Navy Yard and its implications.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh no, since an evil AR was used, they had better ban the Police and Military from using AR's, cause someone with a shotgun can shoot them and take it from them!

How do you think militants, insurgents and resistance acquire military weapons? They harvest them from soldiers they ambush and put them into service against them.

Also, for those whining about not enough "mental records on record" you had better be careful what you wish for. I am for the patient confidentiality act. Have you ever felt depressed? Ever took medication for depression? Life banishment is what you are striving for. Might as well diagnose you with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder for your fascination or love for firearms. Medication for sleep? You have a disorder.

With current libs and other quacks, I am willing to bet 8 out of 10 Americans could walk into a psychologist or psychiatrist off the street and be diagnosed with some kind of mental illness.
 
^^Guaranteed. We had this same discussion on here after Sandy Hook. I work in the mental health field. I have seen lots of normal people fall on hard times or become depressed after a loved one passes. It's called situational depression in my field. I call it dealing with the loss of a loved one. But once you have been diagnosed, you're done. That label will follow you forever.

Did you know you don't even have to actually threaten to harm yourself or other to be committed? All that has to happen is you get in an argument with your girlfriend or boyfriend and they fill out a 3rd party affidavit stating you threatened and you're placed under an emergency order of detention for a minimum of 36 hours. Now your in the system. Permanently. I promise you folks, you don't want the government having access to those kinds of records. Not in the world we live in today. I can give example after example of patients that have been admitted to my facility falsely. Perfectly normal people. Including veterans.
 
I consider the false reporting much like that of un ringing a bell or repacking a feather pillow once the feathers have taken to the wind.
All they need to do is make the statement in the heat of the emotion and the damage is done. Nobody sees the retraction on page six 2 days later.
The media and those they serve know this and believe it is worth the risk.
 
Stressed- no AR was used, just a shotgun (DammitBoy)
Click to expand...

Yeah, but
adding that he used shotgun shells that had roughly a dozen large ball-bearing-like shots in them, increasing their lethal nature.

“When he discharged, the pieces of lead would spread the farther they went,” the one official said. “It is similar to weapons used in bird shooting but on a more serious scale. These were not bullets but many small pieces of lead flying through the air.” From http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/u...-officials-say.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1&
Click to expand...


So, maybe a ban on buckshot? Yet another backdoor ban on 12 gauges (ID > .5 in)?


As Sam 1911 says:

They're coming? They're ALWAYS coming. Keep up the fight, always.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe the point should be to take away the guns from the guards there so as not to supply guns to crazies like this.
 
I heard he had rounds that fired ballistic ball bearings designed to damage multiple targets. Ya, media is usually around that level. :D

At least he didn't use a Saiga12.
 
Let's try to remain focused and not weigh down the thread with side issues that aren't bearing on the topic of approaching the Navy Yard shooting from an Activism perspective. There are enough discussions on the noise on this in General.
 
Last edited:
In 1993, Bill Clinton changed the policy of carrying firearms by military personnel on military bases from allowed to against military regulations. Disarming our soldiers and placing them in a gun free zone.

From 1776 to 1993, we had zero shootings on US military bases. From 1993 to 2013 we have had 16 shootings on our military bases.
 
DammitBoy said:
In 1993, Bill Clinton changed the policy of carrying firearms by military personnel on military bases from allowed to against military regulations. Disarming our soldiers and placing them in a gun free zone.

From 1776 to 1993, we had zero shootings on US military bases. From 1993 to 2013 we have had 16 shootings on our military bases.
Click to expand...
Wow, if that's an accurate statement (not to imply that it isn't) that should be spread to everyone during this debate.
 
So your saying that prior to 1993 the carrying of loaded weapons was prolific or at least allowed by a large portion of the military on state side installations?
 
In 1993, Bill Clinton changed the policy of carrying firearms by military personnel on military bases from allowed to against military regulations. Disarming our soldiers and placing them in a gun free zone.
Click to expand...

A claim like that is going to need some documentation. I don't remember seeing anyone except base security carrying firearms between 1972 and 1980. I also don't think it has any relevance at all since this wouldn't be allowed in building 197 where the shooting took place. The particular circumstances of this shooting inside the NavSea Systems Headquarters building would have not been changed even if there was a general allowance of firearms carry by military personnel since it is an offic building and military personnel have NEVER carried weapons in stateside office buildings unless there was a state of emergency or war.
 
Last edited:
I do think that the weapons restrictions do need to be reviewed and have little doubt that 30-40% of current military personel could be fairly quickly qualified to carry weapons with some administrative adjustments. The problems would occur when you tried to keep track of all of that hardware since I doubt that our military would keep any better track of their guns than those of the federal police agencys.
We face a small amount of danger no matter who has the guns. I personally feel that there should be far fewer gun free zones and more people armed is better than less in almost any situation.
 
Al Thompson said:
That's incorrect. FT Bragg in the mid 1980's comes to mind as does the shooting at the Air Force base near Seattle. There have been numerous murder-suicide shootings, including one at FT Leonard Wood in 1977.
Click to expand...

The Fairchild AFB shooting -- which is not near Seattle -- took place in 1994.
 
I was told once by someone who I thought might actually know, that up until the late 50s, officers were generally allowed to go about armed at their own discretion. Whether that is true or not, I just don't know.
 
Ryanxia said:
Wow, if that's an accurate statement (not to imply that it isn't) that should be spread to everyone during this debate.
Click to expand...
You really think the facts actually matter? The liberal media has accurate facts just like we do. These people aren't unintelligent, they're liars. They know the facts, and intentionally twist them.

This debate has nothing to do with facts. It's entirely a matter of agenda. The question is, why do people really want to ban guns? I don't believe most people honestly think banning guns will eliminate violent crime.
 
Al Thompson said:
That's incorrect. FT Bragg in the mid 1980's comes to mind as does the shooting at the Air Force base near Seattle. There have been numerous murder-suicide shootings, including one at FT Leonard Wood in 1977.
Click to expand...

William Kreutzer shot 19 people at Fort Bragg in 1995...that might be the one you are thinking of
 
In 1993, Bill Clinton changed the policy of carrying firearms by military personnel on military bases from allowed to against military regulations. Disarming our soldiers and placing them in a gun free zone.
Click to expand...

The "gun-free zone" military base policy was passed by the Bush Sr. administration Feb 1992 and was renewed by the Clinton administration Mar 1993. The policy has not been seriously reviewed by either the Bush Jr. or Obama administrations.

As John Lott has pointed out, Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5210.56, Feb 1992, was signed by Deputy Secretary of Defense Donald J. Atwood, under the administration of President George H.W. Bush. The Clinton administration reissued the directive in March 1993.

That meant when disgruntled crazies went on killing sprees, there were few around able to stop them. The good guys followed the rules. The bad or crazy guys did not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kreutzer,_Jr One killed, 18 wounded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Would it have made any difference in Paris if carry were allowed
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
157
Views
3K
Jeff White
J
G
  • Locked
We Are Fighting Gun Control Wrong
Replies
18
Views
2K
rpenmanparker
rpenmanparker
<*(((><
  • Locked
Pro-2A: We Need to be the People Providing Solutions
Replies
5
Views
1K
Hokie_PhD
Hokie_PhD
C
  • Locked
Levis Now Pro Actively Anti Gun
2 3
Replies
53
Views
9K
hso
hso
N
  • Locked
Gun Rights and other issues.
Replies
6
Views
453
yokel
yokel
Back
Top