Shootings in Navy Sea Command in DC

[Dorkington]

I work at the WNY. It was a pretty intense scene yesterday. I was luckily running late to work, so I got about one block away from the compound right when they were closing off all the streets. If it were another day, I could have been in the building at the time of the shooting. I ended up sitting parked in the middle of the street while a 100 or so emergency vehicles swarmed to the area.

 

Regarding the snarky commentary of DC being a gun-free zone, so 'lol, haha, people still got killed, lol', is pretty inappropriate. Another comment could be made on the other end, the WNY is *heavily armed* and secured. Everyone who enters has to have passed a background check. There are armed guards all over the place. So... since guns deter gun violence, how could this still have happened? The reality is, these things happen because guns are easy to obtain, and that's the end of it. Having armed guards, armed citizens, being gun free, etc doesn't really matter when people can easily obtain guns, even with a history of mental illness.

 

It was a ****ty situation. A lot of people died. But a lot of people die every day in a lot of cities in the US. And even moreso, a lot of people die in other areas of the world from violence as well. The gun debate is tiresome. Mass shootings are tiresome. Every day shootings are tiresome.

 

A lot of people are asking how he got a gun/multiple guns in. Once you have clearance and proper badging (he has both), all you need to do is show your ID, and you are waved in. No frisking, no metal detectors, etc. The assumption is you're safe since you've gone through FBI background checks. Visitors have to go through more stringent entrance methods, though.

 

WNY is on essential personnel only today. I'm at my office outside of the compound. We were allowed to telecommute, but there's no real reason for me to. The whole thing sucks.

 

RIP to those lost. And a big thank you for the responders and emergency personnel who handled the situation.

 

The security personnel of the contractor, gun seller and DoD/FBI background check people will probably be under heavy scrutiny after yesterday's events.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Dorkington

[OCinBuffalo]

Gotcha, more stupidity should mean more guns.

No, you don't. You have no idea actually. The root question appears to be: why do I need a gun in the first place? But it isn't. The real root is: how did these peole get to where they are, such that we need guns to protect ourselves from them? After all, these are human beings, and having to treat them this way is sickening to most. Who's doing this to us?

 

What has happened to society, and who is responsible for it happening, through their failed policies, that necessitates people having personal protection? Again, who's doing this to us?

 

What has happened to the police? Now they can't do anything without being called racist. Whose policy it is to bring in Federal oversight for the NYC police force, and remove that tactics that are working, that have completely reversed and nearly won the crime battle? As a person who personally witnessed Guliani's amazing turnaround in that city, to see some clown now looking to go backwards...and call himself: progressive? It's patently retarded.

 

What has happened to gun control = less crime? We've been told that for my entire life, yet, in every way, it has been proven false. Or, again I ask: how did this gun violence happen in the "gun-free" zone of DC?

 

The reality is: the root cause of this is liberal eduction FAIL, welfare FAIL, liberal legislative/executive FAIL and corruption(see Detroit),and the cry racist wolf people. The root cause of that is: the need for a permanent underclass, from which liberals derive their power.

Edited September 17, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Gary M]

http://www.washingto...-used-victimsw/

 

So he bought a shotgun, just like Joe Biden suggested.

 

Then he looted an AR and a pistol during the spree. So we obviously need stricter controls on civilian ownership of weapons that security was carrying.

 

And there goes the "were are not after your hunting guns" argument.

 

 

What has happened to gun control = less crime? We've been told that for my entire life, yet, in every way, it has been proven false. Or, again I ask: how did this gun violence happen in the "gun-free" zone of DC?

 

 

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/

[Tiberius]

No, you don't. You have no idea actually. The root question appears to be: why do I need a gun in the first place? But it isn't. The real root is: how did these peole get to where they are, such that we need guns to protect ourselves from them? After all, these are human beings, and having to treat them this way is sickening to most. Who's doing this to us?

 

What has happened to society, and who is responsible for it happening, through their failed policies, that necessitates people having personal protection? Again, who's doing this to us?

 

What has happened to the police? Now they can't do anything without being called racist. Whose policy it is to bring in Federal oversight for the NYC police force, and remove that tactics that are working, that have completely reversed and nearly won the crime battle? As a person who personally witnessed Guliani's amazing turnaround in that city, to see some clown now looking to go backwards...and call himself: progressive? It's patently retarded.

 

What has happened to gun control = less crime? We've been told that for my entire life, yet, in every way, it has been proven false. Or, again I ask: how did this gun violence happen in the "gun-free" zone of DC?

 

The reality is: the root cause of this is liberal eduction FAIL, welfare FAIL, liberal legislative/executive FAIL and corruption(see Detroit),and the cry racist wolf people. The root cause of that is: the need for a permanent underclass, from which liberals derive their power.

 

But there was lots and lots of crime before the modern welfare state and Civil Rights movement, so you can't be right

[Azalin]

 

 

But there was lots and lots of crime before the modern welfare state and Civil Rights movement, so you can't be right

read it again, you boob. he said:'The reality is: the root cause of this is liberal eduction FAIL, welfare FAIL, liberal legislative/executive FAIL and corruption(see Detroit),and the cry racist wolf people. The root cause of that is: the need for a permanent underclass, from which liberals derive their power.'

 

that means that all of the time, effort, and money spent on all of those programs, which were meant to curb crime by eliminating poverty and help provide gainful employment by way of raising education standards & creating a more qualified work force was a complete and utter waste, unless you consider the intent of those that implemented it to be to create a class of dependents & permanent victims.

 

I submit that you are living proof of this.

 

 

 

[OCinBuffalo]

Regarding the snarky commentary of DC being a gun-free zone, so 'lol, haha, people still got killed, lol', is pretty inappropriate. Another comment could be made on the other end, the WNY is *heavily armed* and secured. Everyone who enters has to have passed a background check. There are armed guards all over the place. So... since guns deter gun violence, how could this still have happened? The reality is, these things happen because guns are easy to obtain, and that's the end of it. Having armed guards, armed citizens, being gun free, etc doesn't really matter when people can easily obtain guns, even with a history of mental illness.

It's not inappropriate in the slightest. It's far past time for those people who have made that claim that removing guns, or gun free zones, solves problems, to be held accountable for their FAIL.

 

This is about the facts. There are no such thing as hate facts. There are simply facts.

 

The reality is: people who want guns will ALWAYS be able to get them, no different than people who want drugs, will always be able to get them. That's because market economics, despite all idiotic attempts to deny it, will ALWAYS exist.

 

My acknowledgment of that reality, and your denial of it, doesn't entitle you to make my choices for me. If I choose to protect myself with a personal weapon, that's none of your business, and it's offensive to suggest otherwise. That's right: offensive. I fully reject the possibility that you know better than I, about anything, regarding my life. Yes, attempting to curtail my liberty, via yet another one-size-fits-all policy from DC , which, by definition, is doomed to FAIL?

 

That is now: offensive.

 

Look at every single other poilcy that has come frome there. It's not bad enough that my job, $, health care are being F'ed...now you want me to put my in their clearly incompetent hands as well? No F'ing way.

 

See, I can do emotional pleas too.

 

However, the fact remains that DC being a "gun-free zone" did exactly NOTHING to prevent what happened yesterday. So, why have it all?

[Tiberius]

read it again, you boob. he said:'The reality is: the root cause of this is liberal eduction FAIL, welfare FAIL, liberal legislative/executive FAIL and corruption(see Detroit),and the cry racist wolf people. The root cause of that is: the need for a permanent underclass, from which liberals derive their power.'

 

that means that all of the time, effort, and money spent on all of those programs, which were meant to curb crime by eliminating poverty and help provide gainful employment by way of raising education standards & creating a more qualified work force was a complete and utter waste, unless you consider the intent of those that implemented it to be to create a class of dependents & permanent victims.

 

I submit that you are living proof of this.

 

Ouch! You are a meanie! But you are the one who read it wrong. Why does he need a gun in his opinion? Failed liberal policies? That's silly. I suppose if liberal policies had been able to make the world EVEN BETTER THAN THEY HAVE MADE THEM, he wouldn't need a gun. He's arguing that liberals basically created crime

[DC Tom]

Ouch! You are a meanie! But you are the one who read it wrong. Why does he need a gun in his opinion? Failed liberal policies? That's silly. I suppose if liberal policies had been able to make the world EVEN BETTER THAN THEY HAVE MADE THEM, he wouldn't need a gun. He's arguing that liberals basically created crime

 

Need? Show me where "need" enters into it? Last I checked, the Constitution doesn't specify anything based on "need."

[OCinBuffalo]

But there was lots and lots of crime before the modern welfare state and Civil Rights movement, so you can't be right

 

Actually, no. Crime was at an ALL TIME HIGH, just prior to welfare reform in the 90s. That's right, welfare reform, and policies like Guiliani's, which again, I stress happened right in front of me(as in, every single day I walked halfway across Manhattan to get to my job = Penn Station to Park Ave, and every single day, for a year and a half. At first nothing was noticable, but, slowly for a few months, and then, rapidly after 9, you'd have to be an idiot not to notice. You could have just studied Penn Station itself to see the difference.)...these are the things that lowered the crime rate.

 

You know what else correlates to the lower crime rate? Expiration of Federal Gun laws. More guns, less crime. That is the accurate relationship.

 

 

As evidenced by your posts, there's little we can do about stupid. But, we have to stop supporting it, subsidizing it, and pretending that it's not a big deal.

[Tiberius]

Need? Show me where "need" enters into it? Last I checked, the Constitution doesn't specify anything based on "need."

 

Ask him you...imbecile. He said he needs a gun, not me. You are slipping old boy...

 

Need? Show me where "need" enters into it? Last I checked, the Constitution doesn't specify anything based on "need."

 

Ask him you...imbecile. He said he needs a gun, not me. You are slipping old boy...

 

Actually, no. Crime was at an ALL TIME HIGH, just prior to welfare reform in the 90s. That's right, welfare reform, and policies like Guiliani's, which again, I stress happened right in front of me(as in, every single day I walked halfway across Manhattan to get to my job = Penn Station to Park Ave, and every single day, for a year and a half. At first nothing was noticable, but, slowly for a few months, and then, rapidly after 9, you'd have to be an idiot not to notice. You could have just studied Penn Station itself to see the difference.)...these are the things that lowered the crime rate.

 

You know what else correlates to the lower crime rate? Expiration of Federal Gun laws. More guns, less crime. That is the accurate relationship.

 

 

As evidenced by your posts, there's little we can do about stupid. But, we have to stop supporting it, subsidizing it, and pretending that it's not a big deal.

 

 

You are so dumb: "he reality is: the root cause of this is liberal eduction FAIL, welfare FAIL, liberal legislative/executive FAIL and corruption(see Detroit),and the cry racist wolf people. The root cause of that is: the need for a permanent underclass, from which liberals derive their power"

 

 

All these things pre-date Rudy, and some of the other things you mentioned also.

[Azalin]

 

 

Ouch! You are a meanie! But you are the one who read it wrong. Why does he need a gun in his opinion? Failed liberal policies? That's silly. I suppose if liberal policies had been able to make the world EVEN BETTER THAN THEY HAVE MADE THEM, he wouldn't need a gun. He's arguing that liberals basically created crime

[GG]

 

All these things pre-date Rudy, and some of the other things you mentioned also.

 

Such as what, as it specifically relates to NYC?

[/dev/null]

FBI now says there is no indication that an AR-15 was used.

 

Shooter took Biden's advice and bought a shotgun. Then looted 2 handguns from security.

 

Still won't stop the Gun Controlfreaks from wanting to ban the SBR¹/EBR². Never let a crisis go to waste

 

1 Scary Black Rifle

2 Evil Black Rifle

Edited September 17, 2013 by /dev/null

[B-Man]

Gun Control’s Dead End : The inconvenient facts of the Navy Yard shooting.

 

 

 

Goldberg: Can We Talk About Mental Health Now?

.

[Dorkington]

It's not inappropriate in the slightest. It's far past time for those people who have made that claim that removing guns, or gun free zones, solves problems, to be held accountable for their FAIL.

 

This is about the facts. There are no such thing as hate facts. There are simply facts.

 

The reality is: people who want guns will ALWAYS be able to get them, no different than people who want drugs, will always be able to get them. That's because market economics, despite all idiotic attempts to deny it, will ALWAYS exist.

 

My acknowledgment of that reality, and your denial of it, doesn't entitle you to make my choices for me. If I choose to protect myself with a personal weapon, that's none of your business, and it's offensive to suggest otherwise. That's right: offensive. I fully reject the possibility that you know better than I, about anything, regarding my life. Yes, attempting to curtail my liberty, via yet another one-size-fits-all policy from DC , which, by definition, is doomed to FAIL?

 

That is now: offensive.

 

Look at every single other poilcy that has come frome there. It's not bad enough that my job, $, health care are being F'ed...now you want me to put my in their clearly incompetent hands as well? No F'ing way.

 

See, I can do emotional pleas too.

 

However, the fact remains that DC being a "gun-free zone" did exactly NOTHING to prevent what happened yesterday. So, why have it all?

 

I'm under the impression that you did not read my post.

 

Guns are easy to get, plain and simple. I agree with you that gun free zones don't change anything. But I also think that having armed guards, or armed civilians don't change anything either. When a dude surprises a room with a shotgun, AR-15, whatever, people are going to die.

 

The real issue is how are guns so easy to obtain? Why is there such a large proliferation of them?

 

Also, this happened at the Washington Navy Yard. There are loads of guns there. In the hands of trained individuals. And yet, people still died. You may call it a gun-free zone, but as someone who is there every day, I see plenty of guns, big and small.

 

But hey, keep laughing it up because people died in an area that doesn't necessarily subscribe to your political leanings.

 

More guns, less crime. That is the accurate relationship.

 

How come the Navy Yard shooter was able to kill so many people in a place that features lots of guns in the hands of trained individuals? Something doesn't line up with your facts.

 

Also, it's somewhat ironic that the same people who are crying out for a mental health discussion, are generally very much against single payer systems, insurance regulation, socialized healthcare, and the like. You can't have it both ways. If you want easy and affordable (or even free) access to mental healthcare so that these situations don't happen, then the for-profit healthcare system in the US needs to be changed drastically.

[B-Man]

I'm under the impression that you did not read my post.

 

Guns are easy to get, plain and simple. I agree with you that gun free zones don't change anything. But I also think that having armed guards, or armed civilians don't change anything either. When a dude surprises a room with a shotgun, AR-15, whatever, people are going to die.

 

The real issue is how are guns so easy to obtain? Why is there such a large proliferation of them?

 

Also, this happened at the Washington Navy Yard. There are loads of guns there. In the hands of trained individuals. And yet, people still died. You may call it a gun-free zone, but as someone who is there every day, I see plenty of guns, big and small.

 

But hey, keep laughing it up because people died in an area that doesn't necessarily subscribe to your political leanings.

 

 

 

How come the Navy Yard shooter was able to kill so many people in a place that features lots of guns in the hands of trained individuals? Something doesn't line up with your facts.

 

Also, it's somewhat ironic that the same people who are crying out for a mental health discussion, are generally very much against single payer systems, insurance regulation, socialized healthcare, and the like. You can't have it both ways. If you want easy and affordable (or even free) access to mental healthcare so that these situations don't happen, then the for-profit healthcare system in the US needs to be changed drastically.

 

Speaking as a person who has worked in the U.S. health system for the past 35 years (including several Mental Health units), I will quote you

 

"Something doesn't line up with your facts."

 

 

Its not an either/or situation, you have tried to incredibly simplify the solutions (FREE mental health care access ?, really?) , and judging from your slant in the bolded portion and your false claim that people who want more stress paid to Mental Health care are the ones against "giving" it, it doesn't seem that you have much of an open mind on this.

 

Do you have any type of link or resource to back up your BS claim ?

 

 

.

Edited September 17, 2013 by B-Man

[Dorkington]

Speaking as a person who has worked in the U.S. health system for the past 35 years (including several Mental Health units), I will quote you

 

"Something doesn't line up with your facts."

 

 

Its not an either/or situation, you have tried to incredibly simplify the solutions (FREE mental health care access ?, really?) , and judging from your slant in the bolded portion and your false claim that people who want more stress paid to Mental Health care are the ones against "giving" it, it doesn't seem that you have much of an open mind on this.

 

Do you have any type of link or resource to back up your BS claim ?

 

 

.

 

How many people with mental health issues a) maintain jobs that pay enough, or provide insurance so that they can afford to get checked out? and b) are willing to go get themselves checked out period?

 

The reason why I state "free" is because it needs to be easy. Part of the problem is there's a high cost barrier between needing help and being treated. Once that comes down, that'll partially encourage folks to get checked out imo. The other part is a social change, one that instead of stigmatizing people for needing help, is more supportive.

 

Regarding "types", I shouldn't generalize, you're right. But I have found that most who are strongly supportive of the second amendment, tend to hate anything "socialized" or any "regulations" of a "free market". That may not be the case here, and it was wrong for me to assume so.

[1billsfan]

Also, it's somewhat ironic that the same people who are crying out for a mental health discussion, are generally very much against single payer systems, insurance regulation, socialized healthcare, and the like. You can't have it both ways. If you want easy and affordable (or even free) access to mental healthcare so that these situations don't happen, then the for-profit healthcare system in the US needs to be changed drastically.

 

The only "healthcare" that would greatly help solve the problem of random mass shootings would be to lock up all severely mentally ill people in long term mental institutions before the ticking time bomb goes off. I'm not saying that I'm for or against that old school practice, but I would imagine that decades ago liberals thought that this was an inhumane way of treating people and thus through legislation they were able to end the practice.

 

There's probably no right or wrong here, just that random mass shootings will happen randomly because there's a lot of severely mentally ill people walking around freely in a country with a lot of guns.

[Dorkington]

The only "healthcare" that would greatly help solve the problem of random mass shootings would be to lock up all severely mentally ill people in long term mental institutions before the ticking time bomb goes off. I'm not saying that I'm for or against that old school practice, but I would imagine that decades ago liberals thought that this was an inhumane way of treating people and thus through legislation they were able to end the practice.

 

There's probably no right or wrong here, just that random mass shootings will happen randomly because there's a lot of severely mentally ill people walking around freely in a country with a lot of guns.

 

Libertarians would also have major problems with that, I'd think. Liberals and Libertarians generally share personal liberty opinions outside of firearms.

 

I agree with your second statement though. There's no real answer at this point. It's a problem that's getting worse. It happens in areas where there are no firearms. It happens in areas where there are firearms. It happens with legally obtained weapons. It happens with illegally obtained weapons.

[Alaska Darin]

How come the Navy Yard shooter was able to kill so many people in a place that features lots of guns in the hands of trained individuals? Something doesn't line up with your facts.

Honestly? Because most people who are "trained" don't really do their jobs. They get into a routine and stop paying diligent attention to things. There's nothing worse than someone who's in a "security" position who is comfortable. It's a recipe for disaster. That's why real "trained" special operations folks cost so much money. The incessant drilling to keep people's skills razor sharp is crazy expensive.

 

The average cop/security personnel are only deterrents to honest people. Not much different than a lock on a door. If someone wants to go on a killing binge, they're going to have success to a point. That's just reality.

 

I've been part of numerous aggressor forces that have easily overtaken security forces who KNEW we were coming. Why? Because we watched their routines for a few days and figured out when they were weakest and then took them out. EASILY. Trust me, these guys were way better at their jobs than whoever is "guarding" the DCNY.

 

Guns aren't the problem and never have been. They're simply convenient.