DC Naval Yard Shooter Was Hearing Voices, Security Clearance Was Not Revoked.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

http://news.yahoo.com/shots-fired-at-washington-navy-yard--u-s--navy-confirms-130407614.html

Speaks for itself. Might not seem like relevant news on a gaming site, but considering how often games get brought up when things like this happen (usually by right wing pro gun dickheads looking for a way to take the discussion away from stronger gun laws, and opportunistic media pundits looking to scare old people) it is sadly relevant here for more reasons than the obvious tragedy of the situation.

A guy on MSNBC already started blaming violent videogames for the shooting, saying the shooter would hole up in his room playing online while his friends were right outside playing cards. One mass shooting a month and still no gun laws. When is the right time, that peaceful period exactly one day before the next one?

image

The dead suspect has been identified as Aaron Alexis, 34, of Texas. NYTimes article on the subject.

Remus:
A guy on MSNBC already started blaming violent videogames for the shooting, saying the shooter would hole up in his room playing online while his friends were right outside playing cards.

Balderdash! Clearly, online universities are to blame.

(Currently free) Washington Post Live Blog of the event

Remus:
A guy on MSNBC already started blaming violent videogames for the shooting, saying the shooter would hole up in his room playing online while his friends were right outside playing cards.

meh, keep it comin'; unlike "Hollywood", games development can easily move abroad and speaking for the rest of the world we'll more than happily take those high end jobs and taxes off US hands...so ye...go for it...punitive taxes, prohibition, whatever...knock yourself out America...

an874:
http://news.yahoo.com/shots-fired-at-washington-navy-yard--u-s--navy-confirms-130407614.html

Speaks for itself. Might not seem like relevant news on a gaming site, but considering how often games get brought up when things like this happen (usually by right wing pro gun dickheads looking for a way to take the discussion away from stronger gun laws, and opportunistic media pundits looking to scare old people) it is sadly relevant here for more reasons than the obvious tragedy of the situation.

I seem to remember Hillary Clinton and Diane Feinstein (author of the AWB) being huge proponents of bans on violent video games. In fact, the social engineers in the US tend to be the quickest to blame violent media for our problems.

Anyway, attacks on media have been around for as long as media has existed. I remember reading a contemporary critique of the ancient Greek tragedy "Medea" where the author attacked Euripides for making such a "grotesque" play. He basically argued that playwrights like Euripides were the cause of the moral decline of Athenian civilization. The scene he was talking about was when (spoiler) the kids are killed off screen and you hear them screaming. All we have to do is weather the storm. The 1st Amendment needs to keep getting reiterated and people need to keep telling the truth. Fight the good fight and we will win out. Just like every other time.

Remus:
One mass shooting a month and still no gun laws.

Once a month? This is the first shooting of its kind all year. And for all we know at the moment he could have very well stolen the gun on base (some of the Theories I have heard from Police so far say this because the base is heavily guarded, being in DC and all). Hell, I was just starting to think we could get through the year without a shooting. Oh well, time to listen to the Democrats bitch and moan, the Republicans will keep guns around, and it will be Same Shit, Different Day. IE, My state of Kansas will keep its Full-Autos legal, California and New York will try again to ban "assault weapons." DC might even Try again, even though the Supreme Court laughed in thier face last time.

Remus:
One mass shooting a month and still no gun laws.

What do you mean, "no gun laws"?

All firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department.
A background check, online training, and testing of the gun owner are required.
"Assault weapons" and .50 BMG rifles prohibited.
Illegal to possess or acquire magazines of more than 10 round capacity.
The firearm registration process also serves as a licensing process.
Concealed carry prohibited.
Open carry prohibited.
Automatic firearms prohibited.
Possession of unregistered firearms prohibited for both residents and non-residents.

Those are D.C.'s gun laws. Also worth mentioning that guns were not allowed in that area of the Navy Yard, except by the on-duty security force.

So if the laws were effective, this shooting wouldn't have happened.

Nice try.

MichiganMuscle77:

Remus:
One mass shooting a month and still no gun laws.

What do you mean, "no gun laws"?

All firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department.
A background check, online training, and testing of the gun owner are required.
"Assault weapons" and .50 BMG rifles prohibited.
Illegal to possess or acquire magazines of more than 10 round capacity.
The firearm registration process also serves as a licensing process.
Concealed carry prohibited.
Open carry prohibited.
Automatic firearms prohibited.
Possession of unregistered firearms prohibited for both residents and non-residents.

Those are D.C.'s gun laws. Also worth mentioning that guns were not allowed in that area of the Navy Yard, except by the on-duty security force.

So if the laws were effective, this shooting wouldn't have happened.

Nice try.

It's further worth noting that Aaron Alexis, the shooter who was killed, had apparently already been arrested twice previously for misconduct involving a firearm (though he never hurt anyone). By law, this would have made him ineligible to purchase any firearms. Clearly it didn't stop him from obtaining them.

Ihateregistering1:

It's further worth noting that Aaron Alexis, the shooter who was killed, had apparently already been arrested twice previously for misconduct involving a firearm (though he never hurt anyone). By law, this would have made him ineligible to purchase any firearms. Clearly it didn't stop him from obtaining them.

Thank you, you're absolutely correct.

It's truly despicable that the anti-gun lobby refuses to accept the existence of a major FLAW in their entire logic. Because of it, we will continue to tread water and these shootings will continue.

Clearly this means telling someone they can't do something isn't a barrier, and maybe we should just stop giving them the ability.

You do not need a gun. Like less than 0.0.0.0.1% of people encounter situations where they are robbed by armed people. This doesn't justify (IMO) the deaths that occur, accidental or otherwise, all year round.

So many people have this mentality that if they're robbed or something, the first thing they should do is try to kill the person 'attacking' them. This is the wrong idea to have.

Basically what I'm saying is you should just give them the money and let them run off. You're not an action hero and a shoot-off is a bad idea anyway.

Ihateregistering1:

It's further worth noting that Aaron Alexis, the shooter who was killed, had apparently already been arrested twice previously for misconduct involving a firearm (though he never hurt anyone). By law, this would have made him ineligible to purchase any firearms. Clearly it didn't stop him from obtaining them.

Here's the weird thing: one of those two instances was a case where in a fit of rage he shot someone's tires out, and had no memory of it afterwards because he was so enraged he blacked out. The other time was written off as an accidental discharge -- his gun supposedly went off while cleaning it.

Now I can understand not having any negative consequences in the second situation, but the first one? He should have been in pretty deep shit for it. I'm pretty sure that would be assault with a deadly weapon[1], as well as destruction of property, both of which are pretty serious crimes.

[1] "Assault" being a credible threat of violence, and not the actual perpetration of it

michael87cn:
Clearly this means telling someone they can't do something isn't a barrier, and maybe we should just stop giving them the ability.

You do not need a gun. Like less than 0.0.0.0.1% of people encounter situations where they are robbed by armed people. This doesn't justify (IMO) the deaths that occur, accidental or otherwise, all year round.

So many people have this mentality that if they're robbed or something, the first thing they should do is try to kill the person 'attacking' them. This is the wrong idea to have.

Basically what I'm saying is you should just give them the money and let them run off. You're not an action hero and a shoot-off is a bad idea anyway.

Agreed. Shooting someone who's trying to rob you, instead of giving them the money, basically means that you value whatever cash you're caarrying higher than a human life.

On topic, I can't say I feel a lot about this. I'm not pro-murder or anything, but I'm Swedish and I didn't know these people so to me they're just twelve more dead people in another country.

Queen Michael:

michael87cn:
Clearly this means telling someone they can't do something isn't a barrier, and maybe we should just stop giving them the ability.

You do not need a gun. Like less than 0.0.0.0.1% of people encounter situations where they are robbed by armed people. This doesn't justify (IMO) the deaths that occur, accidental or otherwise, all year round.

So many people have this mentality that if they're robbed or something, the first thing they should do is try to kill the person 'attacking' them. This is the wrong idea to have.

Basically what I'm saying is you should just give them the money and let them run off. You're not an action hero and a shoot-off is a bad idea anyway.

Agreed. Shooting someone who's trying to rob you, instead of giving them the money, basically means that you value whatever cash you're caarrying higher than a human life.

On topic, I can't say I feel a lot about this. I'm not pro-murder or anything, but I'm Swedish and I didn't know these people so to me they're just twelve more dead people in another country.

The thing with that is, the presumption is that they also value that money more than your life, but not necessarily theirs. It's the cliche "your money or your life!" thing, and you saying "you might want to rethink those options."

Not that I agree that concealed carry routinely helps out in that way, just explaining why it's really not as morally reprehensible as you're putting it to kill someone who is trying to rob you at gunpoint.

Queen Michael:

Agreed. Shooting someone who's trying to rob you, instead of giving them the money, basically means that you value whatever cash you're caarrying higher than a human life.

Um.........because I do value my money more than I do the life of a criminal? Why should I have to roll over and let him have my money, when I am the law abidding citizen. If he wants, he can try, after meeting the business end of a .44 cal- revolver loaded with hollow points, or if this is at home, a 12-guage shotgun loaded with 00/Buckshot (Deer-hunting rounds, also used by the military). If he is smart, he will surrender to me, while I keep him in my sights and call the cops. If he is Stupid, he will try and attack me, and find that he is not the Flash and can not move faster than a bullet. It doesnt matter, hes a crook, he deserves jail but if he attacks me he will die, or at least have a bullet shaped scar in the clink.

EDIT: Plus, most crooks are cowards. Pull a gun, they will run or surrender. Have alarms, they will run. Dogs, run. In groups, wont even try. They target those that are weaker than them. Thus, a gun would make you seem strong and the cowards would run. Its a rare breed that would actually try and STILL rob you even if there is a gun in their face, and they are the dangerous ones. So shoot him when he resist.

Just to chime in here, I think they now ruled out there being 2 additional suspects.

BOOM headshot65:

Queen Michael:

Agreed. Shooting someone who's trying to rob you, instead of giving them the money, basically means that you value whatever cash you're caarrying higher than a human life.

Um.........because I do value my money more than I do the life of a criminal? Why should I have to roll over and let him have my money, when I am the law abidding citizen. If he wants, he can try, after meeting the business end of a .44 cal- revolver loaded with hollow points, or if this is at home, a 12-guage shotgun loaded with 00/Buckshot (Deer-hunting rounds, also used by the military). If he is smart, he will surrender to me, while I keep him in my sights and call the cops. If he is Stupid, he will try and attack me, and find that he is not the Flash and can not move faster than a bullet. It doesnt matter, hes a crook, he deserves jail but if he attacks me he will die, or at least have a bullet shaped scar in the clink.

EDIT: Plus, most crooks are cowards. Pull a gun, they will run or surrender. Have alarms, they will run. Dogs, run. In groups, wont even try. They target those that are weaker than them. Thus, a gun would make you seem strong and the cowards would run. Its a rare breed that would actually try and STILL rob you even if there is a gun in their face, and they are the dangerous ones. So shoot him when he resist.

Pretty much how I feel as well, letting them take the money when you could stop them just sounds like poor judgement.

OT: People were even blaming Syria for this one, to me it's just one crazy dude who we no longer have to worry about putting on trial. Gotta feel bad for the victims though, just walking into work on Monday never knowing it's gonna be your last, killed in cold blood by some psycho.

Queen Michael:

Agreed. Shooting someone who's trying to rob you, instead of giving them the money, basically means that you value whatever cash you're carrying higher than a human life.

Is that not okay? It seems reasonable that I don't value the life of someone stealing my shit.

michael87cn:

You do not need a gun.

I've evaluated my situation and have come to conclude otherwise.

michael87cn:
Clearly this means telling someone they can't do something isn't a barrier, and maybe we should just stop giving them the ability.

You do not need a gun. Like less than 0.0.0.0.1% of people encounter situations where they are robbed by armed people. This doesn't justify (IMO) the deaths that occur, accidental or otherwise, all year round.

So many people have this mentality that if they're robbed or something, the first thing they should do is try to kill the person 'attacking' them. This is the wrong idea to have.

Basically what I'm saying is you should just give them the money and let them run off. You're not an action hero and a shoot-off is a bad idea anyway.

Statistics please for your '0.0.0.01%' (actually never mind, that's not even a real number).

Actually, surveys have shown that guns are used defensively anywhere from 750,000 to 2,000,000 a year in the US (many people don't report their defensive use, so it's difficult to get an exact number).

Likewise, despite what many people believe, the VAST (and I mean 98-99%) of times that guns are used defensively, the gun isn't even fired. Most of the time, the person pulls their gun and the criminal runs away. Criminals are not stupid, they are not going to get themselves killed over a wallet when they know they can just run away and live to rob another day.

Ihateregistering1:

Actually, surveys have shown that guns are used defensively anywhere from 750,000 to 2,000,000 a year in the US (many people don't report their defensive use, so it's difficult to get an exact number).

Likewise, despite what many people believe, the VAST (and I mean 98-99%) of times that guns are used defensively, the gun isn't even fired. Most of the time, the person pulls their gun and the criminal runs away. Criminals are not stupid, they are not going to get themselves killed over a wallet when they know they can just run away and live to rob another day.

Its funny how people who boast about how many times gun is used defencively seems to ignore the fact that the reason they need to use anything defencively is because the criminal has a gun too.

Strazdas:

Ihateregistering1:

Actually, surveys have shown that guns are used defensively anywhere from 750,000 to 2,000,000 a year in the US (many people don't report their defensive use, so it's difficult to get an exact number).

Likewise, despite what many people believe, the VAST (and I mean 98-99%) of times that guns are used defensively, the gun isn't even fired. Most of the time, the person pulls their gun and the criminal runs away. Criminals are not stupid, they are not going to get themselves killed over a wallet when they know they can just run away and live to rob another day.

Its funny how people who boast about how many times gun is used defencively seems to ignore the fact that the reason they need to use anything defencively is because the criminal has a gun too.

I don't think assuming all criminals are packing heat qualifies it to be a fact. Though I get the feeling you were exaggerating for effect. If memory serves, most homicides do indeed involve a firearm while the majority of every other type of crime(with the exception of a weapon offense) don't involve a firearm.

MichiganMuscle77:

Remus:
One mass shooting a month and still no gun laws.

What do you mean, "no gun laws"?

All firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department.
A background check, online training, and testing of the gun owner are required.
"Assault weapons" and .50 BMG rifles prohibited.
Illegal to possess or acquire magazines of more than 10 round capacity.
The firearm registration process also serves as a licensing process.
Concealed carry prohibited.
Open carry prohibited.
Automatic firearms prohibited.
Possession of unregistered firearms prohibited for both residents and non-residents.

Those are D.C.'s gun laws. Also worth mentioning that guns were not allowed in that area of the Navy Yard, except by the on-duty security force.

So if the laws were effective, this shooting wouldn't have happened.

Nice try.

We have amazing gun laws in Australia, the last mass shooting was about a decade ago.

Evil Smurf:
We have amazing gun laws in Australia, the last mass shooting was about a decade ago.

Guns Per 100 Residents, 2007:

United States: 94.3
Australia: 15

That might have more to do with it than gun laws. The cat's already out of the bag. We could stop all gun sales in this country today and we'd still be number one in the world in guns per capita 50 years from now.

Topsider:

Evil Smurf:
We have amazing gun laws in Australia, the last mass shooting was about a decade ago.

Guns Per 100 Residents, 2007:

United States: 94.3
Australia: 15

That might have more to do with it than gun laws. The cat's already out of the bag. We could stop all gun sales in this country today and we'd still be number one in the world in guns per capita 50 years from now.

We did have a gun buy back system, it worked really well.

Evil Smurf:
We did have a gun buy back system, it worked really well.

Great.

For perspective, the next-closest is Serbia, at 54.

We have almost one gun per person in the US by most estimates. We may very well have one gun per person. Again, nobody has anywhere near as many guns as we do.

Yeah, not my favourite source of documentaries, what with him being about as biased as they come, yet on this topic I agree with the bias.

Oh, and that little video is rather relevant.

I know it is more complicated than some think. I know the idea that if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws have guns. I know America is huge and unique, blah blah blah, but there are ways of tackling the problem of gun violence.

They just smack dangerously close to anything that might be considered to possibly be, in a certain light, socialism.

Evil Smurf:

Topsider:

Evil Smurf:
We have amazing gun laws in Australia, the last mass shooting was about a decade ago.

Guns Per 100 Residents, 2007:

United States: 94.3
Australia: 15

That might have more to do with it than gun laws. The cat's already out of the bag. We could stop all gun sales in this country today and we'd still be number one in the world in guns per capita 50 years from now.

We did have a gun buy back system, it worked really well.

its weird when you compare australia to the usa. we had a similar period of exploration and settlers, etc, we had criminals who are glamourised like ned kelly, heck we even had a civil insurection with the eureka stockade but for some reason we lack that cultural love for guns, its honestly like part of the american identity from an outside perspective.

i do agree that gun laws are pretty pointless for the usa at this point due to the number of guns in circulation and they dont seem to have any way legally apart from asking nicely to remove guns from the population

Queen Michael:

michael87cn:
Clearly this means telling someone they can't do something isn't a barrier, and maybe we should just stop giving them the ability.

You do not need a gun. Like less than 0.0.0.0.1% of people encounter situations where they are robbed by armed people. This doesn't justify (IMO) the deaths that occur, accidental or otherwise, all year round.

So many people have this mentality that if they're robbed or something, the first thing they should do is try to kill the person 'attacking' them. This is the wrong idea to have.

Basically what I'm saying is you should just give them the money and let them run off. You're not an action hero and a shoot-off is a bad idea anyway.

Agreed. Shooting someone who's trying to rob you, instead of giving them the money, basically means that you value whatever cash you're caarrying higher than a human life.

Why would I value the life of a criminal who is threatening me with a weapon and trying to take whats mine?

Though I would prefer to pull a gun and offer them the chance to surrender, if they do I will call the cops while keeping them covered, and if they run away just chalk it up to a misadventure on their part and hope they rethink their life as I wont shoot them in the back.

He must have played GTA V already!

Captcha: slippery slope

Okay maybe not then...?

Topsider:

United States: 94.3
Australia: 15

That might have more to do with it than gun laws. The cat's already out of the bag. We could stop all gun sales in this country today and we'd still be number one in the world in guns per capita 50 years from now.

While im extremely EXTREMELY happy i live in a nation with VERY little gun crime where guns are heavily restricted i agree that its too late for America to do anything about their guns. When we banned guns in the UK it was 1920 when the gun culture, effectiveness and cost of guns were WILDLY different. We had also just exited an extremely bloody and brutal war where millions and millions of people were shot like cattle in disgusting muddy fields pretty much solidly for about a decade. The time was pretty ideal and the people spoke and said that guns in our nation should be heavily restricted (Its weird how often people dont seem to understand that we DEMOCRATICALLY CHOSE TO GET RID OF OUR GUNS). Gun ownership was hardly as endemic as it was in the USA today meaning removing the firearms was a lot more straight forward. Frankly America has long passed the age where a gun hand in would be remotely possible. In the UK we had a good head start and a vast majority support for the ban meaning internal conflict was minimal. The USA not so much.

The USA should probably keep its guns as its the most sensible thing to do in their situation. I dont envy them though and im extremely happy my nation isnt stuck in their situation. School shootings in the UK are far less prevalent even when you scale it to population.

wombat_of_war:
its weird when you compare australia to the usa. we had a similar period of exploration and settlers, etc, we had criminals who are glamourised like ned kelly, heck we even had a civil insurection with the eureka stockade but for some reason we lack that cultural love for guns, its honestly like part of the american identity from an outside perspective.

i do agree that gun laws are pretty pointless for the usa at this point due to the number of guns in circulation and they dont seem to have any way legally apart from asking nicely to remove guns from the population

I think it goes all the way back to the differences in origin. Australia wasn't birthed from revolution. The US came about due to a bunch of hick farmers with guns -- and a little help from the French navy -- beating a superpower. We had the notion that it's the people's right to overthrow their government when it becomes tyrannical, with force of arms if necessary, enshrined in our founding document. Hell, Jefferson said some pretty out-there stuff about it being preferable to have a misguided bloody revolution every twenty years than to have an indifferent, apathetic, or cowardly populace.

We also have the much-mythologized gunslinger of the Old West.

Rightly or wrongly, we view the gun as playing an essential role in winning and keeping our freedom.

Desert Punk:
Why would I value the life of a criminal who is threatening me with a weapon and trying to take whats mine?

By extension, do you support the death penalty for such crimes?

thaluikhain:

Desert Punk:
Why would I value the life of a criminal who is threatening me with a weapon and trying to take whats mine?

By extension, do you support the death penalty for such crimes?

If they attack someone with a deadly weapon while trying to steal their money? Of course. They have no value for human life, why should anyone value theirs? They are garbage.

thaluikhain:

Desert Punk:
Why would I value the life of a criminal who is threatening me with a weapon and trying to take whats mine?

By extension, do you support the death penalty for such crimes?

I don't think you need to support the death penalty for mugging in order to acknowledge that holding someone at gunpoint/knifepoint/whateverpoint while relieving them of their wallet is a threat of deadly force, and we're pretty okay with using deadly force in return.

Queen Michael:
Agreed. Shooting someone who's trying to rape you, instead of giving them the sexy times, basically means that you value whatever time you're wasting higher than a human life.

I must say I agree completely. Does anyone really think rape is a capital offense?

BOOM headshot65:

Remus:
One mass shooting a month and still no gun laws.

Once a month? This is the first shooting of its kind all year.

It's not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Santa_Monica_shooting
It is NOT.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked