If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MyWay News)   Federal Law Enforcement Officials say the man accused in a shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard that left at least 12 people dead has been identified as Aaron Alexis, a 34 year-old man from Texas   (apnews.myway.com) divider line 896
    More: Followup, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, Texas, the man accused, officials, american patriots, long gun, federal  
•       •       •

10006 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Sep 2013 at 4:19 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



896 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-16 07:33:37 PM

FriarReb98: Any word if it was a real AR-15 and not one from the obligatory chart?


Since he took it from a guard, and it was fully automatic, I'm gonna go with "no", it wasn't an AR-15.

Word I saw, he had a double-barrel shotgun, shot a guard, and took the guard's weapon.
 
2013-09-16 07:34:33 PM

Cletus C.: How many mass shootings does there need to be before people realize gun control is not the answer?


You do have a point. The only answer to it is completely abolishing them with a door to door sweep. Mexico and Canada included. Sanitize the hemisphere. Short of that, it's all hand wringing.

In reality, the bell can't be unrung. Mad Max is a documentary.
 
2013-09-16 07:34:47 PM

vrax: They are, however, buying and using machine guns.


How, exactly?  And where?  Do you have a cite for your claim that 2% of California's gun crimes are committed with machine guns (which I'm going to define as automatic weapons).
 
2013-09-16 07:34:56 PM

CrazyCracka420: Kuroshin: CrazyCracka420: Kuroshin: LarryDan43: Infernalist: Remember now, the problem isn't the prevalence of guns in society and ease with which anyone can get them.

The problem is there aren't enough guns out there yet.

/nra

This is not the time to talk about gun control!

Sure it is!  Because a bomb would have been much better!

/crazy gonna cray
//killers gonna kill

///makes it much easier to do with a tool whose sole purpose is designed to kill and is easily accessible to anyone in this country.

You mean like a bomb?

Yes, exactly like a bomb. You can walk into any sporting goods store and pickup a bomb without any questions being asked.

You farking serious guy?


Wait...are you suggesting you can walk into a sporting goods store and pick up a gun without any questions being asked?

You farking serious guy?
 
2013-09-16 07:35:05 PM

Radioactive Ass: Surpheon: The derp is strong with this one. Copper bullets may be a greater risk to start forest fires, but they are not regulated at all. Just another blatant lie from the right wing.

Do you have any idea how much a 20 ct. box of solid copper 30.06 costs? $50. Meanwhile a box of the same in FMJ lead is $17. 3x the price. There's a reason why meth-heads steal copper, that stuff is expensive. It will have the effect of pricing most hunters out of the game in California. That's not only a whole lot of revenue from hunting permits that will go away but also all of the side private businesses that rely upon hunters for their income. The only cheap alternative is, as I said before, steel and those are heavily regulated in their manufacture because they also have the side effect of being considered armor piercing rounds. The only derp here is yours in not knowing about the issue before you opened your mouth on it.


Even in an absolute worst case scenario where bullets are banned (and others have noted that they most certainly are NOT--copper is still legal, for one; secondly, steel duck shot is not only legal but has been mandatory for some time and it hasn't led to the End Of Waterfowl Hunting)...

...you DO realise that there are many practical ways to go hunting that do NOT involve modern firearms, right?  (Mind, these methods are (shall we say) Very Old Classics, and they do require a bit more skill at learning the habits of what you are hunting and how to give an effective kill shot, but they do exist and have worked very well for humans all the way back to when we didn't use metals at ALL and where Projectile Lithic Heads were the new hotness in weapons technology.  Bonus: A fair number of sportsmen will note that the older methods like muzzleloaders and crossbows and Good Old Archery are...dare we say...more sporting than just blowing the shiat out of dinner.)
 
2013-09-16 07:35:07 PM
vrax
Enemabag Jones: vrax
The_Mad_Dutchman: Enemabag Jones:
In 1986 full auto arm not grandfathered in were effectively made illegal for those of moderate incomes, but short of the temporary limitations in 1996 I don't remember a further clapdown on gunowners.
The closing of the machine gun registry in '86 was another feel good/do nothing piece of legislation anyway. Since the inception of the NFA in 1934, there have only been three (yes, three) murders commited with legally registered machine guns. One of these was even a police officer, he killed his spouse with a select-fire AR. Just recently a man killed his wife with an auto Uzi, part of his collection, otherwise we were at two murders for around 30 years. These just aren't the weapons criminals buy or use.
That is a hell of a jump to make. Just because legally registered machine guns weren't used in crime doesn't mean that machine guns aren't purchased or used by criminals. Machine guns are used in about 2% of crime here in CA. Majority? No. Represented? Certainly.
I think the difference here is between either illegally modified or illegally imported full-auto, and gun/rifles that were grandfathered in per the 1986 law.
Well, it is true that criminals aren't buying or using legally registered pre-'86 machine guns. They are, however, buying and using machine guns. Not sure what other point I was supposed to take away from his statement.


I get your point. It was a technical, statistical point regarding registered pre-86 full auto guns. But you are right full-auto guns are still used in crime.
 
2013-09-16 07:35:09 PM

mizchief: That and defending ourselves against a tyrannical government which unfortunately seems to become more necessary each day.


WAAAAHHH THE TYRANNICAL WASHINGTON NAVY YARD IS OPPRESSING MEEEEEEEEEE
 
2013-09-16 07:35:49 PM

skozlaw: Enemabag Jones: Second there are rational gunowners that are worried about gun owners rights. Then there are kneejerk NRA supporters that will disagree with anything, anything that restricts a gunowner's rights.

That really misses the point. The idiots who refuse EVERYTHING are an incredibly weak minority. The real problem is the HUGE number of indifferent idiots who SAY they want reasonable changes to keep guns away from criminals and the mentally ill but when it comes time to push for those things just yawns and turns away. A massive majority claims to want universal background checks, but if they have to actually DO something to make it happen, well fark that, so we don't get it because the 10-15% of nutjobs are the only ones who actually speak.

We don't get sensible gun regulation because of the huge majority of people who are too indifferent to act, not because the tiny minority of NRA-funded idiots has that much sway.


Act on what?

Give us a bill to vote on.  We'll vote on it.

Otherwise, STFU.  We aren't going to do the work you aren't willing to do.

/wants checks in place
//hasn't seen a single bill to vote for or against
///I blame blowhards, like you - put up or shut up
 
2013-09-16 07:35:53 PM

Kuroshin: Nice straw man


I don't think you know what a straw man argument is. I'll say it slowly, so as not to confuse your delicate mind:

Fark. Gun. Control.

I'm not making an argument for gun control, I'm asking gun nuts to be proud of their work.
 
2013-09-16 07:36:52 PM

GRCooper: FriarReb98: Any word if it was a real AR-15 and not one from the obligatory chart?

Since he took it from a guard, and it was fully automatic, I'm gonna go with "no", it wasn't an AR-15.

Word I saw, he had a double-barrel shotgun, shot a guard, and took the guard's weapon.


Has any official source confirmed that the rifle found was in fact stolen from a facility guard?

/Not that such a fact would deter firearm prohibition advocates.
 
2013-09-16 07:37:02 PM

Elegy: snocone: mizchief: Thank You Black Jesus!: If only there had been a force of armed individuals nearby. Or perhaps more guns.

If only.

One of the first things Clinton did was ban servicemen from carrying personal weapons on base and all but made it impossible for commanders to allow service-issued weapons carried on base for non-MP's:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-milit a ry-base-gun-ban/

Also, overseas when such attacks become a problem it was ordered that all military personnel carry while on duty regardless of current assignment:  http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/17/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban/index.ht m l

So hundreds of the best trained marksmen in the world sat there with their dicks in their hands (or each others if you want to throw in a navy gay joke) while waiting for local DC cops to show up.

Can't recall the last time a gun attack on armed soldiers became a "shooting rampage", whut?

Have you noticed that the shooters go to an unarmed mass of people to start shooting?

I do believe there is some wisdom in there, but it just keeps eluding me,,,

[i.imgur.com image 300x300]


Correlation, causation, etc.
 
2013-09-16 07:37:25 PM

Radioactive Ass: xalres: I read that the reason they're banning the lead bullets is because hunters are being irresponsible and leaving them with the guts and other field dressing detritus for things like condors to eat.

It's not lead. It's DDT (again). Link. Lead bullets are already banned in Condor preserves and have been for 5 years. This ban is for all hunting anywhere in the state.


It's both. DDT from seal carcasses for the coastal birds and lead from ammunition for the inland birds.
 
2013-09-16 07:38:32 PM

Kuroshin: Give us a bill to vote on.


I don't think you know how government works. You should consider a basic Civics class before commenting again.
 
2013-09-16 07:39:14 PM
Elegy:  [nooneherecanshootback.jpg]

I think this cartoon is hilarious.  I like the way it depicts the Virginia Tech shooter as just some unrelated outsider rationally selecting "Virginia Tech" because it looks like a place where there are no guns.

As opposed to the liberal media myth that the shooter was actually a student there, and went out in a rampage there because that's where he was when he snapped.
 
2013-09-16 07:40:01 PM

CrazyCracka420: Kuroshin: CrazyCracka420: Kuroshin: LarryDan43: Infernalist: Remember now, the problem isn't the prevalence of guns in society and ease with which anyone can get them.

The problem is there aren't enough guns out there yet.

/nra

This is not the time to talk about gun control!

Sure it is!  Because a bomb would have been much better!

/crazy gonna cray
//killers gonna kill

///makes it much easier to do with a tool whose sole purpose is designed to kill and is easily accessible to anyone in this country.

You mean like a bomb?

Yes, exactly like a bomb. You can walk into any sporting goods store and pickup a bomb without any questions being asked.

You farking serious guy?


Sporting goods store?  No.  Well, yes, but only in piecemeal.

Farm store?  Yes.

Fireworks stand?  Yes.

Kitchen store?  Piecemeal again.

Medical supply store?  Yes.

Gas station?  Yes.

Department store?  Yes.

Bombs aren't all 15Kt nuclear devices or 1000# iron lumps.  Kids in rural communities make them for fun.  Want to know why Jeb's only got three fingers on his left hand?  Because he's "done it a billion times" - until it went wrong once.

Doesn't take much in skill or materials to make a bomb that takes out a dozen or more people in a tightly-packed hallway.  So yes, I'm serious.  Bombs come pre-packaged right now, right down the street, and you'd only know it if you had the creativity to see it.
 
2013-09-16 07:40:02 PM

Cletus C.: How many mass shootings does there need to be before people realize gun control is not the answer?


we need more gun control laws. After all, how are soldiers going to be expected to protect themselves?
 
2013-09-16 07:40:56 PM

skozlaw: Kuroshin: Nice straw man

I don't think you know what a straw man argument is. I'll say it slowly, so as not to confuse your delicate mind:

Fark. Gun. Control.

I'm not making an argument for gun control, I'm asking gun nuts to be proud of their work.


No, you're establishing a straw man of a "gun nut" to attack, then attacking it.

Do you even read what you type?
 
2013-09-16 07:41:01 PM

Snarfangel: Isitoveryet: PainfulItching: Isitoveryet: Radioactive Ass: lead bullets for hunting

I don't want to shoot what i'm going to eat with lead.

am currently looking into a taser hunting rod.

Enjoy your vegetables.

who in the hell hunts vegetables?

[crayfisher.files.wordpress.com image 300x221]


I no longer need to check back and see how the thread is going. That ended it.
Well played.
 
2013-09-16 07:41:10 PM

The_Mad_Dutchman: vrax: The_Mad_Dutchman: Enemabag Jones:
In 1986 full auto arm not grandfathered in were effectively made illegal for those of moderate incomes, but short of the temporary limitations in 1996 I don't remember a further clapdown on gunowners.

The closing of the machine gun registry in '86 was another feel good/do nothing piece of legislation anyway. Since the inception of the NFA in 1934, there have only been three (yes, three) murders commited with legally registered machine guns. One of these was even a police officer, he killed his spouse with a select-fire AR. Just recently a man killed his wife with an auto Uzi, part of his collection, otherwise we were at two murders for around 30 years. These just aren't the weapons criminals buy or use.

That is a hell of a jump to make.  Just because legally registered machine guns weren't used in crime doesn't mean that machine guns aren't purchased or used by criminals.  Machine guns are used in about 2% of crime here in CA.  Majority?  No.  Represented?  Certainly.

I'm not making any jump, I'm speaking from facts. Almost 80 years and just 3 murders. As for "machine guns" being used for 2% of crime in California... I'm defining machine gun as the BATFE defines it: A weapon, or any part thereof, which is designed to fire more than one round when the trigger is depressed. I know a lot of states have expanded their own definitions of machine gun so as to make them seem like a pervasive problem, or to ban certain types of weapon. If you have a gun that holds 11 rounds, it's a machine gun in DC for instance, doesn't matter that it isn't fully automatic. This is just disingenuous. The fact is, legally registered machine guns just aren't used in crimes, plain and simple. When you're spending upwards of $15,000 or $20,000 on a weapon... you're not going to go knocking over gas stations with it.


That stat is based on full-auto and converted weapons, not some weird BS.  You seemed to be saying that they don't use machine guns.  I was just pointing out that they do.  If you meant that they simply don't use legally registered machine guns, then I would agree, but the point seems a little silly.
 
2013-09-16 07:41:19 PM

James10952001: Some 85% of gun crime occurs with handguns, yet most of the focus is on so called assault rifles that are used in around 1% of gun violence. I would take the gun control argument a lot more seriously if not for this aspect. It has the outward appearance of an emotional tirade against guns that look scary, and that does not help the cause.


Define Gun Crime as used here,
Is Gun violence different than Gun Crime?
What percent of spree killers use semi-automatic rifles/carbines versus handguns, shotguns or other rifles?
 
2013-09-16 07:41:50 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: FLMountainMan: Let's get to what's important - is he white or black?  Will he be liberal or conservative?  I've got my tu quoques ready to launch.

It doesn't matter, the gun haters will exploit this tragedy to push their anti-gun agenda just like they do everytime a crazy person with a gun kills dozens of innocent people.

When will the gun grabbers learn that the wake of any gun created tragedy is NEVER the time to suggest more gun control? Rather, it is a time to heal and reflect upon how a better armed populace could prevent such occurrences.

Of course, when we happen to have a month where a gun caused massacre doesn't happen, that isn't the time to suggest more gun control either, because hey what's your problem with guns? A bunch of school kids or office workers haven't been killed in a gun-dependent slaughter in like six weeks. Relax.


Enforce the laws on the books. If you want to get rid of every gun in every house then the govt is going to have to educate the upcoming generations that the govt will protect them. But in order for it to be believed, the govt cannot be corrupt and actually be competent when they do protect. But since they aren't, the populace will never be disarmed.
 
2013-09-16 07:42:25 PM
President Barack Obama mourned yet another mass shooting in the U.S. that he said took the lives of American patriots. Obama promised to make sure "whoever carried out this cowardly act is held responsible."

Someone's going to have to explain the "cowardly" bit for me, seeing as the perp apparently attacked a highly-secured military installation, and escaped with his life (meaning it wasn't a suicide attempt).

Even if the guy's a complete sociopath who did it solely for a thrill, that sounds pretty farking non-cowardly.
 
2013-09-16 07:42:25 PM

Xcott: I think this cartoon is hilarious. I like the way it depicts the Virginia Tech shooter as just some unrelated outsider rationally selecting "Virginia Tech" because it looks like a place where there are no guns.


And Columbine had an armed guard. In fact, when Columbine isn't being used as an example of a targeted gun-free zone it's being used as an example of why guns on campus are good.

Don't confuse gun nuts. They can't really think beyond "GUNS GOOD".
 
2013-09-16 07:42:29 PM

xalres: Radioactive Ass: Surpheon: The derp is strong with this one. Copper bullets may be a greater risk to start forest fires, but they are not regulated at all. Just another blatant lie from the right wing.

Do you have any idea how much a 20 ct. box of solid copper 30.06 costs? $50. Meanwhile a box of the same in FMJ lead is $17. 3x the price. There's a reason why meth-heads steal copper, that stuff is expensive. It will have the effect of pricing most hunters out of the game in California. That's not only a whole lot of revenue from hunting permits that will go away but also all of the side private businesses that rely upon hunters for their income. The only cheap alternative is, as I said before, steel and those are heavily regulated in their manufacture because they also have the side effect of being considered armor piercing rounds. The only derp here is yours in not knowing about the issue before you opened your mouth on it.

I read that the reason they're banning the lead bullets is because hunters are being irresponsible and leaving them with the guts and other field dressing detritus for things like condors to eat.


Copper bullets? Never heard of them. What's wrong with steel?

IIRC, lead shot have been banned in many jurisdictons because waterfowl, scavengers and predators, swallow them and are poisoned by the lead. Lead is poison to everybody, including hunters and their friends and families.  Steel, on the other hand, is not so dangerous to living things and will rust away slowly.

Lead has one advantage and that is its weight. Mind you, depleted uranium is also weighty and possibly less dangerous than lead. Possibly. Most of the trans-uranic elements are toxic.

I learned about the lead issue when I was working for Environment Canada many, many years ago. Well, to be honest, in the 1980s. You can't use lead shot to hunt birds in Canada (since 1995, see below), where guns are more common than in the US according to Conservative propaganda, and the long gun registry failed because of vast amounts of propaganda and money from Conservatives.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lead+shot+banned+all+across+Canada.-a0 30 032642

Get with the program, America. There's no real sane or pratical reason for a poisonous heavy metal to ever come near your food. Steal will do.
 
2013-09-16 07:42:57 PM
Seattle police say he shot out someone's tires in "an anger fueled blackout".

And yet charges were dropped?
 
2013-09-16 07:43:56 PM

skozlaw: Kuroshin: Give us a bill to vote on.

I don't think you know how government works. You should consider a basic Civics class before commenting again.


So by pointing out how we don't get to vote on such things (as it's down to Congress, not the Public), you prove how stupid railing against us individual gun owners really is.  Good job, you've just defeated your own argument.

Now, as I said, get to writing that bill.  Lobbyists write all the bills, and while *we* don't get to vote on them directly, our congresscritters do.  Mine's Wyden.  Guess which way he'll vote.  Go ahead, guess.
 
2013-09-16 07:44:43 PM

Radioactive Ass: PainfulItching: Gee, I'd love to collect classic Corvettes, but if they were only 1/3rd the price I'd be able to. There is a conspiracy to keep me out of the classic car market. My freedoms are being infringed upon!!! I'm guaranteed the pursuit of happiness! The only thing standing in the way is the price. I have a clean criminal record and a the proper license. The demand for my hobby is higher than the supply! I'm being oppressed!! If only I had an organization to lobby congress on my behalf.

Not a good analogy. This is like suddenly tripling the prices of all cars no matter what the make and model (to use your car example). Not all hunters do it for a hobby just like not all people who own cars do it to have a classic car. For many it's a tool (hunting for food or driving to get to work).

Derptastic response though...


You realize how ridiculous the "Mah bullets is too expensive!" argument sounds to me right? It's the price of doing business. If you need a gun to be a hunter/gatherer and you can't afford ammo, you need to start sharpening sticks and plant a garden.

I'm no hypocrite here. I just understand that it's going to be more expensive to buy ammo for mine too. Gas is more expensive for my (not a Corvette) car than it was a few years back as well.
 
2013-09-16 07:45:06 PM

skozlaw: mizchief: If your of the thought that banning all guns to stop a lone madman is more practical than letting trained soldiers carry weapons on base then yes this feeds right into your hands.

Says the guy who thinks every person in the country should have to carry at least five firearms at a time everywhere he goes.


And I said that when exactly?
 
2013-09-16 07:45:59 PM

gfid: And yet charges were dropped?


Sounds more like it was an administrative fark-up from the AP story since the prosecutor's office is claiming they "never received paperwork".

This guy sounds like he had established mental problems.
 
2013-09-16 07:46:26 PM

tetsoushima: This was pretty good, but I'm sure the next one will be even better.


Yup, and the next one after that.

They keep saying on TV "What a tragedy. Oh, this is such a tragedy."

This is NOT a tragedy* -- This is an INEVITABILITY!!!

As long as mental health is non-existent and guns are ever-present, this is the way America is and will continue to be. Get used to it.


*except for the dead and their families
 
2013-09-16 07:47:49 PM

Infernalist: Well, what's important here is that no guns were harmed and the right for loonies to own guns remain secure.

Twelve dead people? Small price to pay for the rights of homicidal lunatics to have guns.


What's going to suck is when we overpopulated and millions starve. Small price to pay for fsrking.

That was easier than I thought
 
2013-09-16 07:47:54 PM

CrazyCracka420: Kuroshin: CrazyCracka420: Kuroshin: LarryDan43: Infernalist: Remember now, the problem isn't the prevalence of guns in society and ease with which anyone can get them.

The problem is there aren't enough guns out there yet.

/nra

This is not the time to talk about gun control!

Sure it is!  Because a bomb would have been much better!

/crazy gonna cray
//killers gonna kill

///makes it much easier to do with a tool whose sole purpose is designed to kill and is easily accessible to anyone in this country.

You mean like a bomb?

Yes, exactly like a bomb. You can walk into any sporting goods store and pickup a bomb without any questions being asked.

You farking serious guy?


Well, you can pretty much, at least if you stop at the hardware store on your way home. I'm not going to mention specifics because I use many of the items in mundane day to day projects and don't want some idiot trying to ban them because someone could potentially make something bad, but a few minutes with Google will fill you in.
 
2013-09-16 07:49:22 PM

PainfulItching: Cletus C.: How many mass shootings does there need to be before people realize gun control is not the answer?

You do have a point. The only answer to it is completely abolishing them with a door to door sweep. Mexico and Canada included. Sanitize the hemisphere. Short of that, it's all hand wringing.

In reality, the bell can't be unrung. Mad Max is a documentary.


Timeline before or after Idiocracy?
 
2013-09-16 07:50:23 PM

Fista-Phobia: Why does anyone need a bumpfire stock? Because you can right? USA! USA!


Nobody needs one, it's a stupid toy for Rambo wannabes with more money than brains. It's also useless for actually hitting targets so no reason to ban them, unless you just like banning things based on how scary they are in your mind rather than actual incidents with them.
 
2013-09-16 07:50:25 PM
The Slatest
Blog
Developing Story: Mass Shooting at Washington's Navy Yard
By Josh Voorhees
Updated Monday, Sept. 16, 2013, at 6:25 PM

Latest Updates From the Washington Navy Yard Shooting:

DC Police have confirmed that one gunman, identified as a 34-year-old American-born male, is dead at the scene.
The deceased suspect, Aaron Alexis, was arrested in 2004 after shooting the tires out of another man's car.
Police say they are still searching for at least one other suspect, who they believe may have "potentially" also been involved in the mass shooting.
Authorities have confirmed that there are at least 13 fatalities.
*** *** ***

Also on the Slatest: An Emerging Snapshot of a Mass Shooter: What We Think We Know About Aaron Alexis

Conflicting information continues to roll in from the Washington Navy Yard, where at least one gunman went on a deadly shooting spree Monday morning at the military building in southeast D.C. that left at least 13 dead, including the suspected shooter.

The FBI late this afternoon publicly identified the alleged gunman who was killed as Aaron Alexis, a 34-year-old American-born male who previously served as a Navy reservist. Police, meanwhile, continued their search for a possible second gunman, described earlier in the day by D.C. police as a black man, thought to be in his 40s or 50s, who was wearing an olive-colored uniform and carrying a "long gun."

"We have no known motive at this stage," D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray said at an afternoon press conference. "We don't have any reason at this stage to suspect terrorism, but certainly it has not been ruled out."

Citing Navy records released by the Pentagon, the New York Times, reports that Alexis enlisted as a full-time reservist in May 2007 and left the service in January 2011 after serving as an aviation electrician and earning the rank of mate third class, as well as the National Defense Service Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. His last known address was in Fort Worth, Texas.

The Seattle Police Department confirmed that, prior to enlisting, Alexis had been arrested in 2004 for shooting the tires of another man's vehicle in what Alexis later told detectives was an anger-fueled "blackout." While investigating the incident, Seattle detectives spoke with Alexis' father, who said then that his son had anger management problems associated with PTSD, and had participated in rescue attempts on 9/11.

At a mid-day briefing, D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier said that police were looking for two other "potential" shooters, although local officials later confirmed that the second of those two suspects-one who was described as a white male wearing what appeared to be a khaki uniform and a beret, and carrying a handgun-had been located and cleared.

Given this continues to be a developing situation, it's important to treat many of the unconfirmed details about the shooting with a healthy degree of skepticism. In the hours since the first shots were heard this morning there have been conflicting reports on everything from the number of gunshots to the type of firearms used to the number of wounded and dead. NBC News and CBS News, meanwhile, erroneously reported what they said was the dead gunman's identity early Monday afternoon only to quickly retract those reports moments shortly after.

Lanier and other officials have stressed that police do not know for certain that there was more than one shooter, although Lanier said they had several pieces of evidence suggesting that the two other men were seen in the area carrying firearms.

The death toll has slowly climbed throughout the day and, as of shortly after 5 p.m., stood at 13, including Alexis. Several other people are currently being treated at local hospitals, and it is unclear whether the number of dead would continue to inch upwards throughout the evening.

President Obama addressed this morning's shooting briefly before delivering a speech this afternoon to mark the fifth anniversary of the economic crash, calling the shooting a "cowardly act" but cautioning that "we still don't know all the facts."

"So we are confronting yet another mass shooting, and today it happened on a military installation in our nation's capital," the president said. "It's a shooting that targeted military and civilian personnel. These are men and women going to work, doing their job protecting all of us. They're patriots, and they know the dangers of serving abroad, but today they faced the unimaginable violence that they wouldn't have expected here at home."
 
2013-09-16 07:50:57 PM

mizchief: And I said that when exactly?


Oh, gee, sorry. I thought since you started making up outlandish opinions for other people that was going to be a theme so I was just following suit.

Kuroshin: you prove how stupid railing against us individual gun owners really is


I've already addressed this earlier in the thread. Feel free to go read it.

By the way, I own two guns. A .22 bolt action long rifle and a Sig P226.

I just don't think I should be able to own guns with complete impunity. And if you really want reasonable checks, great, but give the fark up. The people I'm biatching at have pretty decisively ensured that sensible control will never happen, so I'm more than happy to just help remind them of the blood on their hands instead.

Owning a gun doesn't make you a lunatic, but I'm not going to sit and pretend that a portion of gun owners AREN'T lunatics, either.
 
2013-09-16 07:51:03 PM
www.stuffistumbledupon.com

/ thanks Obama
 
2013-09-16 07:51:16 PM
You buy whatever gun or carbine you want, but there's a mandated training program made available through local gun ranges at low/free cost on handling, care and safety.  Would that be acceptable?  Table licensing for now; just ensure that who buys the gun is also taught to handle and respect the gun.  Previous purchasers can keep a verifiable receipt and not have to take a repeat course.

Guns don't bother me.  Lack of discipline is really getting on my nerves.
 
2013-09-16 07:51:46 PM

PainfulItching: mizchief: LoneWolf343: RedVentrue: WOW. A tragedy that plays into a lib political agenda? Whoda thunkit?

Reality has a liberal bias.

If your of the thought that banning all guns to stop a lone madman is more practical than letting trained soldiers carry weapons on base then yes this feeds right into your hands.

There is a reasonable middle ground. It seems people have forgotten that. Holy fark.


There really isn't if you think that these events can be stopped through gun bans. Banning how a gun looks or how many bullets it can carry do nothing unless you carry it to the point of the gun being useless for self-defense and somehow destroy the vast majority of guns available.

I agree with taking steps to get guns away from people likely to do harm,  but putting restrictions on firearms does little to nothing.
 
2013-09-16 07:52:08 PM

James10952001: Fista-Phobia: Why does anyone need a bumpfire stock? Because you can right? USA! USA!

Nobody needs one, it's a stupid toy for Rambo wannabes with more money than brains. It's also useless for actually hitting targets so no reason to ban them, unless you just like banning things based on how scary they are in your mind rather than actual incidents with them.


How does suppression work?
 
2013-09-16 07:52:32 PM

Great Porn Dragon: Radioactive Ass: Surpheon: The derp is strong with this one. Copper bullets may be a greater risk to start forest fires, but they are not regulated at all. Just another blatant lie from the right wing.

Do you have any idea how much a 20 ct. box of solid copper 30.06 costs? $50. Meanwhile a box of the same in FMJ lead is $17. 3x the price. There's a reason why meth-heads steal copper, that stuff is expensive. It will have the effect of pricing most hunters out of the game in California. That's not only a whole lot of revenue from hunting permits that will go away but also all of the side private businesses that rely upon hunters for their income. The only cheap alternative is, as I said before, steel and those are heavily regulated in their manufacture because they also have the side effect of being considered armor piercing rounds. The only derp here is yours in not knowing about the issue before you opened your mouth on it.

Even in an absolute worst case scenario where bullets are banned (and others have noted that they most certainly are NOT--copper is still legal, for one; secondly, steel duck shot is not only legal but has been mandatory for some time and it hasn't led to the End Of Waterfowl Hunting)...

...you DO realise that there are many practical ways to go hunting that do NOT involve modern firearms, right?  (Mind, these methods are (shall we say) Very Old Classics, and they do require a bit more skill at learning the habits of what you are hunting and how to give an effective kill shot, but they do exist and have worked very well for humans all the way back to when we didn't use metals at ALL and where Projectile Lithic Heads were the new hotness in weapons technology.  Bonus: A fair number of sportsmen will note that the older methods like muzzleloaders and crossbows and Good Old Archery are...dare we say...more sporting than just blowing the shiat out of dinner.)


Sure and you can build a house without power tools. Doesn't mean we want to, unless one is just looking for a challenge.
 
2013-09-16 07:52:35 PM

Fark It: vrax: They are, however, buying and using machine guns.

How, exactly?  And where?  Do you have a cite for your claim that 2% of California's gun crimes are committed with machine guns (which I'm going to define as automatic weapons).


I thought this was the latest report, which contains the 2% figure:  http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_0 9 .pdf

However, I found one for the following year (why there aren't ones for every year I don't know) and it shows a decline to .6%:  http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Re p ort_10.pdf

I don't know about anyone else, but do the numbers in these reports seem really low for a state as large as CA?!
 
2013-09-16 07:53:03 PM

PainfulItching: Radioactive Ass: PainfulItching: Gee, I'd love to collect classic Corvettes, but if they were only 1/3rd the price I'd be able to. There is a conspiracy to keep me out of the classic car market. My freedoms are being infringed upon!!! I'm guaranteed the pursuit of happiness! The only thing standing in the way is the price. I have a clean criminal record and a the proper license. The demand for my hobby is higher than the supply! I'm being oppressed!! If only I had an organization to lobby congress on my behalf.

Not a good analogy. This is like suddenly tripling the prices of all cars no matter what the make and model (to use your car example). Not all hunters do it for a hobby just like not all people who own cars do it to have a classic car. For many it's a tool (hunting for food or driving to get to work).

Derptastic response though...

You realize how ridiculous the "Mah bullets is too expensive!" argument sounds to me right? It's the price of doing business. If you need a gun to be a hunter/gatherer and you can't afford ammo, you need to start sharpening sticks and plant a garden.

I'm no hypocrite here. I just understand that it's going to be more expensive to buy ammo for mine too. Gas is more expensive for my (not a Corvette) car than it was a few years back as well.


Now, don't get me wrong here, because there are precious few people these days who hunt for food using firearms that don't have other, cheaper options available already (we aren't counting poachers).  Hooowwwwever...

My great-grandpa did do exactly that.  The price of ammo (.22LR, to be exact) was so steep that his family couldn't afford for him to miss.  One bullet represented more than a day's income for them, so he had to make it count.  Pointed sticks would have been his go-to, if they were realistically an option (they eventually were - he got a nice bow years later).

What's the point in that?

'Unno.  Nothin' I guess.  Jacked up price of ammo just brought it to mind.  He was a really ace shot.  Family didn't go without at least some squirrel several times per week.  The Great Depression kinda did a lot of families in back then.
 
2013-09-16 07:53:09 PM

skozlaw: Xcott: I think this cartoon is hilarious. I like the way it depicts the Virginia Tech shooter as just some unrelated outsider rationally selecting "Virginia Tech" because it looks like a place where there are no guns.

And Columbine had an armed guard. In fact, when Columbine isn't being used as an example of a targeted gun-free zone it's being used as an example of why guns on campus are good.

Don't confuse gun nuts. They can't really think beyond "GUNS GOOD".


It's amazing how similar you sound to the very people you hate.  Close minded is close minded, regardless of which side of a topic you fall on.
 
2013-09-16 07:54:22 PM

zcat: President Barack Obama mourned yet another mass shooting in the U.S. that he said took the lives of American patriots. Obama promised to make sure "whoever carried out this cowardly act is held responsible."

Someone's going to have to explain the "cowardly" bit for me, seeing as the perp apparently attacked a highly-secured military installation, and escaped with his life (meaning it wasn't a suicide attempt).

Even if the guy's a complete sociopath who did it solely for a thrill, that sounds pretty farking non-cowardly.


Thanks, Maher! :)
 
2013-09-16 07:55:14 PM
Remember after Newtown when the gun derpers said MENTAL HEALTH was the problem, not guns?

And remember how some of us then said "so you're going to make mental health records part of background checks for all gun purchases?  And someone is going to decide who gets a gun and who doesn't based on some kind of 'sanity' criteria?  And someone is going to pay for all of this?  What happens when PTSD veterans or cops are told they can't have guns?"

Remember when they didn't have an answer for any of that?  Do they have one now?
 
2013-09-16 07:55:59 PM

skozlaw: Since their ONLY priority is their hobby, it is not unfair to say they do not, in fact, have any interest in reducing gun crime or violence.


0/10. Try again later.
 
2013-09-16 07:56:28 PM

Fark It: a particular individual: The laws that allow suspected terrorists to own firearms?

Can you expand on that?


A little while after 9/11--I think it was during the PATRIOT Act debates--Republicans fought to allow people on the terror watch list to buy firearms. Their rationale is, you don't take away someone's 2nd Amendment rights just because they're suspected of something. Better to let a few terrorist arm themselves than prevent a law-abiding citizen from exercising their rights. It's a pretty good argument on the surface, but it was too broadly worded for my comfort.
 
2013-09-16 07:57:01 PM

LL316: Close minded


Indifferent.

Important distinction. I mock because I accept the inevitability of these events. We've chosen, as a nation, to enable them so that a few people don't have to worry about black helicopters and paperwork.

This is not a tragedy. This is a semi-common event that we choose to allow so that some people can buy guns for hobby purposes slightly quicker and I won't pretend otherwise.
 
2013-09-16 07:57:44 PM

spongeboob: James10952001: Some 85% of gun crime occurs with handguns, yet most of the focus is on so called assault rifles that are used in around 1% of gun violence. I would take the gun control argument a lot more seriously if not for this aspect. It has the outward appearance of an emotional tirade against guns that look scary, and that does not help the cause.

Define Gun Crime as used here,
Is Gun violence different than Gun Crime?
What percent of spree killers use semi-automatic rifles/carbines versus handguns, shotguns or other rifles?


Does it matter if it's a spree of 10 at once, or piecemeal at 10 different locations by 10 different people? Mass shootings are very rare compared to other killings, you just hear about every single one of them, they are dramatic and make good news.
 
Displayed 50 of 896 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report