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

[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.

 

[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. 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?

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

The dead suspect has been identified as Aaron Alexis, 34, of Texas. NYTimes article on the subject [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/us/shooting-reported-at-washington-navy-yard.html?hp].

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 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/liveblog/wp/2013/09/16/shooting-at-washington-navy-yard/?hpid=z2#liveblog-entry-17901] are to blame.

(Currently free) Washington Post Live Blog of the event [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/liveblog/wp/2013/09/16/shooting-at-washington-navy-yard/]

 

[BOOM headshot65]

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 ***** 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.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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[footnote]"Assault" being a credible threat of violence, and not the actual perpetration of it[/footnote], as well as destruction of property, both of which are pretty serious crimes.

 

[Queen Michael]

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.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

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.

 

[Zetatrain]

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

 

[Xan Krieger]

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.

 

[Shadowstar38]

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.

You do not need a gun.

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

 

[Ihateregistering1]

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.

 

[Strazdas]

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.

 

[LetalisK]

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.