Navy Yard and its implications.


PDA






RandyRay41
September 16, 2013, 07:01 PM
Whats going to be the impact of our newest mass killing? Wonder if this will be classed as workplace violence? or terrorist attack? or just some wacko out killing for the joy of killing. I don't know, but the attack on our 2a is going to come out with a ferocity we have not seen yet over this one.

There must be discussion to be pro-active or we all stand good chance to lose much. JMHO.





My last thread on this was closed by a moderator, if this one closes, i will not post again.

If you enjoyed reading about "Navy Yard and its implications." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sam1911
September 16, 2013, 07:04 PM
The facts aren't even all in yet, and even when they're known, what in the world is the point of speculation? There's no strategy to be made that hasn't been in place and employed since Newtown, Aurora, etc., etc.

They're coming? They're ALWAYS coming. Keep up the fight, always.

hso
September 17, 2013, 09:19 AM
We know that there will be attempts to exploit this tragedy, but the one thing we need to have is the facts of the case to be able to counter the rantings of the Antis. What do we plan around other than we already know that any tragedy will be used by the Antis? We need specifics to form a plan with that will have any effectiveness.

We need to vigilant, but we don't need to go off half cocked. We need to check our weapons to know if we understand how to use them (understand the details of this tragedy), but we don't know what direction the attack will come. We need to understand who our allies are and who is allied with our enemy (that one's not too difficult since our enemies and their allies are well known to us). Until the actual attacks start Keep your powder dry and stay on watch and don't waste time shooting at shadows in the dark.

As to this tragedy being "worse" somehow, I don't understand how, but we should look at the possible angles that the Antis will take to exploit it.

POTUS already tried to make hay off of it, but made a serious misstep trying to characterize the victims as being uniformed personnel instead of the actual thousands of civilian employees and contractor employees working in building 197. We can exploit that in return by pointing out that very few uniformed personnel work there and the POTUS should already know that before going off half cocked. Here's what we're actually learning about the victims that POTUS couldn't take the time to find out.- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/navy-yard-shooting-victims/?hpid=z3

CNN has mixed messages going out. On the one hand a security specialist is pointing out that the problems associated with defending against "lone wolf" attackers (http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/opinion/trevithick-predicting-shootings/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn). Then their more neutral "Why did he do it?" headline (http://www.cnn.com/?hpt=sitenav). So far no raving Anti rhetoric, but we'll see something along those lines from them. ABC has one, but it also is a mixed message http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mass-shooting-punctuates-newtown-families-gun-control-push/story?id=20275320 The NY Daily News jumped right into full Anti mode http://www.nydailynews.com/, but they're not going to get national play like the NYT or CNN or the others.


YES, we need to be ready for the Antis to exploit this tragedy, but we can't afford to go off half cocked and shooting our mouths off like POTUS did or we'll harm ourselves. Gather information, prepare the arguments, stay vigilant, deal with probes carefully with an eye on the battle (don't waste resources) ahead.

Old Fuff
September 17, 2013, 04:34 PM
As an example:

The Washington Post has reported that the shooter had a shotgun, that the BATF&E traced to a FFL retailer where he bought it. Supposedly this was a legal sale that included a background check. However while this information might be useful to our cause, it's useless until a reliable source confirms it.

So we have to wait and let the dust settle, and hope the other side gets a case of foot-in-the-mouth. :evil:

HexHead
September 17, 2013, 04:47 PM
Well, I heard an FBI spokesperson say that he only entered the building with a shotgun, and acquired the pistol and AR after removing them from his victims.

Is that reliable enough of a source?

Doc7
September 17, 2013, 05:23 PM
CNN now reporting a Remington
870 12 gauge purchased with a BG check over the weekend.

tommy.duncan
September 17, 2013, 05:34 PM
Well, I would not believe anything from the lib rags CNN or the Wash Post. Yesterday CNN started off the "another AR15 used in a mass shooting," they never posted that he did not bring the AR. Eventually, through other news agencies, we will eventually learn the truth.

skeptical_in_Ohio
September 17, 2013, 05:47 PM
Hi all-

I kept waiting for the catch, but for the most part it never came:

CNN - LZ Granderson: Gun control is not the answer (http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/opinion/granderson-gun-control-fail/index.html?hpt=hp_t4)

It's clear that he's no fan of the NRA (I thought he took a bit of a cheap shot actually), but here are three quotes I found relevant (parenthetical comments are mine):

"...And it (i.e. mass shootings) will keep continue to happen until the advocates (i.e. of gun control) accept that ridding the country of guns is a hopeless -- and unconstitutional mission -- and that the real goal should be addressing the factors that lead to the various forms of gun violence: factors such as poverty, mental health and failing schools..." (admittedly a typo there at the beginning of the paragraph)

"...Because like it or not, the folks spraying our cities with bullets are not NRA members or legal gun owners..."

"...This is why gun-control advocates need to abandon the routine of using mass shootings to turn law-abiding citizens into social pariahs and instead focus on something that could work..."

joe-bue
September 17, 2013, 05:48 PM
The last thing that I read being reported, was that there was no AR-15, only handgun and shotgun.

As the info evolves it just keeps changing.

verdun59
September 17, 2013, 05:51 PM
We need to get the message out that political correctness is the cause of many of the mass shootings, and it needs to be repeated over and over.

hso
September 17, 2013, 06:02 PM
political correctness is the cause of many

I'm sure you know what you mean by that, but most folks won't. Please explain further.

X-Rap
September 17, 2013, 06:32 PM
Unfortunately in the 24 hrs prior the MSM and anti gun politicians have had the chance to drag guns, gun owners, the NRA and frankly everything but the actual cause through the mud.
Crap reporting and political grandstanding is what kills it for us with the so called fence sitters. Not easy to combat lies and half truths when one side gets total access to the media and is now proving to be largely false.
I'm sure that there were sick SOB's that actually felt good about another shooting.

hso
September 17, 2013, 06:44 PM
I'm sure there were, but the assumptions and lies are starting to blow up in their face as we learn more about how this fellow acquired the weapons he used in building 197.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/ar-15-gun-debate/?hpt=hp_t1#cnn-disqus-area

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/57975

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/16/20522196-gunman-kills-at-least-12-at-washington-navy-yard-gathering-weapons-along-the-way?lite

HOOfan_1
September 17, 2013, 06:53 PM
I'm sure there were, but the assumptions and lies are starting to blow up in their face as we learn more about how this fellow acquired the weapons he used in building 197.

I head on the radio this morning that he was "spraying people with an AR-15 assault rifle".

Nothing I have read recently at all indicates he had anything other than a shotgun when he walked on to the Naval Yard, and then pistols he took from guards he killed.

It is sad that I CAN believe that news outlets would say something so definitively that was not true.

hso
September 17, 2013, 07:07 PM
The reference to "journalism 101 - You can be first as long as your right" is very apt. These days with tweats serving as news things far too often are "you can be right as long as you're first". There's a price to be paid for big mistake like this and we should pound away at the media outlets that are slow to revise their story and at the politicians that don't recant their lies.

hso
September 17, 2013, 07:22 PM
And now the reports are that there never was an AR.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/state-law-stopped-gunman-from-buying-rifle-officials-say.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

BigBore44
September 17, 2013, 07:37 PM
But you'll never hear an apology for lying about the AR. Get their "shots" on assault weapons as soon as possible. Journalism is a joke. Worry about being first with a story. Not being first with an accurate story. Ratings, Ratings, Ratings. Doesn't matter who gets hurt. It's just shameful to politicize something like this tragedy, especially only one day after.

X-Rap
September 17, 2013, 07:43 PM
I wonder if there really is a price to be paid for this crappy journalism? Who will be able to make a difference in a timely manner?
The internet forums?
Talk radio?
We will preach to the choir but the MSM will run with stories like the one linked to above in which they somewhat retracted earlier stories but then went on to devote much of the story to the AR and how deadly it is.
We can not deny the efficiency of the tool, I still contend that aside from total door to door confiscation we need to understand that living with guns in society will and always has been dangerous to a very few. What we need is the freedom to defend ourselves when the random nut job acts out.

Double_J
September 17, 2013, 07:48 PM
When I heard what happened yesterday I knew that the Navy was going to step up security today, and I was right. We had security guards "wanding" everyone at the turnstile to get into the controlled area at work. What a joke as you can see them from the parking lot, and if you thought of doing bad things all you have to do is wait till tomorrow when they are not there.

I also had quite a good time playing the what if game today. One of my co-workers thinks that we are safe because we have so many security guards with guns around. I responded that IF I were a bad guy I only need to take out one of the security guards with a knife/blunt object and then I have a free gun and ammo. I can then use that gun to get more guns and ammo from the responders. That got quite a bit of attention, especially when the news came on and said that the shooter obtained weapons and ammo from security guards after they were shot. I think I made the point that armed security is not that much of a deterrent to a motivated person. I do want to see what the final verdict is, how did he get the shotgun, how did he get it onto the post, and what really happened during that whole time.

Texan Scott
September 17, 2013, 08:10 PM
Seems on Aug 7th, the shooter told police in Rhode Island that he was hearing voices, and that they were "sending vibrations to his body" to stop him from sleeping. The police reported this to the Navy.

He evidently went to the VA repeatedly. It sounds like he may have actually been ASKING for help.

If that's the case, the system failed him every bit as much as his victims.

Clearly, guns are the problem, and it's all the NRA's fault.

BullfrogKen
September 17, 2013, 08:16 PM
I wonder if there really is a price to be paid for this crappy journalism?

Yes, there is and they are paying it.

Viewers have stopped watching them. The news spots on CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN have all lost significant viewers and market share. They're a shell of what they once were. People stop watching when they get lied to repeatedly.

HOOfan_1
September 17, 2013, 08:25 PM
And now the reports are that there never was an AR.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/state-law-stopped-gunman-from-buying-rifle-officials-say.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

One article I read today said he had tried to buy one and was denied.

Yesterday I heard he was a CCW holder. One of those does not jive with the other.

Hard to separate the wheat from the chaff after only a day and such sloppy journalism

Edit: ok just read your article, said he was denied due to not being a Virginia Resident. I have never heard of that law....I wonder if he had an ID from a state which bans ARs....

DammitBoy
September 17, 2013, 08:28 PM
This event will be used by the media and this President to smear good soldiers who might have PTSD. They will claim all veterans are potential time bombs and should be denied their 2nd amendment rights.

Bans on shotguns will be called for, and Obama will look to stop shotgun imports - because congress is in his way.

The Right will blame the sequester and an overwhelmed VA system.

verdun59
September 17, 2013, 08:56 PM
hso,
It sickens me to see people like Seung-Hui Cho, Nidal Hasan, James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, and Adam Lanza (who are all mentally ill) acquire weapons and destroy lives. I have to go through a background check every time I buy a weapon and I don't mind doing so. These people also go through a background,
and for all intents and purposes it's meaningless. Due to political correctness, their mental problems seem to never be on record, and the public is left to fend for themselves , at the present time, for if the political correctness crowd had their way there would be confiscation of all guns, as some have already stated.

jad0110
September 17, 2013, 09:02 PM
First off, my prayers go to those that did not survive. We must be mindful of that going forward, and always, ALWAYS take the high road.

That said, I work in one of these intellectually bankrupt "gun free zones", aka, nut job empowerment zones. I actually heard more than one coworker state these gun free zones are nothing more than free range killing fields, and they should be done away with. Like shooting fish in a barrel as one put it. Chillingly, this same nut was possibly on our base recently.

Though completely abolishing gun free zones would clearly be the best for RKBA and something most of us want to see, it is probably unrealistic. OTH, I'm thinking of writing my senator and representative to suggest that if anything, allow concealed carry in federal installations if said citizen can pass the exact same or very similar shooting test(s) (and any directly related written tests) as the civilian police or MPs/SPs, at our expense. Including requals. I know, it isn't gonna happen either, but I think it is a good idea. I'd sign up in a heartbeat. Carrying my 1911 would sure beat the can of wasp spray in my drawer.

Point is, as things settle down a bit, going on the offensive may be a good option. Respectfully of course.

stressed
September 18, 2013, 12:53 AM
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.

BigBore44
September 18, 2013, 04:12 AM
^^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.

DammitBoy
September 18, 2013, 11:53 AM
Stressed- no AR was used, just a shotgun. Early reports of an AR being used were incorrect.

Texan Scott
September 18, 2013, 02:46 PM
... "incorrect" ... in the sense of completely (and probably knowingly and willfully) false.

X-Rap
September 18, 2013, 03:34 PM
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.

DammitBoy
September 18, 2013, 04:15 PM
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7417/9805470366_716f22882b_c.jpg

HankR
September 18, 2013, 04:46 PM
Stressed- no AR was used, just a shotgun (DammitBoy)


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/us/state-law-stopped-gunman-from-buying-rifle-officials-say.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1&


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.

Doc7
September 18, 2013, 05:14 PM
Another reference

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/us/navy-yard-shooting-latest-developments/?c=&page=2



He also had "00" buckshot shells, each packed with about a dozen pellets capable of causing tremendous damage.

Hacker15E
September 19, 2013, 08:55 AM
"Buy a shotgun"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv63D6hJU_Y

ilbob
September 19, 2013, 09:22 AM
Maybe the point should be to take away the guns from the guards there so as not to supply guns to crazies like this.

Ryanxia
September 19, 2013, 09:57 AM
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.

hso
September 19, 2013, 10:10 AM
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.

jim243
September 19, 2013, 10:57 AM
At least he didn't use a Saiga12.

It was a Remington 870.

Jim

DammitBoy
September 19, 2013, 11:55 AM
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.

Ryanxia
September 19, 2013, 12:06 PM
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.
Wow, if that's an accurate statement (not to imply that it isn't) that should be spread to everyone during this debate.

X-Rap
September 19, 2013, 12:11 PM
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?

hso
September 19, 2013, 12:20 PM
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.


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.

X-Rap
September 19, 2013, 12:42 PM
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
September 19, 2013, 02:50 PM
I was wrong. Oops. :)

Hacker15E
September 19, 2013, 03:49 PM
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.

The Fairchild AFB shooting -- which is not near Seattle -- took place in 1994.

ilbob
September 19, 2013, 04:18 PM
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.

Bobson
September 19, 2013, 04:39 PM
Wow, if that's an accurate statement (not to imply that it isn't) that should be spread to everyone during this debate.
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.

HOOfan_1
September 20, 2013, 12:09 AM
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.

William Kreutzer shot 19 people at Fort Bragg in 1995...that might be the one you are thinking of

Al Thompson
September 20, 2013, 02:44 PM
William Kreutzer shot 19 people at Fort Bragg in 1995

You are correct and I was not. :o

Carl N. Brown
September 20, 2013, 03:17 PM
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.

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.

Mitlov
September 20, 2013, 06:17 PM
I love how the New York Times calls it a "a law-enforcement-style shotgun"...as if there's anything special about a 12-gauge pump gun. They're just trying to play into the lame "this is a military-style weapon, not something civilians use" argument even though an 870 is exactly the sort of shotgun that civilians use all the time. And for the record, find me a police agency that uses an 870 Express. I doubt you will.

Also, they work VERY hard to make plain ol' buckshot sound unique and sinister:

The gunman then perched himself above an atrium where he fired down on people who had been eating breakfast, officials said, 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.”

ldlfh7
September 20, 2013, 06:57 PM
Well here comes round two on gun control efforts....Can't wait.

Old Fuff
September 20, 2013, 10:14 PM
Also, they work VERY hard to make plain ol' buckshot sound unique and sinister:

Of course they do. But if they stir up some hunters who have been sitting on the fence their effort may backfire. :evil:

Up until now they have trying to pit “traditional hunters” against the “black rifle shooters.”

HOWARD J
September 20, 2013, 10:30 PM
Why have military bases become so""" gun & bullet free zones""
An outside cop had to shoot this guy

Carl N. Brown
September 20, 2013, 11:30 PM
Long Island Newsday reported 18 Sep 2013 that Aaron Alexis carved "cryptic phrases" into the "wooden stock" of his shotgun, citing "a federal law enforcement source".

The news media keep showing pictures of a tactical police version of the 870 with a M4 style adjustable butt and seperate pistol grip (the most "military" picture they could find apparently).

Any one know what model he actually purchased?

Any one have a link to the FBI Director briefing? Apparently surveillance video of the incident from multiple viewpoints show him roaming the hall, shooting people in their offices, but not shooting from an atrium down onto the cafeteria.

Everything we have been told in this incident, from him buying and taking an AR-15 to the Naval Yard to what guns were beside him when he died, has been "corrected" in further "reporting": where are these bogus stories coming from?

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

Buckshot has been used in shotguns and smoothbore muskets for centuries, both for hunting, fighting highway robbers, and in warfare.

hso
September 20, 2013, 11:53 PM
The fact that everything is wrong in the first couple of hours isn't a surprise, but it is the next day that facts (or disinformation) is tangible. It is our obligation to point out error and willful bias and use them against the Antis, but when the media themselves point out the incompetence (or willful distortions) of other elements of the media then we should put that to good use. http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/09/20/otm_consumer_handbook-4-copy_custom-0c8dfca9a3a739c93ad6ef34273fa5b252dd1214-s4-c85.png


http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=bc941e3763153dcab459cab96c9770e4&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehighroad.org%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D729204&v=1&libId=6267509d-0169-4de5-a0db-ac660f52b2f2&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DFhigfv72SCo&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehighroad.org%2Fforumdisplay.php%3Ff%3D45&title=This%20vomit%20onto%20the%20screen%20.%20.%20.%20this%20is%20deliberate%20-%20THR&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DFhigfv72SCo&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13797320194546

jad0110
September 21, 2013, 10:50 AM
Quote:
Also, they work VERY hard to make plain ol' buckshot sound unique and sinister:
Of course they do. But if they stir up some hunters who have been sitting on the fence their effort may backfire.

Up until now they have trying to pit “traditional hunters” against the “black rifle shooters.”

I for one hope the antis do just that (stir up the "traditional hunters"). Maybe it will wake some up and get them same page with us, you know, the ones that have all too willing to through black rifle owners under the bus as the sacrificial lamb.

Also, the base where I work had at least one lethal shooting in either the mid 70s or early 80s (or possibly both).

steelerdude99
September 21, 2013, 09:20 PM
This cartoon appeared in my local paper yesterday. Knowing how untrue the premise is, that part did not bother me. What bothers me greatly is that many in the public don’t know that a background check was performed on the Navy Yard shooter and he passed. The gun-grabbers just keep sounding the message over and over that only their “common sense” solution of universal background checks (UBC) will solve the mass shooter problem. AND WHEN that doesn’t work, everyone needs register the guns that they already had before UBC … and when that does not work …

chuck

Pizzapinochle
September 23, 2013, 04:11 PM
As someone who would fit most of your descriptions of an 'anti' i can guess the two big arguments you will encounter regarding an incident like this.


1. Armed security did not stop the shooter, in fact, the shooter killed the guards and took their gun to cause more harm. When the discussion of arming teachers comes up, you can bet you will here a reference to this.

2. Reports are that he attempted to buy an AR15 but Virginia law prevented it. You will hear "Thank goodness for that law or it would have been worse."

Now, please understand, i don't think these are good arguments. I think forming any sort of national policy off isolated incidents that account for 1% of firearm homicides is a bad idea. BUT, I am very good at understanding positions that i do not hold on both sides of an issue.

So, in terms of the arguments you can expect to arise from this incident, guessing those are the big ones.

hso
September 23, 2013, 04:27 PM
Reports are that he attempted to buy an AR15 but Virginia law prevented it.

That lie has been debunked as all of us know that anyone able to buy a shotgun can buy an AR in VA, but the NYT can't conduct the simple fact check on the law.

What bothers me greatly is that many in the public don’t know that a background check was performed on the Navy Yard shooter and he passed.

Are you at least making sure the readers of the cartoon know the truth? What's the name of the paper/syndicate/cartoonist?

Pizzapinochle
September 23, 2013, 05:40 PM
HSO, I actually hadn't read anything since last Friday or so, hopefully that bit of poor reporting won't be repeated, but it is obviously easily refuted.

hso
September 23, 2013, 05:43 PM
Even with comments on their FB page and some ridicule from other "media" sites they still had it up for days. Very telling when they headline a mistake like that and then don't correct when pointed out.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/miller-new-york-times-gets-it-wrong-about-navy-yar/

RetiredUSNChief
September 23, 2013, 09:15 PM
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.


Ummmm...noooooo, I don't think this is very accurate.

All the naval bases I was on between 1985 and 1993 did NOT allow carrying of weapons by anybody other than the personnel providing base security.

On the Air Force bases where an older brother of mine served or flew out of, starting as early as 1970, the only people who went about the base armed were those who were required to be armed by their job...such as base security or nuclear weapons security.

The same can be said for another of my older brothers, who served with the Marines.


In 1986, a shooter shot three people in the ET-A school I was attending in Great Lakes, Il, killing one and wounding the other two. I know. I was there when it happened. That was September 17th, 1986.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-09-17/news/8603090528_1_navy-school-navy-records-base

October 16, 1991 A 35-year-old civilian drives a pickup truck into a Fort Hood cafeteria and fatally shoots 23 people wounding 20 more before killing himself.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-5541051.html


These are just the ones I remember. I'm quite sure there are others.

9MMare
September 25, 2013, 04:48 PM
I wonder if there really is a price to be paid for this crappy journalism? Who will be able to make a difference in a timely manner?
The internet forums?
Talk radio?
We will preach to the choir but the MSM will run with stories like the one linked to above in which they somewhat retracted earlier stories but then went on to devote much of the story to the AR and how deadly it is.
We can not deny the efficiency of the tool, I still contend that aside from total door to door confiscation we need to understand that living with guns in society will and always has been dangerous to a very few. What we need is the freedom to defend ourselves when the random nut job acts out.

As long as people are content to accept the sensationalist stuff that fits their agendas and beliefs, they'll be in business.

Just like it amazes me that the Enquirer (Inquirer?) and similar rags that are completely manufactured stay in business. It feeds something in people.

Just like the obtrusiveness of paparazzi...if people didnt buy, they'd starve.

Ignorance is a choice.

9MMare
September 25, 2013, 04:54 PM
As someone who would fit most of your descriptions of an 'anti' i can guess the two big arguments you will encounter regarding an incident like this.


1. Armed security did not stop the shooter, in fact, the shooter killed the guards and took their gun to cause more harm. When the discussion of arming teachers comes up, you can bet you will here a reference to this.



This was a point that I and others made in the discussions after Newtown. Regarding security on my part mostly.

58limited
September 25, 2013, 06:54 PM
October 16, 1991 A 35-year-old civilian drives a pickup truck into a Fort Hood cafeteria and fatally shoots 23 people wounding 20 more before killing himself.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-5541051.html

That is not correct, more media inaccuracy. The restaurant was off base not on base - it was the Luby's in Killeen, Tx. I lived a few miles away in Temple, Tx when this happened but I was attending Texas A&M at the time of the shooting. A guy downstairs from me at A&M lost his mother in that shooting. My father often went to the airport in Killeen to pick up VIP visitors and would often stop for lunch (he worked at Texas Instruments in Temple) - I was pretty nervous until I finally got him on the phone that day. That Luby's finally closed and, last I heard, is a now a Chinese buffet.

This massacre is what eventually lead to the Texas Concealed Handgun License law thanks in big part to Suzanna Hupp, who was present but had left her pistol in the car in compliance with 1991 Texas law. Both of her parents were killed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp

Carl N. Brown
September 25, 2013, 07:14 PM
Long Island Newsday reported 18 Sep 2013 that Aaron Alexis carved "cryptic phrases" into the "wooden stock" of his shotgun, citing "a federal law enforcement source".

AlJezeera America shows a Remington with 18 or 20" barrel, six shot magazine tube same length, sawed-off conventional stock. Cryptic phrases scratched on the receiver and barrel. I am beginning to doubt the story he assembled the gun in the bathroom.

The gun is obviously not the tacticool police 870 flashed all over the screens at the start of all this.

The talking head does repeat the misinformation that he was barred from buying an AR by Virginia law so bought the shotgun instead; he was barred from buying a pistol, and did not try to buy the AR according to the interviews of the gun dealer.

PBR Streetgang
September 25, 2013, 08:04 PM
Here is some video of the gunman at the Navy Yard.....

sorry, trying to post FBI surveillance video ...........can't get it to post...

Trent
September 25, 2013, 09:53 PM
I watched the surveillance video. FBI says it was a wood stocked 870, barrel and stock cut down with a hacksaw (purchased same day), purple duct tape around the grip, cryptic stuff carved in the side.

Cryptic = "My ELF weapon", etc.

According to the FBI today the shooter recovered one Beretta 92 handgun (didn't say who/where from) and also used it in the shooting.

12 dead, 4 wounded; 75% fatality rate on those shot. (But .. That's a shotgun for you.. they're damn effective in close quarters.)

The FBI stated multiple sources were used to determine the shooter believed he was under the control of ultra low frequency electromagnetic radiation.

Which is going to send the tinfoil hat guys through the roof.

Edit; looking at the surveillance video he *had* to have assembled the shotgun after getting on site, even cut down, it was too long to fit in his backpack. The entry camera showed him just carrying a backpack, later, he had the shotgun, but no backpack.

Carl N. Brown
September 26, 2013, 07:00 AM
1. Armed security did not stop the shooter, in fact, the shooter killed the guards and took their gun to cause more harm. When the discussion of arming teachers comes up, you can bet you will here hear a reference to this.

Yeah, like having the intruder the only one armed would be better in all circumstances. French Maquis, Fillipino guerillas, Viet Cong would slit the throats of sentries and take their guns, ammo, grenades, etc. best not have sentries at all.

Local experience with armed school resource officers:
http://www.timesnews.net/article/9055878/sullivan-county-board-of-education-eyes-sros-for-all-schools
Rick Wagner, "Sullivan County Board of Education eyes SROs for all schools", Kingsport Times-News, 7 Jan 2013.·
The Sullivan County Board of Education's aim is to have a school resource officer assigned to all 20 school campuses in the county, not just the four high schools that have had SROs since 1997.

http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9025899
Rain Smith, "Police officers kill gunman at Sullivan Central", Kingsport Times-
News, 30 Aug 2010.·

We have had armed school resource officers since 1997.
Bill Clinton's COPS program supported SROs in 2000.
This is not something created by Wayne LaPierre.
Also, Hawkins County Sheriff Ronnie Lawson: "Our SROs are more than armed guards. They'll be directing traffic before and after school. We would be able to implement regular anti-drug programs in every school, regular safety programs and have better outreach into every community in the county."

For instance officers/deputies assigned to schools in previous generations taught drivers ed, etc., in addition to being available for security.

Carl N. Brown
September 26, 2013, 07:44 AM
On the gun used, CBS has an FBI photo here: http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-10018382-9.html

http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim2/2013/09/25/NavyYard8_540x405.jpg

going by the 24" ruler, the barrel appears a bit under under 18"

Compare with photos used in previous news reports, apparently the result of editors demanding Police 870 "assault weapon" photos.

rem44m
September 26, 2013, 05:24 PM
Viewers have stopped watching them. The news spots on CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN have all lost significant viewers and market share. They're a shell of what they once were. People stop watching when they get lied to repeatedly.

Not according to this-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/evening-news-ratings_n_3990626.html

I will say I don't hardly pay any attention to the news anymore, I'm sick of being lied to.

hso
September 26, 2013, 10:29 PM
hopefully that bit of poor reporting won't be repeated, but it is obviously easily refuted.

New poor reporting is what has taken place. Breathless reporting of the stocked 870 as something that a hunter wouldn't use. Breathless reporting of plain buckshot as somehow especially vicious as if it were flechette or dragon's breath. Breathless reporting that the shotgun was some special law enforcement version. All of it intended to to paint a simple, buy at WalMart, 12 gauge pump and buckshot as something extraordinary and insidious. Pathetically obvious bias to anyone that knows the least little thing about guns.

Fred Fuller
September 26, 2013, 11:05 PM
The shotgun is a newer version of the 870 Express #5077, a popular home defense shotgun. What's different is that this 'security' version has a fixed 6-round tubular magazine as opposed to the usual 4-round version with a 2-round magazine extension (still pictured at http://www.remington.com/en/products/firearms/shotguns/model-870/model-870-express-synthetic-7-round.aspx), as was sold earlier (first one of the new models I saw was in July of 2012, don't know when they came out). Its plastic stock (NOT wood) was sawn off behind the pistol grip, and about an inch of the barrel was cut off also. Since the barrel is listed as 18" in the link below, that would make it illegal under federal law.

http://www.impactguns.com/data/default/images/catalog/535/rem%2025077.jpg

(img from http://www.impactguns.com/remington-870-express-synthetic-12ga-18-inch-fixed-cylinder-black-synthetic-7rd-tube-5077.aspx)

barnbwt
September 26, 2013, 11:06 PM
...as somehow especially vicious as if it were flechette or dragon's breath

Why, that's exactly what they said about flechette and dragon's breath. But, how can they both be "superlatively lethal?" One can only conclude that anything the anti crowd denigrates as vociferously as the bubba-fudd gun featured here is --in there own words, by there own logic-- just as dangerous/no more dangerous than...an off the rack 870 Cheapo with buckshot. I say we agree with them, but on the condition they feature wooden stocked 870s in their slam-pieces going forward ;)

Honestly, though, they trapped themselves with that knee-jerk AR15 business. Got all the usual suspects riled up about the tool not the crime, then it turns out the tool wasn't so bad after all, but by then everyone's in Inanimate Object Crusade Mode and can't stop themselves :banghead:. At least these guys got to stretch their Creative Writing legs a little (can you make a garden-variety shotgun sound like the ultimate evil with no supporting evidence or knowledge in your portrayl? :rolleyes:)

TCB

powder
September 27, 2013, 01:17 AM
Bill Clinton MAY have passed legislation on bases to be "gun free zones", but how does that explain the gun free bases I was on in the 80s?

Mental health: Chasing after the MSM for bad reporting gets us nowhere-those outlets are paid to report an agenda. Not the news. ALL of the recent shootings in the previous 2 years have shooters on anti-depressant pharmaceuticals which are proven to cause suicidal and homicidal incidents. Period.

We NEED to hammer out that these people will kill with whatever they can get their hands on: machetes, cars, bow & arrow, gasoline...what have you.

Big pharma has such a strangle-hold on this country, it's THE part of these stories which of course the MSM is paid to NOT report, and/or link with the OTHER mass shooters! This aint rocket science, it's BASIC drug action/reactions, and pharma covering its' big fat dollar soaked heinies!

Carl N. Brown
September 27, 2013, 06:15 AM
Almost all mainstream media "reporting" on the the gun issue that I have been aware of since the the 1960s has been breathless advocacy journalism by reform minded crusaders out to demonize guns and gun owners and discredit NRA.

...especially vicious as if it were flechette or dragon's breath.

Flechette and dragon's breath are made by specialty ammo makers and sold with lurid cartoonish hype. They are curios.

Despite VietNam era development of the flechette round, the military stuck with 00 buckshot for a reason: it is simply more effective than flechette and has been a hunting and defense round for centuries. Flechette does have a lot of hype but has not been accepted.

I recall the big hullaballew (ph) over 12ga "Dragon's Breath" (a pyrotechnic similar to the contents of a flash bang grenade--a high decibel blast and flash for temporarily overwelming the senses). A demonstration included firing Dragon's Breath and ordinary skeet/game shotshells at cardboard targets at a range. The target fired at by the FEARSOME CLAP OF DOOM AND FIREBALL was relatively untouched, but the ordinary shotshell left hundreds of tiny holes in the cardboard.

Carl N. Brown
September 27, 2013, 06:24 AM
As for the role of Big Pharma in some of this, is any wonder that the chief apologist at CNN/Fortune for David Voth and ATF in Operation Fast and Furious is also co-author with a Pardue Pharma security chief defending Oxycontin-Hydrocodone promotion?

Trent
September 27, 2013, 11:34 AM
With the push towards "mental health" and how it relates to the anti-gun strategy, I don't believe we are far off from them proposing legislation which (basically) states "if you are taking anti-depressants, you aren't allowed to own firearms, or have access to firearms."

Meanwhile, they'll shovel anti-depressants down every kid's throat to ensure Daddy can't own firearms at home. It'll tie in beautifully to the question they ask my kids whenever they go to the doctors office - every, single time - "Are there guns in your home?"

My wife always answers "Yes."

Which is always followed by ...

"How are they stored?"

Pretty soon we'll see the answers to those questions part of the mandatory reporting doctors have to do to state officials.

ChaoSS
September 27, 2013, 01:16 PM
Trent, the family needs to be taught that that is no one's business. That sort of thing is becoming more and more important these days. If you don't know that the person asking is pro gun and just asking out of friendly curiosity, the correct answer is that it is none of your business.

Or better yet, just say no. Not a crime to lie to a doctor like that.

HankR
September 27, 2013, 02:21 PM
Or better yet, just say no. Not a crime to lie to a doctor like that.

Yet.

DammitBoy
September 27, 2013, 02:26 PM
What are the verifiable facts related to SSRI's and these mass shooters?

rem44m
September 27, 2013, 06:46 PM
DammitBoy- Try this link

http://www.ssristories.com/index.php

If you enjoyed reading about "Navy Yard and its implications." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!