This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Most of us don't want to. But yes, the commander of the installation should be able to allow it. Problem becomes the first negligent discharge causing injury. It sucks, but we've become a risk averse society.Probably so.
I just don't see a reason from prohibiting trained, professional military officers from carrying sidearms on base.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
Not used to seeing thobias get this bent out of shape making so many personal attacks. Usually the guy is pretty rational but he's sorta going off the deep end ITT
The bold doesn't surprise me at all. The contractor business model is one of the biggest wastes for our government and many corporations.
Are you really this stupid? Do you have any ####### clue what gun-free zone means? There are no provisions in the law for citizens to carry firearms, or to have them in their cars for protection on the trip to and from a workplace that forbids them, such as the Navy Yard.
What was the time of death of the shooter? You seem so well-informed about the situation, how many people are armed at the facility? Are visitors allowed to carry? Are you really arguing if the gun carry rules were not so strict at the Navy Yard that fewer people would not have died?
So by "DC is a gun-free zone" what you meant is that DC is not a concealed carry/right to carry place. OK, sure, whatever. I don't feel like argument about semantics with you.
List some examples where it is not true.
Not really. I was just making a sort of joke.
Do we really want to play this game? Kroger Allows carry. There are about 30-40 of those around the city vs 2 BWW.
Businesses that are posted are VERY much in the minority.
I don't know, I haven't seen a time of death anywhere. And I'm not sure why it matters one way or another. He took weapons off armed people that he'd killed and used them on other people. Obviously this isn't the best case study to use if you want to argue against gun-free zones because having guns around prevents/limits damage. Or at least I thought it was obvious, but here you are trying to make the argument.
TELEGRAPH (UK): Aaron Alexis: Washington navy yard gunman 'obsessed with violent video games'"The Washington Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis played violent video games including Call of Duty for up to 16 hours at a time and friends believe it could have pushed him towards becoming a mass murderer."
Is a car parked in a resort defined as a public place?
I assume Club Blue is a gun-free zone since it is a bar, so now we are looking at parking lots as public places?
two different location, did they both allow firearms at their respective locations?You know someone could go on a highway and start shooting at cars, are you going to list that as a shooting spree in a public place too?
He had at least a passing interest in Buddhism.
Convert to Buddhism. Apparently a practicing Buddhist who meditated.
You are digging a deeper hole for yourself, I have not found anything that shows they shot him within 40 minutes of when he started. The biggest argument against gunfree zones is the response time. Seconds count in these situations. If there were more guns, he would have been shot faster and fewer people would have died. You can beat your anti-gun drum as much as you want but you cannot ignore these facts.
What about limiting the number of bullets in a clip? Maybe that's why people are dying, not enough bullets to shoot back.
I don't know all of the details about how he got his guns, but I think it does a pretty good job of driving the point home. Concealed Carry means anyone and everyone could be carrying. MP's are easily identifiable and are easy targets to ambush and to disarm. Furthermore if you take out two MP's on patrol (if that is what happened), I think it is safe to assume there are no armed personnel anywhere near that incident to defend everyone else that is forcibly disarmed by the gunfree zone rules once those two are taken out. Someone that has been at the facility before and is aware of the security detail could easily take advantage of these weaknesses.
You keep saying this and still haven't shown me where I made an anti-gun argument. And the argument you are making is absolute nonsense and completely ignores that there were a TON of guns all over the place there.
Exactly right. There are no gun control arguments to be made by either side in this case. People should focus on the actual issues and questions relevant here. I apologize for bothering to challenge one of those dumb gun arguments and cluttering up a page of the thread with that stupidity.
I really think this is the case. People are going to argue for and against gun control, but in truth I don't know of any new laws we could impose that would prevent this crime, nor can I think of any old laws that we should remove that would prevent this crime. So IMO both sides of the gun control argument should probably stay silent on this one (though of course they won't.)
The affirmative action argument is even more insipid. The less said about that, the better.
We have ignored mental illness in this country for far too long. There are two main barriers to dealing with this issue: first, it has an impact on individual rights- are we willing to invade privacy in order to truly determine who is mentally ill? Are we willing to curtail their rights? Second, it's going to cost a whole lot of money.
I think you're chasing windmills here. It's one thing to make this argument in a place where there are no guns allowed. It's quite another to make it when there are armed MPs all over the place. It's just not compelling.
I will give you that. When you said it would only be one, I knew you were going to be right.
I will speculate that businesses serving alcohol are better off prohibiting weapons.
Do we really want to play this game? Kroger Allows carry. There are about 30-40 of those around the city vs 2 BWW.
Businesses that are posted are VERY much in the minority.
apology accepted.Exactly right. There are no gun control arguments to be made by either side in this case. People should focus on the actual issues and questions relevant here. I apologize for bothering to challenge one of those dumb gun arguments and cluttering up a page of the thread with that stupidity.
I really think this is the case. People are going to argue for and against gun control, but in truth I don't know of any new laws we could impose that would prevent this crime, nor can I think of any old laws that we should remove that would prevent this crime. So IMO both sides of the gun control argument should probably stay silent on this one (though of course they won't.)
The affirmative action argument is even more insipid. The less said about that, the better.
We have ignored mental illness in this country for far too long. There are two main barriers to dealing with this issue: first, it has an impact on individual rights- are we willing to invade privacy in order to truly determine who is mentally ill? Are we willing to curtail their rights? Second, it's going to cost a whole lot of money.
Like a count? No, of course not, nobody's gonna have that. "A lot" is the best we can do. I have first-hand knowledge of the area and some of the complex, and there's also this from an NBC Washington article:
That should be enough.
No idea on the first, but he evidently went to the food court. That's a pretty obvious place that people aggregate.
Former resort and yes a car parked on a public street is a public shooting
I have no idea is Houston has gun free zones, I assumed not. But it doesnt matter, the shooting took place on the streets, in a public place.
two different location, did they both allow firearms at their respective locations?You know someone could go on a highway and start shooting at cars, are you going to list that as a shooting spree in a public place too?
