Shootings in Navy Sea Command in DC

[/dev/null]

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. 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.

 

Exactly

 

Most people expect base security to be on par with Seal Team 6.

Nope. Rentacops and squids. I've gone thru gates where 100% ID check means you hand them your card and they touch it. They're supposed to put "hands on" every badge, which ends up looking like ET sticking his finger out.

 

And at 8AM when everybody is coming in to work? They're not checking everybody.

You have a badge? Great, have a nice day.

Swipe access works? Great, have a nice day.

Cypher lock door that you know the code? Great, have a nice day.

[Dorkington]

So the answer is, everyone should have a gun, and should have security training drilled into them on a regular basis, so they will be less likely to be surprised by an armed assailant?

[Just Jack]

Most people expect base security to be on par with Seal Team 6.

Nope. Rentacops and squids. I've gone thru gates where 100% ID check means you hand them your card and they touch it. They're supposed to put "hands on" every badge, which ends up looking like ET sticking his finger out.

 

Security where I work is laughable. The only time these guys may run is if someone says there's donuts in the break room.

[OCinBuffalo]

So the answer is, everyone should have a gun, and should have security training drilled into them on a regular basis, so they will be less likely to be surprised by an armed assailant?

These are the only logical answers.

 

Of course, they are impractical. However, they are more practical, than newer, broader gun control laws. Which neither stop guns or controls them. They are infinitley more practical that banning guns altogether.

 

No. Here's is wisdom: Freedom is not free, and, often, the price of freedom is: bad choices.

 

Clearly, many idiots supported Obama because he was black, and not because he was qualified for the job. This was a bad choice.

Clearly, many idiots, including me, supported Romney over Gingrich, because we thought purely in terms of qualifications, and not about personal appeal. That was also a bad choice.

 

However, because we have freedom, we can make those bad choices, both individually and collectively.

 

Thus, yes, in order to preserve freedom, we have to live with bad choices. The hope is we minimize the bad choices, but getting rid of them altogether is: impractical. And, again, some one-size-fits-all plan from DC, will NOT solve the problem, it will simply restrict our liberty, and empower valueless government employees, to both justify and expand their existence.

 

Thus we fight fire with gasoline. It's much better to simply contain the fire.

 

EDIT: I was called away, but, I was planning on making this a few days ago, this seems like a good place to roll it out:

Edited September 18, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

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.

 

There aren't that many guns at the Navy Yard. And not that much training. Mostly contractors.

 

So the answer is, everyone should have a gun, and should have security training drilled into them on a regular basis, so they will be less likely to be surprised by an armed assailant?

 

The answer is that a certain level of risk is unavoidable.

 

Even if you ban guns.

 

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.

 

NSA's got about the most badass security I've ever encountered first hand. Off the top of my head, I can think of two ways to get around their security perimeter and do some serious damage, if you've got the will, courage, and enough people (maybe four). There is no such thing as perfect security.

 

(Side note: never confuse the NSA entrance with the Ft. Meade main entrance. And don't do it on September 11th. And definitely do not tell then, when they ask what you're doing, say "I have a 10:30 meeting on base with Mohammed," even if you have a 10:30 meeting on base with a guy named Mohammed. Bad things, man...)

[Koko78]

A Defense Department Inspector General's report published on Tuesday revealed security lapses that allowed 52 convicted felons to gain access to Navy facilities because budget cuts had undermined vetting.

http://news.yahoo.com/gunman-opens-fire-navy-yard-washington-d-c-021732377.html

 

Why do I have the feeling Obama's next hyper-partisan speech about the tragedy is going to entail how the security lapses allowing this tragedy were due to the sequester and about how the evil obstructionist baby-eating racist teabagger party of no GOP forced this on the unsuspecting public against Obama's will, resulting in 12 deaths?

[IDBillzFan]

So the answer is, everyone should have a gun, and should have security training drilled into them on a regular basis, so they will be less likely to be surprised by an armed assailant?

 

The reason people spend so much time mocking folks like you is because your mind only sees things as black and white. There can be no real discussion about virtually anything of importance because the minute your theories or ideas get the rug pulled out from under them, you immediately go to a different extreme.

 

There are too many people on food stamps and the program is being abused.

 

Oh, you want to take food out of the mouths of children!

 

Obamacare does nothing to address the true issues we have with health care.

 

Oh, you want old people to die!

 

The problem with things like the Navy Shipyard shooting is it has less to do with guns and more to do with what we consider secure.

 

Oh, so the answer is everyone is everyone should have a gun,a dns hould have security training drilled into them on a regular basis.

 

Open your mind. Hear other sides. Otherwise you're just another duck trying to get through eagle school.

[dayman]

These are the only logical answers.

 

Of course, they are impractical. However, they are more practical, than newer, broader gun control laws. Which neither stop guns or controls them. They are infinitley more practical that banning guns altogether.

 

No. Here's is wisdom: Freedom is not free, and, often, the price of freedom is: bad choices.

 

Clearly, many idiots supported Obama because he was black, and not because he was qualified for the job. This was a bad choice.

Clearly, many idiots, including me, supported Romney over Gingrich, because we thought purely in terms of qualifications, and not about personal appeal. That was also a bad choice.

 

However, because we have freedom, we can make those bad choices, both individually and collectively.

 

Thus, yes, in order to preserve freedom, we have to live with bad choices. The hope is we minimize the bad choices, but getting rid of them altogether is: impractical. And, again, some one-size-fits-all plan from DC, will NOT solve the problem, it will simply restrict our liberty, and empower valueless government employees, to both justify and expand their existence.

 

Thus we fight fire with gasoline. It's much better to simply contain the fire.

 

EDIT: I was called away, but, I was planning on making this a few days ago, this seems like a good place to roll it out:

 

The only logical solution is everyone having a gun.

 

That is impractical but less impractical than any more gun control at all. Guns cannot be stopped.

 

Price of freedom.

 

Bad choices: Obama, Romney

 

Because of freedom, we have to live w/ the Obamas, Romneys, and gun massacres of the world. *insert Sarah Palin DC comment about Liberty and public sector workers*

 

something about fire and gasoline and containment

 

 

Excellent post.

[IDBillzFan]

http://news.yahoo.co...-021732377.html

 

Why do I have the feeling Obama's next hyper-partisan speech about the tragedy is going to entail how the security lapses allowing this tragedy were due to the sequester and about how the evil obstructionist baby-eating racist teabagger party of no GOP forced this on the unsuspecting public against Obama's will, resulting in 12 deaths?

 

I'm not sure anyone is really interested or cares what Obama has to say about much of anything these days, let alone this event. He's pretty much made himself irrelevant.

[DC Tom]

http://news.yahoo.co...-021732377.html

 

Why do I have the feeling Obama's next hyper-partisan speech about the tragedy is going to entail how the security lapses allowing this tragedy were due to the sequester and about how the evil obstructionist baby-eating racist teabagger party of no GOP forced this on the unsuspecting public against Obama's will, resulting in 12 deaths?

 

Nope. It'll be about the holes and inadequacies in the clearance process.

 

Because, since that process was revamped around 2005, he can easily and conveniently blame it on Bush.

[Dorkington]

There aren't that many guns at the Navy Yard. And not that much training. Mostly contractors.

 

 

 

The answer is that a certain level of risk is unavoidable.

 

Even if you ban guns.

 

 

 

NSA's got about the most badass security I've ever encountered first hand. Off the top of my head, I can think of two ways to get around their security perimeter and do some serious damage, if you've got the will, courage, and enough people (maybe four). There is no such thing as perfect security.

 

(Side note: never confuse the NSA entrance with the Ft. Meade main entrance. And don't do it on September 11th. And definitely do not tell then, when they ask what you're doing, say "I have a 10:30 meeting on base with Mohammed," even if you have a 10:30 meeting on base with a guy named Mohammed. Bad things, man...)

 

I guess we have different definitions. There's guns at every entrance. There's security walking around. There's armed guards at the entrance of most of the buildings. To me, that's a situation where there's guns around. The other folks suggest that people with guns, specifically trained people with guns, stop gun violence. (as far as their training, I assume it's more than most armed civilians have)

 

The reason people spend so much time mocking folks like you is because your mind only sees things as black and white. There can be no real discussion about virtually anything of importance because the minute your theories or ideas get the rug pulled out from under them, you immediately go to a different extreme.

 

Read the two posts before mine. And then the post that directly quotes my post. I'm simplifying what they are saying, but it's still accurate.

 

The prevailing notion here seems to be that these events would not happen if everyone has a gun, and has constant training in active shooter situations.

 

My actual view point is that in our current nation, gun violence is unavoidable. There are way too many guns out there to keep them out of the hands of those who would like to do harm. My personal belief is, that having more people walking around with guns would make it worse. Especially in cities with bad traffic, heh. Arguments would be solved with guns when people get too emotional. Also, unless everyone is enrolled in the military, I don't think random people with guns will do any good in situations like what happened at the Navy Yard.

 

Do I have an answer? Not one that will work here in America. It's way too late for us to curtail manufacturing. No one would sign on to a more comprehensive license and registration system, either.

 

Fact is, we have to deal with this, and it will just continue to get worse, no matter what the gun *control* laws are, because there are so many out there, and we continue to ignore the problem of healthcare and education.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Dorkington

[GG]

Fact is, we have to deal with this, and it will just continue to get worse, no matter what the gun *control* laws are, because there are so many out there, and we continue to ignore the problem of healthcare and education.

 

Except we don't. We don't ignore them because insane amounts of money are thrown at these problems. What's truly ignored though, are different solutions than the accepted dogma that the reasons for failure are lack of funding. You used a classic link in this thread, that lack of universal healthcare is somehow tied to Alexis's condition. Except that he had access to healthcare and education, yet still ended up shooting up dozens.

 

There is a correlation across the mass shooters over the last couple of years that is tied to guns and mental illness. What's missing is the causation. Guns in their present technology have been available for a century. There have always been crazy people.

 

The question few are asking is, why all of a sudden have crazy people started shooting up the place?

 

I have my theories, but the parties who should be airing these discussions may not be served well by the answers that may be revealed.

[Dorkington]

Except we don't. We don't ignore them because insane amounts of money are thrown at these problems. What's truly ignored though, are different solutions than the accepted dogma that the reasons for failure are lack of funding. You used a classic link in this thread, that lack of universal healthcare is somehow tied to Alexis's condition. Except that he had access to healthcare and education, yet still ended up shooting up dozens.

 

There is a correlation across the mass shooters over the last couple of years that is tied to guns and mental illness. What's missing is the causation. Guns in their present technology have been available for a century. There have always been crazy people.

 

The question few are asking is, why all of a sudden have crazy people started shooting up the place?

 

I have my theories, but the parties who should be airing these discussions may not be served well by the answers that may be revealed.

 

Throwing money at something doesn't really mean much. Especially if the money goes to "pork", or is used inefficiently. The idea about better healthcare and education is that, theoretically, mental healthcare would be more widely taken care of, instead of getting to a breaking point. Would it have stopped this specific guy? Probably not. Like you said, he had access at one point. But he was also removed from the Navy, so I'm not sure how much access he had in recent years.

 

Obviously my opinions are in the minority here (and country wide), so I think I'll just shut up on the issue. More guns is probably the "solution" we'll be looking at going forward, and all I can do is hope that it works out.

[Jauronimo]

The question few are asking is, why all of a sudden have crazy people started shooting up the place?

 

I have my theories, but the parties who should be airing these discussions may not be served well by the answers that may be revealed.

That would make for an interesting thread.

[Gary M]

 

The question few are asking is, why all of a sudden have crazy people started shooting up the place?

 

 

Some simply for this:

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/17/morning-headlines-tuesday-september-17/

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

That would make for an interesting thread.

An entertainment culture which glorifies and desensitizes people to mass scale violence; which folks who are mentally ill and live in a largely fragmented reality are incredibly suseptible to.

[B-Man]

Since I can't put it in the Gun Control, "Coffee" thread

 

 

 

 

 

.

[OCinBuffalo]

The only logical solution is everyone having a gun.

 

That is impractical but less impractical than any more gun control at all. Guns cannot be stopped.

 

Price of freedom.

 

Bad choices: Obama, Romney

 

Because of freedom, we have to live w/ the Obamas, Romneys, and gun massacres of the world. *insert Sarah Palin DC comment about Liberty and public sector workers*

 

something about fire and gasoline and containment

 

 

Excellent post.

Yes, and unfortunately for you: I doubt you will ever have the wisdom to truly comprehend it. Tragedy, at least acknowledgement of it: has been with us since ancient Greece. Tragedy is part of life. So is accepting one's limitations, and, accepting that you don't know better.

 

EDIT:(Changed "man" to "people", just for you) People are fallible. Some people are more fallable than others, some less.

1. Those who think they know better, but haven't put the work in, and gained the experience, to know they do, are significantly more fallible.

2. The more centralization we create, the bigger, and more likley, the potential for FAIL we create.

3. People make bad choices, and no amount of government intervention is ever going to prevent that. All that intervention does, is make life less happy for the rest of us, and often creates problems we otherwise wouldn't have.

 

Those 3 things are the root cause of Democrat FAIL. For all of your belief in your, and your party's infallibility, from 2006 until today: you are failing.

 

Miserably. That's right, you are doing a worse job than the Bush administration.

 

All that remains is: acceptance of that reality. Instead, we get: denial.

Edited September 18, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[B-Man]

Navy Yard: Swat team 'stood down' at mass shooting scene

 

One of the first teams of heavily armed police to respond to Monday's shooting in Washington DC was ordered to stand down by superiors, the BBC can reveal.

 

A tactical response team of the Capitol Police, a force that guards the US Capitol complex, was told to leave the scene by a supervisor instead of aiding municipal officers.

 

The Capitol Police department said senior officials were investigating. Aaron Alexis, 34, killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard.

 

"I don't think it's a far stretch to say that some lives may have been saved if we were allowed to intervene," a Capitol Police source familiar with the incident told the BBC.

 

According to a Capitol Police source, an officer with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), Washington DC's main municipal force, told the Capitol Cert officers they were the only police on the site equipped with long guns and requested their help stopping the gunman.

 

When the Capitol Police team radioed their superiors, they were told by a watch commander to leave the scene, the BBC was told.

The gunman, Aaron Alexis, was reported killed after 9:00.

 

Several Capitol Police sources who spoke to the BBC asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/24153252

[OCinBuffalo]

The prevailing notion here seems to be that these events would not happen if everyone has a gun, and has constant training in active shooter situations.

Then you are woefully misinterpreting what is being said. Impractical means impractical, everyone having a gun is impractical(not because we can't make enough, but because we can't count on people to use them properly. We make plenty of cars, etc.), and so is maintaining the readiness of all security forces at such a high level.

 

Let me clear it up for you: The prevailing notion here is that you can't "take away all the guns", and solve the problem. That's because: you can't take away all the guns. The only guns you will take away are those from law-abiding citizens. Criminals, and crazies, by definition, do not care about laws. Thus, laws are not the solution. How can they be?

 

We need to target the criminal, and the crazy, not their tools. Again, some dude just attacked people with a pickaxe. Should we ban pickaxes?

 

It all comes down to logic vs. emoting. Emoting solves nothing.

My actual view point is that in our current nation, gun violence is unavoidable. There are way too many guns out there to keep them out of the hands of those who would like to do harm. My personal belief is, that having more people walking around with guns would make it worse. Especially in cities with bad traffic, heh. Arguments would be solved with guns when people get too emotional. Also, unless everyone is enrolled in the military, I don't think random people with guns will do any good in situations like what happened at the Navy Yard.

 

Do I have an answer? Not one that will work here in America. It's way too late for us to curtail manufacturing. No one would sign on to a more comprehensive license and registration system, either.

 

Fact is, we have to deal with this, and it will just continue to get worse, no matter what the gun *control* laws are, because there are so many out there, and we continue to ignore the problem of healthcare and education.

Yes.

 

The root causes here are:

1. Man is an imperfect creature. Be very wary of those who say he isn't, and suggest that they know the way to Utopia. They are lying, to you or themselves, and chances are they are doing so to gain power, not solutions.

2. Social pressure, not social laws, or social programs, is the most effective means of creating social change. Hell, look at this board, and what happens to those that say "we should trade Stevie", or "Kiko Alonso sucks".

3. A culture, that glorifies sticking a gun down your shorts, which results in you shooting yourself in the leg(Plaxico)...is utterly retarded.

 

Thus the solutions are:

1. Accept that bad choices--> tragedy is part of life. Deny anyone who says they can solve the problem by taking away "some" of your liberty.

2. Bad choices rarely happen in a vaccuum, and usually are made in a series. We need to ostracize, and socially pressure, the bad choice people BEFORE they can continue their series of choices. We also need to recognize and treat the crazy choice people early on.

3. "Gangsta" culture must be eradicated. It is the root cause of so many social problems, because it glorifies evil. It attempts to justify bad behavior, by taking the blame off of those who behave badly, and putting it elsewhere. To be clear: this won't stop all the gun violence in this country. However, a large chunk of it will be gone.

4. Legalize drugs. I can't believe that, as a country, we are too dumb to have learned from Prohibition. Automatic weapons first landed out our streets due to Prohibition. The Tommy gun had been around for years. Nobody started using them, partially because nobody could afford one, until Prohibition.

Edited September 18, 2013 by OCinBuffalo