DC Naval Yard Shooter Was Hearing Voices, Security Clearance Was Not Revoked.

[sky14kemea]

Threads merged because they're both on the same topic.

 

[RJ 17]

Are the guns still the problem or is it the people that carry them?

I really don't want to see us get to a point where we crucify mental illness in order to protect our bloody firearms. The vast majority of mentally ill people pose no danger to anyone, except possibly themselves in a few sad cases. Clearly in a case where an individual is demonstrating violent instability, that violent instability is a huge part of the problem. However, guns are an easily accessible tool that make it possible to cause extraordinary mayhem in a very short period of time. Give the same man a knife or a baseball bat or another common improvised weapon and it's extraordinarily unlikely they can cause the same degree of mayhem before being restrained.

I appreciate that you're viewing the gun for what it is: a tool for violence. But just like how not all mentally ill people are ticking time-bombs waiting to go off and commit mass murder - in fact the majority of them aren't - the same can be said about the majority of gun owners.

I'm pro-gun-rights, but at the same time I'm also pro-stricter policies on them. That is to say that I don't think they should be outright banned, but rather I think there should be much stronger and regularly enforced guidelines on who can and cannot have guns. For instance and as I mentioned to thaluikhain: this man was clearly a danger not only to himself but to others as well. There's absolutely no reason that this man should have been able to keep his guns, let alone security clearance to a highly secured military facility.

Threads merged because they're both on the same topic.

Sorry, I skimmed through the topics and, finding nothing with a title that mentioned what I felt to be the big point of this article (the shooter hearing voices) figured it was fresh news.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I appreciate that you're viewing the gun for what it is: a tool for violence. But just like how not all mentally ill people are ticking time-bombs waiting to go off and commit mass murder - in fact the majority of them aren't - the same can be said about the majority of gun owners.

I would assume the vast majority of gun owners are perfectly sane and safety conscious. The guns themselves remain extraordinarily dangerous. I've actually finally had the opportunity to handle and fire some guns, and it was incredibly stressful (more stressful than fun for me, alas, although my GF loved it). I do wish there was a more salient argument to be made about the value of guns as tools OUTSIDE of killing, because it's a bit late to put that particular cat back in the bag. There are already countless guns in circulation. Those most apt to use them for violence are unlikely to obey a ban.

For instance and as I mentioned to thaluikhain: this man was clearly a danger not only to himself but to others as well. There's absolutely no reason that this man should have been able to keep his guns, let alone security clearance to a highly secured military facility.

Well...doy, yeah. It's pretty evident that someone dropped the ball on this one. Possibly many someones.

 

[Tiger King]

United States: 94.3
Australia: 15

That might have more to do with it than gun laws. The cat's already out of the bag. We could stop all gun sales in this country today and we'd still be number one in the world in guns per capita 50 years from now.

While im extremely EXTREMELY happy i live in a nation with VERY little gun crime where guns are heavily restricted i agree that its too late for America to do anything about their guns. When we banned guns in the UK it was 1920 when the gun culture, effectiveness and cost of guns were WILDLY different. We had also just exited an extremely bloody and brutal war where millions and millions of people were shot like cattle in disgusting muddy fields pretty much solidly for about a decade. The time was pretty ideal and the people spoke and said that guns in our nation should be heavily restricted (Its weird how often people dont seem to understand that we DEMOCRATICALLY CHOSE TO GET RID OF OUR GUNS). Gun ownership was hardly as endemic as it was in the USA today meaning removing the firearms was a lot more straight forward. Frankly America has long passed the age where a gun hand in would be remotely possible. In the UK we had a good head start and a vast majority support for the ban meaning internal conflict was minimal. The USA not so much.

The USA should probably keep its guns as its the most sensible thing to do in their situation. I dont envy them though and im extremely happy my nation isnt stuck in their situation. School shootings in the UK are far less prevalent even when you scale it to population.

Uhhm guns aren't banned in the uk.
They are heavily regulated, handguns and semi autos are banned but guns are still legal with proper certification.
Hell you can even own a .50 caliber rifle for target shooting!
I'm not an expert in the rules and regulations of firearms acts but your version of the 1920 act dosen't sound like what I have read on it.
Not having a go mind, just saying.

 

[Tsaba]

Oh boy, another shooting in a gun free zone, nothing new to see here. The same argument, the same situation, just somewhere else... Pro Guns Vs Pro Gun Laws and the joy that comes from that.

Off Topic:

CNN... what the hell, we expect this kind of crap from Fox News. Seriously, you need to get slapped right now.

 

[RJ 17]

Off Topic:

CNN... what the hell, we expect this kind of crap from Fox News. Seriously, you need to get slapped right now.

Wow...they're THAT desperate? I mean I fully agree that private citizens shouldn't be able to have military-grade "assault" weapons (and I'm a pro-gun-rights guy), but this is just ridiculous. First the media was saying it was an AR15, then someone came out and corrected them saying it wasn't, then the sheriff and mayor said it was, then the FBI announced at a press conference that it wasn't, that the guy just had a shotgun and a couple of handguns. Now the media is calling it an AR15 shotgun? Wow, way to invent guns that don't exist.

And Tsaba, you got that wrong. MSNBC would be who you'd expect to come up with something like an AR15 Shotun. Fox would say it was a shotgun, but that the gunman was a muslim gamer.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Thoughts? Are the guns still the problem or is it the people that carry them? Is it the fact that are background checks our too lenient? Why do people who clearly should not be allowed to own guns keep ending up with them legally? Why didn't the Navy revoke his security clearance when he was diagnosed with "serious mental problems, including paranoia and a sleep disorder, and had been hearing voices in his head"?

It's actually kind of sad to say, but I think that a major problem here could actually be empathy.

No one took away his guns even though he was clearly unfit to have them because maybe they thought "well how would I feel if someone took my guns over a misunderstanding?", and no one took away his security clearance even though he had serious mental problems and was a possible security risk because maybe they thought "well, how would I feel if my entire career was ruined by something completely beyond my control?"

There are laws and protocols in place that should have stopped this, and the problem wasn't the laws themselves, it was the fact that the people who enforce them didn't follow them, and I'm guessing it was out of a misplaced sense of empathy.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Oh boy, another shooting in a gun free zone, nothing new to see here. The same argument, the same situation, just somewhere else... Pro Guns Vs Pro Gun Laws and the joy that comes from that.

Off Topic:

CNN... what the hell, we expect this kind of crap from Fox News. Seriously, you need to get slapped right now.

Really, you expect that from Fox News? If I could expect anything from Fox news actually, it would be them getting the name and classification of the gun correct.

 

[Hover Hand Mode]

It actually scares me to think that this guy, with his history, could still obtain a firearm. Is it really that easy?

 

[Tsaba]

MSNBC would be who you'd expect to come up with something like an AR15 Shotun. Fox would say it was a shotgun, but that the gunman was a muslim gamer.

If I could expect anything from Fox news actually, it would be them getting the name and classification of the gun correct.

First off you are correct, Fox would get the fire arm correct, but, they have this way of, how do I put it lightly? ****ing up hardcore.

Second, your right other than the fact MSNBC is not a respectable news outlet. They make up news, they don't report it.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

A guy on MSNBC already started blaming violent videogames for the shooting, saying the shooter would hole up in his room playing online while his friends were right outside playing cards.

MSNBC was harping on about that all day today, with the worst point being a rant by Ed Schulz about how horrible GTAV was... followed almost immediately by a straight faced bashing of the NRA for trying to shift the blame from guns to... videogames. Yeah, he actually did that. I agree that it's stupid of the NRA to try to shift the blame like that, but apparently the guy accusing them of it doesn't, it boggles the mind.

Fortunately Rachel Maddow is on now, and she isn't even mentioning videogames. She's talking more about how the shooter had some pretty danged obvious mental issues (like, hearing voices mental issues) and talking about how it was possible for a guy like that to get a military security clearance, forget owning a gun.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Now the media is calling it an AR15 shotgun? Wow, way to invent guns that don't exist.

You probably could get a shotgun upper receiver for an AR15, though.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Now the media is calling it an AR15 shotgun? Wow, way to invent guns that don't exist.

You probably could get a shotgun upper receiver for an AR15, though.

You actually can, there's receivers for everything from .22LR to 12 guage shotgun shells for the things, it's a very versatile platform.

For that matter, there's a semi-auto shotgun out there with a design based on the AK-47. I actually got to shoot one because a friend of a friend (who also had a .22 chambered AR-15) had one, and he took all of us to the range one day. That thing was fun as hell to shoot, but I can also imagine the kind of damage it could do, and it's not a pretty thought.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Well of course they didn't take his security clearance. You can't discriminate against the mentally ill and such a heinous manner.

 

[Thaluikhain]

For that matter, there's a semi-auto shotgun out there with a design based on the AK-47. I actually got to shoot one because a friend of a friend (who also had a .22 chambered AR-15) had one, and he took all of us to the range one day. That thing was fun as hell to shoot, but I can also imagine the kind of damage it could do, and it's not a pretty thought.

You mean something like the Saiga, or an AK47 that had been modified?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

For that matter, there's a semi-auto shotgun out there with a design based on the AK-47. I actually got to shoot one because a friend of a friend (who also had a .22 chambered AR-15) had one, and he took all of us to the range one day. That thing was fun as hell to shoot, but I can also imagine the kind of damage it could do, and it's not a pretty thought.

You mean something like the Saiga, or an AK47 that had been modified?

I'm pretty sure it was the Saiga, although the guy who owned the gun claimed it had been made in an actual Kalishnakov factory. It /was/ modified, but just to add a pistol grip, and maybe a few other minor things like that. Nothing that actually affected the firing mechanism.

 

[RJ 17]

Second, your right other than the fact MSNBC is not a respectable news outlet. They make up news, they don't report it.

Exactly my point: which is why you'd expect them to come up with a fictional gun called an AR15 Shotgun.