PDA

View Full Version : "Active Sniper/Shooter at Washington Navy yard, 0820 today!"



RobotChicken
09-16-2013, 01:59 PM
:spy"4 shot, hunt is on!"

RFScott
09-16-2013, 02:01 PM
Well shit....apparently the shooter is still holed up somewhere in the building too.

RobotChicken
09-16-2013, 02:09 PM
:reporter:"5 shot now..."

RobotChicken
09-16-2013, 02:14 PM
:reporter: "10 now!"

RFScott
09-16-2013, 02:17 PM
Damn...now there are reports of fatalities as well...

RobotChicken
09-16-2013, 02:24 PM
:reporter:"3 shooters now..White House involved now in it. Choppers taking off folks wounded."

RobotChicken
09-16-2013, 02:26 PM
"8 wounded, 4 dead."

RFScott
09-16-2013, 02:28 PM
:reporter:"3 shooters now..White House involved now in it. Choppers taking off folks wounded."

Where did you hear about the three shooters? I haven't seen anything about that yet....if that is true then fuck...

Edit: Just saw it on Washington Post website...apparently one of the shooters is "down."

sandsjames
09-16-2013, 02:29 PM
Is there such a thing as an "inactive shooter"? Wouldn't that just be "guy holding gun sitting still"?

I apologize...just saw the report...thought you were talking about an exercise.

RobotChicken
09-16-2013, 02:33 PM
:frown3:
Is there such a thing as an "inactive shooter"? Wouldn't that just be "guy holding gun sitting still"?

I apologize...just saw the report...thought you were talking about an exercise.

RobotChicken
09-16-2013, 02:41 PM
"10 wounded, 4 dead."

RFScott
09-16-2013, 02:45 PM
Latest reports indicate that one shooter is "down," and another is believed to be pinned down between the third and fourth floor of the building. No news of the whereabouts of the third shooter.

RFScott
09-16-2013, 02:49 PM
Apparently it is now believed that there were two shooters involved in the rampage this morning.

RobotChicken
09-16-2013, 03:29 PM
:reporter: "Second building suspected of another shooter, 2 shooters down but not out, 3rd+ in other building?"

RobotChicken
09-16-2013, 03:39 PM
:reporter: "Obama will give an update in 10 minutes, still no concrete info..1 male officer, 3 female wounded." (more victims en-route to hosp)

RobotChicken
09-16-2013, 03:43 PM
"WNEW 99.1 FM/CBS"

RobotChicken
09-16-2013, 04:09 PM
:reporter: "More dead still at scene, 1 shooter dead, still 'fluid' scene....DC police chief/Obama/etc to speak soon...shooters on death wish? 6 dead, shooter may be ex-navy civilian recently let go, in 50's'; had key card etc, ."

RobotChicken
09-16-2013, 04:27 PM
:reporter: "Chief, Mayor added nothing to events, Obama might say something, word tight on wounded/killed." "Obama said nothing, then went into Syria events."

RobotChicken
09-16-2013, 04:54 PM
:reporter: "Med-Star Hospital said to expect more casualties soon..." (For now info will be on hold till over I would assume)

RFScott
09-16-2013, 06:20 PM
12 Fatalities now, per news conference.

Shit. Hopefully they apprehend the other scumbags that were potentially involved.

RobotChicken
09-16-2013, 06:34 PM
:reporter: "FBI has lead on case, no word on total wounded so far, it's not over till they can conclude 2 more shooters involved or a 'red herring'. 34 year old Texan with a Washington yard employee pass card was killed in the assault. Info leaking out..."

RFScott
09-16-2013, 06:48 PM
According to NBC News, the shooter has been identified as 34 year old Aaron Alexis, formerly of Fort Worth, Texas.

RFScott
09-16-2013, 06:52 PM
Maybe http://www.mugshotsonline.com/texas/fort-worth/aaron-alexis/45611151

It is possible...I found the same mugshot on another website. The age would match up with being arrested around three years ago.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-16-2013, 06:54 PM
Anyone wanna say we need more gun free zones? Military instalations are complete gun free zones. Cant even bring a taser or pepper spray on base usually. Throw a trash can at the shooter they say in the yearly CBT. Feel so bad for the victims that had no way to defend themselves. Shame really.

CNN reporter doesnt remember last time a military instalation had such havoc happen on base....:bigeyes:

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-16-2013, 06:55 PM
On fox I heard witnesses say a black bald man.

They are racist over there...dont listen to them. Afluent White male christian did this all the way because he hates Obama and the healthcare reform for the poor.

RFScott
09-16-2013, 06:56 PM
On fox I heard witnesses say a black bald man.

I saw the same description on the Washington Post, except they also mentioned tall (which he appears to be); he certainly fits the description. Apparently he had just started working as a civilian contractor.

RFScott
09-16-2013, 07:01 PM
Apparently one of the potential suspects has been ruled out as a shooter, reported by Washington Post:


The office of Paul A. Quander Jr., deputy mayor of the District, just tweeted that the white male being sought by authorities has been identified and is not a suspect. Quander’s office confirmed the tweet to us moments ago.

LovedtoFly
09-16-2013, 07:01 PM
CNN reporter doesnt remember last time a military instalation had such havoc happen on base....:bigeyes:

I would say Fort Hood was close!! On a smaller scale!!

BENDER56
09-16-2013, 07:13 PM
I would say Fort Hood was close!! On a smaller scale!!

Ya think?

I suspect WJ used the bug-eye emoticon as if to say, "How much more stupid can the media get?". Or, "How could someone hear this and not automatically think of Ft. Hood?".

RobotChicken
09-16-2013, 07:18 PM
They are racist over there...dont listen to them. Afluent White male christian did this all the way because he hates Obama and the healthcare reform for the poor.

:spy "Stay on topic 'Wild-joker' in my threads!" (As I would on yours)

RobotChicken
09-16-2013, 07:23 PM
:reporter: " Navy issued an 'order to account' (mil/civ/dependents/etc) in DC area. 'Like a man overboard drill'."

RobotChicken
09-16-2013, 07:57 PM
:reporter: "All 'NAVSEA' employees still in lockdown. 1 suspect cleared, second not accounted for, still a mystery ongoing." (Baseball game next door canceled, employees are staging there; Senate shut down)

RFScott
09-16-2013, 08:25 PM
Death toll up to 13 now :(

RobotChicken
09-16-2013, 08:35 PM
:reporter: "Death toll at 13 now; game postponed till tomorrow at 1 pm, double header, LEO still think 1 more involved, FBI is very active in this case, will not release info on gunman, 12+ wounded, 2nd gunman? they don't know, FBI will give next briefing at 1800 hrs EST. "

RFScott
09-16-2013, 08:53 PM
Maybe http://www.mugshotsonline.com/texas/fort-worth/aaron-alexis/45611151

According to this article from the Washington Post, it appears that is indeed the shooter: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/aaron-alexis-34-is-dead-gunman-in-navy-yard-shooting-authorities-say/2013/09/16/dcf431ce-1f07-11e3-8459-657e0c72fec8_story.html?hpid=z3

3389

garhkal
09-16-2013, 09:06 PM
Anyone wanna say we need more gun free zones? Military instalations are complete gun free zones. Cant even bring a taser or pepper spray on base usually. Throw a trash can at the shooter they say in the yearly CBT. Feel so bad for the victims that had no way to defend themselves. Shame really.

CNN reporter doesnt remember last time a military instalation had such havoc happen on base....:bigeyes:

Yea.. And DC is one of the more stringent gun control states we have. Yet this Aaron owned a rifle. Guess gun control does not work.

GoatDriver57
09-16-2013, 09:33 PM
Shooters are finding out the US military base is as defenceless as any school campus. People clusters, side arm weapons are in cages, building far across the base.
It'll take two, three lessons before the management catches on that secret is out, for the disgruntle insiders and outsiders.

fufu
09-16-2013, 09:48 PM
All the more reason to allow concealed carry on base. Of all the places I frequent, the base is the place I feel most vunerable to an active shooter. And, its the only "gun-free" zone that I frequent as well. Perhaps I need to say F-it and carry anyway. The active shooter training is BS.

Silverback
09-16-2013, 10:07 PM
All the more reason to allow concealed carry on base. Of all the places I frequent, the base is the place I feel most vunerable to an active shooter. And, its the only "gun-free" zone that I frequent as well. Perhaps I need to say F-it and carry anyway. The active shooter training is BS.

One hopes that those who carry weapons are caught by the gate guards. I realize it is not practical to check every vehicle entering the base (Unless we are in FPCON Charlie). But even then the lines back up and that tempo cannot be maintained for a a long duration. I agree that the active shooter training is not very practical. Just listen to CNN. The people who were interviewed said "they ran". They did not go into a room and lock the door like the training says. That's probably why they survived.

SomeRandomGuy
09-16-2013, 10:14 PM
All the more reason to allow concealed carry on base. Of all the places I frequent, the base is the place I feel most vunerable to an active shooter. And, its the only "gun-free" zone that I frequent as well. Perhaps I need to say F-it and carry anyway. The active shooter training is BS.

I am not really sure about this. I have encountered more than my fair share of people in the military who have anger issues. I wouldn't feel any safer if I knew anyone on base could potentially have a gun in their car which they could retrieve if you pissed them off.

The other issue is for cops responding to an active shooter incident. Let's say that a customer walks in to finance only to find out he has a $10,000 debt. He becomes irate and argues with some of the NCOs. He finally leaves but it is obvious he is not happy. He goes out to his car and grabs his gun. He comes back into finance and pulls his gun. Fortunately two NCOs in finance have their guns behind the counter. A 3 way gun battle breaks out and everyone scatters. Multiple people call 911 and police are given 3 different descriptions of who the active shooter is. All are described as wearing military style clothing and different witness are in disagreement on who fired the first shot. What are the police supposed to do in this situation? They also have to factor in that even more people potentially could be inside and match the suspects description who also have a weapon and are armed.

tiredretiredE7
09-17-2013, 01:00 AM
I am not really sure about this. I have encountered more than my fair share of people in the military who have anger issues. I wouldn't feel any safer if I knew anyone on base could potentially have a gun in their car which they could retrieve if you pissed them off.

The other issue is for cops responding to an active shooter incident. Let's say that a customer walks in to finance only to find out he has a $10,000 debt. He becomes irate and argues with some of the NCOs. He finally leaves but it is obvious he is not happy. He goes out to his car and grabs his gun. He comes back into finance and pulls his gun. Fortunately two NCOs in finance have their guns behind the counter. A 3 way gun battle breaks out and everyone scatters. Multiple people call 911 and police are given 3 different descriptions of who the active shooter is. All are described as wearing military style clothing and different witness are in disagreement on who fired the first shot. What are the police supposed to do in this situation? They also have to factor in that even more people potentially could be inside and match the suspects description who also have a weapon and are armed.

Great points. The Police will put every potential shooter down on the ground and cuff all potential shooters until the scene is cleared. Most concealed weapons classes teach people to put their guns down as soon as the Police arrive on scene or when the Active shooter is neutralized otherwise they will have a very high probability of being shot by responding Police. It is true there will be confusion but an armed citizen shooting an Active shooter is a much better outcome. I would rather respond to an Active shooter knowing that the suspect may already be down than being amped up clearing rooms looking for the Active shooter.

SomeRandomGuy
09-17-2013, 01:26 AM
Great points. The Police will put every potential shooter down on the ground and cuff all potential shooters until the scene is cleared. Most concealed weapons classes teach people to put their guns down as soon as the Police arrive on scene or when the Active shooter is neutralized otherwise they will have a very high probability of being shot by responding Police. It is true there will be confusion but an armed citizen shooting an Active shooter is a much better outcome. I would rather respond to an Active shooter knowing that the suspect may already be down than being amped up clearing rooms looking for the Active shooter.

There are two different links on CNN this weekend about police responding to calls. In one they killed an unarmed guy because he ran at them and in another they wounded two innocent bystanders when a suicidal person pointed his finger at them mimicking a gun. I respect the job cops do but adding more guns to an already tense situation does not always help. Especially when you factor in that just about everyone on a military base is wearing the same uniform. I much prefer the idea of police and the perpetrator being the only armed ones as long as they respond quickly.

Vrake
09-17-2013, 01:57 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2421980/REVEALED-Gunman-34-murdered-TWELVE-injured-15-Washington-Navy-Yard-rampage-decorated-petty-officer-left-military-2011-previous-gun-charge.html

He was an FTS (active reserve) when he got in trouble.

The 2nd gun charge for "accidentally putting a round through the ceiling" is what got him his final DRB, mast then shown the door.

***edit I skimmed and didn't realize the info in the link I posted was here already my bad. Alcohol was a factor in at least the ceiling shot though.

Bunch
09-17-2013, 02:48 AM
All the more reason to allow concealed carry on base. Of all the places I frequent, the base is the place I feel most vunerable to an active shooter. And, its the only "gun-free" zone that I frequent as well. Perhaps I need to say F-it and carry anyway. The active shooter training is BS.

Yeah... Thats clearly what we need... More guns... Anytime... Anywhere...

SomeRandomGuy
09-17-2013, 03:09 AM
Yeah... Thats clearly what we need... More guns... Anytime... Anywhere...

I wish this country could have a rational conversation about gun control. Just looking at this case we have a guy who was involved in an incident where he shot someone's tires out and then a different time where he claims he was "cleaning his gun" and shot through his ceiling. In my opinion if you are this wreckless with a gun you lose your right to own one. Lets treat it the same way we would treat someone who is a terrible/dangerous driver. Why can't we take a sensible approach to gun control and find some sort of balance with background checks?

Bunch
09-17-2013, 04:00 AM
I wish this country could have a rational conversation about gun control. Just looking at this case we have a guy who was involved in an incident where he shot someone's tires out and then a different time where he claims he was "cleaning his gun" and shot through his ceiling. In my opinion if you are this wreckless with a gun you lose your right to own one. Lets treat it the same way we would treat someone who is a terrible/dangerous driver. Why can't we take a sensible approach to gun control and find some sort of balance with background checks?

Because everyone should be able to own a gun!! Period!! Is the 2nd Amendment bro'!! Even my dog has a gun!! If you dont like it pack up and move to Canada where the chances to be killed by a gun will reduce by 70%... But that will make you a pussy!!!

garhkal
09-17-2013, 04:13 AM
Aaron Alexis was arrested in Seattle in 2004 for an "anger-fueled" shooting, according to the Seattle police department.
The Seattle police blog confirms that Alexis was arrested after shooting out the tires of a man's vehicle.
Following his arrest, Alexis told detectives he perceived he had been “mocked” by construction workers the morning of the incident and said they had “disrespected him.” Alexis also claimed he had an anger-fueled “blackout,” and could not remember firing his gun at the victims’ vehicle until an hour after the incident.
Alexis also told police he was present during “the tragic events of September 11, 2001″ and described “how those events had disturbed him.”
Detectives later spoke with Alexis’ father, who lived in New York at the time, who told police Alexis had anger management problems associated with PTSD, and that Alexis had been an active participant in rescue attempts on September 11th, 2001.

Here the police report: http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Alexis.pdf

he had a Glock .45

-----------------------------

Records show Alexis was involved in a two-car collision on northbound Interstate 405 in March 2005.
Records show he had no insurance at the time. He was fined $600.

---------------------------------

He was an aviation electrician and he was detached from service for a series of misconduct issues, a Navy official said.

According to 3 separate news sites he had 2 gun related arrests (but was never charged? Wonder why>!> was given a "General discharge" but yet still had a secret security clearance.. WTF!


I wish this country could have a rational conversation about gun control. Just looking at this case we have a guy who was involved in an incident where he shot someone's tires out and then a different time where he claims he was "cleaning his gun" and shot through his ceiling. In my opinion if you are this wreckless with a gun you lose your right to own one. Lets treat it the same way we would treat someone who is a terrible/dangerous driver. Why can't we take a sensible approach to gun control and find some sort of balance with background checks?

Not sure that would do anything. Look at the # of drunk drivers still on the roads after their (in some cases) 3rd offense. Look at the # of people pulled over and arrested for driving on suspended licenses, out of date licenses, etc.

Okie
09-17-2013, 06:16 AM
Because everyone should be able to own a gun!! Period!! Is the 2nd Amendment bro'!! Even my dog has a gun!! If you dont like it pack up and move to Canada where the chances to be killed by a gun will reduce by 70%... But that will make you a pussy!!!


Or you could live on a military base (which is gun-free except for cops) in Washington, DC (where there's a stringent permitting process, standard capacity mags are banned (unless you're David Gregory), and you're not allowed to carry outside your home). Oh, wait...

I guess there's always Chicago. They've got some pretty stiff gun laws.

Bunch
09-17-2013, 06:56 AM
Or you could live on a military base (which is gun-free except for cops) in Washington, DC (where there's a stringent permitting process, standard capacity mags are banned (unless you're David Gregory), and you're not allowed to carry outside your home). Oh, wait...

I guess there's always Chicago. They've got some pretty stiff gun laws.

I know!! These people... Don't they realize that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a..... Oh nevermind... That argument don't work anymore....got to get a new one...

Okie
09-17-2013, 07:03 AM
Considering I saw a whole bunch of cops involved who were NOT unarmed, I'd say, "Yeah, we called good guys with guns to stop the bad guy with a gun." It's a matter of whether you want to be responsible for your own defense or if you want to totally contract it out and depend on somebody else.

SomeRandomGuy
09-17-2013, 12:22 PM
Not sure that would do anything. Look at the # of drunk drivers still on the roads after their (in some cases) 3rd offense. Look at the # of people pulled over and arrested for driving on suspended licenses, out of date licenses, etc.

I am not saying it would have prevented this incident but I still think we should do more to limit access to guns for ceratin types of people. I understand your point though but we do have laws on the books to prevent the thinsg you mentioned. If a judge wants they can impound the vehicle of anyone caught driving under suspension. That even includes a vehicle belonging to someone else if the person knew that the offender could not legally drive it but let them use it anyways. I just think that we could have some sort of national licensing system for gun owners. At the very least we could make them prove they have at least some guns afety training before we sell bullets to them. Of course as soon as you mention something like this we instantly get the conspiracy theorists who think that as soon as they register their gun the government will try to confiscate it.

RobotChicken
09-17-2013, 12:43 PM
:spy 'PilotOnLine.com:national' 4 victims careers highlighted here."

Absinthe Anecdote
09-17-2013, 01:31 PM
I wish this country could have a rational conversation about gun control. Just looking at this case we have a guy who was involved in an incident where he shot someone's tires out and then a different time where he claims he was "cleaning his gun" and shot through his ceiling. In my opinion if you are this wreckless with a gun you lose your right to own one. Lets treat it the same way we would treat someone who is a terrible/dangerous driver. Why can't we take a sensible approach to gun control and find some sort of balance with background checks?

I agree with you but I still think a person would still be able to find a gun if they want to go on a rampage.

If you are willing to kill 12 people chances are you are willing to steal a few guns.

I was listening to Sean Hannity and he is using this incident and the Ft Hood incident as a reason to allow service members to carry personal weapons on base and by extension carry permits for everyone, everywhere. That is incredibly naive in my opinion. First, every service member isn't a trained law enforcement officer or even proficient with a weapon.

Encouraging the general public to strap on a weapon is such a bad idea because even law abiding, normal citizens do dumb things. I think it would cause even more of these rampages, plus scores of accidental discharges and verbal altercations that erupt into gunfire. The last thing we need is a bunch of untrained wannabe cops running around over-reacting to everything.

We already have cops walking around who are dumbasses but at least most police departments make an effort to weed the idiots out. I just don't see the need to invite every Barney Fife and Steve Urkele in the general public to strap on a .44 and play Dirty Harry.

It is a dumb thing to call for in my opinion.

sandsjames
09-17-2013, 02:00 PM
I wish this country could have a rational conversation about gun control. Just looking at this case we have a guy who was involved in an incident where he shot someone's tires out and then a different time where he claims he was "cleaning his gun" and shot through his ceiling. In my opinion if you are this wreckless with a gun you lose your right to own one. Lets treat it the same way we would treat someone who is a terrible/dangerous driver. Why can't we take a sensible approach to gun control and find some sort of balance with background checks?

If you're wreckless with your vote, do you also lose that right?

sandsjames
09-17-2013, 02:03 PM
Because everyone should be able to own a gun!! Period!! Is the 2nd Amendment bro'!! Even my dog has a gun!! If you dont like it pack up and move to Canada where the chances to be killed by a gun will reduce by 70%... But that will make you a pussy!!!

My step son is Canadian...lives in Canada. Owns four guns (2 SKS, 2 shotguns). He routinely has these guns in his possession. So I'm not sure your stats relate to the ability to own/carry a weapon. I think they have more to do with the culture of people who carry them.

Bunch
09-17-2013, 02:05 PM
Encouraging the general public to strap on a weapon is such a bad idea because even law abiding, normal citizens do dumb things. I think it would cause even more of these rampages, plus scores of accidental discharges and verbal altercations that erupt into gunfire. The last thing we need is a bunch of untrained wannabe cops running around over-reacting to everything.

We already have cops walking around who are dumbasses but at least most police departments make an effort to weed the idiots out. I just don't see the need to invite every Barney Fife and Steve Urkele in the general public to strap on a .44 and play Dirty Harry.

It is a dumb thing to call for in my opinion.
George Zimmerman anyone??

Chief Bosun
09-17-2013, 02:06 PM
I'll admit right now that I have not read all the pages on this thread. I have been innundated by the information, accurate and inaccurate, posted by the media as well as promulgated by NAVSEA HQ. I do know two folks on detail at NAVSEA and one that just reported for work there about a week ago. Fortunately, they have not popped on the list.

Yes, the gun issue is important in light of this person's history. However, in this specific instance is the very lax security in the region is also very worthy of discussion.

Back in the day (and here I am talking pre-11 Sept. 2001) it was not unusual to see random vehicle and personal searches during the day at odd times, including the drug dog. Now, it seems you almost have to be doing something very stupid to warrant anything other than "have a nice day" from the rent-a-cops at the gates in Military as well as Naval District Washington.

Would an unanounced search yesterday morning have caught the guy? Maybe, maybe not. Would him knowing there would be unannounced random searches conducted daily have made him think twice? I don't know. Would it be better than the current state of affairs, which appears to be zero tolerance for having th nerve to check what folks are bringing in and taking out? In my humble opinion, yes.

sandsjames
09-17-2013, 02:09 PM
George Zimmerman anyone??

Yep...perfect example. If he wouldn't have had his gun, he might be dead today. Though I think that's a different topic for a different thread (which already exists).

Bunch
09-17-2013, 02:16 PM
Yep...perfect example. If he wouldn't have had his gun, he might be dead today. Though I think that's a different topic for a different thread (which already exists).

Your right he might be dead....what he did though was very stupid.... any how carry on....guns!!! We need more of those...any time... any where...

sandsjames
09-17-2013, 03:23 PM
Your right he might be dead....what he did though was very stupid.... any how carry on....guns!!! We need more of those...any time... any where...

No way man...no way. What we need to do is take guns away...FEWER GUNS...FEWER GUNS...that'll stop crazy people from getting their hands on them.

SomeRandomGuy
09-17-2013, 03:25 PM
I'll admit right now that I have not read all the pages on this thread. I have been innundated by the information, accurate and inaccurate, posted by the media as well as promulgated by NAVSEA HQ. I do know two folks on detail at NAVSEA and one that just reported for work there about a week ago. Fortunately, they have not popped on the list.

Yes, the gun issue is important in light of this person's history. However, in this specific instance is the very lax security in the region is also very worthy of discussion.

Back in the day (and here I am talking pre-11 Sept. 2001) it was not unusual to see random vehicle and personal searches during the day at odd times, including the drug dog. Now, it seems you almost have to be doing something very stupid to warrant anything other than "have a nice day" from the rent-a-cops at the gates in Military as well as Naval District Washington.

Would an unanounced search yesterday morning have caught the guy? Maybe, maybe not. Would him knowing there would be unannounced random searches conducted daily have made him think twice? I don't know. Would it be better than the current state of affairs, which appears to be zero tolerance for having th nerve to check what folks are bringing in and taking out? In my humble opinion, yes.

When I was a young Amn we had members of our unit get caught coming onto base with AR-15s. It was exercise week and they had been issued AR-15s from the armory (no bullets though). During a break in the exercise they decided to take the GOV off base to McDonalds. They brought their weapons with them. As they were coming back on to base they showed their ID and were about to be waved right on through. The Amn driving the GOV tried to flirt with the female SP working the gate. When she took a second look she noticed the weapons laying in plain sight in the back of the van. It all went downhill from there. I agree with you security can be pretty lax but I think a lot of it is due to complacency as opposed to a lack of protocol. Too bad Robert F. Dorr isn't around these days or we could have the discussion about how he should be allowed on any base even without an ID since his taxes pay for the base.

Robert F. Dorr
09-17-2013, 04:56 PM
Jut as the 9/11 attack proved that airport screening is useless and should be scrapped, the Navy Yard shooting proved that so-called "photo ID" is useless and should be scrapped. We would be far safer if anyone would walk aboard an airliner or drive onto a base without screening --- just as we used to be able to do.

P.S. All nineteen 9/11 hijackers used so-called "photo IDs" in their real names.

sandsjames
09-17-2013, 05:02 PM
Or...he and Trayvon might both be alive (more probably, IMO).

Possible, but we'll never know for sure.

RobotChicken
09-17-2013, 05:12 PM
Jut as the 9/11 attack proved that airport screening is useless and should be scrapped, the Navy Yard shooting proved that so-called "photo ID" is useless and should be scrapped. We would be far safer if anyone would walk aboard an airliner or drive onto a base without screening --- just as we used to be able to do.

P.S. All nineteen 9/11 hijackers used so-called "photo IDs" in their real names.

:spy "DNA, implant will be the 'new' ID of the future 'RFD', from starting your car, entering your house, work-time check-in, and can opener use for 'dog-food'. TV comp use? LOL!!"

TJMAC77SP
09-17-2013, 06:06 PM
Jut as the 9/11 attack proved that airport screening is useless and should be scrapped, the Navy Yard shooting proved that so-called "photo ID" is useless and should be scrapped. We would be far safer if anyone would walk aboard an airliner or drive onto a base without screening --- just as we used to be able to do.

P.S. All nineteen 9/11 hijackers used so-called "photo IDs" in their real names.

That was easy...............just use the right bait is the trick I guess

garhkal
09-17-2013, 06:28 PM
Considering I saw a whole bunch of cops involved who were NOT unarmed, I'd say, "Yeah, we called good guys with guns to stop the bad guy with a gun." It's a matter of whether you want to be responsible for your own defense or if you want to totally contract it out and depend on somebody else.

And that seems to be the mantra of the Anti gun crowd these days. Everyone should have to depend on the cops to defend them. Not defend themselves.


I am not saying it would have prevented this incident but I still think we should do more to limit access to guns for ceratin types of people. I understand your point though but we do have laws on the books to prevent the thinsg you mentioned. If a judge wants they can impound the vehicle of anyone caught driving under suspension. That even includes a vehicle belonging to someone else if the person knew that the offender could not legally drive it but let them use it anyways. I just think that we could have some sort of national licensing system for gun owners. At the very least we could make them prove they have at least some guns afety training before we sell bullets to them. Of course as soon as you mention something like this we instantly get the conspiracy theorists who think that as soon as they register their gun the government will try to confiscate it.

And i have no issue there. Its just how do we enforce it? We have laws on the books that do give the police/courts the OK to impound vehicles, but i have never heard of it being used against DUIs etc (only drugs).


My step son is Canadian...lives in Canada. Owns four guns (2 SKS, 2 shotguns). He routinely has these guns in his possession. So I'm not sure your stats relate to the ability to own/carry a weapon. I think they have more to do with the culture of people who carry them.

Exactly. I know people still living in England and some in Australia. If those 2 countries suddenly went to allowing people to own guns as frequent as we do, it would NOT all of a suddenly mean a rise in the shooting incidents over there.
So its NOT the prevalence of guns.



Back in the day (and here I am talking pre-11 Sept. 2001) it was not unusual to see random vehicle and personal searches during the day at odd times, including the drug dog. Now, it seems you almost have to be doing something very stupid to warrant anything other than "have a nice day" from the rent-a-cops at the gates in Military as well as Naval District Washington.

Would an unanounced search yesterday morning have caught the guy? Maybe, maybe not. Would him knowing there would be unannounced random searches conducted daily have made him think twice? I don't know. Would it be better than the current state of affairs, which appears to be zero tolerance for having th nerve to check what folks are bringing in and taking out? In my humble opinion, yes.

Good point Chief. WE have seen to gotten away from training and holding the gate guards to the rules. I do remember those vehicles searches, many a time. The 'civilians' we use now a days imo not only are costing us more than using our own security forces (which every branch has) but they also don't do as much as our forces would.


Good point. I work with a number of contractors who are members at the base Rod & Gun club. They are allowed to transport their guns onto base to go to the R&G...as far as I know, they are allowed to bring them in their vehicle, and leave them in their vehicle during work if they are going to the R&G after work.

Which i find strange since us MILITARY members are not. We can bring our gun on base if we are going to the armory (to leave it there) or taking it to our house. BUT we can't leave it in the car if we are 'planning on hitting the range or club after work'.. Which to me makes NO sense. WE restrict our forces like crazy, but give civilian contractors all this leway?


Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

In hindsight, I'm thinking his doctors or whoever is involved in hiring him and granting him a clearance are going to come under a lot of scrutiny for allowing this mass murderer access to the base with a CAC and a clearance while he was undergoing mental health treatment, etc.

OTOH, a lot of people undergo mental health treatment...and one of the biggest problems we have with the people who need it getting treated, is the stigma associated with getting treatment and how it can cause you to lose your clearance, your job, etc.

Okay, so the voices thing seems to be pretty serious...but other than that...what role should someone being treated for mental health play in granted clearances, etc....and if any, how then do you get people to go to treatment knowing it could cost them their jobs or clearances, etc.

Is the stigma bad, or is the stigma necessary? I don't know...preliminary reports are that there is no way anyone could have predicted this guy would shoot up the building, but the commentators are all outraged that he was given access.

I'd rather he lose his clearance (or anyone) while they get treated for mental issues, and ONCE cleared by said medical professionals, get it back.

Pullinteeth
09-17-2013, 06:29 PM
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

In hindsight, I'm thinking his doctors or whoever is involved in hiring him and granting him a clearance are going to come under a lot of scrutiny for allowing this mass murderer access to the base with a CAC and a clearance while he was undergoing mental health treatment, etc.

OTOH, a lot of people undergo mental health treatment...and one of the biggest problems we have with the people who need it getting treated, is the stigma associated with getting treatment and how it can cause you to lose your clearance, your job, etc.

Okay, so the voices thing seems to be pretty serious...but other than that...what role should someone being treated for mental health play in granted clearances, etc....and if any, how then do you get people to go to treatment knowing it could cost them their jobs or clearances, etc.

Is the stigma bad, or is the stigma necessary? I don't know...preliminary reports are that there is no way anyone could have predicted this guy would shoot up the building, but the commentators are all outraged that he was given access.

How about the fact that he had TWO previous gun charges? Both "violent" crimes one of which resulted in him getting kicked out of the Navy? I would have thought the FIRST one would have precluded him from getting into the Navy in the first place (though if he wasn't found guilty...). I would also have thought that the SECOND one would have prevented him from getting a civil service job with the Navy and/or a clearance...

Guess I would have thought wrong huh?

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-17-2013, 06:43 PM
Yea.. And DC is one of the more stringent gun control states we have. Yet this Aaron owned a rifle. Guess gun control does not work.

He owened an "AR-15 shotgun" according to pierse morgan. But sadly, an AR wasnt used in this killing spree.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-17-2013, 06:49 PM
Considering I saw a whole bunch of cops involved who were NOT unarmed, I'd say, "Yeah, we called good guys with guns to stop the bad guy with a gun." It's a matter of whether you want to be responsible for your own defense or if you want to totally contract it out and depend on somebody else.

When seconds count, cops are minutes away.

sandsjames
09-17-2013, 06:56 PM
He owened an "AR-15 shotgun" according to pierse morgan. But sadly, an AR wasnt used in this killing spree.

Gotta watch out for those dangerous AR-15 shotguns...they're the worst...especially when you aren't carrying them.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-17-2013, 06:58 PM
I agree with you but I still think a person would still be able to find a gun if they want to go on a rampage.

If you are willing to kill 12 people chances are you are willing to steal a few guns.

I was listening to Sean Hannity and he is using this incident and the Ft Hood incident as a reason to allow service members to carry personal weapons on base and by extension carry permits for everyone, everywhere. That is incredibly naive in my opinion. First, every service member isn't a trained law enforcement officer or even proficient with a weapon. Then go back to having the bi yearly training for active duty and make it an OPTION (free will in the military?) for military members to cary their personal weapons on base. But we arent even allowed pepper spray or tasers. We are worse than a "gun-free" zone, we are a defense-free zone. We have to throw a trash can if we see the shooter coming at us. :squintfinger:


Encouraging the general public to strap on a weapon is such a bad idea because even law abiding, normal citizens do dumb things. I think it would cause even more of these rampages, plus scores of accidental discharges and verbal altercations that erupt into gunfire. The last thing we need is a bunch of untrained wannabe cops running around over-reacting to everything.No, actually. Thats like saying because Russia and Amirica have nukes, we will be using them all the time. People arent going to let a verbal altercation erupt into a gun fight, especially if both are packing. You people really think by just having a gun turns a bad situation violent is beyond normal rationale. Encouraging those that want to carry to go to training first prevents the accidental discharges, and how to deescolate the altercation without guns.


We already have cops walking around who are dumbasses but at least most police departments make an effort to weed the idiots out. I just don't see the need to invite every Barney Fife and Steve Urkele in the general public to strap on a .44 and play Dirty Harry.What percentage of cops are actually killing people unjustifiably?


It is a dumb thing to call for in my opinion.
Thats because you aren't listening to him. He doesnt think everyone should have a gun, but if you dont want one, be trained to use it.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-17-2013, 07:00 PM
George Zimmerman anyone??

Prime example of someone who was saved because he carried for self protection. Thank you for the mention.

Bunch
09-17-2013, 07:04 PM
Prime example of someone who was saved because he carried for self protection. Thank you for the mention.

That.... and that morons who cant fight and start looking for one should buy a gun too..back on topic!!...GUNS!!!! We need more of those...anytime..anywhere...24/7...like 7-11...in schools...in hospitals...in Chucky Cheese....EVERYWHERE....

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-17-2013, 07:09 PM
That.... and that morons who cant fight and start looking for one should buy a gun too..back on topic!!...GUNS!!!! We need more of those...anytime..anywhere...24/7...like 7-11...in schools...in hospitals...in Chucky Cheese....EVERYWHERE....

Sooooo. Let go with the ban on all guns. How does this come to furition? How do you disarm the country, state, county or even a city? Get all guns out of the hands of civilians AND cops AND military alike. Give me this solution that takes all guns away from everyone, and I will be all for it.

Should we just write a law saying you cant murder anyone?

fufu
09-17-2013, 07:12 PM
Shooters are finding out the US military base is as defenceless as any school campus. People clusters, side arm weapons are in cages, building far across the base.
It'll take two, three lessons before the management catches on that secret is out, for the disgruntle insiders and outsiders.

^^^This.

Bunch
09-17-2013, 07:13 PM
Sooooo. Let go with the ban on all guns. How does this come to furition? How do you disarm the country, state, county or even a city? Get all guns out of the hands of civilians AND cops AND military alike. Give me this solution that takes all guns away from everyone, and I will be all for it.

Should we just write a law saying you cant murder anyone?

Are you freaking out of your mind bro'? Is the constitution bro'? 2nd amendment!!! We can touch that!!!...guns are here to stay!!!...we might kill each other until there is no one alive but the constitution will leave forever...pristine and virgin...if you don't like it move to Canada... we are the US of GUNS!!!

Pullinteeth
09-17-2013, 07:16 PM
Gotta watch out for those dangerous AR-15 shotguns...they're the worst...especially when you aren't carrying them.

I didn't even know Colt made an AR-15 shotgun...

Rainmaker
09-17-2013, 07:17 PM
Peoples all need to just calm the hell down and wait until we're told what to believe by the authorities.

fufu
09-17-2013, 07:19 PM
Yeah... Thats clearly what we need... More guns... Anytime... Anywhere...

Mass shootings continue to happen in "gun-free" zones. Have you ever heard of a mass shooting at gun ranges? gun shows? When the crazies know that nobody on base, hell even our gate guards have tazers now, don't carry then it is open season.

Secondly, if someone were going to start shooting people on base, they'd more than likely are on active duty or recently separated. Either way, access to the base is easy and we are all easy targets.

RobotChicken
09-17-2013, 07:19 PM
Gotta watch out for those dangerous AR-15 shotguns...they're the worst...especially when you aren't carrying them.

:spy "AR-15 'shotguns' are known as the M26 MASS (Modular Accessory Shotgun System)."

Bunch
09-17-2013, 07:22 PM
Mass shootings continue to happen in "gun-free" zones. Have you ever heard of a mass shooting at gun ranges? gun shows? When the crazies know that nobody on base, hell even our gate guards have tazers now, don't carry then it is open season.

Secondly, if someone were going to start shooting people on base, they'd more than likely are on active duty or recently separated. Either way, access to the base is easy and we are all easy targets.

Yeah we need more GUNS at military installations, we need to protect our GUNS with more GUNS..better yet lets get tanks...tanks beat GUNS any day of the week!!! No mass shootings happen at places with guns...only in Forth Hood and the Navy Yard...but that doesn't count because we didn't had ENOUGH guns...so now we need more!!! But don' touch mine!!!

Pullinteeth
09-17-2013, 07:36 PM
:spy "AR-15 'shotguns' are known as the M26 MASS (Modular Accessory Shotgun System)."

Those are AR-15 STYLE shotguns. Colt owns the AR-15 brand for it to be an AR-15 shotgun, Colt would have to make it or license it.

sandsjames
09-17-2013, 07:40 PM
The shotgun thing was a Piers Morgan thing...

Pullinteeth
09-17-2013, 07:40 PM
Mass shootings continue to happen in "gun-free" zones. Have you ever heard of a mass shooting at gun ranges? gun shows? When the crazies know that nobody on base, hell even our gate guards have tazers now, don't carry then it is open season.

Secondly, if someone were going to start shooting people on base, they'd more than likely are on active duty or recently separated. Either way, access to the base is easy and we are all easy targets.

Double homocide count?

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-man-charged-fatal-gun-range-shootings-author-191318761.html

Stalwart
09-17-2013, 07:54 PM
Jut as the 9/11 attack proved that airport screening is useless and should be scrapped, the Navy Yard shooting proved that so-called "photo ID" is useless and should be scrapped. We would be far safer if anyone would walk aboard an airliner or drive onto a base without screening --- just as we used to be able to do.

P.S. All nineteen 9/11 hijackers used so-called "photo IDs" in their real names.

In this case it would seem the credentialing process that didn't catch that he was seeking psychiatric care would be the failure.

grimreaper
09-17-2013, 08:12 PM
The shotgun thing was a Piers Morgan thing...

Wait, didn't Joe Biden tell people to go out and get shotguns?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia4csoQLvGY

Z1911
09-17-2013, 08:13 PM
There is one reason, and ONLY one reason as many people died yesterday as there were: 18 USC § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930)

I'm not saying no one would have been killed or wounded, but I'm damn sure saying that that many did not have to die. If those who have been properly credentialed by proper authority to carry concealed did not have their RTKBA stripped from them at the entry point, I am saying the entire event would have probably been over and done within the first 90 seconds of that asshole commencing fire.

And puleeezzzzeeee, don't give me that chicken little response of:
- "How would the first responders (police, security, etc.) know who the bad guy was vs who the good guys were?" First off, get it straight: They wouldn't be "first" responders. They would have been second or third responders. The good guys, who would have brought the actual, live, active shooting to an end within about 90 seconds would have been the first responders. And they would have re-holstered their weapons before the second responders even arrived on scene, so that would not have been an issue.

I'm what you would call an 'average' shooter, and I know I can place at least two magazine's worth of rounds (17 - 27 rounds total, depending on the caliber being carried that day) into a human sized target at a range of 0 - 75 feet within 90 seconds. And that's under control, not using the 'spray and pray' method so popular with many LEOs (recent NYPD and North Carolina news articles).

Before you start crying me a river, remember this:
A sign declaring a "gun-free zone" is the same thing as a saying "open season" in a target rich environment. It's time for CHLs to be allowed to have the tools available to them to defend themselves and others in the (federal) workplace.

Pullinteeth
09-17-2013, 08:20 PM
In this case it would seem the credentialing process that didn't catch that he was seeking psychiatric care would be the failure.

Or the he had TWO prior gun charges....

Bunch
09-17-2013, 08:22 PM
There is one reason, and ONLY one reason as many people died yesterday as there were: 18 USC § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930)

I'm not saying no one would have been killed or wounded, but I'm damn sure saying that that many did not have to die. If those who have been properly credentialed by proper authority to carry concealed did not have their RTKBA stripped from them at the entry point, I am saying the entire event would have probably been over and done within the first 90 seconds of that asshole commencing fire.

And puleeezzzzeeee, don't give me that chicken little response of:
- "How would the first responders (police, security, etc.) know who the bad guy was vs who the good guys were?" First off, get it straight: They wouldn't be "first" responders. They would have been second or third responders. The good guys, who would have brought the actual, live, active shooting to an end within about 90 seconds would have been the first responders. And they would have re-holstered their weapons before the second responders even arrived on scene, so that would not have been an issue.

I'm what you would call an 'average' shooter, and I know I can place at least two magazine's worth of rounds (17 - 27 rounds total, depending on the caliber being carried that day) into a human sized target at a range of 0 - 75 feet within 90 seconds. And that's under control, not using the 'spray and pray' method so popular with many LEOs (recent NYPD and North Carolina news articles).

Before you start crying me a river, remember this:
A sign declaring a "gun-free zone" is the same thing as a saying "open season" in a target rich environment. It's time for CHLs to be allowed to have the tools available to them to defend themselves and others in the (federal) workplace.


I've being saying it all day!!! MOOOOARRRR GUNS!! GUNS for the people!!! it doesnt matter that we already owe 40% of the worlds privately owned weapons!!! We need and demand MOAAARRRR GUNS!!!

sandsjames
09-17-2013, 08:25 PM
I've being saying it all day!!! MOOOOARRRR GUNS!! GUNS for the people!!! it doesnt matter that we already owe 40% of the worlds privately owned weapons!!! We need and demand MOAAARRRR GUNS!!!

Why don't you say it in a different language. You've only screamed this in English. Maybe if you try another language you won't sound so unintelligent.

Bunch
09-17-2013, 08:27 PM
Why don't you say it in a different language. You've only screamed this in English. Maybe if you try another language you won't sound so unintelligent.

MASSSS PISTOLAS!!!! pistolas para todossss!!!!!!!

sandsjames
09-17-2013, 08:29 PM
MASSSS PISTOLAS!!!! pistolas para todossss!!!!!!!

There you go...now you don't sound nearly as condescending. Shouldn't you have an upside down exclamation mark in there???

Bunch
09-17-2013, 08:30 PM
Can't find the symbol...

grimreaper
09-17-2013, 08:32 PM
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee139/parrotlegal/political/1237622_598867450151495_304815317_n_zps9ade434f.jp g

RFScott
09-17-2013, 08:57 PM
Apparently the shooter was really starting to lose his shit a few months ago. From CNN:


Aaron Alexis -- the man authorities say is responsible for killing 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard -- told Newport, Rhode Island, police last month that an individual "had sent three people to follow him and to talk, keep him awake and send vibrations into his body," according to a police report.
According to that report, which is related to an investigation into a harassment complaint at a Marriott hotel in Newport, Alexis said he first heard the people "talking to him through a wall" at a Residence Inn in Middletown, Rhode Island, where he'd been staying. He packed up and went to an unidentified hotel on a Navy base in Newport where he heard the same voices talking to him.
He moved to a third hotel, the Marriott, according to the police report. There, Alexis first told authorities that the three individuals spoke to him through the floor and then the ceiling. Alexis said the individuals were using "some sort of microwave machine" that sent "vibrations through the ceiling, penetrating his body so he cannot fall asleep."
He told authorities, according to the police report, that "he does not have a history of mental illness in his family and that he never had any sort of mental episode."

Here is a link to NPR, which has obtained a redacted copy of the original police report: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/17/223402913/who-was-aaron-alexis-records-friends-offer-confusing-clues

Bunch
09-17-2013, 09:07 PM
Apparently the shooter was really starting to lose his shit a few months ago. From CNN:



Here is a link to NPR, which has obtained a redacted copy of the original police report: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/17/223402913/who-was-aaron-alexis-records-friends-offer-confusing-clues

Like the Hassan case...all warning signs and red flags were there...if just people were willing to do their damn jobs and kick people out when they need to be kicked out...with the appropiate discharge rating maybe these two incidents and future one could be prevented...

SomeRandomGuy
09-17-2013, 09:32 PM
There is one reason, and ONLY one reason as many people died yesterday as there were: 18 USC § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930)

I'm not saying no one would have been killed or wounded, but I'm damn sure saying that that many did not have to die. If those who have been properly credentialed by proper authority to carry concealed did not have their RTKBA stripped from them at the entry point, I am saying the entire event would have probably been over and done within the first 90 seconds of that asshole commencing fire.

And puleeezzzzeeee, don't give me that chicken little response of:
- "How would the first responders (police, security, etc.) know who the bad guy was vs who the good guys were?" First off, get it straight: They wouldn't be "first" responders. They would have been second or third responders. The good guys, who would have brought the actual, live, active shooting to an end within about 90 seconds would have been the first responders. And they would have re-holstered their weapons before the second responders even arrived on scene, so that would not have been an issue.

I'm what you would call an 'average' shooter, and I know I can place at least two magazine's worth of rounds (17 - 27 rounds total, depending on the caliber being carried that day) into a human sized target at a range of 0 - 75 feet within 90 seconds. And that's under control, not using the 'spray and pray' method so popular with many LEOs (recent NYPD and North Carolina news articles).

Before you start crying me a river, remember this:
A sign declaring a "gun-free zone" is the same thing as a saying "open season" in a target rich environment. It's time for CHLs to be allowed to have the tools available to them to defend themselves and others in the (federal) workplace.


Ok then I'm going to concede that police become the 2nd responders in your situation. As you said above you are a good shot and can rip off about 17-27 shots real fast. Let's say you and 15 other people happened to be there when this happened. Say the shooter pops off a shot and you turn pull your gun and rip off 10 shots most of which hit the guy and he drops to the ground. While you were ripping off those shots others had taken cover. They do not know that you weren't the original shooter they just see you rip off about 10 shots. Now they begin firing at you. Someone else sees them shooting at you and begins firing at them. In this case when police arrive they are not 1st responders they are like 5th responders. No one has any idea who started shooting first and whether there was one shooter or as many as five. How do you not see this as a problem? Have you ever been at a bar where a large fight broke out? You can never tell who started it or even who is part of which group. Most people just see someone hit their buddy and run in swinging. It gets out of hand quickly. Now add guns to the situation and what do you think happens?

Z1911
09-18-2013, 01:20 AM
Ok then I'm going to concede that police become the 2nd responders in your situation. As you said above you are a good shot and can rip off about 17-27 shots real fast. Let's say you and 15 other people happened to be there when this happened. Say the shooter pops off a shot and you turn pull your gun and rip off 10 shots most of which hit the guy and he drops to the ground. While you were ripping off those shots others had taken cover. They do not know that you weren't the original shooter they just see you rip off about 10 shots. Now they begin firing at you. Someone else sees them shooting at you and begins firing at them. In this case when police arrive they are not 1st responders they are like 5th responders. No one has any idea who started shooting first and whether there was one shooter or as many as five. How do you not see this as a problem? Have you ever been at a bar where a large fight broke out? You can never tell who started it or even who is part of which group. Most people just see someone hit their buddy and run in swinging. It gets out of hand quickly. Now add guns to the situation and what do you think happens?


I can kind of see the chaos that could result in a lot of people being armed in a situation like that...seems like it's nice to have 1 other person nearby armed, but not so sure about everybody being armed.

Me personally, I'm not a huge gun guy. We have one at home, but never go shooting or nothing...we keep it under the bed, just in case.

Nor am I anti-gun...in that, as long as there are guns around, then regular people need to be able to get them. It would be wonderful if all guns could be banned, but from a practical standpoint it is impossible, and from a political standpoint even more impossible. As long as there "some areas" in the US with free acces to gun...then those areas that attempt to ban them are the soft targets that nutcases like this will attempt to hit. This provides more "ammo" for the pro-gun guys to say "see, gun bans don't work...the places with bans are the ones that get hit"

So, from a practical standpoint, one could call me pro-gun...and a gun owner...but I'm not all Ted Nugent about it...and I think the cause is overstated by many. I'm not convinced gun ownership is the key to our freedom or the key to limiting govt. control, etc. The govt. can kick your ass no matter how many guns you own...as for now, they most shore up their power by keeping the rest of us divided over these kinds of issues.

OK...So don't take my word for it:

In the wake of the horrific shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, one individual made an interesting point about yesterday's mass shooting at the Navy Yard in the nation's capital: "I know a lot of people are concerned about guns these days, but you know if everybody had arms, then there wouldn't be these problems."

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

...Additionally, economist John Lott discovered that "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."

The answer is simple. Murderers pick places where they know their victims will be unarmed. It's time we debate having concealed carry on military bases. After all, there's no evidence showing that firearms owners are more irresponsible than the police, as Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund noted back in December of 2012:

"According to a 2005 to 2007 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Bowling Green State University, police nationwide were convicted of firearms violations at least at a 0.002 percent annual rate. That's about the same rate as holders of carry permits in the states with 'shall issue' laws."
(http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/matt-vespa/if-we-had-ammunition-we-could-ve-cleared-building-son-navy-yard-told-dad)

So please...Tell me again your reasons/justifications as to why you prefer more of our fellow military bretheren to die before you sheeple allow those who are otherwise credentialed to be able to utilize those credentials and exercise their constitutionally granted RTKBA.

And let's not forget: That would be the second amendment of the same constitution we all took an oath to "...support and defend..." and that we would "...bear true faith and allegiance to the same"...

Follow the link, watch the video, and read the entire article.

drc100882
09-18-2013, 01:27 AM
Ok I'm not going into the gun, mental health or PTSD side of this story. I have a much bigger question.

All the reports and interviews I've seen and read have said that a fire alarm was pulled after the first shots were heard. People were told to evacuate because of an active shooter. One lady said she was told to evacuate and ended up in the same hallway as the shooter while trying to get out. Now, I know the AF was big on active shooter exercises and I'm sure that now there's going to be tons more training and exercises (sorry about the CBTs that are coming). However, I just cannot stop thinking to myself "WHY did they evacuate?!" I've always known that in an active shooter situation you lock and barricade the door, turn out the lights, be quiet, call 911 and shelter in place. That's what you do.

I would imagine that this training is the same DoD wide. Am I missing something? Is there some kind of base by base training that's given? I'd hate to think that NO ONE in that building remembered their training. Someone had to have said don't leave or tried to stop them. I have a hard time believing that those people were trained to evacuate with an active shooter on the loose. Maybe its me, and I know there's much bigger questions about this whole thing, but that's what it's in my head about it. I guess you can argue that they panicked or there was chaos or whatever, but still... why evacuate?

SomeRandomGuy
09-18-2013, 01:32 AM
So please...Tell me again your reasons/justifications as to why you prefer more of our fellow military bretheren to die before you sheeple allow those who are otherwise credentialed to be able to utilize those credentials and exercise their constitutionally granted RTKBA.

And let's not forget: That would be the second amendment of the same constitution we all took an oath to "...support and defend..." and that we would "...bear true faith and allegiance to the same"...

Follow the link, watch the video, and read the entire article.



I can agree with some of what you are saying. My original post on this subject was "why can't we have a rational conversation about this?" I do appreciate your perspective here and that you are actually basing it on something. I am not pro or anti gun. I actually have a loaded .38 beside my bed. I believe in responsible gun ownership. I also believe in the 2nd amendment. The problem is that it says, 'a well regulated militia" everyone seems to want to debate what is meant by militia. I want to debate what well-regulated (but not over-regulated) means.

I am not necessarily opposed to allowing military members to carry on base. I just think we need to have some sort of registry of who is authorized. It is very important for Law Enforcement to know how many guns may be inside. Also we would need to find a way to make sure only those properly trained are allowed to carry. In the Navy Yard shooting I heard on the news that the shooter killed a DC officer and took his weapon. The last thing we need in mass shootings is for the shooter to have access to other people's loaded weapons.

Z1911
09-18-2013, 01:40 AM
Ok I'm not going into the gun, mental health or PTSD side of this story. I have a much bigger question.

All the reports and interviews I've seen and read have said that a fire alarm was pulled after the first shots were heard. People were told to evacuate because of an active shooter. One lady said she was told to evacuate and ended up in the same hallway as the shooter while trying to get out. Now, I know the AF was big on active shooter exercises and I'm sure that now there's going to be tons more training and exercises (sorry about the CBTs that are coming). However, I just cannot stop thinking to myself "WHY did they evacuate?!" I've always known that in an active shooter situation you lock and barricade the door, turn out the lights, be quiet, call 911 and shelter in place. That's what you do.

I would imagine that this training is the same DoD wide. Am I missing something? Is there some kind of base by base training that's given? I'd hate to think that NO ONE in that building remembered their training. Someone had to have said don't leave or tried to stop them. I have a hard time believing that those people were trained to evacuate with an active shooter on the loose. Maybe its me, and I know there's much bigger questions about this whole thing, but that's what it's in my head about it. I guess you can argue that they panicked or there was chaos or whatever, but still... why evacuate?

Guidance as to what to do during an active shooter varies depending on what day of the week it is, or what agency is giving the guidance...For example, here's what DHS says to do: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_pocket_card.pdf

You'll note that the first thing they say is to attempt to evacuate...

Here's what AETC has put out for guidance: http://www.military-writers.com/articles/ActiveShooterTriFold.pdf

RS6405
09-18-2013, 10:07 AM
Aaron Alexis was arrested in Seattle in 2004 for an "anger-fueled" shooting, according to the Seattle police department.
The Seattle police blog confirms that Alexis was arrested after shooting out the tires of a man's vehicle.
Following his arrest, Alexis told detectives he perceived he had been “mocked” by construction workers the morning of the incident and said they had “disrespected him.” Alexis also claimed he had an anger-fueled “blackout,” and could not remember firing his gun at the victims’ vehicle until an hour after the incident.
Alexis also told police he was present during “the tragic events of September 11, 2001″ and described “how those events had disturbed him.”
Detectives later spoke with Alexis’ father, who lived in New York at the time, who told police Alexis had anger management problems associated with PTSD, and that Alexis had been an active participant in rescue attempts on September 11th, 2001.

Here the police report: http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Alexis.pdf

he had a Glock .45

-----------------------------

Records show Alexis was involved in a two-car collision on northbound Interstate 405 in March 2005.
Records show he had no insurance at the time. He was fined $600.

---------------------------------

He was an aviation electrician and he was detached from service for a series of misconduct issues, a Navy official said.

Has his claim of being a 9-11 responder been vetted? Granted anyone there could have helped out in one fashion or another. But, what I have read so far, nothing indicates a FF, rescue, medic, or LEO background that would have him responding directly to the event.

What are the opinions of our LEO members?

TJMAC77SP
09-18-2013, 10:43 AM
Ok I'm not going into the gun, mental health or PTSD side of this story. I have a much bigger question.

All the reports and interviews I've seen and read have said that a fire alarm was pulled after the first shots were heard. People were told to evacuate because of an active shooter. One lady said she was told to evacuate and ended up in the same hallway as the shooter while trying to get out. Now, I know the AF was big on active shooter exercises and I'm sure that now there's going to be tons more training and exercises (sorry about the CBTs that are coming). However, I just cannot stop thinking to myself "WHY did they evacuate?!" I've always known that in an active shooter situation you lock and barricade the door, turn out the lights, be quiet, call 911 and shelter in place. That's what you do.

I would imagine that this training is the same DoD wide. Am I missing something? Is there some kind of base by base training that's given? I'd hate to think that NO ONE in that building remembered their training. Someone had to have said don't leave or tried to stop them. I have a hard time believing that those people were trained to evacuate with an active shooter on the loose. Maybe its me, and I know there's much bigger questions about this whole thing, but that's what it's in my head about it. I guess you can argue that they panicked or there was chaos or whatever, but still... why evacuate?

I caught the same thing, mainly because it is one act that is generally not recommended in an active shooter situation, particularly for the reasons cited.

Run............Hide.................Fight.

TJMAC77SP
09-18-2013, 10:46 AM
Guidance as to what to do during an active shooter varies depending on what day of the week it is, or what agency is giving the guidance...For example, here's what DHS says to do: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_pocket_card.pdf

You'll note that the first thing they say is to attempt to evacuate...

Here's what AETC has put out for guidance: http://www.military-writers.com/articles/ActiveShooterTriFold.pdf

Ahem................they say virtually the same thing.

Pullinteeth
09-18-2013, 12:24 PM
Apparently the shooter was really starting to lose his shit a few months ago. From CNN:

Here is a link to NPR, which has obtained a redacted copy of the original police report: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/17/223402913/who-was-aaron-alexis-records-friends-offer-confusing-clues

2004 is a couple months ago? That is the first time he had an "incident" regarding him shooting something he wasn't supposed to...


Like the Hassan case...all warning signs and red flags were there...if just people were willing to do their damn jobs and kick people out when they need to be kicked out...with the appropiate discharge rating maybe these two incidents and future one could be prevented...

Ummm....the Navy apparently DID kick him out. Then in their finite wisdom, hired him again as a civilian.


Friend Says Alexis Was Videogame Fan, Heavy Drinker

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/09/16/friend-aaron-alexis-skilled-at-shooter-videogames/

Give me a fucking break.... Let's completely ignore the fact that he has a history of mental illness AND weapons charges and blame videogames and booze....fuck them.

RFScott
09-18-2013, 12:32 PM
2004 is a couple months ago?

I'm sorry, did that 2004 police report mention something about him hearing voices and people sending microwaves through his body?

RFScott
09-18-2013, 12:50 PM
Friend Says Alexis Was Videogame Fan, Heavy Drinker

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/09/16/friend-aaron-alexis-skilled-at-shooter-videogames/

There seems to be some conflicting information on his drinking. I thought I read an interview on Monday from one of the guys at the Buddhist Temple and Thai restaurant he frequented that he was not a drinker.

Edit: Nevermind, the original interview I read with Tiki Confer, owner of the Thai restaurant, did not mention alcohol.

TJMAC77SP
09-18-2013, 01:49 PM
Russell Ziskey: You could join a monastery.

John Winger: Did you ever see a monk get wildly f@cked by some teenage girls?

Russell Ziskey: Never.

John Winger: So much for the monastery.





BTW: Just to be clear..........I shouldn't tell anyone about the aliens watching me and the voices coming out of my coffeemaker?

Stalwart
09-18-2013, 03:10 PM
Or the he had TWO prior gun charges....

Exactly, that should have come up in the credentialing / vetting process. Not sure if it did and was judged to not be too serious or if the adjudicators didn't know.

Pullinteeth
09-18-2013, 05:00 PM
I'm leaning not too serious, as evidenced by the Navy over turning his demotion and his recent security review.

Evidence? Seriously? They overturned his demotion for Failure to Go and you think THAT indicates that his two shooting arrests weren't serious? How in the world do you get to that conclusion?

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-18-2013, 06:50 PM
Are you freaking out of your mind bro'? Is the constitution bro'? 2nd amendment!!! We can touch that!!!...guns are here to stay!!!...we might kill each other until there is no one alive but the constitution will leave forever...pristine and virgin...if you don't like it move to Canada... we are the US of GUNS!!!

So there is no sense to the arguement of making gun free zones? Without disarming everyone, how do we stop all the mass shootings that happen from time to time?

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-18-2013, 06:58 PM
Ok then I'm going to concede that police become the 2nd responders in your situation. As you said above you are a good shot and can rip off about 17-27 shots real fast. Let's say you and 15 other people happened to be there when this happened. Say the shooter pops off a shot and you turn pull your gun and rip off 10 shots most of which hit the guy and he drops to the ground. While you were ripping off those shots others had taken cover. They do not know that you weren't the original shooter they just see you rip off about 10 shots. Now they begin firing at you. Someone else sees them shooting at you and begins firing at them. In this case when police arrive they are not 1st responders they are like 5th responders. No one has any idea who started shooting first and whether there was one shooter or as many as five. How do you not see this as a problem? Have you ever been at a bar where a large fight broke out? You can never tell who started it or even who is part of which group. Most people just see someone hit their buddy and run in swinging. It gets out of hand quickly. Now add guns to the situation and what do you think happens?

How many times has this scenario happened? There have been multiple times where a shooter was met with a civilian who concealed carried and was put down, yet the civilian never took fire from someone else.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-18-2013, 07:05 PM
I can agree with some of what you are saying. My original post on this subject was "why can't we have a rational conversation about this?" I do appreciate your perspective here and that you are actually basing it on something. I am not pro or anti gun. I actually have a loaded .38 beside my bed. I believe in responsible gun ownership. I also believe in the 2nd amendment. The problem is that it says, 'a well regulated militia" everyone seems to want to debate what is meant by militia. I want to debate what well-regulated (but not over-regulated) means.Those are two seperate entities. Its redundant to say "militia" AND "people" because militias are made up of people. Unless you are saying the founders meant for the horses to be armed.


I am not necessarily opposed to allowing military members to carry on base. I just think we need to have some sort of registry of who is authorized. It is very important for Law Enforcement to know how many guns may be inside. Also we would need to find a way to make sure only those properly trained are allowed to carry. In the Navy Yard shooting I heard on the news that the shooter killed a DC officer and took his weapon. The last thing we need in mass shootings is for the shooter to have access to other people's loaded weapons.
He will still only have 2 hands to shoot with. And once the call goes out that there is an active shooter, those that are carrying wont be caught off guard like the officer that was killed.

garhkal
09-18-2013, 07:07 PM
He owened an "AR-15 shotgun" according to pierse morgan. But sadly, an AR wasnt used in this killing spree.

Never knew AR had a shotgun version.


Then go back to having the bi yearly training for active duty and make it an OPTION (free will in the military?) for military members to cary their personal weapons on base. But we arent even allowed pepper spray or tasers. We are worse than a "gun-free" zone, we are a defense-free zone. We have to throw a trash can if we see the shooter coming at us. :squintfinger:


I know when i was on ship, ALL members had to go to yearly gun qualifications and trainings. This was in case ANY were called for being in the ship's ASF (aux sec force), along with duty days where you stood with a gun on certain watch positions. So we (well the navy) should not need any more training. Its already given.
Same thing when i was in the Seabees. Both a NMCB and a NCR.


Yeah we need more GUNS at military installations, we need to protect our GUNS with more GUNS..better yet lets get tanks...tanks beat GUNS any day of the week!!! No mass shootings happen at places with guns...only in Forth Hood and the Navy Yard...but that doesn't count because we didn't had ENOUGH guns...so now we need more!!! But don' touch mine!!!

Since not one mil installation has anyone wearing other than gate guards and occasionally at major security spots in the base (armories), all the guns are kept under lock and key. So its not that we need MORE guns on base, its we need the ones they have to be actually usable.
a gun locked up is as usable as a condom that stays in your sock draw.



Later that year, though, Alexis appealed the decision and in December, the Navy granted his appeal, reinstated his rank and paid back the money he lost. The violation was essentially expunged from his record, one Navy official said.

Did that news report you got that from, say What reasoning he used to get that appeal?


There is one reason, and ONLY one reason as many people died yesterday as there were: 18 USC § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930)

I'm not saying no one would have been killed or wounded, but I'm damn sure saying that that many did not have to die. If those who have been properly credentialed by proper authority to carry concealed did not have their RTKBA stripped from them at the entry point, I am saying the entire event would have probably been over and done within the first 90 seconds of that asshole commencing fire.

Before you start crying me a river, remember this:
A sign declaring a "gun-free zone" is the same thing as a saying "open season" in a target rich environment. It's time for CHLs to be allowed to have the tools available to them to defend themselves and others in the (federal) workplace.
.

Well said Z. We have people all over the place who are licensed to carry inc those who are our range masters. So lets start letting them carry.


Like the Hassan case...all warning signs and red flags were there...if just people were willing to do their damn jobs and kick people out when they need to be kicked out...with the appropiate discharge rating maybe these two incidents and future one could be prevented...

But then you would have people crying "Violation of privacy, Hippa etc"..


http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/documents/DODIG-2013-134.pdf

"The report says 52 convicted felons were able to routinely get on bases even though their felony convictions came before they were issued entry credentials. “Numerous” contract employees received such credentials without proper vetting through authoritative databases such as the National Crime Information Center and the Terrorist Screening Databases, the report found. Plus, contractors were too easily allowed to get local day passes without the mandatory screening."

Cause of that, imo those companies who HIRED Those people, along with the companies who gave those people their clearances should be raked over the coals. Lose their license at least (or what ever equivalent they have.)


Ok then I'm going to concede that police become the 2nd responders in your situation. As you said above you are a good shot and can rip off about 17-27 shots real fast. Let's say you and 15 other people happened to be there when this happened. Say the shooter pops off a shot and you turn pull your gun and rip off 10 shots most of which hit the guy and he drops to the ground. While you were ripping off those shots others had taken cover. They do not know that you weren't the original shooter they just see you rip off about 10 shots. Now they begin firing at you. Someone else sees them shooting at you and begins firing at them. In this case when police arrive they are not 1st responders they are like 5th responders. No one has any idea who started shooting first and whether there was one shooter or as many as five. How do you not see this as a problem? Have you ever been at a bar where a large fight broke out? You can never tell who started it or even who is part of which group. Most people just see someone hit their buddy and run in swinging. It gets out of hand quickly. Now add guns to the situation and what do you think happens?

That's actually a well thought out counter argument.


Ok I'm not going into the gun, mental health or PTSD side of this story. I have a much bigger question.

All the reports and interviews I've seen and read have said that a fire alarm was pulled after the first shots were heard. People were told to evacuate because of an active shooter. One lady said she was told to evacuate and ended up in the same hallway as the shooter while trying to get out. Now, I know the AF was big on active shooter exercises and I'm sure that now there's going to be tons more training and exercises (sorry about the CBTs that are coming). However, I just cannot stop thinking to myself "WHY did they evacuate?!" I've always known that in an active shooter situation you lock and barricade the door, turn out the lights, be quiet, call 911 and shelter in place. That's what you do.

I would imagine that this training is the same DoD wide. Am I missing something? Is there some kind of base by base training that's given? I'd hate to think that NO ONE in that building remembered their training. Someone had to have said don't leave or tried to stop them. I have a hard time believing that those people were trained to evacuate with an active shooter on the loose. Maybe its me, and I know there's much bigger questions about this whole thing, but that's what it's in my head about it. I guess you can argue that they panicked or there was chaos or whatever, but still... why evacuate?

Maybe having the fire alarm going off overrid the 'stay in place, and barracade yourself in" mantra.



I am not necessarily opposed to allowing military members to carry on base. I just think we need to have some sort of registry of who is authorized. It is very important for Law Enforcement to know how many guns may be inside. Also we would need to find a way to make sure only those properly trained are allowed to carry. In the Navy Yard shooting I heard on the news that the shooter killed a DC officer and took his weapon. The last thing we need in mass shootings is for the shooter to have access to other people's loaded weapons.

We already have a registry. Each and every military installation i went to, listed who was 'registered for what weapon' stored in the armory, and whom had their own weapons stored there or in their on base housing.


Friend Says Alexis Was Videogame Fan, Heavy Drinker

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/09/16/friend-aaron-alexis-skilled-at-shooter-videogames/

Yet again games are being targeted. BUT then again, i do feel games such as the GTA series do need to be smacked.. imo games Glorifying violence against innocents and general lawlessness do not need to be in society.

Pullinteeth
09-18-2013, 07:24 PM
Well when they reviewed the reason for his failure to go during the review, it was deemed not serious, hence I deem it not serious.

I reserve the right to be wrong.

I find that odd...he was in jail and they didn't deem that serious? In the AF that is considered lost time and follows you FOREVER...

He had served in the Navy, but officials moved to discharge him in 2010 over a pattern of misconduct that included insubordination, unauthorized absences and other infractions, according to a U.S. defense official. It wasn't enough for a general discharge, so Navy officials decided to grant him an honorable discharge, the official said.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/navy-yard-shooting-knowns-unknowns/index.html

It seems like he had more absences than just his jail time...

oldgrndr@
09-18-2013, 07:55 PM
I'm a little concerned with the solution of "everyone carrying guns" though...does the Constitution require everyone to carry guns?

*Disclaimer: I haven't read the whole thread so I might be losing some context or intent.*

Did Z1911 say that everyone should carry? Didn't sound like it to me. A corollary to another political firestorm topic just occurred to me. Think of the Pro-choice (Pro-gun) vs. Pro-life (Anti-gun) camps in the abortion argument. Is not this more or less the same? The Pro-life side wants to outlaw all abortions period. The Pro-choice side says that if you don't want one fine that's your choice, let me make my own choice. To flip that back to guns... You don't want to own/carry? Ok, fine that's your choice. But why should I sacrifice my choice (right)?

Rainmaker
09-18-2013, 09:01 PM
We had a guy in our squadron in Germany that reported something similar. He thought someone was beaming microwaves at his house and heard voices...

He had the wherewithall to report it as he only heard the voices when he was at home...so he reported it to the First Sgt/Commander...wanted to get out of his lease so he could move. Of course they sent him off to mental health...never really heard the outcome of that case.

Rainmaker hear crazy voices thru the walls of his efficiency apartment all the time. Pookie got a deep fryer but, no microwaves. NomSayin?

Mcjohn1118
09-18-2013, 10:59 PM
http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/documents/DODIG-2013-134.pdf

"The report says 52 convicted felons were able to routinely get on bases even though their felony convictions came before they were issued entry credentials. “Numerous” contract employees received such credentials without proper vetting through authoritative databases such as the National Crime Information Center and the Terrorist Screening Databases, the report found. Plus, contractors were too easily allowed to get local day passes without the mandatory screening."

Here's the catch with mandatory screening (labeled "fitness determination" or "vetting), the main AFI (31-113) states in effect that Installation CCs MAY deny unescorted access if any of the following negative criteria are discovered (I can't remember all possible negative criteria)....So, if the Wing CC doesn't spell out exactly what criteria is used, there is no rule. Also, the AFI specifically states this is for Unescorted Access. Those being escorted are not required to be vetted. Yes, the sponsors/escorts are responsible for their guests actions, but this is a possibility: Sponsor drives guest onto base and since he is escorting guest, no vetting required. Guest tells sponsor he needs to take a piss and heads to the loo. Sponsor has no clue guest is packing heat and guest comes out shooting. Oh and once you receive your access credential, vetting is not required to be done again until your access credential expires. That could be a few years and during that time frame you could actually commit one of the criteria that your base CC has determined will deny you unescorted access. And let's not discuss retirees and their dependents. The AFI states that their (retirees) vetting minimum standard is a NACI (Nat'l Agency Check with Inquiries) which was done when they were on AD. Dependents aren't vetted but allowed access credentials based on their sponsors responsibility that their fitness determination to enter the base is met.

garhkal
09-19-2013, 04:47 AM
I find that odd...he was in jail and they didn't deem that serious? In the AF that is considered lost time and follows you FOREVER...

He had served in the Navy, but officials moved to discharge him in 2010 over a pattern of misconduct that included insubordination, unauthorized absences and other infractions, according to a U.S. defense official. It wasn't enough for a general discharge, so Navy officials decided to grant him an honorable discharge, the official said.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/navy-yard-shooting-knowns-unknowns/index.html

It seems like he had more absences than just his jail time...

How was a documented history of infractions etc NOT 'worthy of a general discharge"


Had this happen to a troop of mine, he got an off-base DUI and was sentenced to 3 days in county jail. He put in for regular leave for the 3 days, but after looking it up we learned we couldn't grant regular leave for jail and had to put him on Leave Without Pay status...of course, once we got it all done, the jail ended up releasing him after 1 day, so it screwed up all the paperwork and we had to do it all over.

Never heard of this "Leave without pay" status.. Is that an AF thing?

TJMAC77SP
09-19-2013, 10:47 AM
Those are two seperate entities. Its redundant to say "militia" AND "people" because militias are made up of people. Unless you are saying the founders meant for the horses to be armed.




That's a reach WJ.............a bit specious as well. A militia would obviously be a subset of 'the people' unless every citizen was a member of the militia and that has never been true.

Robert F. Dorr
09-19-2013, 10:49 AM
The real stuff about the Navy Yard:

Link removed

Robert F. Dorr
09-19-2013, 10:49 AM
The real stuff about the Navy Yard:

Link removed

Thanks to all.

Pullinteeth
09-19-2013, 12:41 PM
How was a documented history of infractions etc NOT 'worthy of a general discharge"

A General Discharge is actually not that easy to give-at least not if you want it to stick. You have to follow certain procedures and the offense(s) have to reach a certian level. It is a LOT easier just to give 'em a bad re-code and be done with them.

The whole thing makes a bit more sense now. He wasn't actually a Navy contractor per se. He was an employee that worked for a civilian company that has a contract with the Navy. That is why he was in a hotel since he got to D.C. (that is how the company works). That could also be why his past offenses weren't flagged on his clearance (not sure who does them). It is also POSSIBLE that the Navy didn't terminate his clearance when he got out so his clearance might have still been active (happens all the time).

Robert F. Dorr
09-19-2013, 12:45 PM
I was informed by an anonymous admin that I may post a link to a comment about the Navy Yard shooting so long as I explain where the link goes. This is a link to an opinion piece written for Defense Media Network, an on-line publication on military topics:

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/navy-yard-shootings-are-we-seeking-the-right-answers/

This reflects some heartfelt views about the Washington Navy Yard shooting and its aftermath and should be of interest.

Pullinteeth
09-19-2013, 12:53 PM
I was informed by an anonymous admin that I may post a link to a comment about the Navy Yard shooting so long as I explain where the link goes. This is a link to an opinion piece written for Defense Media Network, an on-line publication on military topics:

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/navy-yard-shootings-are-we-seeking-the-right-answers/

This reflects some heartfelt views about the Washington Navy Yard shooting and its aftermath and should be of interest.

Pretty good article Mr. Dorr. Not sure I necessarily agree with ALL of it but you do have some good points.

Oh, and you apparently don't play video games...he did so it must have been the video games that are to blame....

Mjölnir
09-19-2013, 01:19 PM
I was informed by an anonymous admin that I may post a link to a comment about the Navy Yard shooting so long as I explain where the link goes.

That is what the Community Guidelines state.

Pullinteeth
09-19-2013, 01:24 PM
That is what the Community Guidelines state.

I had never even looked at the Community Guidelines but I did and you are correct they do say that but it doesn't say you HAVE to and they ALSO say;

"The key here is no hidden agendas. Tell us where the link goes so our members may make informed decisions on whether to click or not. Remember: We do not screen links in posts, but may remove a post if the link is determined to be inappropriate."

So it looks like YOU violated the Community Guidelines by deleting his post...

Mjölnir
09-19-2013, 01:25 PM
If you wish to discuss moderation, please move to the appropriate forum.

Pullinteeth
09-19-2013, 01:51 PM
That is what the Community Guidelines state.


If you wish to discuss moderation, please move to the appropriate forum.

Pot-Kettle. Kettle-Pot.

Back on topic...

“My ELF weapon”…Eyes Lips Face? Earth Liberation Front? Or was he really hunting/protecting elves?

RobotChicken
09-19-2013, 02:21 PM
I was informed by an anonymous admin that I may post a link to a comment about the Navy Yard shooting so long as I explain where the link goes. This is a link to an opinion piece written for Defense Media Network, an on-line publication on military topics:

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/navy-yard-shootings-are-we-seeking-the-right-answers/

This reflects some heartfelt views about the Washington Navy Yard shooting and its aftermath and should be of interest.

:spy "Thank you for your article here Bob, and look forward to more of your insight written on my thread. Again thank you, 'RC'." (does 'Autumn' have an Implant yet?)

Stalwart
09-19-2013, 02:56 PM
Pot-Kettle. Kettle-Pot.

Back on topic...

“My ELF weapon”…Eyes Lips Face? Earth Liberation Front? Or was he really hunting/protecting elves?

My first thought was "Extrememly Low Frequency", but then read he carved it on his shotgun so I don't see the connection. I would guess there isn't going to be a lot of sense at all made of his actions.

Stalwart
09-19-2013, 03:47 PM
... but I struggle with whether or not a person's mental health history should play a role in their security access.

When a Marine I worked some physical security posts a couple of times (once for one year at Camp David.)

As a Naval Officer I have worked as a Security Manager & Special Security Officer.

My opinion: For someone dealing with depression or other 'mild' issues I don't see a conflict, but it should still be addressed just so that informed decisions about access can be made. Mental health should play a role when the patient's hold on reality (sense of what is right and wrong) comes into question. I am no doctor, and have been told that a lot of pshycological diagnosis is 'black and white' in the book but subjective in evaluating on a case-by case basis.

For example:
1. Someone who honestly cannot grasp that mishandling or disclosing classified information is harmful to security (this is different than a Snowden or Manning who knew what they did was against the rules and took efforts to hide what they were doing.)

2. Someone who honestly doesn't sense that using their weapon to harm an innocent bystander is wrong.

In the end, more security means less freedoms and there is a balancing between the two. As always if you don't do enough -- when something happens it will be asked why more wasn't done.

garhkal
09-19-2013, 06:01 PM
A General Discharge is actually not that easy to give-at least not if you want it to stick. You have to follow certain procedures and the offense(s) have to reach a certian level. It is a LOT easier just to give 'em a bad re-code and be done with them.

The whole thing makes a bit more sense now. He wasn't actually a Navy contractor per se. He was an employee that worked for a civilian company that has a contract with the Navy. That is why he was in a hotel since he got to D.C. (that is how the company works). That could also be why his past offenses weren't flagged on his clearance (not sure who does them). It is also POSSIBLE that the Navy didn't terminate his clearance when he got out so his clearance might have still been active (happens all the time).

I never went to mast and i know my clearance was terminated when i retired. So how the *#$&*#&$(*^@!! does someone get booted and NOT get their's terminated?



1. Someone who honestly cannot grasp that mishandling or disclosing classified information is harmful to security (this is different than a Snowden or Manning who knew what they did was against the rules and took efforts to hide what they were doing.)

2. Someone who honestly doesn't sense that using their weapon to harm an innocent bystander is wrong.

In the end, more security means less freedoms and there is a balancing between the two. As always if you don't do enough -- when something happens it will be asked why more wasn't done.

I agree with #1 and 2. But would also add a third. Someone who complains about hearing voices in his head or the little people are speaking to him should not be allowed to own guns or a security clearance till and unless they are cleared by medical professionals.

Rainmaker
09-19-2013, 06:31 PM
I was informed by an anonymous admin that I may post a link to a comment about the Navy Yard shooting so long as I explain where the link goes. This is a link to an opinion piece written for Defense Media Network, an on-line publication on military topics:

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/navy-yard-shootings-are-we-seeking-the-right-answers/

This reflects some heartfelt views about the Washington Navy Yard shooting and its aftermath and should be of interest.

Good piece Bob.... we're feeling the effects of "shoot, aim, steady" knee-jerk reactions to every world event.
.gov agencies that can't be effectively overseen or controlled by our elected representatives are unconstitutional and should be abolished. A ship in harbor is safe - but that is not what ships are built for. NomSayin?

BENDER56
09-19-2013, 07:27 PM
I was informed by an anonymous admin that I may post a link to a comment about the Navy Yard shooting so long as I explain where the link goes. This is a link to an opinion piece written for Defense Media Network, an on-line publication on military topics:

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/navy-yard-shootings-are-we-seeking-the-right-answers/

This reflects some heartfelt views about the Washington Navy Yard shooting and its aftermath and should be of interest.

Spot on.

And welcome back.

Pullinteeth
09-19-2013, 07:36 PM
I never went to mast and i know my clearance was terminated when i retired. So how the *#$&*#&$(*^@!! does someone get booted and NOT get their's terminated?

Because it takes effort to terminate it....

garhkal
09-20-2013, 04:47 AM
Because it takes effort to terminate it....

So they take the effort for people retiring, but not when they are effectively booting someone out?

RS6405
09-20-2013, 10:39 AM
(Speaking from 2nd hand knowledge) I know my Dad had his clearance 7 years after retirement when he was working on a DOE contracting job, which continued for at least 8 more years. I got the impression from a off-hand comment that his clearance from the military was some how key for the contracting company to have been awarded or maintained the contract. (???) I could be wrong about that thou.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-20-2013, 11:54 AM
..but, not all people are in the militia

Exactly. You just made the point of any arguement for people not in a militia to be armed as they saw fit.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-20-2013, 11:57 AM
That's a reach WJ.............a bit specious as well. A militia would obviously be a subset of 'the people' unless every citizen was a member of the militia and that has never been true.

Not what I meant. But those that like to say the "right to bear arms" was only for the militia and cant understand cammas, I was trying to make a point that putting in "militias" and "people" was redundant and not what the founders meant. They are seperate entities, the founders not only wanted militias to be we armed, but the free citizens (people) to be armed as well. Its a back up to the back up.

TJMAC77SP
09-20-2013, 12:35 PM
Not when I retired...my clearance was still active in JPAS when I started my contractor job.

Garhkal misstated the situation a little. JPAS will keep your clearance eligibility active for two years. Your last unit should have removed your access when you retired. This is why your new employer was able to pick up the access and "own" your clearance (in JPAS terminology). After a two year break in use the clearance goes inactive and you start all over.

As to the shooter in DC, was he kicked out for cause? I thought I read that he left with an honorable. If so, there was no reason to code his clearance. The adjudication standards are fairly straight forward.

TJMAC77SP
09-20-2013, 12:40 PM
(Speaking from 2nd hand knowledge) I know my Dad had his clearance 7 years after retirement when he was working on a DOE contracting job, which continued for at least 8 more years. I got the impression from a off-hand comment that his clearance from the military was some how key for the contracting company to have been awarded or maintained the contract. (???) I could be wrong about that thou.

Well, more accurately, having appropriately cleared employees was a requirement for the contract and therefore without them award was in question.

See my other post about security clearances and retirement

TJMAC77SP
09-20-2013, 12:42 PM
Not what I meant. But those that like to say the "right to bear arms" was only for the militia and cant understand cammas, I was trying to make a point that putting in "militias" and "people" was redundant and not what the founders meant. They are seperate entities, the founders not only wanted militias to be we armed, but the free citizens (people) to be armed as well. Its a back up to the back up.

Ok, I get it. I personally think both sides tend to overlook part of the amendment in order to make their argument but the court has ruled mostly in favor of a pro-gun stance so that is the law of the land.

garhkal
09-20-2013, 05:36 PM
Garhkal misstated the situation a little. JPAS will keep your clearance eligibility active for two years. Your last unit should have removed your access when you retired. This is why your new employer was able to pick up the access and "own" your clearance (in JPAS terminology). After a two year break in use the clearance goes inactive and you start all over.

As to the shooter in DC, was he kicked out for cause? I thought I read that he left with an honorable. If so, there was no reason to code his clearance. The adjudication standards are fairly straight forward.

I could have sworn one of the forms i had to fill out was to terminate my clearance.. not just my access.

TJMAC77SP
09-21-2013, 10:53 PM
I could have sworn one of the forms i had to fill out was to terminate my clearance.. not just my access.

It was more than likely a debriefing with an acknowledgement that while your access was being terminated you had incurred a lifetime commitment to protect the classified information you were privy to as well as reminders of the punishments you are still subject to under several federal laws.

Your security person might have even stated your clearance was being terminated but that was incorrect. The only agency that can revoke a clearance is the agency that issued it (or a command level above that). In DoD that agency is called a Central Adjudication Facility. Each branch used to have one but I believe there is just one for all of DoD now.

To be perfectly honest without valid access in practice your clearance can be thought of as terminated but in technical terms that is incorrect.

Z1911
09-22-2013, 03:45 AM
Interesting side note for your supervisor toolboxes...

If you have a troop that goes to civilian jail, you are supposed to put that member on Leave Without Pay status...he earns no pay or benefits during that time, when returned to duty his Service date is adjusted by however long he was in that status.

Had this happen to a troop of mine, he got an off-base DUI and was sentenced to 3 days in county jail. He put in for regular leave for the 3 days, but after looking it up we learned we couldn't grant regular leave for jail and had to put him on Leave Without Pay status...of course, once we got it all done, the jail ended up releasing him after 1 day, so it screwed up all the paperwork and we had to do it all over.

Also for "Supervisor's Toolboxes"...Did you know that off base run-ins with civilain LEOs resulting in being jailed should also trigger the initiation of a SIF (Security Information File), per AFI 31-501 (in conjunction with DoD 5200.2-R) in order for commanders to exercise their 31-501 responsibilities as pertains to Trustworthiness Determinations.

(From DoD 5200.2-R)
C2.2.1. Criteria for Application of Security Standards. The ultimate decision in applying either of the security standards set forth in paragraph C2.1.2. and C2.1.3., above, must be an overall common sense determination based upon all available facts. The criteria for determining eligibility for a clearance under the security standard shall include, but not be limited to the following:
C2.2.1.7. Disregard of public law, Statutes, Executive Orders or Regulations including violation of security regulations or practices.
C2.2.1.8. Criminal or dishonest conduct.
C2.2.1.9. Acts of omission or commission that indicate poor judgment, unreliability or untrustworthiness.
C2.2.1.10. Any behavior or illness, including any mental condition, which, in the opinion of competent medical authority, may cause a defect in judgment or reliability with due regard to the transient or continuing effect of the illness and the medical findings in such case.

And it goes on, and on , and on from there...

Greg
09-22-2013, 02:14 PM
Also for "Supervisor's Toolboxes"...Did you know that off base run-ins with civilain LEOs resulting in being jailed should also trigger the initiation of a SIF (Security Information File), per AFI 31-501 (in conjunction with DoD 5200.2-R) in order for commanders to exercise their 31-501 responsibilities as pertains to Trustworthiness Determinations.

(From DoD 5200.2-R)
C2.2.1. Criteria for Application of Security Standards. The ultimate decision in applying either of the security standards set forth in paragraph C2.1.2. and C2.1.3., above, must be an overall common sense determination based upon all available facts. The criteria for determining eligibility for a clearance under the security standard shall include, but not be limited to the following:
C2.2.1.7. Disregard of public law, Statutes, Executive Orders or Regulations including violation of security regulations or practices.
C2.2.1.8. Criminal or dishonest conduct.
C2.2.1.9. Acts of omission or commission that indicate poor judgment, unreliability or untrustworthiness.
C2.2.1.10. Any behavior or illness, including any mental condition, which, in the opinion of competent medical authority, may cause a defect in judgment or reliability with due regard to the transient or continuing effect of the illness and the medical findings in such case.

And it goes on, and on , and on from there...

That was drilled into our heads while going through Basic Enlisted Sub Scol. You screw up, you're shipped to the surface. "Hi skimmer!"

RobotChicken
09-22-2013, 03:11 PM
:spy "FBI Snubs ATF on finding shooters Shotgun at point of purchase in 'Lorton, VA,' the paper trail ended 17 miles from the scene, with 2 dozen rounds included in the sale 2 days earlier on the afternoon of the shooting."

Greg
09-22-2013, 03:18 PM
:spy "FBI Snubs ATF on finding shooters Shotgun at point of purchase in 'Lorton, VA,' the paper trail ended 17 miles from the scene, with 2 dozen rounds included in the sale 2 days earlier on the afternoon of the shooting."

An example of why some of these stove pipe organizations need eliminated, or absorbed. The paranoia over budgets are causing more harm than good.

garhkal
09-22-2013, 03:53 PM
Agreed. Heck what do we have, like 10+ lettered orgs?
NCIS
USM
FBI
HLS
INS
AFT
CIA
NSA
DEA
FUBAR
BOHECA
SNAFU:haha:

We IMO should have only 3.
One international intelligence agency
one national intelligence agency and
One border/drug/illegals agency.

NCIS is mil specific (Navy and marines), so it stays. US marshals stay as they deal with witness protection for the most part.

RobotChicken
09-22-2013, 03:58 PM
:spy "USS Nimitz nickname, BOHICA." (by the enlisted that is)

Z1911
10-03-2013, 02:49 AM
Agreed. Heck what do we have, like 10+ lettered orgs?
NCIS
USM
FBI
HLS
INS
AFT
CIA
NSA
DEA
FUBAR
BOHECA
SNAFU:haha:

We IMO should have only 3.
One international intelligence agency
one national intelligence agency and
One border/drug/illegals agency.

NCIS is mil specific (Navy and marines), so it stays. US marshals stay as they deal with witness protection for the most part.

You left out a few of the alphabet orgs:
USA
USN
USAF
AFSOC
SEAL
FORCERECON
etc...etc...etc...