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

[Evil Smurf]

One mass shooting a month and still no gun laws.

What do you mean, "no gun laws"?

All firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department.
A background check, online training, and testing of the gun owner are required.
"Assault weapons" and .50 BMG rifles prohibited.
Illegal to possess or acquire magazines of more than 10 round capacity.
The firearm registration process also serves as a licensing process.
Concealed carry prohibited.
Open carry prohibited.
Automatic firearms prohibited.
Possession of unregistered firearms prohibited for both residents and non-residents.

Those are D.C.'s gun laws. Also worth mentioning that guns were not allowed in that area of the Navy Yard, except by the on-duty security force.

So if the laws were effective, this shooting wouldn't have happened.

Nice try.

We have amazing gun laws in Australia, the last mass shooting was about a decade ago.

 

[Evil Smurf]

We have amazing gun laws in Australia, the last mass shooting was about a decade ago.

Guns Per 100 Residents, 2007:

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.

We did have a gun buy back system, it worked really well.

 

[Mr F.]

Yeah, not my favourite source of documentaries, what with him being about as biased as they come, yet on this topic I agree with the bias.

Oh, and that little video is rather relevant.

I know it is more complicated than some think. I know the idea that if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws have guns. I know America is huge and unique, blah blah blah, but there are ways of tackling the problem of gun violence.

They just smack dangerously close to anything that might be considered to possibly be, in a certain light, socialism.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

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.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Why would I value the life of a criminal who is threatening me with a weapon and trying to take whats mine?

By extension, do you support the death penalty for such crimes?

 

[Mr.BadExample]

Agreed. Shooting someone who's trying to rape you, instead of giving them the sexy times, basically means that you value whatever time you're wasting higher than a human life.

I must say I agree completely. Does anyone really think rape is a capital offense?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

One mass shooting a month and still no gun laws.

Once a month? This is the first shooting of its kind all year.

It's not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Santa_Monica_shooting
It is NOT.

 

[RJ 17]

http://news.yahoo.com/gunman-navy-yard-rampage-hearing-voices-142217356.html

More information out on the DC Naval Yard Shooter:

Alexis had been suffering a host of serious mental problems, including paranoia and a sleep disorder, and had been hearing voices in his head, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation was still going on.

He had been treated since August by Veterans Affairs, the officials said.

The Navy had not declared him mentally unfit, which would have rescinded a security clearance Alexis had from his earlier time in the Navy Reserves.

Despite the fact that this man had clear and present mental issues, and despite the fact that he had previously gotten in trouble for discharging a gun round through the ceiling of his apartment and into a neighbor's apartment as well as shooting out the tires of someone's truck and claiming that he "blacked out due to anger", the man's security clearance was not revoked, which allowed him access to the "highly secured area" in which he carried out his shooting. Furthermore: he was apparently/obviously not stripped of his right to carry guns despite showing a history of "unlawful" (to use a polite term) use of them and a clear history of mental illness.
(Source for things mentioned in this paragraph: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/16/navy-yard-gunman-identified-fbi/ )

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"?

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'd like to point out that people with mental illnesses, as a whole, are not more likely to commit violence, and are, in fact, more likely to be the victims of it. I'd expect this is taken as another excuse to demonise them, though. I can't say if his mental illnesses were severe enough to have been a concern prior to this. "Serious mental problems" may or may not mean serious problems that pose a danger to others.

OTOH, if he's going round shooting things he shouldn't be, that's very obviously posing a danger to others.

 

[RJ 17]

I'd like to point out that people with mental illnesses, as a whole, are not more likely to commit violence, and are, in fact, more likely to be the victims of it. I'd expect this is taken as another excuse to demonise them, though. I can't say if his mental illnesses were severe enough to have been a concern prior to this. "Serious mental problems" may or may not mean serious problems that pose a danger to others.

OTOH, if he's going round shooting things he shouldn't be, that's very obviously posing a danger to others.

And that's what this topic's about. The guy was clearly a danger to others given his past history (discharging a round into the ceiling of his apartment and shooting out the tires of a truck during which he claimed to have "blacked out due to anger"), now he's been diagnosed with paranoia and hearing voices in his head and they didn't even bother to at least suspend his security clearance for a while? Just seems that things could have been handled better, and that this shooting could have been prevented much easier than Sandy Hook or Aurora.

 

[Thaluikhain]

And that's what this topic's about. The guy was clearly a danger to others given his past history (discharging a round into the ceiling of his apartment and shooting out the tires of a truck during which he claimed to have "blacked out due to anger"), now he's been diagnosed with paranoia and hearing voices in his head and they didn't even bother to at least suspend his security clearance for a while? Just seems that things could have been handled better, and that this shooting could have been prevented much easier than Sandy Hook or Aurora.

Oh sure, I get that, just that I'm worried it'll turn into yet another attack on the mentally ill for the nominal security of "normal" people.

Clearly, this particular mentally ill person was showing very obvious signs that he is a serious danger to others.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

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'd like to point out that people with mental illnesses, as a whole, are not more likely to commit violence, and are, in fact, more likely to be the victims of it. I'd expect this is taken as another excuse to demonise them, though.

Yep. =(