with an AR-15 strapped to your back?" asks an officer.

"Yeah, I guess some people don't like guns," Branstrom replies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Dunno, I would have to know what else they do with their guns. Do they take them to bed with them? Ejaculate on them?

 

 

Fetishism:

 

1. Worship of or belief in magical fetishes.

2. Excessive attachment or regard.
3. The displacement of sexual arousal or gratification to a fetish

 

I see nothing in the article that would indicate they were fetishists. The guns were slung over their backs, so they weren't even fondling them. I would think if you met the definition of fetishism, you would not be able to take your eyes or hands off the object of your lust. They seemed pretty calm. Especially when the police took the guns away from them briefly. I would think a true fetishist would have been very upset with someone handling their precious.

 

No, what I think they are is morons who are making the correct point the wrong way. I also think they could be looking for money in a settlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overthrow-the-Regime-600x471.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overthrow-the-Regime-600x471.jpg

 

But.... but.... but I thought small arms were not sufficient to overthrow an oppressive regime or drive out an overwhelmingly superior invading army?

 

Well, except for Afghanistan and Iraq - but lets not pick nits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Dunno, I would have to know what else they do with their guns. Do they take them to bed with them? Ejaculate on them?

 

>

Fetishism:

 

1. Worship of or belief in magical fetishes.

2. Excessive attachment or regard.
3. The displacement of sexual arousal or gratification to a fetish

 

I see nothing in the article that would indicate they were fetishists. The guns were slung over their backs, so they weren't even fondling them. I would think if you met the definition of fetishism, you would not be able to take your eyes or hands off the object of your lust. They seemed pretty calm. Especially when the police took the guns away from them briefly. I would think a true fetishist would have been very upset with someone handling their precious.

 

No, what I think they are is morons who are making the correct point the wrong way. I also think they could be looking for money in a settlement.

 

 

They should be separated from their AR 15's for awhile. A cold turkey-check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should be separated from their AR 15's for awhile. A cold turkey-check.

 

I've been separated from mine now for 3.5 months and I only get visitation rights every 6 months or so. I used to get cold sweats at night, but I'm much better now.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

more-

 

Report: Navy Yard Gunman 'Gathered Weapons Along the Way'

 

by ELIZABETH SHELD 17 Sep 2013, 3:01 AM PDT

NBC News reports that Aaron Alexis was armed with "an assault-style rifle, a shotgun and a handgun" when he was killed in a shootout with authorities. Law enforcement told NBC "they believed he arrived packing only the shotgun, which he bought last week from a gun dealer in Lorton, Va., about 20 miles from Washington."

 

The Washington DC local NBC affiliate says that sources informed them "that surveillance footage showed that he began his attack with a shotgun, but was found with a 9mm pistol and an AR-15 assault rifle."

Alexis has had several run-ins with the law on firearm related issues in the past. In 2010 in Fort Worth Texas, the police arrested him for discharging a firearm within city limits. The police report indicates that Alexis' neighbor heard a 'pop' sound and found a hole in her floor and ceiling. She believed someone had shot into her apartment. The woman also reported she was terrified of Alexis, who had confronted her for making too much noise.


The suspected gunman appeared to have seized firearms from two of his victims as he moved through the building along the Anacostia River in southeast Washington, where 3,000 Navy employees go to work each day, many of them carrying authorized firearms.

 

In 2004, Alexis was arrested in Seattle for a more disturbing incident. On May 6, he pulled out gun a fired three shots into the tires of a Honda Accord belonging to a construction worker who "mocked and disrespected him." Alexis told the police "he had an anger-fueled 'blackout.' " He also claimed he had PTSD from the events of September 11, 2001.

"After reviewing the facts presented by the police department, it was determined that the elements constituting recklessness under Texas law were not present and a case was not filed," said Melody McDonald, a spokeswoman with the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office.

 

The gunman was working as a subcontractor for Hewlett Packard for a company called "The Experts." He held a "secret" level security clearance (WHAT?!?) and serviced computer equipment at the Navy Yard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They should be separated from their AR 15's for awhile. A cold turkey-check.

I've been separated from mine now for 3.5 months and I only get visitation rights every 6 months or so. I used to get cold sweats at night, but I'm much better now.....

Try a ball gag. It's worked for gator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the latest shooting is a Hate Crime.

Holder should be all over this one. It's obviously Justice for Trayvon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was suggested on another thread that more Training should be included in the list of things needed for better gun control. As I said, I am not opposed to training. But how does that prevent or reduce mass shooter events from occurring?

 

From a safety aspect, I wholeheartedly endorse training requirements. But I fail to see how that is included in gun control efforts. Do we really want to make the mass shooters a better shot? kill more people? Again, what does training have to do with gun control?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was suggested on another thread that more Training should be included in the list of things needed for better gun control. As I said, I am not opposed to training. But how does that prevent or reduce mass shooter events from occurring?

 

From a safety aspect, I wholeheartedly endorse training requirements. But I fail to see how that is included in gun control efforts. Do we really want to make the mass shooters a better shot? kill more people? Again, what does training have to do with gun control?

Training is one possible venue where a mass shooter can be recognized as "off."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was suggested on another thread that more Training should be included in the list of things needed for better gun control. As I said, I am not opposed to training. But how does that prevent or reduce mass shooter events from occurring?

 

From a safety aspect, I wholeheartedly endorse training requirements. But I fail to see how that is included in gun control efforts. Do we really want to make the mass shooters a better shot? kill more people? Again, what does training have to do with gun control?

You are so right.

The only real solution is registration. Being able to trace the chain of custody of a weapon found at a crime scene will allow us to punish the enablers and refine our laws. Once gun traders realize they are a major key in solving the problem, they will step up and help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It was suggested on another thread that more Training should be included in the list of things needed for better gun control. As I said, I am not opposed to training. But how does that prevent or reduce mass shooter events from occurring?

 

From a safety aspect, I wholeheartedly endorse training requirements. But I fail to see how that is included in gun control efforts. Do we really want to make the mass shooters a better shot? kill more people? Again, what does training have to do with gun control?

Training is one possible venue where a mass shooter can be recognized as "off."

 

So being arrested twice on gun related charges wasn't enough of a tip off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It was suggested on another thread that more Training should be included in the list of things needed for better gun control. As I said, I am not opposed to training. But how does that prevent or reduce mass shooter events from occurring?

 

From a safety aspect, I wholeheartedly endorse training requirements. But I fail to see how that is included in gun control efforts. Do we really want to make the mass shooters a better shot? kill more people? Again, what does training have to do with gun control?

Training is one possible venue where a mass shooter can be recognized as "off."

 

So being arrested twice on gun related charges wasn't enough of a tip off?

Arrested or convicted? Do you really want an arrest keeping you away from your precious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

It was suggested on another thread that more Training should be included in the list of things needed for better gun control. As I said, I am not opposed to training. But how does that prevent or reduce mass shooter events from occurring?

 

From a safety aspect, I wholeheartedly endorse training requirements. But I fail to see how that is included in gun control efforts. Do we really want to make the mass shooters a better shot? kill more people? Again, what does training have to do with gun control?

Training is one possible venue where a mass shooter can be recognized as "off."

 

 

So being arrested twice on gun related charges wasn't enough of a tip off?

 

 

Maybe. Your question sounded like you wanted to talk generalities of public policy, but now it sounds like you want to talk about a specific case? Make up your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me crazy, but I don't think there is much we can do to prevent guys like this latest one without substantially violating the rights of many people, and I don't mean just 2nd amendment rights. The guy used one weapon to further acquire other weapons. He was apparently deliberate and calculating in his approach. If he could not gain access to a shotgun, he could have used something else to ambush someone, like a cop or security guard, who did have a gun. Are we going to lock people up proactively? At one time, we were much less averse to locking up mentally ill against their will. There were reasons we stopped doing that. Maybe we went too far, maybe it should be easier? I am not convinced, but it is a discussion we could have. But even that is not likely to have made a difference here. The guy managed to make it through boot camp and a 4 or 6 years in the navy reserves, I am guessing he did not come across as extremely violent and crazy then, at least not enough to lock him up. The two prior arrests, were one for shooting a car with nobody in it and nobody close to it. Shooting someone's tire is little different than slashing their tires, at least as far as I can see. It is and and should be prosecuted, but I don't know that it warrants a year in prison. The episode in TX is tough, people are stupid and end up having negligent discharges when cleaning their guns. Without some further evidence, other calls, witnesses, etc. it is really tough to see how you could prosecute it as deliberate. I don't think I can blame the prosecutor for thinking he had no case. Our world is actually pretty safe, I don't know how far we want to go in an attempt to eliminate the last bits of violence through laws and enforcement. I think we would get more bang for our buck if we just try to change our society by being nice to each other and being better neighbors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

It was suggested on another thread that more Training should be included in the list of things needed for better gun control. As I said, I am not opposed to training. But how does that prevent or reduce mass shooter events from occurring?

 

From a safety aspect, I wholeheartedly endorse training requirements. But I fail to see how that is included in gun control efforts. Do we really want to make the mass shooters a better shot? kill more people? Again, what does training have to do with gun control?

Training is one possible venue where a mass shooter can be recognized as "off."

 

So being arrested twice on gun related charges wasn't enough of a tip off?

 

Maybe. Your question sounded like you wanted to talk generalities of public policy, but now it sounds like you want to talk about a specific case? Make up your mind.

 

General is fine, was just using this as an example..... If the goal of training is to spot mental instability, then I would suggest that is a horribly inefficient use of resources and effort. There are other better ways to do so. EVERY ONE of the recent mass shooters were all known to be mentally unstable. It was no shock to those around them. SO using a one-time training course to attempt to spot that is silliness. Besides, even the most unstable can often hold it together for a couple of hours to get through a course. Its the long term signs that people near these psychos that are the warning signs.

 

Not to mention, it smacks of an effort to disqualify people much like a literacy test was used at the voting booth. I have no issue with training being a requirement for CCW, because you would be carrying in public and might conceivably use the weapon in public. But for general ownership - I don't see the need. The amount of deaths from accidents (which is all training is designed to fix) are statistically insignificant. And accidents, as has been said here 1000 brazillion times has fuck all to do with mass shootings and murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

 

True. He also admitted to the cops in Seattle that he had an "anger-fueled" blackout and his father said he had PTSD. Red flags should have been waving at authorities that this guy should not have been allowed to buy or possess guns, at least without a thorough examination by mental health professionals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a world where there seems to be no end of people willing to shoot me, I'm not inclined to weaken my rights of self defense.

 

On the other hand, I would like to keep guns, knives, clubs, rat poison and anything else which is lethal away from those that are certifiable. So, I say you make gun ownership easy, and gun confiscation almost as easy. For example, if you have a driver's license you should be able to buy a gun and that should be considered your gun license. Use it (the license) irresponsibly and lose the license or pay whatever fine the law requires. Same with the gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

 

Yes, but only after a number of years. There has to be something beyond getting booted from the Navy after 4 years that tells us someone is dangerous to society and needs to be locked up BEFORE they commit a crime. I do wonder why someone who was booted then got security clearance as a contractor, but that is a specific administrative question, not a legislative one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was suggested on another thread that more Training should be included in the list of things needed for better gun control. As I said, I am not opposed to training. But how does that prevent or reduce mass shooter events from occurring?

 

From a safety aspect, I wholeheartedly endorse training requirements. But I fail to see how that is included in gun control efforts. Do we really want to make the mass shooters a better shot? kill more people? Again, what does training have to do with gun control?

Training is one possible venue where a mass shooter can be recognized as "off."

 

 

So being arrested twice on gun related charges wasn't enough of a tip off?

 

 

Maybe. Your question sounded like you wanted to talk generalities of public policy, but now it sounds like you want to talk about a specific case? Make up your mind.

 

 

General is fine, was just using this as an example..... If the goal of training is to spot mental instability, then I would suggest that is a horribly inefficient use of resources and effort. There are other better ways to do so. EVERY ONE of the recent mass shooters were all known to be mentally unstable. It was no shock to those around them. SO using a one-time training course to attempt to spot that is silliness. Besides, even the most unstable can often hold it together for a couple of hours to get through a course. Its the long term signs that people near these psychos that are the warning signs.

 

Not to mention, it smacks of an effort to disqualify people much like a literacy test was used at the voting booth. I have no issue with training being a requirement for CCW, because you would be carrying in public and might conceivably use the weapon in public. But for general ownership - I don't see the need. The amount of deaths from accidents (which is all training is designed to fix) are statistically insignificant. And accidents, as has been said here 1000 brazillion times has fuck all to do with mass shootings and murder.

 

 

I didn't say the goal of training was finding mass shooters, or even that I was in favor of it or that it was a good idea. You asked how training might in any way deter mass shootings, and I answered a way in which it might.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

 

Yes, but only after a number of years. There has to be something beyond getting booted from the Navy after 4 years that tells us someone is dangerous to society and needs to be locked up BEFORE they commit a crime. I do wonder why someone who was booted then got security clearance as a contractor, but that is a specific administrative question, not a legislative one.

Locked up before they commit a crime?! I may need that AR-15 after all, jfc.

 

If you adopt "helping people in need" as our primary social policy we nip most of societies problems in the bud. All you need is money. MMT and Pegovian taxes provide more money than we could ever possilby use.

 

"It" is always about money, always will be...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dianne Feinstein jumps the gun literally

 

(CNN) -- It has been called the most popular rifle in America, and it briefly returned to the spotlight after Monday's shooting at the Navy Yard: the AR-15.

A U.S. law enforcement official said Monday that gunman Aaron Alexis unleashed a barrage of bullets using an AR-15, a rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Authorities believed the AR-15 was used for most of the shooting, the official said. The news prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the strongest proponents of a ban on assault weapons like the AR-15, to issue a statement the same day asking, "When will enough be enough?"

 

However, federal law enforcement sources told CNN Tuesday that authorities have recovered three weapons from the scene of the mass shooting, including one -- a shotgun -- that investigators believe Alexis brought in to the compound. The other two weapons, which sources say were handguns, may have been taken from guards at the Navy complex.

 

 

 

So, the one gun that the Control Crowd accepts as a legitimate sporting arm may be the one used here. It is interesting that the same report says he rented an AR15 but returned it shortly before the shooting. (maybe he had trouble finding 5.56/.223 ammo in stock anywhere.)

 

 

 

 



"Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun."

 

Are you channeling Joe Biden?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It works pretty good in Halo in close quarters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It works pretty good in Halo in close quarters.

 

Exclusive: The Washington Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis played violent video games including Call of Duty for up to 16 hours at a time and friends believe it could have pushed him towards becoming a mass murderer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10314585/Aaron-Alexis-Washington-navy-yard-gunman-obsessed-with-violent-video-games.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 12 ga. pump was designed for trench war, not sure. If so it would be the original assault weapon.

 

The pump shotgun was invented shortly after the civil war. It was actually used by Cavalry who had less difficulty aiming it effectively from horseback. It was later converted for trench warfare in WW I.

 

Most don't have high capacity magazines either.

 

Still pretty effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think the 12 ga. pump was designed for trench war, not sure. If so it would be the original assault weapon.

 

The pump shotgun was invented shortly after the civil war. It was actually used by Cavalry who had less difficulty aiming it effectively from horseback. It was later converted for trench warfare in WW I.

 

Most don't have high capacity magazines either.

 

Still pretty effective.

 

Saiga 12 ga AK style with Drum mag. My shoulder feels sore just looking at it.

 

Saiga12.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think the 12 ga. pump was designed for trench war, not sure. If so it would be the original assault weapon.

 

The pump shotgun was invented shortly after the civil war. It was actually used by Cavalry who had less difficulty aiming it effectively from horseback. It was later converted for trench warfare in WW I.

 

Most don't have high capacity magazines either.

 

Still pretty effective.

 

Saiga 12 ga AK style with Drum mag. My shoulder feels sore just looking at it.

 

Saiga12.jpg

 

Might be good equipment in an MRAP, but, that things got too much crap that'll snag on branches for me to want one for my woods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old School

 

Ithaca_DSPS_0800.jpg

 

At least add a door breaching serrated muzzle brake. Oddly absent from the gun pic I posted Hmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not planing on breaching any doors.

Then stay with the J105, it won't plane on anything.

 

Geez, man. I know this is PA, but some things are out of bounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I think the 12 ga. pump was designed for trench war, not sure. If so it would be the original assault weapon.

 

The pump shotgun was invented shortly after the civil war. It was actually used by Cavalry who had less difficulty aiming it effectively from horseback. It was later converted for trench warfare in WW I.

 

Most don't have high capacity magazines either.

 

Still pretty effective.

 

Saiga 12 ga AK style with Drum mag. My shoulder feels sore just looking at it.

 

Saiga12.jpg

 

Might be good equipment in an MRAP, but, that things got too much crap that'll snag on branches for me to want one for my woods.

 

That sure doesn't look like pump action which was the topic under discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me crazy, but I don't think there is much we can do to prevent guys like this latest one without substantially violating the rights of many people, and I don't mean just 2nd amendment rights. The guy used one weapon to further acquire other weapons. He was apparently deliberate and calculating in his approach. If he could not gain access to a shotgun, he could have used something else to ambush someone, like a cop or security guard, who did have a gun. Are we going to lock people up proactively? At one time, we were much less averse to locking up mentally ill against their will. There were reasons we stopped doing that. Maybe we went too far, maybe it should be easier? I am not convinced, but it is a discussion we could have. But even that is not likely to have made a difference here. The guy managed to make it through boot camp and a 4 or 6 years in the navy reserves, I am guessing he did not come across as extremely violent and crazy then, at least not enough to lock him up. The two prior arrests, were one for shooting a car with nobody in it and nobody close to it. Shooting someone's tire is little different than slashing their tires, at least as far as I can see. It is and and should be prosecuted, but I don't know that it warrants a year in prison. The episode in TX is tough, people are stupid and end up having negligent discharges when cleaning their guns. Without some further evidence, other calls, witnesses, etc. it is really tough to see how you could prosecute it as deliberate. I don't think I can blame the prosecutor for thinking he had no case. Our world is actually pretty safe, I don't know how far we want to go in an attempt to eliminate the last bits of violence through laws and enforcement. I think we would get more bang for our buck if we just try to change our society by being nice to each other and being better neighbors.

 

 

A year in prison probably hasn't fixed more than a very small number of people's schizophrenia. The press just wants to blame somebody in government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Call me crazy, but I don't think there is much we can do to prevent guys like this latest one without substantially violating the rights of many people, and I don't mean just 2nd amendment rights. The guy used one weapon to further acquire other weapons. He was apparently deliberate and calculating in his approach. If he could not gain access to a shotgun, he could have used something else to ambush someone, like a cop or security guard, who did have a gun. Are we going to lock people up proactively? At one time, we were much less averse to locking up mentally ill against their will. There were reasons we stopped doing that. Maybe we went too far, maybe it should be easier? I am not convinced, but it is a discussion we could have. But even that is not likely to have made a difference here. The guy managed to make it through boot camp and a 4 or 6 years in the navy reserves, I am guessing he did not come across as extremely violent and crazy then, at least not enough to lock him up. The two prior arrests, were one for shooting a car with nobody in it and nobody close to it. Shooting someone's tire is little different than slashing their tires, at least as far as I can see. It is and and should be prosecuted, but I don't know that it warrants a year in prison. The episode in TX is tough, people are stupid and end up having negligent discharges when cleaning their guns. Without some further evidence, other calls, witnesses, etc. it is really tough to see how you could prosecute it as deliberate. I don't think I can blame the prosecutor for thinking he had no case. Our world is actually pretty safe, I don't know how far we want to go in an attempt to eliminate the last bits of violence through laws and enforcement. I think we would get more bang for our buck if we just try to change our society by being nice to each other and being better neighbors.

 

 

A year in prison probably hasn't fixed more than a very small number of people's schizophrenia. The press just wants to blame somebody in government.

 

I would say that small number would be approximately 0.

 

If it really is schizophrenia, it would be rather late onset, wouldn't it? I thought that typically presented late teens early twenties. Unless he was mostly functional with it for a decade. Blaming someone or something means that people can believe that if we do something then stuff like this will never happen again. That thought lets them sleep better at night, regardless of whether it is true or not. I am having a hard time finding a bogeyman in this, aside from the one who was doing the shooting and is now dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

 

True. He also admitted to the cops in Seattle that he had an "anger-fueled" blackout and his father said he had PTSD. Red flags should have been waving at authorities that this guy should not have been allowed to buy or possess guns, at least without a thorough examination by mental health professionals.

Red flags can fly, but there is no mechanism to act on them. What existing law could have stopped this perp from getting that shotgun? He had no convictions. He was a military vet. Much like you Jeff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

 

True. He also admitted to the cops in Seattle that he had an "anger-fueled" blackout and his father said he had PTSD. Red flags should have been waving at authorities that this guy should not have been allowed to buy or possess guns, at least without a thorough examination by mental health professionals.

Red flags can fly, but there is no mechanism to act on them. What existing law could have stopped this perp from getting that shotgun? He had no convictions. He was a military vet. Much like you Jeff.

 

I don't think we yet know enough to adequately answer your very valid question, SE. Some of the things "I've heard" lead me to believe that the red flags he'd exhibited, each taken individually, weren't sufficient to satisfy legal requirements. Taken in total, perhaps.

 

The difference in our approach to this is this: You think that this situation should be ameliorated by an infringement of everyone else's rights, even if that infringement, by your own admission, would do little to nothing to prevent a recurrence. I think that we need to figure out why people are increasingly willing to create the havoc we've witnessed in recent history, and once we've come to that realization, figure out how to best deal with it.

 

I want to fix the things that make people behave badly - you want to make sure that their bad behavior isn't able to affect more than a minimum of people. Hmmm - the difference? You think that there's an acceptable threshold of hurts-per-instance, I think that there's not. You think that there's a problem with what people are using to create the hurt, I think that the problem is the PEOPLE who are causing the hurt.

 

So - at a high level, I think we both want the same thing: To reduce the # of innocent people who are hurt as a result of someone else's willful decisions.

The question then becomes, Specious - How do we reconcile that common desire against the very different perspectives we each hold?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry. They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry. Set up a stringent and fair process to do this. You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry. At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure. But it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry. They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry. Set up a stringent and fair process to do this. You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry. At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure. But it works.

 

No. There is no way that any politicial could come up with something tht was stringent and fair.

 

Just take a look at the gun control laws in any city. Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, etc. etc. Each of which at one time or another has been called the Murder Capital of the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry. They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry. Set up a stringent and fair process to do this. You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry. At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure. But it works.

 

No. There is no way that any politicial could come up with something tht was stringent and fair.

 

Just take a look at the gun control laws in any city. Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, etc. etc. Each of which at one time or another has been called the Murder Capital of the USA.

What do you propose? Any changes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

 

True. He also admitted to the cops in Seattle that he had an "anger-fueled" blackout and his father said he had PTSD. Red flags should have been waving at authorities that this guy should not have been allowed to buy or possess guns, at least without a thorough examination by mental health professionals.

Red flags can fly, but there is no mechanism to act on them. What existing law could have stopped this perp from getting that shotgun? He had no convictions. He was a military vet. Much like you Jeff.

The perp was honorably discharged, but the Navy had pursued a general discharge for a series of problems - inside the military and in the civilian sphere.

 

The key here is that the perp had fired a gun to express anger. Why this never showed up on the database is a problem the State of Washington needs to answer. Why, like several other mass killers, the perp could buy a gun in Virginia is a problem Virginia needs to address.

 

And how the perp could get the drop on an armed security guard is a problem the Navy needs to address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

True. He also admitted to the cops in Seattle that he had an "anger-fueled" blackout and his father said he had PTSD. Red flags should have been waving at authorities that this guy should not have been allowed to buy or possess guns, at least without a thorough examination by mental health professionals.

Red flags can fly, but there is no mechanism to act on them. What existing law could have stopped this perp from getting that shotgun? He had no convictions. He was a military vet. Much like you Jeff.

The perp was honorably discharged, but the Navy had pursued a general discharge for a series of problems - inside the military and in the civilian sphere.

 

The key here is that the perp had fired a gun to express anger. Why this never showed up on the database is a problem the State of Washington needs to answer. Why, like several other mass killers, the perp could buy a gun in Virginia is a problem Virginia needs to address.

 

And how the perp could get the drop on an armed security guard is a problem the Navy needs to address.

Do you think arrests should be entered into the no-gun list database? I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry. They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry. Set up a stringent and fair process to do this. You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry. At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure. But it works.

i disagree. everyone has a right to own a firearm. it is up to the state to prove otherwise. the trouble seems to be that no one wants the state to be good at the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry. They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry. Set up a stringent and fair process to do this. You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry. At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure. But it works.

 

No. There is no way that any politicial could come up with something tht was stringent and fair.

 

Just take a look at the gun control laws in any city. Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, etc. etc. Each of which at one time or another has been called the Murder Capital of the USA.

What do you propose? Any changes?

 

hello? McFly? (is this thing on) - You've heard, yet chosen to ignore time and again what's needed: A return to the SOCIETAL values of self responsibility and caring for one another? A return to the idea that it's socially reprehensible to NOT take care of your own business? An adoption of the liberal ideals that there aren't bad people, BUT, to temper that w/the realization that someone who has demonstrated their inability to fit within society shouldn't be permitted to werak havoc upon society?

 

It's the people and culture - NOT the implements that are the problem. We need to fix the people - not put more padding up on the corners of the guardrails.

How do we do that? Societal pressure. Bad news: This fix isn't quick - this fix won't stop the next Newtown, or the next 3. Next newsflash: NOTHING that's enacted is going to do that. SO - do we keep working towards some un-acheivable quick fix, or do we take the hard steps now to change things to a positive direction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

True. He also admitted to the cops in Seattle that he had an "anger-fueled" blackout and his father said he had PTSD. Red flags should have been waving at authorities that this guy should not have been allowed to buy or possess guns, at least without a thorough examination by mental health professionals.

Red flags can fly, but there is no mechanism to act on them. What existing law could have stopped this perp from getting that shotgun? He had no convictions. He was a military vet. Much like you Jeff.

The perp was honorably discharged, but the Navy had pursued a general discharge for a series of problems - inside the military and in the civilian sphere.

 

The key here is that the perp had fired a gun to express anger. Why this never showed up on the database is a problem the State of Washington needs to answer. Why, like several other mass killers, the perp could buy a gun in Virginia is a problem Virginia needs to address.

 

And how the perp could get the drop on an armed security guard is a problem the Navy needs to address.

because any data base would be considered an invasion of privacy? seems to me that you are suggesting the need for a data base which would involve employers and multiple states with differing gun legislation. good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, sounds like this one could have been much worse, were it not for a particular Virginia gun law...

 

 

WASHINGTON — The gunman who killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday test-fired an AR-15 assault rifle at a Virginia gun store last week but was stopped from buying one because state law there prohibits the sale of such weapons to out-of-state buyers, according to two senior law enforcement officials.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/state-law-stopped-gunman-from-buying-rifle-officials-say.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry. They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry. Set up a stringent and fair process to do this. You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry. At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure. But it works.

 

No. There is no way that any politicial could come up with something tht was stringent and fair.

 

Just take a look at the gun control laws in any city. Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, etc. etc. Each of which at one time or another has been called the Murder Capital of the USA.

What do you propose? Any changes?

 

hello? McFly? (is this thing on) - You've heard, yet chosen to ignore time and again what's needed: A return to the SOCIETAL values of self responsibility and caring for one another? A return to the idea that it's socially reprehensible to NOT take care of your own business? An adoption of the liberal ideals that there aren't bad people, BUT, to temper that w/the realization that someone who has demonstrated their inability to fit within society shouldn't be permitted to werak havoc upon society?

 

It's the people and culture - NOT the implements that are the problem. We need to fix the people - not put more padding up on the corners of the guardrails.

How do we do that? Societal pressure. Bad news: This fix isn't quick - this fix won't stop the next Newtown, or the next 3. Next newsflash: NOTHING that's enacted is going to do that. SO - do we keep working towards some un-acheivable quick fix, or do we take the hard steps now to change things to a positive direction?

 

 

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein

 

seems to me that you are saying mr heinlein in incorrect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry. They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry. Set up a stringent and fair process to do this. You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry. At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure. But it works.

 

No. There is no way that any politicial could come up with something tht was stringent and fair.

 

Just take a look at the gun control laws in any city. Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, etc. etc. Each of which at one time or another has been called the Murder Capital of the USA.

What do you propose? Any changes?

only in attitudes..................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow great law probably saved another 12 lives. All reasonable people can get behind a reasonable gun control law like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with making it difficult for crazy people to acquire lots of firepower?

an agreed definition of crazy, lots, and firepower?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

 

True. He also admitted to the cops in Seattle that he had an "anger-fueled" blackout and his father said he had PTSD. Red flags should have been waving at authorities that this guy should not have been allowed to buy or possess guns, at least without a thorough examination by mental health professionals.

Red flags can fly, but there is no mechanism to act on them. What existing law could have stopped this perp from getting that shotgun? He had no convictions. He was a military vet. Much like you Jeff.

The perp was honorably discharged, but the Navy had pursued a general discharge for a series of problems - inside the military and in the civilian sphere.

The key here is that the perp had fired a gun to express anger. Why this never showed up on the database is a problem the State of Washington needs to answer. Why, like several other mass killers, the perp could buy a gun in Virginia is a problem Virginia needs to address.

And how the perp could get the drop on an armed security guard is a problem the Navy needs to address.

Do you think arrests should be entered into the no-gun list database? I do.

Absolutely not. I clearly said the key in this instance was the use of a gun to express anger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how the perp could get the drop on an armed security guard is a problem the Navy needs to address.

It is not one they will find very easy to address. Guarding stuff is damn boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow great law probably saved another 12 lives. All reasonable people can get behind a reasonable gun control law like that.

are you suggesting that some states are more reasonable than others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry. They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry. Set up a stringent and fair process to do this. You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry. At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure. But it works.

 

No. There is no way that any politicial could come up with something tht was stringent and fair.

 

Just take a look at the gun control laws in any city. Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, etc. etc. Each of which at one time or another has been called the Murder Capital of the USA.

What do you propose? Any changes?

 

hello? McFly? (is this thing on) - You've heard, yet chosen to ignore time and again what's needed: A return to the SOCIETAL values of self responsibility and caring for one another? A return to the idea that it's socially reprehensible to NOT take care of your own business? An adoption of the liberal ideals that there aren't bad people, BUT, to temper that w/the realization that someone who has demonstrated their inability to fit within society shouldn't be permitted to werak havoc upon society?

 

It's the people and culture - NOT the implements that are the problem. We need to fix the people - not put more padding up on the corners of the guardrails.

How do we do that? Societal pressure. Bad news: This fix isn't quick - this fix won't stop the next Newtown, or the next 3. Next newsflash: NOTHING that's enacted is going to do that. SO - do we keep working towards some un-acheivable quick fix, or do we take the hard steps now to change things to a positive direction?

 

 

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein

 

seems to me that you are saying mr heinlein in incorrect

 

I would suggest that you're misunderstanding my intent. The idea behind Mr. Heinlein's comment is that accountability for one's actions makes one consider them more carefully before acting upon them. That sir, is the basis of my comment.

To make it personal, when I was a little boy, I knew that if I did anything inappropriate that my folks WOULD find out about it, because everyone around me knew who I belonged to. I also knew that the hell I'd catch for embarrassing my parents was MUCH more than anything I'd deal with from any "authority figure".

 

A return of societal values to the point in which people are concerned enough to consider the ramification of their intentions before acting upon them is what I seek. If we as a society, much as has happened w/the MADD campaign, create pressures that guide behavior in a positive direction, I think that those individual societal pressures will be much more effective at creating the behavioral changes we desire than will any implement-based restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What's wrong with making it difficult for crazy people to acquire lots of firepower?

an agreed definition of crazy, lots, and firepower?

Surely some compromise can be found between the extremes of no guns at all and Charles Manson with a thermo nuclear bomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wow great law probably saved another 12 lives. All reasonable people can get behind a reasonable gun control law like that.

are you suggesting that some states are more reasonable than others?

 

 

Wow great law probably saved another 12 lives. All reasonable people can get behind a reasonable gun control law like that.

are you suggesting that some states are more reasonable than others?
Yes exactly! For instance California is much more reasonable than say Texas or Alabama. Even given some nutter residents like mr booth and timo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hello? McFly? (is this thing on) - You've heard, yet chosen to ignore time and again what's needed: A return to the SOCIETAL values of self responsibility and caring for one another? A return to the idea that it's socially reprehensible to NOT take care of your own business? An adoption of the liberal ideals that there aren't bad people, BUT, to temper that w/the realization that someone who has demonstrated their inability to fit within society shouldn't be permitted to werak havoc upon society?

 

It's the people and culture - NOT the implements that are the problem. We need to fix the people - not put more padding up on the corners of the guardrails.

How do we do that? Societal pressure. Bad news: This fix isn't quick - this fix won't stop the next Newtown, or the next 3. Next newsflash: NOTHING that's enacted is going to do that. SO - do we keep working towards some un-acheivable quick fix, or do we take the hard steps now to change things to a positive direction?

 

 

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein

 

seems to me that you are saying mr heinlein in incorrect

 

I would suggest that you're misunderstanding my intent. The idea behind Mr. Heinlein's comment is that accountability for one's actions makes one consider them more carefully before acting upon them. That sir, is the basis of my comment.

To make it personal, when I was a little boy, I knew that if I did anything inappropriate that my folks WOULD find out about it, because everyone around me knew who I belonged to. I also knew that the hell I'd catch for embarrassing my parents was MUCH more than anything I'd deal with from any "authority figure".

 

A return of societal values to the point in which people are concerned enough to consider the ramification of their intentions before acting upon them is what I seek. If we as a society, much as has happened w/the MADD campaign, create pressures that guide behavior in a positive direction, I think that those individual societal pressures will be much more effective at creating the behavioral changes we desire than will any implement-based restrictions.

i agree with you. it seems that accountability for events like this don't seem to be a factor in the mind of the perpetrator. kind of like the death sentence being a deterrent.

 

i think i would take this accountability to a level that most people would disagree with. the mainstream gun community needs to be the ones who are leading this campaign. for groups such as the nra (who may not be representative of the main stream) to just stone wall and refuse to compromise will see the majority, the law abiding citizens, be judged by the actions of the minority, the crazy nutjob mass murderer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What's wrong with making it difficult for crazy people to acquire lots of firepower?

an agreed definition of crazy, lots, and firepower?

Surely some compromise can be found between the extremes of no guns at all and Charles Manson with a thermo nuclear bomb.

shirley you jest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Wow great law probably saved another 12 lives. All reasonable people can get behind a reasonable gun control law like that.

are you suggesting that some states are more reasonable than others?

>

 

Wow great law probably saved another 12 lives. All reasonable people can get behind a reasonable gun control law like that.

are you suggesting that some states are more reasonable than others?
Yes exactly! For instance California is much more reasonable than say Texas or Alabama. Even given some nutter residents like mr booth and timo.

 

i don't think you could have picked better states to illustrate your position. if zman was from texas or alabama it would have been a slam dunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this is a recurring theme and its hard to keep track of all the hundreds of threads on the subject - gun nutters and gun grabbers alike - post your comments here:

 

OK, I'll start...... two three observations from this latest occurance of mental instability violence.

 

1. It looks like what the gun nutters have been saying for a while is true. Lack of Enforcement of the existing laws and the need to beef up the penalties for the use of a gun in a violent act played a major role in this shooting. It seems the shooter was arrested in Seattle in 2004 for shooting out a neighbors tires with a handgun in an "anger fueled Blackout". He was booked on malicious mischief. Malicious mischief? Really? Then has another incident where he shoots through a neighbors ceiling whom he had a "contentious relationship" with. So two different crimes using a gun and two different PDs and DAs who did nothing. And he was still able to pass a background check with those events plus a known and long history of mental disorders.

 

Evidence is building to the point where it is evadent that the common GLARING theme among mass murderers is mental disorder and instability and society doing nothing about the problem. No "universal background check" system proposed by the grabbers has yet to address this issue. I have strongly and loudly advocated for mentally unstable people to be identified and prevented from acquiring weapons.

 

2. It looks like the shooter used a plain jane shotgun owned by everyone who hunts birds and and other small game. Worst case - he had a "riot gun" with an 8 round tube. 8 rounds is now "high capacity??? What's interesting, very telling and not surprising in the least is that the major news orgs are totally down-playing the fact that he entered with only a shotty and then acquired the AR-15 from a security guard once he was in. Because that story doesn't play well that an average shotgun was used in the genesis of the attack - the press are glossing over the weapons issue and still emphasizing the AR-15 as somehow being the evil weapon. That would be like someone breaking into a National Guard armory, getting their hands on an M-249 and then the press and the gun grabbers saying: "See, we told you machine guns were bad!"

 

Are we going to hear a call by Andy Cuntmo, Diane and others to ban shotguns now? What are the chances?

 

3. Oh yeah. It STILL took a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. The fact that other good guys with guns were ambushed and killed by surprise is irrelevant. In fact in roughly about 10% of cop killings - they were killed with their own gun. Are we actually discussing disarming cops so we don't have guns for criminals and the mentally unstable to have access to - as it appears to be in this DC mass shooting case? Really?

hey jbsf, how about you list all the things which you think should disqualify people from possessing a gun.

then what sort of format should it exist in?

who should have access to this "list'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry. They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry. Set up a stringent and fair process to do this. You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry. At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure. But it works.

 

No. There is no way that any politicial could come up with something tht was stringent and fair.

 

Just take a look at the gun control laws in any city. Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, etc. etc. Each of which at one time or another has been called the Murder Capital of the USA.

What do you propose? Any changes?

 

Geee, I thought you were the one with all the ideas.

 

Let's try doing something about the nuts. Chemical control doesn't seem to do much good. In fact, I think there is some evidence that it does harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry. They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry. Set up a stringent and fair process to do this. You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry. At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure. But it works.

 

No. There is no way that any politicial could come up with something tht was stringent and fair.

 

Just take a look at the gun control laws in any city. Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, etc. etc. Each of which at one time or another has been called the Murder Capital of the USA.

What do you propose? Any changes?

 

hello? McFly? (is this thing on) - You've heard, yet chosen to ignore time and again what's needed: A return to the SOCIETAL values of self responsibility and caring for one another? A return to the idea that it's socially reprehensible to NOT take care of your own business? An adoption of the liberal ideals that there aren't bad people, BUT, to temper that w/the realization that someone who has demonstrated their inability to fit within society shouldn't be permitted to werak havoc upon society?

 

It's the people and culture - NOT the implements that are the problem. We need to fix the people - not put more padding up on the corners of the guardrails.

How do we do that? Societal pressure. Bad news: This fix isn't quick - this fix won't stop the next Newtown, or the next 3. Next newsflash: NOTHING that's enacted is going to do that. SO - do we keep working towards some un-acheivable quick fix, or do we take the hard steps now to change things to a positive direction?

 

 

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein

 

seems to me that you are saying mr heinlein in incorrect

Mr Heinlein is correct. Note his clever use of personal pronouns. It doesn't say somebody's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with making it difficult for crazy people to acquire lots of firepower?

 

In theory nothing.

 

I have to wonder how many people have been or are under care for some mental health issue. How many are on a prescription psychoactive drug. It must be in the 10's of millions.

 

Can we start by putting a handle on the problem?

 

Some facts

 

Mass Shootings (last 30 years as defined by the FBI as 4 or more victims)

 

Total incidents - 66 Males - 65 Females - 1

Total killed - 536

Total injured - 499

Prior mental health signs - 44 yes 17 no 8 unsure

Venue - 3 church 20 work 12 school 31 other

weapon - 73 handgun auto 29 rifle 24 revolver 23 shotgun (some incidents used multiple weapons)

Total incidents involving an assault rifle - 14

 

Years

 

2013 - 23
2012 - 72
2011 - 19
2010 - 9
2009 - 39
2008 - 18
2007 - 54
2006 - 21
2005 - 17
2004 - 5
2003 - 7
2002 - 0
2001 - 5
2000 - 7
1999 - 44
1998 - 14
1997 - 9
1996 - 6
1995 - 6
1994 - 5
1993 - 23
1992 - 9
1991 - 35
1990 - 10
1989 - 15
1988 - 7
1987 - 6
1986 - 15
1985 - 0
1984 - 28
1983 - 0
1982 - 8
Total murders over the same interval 100's of thousands....
So how do we protect the rights of the many and filter out the few? Like I said good theory but how do you put it into practice?
A little town called Kennesaw (story was from 2007)

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

 

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

 

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

 

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township’s crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hello? McFly? (is this thing on) - You've heard, yet chosen to ignore time and again what's needed: A return to the SOCIETAL values of self responsibility and caring for one another? A return to the idea that it's socially reprehensible to NOT take care of your own business? An adoption of the liberal ideals that there aren't bad people, BUT, to temper that w/the realization that someone who has demonstrated their inability to fit within society shouldn't be permitted to werak havoc upon society?

 

It's the people and culture - NOT the implements that are the problem. We need to fix the people - not put more padding up on the corners of the guardrails.

How do we do that? Societal pressure. Bad news: This fix isn't quick - this fix won't stop the next Newtown, or the next 3. Next newsflash: NOTHING that's enacted is going to do that. SO - do we keep working towards some un-acheivable quick fix, or do we take the hard steps now to change things to a positive direction?

 

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein

 

seems to me that you are saying mr heinlein in incorrect

Mr Heinlein is correct. Note his clever use of personal pronouns. It doesn't say somebody's life.

is a shame then that there are 13 somebodies....

 

it really is a stupid quote. is he saying that where people have guns, you need to do the right thing or you will get shot?

what about if people don't have guns? i mean, you still need to do the right thing otherwise some one might punch you etc?

 

and of course, if everyone is doing the right thing in the first place, why the need for guns or punching?

 

guns don't seem to be improving your society. at least, not at the rate that good old fashioned respect would

 

 

edit. bolded bit is attributed to a guy in the chesapeake. badly edited by me because of "too many quotes"bullshit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

LenP: the perp was discharged because of "issues". The Navy knew this guy was a problem.

 

True. He also admitted to the cops in Seattle that he had an "anger-fueled" blackout and his father said he had PTSD. Red flags should have been waving at authorities that this guy should not have been allowed to buy or possess guns, at least without a thorough examination by mental health professionals.

Red flags can fly, but there is no mechanism to act on them. What existing law could have stopped this perp from getting that shotgun? He had no convictions. He was a military vet. Much like you Jeff.

 

I didn't say there was an existing law. But if ya'll are so goddammed anxious to pass new laws - better to start with something to address the mental health issue of these mass shootings rather than the implement used.

 

As I said... THE common thread in ALL of the recent and past MASS shootings has been mental illness. Find a way to keep THEM from getting guns and we will actually make progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of the difficulty in classifying someone as unfit for weaponry, wouldn't the best approach be to assume everyone is unfit for weaponry. They will need to prove worthiness before getting weaponry. Set up a stringent and fair process to do this. You are reviewed, analyzed, qualified to have deadly weaponry. At this point you will be granted the ability to purchase and keep weaponry.

Yes, this is really just licensure. But it works.

 

No it wouldn't be. It goes against EVERY principle we hold dear in this country. By that logic, we should assume everyone arrested is guilty until proven innocent. They have to prove they didn't commit a crime or they stay in jail. If we did that, I FUKEN GUARANTEE YOU that the crime rate would plummet. Plummet overnight in fact. Sure there will be innocent people rotting in jail, but that's a small price to pay for the "greater good".

 

Because that is EXACTLY what you are proposing we do wrt to guns. Sorry skippy - it doesn't work that way. But you know that and you're just being a trolling cunt troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with making it difficult for crazy people to acquire lots of firepower?

 

Absolutely nothing. I've been advocating this since the beginning.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What's wrong with making it difficult for crazy people to acquire lots of firepower?

 

In theory nothing.

 

I have to wonder how many people have been or are under care for some mental health issue. How many are on a prescription psychoactive drug. It must be in the 10's of millions.

 

Can we start by putting a handle on the problem?

 

Some facts

 

Mass Shootings (last 30 years as defined by the FBI as 4 or more victims)

 

Total incidents - 66 Males - 65 Females - 1

Total killed - 536

Total injured - 499

Prior mental health signs - 44 yes 17 no 8 unsure

Venue - 3 church 20 work 12 school 31 other

weapon - 73 handgun auto 29 rifle 24 revolver 23 shotgun (some incidents used multiple weapons)

Total incidents involving an assault rifle - 14

 

Years

 

2013 - 23
2012 - 72
2011 - 19
2010 - 9
2009 - 39
2008 - 18
2007 - 54
2006 - 21
2005 - 17
2004 - 5
2003 - 7
2002 - 0
2001 - 5
2000 - 7
1999 - 44
1998 - 14
1997 - 9
1996 - 6
1995 - 6
1994 - 5
1993 - 23
1992 - 9
1991 - 35
1990 - 10
1989 - 15
1988 - 7
1987 - 6
1986 - 15
1985 - 0
1984 - 28
1983 - 0
1982 - 8
Total murders over the same interval 100's of thousands....
So how do we protect the rights of the many and filter out the few? Like I said good theory but how do you put it into practice?
A little town called Kennesaw (story was from 2007)

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

 

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

 

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

 

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township’s crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

 

 

Then there is no problem! The sales of guns have been through the roof. Give it time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein

Mr Heinlein is correct. Note his clever use of personal pronouns. It doesn't say somebody's life.

 

He is absolutely correct. However, he wrote that in a time when there weren't the number of lunatics out there running rampant in a fractured, disjointed society. The combo of social isolation, chemical solutions to everything and a never-ending barrage of violent stimuli means that these guys that snap no longer care about their own lives. In fact, I think they get to a hopeless point where they are going to end it anyway, but their anger is so great that they have decided to take as many people with them as possible.

 

Its a real shame they don't just commit suicide in a quiet room somewhere and be done with it. But I believe society's constant push to require everyone to seek fame drives many of these nutjobs to go out in a blaze of glory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein

Mr Heinlein is correct. Note his clever use of personal pronouns. It doesn't say somebody's life.

 

He is absolutely correct. However, he wrote that in a time when there weren't the number of lunatics out there running rampant in a fractured, disjointed society. The combo of social isolation, chemical solutions to everything and a never-ending barrage of violent stimuli means that these guys that snap no longer care about their own lives. In fact, I think they get to a hopeless point where they are going to end it anyway, but their anger is so great that they have decided to take as many people with them as possible.

 

Its a real shame they don't just commit suicide in a quiet room somewhere and be done with it. But I believe society's constant push to require everyone to seek fame drives many of these nutjobs to go out in a blaze of glory.

personal responsibility and respect for others is about pride and honour in oneself. guns have nothing to do with this. as others continue to yell from the roof tops,"guns don't kill, people do!"

 

the ability to shoot someone doesn't make them respect you. it makes them fear you. the fact that this seems to be not understood suggests a deep cultural issue. kind of like what a guy in the chesapeake is getting at.

its not the guns. there is nothing really wrong with your gun laws. its the lack of respect for each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What's wrong with making it difficult for crazy people to acquire lots of firepower?

an agreed definition of crazy, lots, and firepower?

Surely some compromise can be found between the extremes of no guns at all and Charles Manson with a thermo nuclear bomb.

 

You don't think those compromises are already in place? There are reams of legislation that imposes those compromises already. What else do you want?

 

But of course I am ok with compromises. However, any NEW compormise needs to meet the criteria of a balance between how much does it affect individual rights and freedoms for law abiding citizens against how much good does it actually achieve. Unless those questions are asked and can be adequately answered - I am in no mood for compromise for compromise's sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What's wrong with making it difficult for crazy people to acquire lots of firepower?

 

In theory nothing.

 

I have to wonder how many people have been or are under care for some mental health issue. How many are on a prescription psychoactive drug. It must be in the 10's of millions.

 

Can we start by putting a handle on the problem?

 

Some facts

 

Mass Shootings (last 30 years as defined by the FBI as 4 or more victims)

 

Total incidents - 66 Males - 65 Females - 1

Total killed - 536

Total injured - 499

Prior mental health signs - 44 yes 17 no 8 unsure

Venue - 3 church 20 work 12 school 31 other

weapon - 73 handgun auto 29 rifle 24 revolver 23 shotgun (some incidents used multiple weapons)

Total incidents involving an assault rifle - 14

 

Years

 

2013 - 23
2012 - 72
2011 - 19
2010 - 9
2009 - 39
2008 - 18
2007 - 54
2006 - 21
2005 - 17
2004 - 5
2003 - 7
2002 - 0
2001 - 5
2000 - 7
1999 - 44
1998 - 14
1997 - 9
1996 - 6
1995 - 6
1994 - 5
1993 - 23
1992 - 9
1991 - 35
1990 - 10
1989 - 15
1988 - 7
1987 - 6
1986 - 15
1985 - 0
1984 - 28
1983 - 0
1982 - 8
Total murders over the same interval 100's of thousands....
So how do we protect the rights of the many and filter out the few? Like I said good theory but how do you put it into practice?
A little town called Kennesaw (story was from 2007)

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

 

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

 

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

 

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township’s crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

 

 

Then there is no problem! The sales of guns have been through the roof. Give it time.

 

Except when someone defeats the effect....

 

"My son was at Marine Barracks -- at the Navy Yard yesterday - and they had weapons with them, but they didn't have ammunition. And they said, 'We were trained, and if we had the ammunition, we could've cleared that building.' Only three people had been shot at that time, and they could've stopped the rest of it."

The Navy Yard shooting brings up the legitimate issue of carrying - and using - firearms on military installations.

Back in 1993, the Clinton administration virtually declared military establishments "gun-free zones." As a result, the policy banned "military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that 'a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel 'may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan," according to economist John Lott.

Additionally, Lott discovered that "every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns."

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/matt-vespa/if-we-had-ammunition-we-could-ve-cleared-building-son-navy-yard-told-dad#sthash.jxtgb16H.dpuf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NY Times tells a whopping lie and gets caught. The Time let its hatred for the AR15 color its integrity and now look dishonest and untrustworthy.

 

 

 

 

The liberal media is so obsessed with linking the Navy Yard shooter with the AR-15 rifle that it is making up false tales of Aaron Alexis trying to obtain one.

 

The New York Times attempts to give the impression that a so-called assault-weapon law stopped Alexis from buying a rifle in Virginia, but that is not true.

 

The Times has a story Tuesday on its homepage with the headline “State Law Stopped Gunman From Buying Rifle, Officials Say.”

 

The first line says: “The gunman who killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday test fired an AR-15 assault rifle at a Virginia gun store last week but was stopped from buying one because state law there prohibits the sale of such weapons to out-of-state buyers, according to two senior law enforcement officials.”

 

Apparently neither the reporter nor his editors took the time to fact check their vague “law enforcement officials” sources.

 

“Virginia law does not prohibit the sale of assault rifles to out-of-state citizens who have proper identification,” Dan Peterson, a Virginia firearms attorney, told me Tuesday night. The required identification is proof of residency in another state and of U.S. citizenship, which can be items like a passport, birth certificate or voter identification card.

 

The Commonwealth defines “assault firearm” as any semiautomatic centerfire rifle or pistol with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds or can accommodate a silencer or is equipped with a folding stock.

 

John Frazer, also a firearms attorney in the Commonwealth, told me that, “State law in Virginia — like most states — allows purchase of rifles or shotguns by residents of other states. Virginia simply requires some additional forms of identification.”

 

Federal law is clear on this residency issue. A quick glance at the ATF website would have informed the New York Times journalists that a person may buy a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a federal firearms licensee’s premises in any state, provided the sale complies with state laws, which it would in this case.



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/miller-new-york-times-gets-it-wrong-about-navy-yar/#ixzz2fDt40V58

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not the guns. there is nothing really wrong with your gun laws. its the lack of respect for each other.

 

On this, we are in violent agreement!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appears that an AR-15 was not even used in the shooting AT ALL! I heard this on PBS newshour and this CNN article confirms it:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/ar-15-gun-debate/

 

CNN) -- It has been called the most popular rifle in America, and it briefly returned to the spotlight after Monday's shooting at the Navy Yard: the AR-15.

A U.S. law enforcement official said Monday that gunman Aaron Alexis unleashed a barrage of bullets using an AR-15, a rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Authorities believed the AR-15 was used for most of the shooting, the official said. The news prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the strongest proponents of a ban on assault weapons like the AR-15, to issue a statement the same day asking, "When will enough be enough?"

However, federal law enforcement sources told CNN Tuesday that authorities have recovered three weapons from the scene of the mass shooting, including one -- a shotgun -- that investigators believe Alexis brought in to the compound. The other two weapons, which sources say were handguns, may have been taken from guards at the Navy complex.

The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect.

This shows how just bad the misinformation was

I HATE THE FUCKING LIBERAL MEDIA!!!! LIARS AND CUNTS, all of them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not the guns. there is nothing really wrong with your gun laws. its the lack of respect for each other.

we're a culture of death. whether its dropping bombs on arabs, ripping kids out of the womb or shooting each other. we may pretend to be appalled, but we're not really. tie this into the fact human life is being devalued in the US,and bingo. we get where we are today. nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

its not the guns. there is nothing really wrong with your gun laws. its the lack of respect for each other.

 

On this, we are in violent agreement!

 

does it have to be violent?

 

 

its not the guns. there is nothing really wrong with your gun laws. its the lack of respect for each other.

we're a culture of death. whether its dropping bombs on arabs, ripping kids out of the womb or shooting each other. we may pretend to be appalled, but we're not really. tie this into the fact human life is being devalued in the US,and bingo. we get where we are today. nowhere.

 

 

i guess it does..................

 

:D:P:D:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I appears that an AR-15 was not even used in the shooting AT ALL! I heard this on PBS newshour and this CNN article confirms it:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/ar-15-gun-debate/

 

CNN) -- It has been called the most popular rifle in America, and it briefly returned to the spotlight after Monday's shooting at the Navy Yard: the AR-15.

 

A U.S. law enforcement official said Monday that gunman Aaron Alexis unleashed a barrage of bullets using an AR-15, a rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Authorities believed the AR-15 was used for most of the shooting, the official said. The news prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the strongest proponents of a ban on assault weapons like the AR-15, to issue