Navy Yard Shooting

[MrSplitshot]

Thoughts and prayers go out to all of those who have lost loved ones in the senseless shootings today at the Navy Yard in D.C.

I see that the gun grabbers are wasting no time with it...
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/16/feinstein-calls-for-new-gun-control-laws-again-after-navy-yard-shooting/

If only we could have legislated D.C. into a gun-free zone, so that this could have been prevented.

If only we could have put laws on the books that prevent people with criminal backgrounds from getting guns, so that the alleged shooter could have never obtained his weapons.

Wait...what? We already did that?

Here's a guy who had a history of firing a weapon into an apartment building, and shooting out the tires on a co-worker's car...and he is somehow able to obtain weapons without a background check...and he has blatant disregard for the gun free zone in Washington D.C.

When are we going to wake up and realize that criminals don't obey laws?

Those people in the Navy Yard should have been able to carry concealed to protect themselves, but they couldn't.

Sad, sad, sad.

[GeoFisher]

He killed security folks in the building, and then used their weapons.......MEANING he would have murdered those security folks ANY WAY HE COULD......taking their weapons, and going on the killing spree that he went on.

He was a CRAZY MFER.

Details will paint an evil, evil picture.

Later,

Geo

[know1]

This particular (very tragic) situation has to take some wind out of the sails of those who say more guns and more armed people are the answer.

I'm not making a stand on either side, but he was in an area that required security clearance and had armed guards (not just armed civilians) and not only was he able to do this, but he also apparently ended up using some of the guards' weapons to continue shooting. If the argument is that more guns will help prevent these tragedies, then he definitely put a dent in that stand.

The gun control debate is one in which neither side has me very convinced that they have a good solution.

[GeoFisher]

CRAZY Control........that is what we need.

A few decades ago, if you were CRAZY, you were institutionalized. Today, not so much. Hell, you're more than likely to be homeless if you're CRAZY today.

**** shame.

I'd take a few billion dollars out of the "silly" budget. Meaning WELFARE, and create institutions, and put CRAZY folks away. Try to uncrazy them.

Later,

Geo

[mhall]

My Mother God rest her soul was a labratory technician at Central State Hospital for 30 years. She saw it all and I mean some bonified fruit loop folks. Back in the day if you were extremely mentally unstable and more importantly unsafe to society you were basically put away. When and only if you were deemed of sound mind would you be able to return to the mainstream world. Was it a perfect system...of course not but it beat what we have now.

We as a society need to go back to this. We keep reading about all these warning signs and things that happen to these folks prior to their crimes. Mental health issues are being ignored in this country. New Town could have been avoided, his Mother begged for help, that kid was MAJOR whacked....BAD. Everybody that lived on that street and in that community was scared crapless of him including his own Mom but nobody listened. This guy here was no different he was a complete nutcase and it was blantantly ignored and we see it yet again.................Very sad

Lets at least try and fix whats broke...people, not guns...

[MrSplitshot]

This particular (very tragic) situation has to take some wind out of the sails of those who say more guns and more armed people are the answer.

I'm not making a stand on either side, but he was in an area that required security clearance and had armed guards (not just armed civilians) and not only was he able to do this, but he also apparently ended up using some of the guards' weapons to continue shooting. If the argument is that more guns will help prevent these tragedies, then he definitely put a dent in that stand.

The gun control debate is one in which neither side has me very convinced that they have a good solution.

These crazed shooters have the element of surprise in their favor, always. Every person in the building could have been wearing a pistol and he would have still been able to take up a position and kill some immediately, strictly because only HE knew when and where and how it was going to go down. He had the element of surprise.

You think you couldn't walk into a bank right now with a gun under your jacket and shoot two armed guards before they knew what was going on? Of course you could. You are controlling when and where the game starts, so you have the upper hand.

The difference, to me, is that once the bullets start flying from a madman...and once the crowd knows what's going on...even if the armed guards were the first ones targeted and lose...more guns in the crowd could most definitely make it STOP sooner before more lives are lost. If there were several people in the crowd with guns, you can't tell me that someone wouldn't have been able to get to the guy and get him on the ground sooner.

Instead, while we are waiting for the authorities to respond, arrive, assess, and enter...more people are being killed as the guy makes his way through the building looking for more people to shoot.

I realize and respect the argument that more guns in the crowd can mean more innocent bystanders shot, crossfire, confusion when the police arrive, etc, etc, etc...I get it. But, more guns in the crowd increases the odds that a good guy takes out the bad guy sooner. Without them, the madman controls the situation longer. As long as he's in control, he can kill as many unarmed people as he can reach.

I love and respect law enforcement officers, but in those first 5-10 minutes after a madman opens fire in my office building, there is nobody to look out for me but ME. If I have a firearm, I have greatly increased my chances of survival. Otherwise, I'm just hiding under a desk with a paperweight in my right hand and hoping the guy doesn't pick my office. I aint going out like that.

[mhall]

Splitshot that is as good as it can be explained..

[DJD]

I try and have faith on not having any new crazy gun laws but the more this happens the easier its going to be to get something crazy passed. I honestly don't want anything new passed since it will do very little to help the problem of nut jobs and usually punishes or adds red tape to legal tax paying citizens.

i wish they would just take areas and use them as beta sites for gun control measures. Maybe Chicago? Pass another 100 laws on gun control in a city with plenty of laws and see how it works after 10 years or so and then let's talk.