Texas Man Suspect in Navy Yard Shootings Leaving 13 Dead

[jc100]

Add up all the victims from the mass shootings in the US and they will still pale in comparison with the 2 top mass killings in their history in which nobody got shot.

Which were?

 

[mmmnaked]

McVeigh killed 168 people using a rental truck and fertilizer... just saying.

 

[-D-]

McVeigh killed 168 people using a rental truck and fertilizer... just saying.

We know we can not stop everything. I think what ppl are trying to say is GIVE ME A CHANCE to live. A guy walking to the mall with a shotgun (legal or illegal does not matter) gives ppl a chance to get away. A guy (strange seems to be all men doing this) walking into the mall with a automatic holding 100+ bullets per clip/cartridge reduces ones chance to escape or not get shot.

 

[mmmnaked]

Newsflash: you can't stop anything

It's too late. The guns are already out there. Either you get on-side with owning one yourself as somewhat of an equalizer (at least in your own home) or you depend on the authorities to do their thing and protect you.

Just know this- the heavily armed SWAT team which responded to the navy yard shootings was told to stand down. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/24153252)

This man killed 13 adults with a shotgun. The lunatic in the 2012 Aurora shootings, armed with a baby-killing "assault rifle" (with a 100rnd drum mag), killed 12... in a tightly packed theater. The weapon of choice is insignificant.

 

[jc100]

McVeigh killed 168 people using a rental truck and fertilizer... just saying.

....as a result of that fertiliser sales are now scrutinised very carefully by the security forces. When was the last fertiliser bomb after McVeigh?

 

[mmmnaked]

Don't care. Just brought it up to answer the question posed.

 

[-D-]

If a 15 year old is allowed to have license to drive, are they also allowed to buy and own a firearm? Are they allowed to have a permit? Why not?

 

[BusaBob]

Since when are 15 year olds allowed to drive??

On the other hand, possession and acquisition certificates can be issued to minors as young as 12, and younger if they can demonstrate a need (eg. subsistence hunting)
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/information/lic-per-eng.htm

[h=3]For Individuals aged 12 to 17[/h]

• A Minors' Licence will enable young people to borrow a non-restricted rifle or shotgun for approved purposes such as hunting or target shooting. Generally, the minimum age is 12 years, but exceptions may be made for younger people who need to hunt to sustain themselves and their families. Applicants must have taken the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and passed the test.

 

[-D-]

Since when are 15 year olds allowed to drive?? On the other hand, possession and acquisition certificates can be issued to minors as young as 12, and younger if they can demonstrate a need (eg. subsistence hunting) http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/information/lic-per-eng.htm

How about 14? Americas State Minimum driving age North America Canada 14 in Alberta, 16 in the rest of Canada; see Driving licence in Canada Greenland 18 (same as Denmark) Mexico 18 (16 with parental supervision) [20] United States 14-16 (Varies by state; see Driver's license in the United States) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_minimum_driving_age

 

[FiReSTaRT]

Which were?

McVeigh and Osama... Also the deadliest school killing in US history was all fire and explosives, no firearms.. Happened in the late-20's, early 30's, iirc.

 

[backmarkerducati]

Don't care. Just brought it up to answer the question posed.

But it is material, it shows that something was learned from a past mistake and now large scale fertilizer sales are watched to make sure the same mistake is not repeated--this is VERY IMPORTANT. The problem at hand is they do not take the same action when it comes to mass killings with legally purchased guns. If they do not learn it will continue to happen over and over again. Does not require bans (just like fertilizer and Diesel fuel is not now banned) but it does require intelligent debate by both sides to make sure things like this do not happen in the future (or are at least not as often...). If they do not learn from their mistakes they will continue to repeat them.

The moral of the story, no action if children or other people are mass murdered. Shoot a couple of republicans and boom things change (Brady Bill). Shows the priority of the gun lobby.

The NRA can compare the US to non-third world countries all they want. They can purposely skew the stats comparing to countries like Switzerland or England all they want. They can argue about pools and car accidents all they want. They can cry about terrorists all they want. They can promote Harvard studies that claim more violent crimes are stopped in progress with guns then there are violent crimes... None of this changes the actual fact nothing is being learned and history will repeat over and over until it is.

 

[mmmnaked]

FYI

Bloomberg and Emanuel spend more on anti-gun lobbying than the NRA does as an association.

At least the NRA represents several million citizens as opposed to the personal whims of two billionaires/millionaires.

But yeah, the NRA is evil and undemocratic blah blah.

 

[backmarkerducati]

FYI

Bloomberg and Emanuel spend more on anti-gun lobbying than the NRA does as an association.

At least the NRA represents several million citizens as opposed to the personal whims of two billionaires/millionaires.

But yeah, the NRA is evil and undemocratic blah blah.

So how much a person or organization spends is somehow proportional to how evil they are? That does explain a lot, these mass murderers with legal guns are not evil because they don't spend a lot? At least to the gun lobby apparently.

Sounds like more smoke and mirrors to draw attention away from the core problem to me.

 

[LoneRonin]

Is it once per month now?

iirc there was a school shooting in California last month.

I think that was just the latest episode of Sons of Anarchy...

 

[BLUE_KAWI]

All of these killings pale in comparison to the many deaths from prescription drugs from Big Pharma.
Why aren’t the Big Phama companies considered Terrorists?….oh right.
What if Terrorists are considered a threat because they are cutting into the profiting of death from Big Pharma?
Mind Blown?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robwate...that-cry-out-for-action-and-better-reporting/

http://www.alternet.org/story/14731...iption_drugs,_while_pharma_companies_get_rich

McVeigh and Osama... Also the deadliest school killing in US history was all fire and explosives, no firearms.. Happened in the late-20's, early 30's, iirc.

 

[mmmnaked]

So how much a person or organization spends is somehow proportional to how evil they are? That does explain a lot, these mass murderers with legal guns are not evil because they don't spend a lot? At least to the gun lobby apparently.

Sounds like more smoke and mirrors to draw attention away from the core problem to me.

The 'real issue' is socioeconomic.

Discussions about guns are smoke and mirrors.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

The 'real issue' is socioeconomic.

Discussions about guns are smoke and mirrors.

Don't try to confuse this discussion with truth and facts.. It's bad etiquette

 

[backmarkerducati]

The 'real issue' is socioeconomic.

Discussions about guns are smoke and mirrors.

While I agree this needs to be addressed and it is a major problem, specially with the illegal gun/crime issues--illegal guns are not the matter at hand in these mass shootings with LEGAL guns. Most of these mass shootings with legal guns cannot be directly tied to people who are "victims" of this. Gang/crime issues yes, but not this.

Mental health is a factor--and some of this can be linked to things like no "free" health care (which could be partially social-economic).

Still a pretty far stretch to justify why a well paid defense contractor with metal issues killed 13 people with a legally purchased gun.

As I said if they do not learn from their mistakes they are doomed to repeat them. Not bans but I would hope most people would think that not allowing mentally unstable people to buy or own guns is a good thing, apparently not everyone in the US. ALL of these mass shootings are being done by mentally unstable people (obviously) that have access to guns (many time legal guns).

Do you think a mentally unstable person should be allowed to own guns or to have access to their families guns? Simple question, once that is answered then how to prevent it is next.

 

[promac]

Would this shooting still have happened, if they had sensible gun control laws that would have seen the suspect penalized and stripped of his weapons after the two shooting incidents he had previously? Guess we'll never know, but I'm sure all the "GUNS FOR EVERYONE!!!" idealists will counter with a billion and one stats proving that the only solution is in fact, the Wild Wild West.

CDC Study: Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

President Obama signs executive order for CDC gun violence study. (AP photo)

(CNSNews.com) – “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

The report, which notes that “ violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years,” also pointed out that “some firearm violence results in death, but most does not.” In fact, the CDC report said, most incidents involving the discharge of firearms do not result in a fatality.

“In 2010, incidents in the U.S. involving firearms injured or killed more than 105,000 Americans, of which there were twice as many nonfatal firearm-related injuries (73,505) than deaths.”

The White House unveiled a plan in January that included orders to the CDC to “conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence.” According to the White House report, “Research on gun violence is not advocacy; it is critical public health research that gives all Americans information they need.”

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

“Most felons report obtaining the majority of their firearms from informal sources,” adds the report, while “stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals.”

Researchers also found that the majority of firearm deaths are from suicide, not homicide. “Between the years 2000 and 2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States.”


(AP Photo)

African American males are most affected by firearm-related violence, with “32 per 100,000” deaths. Risk factors and predictors of violence include income inequality, “diminished economic opportunities . . . high levels of family disruption” and “low levels of community participation.”

The report expresses uncertainty about gun control measures, stating that “whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue,” and that there is no evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.” It also stated that proposed “gun turn-in programs are ineffective.”

Instead, researchers proposed gun safety technologies such as “external locking devices and biometric systems” to reduce firearm-related deaths.

“I thought it was very telling that this report focused so heavily on . . . futuristic technology that’s not been brought to the market in any kind of reliable form that consumers have any interest in,” John Frazer, director of research and information at the National Rifle Association (NRA), told CNSNews.com.

These “smart gun” technologies are “designed to prevent misuse, to prevent either accidents or crimes committed with stolen guns,” Frazer noted. “Obviously it wouldn’t have any effect on crimes committed with a gun purchased by the criminal. It obviously wouldn’t have any effect on suicides by people who bought the guns themselves.” However, “it could have a huge burden on self-defense rights of law-abiding people if they’re forced to use an unproven technology.”

The CDC’s findings - that guns are an effective and often used crime deterrent and that most firearm incidents are not fatal - could affect the future of gun violence research..

The report establishes guidelines meant only for future “taxpayer-funded research,” Frazer said. However, “the anti-gun researchers out there who want to study and promote gun control are perfectly free to get funded to do that by [New York] Mayor Bloomberg or by any number of other organizations or foundations.”

“It depends on who’s doing the research,” Frazer added. “I would be very concerned that a lot of the follow-up research that might come from this agenda would be more of what we’ve seen from the anti-gun public health establishment in the past.”

Calls and an email from CNSNews to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence were not returned..

According to a National Academies press release, organizations supporting the CDC study have close ties to Obama.

When contacted by CNSNews, the Annie E. Casey Foundation issued a statement reaffirming its support for the study, which “is in keeping with our work to collaborate with public agencies, nonprofit organizations, policymakers and community leaders to make a positive impact on the lives of kids, families and communities.” Patrick Corvington, the foundation’s former senior associate, was nominated by Obama and confirmed in 2010 as CEO of the Corporation for National and Community Service.

Other supporters include The California Endowment, which has been promoting Obamacare; The Joyce Foundation, on whose Board of Directors Obama served for eight years prior to his Senate run; and Kaiser Permanente, which contributed over half a million dollars to his presidential campaign.

Featured Video

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

 

[mmmnaked]

While I agree this needs to be addressed and it is a major problem, specially with the illegal gun/crime issues--illegal guns are not the matter at hand in these mass shootings with LEGAL guns. Most of these mass shootings with legal guns cannot be directly tied to people who are "victims" of this. Gang/crime issues yes, but not this.

Mental health is a factor--and some of this can be linked to things like no "free" health care (which could be partially social-economic).

Still a pretty far stretch to justify why a well paid defense contractor with metal issues killed 13 people with a legally purchased gun.

As I said if they do not learn from their mistakes they are doomed to repeat them. Not bans but I would hope most people would think that not allowing mentally unstable people to buy or own guns is a good thing, apparently not everyone in the US. ALL of these mass shootings are being done by mentally unstable people (obviously) that have access to guns (many time legal guns).

Do you think a mentally unstable person should be allowed to own guns or to have access to their families guns? Simple question, once that is answered then how to prevent it is next.

I don't mind the Canadian system.

Read some books, do a course, pass an exam and a mental/criminal check, and be licensed to own firearms. What I disagree with is the bogus gun classifications but that's a different topic.

But I'm not American and thus have no place or reason to suggest that they switch to our way. Many of them are fiercely independent and pro-freedom, and thus find licensing would just be one step closer to prohibitions... And technically they'd be right.