Active shooter at Washington Navy Yard (1 Viewer)

[TobiasFunke]

I find it interesting how less than 48 hours after the event it is no longer really leading newscasts or on the major websites in any meaningful way. Probably by next Monday all media will have moved on 100%.

No AR-15, no political agenda.

See? You can make dumb, irrelevant, needlessly antagonizing posts where you hamfistedly use a horrible tragedy to argue your cause without wrongly attributing things to other posters! Great job!

You are a bitter man, that can't admit if this had not been a gun-free zone the casualties would have been far less, that's if he even decided to follow through. Oh wait I forgot, you have no ####### clue what gun-free zone means. You think if there are guns at the gates and entries to buildings and a handful of MP patrols that carry guns that this means it is NOT a gun-free zone.

Trolls gonna troll.

Couldn't do it twice in a row, huh?

That's OK, one post where you don't wrongly attribute things to other posters is a good start. I'm very proud of you! Keep it up, try to go for two in a row tomorrow!

 

[5 digit know nothing]

you don't seem like a person who has the slightest ability to understand anything beyond the simplistic "us vs. them" mentality, so I'm done.

Glad to see you are a man of your word.

 

[Max Power]

Revealed: Police warned Navy that gunman was hearing voices just six weeks ago after he called them claiming 'people were sending vibrations to his body via microwave machine'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424350/Aaron-Alexis-Police-warned-Navy-gunman-hearing-voices-6-weeks-ago.html

A police sergeant warned the Navy that Aaron Alexis was 'hearing voices' through his hotel room wall last month - just six weeks before he went on his murderous rampage, shooting 12 dead.

A police report filed in Newport, Rhode Island reveals that the officer was sent to Alexis' hotel on August 7. Alexis said voices were speaking to him 'through the wall, flooring and ceiling' and thought three people were following him 'and sending vibrations to his body' through a microwave machine.

The sergeant wrote in the police report that Alexis said he was a naval contractor so 'I made contact with on-duty Naval Station Police [officer name redacted].'

The Naval Station Police official told the sergeant 'they would follow up on this subject' and see whether Alexis was indeed a naval base contractor, the report said.

It is uncertain what action, if any, the naval police took after the contact. There was no immediate response from the Navy about this latest revelation involving Alexis.

Unless he was deemed a threat at the time, that event isn't something the MPs would follow up on.

 

[timschochet]

I find it interesting how less than 48 hours after the event it is no longer really leading newscasts or on the major websites in any meaningful way. Probably by next Monday all media will have moved on 100%.

No AR-15, no political agenda.

See? You can make dumb, irrelevant, needlessly antagonizing posts where you hamfistedly use a horrible tragedy to argue your cause without wrongly attributing things to other posters! Great job!

You are a bitter man, that can't admit if this had not been a gun-free zone the casualties would have been far less, that's if he even decided to follow through. Oh wait I forgot, you have no ####### clue what gun-free zone means. You think if there are guns at the gates and entries to buildings and a handful of MP patrols that carry guns that this means it is NOT a gun-free zone.

Trolls gonna troll.

This remains, IMO, an extremely weak argument.

In the cases of Sandy Hook and the movie theater, I was willing to buy into the gun free zone argument somewhat. Although I remain reluctant to accept your suggestion that school teachers should be armed, your argument that these crazy shooters deliberately chose gun free zones because they knew their victims were helpless, I found that compelling.

But to argue that in an area where there are armed guards walking around, the problem is that it was not a gun free zone, that seems absurd on its face. In fact, I believe any reasonable person would assume that the inability of the armed guards to successfully prevent this mass shooter from killing 12 people would argue AGAINST your notion that eliminating gun free zones will have a positive impact.

You accuse other people of having an agenda, but there is no person here with a bigger agenda than yours. Your attempt to use this tragic situation to argue against gun free zones is like shoving a square peg into a round hole- it doesn't fit.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

But the pro-gun crowd that makes the "gun free zones" argument claims that these shooters often target such areas because they know there won't be many/any armed people there to stop them. Obviously their argument falls apart here, which is fine because it was an idiotic argument anyway. Whether or not unauthorized people are allowed to carry weapons there is beside the point.

Yep, I'm just making stuff up about stuff you posted. Carry on.

 

[TobiasFunke]

you don't seem like a person who has the slightest ability to understand anything beyond the simplistic "us vs. them" mentality, so I'm done.

Glad to see you are a man of your word.

I'm done debating with you on what happened here or policy issues. That is pointless. I've stuck by that.

But I'm not gonna let you put words in my mouth and tell other people that I say or think things I didn't say or don't think. That's crap. Have at least a little integrity.

 

[Slapdash]

According to the FBI, murders nationwide have dropped from 24,000 in 1993 to 14,000 in 2012, despite a larger population now. The murderers are probably cowed by all the pistol-packin' heroes here at FBGs.

Fear of FBG gun-packers comes in at #5 on the list..."Crime fell sharply and unexpectedly in the 1990s. Four factors appear to explain the drop in crime: (1) increased incarceration, (2) more police, (3) the decline of crack, and (4) legalized abortion."

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf

Looks like they touched on leaded gasoline but did not go into detail:

1 Reyes (2002) offers an additional intriguing explanation for the decline in crime: the reduction in levels of lead in the blood due to the elimination of leaded gasoline and lead-based paints. Because of the highly speculative nature of the Reyes conjecture at the present time, I do not discuss this hypothesis at greater length, although it is clearly an area worthy of continued future research.

more:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I find it interesting how less than 48 hours after the event it is no longer really leading newscasts or on the major websites in any meaningful way. Probably by next Monday all media will have moved on 100%.

No AR-15, no political agenda.

See? You can make dumb, irrelevant, needlessly antagonizing posts where you hamfistedly use a horrible tragedy to argue your cause without wrongly attributing things to other posters! Great job!

You are a bitter man, that can't admit if this had not been a gun-free zone the casualties would have been far less, that's if he even decided to follow through. Oh wait I forgot, you have no ####### clue what gun-free zone means. You think if there are guns at the gates and entries to buildings and a handful of MP patrols that carry guns that this means it is NOT a gun-free zone.

Trolls gonna troll.

This remains, IMO, an extremely weak argument.In the cases of Sandy Hook and the movie theater, I was willing to buy into the gun free zone argument somewhat. Although I remain reluctant to accept your suggestion that school teachers should be armed, your argument that these crazy shooters deliberately chose gun free zones because they knew their victims were helpless, I found that compelling.

But to argue that in an area where there are armed guards walking around, the problem is that it was not a gun free zone, that seems absurd on its face. In fact, I believe any reasonable person would assume that the inability of the armed guards to successfully prevent this mass shooter from killing 12 people would argue AGAINST your notion that eliminating gun free zones will have a positive impact.

You accuse other people of having an agenda, but there is no person here with a bigger agenda than yours. Your attempt to use this tragic situation to argue against gun free zones is like shoving a square peg into a round hole- it doesn't fit.

Tim what is your point? You clearly do not understand my point, I'll give you a hint it has to do with people's right to defend themselves against insane people that want to kill them for no reason.

These people involved in the mass shootings are not rational people that fear for dying, they want to cause as much damage as possible against unarmed victims. You claim to want to find a solution yet you object to the most obvious one staring you in the face, and for what reason might I ask? You think it increases the chances that you might get shot if more people are allowed to concealed carry?

If you really think there were "plenty of guns" there, why was the response time so slow? I don't think you understand the circumstances well enough to have an educated opinion about this.

And please don't use the "tragic situation" card here, what makes this argument any different than your arguments on stricter background checks and ID-ing the mentally ill which you have done ad naseum in this thread?

 

[TobiasFunke]

But the pro-gun crowd that makes the "gun free zones" argument claims that these shooters often target such areas because they know there won't be many/any armed people there to stop them. Obviously their argument falls apart here, which is fine because it was an idiotic argument anyway. Whether or not unauthorized people are allowed to carry weapons there is beside the point.

Yep, I'm just making stuff up about stuff you posted. Carry on.

See? You do know how to use the reply function!

If you insist on keeping alive this moronic "debate" long after everyone else has written off your nonsense, at least quote my post and argue with my actual words. It's really not that hard to do. Why be deceitful?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

But the pro-gun crowd that makes the "gun free zones" argument claims that these shooters often target such areas because they know there won't be many/any armed people there to stop them. Obviously their argument falls apart here, which is fine because it was an idiotic argument anyway. Whether or not unauthorized people are allowed to carry weapons there is beside the point.

Yep, I'm just making stuff up about stuff you posted. Carry on.

See? You do know how to use the reply function!

If you insist on keeping alive this moronic "debate" long after everyone else has written off your nonsense, at least quote my post and argue with my actual words. It's really not that hard to do. Why be deceitful?

Apology accepted.

 

[timschochet]

I find it interesting how less than 48 hours after the event it is no longer really leading newscasts or on the major websites in any meaningful way. Probably by next Monday all media will have moved on 100%.

No AR-15, no political agenda.

See? You can make dumb, irrelevant, needlessly antagonizing posts where you hamfistedly use a horrible tragedy to argue your cause without wrongly attributing things to other posters! Great job!

You are a bitter man, that can't admit if this had not been a gun-free zone the casualties would have been far less, that's if he even decided to follow through. Oh wait I forgot, you have no ####### clue what gun-free zone means. You think if there are guns at the gates and entries to buildings and a handful of MP patrols that carry guns that this means it is NOT a gun-free zone.

Trolls gonna troll.

This remains, IMO, an extremely weak argument.In the cases of Sandy Hook and the movie theater, I was willing to buy into the gun free zone argument somewhat. Although I remain reluctant to accept your suggestion that school teachers should be armed, your argument that these crazy shooters deliberately chose gun free zones because they knew their victims were helpless, I found that compelling.

But to argue that in an area where there are armed guards walking around, the problem is that it was not a gun free zone, that seems absurd on its face. In fact, I believe any reasonable person would assume that the inability of the armed guards to successfully prevent this mass shooter from killing 12 people would argue AGAINST your notion that eliminating gun free zones will have a positive impact.

You accuse other people of having an agenda, but there is no person here with a bigger agenda than yours. Your attempt to use this tragic situation to argue against gun free zones is like shoving a square peg into a round hole- it doesn't fit.

Tim what is your point? You clearly do not understand my point, I'll give you a hint it has to do with people's right to defend themselves against insane people that want to kill them for no reason.

These people involved in the mass shootings are not rational people that fear for dying, they want to cause as much damage as possible against unarmed victims. You claim to want to find a solution yet you object to the most obvious one staring you in the face, and for what reason might I ask? You think it increases the chances that you might get shot if more people are allowed to concealed carry?

If you really think there were "plenty of guns" there, why was the response time so slow? I don't think you understand the circumstances well enough to have an educated opinion about this.

You hit the nail on the head. Not me personally, but yeah, I think the chances are more innocent people will be harmed in such a scenario.

Alexis is crazy, pulls out his shotgun and tries to kill as many people as possible. John sees this, pulls out his concealed pistol, fires at Alexis, but misses and hits Judy instead. Larry doesn't see Alexis, but sees John shoot Judy, so Larry pulls out his concealed pistol and shoots at John. John fires back at Larry, thinking him in league with Alexis. John misses and hits Tom. Larry hits John but also hits David behind John. And so forth. Instead of 12 dead, there are 20 dead.

That's what I'm afraid of.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I find it interesting how less than 48 hours after the event it is no longer really leading newscasts or on the major websites in any meaningful way. Probably by next Monday all media will have moved on 100%.

No AR-15, no political agenda.

See? You can make dumb, irrelevant, needlessly antagonizing posts where you hamfistedly use a horrible tragedy to argue your cause without wrongly attributing things to other posters! Great job!

You are a bitter man, that can't admit if this had not been a gun-free zone the casualties would have been far less, that's if he even decided to follow through. Oh wait I forgot, you have no ####### clue what gun-free zone means. You think if there are guns at the gates and entries to buildings and a handful of MP patrols that carry guns that this means it is NOT a gun-free zone.

Trolls gonna troll.

This remains, IMO, an extremely weak argument.In the cases of Sandy Hook and the movie theater, I was willing to buy into the gun free zone argument somewhat. Although I remain reluctant to accept your suggestion that school teachers should be armed, your argument that these crazy shooters deliberately chose gun free zones because they knew their victims were helpless, I found that compelling.

But to argue that in an area where there are armed guards walking around, the problem is that it was not a gun free zone, that seems absurd on its face. In fact, I believe any reasonable person would assume that the inability of the armed guards to successfully prevent this mass shooter from killing 12 people would argue AGAINST your notion that eliminating gun free zones will have a positive impact.

You accuse other people of having an agenda, but there is no person here with a bigger agenda than yours. Your attempt to use this tragic situation to argue against gun free zones is like shoving a square peg into a round hole- it doesn't fit.

Tim what is your point? You clearly do not understand my point, I'll give you a hint it has to do with people's right to defend themselves against insane people that want to kill them for no reason.

These people involved in the mass shootings are not rational people that fear for dying, they want to cause as much damage as possible against unarmed victims. You claim to want to find a solution yet you object to the most obvious one staring you in the face, and for what reason might I ask? You think it increases the chances that you might get shot if more people are allowed to concealed carry?

If you really think there were "plenty of guns" there, why was the response time so slow? I don't think you understand the circumstances well enough to have an educated opinion about this.

You hit the nail on the head. Not me personally, but yeah, I think the chances are more innocent people will be harmed in such a scenario.Alexis is crazy, pulls out his shotgun and tries to kill as many people as possible. John sees this, pulls out his concealed pistol, fires at Alexis, but misses and hits Judy instead. Larry doesn't see Alexis, but sees John shoot Judy, so Larry pulls out his concealed pistol and shoots at John. John fires back at Larry, thinking him in league with Alexis. John misses and hits Tom. Larry hits John but also hits David behind John. And so forth. Instead of 12 dead, there are 20 dead.

That's what I'm afraid of.

Well at least we are getting to the meat of the issue...Your fears are baseless - try doing some research on CCW statistics, I think you would be surprised just how off base you are. I already posted how cops are 11 times more likely to shoot the wrong person than a non-cop civilian.

 

[The Commish]

So to be clear...it's being argued that the completely insane person was sane enough to rationally think through this "gun free zone" scenario and plot his mission accordingly. Is that correct?

 

[timschochet]

I know you posted that earlier, but your conclusion doesn't make any logical sense. How could it be that a person trained with a weapon is 11 times more likely to make a mistake than a person not necessarily trained with a weapon? The only reasonable explanation, it seems to me, is that cops are REQUIRED to involve themselves in these situations, and use force, whereas private citizens are not.

But the fact that police, who are trained with firearms, are that likely to make errors doesn't cause me to feel any more confident about your suggestion that everyone should be armed. In fact, I think it makes the scenario I wrote above far MORE likely, not less.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

So to be clear...it's being argued that the completely insane person was sane enough to rationally think through this "gun free zone" scenario and plot his mission accordingly. Is that correct?

Did he fire from the 4th floor over looking an atrium and then pull the fire alarm (not confirmed, not sure who pulled it) after shooting two MP's on patrol and disarming? Did he manage to get a shotgun into what was thought to be a secure complex?

...or are you trying to argue he wasn't insane and this was 1 big misunderstanding?

 

[timschochet]

So to be clear...it's being argued that the completely insane person was sane enough to rationally think through this "gun free zone" scenario and plot his mission accordingly. Is that correct?

That's what was argued in the cases of Sandy Hook and the movie theater.

In this case, the completely insane person was even more subtle- he knew it wasn't EXACTLY a gun free zone, since there were armed guards, but he knew that it would be easier than if everybody was packing.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I know you posted that earlier, but your conclusion doesn't make any logical sense. How could it be that a person trained with a weapon is 11 times more likely to make a mistake than a person not necessarily trained with a weapon? The only reasonable explanation, it seems to me, is that cops are REQUIRED to involve themselves in these situations, and use force, whereas private citizens are not.

But the fact that police, who are trained with firearms, are that likely to make errors doesn't cause me to feel any more confident about your suggestion that everyone should be armed. In fact, I think it makes the scenario I wrote above far MORE likely, not less.

I know you like to extrapolate by saying things like "ARM EVERYONE", but for the sake of argument how about arming 10-15% of the civilians in the building. People that are certified to conceal carry, that are also trained and some cases have more training firing a firearm with more range time than these armed guards you are putting on a pedestal?

 

[The Commish]

Well at least we are getting to the meat of the issue...

Your fears are baseless - try doing some research on CCW statistics, I think you would be surprised just how off base you are. I already posted how cops are 11 times more likely to shoot the wrong person than a non-cop civilian.

I've seen this argument several times in this thread and a few different links posted...none of them take into account the opportunity factor. Meaning, cops have a job that requires them to carry a gun and enforce the law. They are required to get into confrontations if necessary. I'd like to see the data these "reports" used. I'd also like to see something from a less partisan source if it's out there...perhaps an examination of situations where civilians are routinely put into situations like cops are. Seems a bit disingenuous to compare the situations cops are typically placed in (where there's a bad guy or two in a public place) against a guy defending his home (where there's really no one but them and the criminal...kinda hard to mess that one up.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

So to be clear...it's being argued that the completely insane person was sane enough to rationally think through this "gun free zone" scenario and plot his mission accordingly. Is that correct?

That's what was argued in the cases of Sandy Hook and the movie theater.In this case, the completely insane person was even more subtle- he knew it wasn't EXACTLY a gun free zone, since there were armed guards, but he knew that it would be easier than if everybody was packing.

You and Tobias and others seem to be hung up on the fact that there were people with guns there and therefore was NOT a gun-free zone.

A gun-free zone is an area where people are required to forfeit their firearms upon entering unless they are part of the security detail on shift, I don't know how many times we need to make this point. The fact that the shooter was able to bring a shotgun in wasn't because they let him, it wasn't because it was not a gun-free zone.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Well at least we are getting to the meat of the issue...

Your fears are baseless - try doing some research on CCW statistics, I think you would be surprised just how off base you are. I already posted how cops are 11 times more likely to shoot the wrong person than a non-cop civilian.

I've seen this argument several times in this thread and a few different links posted...none of them take into account the opportunity factor. Meaning, cops have a job that requires them to carry a gun and enforce the law. They are required to get into confrontations if necessary. I'd like to see the data these "reports" used. I'd also like to see something from a less partisan source if it's out there...perhaps an examination of situations where civilians are routinely put into situations like cops are. Seems a bit disingenuous to compare the situations cops are typically placed in (where there's a bad guy or two in a public place) against a guy defending his home (where there's really no one but them and the criminal...kinda hard to mess that one up.

I'd like to have two girls at one time tonight.

Do your own due diligence.

 

[The Commish]

So to be clear...it's being argued that the completely insane person was sane enough to rationally think through this "gun free zone" scenario and plot his mission accordingly. Is that correct?

Did he fire from the 4th floor over looking an atrium and then pull the fire alarm (not confirmed, not sure who pulled it) after shooting two MP's on patrol and disarming? Did he manage to get a shotgun into what was thought to be a secure complex?

...or are you trying to argue he wasn't insane and this was 1 big misunderstanding?

I'm not arguing anything. I'm asking if I have your position correct.

 

[timschochet]

So to be clear...it's being argued that the completely insane person was sane enough to rationally think through this "gun free zone" scenario and plot his mission accordingly. Is that correct?

That's what was argued in the cases of Sandy Hook and the movie theater.In this case, the completely insane person was even more subtle- he knew it wasn't EXACTLY a gun free zone, since there were armed guards, but he knew that it would be easier than if everybody was packing.

You and Tobias and others seem to be hung up on the fact that there were people with guns there and therefore was NOT a gun-free zone.

A gun-free zone is an area where people are required to forfeit their firearms upon entering unless they are part of the security detail on shift, I don't know how many times we need to make this point. The fact that the shooter was able to bring a shotgun in wasn't because they let him, it wasn't because it was not a gun-free zone.

The reason you need to keep making this point is because in all our previous conversations you never made it before. All previous talk about "gun free zones" was that there were no guns around, and this is why we needed them. It's the same reason Wayne La Pierre, after Sandy Hook, called for armed guards at every public school- remember that?

Now suddenly we have a situation in which there already are armed guards present, and it's a gun free zone as well? Whom do you think you're kidding?

 

[The Commish]

I know you posted that earlier, but your conclusion doesn't make any logical sense. How could it be that a person trained with a weapon is 11 times more likely to make a mistake than a person not necessarily trained with a weapon? The only reasonable explanation, it seems to me, is that cops are REQUIRED to involve themselves in these situations, and use force, whereas private citizens are not.

But the fact that police, who are trained with firearms, are that likely to make errors doesn't cause me to feel any more confident about your suggestion that everyone should be armed. In fact, I think it makes the scenario I wrote above far MORE likely, not less.

Well, for one, it doesn't take into account the type of situations civilians are in vs situations the police are in. The police are required to engage in public places. I can't think of a single situation where a responsible gun carrier would put themselves into a situation like that and be the aggressor. Police don't have that luxury...when you are policing the public landscape and 99% of your confrontations are in public areas, you're probably going to hit more people....seems logical anyway. There are plenty of points to be made around the 2nd Amendment and our ability to arm ourselves....this doesn't seem to be one of them.

 

[The Commish]

Well at least we are getting to the meat of the issue...

Your fears are baseless - try doing some research on CCW statistics, I think you would be surprised just how off base you are. I already posted how cops are 11 times more likely to shoot the wrong person than a non-cop civilian.

I've seen this argument several times in this thread and a few different links posted...none of them take into account the opportunity factor. Meaning, cops have a job that requires them to carry a gun and enforce the law. They are required to get into confrontations if necessary. I'd like to see the data these "reports" used. I'd also like to see something from a less partisan source if it's out there...perhaps an examination of situations where civilians are routinely put into situations like cops are. Seems a bit disingenuous to compare the situations cops are typically placed in (where there's a bad guy or two in a public place) against a guy defending his home (where there's really no one but them and the criminal...kinda hard to mess that one up.

I'd like to have two girls at one time tonight.

Do your own due diligence.

Yeah...it's not out there...which is sorta my point. There are plenty of valid points to be made around our guns and their laws, but this isn't one of them. It's not necessary to compare apples and oranges then try to pass it off as some sort of "ah ha" moment. This position is really no different than Michael Moore coming out and saying that the US is more violent than Antarctica because more individuals were killed in the US than Antarctica...stupid all around

 

[roadkill1292]

According to the FBI, murders nationwide have dropped from 24,000 in 1993 to 14,000 in 2012, despite a larger population now. The murderers are probably cowed by all the pistol-packin' heroes here at FBGs.

Fear of FBG gun-packers comes in at #5 on the list..."Crime fell sharply and unexpectedly in the 1990s. Four factors appear to explain the drop in crime: (1) increased incarceration, (2) more police, (3) the decline of crack, and (4) legalized abortion."

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf

Cram it.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Taken from the high road from a post from 2007

Can Citizens Use Guns Competently?

Ordinary people, even if they have passed a firearms safety class, cannot be trusted to use guns competently, it is sometimes claimed. The guns will be taken away by criminals, or the gun-owners will shoot an innocent bystander by mistake, it is sometimes predicted. Wherever the concealed carry issue is raised in the future, it can be predicted with confidence that these objections will be raised by reform opponents, including many law enforcement professionals who claim expertise on the issue.

The existing body of research provides no support for these fears. The best evidence we have about what happens when people have carry permits is the experience of the 1/3 of American states that issue such permits routinely. From these states, the most detailed data are those compiled by the Dade County (Miami) police. As discussed above, the police kept track of every known incident involving the county's more than 21,000 handgun carry permitees over a six-year period. In that six-year period, there was one known incident of a crime victim having his gun taken away by the criminal. There were no known incidents of a crime victim injuring an innocent person by mistake. In some cases the handgun permit holder was successful in preventing a crime, and in some cases not, but in no case was any innocent person injured as a result of mistake by a permit-holder.

Another study examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police or civilians. In this study, civilians were successful in wounding, driving off, capturing criminals 83% of the time, compared with a 68% success rate for the police. Civilians intervening in crime were slightly less likely to be wounded than were police. Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal. [145]

The Missouri research does not prove that civilians are more competent than police in armed confrontations. Civilians can often choose whether or not to intervene in a crime in progress, whereas police officers are required to intervene. Being forced to intervene in all cases, police officers would naturally be expected to have a lower success rate, and to make more mistakes. Attorney Jeffrey Snyder elaborates:

Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation and great book-learning to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, "You're coming with me," her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error. There is little chance that she is going to shoot the wrong person. It is the police, because they are rarely at the scene of the crime when it occurs, who are more likely to find themselves in circumstances where guilt and innocence are not so clear-cut, and in which the probability for mistakes is higher. [146]

In addition, the Missouri study was not restricted to "carry" situations, but also included self-defense in the home. Persons using a gun to defend their own home, who know its layout much better than does an intruder, might be expected to have a higher success rate than would persons using a gun in a less familiar public setting.

The most detailed information about civilian defensive gun use has been compiled by Professor Gary Kleck (a liberal Democrat, and member of the ACLU and Common Cause) in his book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. In 1992 the American Society of Criminology awarded the book the Hindelang Prize, as the most significant contribution to criminology in the previous three years. In Point Blank, Kleck studied computer tapes from the U.S. Department of Justice's National Crime Survey, for the years 1979-85. Analyzing the data from over 180,000 crime incidents in the National Crime Survey, as well from other studies, Kleck found the following:

- In no more than 1% of defensive gun uses was the gun taken away by a criminal.

- The odds of a defensive gun user accidentally killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000.

- For robbery and assault victims, the lowest injury rates (17.4% for robberies, and 12.1% for assaults) were among victims who resisted with a gun.

- The next lowest injury rates were among persons who did not resist. Other forms of resistance (such as shouting for help, or using a knife), had higher injury rates than either passive compliance or resistance with a gun. [147]

From here:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/shall-issue.html#c34

 

[KCitons]

I find it interesting how less than 48 hours after the event it is no longer really leading newscasts or on the major websites in any meaningful way. Probably by next Monday all media will have moved on 100%.

No AR-15, no political agenda.

See? You can make dumb, irrelevant, needlessly antagonizing posts where you hamfistedly use a horrible tragedy to argue your cause without wrongly attributing things to other posters! Great job!

You are a bitter man, that can't admit if this had not been a gun-free zone the casualties would have been far less, that's if he even decided to follow through. Oh wait I forgot, you have no ####### clue what gun-free zone means. You think if there are guns at the gates and entries to buildings and a handful of MP patrols that carry guns that this means it is NOT a gun-free zone.

Trolls gonna troll.

This remains, IMO, an extremely weak argument.In the cases of Sandy Hook and the movie theater, I was willing to buy into the gun free zone argument somewhat. Although I remain reluctant to accept your suggestion that school teachers should be armed, your argument that these crazy shooters deliberately chose gun free zones because they knew their victims were helpless, I found that compelling.

But to argue that in an area where there are armed guards walking around, the problem is that it was not a gun free zone, that seems absurd on its face. In fact, I believe any reasonable person would assume that the inability of the armed guards to successfully prevent this mass shooter from killing 12 people would argue AGAINST your notion that eliminating gun free zones will have a positive impact.

You accuse other people of having an agenda, but there is no person here with a bigger agenda than yours. Your attempt to use this tragic situation to argue against gun free zones is like shoving a square peg into a round hole- it doesn't fit.

Tim what is your point? You clearly do not understand my point, I'll give you a hint it has to do with people's right to defend themselves against insane people that want to kill them for no reason.

These people involved in the mass shootings are not rational people that fear for dying, they want to cause as much damage as possible against unarmed victims. You claim to want to find a solution yet you object to the most obvious one staring you in the face, and for what reason might I ask? You think it increases the chances that you might get shot if more people are allowed to concealed carry?

If you really think there were "plenty of guns" there, why was the response time so slow? I don't think you understand the circumstances well enough to have an educated opinion about this.

You hit the nail on the head. Not me personally, but yeah, I think the chances are more innocent people will be harmed in such a scenario.

Alexis is crazy, pulls out his shotgun and tries to kill as many people as possible. John sees this, pulls out his concealed pistol, fires at Alexis, but misses and hits Judy instead. Larry doesn't see Alexis, but sees John shoot Judy, so Larry pulls out his concealed pistol and shoots at John. John fires back at Larry, thinking him in league with Alexis. John misses and hits Tom. Larry hits John but also hits David behind John. And so forth. Instead of 12 dead, there are 20 dead.

That's what I'm afraid of.

And people say MY analogies are far fetched?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

So to be clear...it's being argued that the completely insane person was sane enough to rationally think through this "gun free zone" scenario and plot his mission accordingly. Is that correct?

That's what was argued in the cases of Sandy Hook and the movie theater.In this case, the completely insane person was even more subtle- he knew it wasn't EXACTLY a gun free zone, since there were armed guards, but he knew that it would be easier than if everybody was packing.

You and Tobias and others seem to be hung up on the fact that there were people with guns there and therefore was NOT a gun-free zone.

A gun-free zone is an area where people are required to forfeit their firearms upon entering unless they are part of the security detail on shift, I don't know how many times we need to make this point. The fact that the shooter was able to bring a shotgun in wasn't because they let him, it wasn't because it was not a gun-free zone.

The reason you need to keep making this point is because in all our previous conversations you never made it before. All previous talk about "gun free zones" was that there were no guns around, and this is why we needed them. It's the same reason Wayne La Pierre, after Sandy Hook, called for armed guards at every public school- remember that?Now suddenly we have a situation in which there already are armed guards present, and it's a gun free zone as well? Whom do you think you're kidding?

Who am I kidding? Do you read the news?

Just because you don't want to call this a gun-free zone due to your own personal definition to support your own agenda doesn't mean you are correct, it just means you are stubborn. Open your eyes Tim.

Dozens more links if you don't like the link above. You are on an island here and I wouldn't be too proud of the company you keep on it.

From the first link:

On Monday night, anchor John Roberts asked Mandy Foster, the wife of one of the soldiers shot at Fort Hood, how she felt about her husband's upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. She responded: "At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?" Safer than at the Washington Navy Yard or Fort Hood.

 

[Jewell]

According to the FBI, murders nationwide have dropped from 24,000 in 1993 to 14,000 in 2012, despite a larger population now. The murderers are probably cowed by all the pistol-packin' heroes here at FBGs.

Fear of FBG gun-packers comes in at #5 on the list..."Crime fell sharply and unexpectedly in the 1990s. Four factors appear to explain the drop in crime: (1) increased incarceration, (2) more police, (3) the decline of crack, and (4) legalized abortion."

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf

Cram it.

Vajayjay? Done during lunch break.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

So to be clear...it's being argued that the completely insane person was sane enough to rationally think through this "gun free zone" scenario and plot his mission accordingly. Is that correct?

That's what was argued in the cases of Sandy Hook and the movie theater.In this case, the completely insane person was even more subtle- he knew it wasn't EXACTLY a gun free zone, since there were armed guards, but he knew that it would be easier than if everybody was packing.

You and Tobias and others seem to be hung up on the fact that there were people with guns there and therefore was NOT a gun-free zone.

A gun-free zone is an area where people are required to forfeit their firearms upon entering unless they are part of the security detail on shift, I don't know how many times we need to make this point. The fact that the shooter was able to bring a shotgun in wasn't because they let him, it wasn't because it was not a gun-free zone.

The reason you need to keep making this point is because in all our previous conversations you never made it before. All previous talk about "gun free zones" was that there were no guns around, and this is why we needed them. It's the same reason Wayne La Pierre, after Sandy Hook, called for armed guards at every public school- remember that?Now suddenly we have a situation in which there already are armed guards present, and it's a gun free zone as well? Whom do you think you're kidding?

Who am I kidding? Do you read the news?

Just because you don't want to call this a gun-free zone due to your own personal definition to support your own agenda doesn't mean you are correct, it just means you are stubborn. Open your eyes Tim.

Dozens more links if you don't like the link above. You are on an island here and I wouldn't be too proud of the company you keep on it.

Master of Orion? Is that you?

 

[TobiasFunke]

So to be clear...it's being argued that the completely insane person was sane enough to rationally think through this "gun free zone" scenario and plot his mission accordingly. Is that correct?

That's what was argued in the cases of Sandy Hook and the movie theater.In this case, the completely insane person was even more subtle- he knew it wasn't EXACTLY a gun free zone, since there were armed guards, but he knew that it would be easier than if everybody was packing.

You and Tobias and others seem to be hung up on the fact that there were people with guns there and therefore was NOT a gun-free zone.

A gun-free zone is an area where people are required to forfeit their firearms upon entering unless they are part of the security detail on shift, I don't know how many times we need to make this point. The fact that the shooter was able to bring a shotgun in wasn't because they let him, it wasn't because it was not a gun-free zone.

The reason you need to keep making this point is because in all our previous conversations you never made it before. All previous talk about "gun free zones" was that there were no guns around, and this is why we needed them. It's the same reason Wayne La Pierre, after Sandy Hook, called for armed guards at every public school- remember that?Now suddenly we have a situation in which there already are armed guards present, and it's a gun free zone as well? Whom do you think you're kidding?

Who am I kidding? Do you read the news?

Just because you don't want to call this a gun-free zone due to your own personal definition to support your own agenda doesn't mean you are correct, it just means you are stubborn. Open your eyes Tim.

Dozens more links if you don't like the link above. You are on an island here and I wouldn't be too proud of the company you keep on it.

The very first result in the linked Google search is entitled "The Growing Myth of Mass Shootings and 'Gun Free Zones.'"

From that link:

By suggesting guns are banned at the Navy Yard, gun advocates want to paint the picture of an utterly defenseless, almost pacifist, facility; one where a gunman will have free reign over a completely unprotected community.

News reports from the Navy Yard clearly debunk that claim.

Speaking to reporters yesterday, Washington, D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier detailed how local police officers arrived at the Navy Yard within two or three minutes of the first shots ringing out, and that even before that, "internal security" at the Navy Yard was firing at the gunman.

Does that sound like gun-free facility to you? Does that sound like the gunman didn't have to worry about anybody shooting back, as the Daily Caller absurdly claimed?

The argument about whether or not concealed carry would prevent or deter these mass shootings is one thing (personally I don't think it would, but I also don't have a problem with concealed carry as a matter of personal liberty).

But arguing about it here, where there were many weapons in the hands of many capable people on the grounds and nearby, is another thing entirely. It's absurd. Honestly, people who are in favor of more permissive concealed carry laws should probably drop it in this case, because it discredits their more reasonable arguments.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Why wasn't he dead in 2-3 minutes? Keep believing the drivel the MSM feeds down your throats.

 

[The Commish]

Why wasn't he dead in 2-3 minutes? Keep believing the drivel the MSM feeds down your throats.

Element of surprise and ability to elude?? Seem like reasonable reasons

 

[Eephus]

Why wasn't he dead in 2-3 minutes? Keep believing the drivel the MSM feeds down your throats.

When guns are outlawed, who will shoot the messenger?

 

[Max Power]

So to be clear...it's being argued that the completely insane person was sane enough to rationally think through this "gun free zone" scenario and plot his mission accordingly. Is that correct?

Did he fire from the 4th floor over looking an atrium and then pull the fire alarm (not confirmed, not sure who pulled it) after shooting two MP's on patrol and disarming? Did he manage to get a shotgun into what was thought to be a secure complex?

...or are you trying to argue he wasn't insane and this was 1 big misunderstanding?

WNY is not a very secure complex. The entrance is a public sidewalk and there are no metal detectors. You just show a valid ID and they wave you in.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I honestly have no idea which side people are arguing in this thread.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Why wasn't he dead in 2-3 minutes? Keep believing the drivel the MSM feeds down your throats.

Element of surprise and ability to elude?? Seem like reasonable reasons

Why is 3 hours the best timetable we have for his time of death?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/how-aaron-alexis-s-u-s-navy-yard-shooting-unfolded-1.1857132

Saying there were people on site with 2-3 minutes is meaningless to contradict the fact that this was a gun-free zone. If the people working and visiting there were allowed to conceal carry it is likely to have been fewer casualties. Even if they killed him 3 minutes after he started shooting, how many people do you think he would be able to fire at over that time period? I keep saying it, seconds count, not minutes, and certainly not hours when you talk about requiring an immediate response in situations like this.

 

[Don Quixote]

Why wasn't he dead in 2-3 minutes? Keep believing the drivel the MSM feeds down your throats.

Element of surprise and ability to elude?? Seem like reasonable reasons

Why is 3 hours the best timetable we have for his time of death?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/how-aaron-alexis-s-u-s-navy-yard-shooting-unfolded-1.1857132

Saying there were people on site with 2-3 minutes is meaningless to contradict the fact that this was a gun-free zone. If the people working and visiting there were allowed to conceal carry it is likely to have been fewer casualties. Even if they killed him 3 minutes after he started shooting, how many people do you think he would be able to fire at over that time period? I keep saying it, seconds count, not minutes, and certainly not hours when you talk about requiring an immediate response in situations like this.

It was not 3 hours. It was one hour. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/navy-yard-shooting/scene-at-building-197/?hpid=z2

 

[The Commish]

Why wasn't he dead in 2-3 minutes? Keep believing the drivel the MSM feeds down your throats.

Element of surprise and ability to elude?? Seem like reasonable reasons

Why is 3 hours the best timetable we have for his time of death?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/how-aaron-alexis-s-u-s-navy-yard-shooting-unfolded-1.1857132

Saying there were people on site with 2-3 minutes is meaningless to contradict the fact that this was a gun-free zone. If the people working and visiting there were allowed to conceal carry it is likely to have been fewer casualties. Even if they killed him 3 minutes after he started shooting, how many people do you think he would be able to fire at over that time period? I keep saying it, seconds count, not minutes, and certainly not hours when you talk about requiring an immediate response in situations like this.

I don't know. I wasn't there. No sense in speculating one way or the other unless you want to trivialize this tragic event for political reason. I find that disrespectful to the deceased. Perhaps you should be asking why the buildings weren't secured enough by the proper authorities...either that or acknowledge that a person with nothing to lose isn't going to go easily.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Why wasn't he dead in 2-3 minutes? Keep believing the drivel the MSM feeds down your throats.

Element of surprise and ability to elude?? Seem like reasonable reasons

Why is 3 hours the best timetable we have for his time of death?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/how-aaron-alexis-s-u-s-navy-yard-shooting-unfolded-1.1857132

Saying there were people on site with 2-3 minutes is meaningless to contradict the fact that this was a gun-free zone. If the people working and visiting there were allowed to conceal carry it is likely to have been fewer casualties. Even if they killed him 3 minutes after he started shooting, how many people do you think he would be able to fire at over that time period? I keep saying it, seconds count, not minutes, and certainly not hours when you talk about requiring an immediate response in situations like this.

It was not 3 hours. It was one hour. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/navy-yard-shooting/scene-at-building-197/?hpid=z2

Thanks - nice link, still a pretty damn long time.

 

[The Commish]

If the people working and visiting there were allowed to conceal carry it is likely to have been fewer casualties.

And this is based on what? I get that this is a belief of yours, but I want to know what you base it on. I ask this question because I know few gun owners who would run TO a situation like this in lieu of fleeing. Most understand that confrontations in public places they are not part of is not their place...that's what the authorities are for.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

So timeline:

8:15 Patricia Ward hears gun shots

8:23 Police receive report, 4-person active shooter team is assembled

8:25 4-person active shooter team reaches Navy Yard

8:29 4-person active shooter team are inside the complex (?)

8:30 Police enter the building with AR-15's

8:55 Police engage shooter, shooter goes back upstairs

9:20 Shooter is killed

...certainly not the 2-3 minutes people keep posting.

 

[culdeus]

Why wasn't he dead in 2-3 minutes? Keep believing the drivel the MSM feeds down your throats.

When guns are outlawed, who will shoot the messenger?

this is funny

 

[culdeus]

So timeline:

8:15 Patricia Ward hears gun shots

8:23 Police receive report, 4-person active shooter team is assembled

8:25 4-person active shooter team reaches Navy Yard

8:29 4-person active shooter team are inside the complex (?)

8:30 Police enter the building with AR-15's

8:55 Police engage shooter, shooter goes back upstairs

9:20 Shooter is killed

...certainly not the 2-3 minutes people keep posting.

One of those must not be correct. Where was this team and how did they get there so fast?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

If the people working and visiting there were allowed to conceal carry it is likely to have been fewer casualties.

And this is based on what? I get that this is a belief of yours, but I want to know what you base it on. I ask this question because I know few gun owners who would run TO a situation like this in lieu of fleeing. Most understand that confrontations in public places they are not part of is not their place...that's what the authorities are for.

Do some research, it's been posted many times the success rate of a concealed carry owner intervening in these shootings compared to police - they have the element of surprise on their side which is obviously huge. When you have these gun free zones you take away that option and are forced to rely on a slow response time from officials. It took them 40 minutes to engage the shooter in this case.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

So timeline:

8:15 Patricia Ward hears gun shots

8:23 Police receive report, 4-person active shooter team is assembled

8:25 4-person active shooter team reaches Navy Yard

8:29 4-person active shooter team are inside the complex (?)

8:30 Police enter the building with AR-15's

8:55 Police engage shooter, shooter goes back upstairs

9:20 Shooter is killed

...certainly not the 2-3 minutes people keep posting.

One of those must not be correct. Where was this team and how did they get there so fast?

maybe they were on site and had to get their guns out of an armory?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/navy-yard-shooting/scene-at-building-197/?hpid=z2

ETA: I'm guessing police were not the 4-person team (could be navy personnel), two distinct events occurring at 1 time.

 

[dgreen]

So to be clear...it's being argued that the completely insane person was sane enough to rationally think through this "gun free zone" scenario and plot his mission accordingly. Is that correct?

Did he fire from the 4th floor over looking an atrium and then pull the fire alarm (not confirmed, not sure who pulled it) after shooting two MP's on patrol and disarming? Did he manage to get a shotgun into what was thought to be a secure complex?

...or are you trying to argue he wasn't insane and this was 1 big misunderstanding?

WNY is not a very secure complex. The entrance is a public sidewalk and there are no metal detectors. You just show a valid ID and they wave you in.

So to be clear...it's being argued that the completely insane person was sane enough to rationally think through this "gun free zone" scenario and plot his mission accordingly. Is that correct?

Did he fire from the 4th floor over looking an atrium and then pull the fire alarm (not confirmed, not sure who pulled it) after shooting two MP's on patrol and disarming? Did he manage to get a shotgun into what was thought to be a secure complex?

...or are you trying to argue he wasn't insane and this was 1 big misunderstanding?

WNY is not a very secure complex. The entrance is a public sidewalk and there are no metal detectors. You just show a valid ID and they wave you in.

No metal detectors? Or employees/contractors with a valid ID don't have to go through a metal detector, but visitors do?

 

[TobiasFunke]

So timeline:

8:15 Patricia Ward hears gun shots

8:23 Police receive report, 4-person active shooter team is assembled

8:25 4-person active shooter team reaches Navy Yard

8:29 4-person active shooter team are inside the complex (?)

8:30 Police enter the building with AR-15's

8:55 Police engage shooter, shooter goes back upstairs

9:20 Shooter is killed

...certainly not the 2-3 minutes people keep posting.

One of those must not be correct. Where was this team and how did they get there so fast?

I don't understand- why can't that be correct? I don't know the particulars of assembling a shooting team, but at any given time there's a ton of cops within two minutes of the Navy Yard, or really any random site in that area. It's an urban location with thousands of residents within a mile.

ETA: I just remembered there's a station on M street SW. Guessing it's maybe 10 blocks east of Navy Yard, straight shot down M Street. With a siren and running the stoplights you could drive it in 30 seconds.

 

[Max Power]

So to be clear...it's being argued that the completely insane person was sane enough to rationally think through this "gun free zone" scenario and plot his mission accordingly. Is that correct?

Did he fire from the 4th floor over looking an atrium and then pull the fire alarm (not confirmed, not sure who pulled it) after shooting two MP's on patrol and disarming? Did he manage to get a shotgun into what was thought to be a secure complex?

...or are you trying to argue he wasn't insane and this was 1 big misunderstanding?

WNY is not a very secure complex. The entrance is a public sidewalk and there are no metal detectors. You just show a valid ID and they wave you in.

So to be clear...it's being argued that the completely insane person was sane enough to rationally think through this "gun free zone" scenario and plot his mission accordingly. Is that correct?

Did he fire from the 4th floor over looking an atrium and then pull the fire alarm (not confirmed, not sure who pulled it) after shooting two MP's on patrol and disarming? Did he manage to get a shotgun into what was thought to be a secure complex?

...or are you trying to argue he wasn't insane and this was 1 big misunderstanding?

WNY is not a very secure complex. The entrance is a public sidewalk and there are no metal detectors. You just show a valid ID and they wave you in.

No metal detectors? Or employees/contractors with a valid ID don't have to go through a metal detector, but visitors do?

I don't recall ever seeing a metal detector there, but I've never been inside their visitor reception center. The building isn't very big, so I doubt they have one. Maybe a MP has a wand, but that just speculation on my part. I wouldn't say its typical though.

Anyone with a Valid DoD ID card walking there is waived in. You might need a sticker or a pass to get a vehicle on. I haven't been there since 2009, so this information might be a little outdated. But it doesn't take much more than pulling WNY up on google maps to see how easy it would be for a gunman to gain access.

 

[TobiasFunke]

So to be clear...it's being argued that the completely insane person was sane enough to rationally think through this "gun free zone" scenario and plot his mission accordingly. Is that correct?

Did he fire from the 4th floor over looking an atrium and then pull the fire alarm (not confirmed, not sure who pulled it) after shooting two MP's on patrol and disarming? Did he manage to get a shotgun into what was thought to be a secure complex?

...or are you trying to argue he wasn't insane and this was 1 big misunderstanding?

WNY is not a very secure complex. The entrance is a public sidewalk and there are no metal detectors. You just show a valid ID and they wave you in.

So to be clear...it's being argued that the completely insane person was sane enough to rationally think through this "gun free zone" scenario and plot his mission accordingly. Is that correct?

Did he fire from the 4th floor over looking an atrium and then pull the fire alarm (not confirmed, not sure who pulled it) after shooting two MP's on patrol and disarming? Did he manage to get a shotgun into what was thought to be a secure complex?

...or are you trying to argue he wasn't insane and this was 1 big misunderstanding?

WNY is not a very secure complex. The entrance is a public sidewalk and there are no metal detectors. You just show a valid ID and they wave you in.

No metal detectors? Or employees/contractors with a valid ID don't have to go through a metal detector, but visitors do?

I don't recall ever seeing a metal detector there, but I've never been inside their visitor reception center. The building isn't very big, so I doubt they have one. Maybe a MP has a wand, but that just speculation on my part. I wouldn't say its typical though.

Anyone with a Valid DoD ID card walking there is waived in. You might need a sticker or a pass to get a vehicle on. I haven't been there since 2009, so this information might be a little outdated. But it doesn't take much more than pulling WNY up on google maps to see how easy it would be for a gunman to gain access.

He didn't need to work to gain access because he had an ID. But yeah, it would be relatively simple if you wanted to do so and didn't care about killing a few security guards on your way in.

No way you're driving a vehicle on or just walking in without an ID though. It's an enclosed facility on all sides.