What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

Active shooter at Washington Navy Yard (1 Viewer)

"TONS of weapons" "all over the place"

Anyone have actual knowledge of how many people were armed in the immediate vicinity. He clearly knew where to go to inflict the most damage.
I have no knowledge of that building or The Navy Yard. In my federal building, armed security are always located at each gate entering the grounds and each door entering the building. The rest of the building is void of guns unless a guard happens to be walking by at the time. It's possible this cafeteria was in the middle and many feet away from entrances and exits where guns would definitely be located.

I will also say that I don't have the utmost confidence the security at my building would be much help in a crisis. Not the most athletic bunch. I assume a facility like The Navy Yard would be different, though.

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.

 
" post="15949157" timestamp="1379425611"]“With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

Coincidence? Maybe.

But probably not.
thats not even close to being true

List some examples where it is not true.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/287170-4-shot-in-tennessee-1-woman-3-teens-found-dead/

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8707875

http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/05/alabama.shooting.02/
more than 3 killed
four were shot and killed in a public place in the first link
 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Go away.

 
"TONS of weapons" "all over the place"

Anyone have actual knowledge of how many people were armed in the immediate vicinity. He clearly knew where to go to inflict the most damage.
I have no knowledge of that building or The Navy Yard. In my federal building, armed security are always located at each gate entering the grounds and each door entering the building. The rest of the building is void of guns unless a guard happens to be walking by at the time. It's possible this cafeteria was in the middle and many feet away from entrances and exits where guns would definitely be located.I will also say that I don't have the utmost confidence the security at my building would be much help in a crisis. Not the most athletic bunch. I assume a facility like The Navy Yard would be different, though.
Not necessarily. My secured building on an army base is secured by civilians. many of which aren't exactly American ninja warriors.

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Go away.
Must be a Call of Duty lover.

I know my logic will go against the grain of most on this board because many play video games. But if people are too naive or blind to ignore the facts that these games are negatively effecting society then it is sad.

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Go away.
I agree with Bing. Violent video games do need to be looked at. Why dismiss something that is such a big part of peoples lives?

 
Yes, those are shootings in public places.
I disagree, we're not arguing about gunfree zones outdoors vs. non-gunfree zone outdoors. We are talking about public places where people typically pay for a service or for entry and then are either allowed to carry or are restricted from carrying, we're not talking about parking lots and highways, nice try though.

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Go away.
I agree with Bing. Violent video games do need to be looked at. Why dismiss something that is such a big part of peoples lives?
Because basic math says it's not the issue.

 
Yes, those are shootings in public places.
I disagree, we're not arguing about gunfree zones outdoors vs. non-gunfree zone outdoors. We are talking about public places where people typically pay for a service or for entry and then are either allowed to carry or are restricted from carrying, we're not talking about parking lots and highways, nice try though.
got it, you only want to count shootings that meet your expected results.

 
In previous gun control arguments, I became somewhat convinced that "gun free zones" are probably a dumb idea. Icon and a few others made some pretty convincing arguments that they didn't work, and that in some of these cases, these laws actually gave these evil guys an impetus- they deliberately chose a gun free zone to operate in, knowing that they could do more damage that way- as in Sandy Hook, or the movie theater. I found that a compelling argument.

But I can't see that it applies to this situation and I don't know why some of you are pushing it. There were armed MPs walking around. According to the report, the shooter killed two of them and took their guns. This situation actually argues AGAINST the proposition that more guns makes us safer.
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.
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.
Mr. sensationalism at his best "all over the place". If there were armed personnel all over the place, then how in the hell did he kill 12 people and why did it take an hour or more for them to take him out? These are the real arguments being made here, this is not chasing windmills.If you are talking about taking precautions from preventing this from happening again, removing the gun free zone status should be at the top of the list. Since 1-2 people shot dead before the shooter is killed is much better than 12.

It's comical how the anti-gun crowd is so scared of the wild west mentality from taking over if everyone is allowed to carry.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Go away.
I agree with Bing. Violent video games do need to be looked at. Why dismiss something that is such a big part of peoples lives?
Because basic math says it's not the issue.
Then by the same token, the math works for overall guns in America and the number of shooting deaths. I see no problem. Carry on.

 
The affirmative action argument is even more insipid. The less said about that, the better.
First, it isn't an affirmative action argument. It's a disparate impact argument.

Second, the argument of downplaying past criminal record in background checks was raised by a person claiming to be a former government agent who was in charge of issuing low level security clearances. He did not say whether that applied in the present case because he obviously didn't have firsthand evidence regarding the particulars of Alexis' background check.

Finally, you are aware that there has been growing tension between the federal government and both the states and the private sector regarding use of criminal background checks, right? The federal government has been making a concerted effort to not make a past criminal record as an automatic disqualification for employment and security clearances, in large part, due to disparate impact.

Here's are a couple recent articles on that last point...

WSJ (June 2013): Employment Checks Fuel Race Complaints

Federal regulators Tuesday accused two large employers of improperly using criminal-background checks in hiring, the latest salvo in a contentious debate over whether such screening amounts to discrimination against black applicants.



In complaints filed in federal courts in Illinois and South Carolina, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said two companies discount retailer Dollar General Corp. DG +0.44%and a U.S. unit of German auto maker BMW AG BMW.XE -0.65%generally barred potential employees based on the criminal checks, when they should have reviewed each applicant. The commission said the policies had the effect of discriminating against black applicants.

The suits underscore increasing government scrutiny of criminal and credit checks, which are widely used to screen job applicants. Some 92% of employers use criminal-background checks for some or all job openings, according to a 2010 survey by the Society of Human Resource Management.

The EEOC issued guidance to employers last year, shortly after a unit of PepsiCo Inc. PEP +0.87%agreed to pay $3.1 million and change its screening policy to settle charges of discriminating against blacks by improperly using criminal checks. In some cases, the Pepsi bottling unit screened out applicants who had been arrested but never convicted.

The guidelines don't bar the use of criminal checks, but urge employers to consider the crime, its relation to an applicant's potential job, and how much time that has passed since the conviction. The guidelines also recommend that employers review each case individually, and allow applicants to show why they should be hired despite a conviction.

FOX News (July 2013): States attorneys now opposing fed’s opposition to criminal background checks for new hires

Attorneys general across the country are fighting back against new Obama administration guidelines on businesses using criminal background checks for job applicants and two federal lawsuits that followed, calling both “a quintessential example of gross federal overreach.”


The nine attorneys general sent the letter Wednesday to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which in April 2012 voted in favor of the new guidelines that warn such checks can discriminate against African-Americans because they being are arrested at a disproportionate rate compared to the rest of the U.S. population.

Fifteen months after issuing the guidelines -- which included the recommendation that businesses eliminate such policies -- the commission filed lawsuits against discount retailer Dollar General and a BMW facility in South Carolina for alleged civil rights violations.

“We believe that these lawsuits and your application of the law, as articulated through your enforcement guidance, are misguided and a quintessential example of gross federal overreach,” the attorneys general wrote in a nine-page letter to EEOC Chairman Jacqueline Berrien and the agency’s four commissioners.

Like the former federal government employee, I don't know the particluars of Alexis' security clearance so I don't know whether the federal government's concerted effort to downplay past criminal record in employment or low level clearance played a role in this matter. To summarily dismiss that possibility offhand as insipid, though, doesn't show a particularly open mind nor an understanding of the ongoing battle on this contentious issue.

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Oh bull####. The problem with this argument is millions upon millions of people are playing those games and the vast overwhelming majority aren't ever going to get so much as traffic ticket much less do a shooting spree. You may as well blame drinking milk. People who make this argument don't seem to think it through very far.

 
Yes, those are shootings in public places.
I disagree, we're not arguing about gunfree zones outdoors vs. non-gunfree zone outdoors. We are talking about public places where people typically pay for a service or for entry and then are either allowed to carry or are restricted from carrying, we're not talking about parking lots and highways, nice try though.
got it, you only want to count shootings that meet your expected results.
And your definition of public places does not suit your desired results?

I'm talking about shootings in locations in which there are people that can control the behaviors of everyone entering the public place and that public place being either a gunfree zone or not, it's really not that hard to grasp. Unless you have armed guards searching every vehicle entering the highway, searching hikers as they enter a mountain resort or stationed at every parking lot exit and entrance your argument is a joke.

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Go away.
I agree with Bing. Violent video games do need to be looked at. Why dismiss something that is such a big part of peoples lives?
Because basic math says it's not the issue.
Then by the same token, the math works for overall guns in America and the number of shooting deaths. I see no problem. Carry on.
Actually, it does.

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Go away.
I agree with Bing. Violent video games do need to be looked at. Why dismiss something that is such a big part of peoples lives?
Because basic math says it's not the issue.
Then by the same token, the math works for overall guns in America and the number of shooting deaths. I see no problem. Carry on.
Actually, it does.
Which is why universal registration and making sure we have our mental health databases up to date is so important. This way we hopefully keep more known criminals and those with diminished control from getting them and making everyone look bad.

 
"TONS of weapons" "all over the place"

Anyone have actual knowledge of how many people were armed in the immediate vicinity. He clearly knew where to go to inflict the most damage.
I have no knowledge of that building or The Navy Yard. In my federal building, armed security are always located at each gate entering the grounds and each door entering the building. The rest of the building is void of guns unless a guard happens to be walking by at the time. It's possible this cafeteria was in the middle and many feet away from entrances and exits where guns would definitely be located.

I will also say that I don't have the utmost confidence the security at my building would be much help in a crisis. Not the most athletic bunch. I assume a facility like The Navy Yard would be different, though.
Thanks...

That's kind of the situation I imagined here. Once he took out the first guards, he seemed to have some time to go killing. I'm sure the details will come out.

 
"TONS of weapons" "all over the place"

Anyone have actual knowledge of how many people were armed in the immediate vicinity. He clearly knew where to go to inflict the most damage.
I have no knowledge of that building or The Navy Yard. In my federal building, armed security are always located at each gate entering the grounds and each door entering the building. The rest of the building is void of guns unless a guard happens to be walking by at the time. It's possible this cafeteria was in the middle and many feet away from entrances and exits where guns would definitely be located.

I will also say that I don't have the utmost confidence the security at my building would be much help in a crisis. Not the most athletic bunch. I assume a facility like The Navy Yard would be different, though.
Thanks...

That's kind of the situation I imagined here. Once he took out the first guards, he seemed to have some time to go killing. I'm sure the details will come out.
The facility he went off in is allegedly one of the most secure we have.

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Oh bull####. The problem with this argument is millions upon millions of people are playing those games and the vast overwhelming majority aren't ever going to get so much as traffic ticket much less do a shooting spree. You may as well blame drinking milk. People who make this argument don't seem to think it through very far.
I agree there are millions playing. But obviosly some people in society can not handle these types of games, and the consequence is becoming quite large. I would tend to think there is more violence related to these games, but it just isn't as media focused as a mass shooting.

If you really think violent video games have nothing to do with these mass shootings, then you obviously as blind.

Again, I'm not saying they are the sole reason they are going on a shooting spree, but it is very ironic that almost all of the mass shootings the gunman displayed evidence they were heavily involved in these types of games.

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Oh bull####. The problem with this argument is millions upon millions of people are playing those games and the vast overwhelming majority aren't ever going to get so much as traffic ticket much less do a shooting spree. You may as well blame drinking milk. People who make this argument don't seem to think it through very far.
The difference is that we have generations that have drank milk their entire lives. We don't yet know what 10 years of playing violent video games is going to do to kids of today.

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Oh bull####. The problem with this argument is millions upon millions of people are playing those games and the vast overwhelming majority aren't ever going to get so much as traffic ticket much less do a shooting spree. You may as well blame drinking milk. People who make this argument don't seem to think it through very far.
Million of gun owners own guns and the vast overwhelming majority aren't ever going to get so much as traffic ticket much less do a shooting spree. You may as well blame drinking milk.

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Oh bull####. The problem with this argument is millions upon millions of people are playing those games and the vast overwhelming majority aren't ever going to get so much as traffic ticket much less do a shooting spree. You may as well blame drinking milk. People who make this argument don't seem to think it through very far.
In all fairness, people who own guns probably aren't going to get as much as a traffic ticket, much less do a shooting spree.

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Oh bull####. The problem with this argument is millions upon millions of people are playing those games and the vast overwhelming majority aren't ever going to get so much as traffic ticket much less do a shooting spree. You may as well blame drinking milk. People who make this argument don't seem to think it through very far.
The difference is that we have generations that have drank milk their entire lives. We don't yet know what 10 years of playing violent video games is going to do to kids of today.
Shooting video games have been around since the 70's. The old carnival style shooting galleries even longer. I think we got enough data.

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Oh bull####. The problem with this argument is millions upon millions of people are playing those games and the vast overwhelming majority aren't ever going to get so much as traffic ticket much less do a shooting spree. You may as well blame drinking milk. People who make this argument don't seem to think it through very far.
The difference is that we have generations that have drank milk their entire lives. We don't yet know what 10 years of playing violent video games is going to do to kids of today.
Shooting video games have been around since the 70's. The old carnival style shooting galleries even longer. I think we got enough data.
I didn’t even know it was an argument that violent video games and movies can influence kids negatively. The whole reason I crashed my bike as a kid was being influenced by evil knievel on TV. I did stupid ski jumps because of Warren Miller.

The harder question is what you can do about it. I am not arguing you should ban evil kinievel, warren miller or video games, but to dismiss video games as complete non issue just isn’t true. Study after study says otherwise.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Oh bull####. The problem with this argument is millions upon millions of people are playing those games and the vast overwhelming majority aren't ever going to get so much as traffic ticket much less do a shooting spree. You may as well blame drinking milk. People who make this argument don't seem to think it through very far.
The difference is that we have generations that have drank milk their entire lives. We don't yet know what 10 years of playing violent video games is going to do to kids of today.
Shooting video games have been around since the 70's. The old carnival style shooting galleries even longer. I think we got enough data.
I didn’t even know it was an argument that violent video games and movies can influence kids negatively. The whole reason I crashed my bike as a kid was being influenced by evil knievel on TV. I did stupid ski jumps because of Warren Miller.

The harder question is what you can do about it. I am not arguing you should ban evil kinievel, warren miller or video games, but to dismiss video games as complete non issue just isn’t true. Study after study says otherwise.
Really?

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Oh bull####. The problem with this argument is millions upon millions of people are playing those games and the vast overwhelming majority aren't ever going to get so much as traffic ticket much less do a shooting spree. You may as well blame drinking milk. People who make this argument don't seem to think it through very far.
Million of gun owners own guns and the vast overwhelming majority aren't ever going to get so much as traffic ticket much less do a shooting spree. You may as well blame drinking milk.
Maybe you should read further.

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Oh bull####. The problem with this argument is millions upon millions of people are playing those games and the vast overwhelming majority aren't ever going to get so much as traffic ticket much less do a shooting spree. You may as well blame drinking milk. People who make this argument don't seem to think it through very far.
The difference is that we have generations that have drank milk their entire lives. We don't yet know what 10 years of playing violent video games is going to do to kids of today.
Shooting video games have been around since the 70's. The old carnival style shooting galleries even longer. I think we got enough data.
I didn’t even know it was an argument that violent video games and movies can influence kids negatively. The whole reason I crashed my bike as a kid was being influenced by evil knievel on TV. I did stupid ski jumps because of Warren Miller.

The harder question is what you can do about it. I am not arguing you should ban evil kinievel, warren miller or video games, but to dismiss video games as complete non issue just isn’t true. Study after study says otherwise.
Really?
Wait. They consider "high risk teens" to be teens with depression or ADD? ADD? Really? I had no idea I was a high risk teen.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tim not wanting to discuss race..... :lmao:
At this moment, I don't believe that race, gun control, or video games are relevant to the topic at hand. As you know, I LOVE discussing racial issues, and I believe they are an important topic in our society, much more than you do. But in this case any discussion of affirmative action, or of the hiring issues that Jewell is concerned about, is premature. If and when it's revealed that these actually played a factor in this guy being where he was, then we can discuss it.

What needs to be discussed, IMO, is mental illness and what to do about it. There's been very few posts on that.

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Oh bull####. The problem with this argument is millions upon millions of people are playing those games and the vast overwhelming majority aren't ever going to get so much as traffic ticket much less do a shooting spree. You may as well blame drinking milk. People who make this argument don't seem to think it through very far.
The difference is that we have generations that have drank milk their entire lives. We don't yet know what 10 years of playing violent video games is going to do to kids of today.
Shooting video games have been around since the 70's. The old carnival style shooting galleries even longer. I think we got enough data.
I didn’t even know it was an argument that violent video games and movies can influence kids negatively. The whole reason I crashed my bike as a kid was being influenced by evil knievel on TV. I did stupid ski jumps because of Warren Miller.

The harder question is what you can do about it. I am not arguing you should ban evil kinievel, warren miller or video games, but to dismiss video games as complete non issue just isn’t true. Study after study says otherwise.
Really?
Yes, really

You might find this an interesting read as it points directly to the shooters and they admit the games warped or effected their mind set.

 
1. How should we determine whether or not a person is mentally ill?

2. Should the authorities have a list of mentally ill people?

3. Should the government prohibit mentally ill people from working at certain jobs? Should they be terminated, offered help, forced into mental institutions, or what?

4. Should the police have lists of mentally ill people and watch them carefully?

5. Should mentally ill people be prevented from owning firearms? And is there a way to do this without infringing upon the rights of the majority?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but it seems to me that if we truly want to deal with the source of these mass shootings, we had better start thinking about them.

 
Should the contractor he works for be taken to task for this? Is it reasonable for them to run their own background checks before they employ someone to work in secure areas?

I am not certain, just asking.

While it seems as if the government's background check/monitoring programs failed here, i am wondering if having a second layer at the company level, where they risk losing some money on these sweet government contacts, may be another way to provide a level of security. Kind of a free market approach, sorry, if your employee shoots up the joint you lose the contract, we'll find someone that does not send us shooters, so you had better make sure you send good people in

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Oh bull####. The problem with this argument is millions upon millions of people are playing those games and the vast overwhelming majority aren't ever going to get so much as traffic ticket much less do a shooting spree. You may as well blame drinking milk. People who make this argument don't seem to think it through very far.
The difference is that we have generations that have drank milk their entire lives. We don't yet know what 10 years of playing violent video games is going to do to kids of today.
Shooting video games have been around since the 70's. The old carnival style shooting galleries even longer. I think we got enough data.
I didn’t even know it was an argument that violent video games and movies can influence kids negatively. The whole reason I crashed my bike as a kid was being influenced by evil knievel on TV. I did stupid ski jumps because of Warren Miller.

The harder question is what you can do about it. I am not arguing you should ban evil kinievel, warren miller or video games, but to dismiss video games as complete non issue just isn’t true. Study after study says otherwise.
Really?
Yes, really

You might find this an interesting read as it points directly to the shooters and they admit the games warped or effected their mind set.
Pfft. a 16 year old doens't know that shooting something will likely resolve in death? :bs: Let's look at other bits of Evan's past.

When Evan Ramsey was five years old, his father was imprisoned after a police standoff, and his mother became an alcoholic. Evan and his family soon after were forced to relocate to the Anchorage area after their house was set on fire. When Evan was seven, the Anchorage Department of Youth and Family Services removed Evan and his two brothers from his mother's custody and placed them in foster care. Evan was soon separated from his older brother, John, and lived in eleven foster homes between 1988 and 1991.[1]Ramsey and his younger brother were allegedly abused by several foster parents. Evan's younger brother, William, claimed that their foster brothers would pay other children to beat Evan as a sick game.

Evan was adopted with his brother at age 10, and settled in Bethel, Alaska with their foster mother. Evan Ramsey has suffered from depression since early childhood, and had attempted suicide when he was 10 years old.[1]

MotivesRamsey was believed to have been frequently bullied at school.[2][3][4] According to his friends, Ramsey complained of being harassed and teased by other students, even to the extent of only addressing him as "Screech", a character from the TV series Saved by the Bell.[3] In addition to being picked on by peers, however, Evan had a long history of abuse. His mother lived with a series of violent men who abused Evan and his brothers. He also was physically and sexually abused by an older boy in one of the foster homes he was placed.[5]

Evan was not the first in his family to bring a firearm into a public place. In October 1986, Evan's father, Don Ramsey, went to the Anchorage Times newspaper office armed with an AR-180 .223 rifle, a Snub-nosed .44 Magnum revolver, and more than 210 rounds of ammunition. While inside the building, Don Ramsey began taking hostages and was involved in a brief standoff with police until he surrendered. His motive for doing this was because he was angered that the Times refused to publish a political letter he had written. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, and was paroled just several weeks before his son Evan perpetrated the school shooting.[1] Also, a week before Evan's attack, his older brother was arrested for armed robbery.[6]

Reports say in the two weeks prior to the incident, more than 15 students knew of Ramsey's intention to commit a school shooting, and two actually assisted him.[7]One student named James Randall taught him how to load and fire a shotgun, and another named Matthew Charles told him of the infamy that would come.[1] Reports say that several students brought cameras to school on the day of the shooting, and that many students were watching the shooting from a library balcony overlooking the student commons area.[8]
So yeah, let's ignore all that and blame it on the video games.

 
Jesus, can Tim kill a topic or what? You can't even lean on the ignore feature because he ropes too many people in.

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Oh bull####. The problem with this argument is millions upon millions of people are playing those games and the vast overwhelming majority aren't ever going to get so much as traffic ticket much less do a shooting spree. You may as well blame drinking milk. People who make this argument don't seem to think it through very far.
The difference is that we have generations that have drank milk their entire lives. We don't yet know what 10 years of playing violent video games is going to do to kids of today.
Shooting video games have been around since the 70's. The old carnival style shooting galleries even longer. I think we got enough data.
I didn’t even know it was an argument that violent video games and movies can influence kids negatively. The whole reason I crashed my bike as a kid was being influenced by evil knievel on TV. I did stupid ski jumps because of Warren Miller.

The harder question is what you can do about it. I am not arguing you should ban evil kinievel, warren miller or video games, but to dismiss video games as complete non issue just isn’t true. Study after study says otherwise.
Really?
Yes, really

You might find this an interesting read as it points directly to the shooters and they admit the games warped or effected their mind set.
Yeah for the most part those studies are junk science that is paid for by someone with an agenda. The school of thought is that violent video games don't create shooters. Any more than violent books or movies do. Can people who are already off be effected by them? Sure. But then they can also be effected by the evening news for that matter. We would still have mass shootings without them. We make it so easy to score all the tools needed. It would just be some other excuse found by those who don't want to blame a permissive gun buying environment that is designed to get guns into as many people's hands as possible.

 
Should the contractor he works for be taken to task for this? Is it reasonable for them to run their own background checks before they employ someone to work in secure areas?

I am not certain, just asking.

While it seems as if the government's background check/monitoring programs failed here, i am wondering if having a second layer at the company level, where they risk losing some money on these sweet government contacts, may be another way to provide a level of security. Kind of a free market approach, sorry, if your employee shoots up the joint you lose the contract, we'll find someone that does not send us shooters, so you had better make sure you send good people in
For secure jobs, companies default to whether or not the person has an active clearance. Security clearances are more thorough than what an employer can find out.

 
Tim not wanting to discuss race..... :lmao:
At this moment, I don't believe that race, gun control, or video games are relevant to the topic at hand. As you know, I LOVE discussing racial issues, and I believe they are an important topic in our society, much more than you do. But in this case any discussion of affirmative action, or of the hiring issues that Jewell is concerned about, is premature. If and when it's revealed that these actually played a factor in this guy being where he was, then we can discuss it.

What needs to be discussed, IMO, is mental illness and what to do about it. There's been very few posts on that.
I have serious doubts a white guy with that background would have been hired and given clearance to work. But in order to meet quotas which are required if you want any hope of getting a federal contract, certain things might be overlooked.

 
1. How should we determine whether or not a person is mentally ill?

2. Should the authorities have a list of mentally ill people?

3. Should the government prohibit mentally ill people from working at certain jobs? Should they be terminated, offered help, forced into mental institutions, or what?

4. Should the police have lists of mentally ill people and watch them carefully?

5. Should mentally ill people be prevented from owning firearms? And is there a way to do this without infringing upon the rights of the majority?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but it seems to me that if we truly want to deal with the source of these mass shootings, we had better start thinking about them.
3 is easily yes to keeping them from certain jobs.

5 should also be yes.

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Oh bull####. The problem with this argument is millions upon millions of people are playing those games and the vast overwhelming majority aren't ever going to get so much as traffic ticket much less do a shooting spree. You may as well blame drinking milk. People who make this argument don't seem to think it through very far.
The difference is that we have generations that have drank milk their entire lives. We don't yet know what 10 years of playing violent video games is going to do to kids of today.
Shooting video games have been around since the 70's. The old carnival style shooting galleries even longer. I think we got enough data.
I didn’t even know it was an argument that violent video games and movies can influence kids negatively. The whole reason I crashed my bike as a kid was being influenced by evil knievel on TV. I did stupid ski jumps because of Warren Miller.

The harder question is what you can do about it. I am not arguing you should ban evil kinievel, warren miller or video games, but to dismiss video games as complete non issue just isn’t true. Study after study says otherwise.
Really?
Yes, really

You might find this an interesting read as it points directly to the shooters and they admit the games warped or effected their mind set.
Yeah for the most part those studies are junk science that is paid for by someone with an agenda. The school of thought is that violent video games don't create shooters. Any more than violent books or movies do. Can people who are already off be effected by them? Sure. But then they can also be effected by the evening news for that matter. We would still have mass shootings without them. We make it so easy to score all the tools needed. It would just be some other excuse found by those who don't want to blame a permissive gun buying environment that is designed to get guns into as many people's hands as possible.
Interesting. You don't think video games would make someone suddenly want to kill somebody, but a gun does?

 
1. How should we determine whether or not a person is mentally ill?

2. Should the authorities have a list of mentally ill people?

3. Should the government prohibit mentally ill people from working at certain jobs? Should they be terminated, offered help, forced into mental institutions, or what?

4. Should the police have lists of mentally ill people and watch them carefully?

5. Should mentally ill people be prevented from owning firearms? And is there a way to do this without infringing upon the rights of the majority?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but it seems to me that if we truly want to deal with the source of these mass shootings, we had better start thinking about them.
3 is easily yes to keeping them from certain jobs.

5 should also be yes.
What would be the definition of mentally ill? Serious question. That's a tough line to draw. That article above stated that High Risk Teens were teens with ADD.

 
They really need to take a look at the violent video games. It seems like recently most of the mass shootings involved someone who was highly involved in violent video games. I'm not saying this will solve every mass shooting, but I strongly feel it is a good start.

I know we need to look at where we draw the line, because then you can say what about TV/Movies, etc. But the violent video games is something that puts the user into the situation as they control the player and pull the trigger in theory. I don't see any purpose to having them out there.
Oh bull####. The problem with this argument is millions upon millions of people are playing those games and the vast overwhelming majority aren't ever going to get so much as traffic ticket much less do a shooting spree. You may as well blame drinking milk. People who make this argument don't seem to think it through very far.
The difference is that we have generations that have drank milk their entire lives. We don't yet know what 10 years of playing violent video games is going to do to kids of today.
Shooting video games have been around since the 70's. The old carnival style shooting galleries even longer. I think we got enough data.
I didn’t even know it was an argument that violent video games and movies can influence kids negatively. The whole reason I crashed my bike as a kid was being influenced by evil knievel on TV. I did stupid ski jumps because of Warren Miller.

The harder question is what you can do about it. I am not arguing you should ban evil kinievel, warren miller or video games, but to dismiss video games as complete non issue just isn’t true. Study after study says otherwise.
Really?
Yes, really

You might find this an interesting read as it points directly to the shooters and they admit the games warped or effected their mind set.
Yeah for the most part those studies are junk science that is paid for by someone with an agenda. The school of thought is that violent video games don't create shooters. Any more than violent books or movies do. Can people who are already off be effected by them? Sure. But then they can also be effected by the evening news for that matter. We would still have mass shootings without them. We make it so easy to score all the tools needed. It would just be some other excuse found by those who don't want to blame a permissive gun buying environment that is designed to get guns into as many people's hands as possible.
Interesting. You don't think video games would make someone suddenly want to kill somebody, but a gun does?
I don't think either causes rational people to kill anyone. I think making it as easy as possible with as few checks as possible to get a gun makes it much easier for those not so rational to carry out their plans.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top