|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 16, 2015 14:50:45 GMT -5
"Four people were killed in a shooting a Naval reserve center in Tennessee on Thursday, along with the suspected gunman, officials said. The shootings occurred at a Naval base and at an armed services recruiting center...The shooting is being viewed as “an act of domestic terrorism,” U.S. Attorney William C. Killian said. However, Killian said the investigation would bear out precisely what kind of crime this was, cautioning people not to get caught up in the label. A senior FBI official said the shooting did not appear to be related to any larger terrorist group.
"The gunman had “numerous weapons” on him...and was not wearing body armor. This gunman did not work at the facilities involved...Police in Chattanooga said shortly after 1:15 p.m. that the active shooter situation was over, and they later confirmed that the gunman was dead, though they did not say if he was killed by police or at his own hand." link
Apparently, we're not even safe in military facilities, where you'd expect shooters to be wary, and where the theory of personal deterrence should be most successful. I guess if you consider 4 dead rather than, say, 26 a "success" then that counts, but it seems a pretty steep price to me. Well, at least we're learning how to live in a war zone, no doubt based on our experience advising civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan:
"Due to the shooting, officials locked down a shopping mall, schools and other buildings on Thursday...Chattanooga State Community College said that due to a shooting near the campus, the school’s main campus was placed on lockdown...Meanwhile, the Bradley Square Mall in Cleveland [TN] was closed after someone reported hearing shots fired there." Fortunately, our kids (grandkids in my case) are growing up thinking school lockdowns are kinda normal, like fire drills, or the "duck and cover" exercises of the 1950s. Nothing makes kids feel more secure in life than knowing they always can rely on lockdowns in case some nut with a supply of guns 'n' ammo starts shootin' up their school.
|
|
|
Post by muddydove on Jul 16, 2015 15:12:21 GMT -5
Very likely Suicide by Cop.
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Jul 16, 2015 23:24:44 GMT -5
Was one of them Muslims. If we only would restrict their right to bear arms everything would be fine.
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Jul 17, 2015 0:52:58 GMT -5
Do you realize how absurd your statement about deterrence is OB when at least one of the shootings took place in a 'gun-free-zone' created by the radical left?
The shooter knew the marines would not be armed.
Please explain why a shooter would "be wary" and "deterrence should be most successful" when the zone prohibited staff from carrying firearms?
www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/16/it-s-time-to-arm-armed-forces.html
Did the shooter think they might come out and yell at him? Perhaps ask to talk things through so they could better understand his issues & problems?
I know the left thinks guns are living & breathing objects that walk around killing people, but in this case that living object would be called an Islamic Terrorist.
The J.V. team members do not think too much of gun-free-zones, but they do love to blog about Jihad!
This article from a state run media source favored by many OBPF members includes some actual blog entries...
www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/17/chattanooga-shooter-blogged-about-jihad/
>O
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 17, 2015 9:02:22 GMT -5
Do you realize how absurd your statement about deterrence is OB when at least one of the shootings took place in a 'gun-free-zone' created by the radical left?
Perhaps you need to realize how absurd your own statement is. Because, while the shooter sprayed bullets from his car at the recruitment site in a strip mall, the "Navy-Marine training center" most assuredly was not in a gun-free zone, and that's where the Marines died.
|
|
|
Post by jon on Jul 17, 2015 11:02:27 GMT -5
"the "Navy-Marine training center" most assuredly was not in a gun-free zone, and that's where the Marines died." Documentation for that assumption? I think not. "Clinton’s actions birthed Army regulations “forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection.” In other words, thanks to Clinton, citizens who join the military to use guns to defend liberty abroad cannot practice their constitutional right to keep and bear arms while on active duty at home. " www.breitbart.com/national-security/2013/09/17/when-military-gun-free/At the "workplace violence" site in FT Hd----one of the most stupid characterizations of terrorism ever----the Islamist shooter, about whom we were lectured we should not rush to judgment simply because he shouted "Allah Akbar" as he murdered our soldiers---the slaughter ended only because there was an armed police officer in the area. A relative rarity on base. BTW has Obama ever admitted that was an act of Muslim terrorism? Has Obama ever said a word about Islamic terrorism at all? Did he grow up in a Suni or Shia household in Indonesia?
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Jul 17, 2015 13:56:08 GMT -5
"the "Navy-Marine training center" most assuredly was not in a gun-free zone, and that's where the Marines died." Documentation for that assumption? I think not. "Clinton’s actions birthed Army regulations “forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection.” In other words, thanks to Clinton, citizens who join the military to use guns to defend liberty abroad cannot practice their constitutional right to keep and bear arms while on active duty at home. " www.breitbart.com/national-security/2013/09/17/when-military-gun-free/They also can't drink beer legally if they are under 21.
|
|
|
Post by Jon on Jul 17, 2015 16:24:55 GMT -5
Yeah. What the Hell. It's just four White Marines who probably did not have 4 yr degrees from leftist Universities. Worse, they might have been Christians----or even Republicans.
A small price to pay for deceitful, leftist, political correctness, right? I'm quite sure Obama (or OB) will not support their families like he would if they were Black felons, killed in commission of a crime.
Those who defend the murder of our soldiers for partisan agenda purposes are about as despicable as anyone can be.
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Jul 17, 2015 22:34:22 GMT -5
Yeah. What the Hell. It's just four White Marines who probably did not have 4 yr degrees from leftist Universities. Worse, they might have been Christians----or even Republicans. A small price to pay for deceitful, leftist, political correctness, right? I'm quite sure Obama (or OB) will not support their families like he would if they were Black felons, killed in commission of a crime. Those who defend the murder of our soldiers for partisan agenda purposes are about as despicable as anyone can be. You're nuts.
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Jul 18, 2015 11:35:20 GMT -5
Well aside from the debate above - and the PROVEN FACT that the 5 dead soldiers WERE IN FACT NOT ALLOWED TO CARRY WEAPONS where they were killed, the thing that is worrisome to me about this is that this attacker was completely off the radar. As good a job as law enforcement tries to do to prevent these attacks, this is clearly a case that "slipped through the cracks" for lack of a better analogy. How many other potential attackers like this are there out there?
And BTW, it is easy to say these victims should've been armed. However it is not so simple. My Dad was an MP in the national guard. If you issued a gun to a soldier and that soldier did something stupid with it, the person that issued the gun would be liable and probably court martialed.
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Jul 18, 2015 13:25:13 GMT -5
Well aside from the debate above - and the PROVEN FACT that the 5 dead soldiers WERE IN FACT NOT ALLOWED TO CARRY WEAPONS where they were killed, the thing that is worrisome to me about this is that this attacker was completely off the radar. As good a job as law enforcement tries to do to prevent these attacks, this is clearly a case that "slipped through the cracks" for lack of a better analogy. How many other potential attackers like this are there out there? And BTW, it is easy to say these victims should've been armed. However it is not so simple. My Dad was an MP in the national guard. If you issued a gun to a soldier and that soldier did something stupid with it, the person that issued the gun would be liable and probably court martialed. There are probably a lot of guys like this out there. (See Boston Marathon Bomber) It's literally impossible to catch a lone gunman who is willing to take himself out in the process. The odds of something like this happening are WAY higher than a big 9/11 style attack. In fact, this is probably going to be the "war" from now for the most part. And of all the places where a gun should be legal it should be any kind of military installation. These have been targets in the past (2009 shooting at recruitment station in Little Rock). Doesn't make a ton of sense that they aren't allowed to carry firearms.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 18, 2015 15:05:15 GMT -5
Yeah. What the Hell. It's just four White Marines who probably did not have 4 yr degrees from leftist Universities. Worse, they might have been Christians----or even Republicans. A small price to pay for deceitful, leftist, political correctness, right? I'm quite sure Obama (or OB) will not support their families like he would if they were Black felons, killed in commission of a crime. Those who defend the murder of our soldiers for partisan agenda purposes are about as despicable as anyone can be.
Quit being offensive, jon. You know better than the above.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 18, 2015 15:55:29 GMT -5
So, jon cites a Brietbart article based on a Washington Times editorial to make a questionable argument. The editorial reads as follows:
"Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection." link
First, notice the logical sleight-of-hand there. According to the editorial, Clinton took this action. But it turns out that it was the Army that did so. Does jon believe that Clinton came into the White House and one of his first thoughts wasn't dealing with the deficit crisis he faced immediately, or proposing a huge and controversial reform of the health care system; no, it was "disarming" military bases? And, if this was a policy coming directly from the Clinton White House rather than the military itself, I wonder why George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld never got around to changing it over eight full years?
Second, please note that the issue was carrying personal firearms onto a military base. The prohibition on non-police military personnel carrying government-issued arms is rooted in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (somewhat before Clinton's first inauguration). The order in 1993 was intended to stem the carrying of personal firearms onto military facilities, for what should seem like obvious reasons, though I realize they're not to some. For example: "A recruiter at the Armed Forces Recruiting Center in Gainesville brought a gun inside the center Friday and accidentally shot himself in the leg, police said." link
More broadly, the military policy has a specific application in recruiting centers:
"Brian Lepley, a spokesman for U.S. Army Recruiting Command said the Army trains recruiters annually on active shooting scenarios, force protection awareness and security measures. The Army typically reviews policies in the aftermath of such incidents, Lepley said, but it’s too soon to know if one might prompt changes. He suggested a fundamental overhaul to be unlikely. “We can’t have barricaded centers. We can’t have places where we recruit young men and women that look like a fortress,” Lepley said. “We have to have a connection to the American people.” He said no bullets went into the Army area of the recruiting center attacked in Chattanooga.
"Two Air Force applicants and one Air Force recruiter were in the area at the time of the shooting, but escaped unharmed, showing the security procedures work, said Christa D’Andrea, a spokeswoman for the Air Force Recruiting Service. “The security measures we had in place, they followed them, as they were supposed to, and it worked for them,” she said." link
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 23, 2015 22:54:56 GMT -5
"LAFAYETTE, La. (AP) — A gunman opened fire at a movie theater in Lousiana on Thursday evening, killing three people and injuring at least seven others before shooting himself, officials said. The gunman, a 58-year-old "lone white male," fired his weapon "numerous times" before shooting himself at the Grand Theatre in Lafayette, city Police Chief Jim Craft told a news conference." link
No other civilized country in the world tolerates this. Why the hell do we?
|
|
|
Post by muddydove on Jul 23, 2015 23:45:04 GMT -5
"LAFAYETTE, La. (AP) — A gunman opened fire at a movie theater in Lousiana on Thursday evening, killing three people and injuring at least seven others before shooting himself, officials said. The gunman, a 58-year-old "lone white male," fired his weapon "numerous times" before shooting himself at the Grand Theatre in Lafayette, city Police Chief Jim Craft told a news conference." link
No other civilized country in the world tolerates this. Why the hell do we?
We have a much higher percentage of nutjobs (aka 2nd Amendment fanatics) than other countries. Sad, but true
|
|
|
Post by goldenbucky on Jul 24, 2015 16:13:53 GMT -5
Public safety be damned - there's a lot of money to be made for gun manufacturers by jerking gun lover's chains.
Think of the windfall if this further sets up the narrative that every mass shooting could have been prevented by more armed people.
more guns=more shootings=more fear=more guns....
Hey I've enjoyed hunting as much as the next guy. This isn't hunting and I haven't seen a serious move for a total gun ban.
You know where guns are everywhere? Where religious sensibilities are de facto law? Where government is really weak? Afghanistan. It's a shithole and I don't want to live there. People need to get a grip.
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Jul 24, 2015 18:12:08 GMT -5
Take guns out of the equation and what you are left with are people desperately in need of mental health care and no where to get it. It is tragic how we treat the mentally ill in this country. Shameful really.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 24, 2015 22:48:03 GMT -5
Take guns out of the equation and what you are left with are people desperately in need of mental health care and no where to get it. It is tragic how we treat the mentally ill in this country. Shameful really.
Well, yeah, but we don't take guns out of the equation. Take this case:
"Court records describe erratic behavior and threats of violence that led to a brief involuntary hospitalization in 2008 and a restraining order preventing Houser from approaching family members. Houser "has a history of mental health issues, i.e., manic depression and/or bi-polar disorder," his estranged wife told the judge...Russell County Sheriff Heath Taylor said his office denied Houser's request for a concealed weapons permit in 2006 because he had been treated for mental illness and arrested for arson in Georgia." link
Despite this history, the guy was able to walk into a pawn shop and buy a gun--legally! Why? Because Wayne LaPierre and the NRA, with the backing of people like some of those posting above, insist on making it as easy as possible for every Tom, Dick, and Harriet to buy lethal weapons, that's why. Great for the shareholders of Colt and Beretta, not so much for the dead people littering America, more than 30,000 each and every year. It's nuts.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 24, 2015 23:47:16 GMT -5
"The Mass Shooting Tracker, a crowd-sourced project of the anti-gun folks at the Guns Are Cool subreddit, lists 203 mass shooting events so far in 2015. Add in the shooting at a Louisiana movie theater last night and you get 204. Incidentally, yesterday was the 204th day of the year." link
One incident every day in which four or more people have been shot in America. One...every...day.
The Economist has this advice: "Those who live in America, or visit it, might do best to regard [mass shootings] the way one regards air pollution in China: an endemic local health hazard which, for deep-rooted cultural, social, economic and political reasons, the country is incapable of addressing. This may, however, be a bit unfair. China seems to be making progress on pollution."
|
|
|
Post by jon on Jul 26, 2015 10:35:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by muddydove on Jul 26, 2015 11:28:56 GMT -5
Very silly argument -- there is no equivalency there.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 26, 2015 12:08:36 GMT -5
Very silly argument -- there is no equivalency there.
You know which side has the better case when one of them has to resort to meaningless deflections like this. The only thing keeping the pro-gun side afloat is the $$$ from their lobbying arm. Eventually, that won't be enough, and they know it.
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Jul 26, 2015 23:07:50 GMT -5
Take guns out of the equation and what you are left with are people desperately in need of mental health care and no where to get it. It is tragic how we treat the mentally ill in this country. Shameful really.
Well, yeah, but we don't take guns out of the equation. Take this case:
"Court records describe erratic behavior and threats of violence that led to a brief involuntary hospitalization in 2008 and a restraining order preventing Houser from approaching family members. Houser "has a history of mental health issues, i.e., manic depression and/or bi-polar disorder," his estranged wife told the judge...Russell County Sheriff Heath Taylor said his office denied Houser's request for a concealed weapons permit in 2006 because he had been treated for mental illness and arrested for arson in Georgia." link
Despite this history, the guy was able to walk into a pawn shop and buy a gun--legally! Why? Because Wayne LaPierre and the NRA, with the backing of people like some of those posting above, insist on making it as easy as possible for every Tom, Dick, and Harriet to buy lethal weapons, that's why. Great for the shareholders of Colt and Beretta, not so much for the dead people littering America, more than 30,000 each and every year. It's nuts.
OB, the mentally unstable should be allowed to protect themselves if they want to.
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Jul 26, 2015 23:10:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Jul 27, 2015 16:40:23 GMT -5
Take guns out of the equation and what you are left with are people desperately in need of mental health care and no where to get it. It is tragic how we treat the mentally ill in this country. Shameful really.
Well, yeah, but we don't take guns out of the equation. Take this case:
"Court records describe erratic behavior and threats of violence that led to a brief involuntary hospitalization in 2008 and a restraining order preventing Houser from approaching family members. Houser "has a history of mental health issues, i.e., manic depression and/or bi-polar disorder," his estranged wife told the judge...Russell County Sheriff Heath Taylor said his office denied Houser's request for a concealed weapons permit in 2006 because he had been treated for mental illness and arrested for arson in Georgia." link
Despite this history, the guy was able to walk into a pawn shop and buy a gun--legally! Why? Because Wayne LaPierre and the NRA, with the backing of people like some of those posting above, insist on making it as easy as possible for every Tom, Dick, and Harriet to buy lethal weapons, that's why. Great for the shareholders of Colt and Beretta, not so much for the dead people littering America, more than 30,000 each and every year. It's nuts.
I'm not a gun nut - never owned one, never will, don't see the need to have weapons other than for hunting. However, who is to say that if someone like Houser didn't have access to a gun that he wouldn't find another way to kill people? Maybe we'd just be exchanging guns for IEDs in these mass killings.
All that said, get rid of lobbyists and let legislators pass common sense gun safety laws. Either that or if the gun lobbyists don't want stricter control, make them liable in cases like this. I personally think being able to sue for anything is rather silly but in this case let the victims families sue gun makers and gun sellers for selling to unstable people.
It also annoys me that it is ONLY these types of events that raise the ire of the anti-gun people. Just for reference, 7 people were killed and 34 wounded in shootings this past weekend in Chicago alone. Why isn't that covered with same passion as this theatre shooting? Are the lives of those 41 people less important than those in Lafayette?
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 27, 2015 16:57:04 GMT -5
It also annoys me that it is ONLY these types of events that raise the ire of the anti-gun people. Just for reference, 7 people were killed and 34 wounded in shootings this past weekend in Chicago alone. Why isn't that covered with same passion as this theatre shooting? Are the lives of those 41 people less important than those in Lafayette?
I think you are conflating two different things: what proponents of stronger gun safety laws get excited about and what the news media cover. As one of the former I am incensed at all the gun-related deaths--including murders, suicides, and accidents--because the vast majority never would happen without our laughable gun laws. We know that because when other countries have tightened their laws, gun death rates have plummeted (see most notably Australia).
Media coverage is a different matter. Think about deaths from flying. People get killed all the time in small plane accidents; most get little coverage beyond a short wire-service story, if that. But, when an airliner goes down, it's front-page coverage for days, and CNN around-the-clock. The same is true about gun killings: mass deaths are more "newsworthy" than everyday killings precisely because they involve multiple people. When those people are unexpected victims such as kids in school or patrons in a theater rather than, say, gang members, the media provide even more coverage. And that's because most news consumers don't see themselves in some gang-related shootout, but they are scared witless thinking about being killed by some random shooter in a public place where they or those close to them might actually find themselves.
The specific cased of Chicago isn't a good example, however, because that has been covered extensively by the national news media, given the high numbers. That exception aside, you are right that most gun deaths are treated as local news, and often not covered as major stories, perhaps because there are more than 30,000 of them a year; the daily deaths from traffic accidents generally aren't treated as major news, either.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 27, 2015 17:20:33 GMT -5
Update on the loophole that allowed this tragedy to happen:
"The man who killed two people in a Louisiana movie theater last week was able to legally purchase a gun despite a judge’s order sending him to a mental hospital in 2008 because he was never involuntarily committed for treatment, a county probate judge and a state official told The Washington Post on Monday. “If he had been adjudicated in need of involuntary treatment, I would have reported that to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, who would then send it to the FBI,” said Muscogee County Probate Judge Marc E. D’Antonio, who was the county’s chief clerk at the time. “I clearly would have known. That did not happen.”
"An involuntary commitment would have forever banned John Russell Houser from buying a gun under the sweeping federal gun law that passed after the Virginia Tech mass shooting in 2007. But Houser never reached the crucial stage of having a judge rule on his mental competence, D’Antonio said. As a result, Houser’s purchase of a .40-caliber semi-automatic handgun at a Phenix City, Ala., pawnshop last year was perfectly legal, setting up a tragedy in Lafayette, La., and exposing what gun control advocates say is a troubling loophole in the federal law that governs who may legally acquire firearms." link
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 28, 2015 17:05:57 GMT -5
"The notion that more guns are always the solution to gun crime is taken seriously in this country. But the research shows that more guns lead to more gun homicides -- not less. And that guns are rarely used in self-defense. Now a new study from researchers at Mount St. Mary's University sheds some light on why people don't use guns in self-defense very often. As it turns out, knowing when and how to apply lethal force in a potentially life-or-death situation is really difficult...The study found that proper training and education are key to successfully using a firearm in self-defense: "carrying a gun in public does not provide self-defense unless the carrier is properly trained and maintains their skill level," the authors wrote in a statement." link
The study used a real police simulation facility; the subjects varied in their training/experience with guns. The article has some video footage showing how subjects did. The key finding was the need for training. This should be a point on which people on both sides of the gun law debate can agree, and they do, up to a point:
"The NRA has long emphasized the importance of training and safety in personal firearms use, and offers a series of courses dedicated to self-defense. The NRA likes the idea of training so much that it's floated the idea of mandatory firearms training for school children. On the other hand, it's opposed laws requiring mandatory training for gun purchases. Many states allow concealed carry without any training or permit for people as young as 16."
Let's try to follow the logic here: On the one hand, we should require all school children to learn how to use firearms, even if they don't own or have access to one. On the other hand, we should NOT require those who actually have one to get trained in its safe use.
Conclusion: NRA is trying to increase the customer base for gun manufacturers and sellers by getting kids into guns early, but has no interest in whether people actually use guns safely, except to the extent they can sell them training courses.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 30, 2015 10:55:41 GMT -5
"A 3-year-old girl died after she was shot by another child [her 7 year-old brother] who was thought to be playing with a gun at an apartment complex in Southeast Washington, according to police. The girl was identified as Dalis Cox. Authorities said a preliminary investigation shows that the shooting “may have been the result of another child having found and been playing with a firearm that discharged” and struck her. It was not known who the gun belonged to or where it was found in the apartment." link
No doubt, we will discover that the girl's mother owned the gun for "self-defense" in a dangerous neighborhood. And likely we will discover that she had no training on the proper way to handle and store a gun safely. So, now there's a girl dead at age three, a boy aged 7 who will live the rest of his life with the burden of having killed his sister, presumably accidentally, a sibling who will have to deal with the killer-brother and the loss of a sister, a mother and father who will feel the guilt of having contributed to their toddler's death.
But the extremists at NRA HQ across the river in Fairfax County will chalk it all up to the breaks of living in a society where "freedom" means being able to buy a gun without showing even the most cursory ability to handle one safely. After all, this was someone else's child, and let's face it, a black one at that. Who cares, really?
EDIT: They've posted a picture of the dead little girl:
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Aug 2, 2015 10:09:41 GMT -5
|
|