Active shooter at Washington Navy Yard (1 Viewer)

[Cliff Clavin]

Just to clarify: I have no problem with private citizens carrying concealed weapons, if it makes them feel safer. I don't have a problem with eliminating a certain amount of gun free zones- some of them don't make sense. Others do.

But I have a real problem with someone telling me that I will be safer if more private citizens are armed around me. And I have an even bigger problem with the notion that security installations which already have armed guards would be safer if private citizens were allowed to carry their own firearms within those installations at the same time. That's an absurd argument, no matter how many times it's presented.

What you gonna do about it?

I'm gonna #### you up.

I would pay to watch this fight. $59.99 on PPV.

 

[Jewell]

I'm gonna #### you up.

Hans, Franz & Tim

 

[Rayderr]

Just to clarify: I have no problem with private citizens carrying concealed weapons, if it makes them feel safer. I don't have a problem with eliminating a certain amount of gun free zones- some of them don't make sense. Others do.

But I have a real problem with someone telling me that I will be safer if more private citizens are armed around me. And I have an even bigger problem with the notion that security installations which already have armed guards would be safer if private citizens were allowed to carry their own firearms within those installations at the same time. That's an absurd argument, no matter how many times it's presented.

What you gonna do about it?

I'm gonna #### you up.

Stand your ground, Dr. J!

 

[ATC1]

Just to clarify: I have no problem with private citizens carrying concealed weapons, if it makes them feel safer. I don't have a problem with eliminating a certain amount of gun free zones- some of them don't make sense. Others do.

But I have a real problem with someone telling me that I will be safer if more private citizens are armed around me. And I have an even bigger problem with the notion that security installations which already have armed guards would be safer if private citizens were allowed to carry their own firearms within those installations at the same time. That's an absurd argument, no matter how many times it's presented.

It is not that more private citizens carry around you, only a handful of people in a crowded area maybe carrying. The key is the ability to not know who is carrying.

While this guy did not choose this location because it is a gun-free-zone, he most certainly knew what security officers were threats to him where he was positioned. He knew which people were carrying, shot them then used their sidearm. Now we can not very well have every citizen walk around carrying, but if this psyco didn't know which people were carrying, there would be less ability to plan on his part of how to get his hands on more guns. There would be a higher chance someone could be in a position to take him out.

 

[timschochet]

Just to clarify: I have no problem with private citizens carrying concealed weapons, if it makes them feel safer. I don't have a problem with eliminating a certain amount of gun free zones- some of them don't make sense. Others do.

But I have a real problem with someone telling me that I will be safer if more private citizens are armed around me. And I have an even bigger problem with the notion that security installations which already have armed guards would be safer if private citizens were allowed to carry their own firearms within those installations at the same time. That's an absurd argument, no matter how many times it's presented.

It is not that more private citizens carry around you, only a handful of people in a crowded area maybe carrying. The key is the ability to not know who is carrying.

While this guy did not choose this location because it is a gun-free-zone, he most certainly knew what security officers were threats to him where he was positioned. He knew which people were carrying, shot them then used their sidearm. Now we can not very well have every citizen walk around carrying, but if this psyco didn't know which people were carrying, there would be less ability to plan on his part of how to get his hands on more guns. There would be a higher chance someone could be in a position to take him out.

How do you know this for sure? The guy was crazy. Are we really supposed to believe he's able to make these distinctions? What if he just got lucky?

As to the last part, sorry, I don't buy it,. MAYBE somebody could take him out. Or maybe that somebody would take out someone else by accident. And maybe if everyone was armed, while mass shooters MIGHT be less of a threat, accidental shootings resulting from misunderstandings would be much more of threat- ESPECIALLY in places with armed security, like this one.

Or put it this way: if you were an armed guard, how comfortable would you be knowing that the employees working in the area you were supposed to be protecting carried concealed weapons themselves? I'm betting you wouldn't be comfortable at all with that.

 

[ATC1]

Just to clarify: I have no problem with private citizens carrying concealed weapons, if it makes them feel safer. I don't have a problem with eliminating a certain amount of gun free zones- some of them don't make sense. Others do.

But I have a real problem with someone telling me that I will be safer if more private citizens are armed around me. And I have an even bigger problem with the notion that security installations which already have armed guards would be safer if private citizens were allowed to carry their own firearms within those installations at the same time. That's an absurd argument, no matter how many times it's presented.

It is not that more private citizens carry around you, only a handful of people in a crowded area maybe carrying. The key is the ability to not know who is carrying.

While this guy did not choose this location because it is a gun-free-zone, he most certainly knew what security officers were threats to him where he was positioned. He knew which people were carrying, shot them then used their sidearm. Now we can not very well have every citizen walk around carrying, but if this psyco didn't know which people were carrying, there would be less ability to plan on his part of how to get his hands on more guns. There would be a higher chance someone could be in a position to take him out.

How do you know this for sure? The guy was crazy. Are we really supposed to believe he's able to make these distinctions? What if he just got lucky?

As to the last part, sorry, I don't buy it,. MAYBE somebody could take him out. Or maybe that somebody would take out someone else by accident. And maybe if everyone was armed, while mass shooters MIGHT be less of a threat, accidental shootings resulting from misunderstandings would be much more of threat- ESPECIALLY in places with armed security, like this one.

Or put it this way: if you were an armed guard, how comfortable would you be knowing that the employees working in the area you were supposed to be protecting carried concealed weapons themselves? I'm betting you wouldn't be comfortable at all with that.

He worked there? The security officers wear different uniforms?

Law Enforcement Officers I have talked to are against gun free zones for those with a permit requiring training. I have not seen where a person carrying misfired in a shooting and hit a bystander. Even if he did the chances of firing a shot that will kill a bystander is far less then a psycho taking aim at the bystander. Also, the shooter meets resistance the target is no longer an innocent bystander, but the person carrying or in most times I have heard in these types of shootings the shooter takes himself out at that time.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Just to clarify: I have no problem with private citizens carrying concealed weapons, if it makes them feel safer. I don't have a problem with eliminating a certain amount of gun free zones- some of them don't make sense. Others do.

But I have a real problem with someone telling me that I will be safer if more private citizens are armed around me. And I have an even bigger problem with the notion that security installations which already have armed guards would be safer if private citizens were allowed to carry their own firearms within those installations at the same time. That's an absurd argument, no matter how many times it's presented.

It is not that more private citizens carry around you, only a handful of people in a crowded area maybe carrying. The key is the ability to not know who is carrying.

While this guy did not choose this location because it is a gun-free-zone, he most certainly knew what security officers were threats to him where he was positioned. He knew which people were carrying, shot them then used their sidearm. Now we can not very well have every citizen walk around carrying, but if this psyco didn't know which people were carrying, there would be less ability to plan on his part of how to get his hands on more guns. There would be a higher chance someone could be in a position to take him out.

How do you know this for sure? The guy was crazy. Are we really supposed to believe he's able to make these distinctions? What if he just got lucky?As to the last part, sorry, I don't buy it,. MAYBE somebody could take him out. Or maybe that somebody would take out someone else by accident. And maybe if everyone was armed, while mass shooters MIGHT be less of a threat, accidental shootings resulting from misunderstandings would be much more of threat- ESPECIALLY in places with armed security, like this one.

Or put it this way: if you were an armed guard, how comfortable would you be knowing that the employees working in the area you were supposed to be protecting carried concealed weapons themselves? I'm betting you wouldn't be comfortable at all with that.

He worked there? The security officers wear different uniforms?Law Enforcement Officers I have talked to are against gun free zones for those with a permit requiring training. I have not seen where a person carrying misfired in a shooting and hit a bystander. Even if he did the chances of firing a shot that will kill a bystander is far less then a psycho taking aim at the bystander. Also, the shooter meets resistance the target is no longer an innocent bystander, but the person carrying or in most times I have heard in these types of shootings the shooter takes himself out at that time.

Don't waste your time. Tim is the most irrational person on these boards when it comes to this subject. He fears a wild west breaking out if people are allowed to carry firearms which they are certified to carry hence why he always exaggerates his point to absurdity. He has no clue about the hobby and range time that people put in, he thinks people get certified to look cool to wear a pistol around their waist. When he talks about accident frequency he treats it like a 1 in 10 chance every time someone carries instead of a 1 in 100k chance (likely much more rare of an event), he's all emotion. He idolizes Feinstein, enough said.

 

[timschochet]

Just to clarify: I have no problem with private citizens carrying concealed weapons, if it makes them feel safer. I don't have a problem with eliminating a certain amount of gun free zones- some of them don't make sense. Others do.

But I have a real problem with someone telling me that I will be safer if more private citizens are armed around me. And I have an even bigger problem with the notion that security installations which already have armed guards would be safer if private citizens were allowed to carry their own firearms within those installations at the same time. That's an absurd argument, no matter how many times it's presented.

It is not that more private citizens carry around you, only a handful of people in a crowded area maybe carrying. The key is the ability to not know who is carrying.

While this guy did not choose this location because it is a gun-free-zone, he most certainly knew what security officers were threats to him where he was positioned. He knew which people were carrying, shot them then used their sidearm. Now we can not very well have every citizen walk around carrying, but if this psyco didn't know which people were carrying, there would be less ability to plan on his part of how to get his hands on more guns. There would be a higher chance someone could be in a position to take him out.

How do you know this for sure? The guy was crazy. Are we really supposed to believe he's able to make these distinctions? What if he just got lucky?As to the last part, sorry, I don't buy it,. MAYBE somebody could take him out. Or maybe that somebody would take out someone else by accident. And maybe if everyone was armed, while mass shooters MIGHT be less of a threat, accidental shootings resulting from misunderstandings would be much more of threat- ESPECIALLY in places with armed security, like this one.

Or put it this way: if you were an armed guard, how comfortable would you be knowing that the employees working in the area you were supposed to be protecting carried concealed weapons themselves? I'm betting you wouldn't be comfortable at all with that.

He worked there? The security officers wear different uniforms?Law Enforcement Officers I have talked to are against gun free zones for those with a permit requiring training. I have not seen where a person carrying misfired in a shooting and hit a bystander. Even if he did the chances of firing a shot that will kill a bystander is far less then a psycho taking aim at the bystander. Also, the shooter meets resistance the target is no longer an innocent bystander, but the person carrying or in most times I have heard in these types of shootings the shooter takes himself out at that time.

Don't waste your time. Tim is the most irrational person on these boards when it comes to this subject. He fears a wild west breaking out if people are allowed to carry firearms which they are certified to carry hence why he always exaggerates his point to absurdity. He has no clue about the hobby and range time that people put in, he thinks people get certified to look cool to where a pistol around their waist. When he talks about accident frequency he treats it like a 1 in 10 chance every time someone carries instead of a 1 in 100k chance, he's all emotion. He idolizes Feinstein, enough said.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Could have saved 9 lives, but NOPE, too many Timsochets in the world that are afraid of the "Wild West" breaking out.

“My son was at Marine Barracks — at the Navy Yard yesterday – and they had weapons with them, but they didn’t have ammunition. And they said, ‘We were trained, and if we had the ammunition, we could’ve cleared that building.’ Only three people had been shot at that time, and they could’ve stopped the rest of it.”

 

[dgreen]

http://m.bizjournals.com/washington/quick_news/2014/12/man-misidentified-as-navy-yard-shooter-files-4-5m.html?ana=twt&r=full

Rollie Chance suing CBS for reporting he was the shooter.

 

[Rayderr]

http://m.bizjournals.com/washington/quick_news/2014/12/man-misidentified-as-navy-yard-shooter-files-4-5m.html?ana=twt&r=full

Rollie Chance suing CBS for reporting he was the shooter.

Hope he wins. The "report first, fact check later" mentality of the news agencies needs to stop.

 

[Sabertooth]

http://m.bizjournals.com/washington/quick_news/2014/12/man-misidentified-as-navy-yard-shooter-files-4-5m.html?ana=twt&r=full

Rollie Chance suing CBS for reporting he was the shooter.

Hope he wins. The "report first, fact check later" mentality of the news agencies needs to stop.

Would this open up the same type of liability for the twitter users?

 

[Rayderr]

http://m.bizjournals.com/washington/quick_news/2014/12/man-misidentified-as-navy-yard-shooter-files-4-5m.html?ana=twt&r=full

Rollie Chance suing CBS for reporting he was the shooter.

Hope he wins. The "report first, fact check later" mentality of the news agencies needs to stop.

Would this open up the same type of liability for the twitter users?

Probably depends on what the tweet says. If the twitter users are saying "CBS reports...." or some variation, I'd say they are fine.

 

[jon_mx]

http://m.bizjournals.com/washington/quick_news/2014/12/man-misidentified-as-navy-yard-shooter-files-4-5m.html?ana=twt&r=full

Rollie Chance suing CBS for reporting he was the shooter.

Hope he wins. The "report first, fact check later" mentality of the news agencies needs to stop.

Would this open up the same type of liability for the twitter users?

Probably depends on what the tweet says. If the twitter users are saying "CBS reports...." or some variation, I'd say they are fine.

Social media opens the door for a lot of people to get sued.

 

[The Commish]

oh man...forgot about this thread...some pretty good shtick in here

 

[jon_mx]

It sounds like another one.... :(

 

[Rayderr]

Shelter in place has been activated. If that occurred before the gunman got into a building, there's not going to be much he can do.

 

[Swing 51]

On CNN the two "witnesses" they are talking to said they have not heard gunshots in the building. Both guys said they heard people yelling to stay away from the cafeteria.

Hopefully this turns out to be nothing.

 

[Kal El]

People seriously need to chill out. There's way too much violence, just relax, and take a few hundred deep breaths.

 

[TobiasFunke]

On CNN the two "witnesses" they are talking to said they have not heard gunshots in the building. Both guys said they heard people yelling to stay away from the cafeteria.

Hopefully this turns out to be nothing.

Too early to say anything but from the reports I'm reading I'm cautiously optimistic that this will end with a small number of casualties, maybe even zero. As of 8:30 they reported no injuries, no shooter located so far.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Steve Chenevey FOX5 ‏@stevechenevey 1m1 minute ago

#NavyYard situation still fluid - initial reports of shots fired & 2 possible shooters but so far NO shooters or victims have been found...

 

[Don Quixote]

They are saying everyone accounted for, and interviewing the person who made the emergency call. Seems like this could end up nothing.