world

13 dead in shooting rampage at U.S. Navy complex in Washington

177 Comments
By ERIC TUCKER, BRETT ZONGKER and LOLITA C. BALDOR

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

177 Comments
Login to comment

That is just God awful. My heart goes out to the victims and families, but leave it to the Gun-fearing left to come out and blame gun owners and Republicans. Just waiting for them to fill this thread with political diatribe instead of blaming the shooter!

-21 ( +19 / -40 )

Al Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri recently issued a videotaped call for an adherent to carry out a “lone wolf attack” inside the United States I would not be surprised if it turned out that the shooters were converts and this was a one of the answers to the call.

-27 ( +8 / -35 )

But the guy was apparently a Buddhist. A Buddhist?? Very odd, I heard on FOX this morning that there were possibly two other individuals that they are looking for, one Black, the other White, but that is just speculation.

-21 ( +5 / -26 )

@bass4funkSEP. 17, 2013 - 07:01AM JST That is just God awful. My heart goes out to the victims and families, but leave it to the Gun-fearing left to come out and blame gun owners and Republicans. Just waiting for them to fill this thread with political diatribe instead of blaming the shooter!

Absolutely agree but the the political diatribe has begun already; “yet another mass shooting” and called it a “cowardly act.” Much more soon to follow.

Law enforcement agencies and First Responders performed as expected. Excellent! Immense fear to try and secure, stabilize and evacuate the wounded as well as those unharmed.

-16 ( +6 / -22 )

One of the officials on the press conf. claimed, after this massacre, that DC was still the "safest city in the US." What reality is she living in??

17 ( +20 / -3 )

no kidding cornbread, DC has one of the highest murder rates in the USA

8 ( +11 / -3 )

'Yet another mass shooting' Dangerous talk Mr President. That 'yet' and the very dramatic 'mass' may send some into a flap. You give the very suspicious impression that you've had enough of this.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

But the guy was apparently a Buddhist. A Buddhist??

Toss whatever news service gave you that into the trashcan. You've been duped yet again.

One of the main shooters has been identified as Aaron Alexis, a 34-year-old contractor, most recently living in Fort Worth, Texas. (Not sure if the reports of other gunmen are accurate.)

but leave it to the Gun-fearing left to come out and blame gun owners

Alexis has a history of discharging his firearms unlawfully in public places. Who on the left would think his "second amendment rights" should be preserved after that kind of conduct? Leave it to a right-wing dupe to run interference for "gun owners."

7 ( +17 / -10 )

Again and again! That's guns country's destiny. Tragedy is probably going on forever.

8 ( +15 / -7 )

Most of these shootings seem to occur in victim disarmament zones. The more reason why you need guns to protect yourself.

-20 ( +11 / -31 )

Again and again!

Yeah, seems like my trips to Japan are punctuated by mass shootings in my home country. Last December, it was Newtown; now this one. But it wouldn't really matter when I go -- nearly any 3-4 week period in the U.S. finds a mass-shooting taking place.

What's ironic is that those who think schools should be more of armed fortresses like.... military installations. As we see, like that really helps. Like all the crazy morons who keep pushing these guns.

more reason why you need guns

Case closed.

12 ( +19 / -7 )

Wash. DC, a city with some of the strictest gun laws on the books. Do you really think a law abiding citizen is the type to shoot people for no reason? The shooter/s feared law enforcement only knowing no one else could fire back. This left him safe in his mind until law enforcement arrived. He was able to focus on killing and feared nothing in the opening and likely the most deadly minutes.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

but leave it to the Gun-fearing left to come out and blame gun owners and Republicans. Just waiting for them to fill this thread with political diatribe instead of blaming the shooter!

You are complaining yet you are first one to do it in the first comment.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

I wonder if Obama will be able to repeat his feat of being able to speak at length about a gun massacre without using the word 'gun'.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

But the guy was apparently a Buddhist. A Buddhist??

He is being described all over as a devout Buddhist who loved to mediate and help out at the temple. Who knew ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/aaron-alexis-34-is-dead-gunman-in-navy-yard-shooting-authorities-say/2013/09/16/dcf431ce-1f07-11e3-8459-657e0c72fec8_print.html

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

MarkG Sep. 17, 2013 - 08:11AM JST Wash. DC, a city with some of the strictest gun laws on the books. Do you really think a law abiding citizen is the type to shoot people for no reason? The shooter/s feared law enforcement only knowing no one else could fire back. This left him safe in his mind until law enforcement arrived. He was able to focus on killing and feared nothing in the opening and likely the most deadly minutes.

Doesn't matter if the city had the strictest gun laws. The case of the senseless massacre in Norway in 2011 is instructive. After bombing a government building in Oslo and then taking over an island, Breivik, a homicidal killer, massacred 69 of his fellow citizens. Imagine if just one person had carried a gun and knew how to use it to defend his or her life and the lives of others. But Norway, for all practical purposes, like most of Europe, is like the schools in the U.S., a "gun-free zone," where guns are not allowed and a deranged individual can enter and kill with impunity.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

But Norway, for all practical purposes, like most of Europe, is like the schools in the U.S., a "gun-free zone," where guns are not allowed and a deranged individual can enter and kill with impunity.

Only with Norway, because guns are kept out of the hands of sociopaths and complete morons far more successfully than in the U.S. -- where sociopaths and morons make up a far larger percentage of the population -- such mass killings occur decades apart and not weeks apart as they do in the U.S.

Only a fool would infer that the failure to stem all gun violence is a reason to put the two societies on a par with each other.

8 ( +14 / -6 )

True that sfjp330! Exactly a point I wanted to make. The tool or method in numerous, the condition/behavior is much less common. We need to identify these potential occurrences in the future.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I am so sick and tired of liberals screaming that the guns are the problems, if that is so, why aren't the Democrats doing anything? Because they can't! You think Reid wants his guns taken away, they would NEVER go up and challenge the NRA! That is just pie in the sky. Instead of blaming the gun, how about blaming the PERSON, how about building more MENTAL asylums since we don't have them anymore! But these sociopaths in, lock them up and throw away the key.

-21 ( +9 / -30 )

He is being described all over as a devout Buddhist who loved to mediate and help out at the temple. Who knew ?

A complete fabrication. From Lizz's own link, we read the following:

"At the Wat Busayadhammavanaram Meditation Center there, Alexis came to meditate twice a week. But he still seemed so tightly wound that at least one worker there sought to avoid him...“From the outside, he was a quiet person. But on the inside, I think he was very aggressive. He did not like to be close with anybody, like a soldier who has been at war.”

What we learned from the link as that Alexis seemed to like Thailand -- he visited Thailand, worked in a Thai restaurant and learned to speak much of the Thai language. Helping out at a Thai Buddhist temple may have been his way of staying close to a community -- since he seemed to have abandoned everyone else.

He is being described nowhere as a "devout Buddhist."

7 ( +12 / -5 )

This is why I wish that the United States should have the same gun control laws as in Japan.

14 ( +20 / -6 )

I am shocked both by this tragic incident and the fact that the perpetrators were not stopped faster in a USN facility.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Gun free zones and restrictive gun laws like they have in D.C. sure works, don't they?

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

This is why I wish that the United States should have the same gun control laws as in Japan.

Absolutely NOT. The guns are NOT the problem. Like Japan and what, lock them up at the police station and every time I need to use it, have to go to the station and ask the police to give me my gun. How looney is that? I don't want to government anywhere near me foaming at the mouth to strip me of my right to bear arms.

-24 ( +6 / -30 )

OssanAmerica: I am shocked both by this tragic incident and the fact that the perpetrators were not stopped faster in a USN facility.

The Navy Yard isn't a true military base. It's an administrative office complex mostly for the NavSea procurement staff and doesn't have the military "defenses" or processes you would associate with a Base. Almost all of the law enforcement officers there today were from surrounding jurisdictions, who had all practiced providing the Yard with well-coordinated emergency assistance.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Wow. The shooter turned out to be a buddhist:

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/16/20527513-alleged-washington-shooter-served-as-navy-reservist-may-have-recently-lost-job?lite

Quote:

The man accused of killing 12 people in a gun rampage at the Washington Navy Yard was described by mystified friends and family as a Buddhist

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

leave it to the Gun-fearing left

If anyone is gun-fearing, it's the children, wives, siblings, friends and colleagues of yesterday's victims. It's the parents and little classmates of the Sandy Hook victims.

How dare you dismiss your fellow Americans with such a contemptuous slur!

1 ( +7 / -6 )

As it is turning out it was 1 shooter and It seems to be a complete mystery why so far. Very mysterious so far.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I am shocked both by this tragic incident and the fact that the perpetrators were not stopped faster in a USN facility.

What I'm even more shocked is that it took law enforcement 30 minutes after being notified of the active shooter situation to arrive at the US navy complex.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@get real

How dare you dismiss your fellow Americans with such a contemptuous slur!

How dare you try to shove the blame on firearms when you clearly, cleary know that, that is NOT the crux of the problem, that is a total copout! You are dismissing your fellow law abiding Americans and wanting to revoke their right to protect themselves or owning a firearm.

-17 ( +4 / -21 )

How dare you try to shove the blame on firearms

Mea culpa. The perpetrator could, of course, have achieved the same fatal results with a frozen mackerel!

10 ( +14 / -4 )

It's quite clear that the only way to stop these incidents happening is for more people in the US to carry guns.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

bass4funk: I am so sick and tired of liberals screaming that the guns are the problems, if that is so, why aren't the Democrats doing anything? ...Instead of blaming the gun, how about blaming the PERSON, how about building more MENTAL asylums since we don't have them anymore! But these sociopaths in, lock them up and throw away the key.

And whenever there is another mass shooting, all the crazy arguments come out again. To protect your right to own guns, you'll happily lock people away in mental asylums before they've actually done anything (because, lets face it, most of these crazy mass killing people are considered little more that 'weird' before they do what they do). How to you plan to decide who should be locked away? Or do you plan to lock everyone who might do it away to protect everyone else. Clearly you care about people's rights so much that you're willing to throw away their rights. Yep. Great plan, that one.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

The chickens will continue to come home to roost with these senseless shootings until the republicans actually care to do something about it.They are beholden to the gun companies, so it's to their benefit to promote and encourage guns.But in reality it's a waste of time talking about substantive gun control.It'll never happen.You can bet your life on that.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Readers, please do not bicker.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Perhaps it our (uniquely American) melting pot culture. We have all races, religions and creeds here in USA.

Oh and Tim Mcveigh didn't use a gun or a frozen mackeral. That's my recollection.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

I think it's way too soon to have a debate on gun control. Let's give the families some time to grieve.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Wouldn't the first time he shot out those guys' tires ring some warning bells for those who decided to hire him?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I think it's way too soon to have a debate on gun control. Let's give the families some time to grieve.

While they are still grieving, it's a safe bet that the next mass shooting will occur.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Still strange that a contractor can walk into a base armed, i would have thought that an army base would have some kind of entrance check gate. RIP victims

0 ( +0 / -0 )

While they are still grieving, it's a safe bet that the next mass shooting will occur.

I did some research and if you do all the rampage killers, school attacks, and workplace attacks, this is excluding familicides, the US has had 34 incidents, almost all firearms, in the past 13 years. Europe, including Russia, has had 22 in the past 13 years.

So the US on average has 2.615 rampage killers a year and Europe has 1.69 rampage killings a year.

That means the US in the past 13 years has a rampage killing every 4.6 months and Europe has a rampage killing every 7.1 months. It is interesting that the US has less than one more rampage killing ever year than Europe does for the past 13 years on average.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unfortunately, its not shocking. It just keeps happening.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Bass4funk - it must have been tedious writing the throwaway RIP comment before diving head first into a pre-emptive pro-gun debate

That is exactly what I was thinking.

Unfortunately, its not shocking. It just keeps happening. Only in America.

Actually its not only in America, Europe actually has quite a bit and China has had well over 60 mass attacks in the past 13 years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As for whether it may have been a terrorist attack, Mayor Vincent Gray said: “We don't have any reason to think that at this stage.

How to conclude if it is a terror?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

man the way you are ranting I wouldnt fancy you having access to a gun.Guns or no guns its like the chicken and the egg.no point worrying whether guns or no guns is the problem.The problem is that many times a year we see this happening in the US.apart from a few random incidents this doesnt happen anywhere else in the world.......Thats whats shocking.

Sorry, but I have a few guns, legal, licensed and proud, but again, if you think that life would be so much better without owning a firearm, think again.

Reliable statistics on crime in other parts of the world have been released that show America to be safer than most countries with strict anti-gun laws.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, shows that England has much higher levels of crime than the U.S.

Among industrialized nations, England and Wales rank second overall.

Twenty-six percent of British citizens have been victimized by violent crime.

Australia leads all industrialized nations with 30 percent of its population victimized.

Canada ranks fifth, with 24 percent of its citizens victimized.

What about the United States? Not even in the top-10. In the U.S. 21 percent of the citizens have been victims of a violent crime.

Some more highlights:

Percent of population that suffered “contact crime”:

• England and Wales: 3.6 percent

• United States: 1.9 percent

• Japan: 0.4 percent

Rates of burglary with entry (breaking and entering):

• Australia: 3.9 percent

• Denmark:3.1 percent

• England and Wales: 2.8 percent

• United States: 2.6 percent

Important point: Australia leads industrialized nations in burglary rates. Why? It’s illegal to own a firearm for self-defense in Australia. Predators know that the homes they break into will not likely be defended by a homeowner with a gun.

Denmark ranks second in burglaries, and the U.S. ranks eighth. England and Wales lead in car thefts, followed by Australia and France. The U.S. didn’t rank in the top 10 in car thefts.

As the G-T Report has frequently noted, both Great Britain and Australia have some of the harshest anti-gun laws in the world. Recall that the Australian government banned privately-owned guns and confiscated thousands of firearms. In Britain, private ownership of handguns was banned after the Dunblane massacre in 1996. Violent crime in both countries has soared.

Citizens of Britain and Australia can’t fight back. Criminals can do as they wish without fear of consequences.

Having lived more than 20 years in Europe, I have seen more than enough violence committed by other weapons, without guns! Pick your poison. Me, I couldn't care less what anyone thinks, I would never use my gun to shoot or hurt, threaten anyone, but you attack me or my family, break into my home, I have the absolute right to use force and I would without batting an eyelash. I had a friend who was attacked in his house in Rotterdam and was stabbed. For one, it took the cops an eternity to get there and second, once the cops were there, they acted like keystone cops, the house was ransacked, items stolen and the perpetrators were never caught. The man was violated, and his family, luckily weren't home during that and you believe owning a gun would have made it worst? I say, if he would have had a firearm, the outcome would have been different. I am not going to rely on the police to help me in that kind of a situation where time is of the essence. I am proud to carry a gun, I take my kids out hunting, I teach them to respect and understand the power of a gun and that is my right, if you liberals don't like it, I respect that, but don't come to me and take MY rights away, I wouldn't step on your rights if you choose not to own a gun I respect that and if people don't like it, well....you know where I'm getting at.

Moderator: Comparisons with other countries are not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He had just been given a second security clearance, mind you, and was to start at job there this week. He had a firearms violation in Seattle in 2004, managed to enlist in USN in 2007, was discharged(OTH/BCD?) in late 2010 after another firearms incident in 2010, and still managed to get hired as a gov contractor with new security clearance. Also, his father stated that he had definite anger issues. How much incompetence was there in his security clearance processing??? With all that, how did he pass the background check to buy any firearm at all should raise a lot of alarms and red flags. Also to note, he was known as being addicted to violent video games. Too bad no one in his vicinity was armed and able to defend themselves. Thanks Bill Clitnon.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

"but leave it to the Gun-fearing left to come out and blame gun owners and Republicans." But Nixon wanted a complete handgun ban. And there is Reagan's record. The right are more dangerous to gun rights than the left.

"Most of these shootings seem to occur in victim disarmament zones. The more reason why you need guns to protect yourself." But police officers are sometimes victims. Also a retired Seal Team Six member was gunned down in a shooting range (are very armed zone).

"Like Japan and what, lock them up at the police station and every time I need to use it," Is this how it really works? Why do you need a gun in Japan?

"How dare you try to shove the blame on firearms when you clearly, cleary know that, that is NOT the crux of the problem" Then how come some guns like fully autos are not legal to own?

We should have gun registration (it is starting to exist already). Also, need universal gun checks. This guy had gun offenses before. A uni. check might (and possible registration) might have prevented this. Good guys: Keep all the guns you want.

But relax, the entire first world is becoming safer and guns don't make a difference. Crime is even falling in Japan.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The chickens will continue to come home to roost with these senseless shootings until the republicans actually care to do something about it.They are beholden to the gun companies, so it's to their benefit to promote and encourage guns.But in reality it's a waste of time talking about substantive gun control.It'll never happen.You can bet your life on that.

The chickens are not roosting anywhere, the Dems would never and could never push for gun control and take on the NRA, that is just nuts and many, many top Democratic leaders own gun themselves, hypocrites they are though. This is NOT a Republican ONLY issue. This is a right to bear arms issue. Funny, all the liberals and celebs advocate heavy gun control, but their own bodyguards are packing! How do you rationalize that?

And whenever there is another mass shooting, all the crazy arguments come out again. To protect your right to own guns, you'll happily lock people away in mental asylums before they've actually done anything (because, lets face it, most of these crazy mass killing people are considered little more that 'weird' before they do what they do). How to you plan to decide who should be locked away? Or do you plan to lock everyone who might do it away to protect everyone else. Clearly you care about people's rights so much that you're willing to throw away their rights. Yep. Great plan, that one.

It is a great plan, there are already thousands of people on the street and already prescreened as mentally crazy, so then, why are they till walking among us? You think it's ok to let these people walk around, but law abiding citizens shouldn't carry a firearm? Amazing!

-11 ( +4 / -15 )

The shooting quickly reignited the debate over gun control in the United States, but it was far from certain what the impact would be.

That's easy: zero.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Maybe nothing will change until more NRA members and pro-gun hardliners in Congress are directly and personally impacted by gun violence, particularly these kinds of mass shootings. If the chickens come home to roost in their own houses, perhaps they'll wake up and help make some sensible gun-control laws that we can all live with. The key word being "live."

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

As soon as liberals and other gun fearing people realize that owning a gun is not a crime and the rights of the gun holders should be respected and to understand where the real problem lies and that is with the mentally insane and should never be near or have access to a firearm. Now, we all have to be subjected to listen to idiots like Piers Morgan once again, and ranting, screaming and preaching on Television that we need to take US citizens rights to bear arms. Thank God, NO one watches that show.

-12 ( +2 / -14 )

Yes, guns don't klll, just mentally unstable people, which proves that America has more crazies than anyplace else, but locking up all the crazies in America would just burden more taxpayers and overcrowd the prisons.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Readers, please do not bicker.

Indeed, there is no need to "bicker." Twelve dead in a shooting incident is, on the whole, really nothing, particularly as no children were involved.

As Bass says, where are the mental health programs? (Hint: "sequester.") You see, it is not the guns which kill people; it is the people who kill people, albeit they tend to be heavily aided by powerful weaponry. And this was mostly an administrative center where people were not armed; it was not like, say, Fort Hood, where Nidal Hasan killed 13 despite being surrounded by a whole lot of armed people.

There is nothing that can be done about this. It is best just to give up and accept the carnage - indeed, welcome it! Mass carnage is part of what makes America an "exceptional" nation.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

OMG Syria is behind the attack... We are under ATTACKKKKKKK, we will kill every Syrian, Start strike now...

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Coincidentally, after making the "exceptional nation" comment above, I came across this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/16/alexey-pushkovy-twitter-navy-shipyard-shooting_n_3935236.html

Some Russian lawmaker twittered, "New shooting at the Navy headquarters in Washington -- Lone shooter and 7 corpses. No one is surprised. American exceptionalism," and also, "Exceptional" Americans! Some of you have just proved that you are really exceptional - first of all, by your level of hatred and animosity. to which the U.S. embassy in Moscow replied, "What is exceptional here? Why use a tragedy for a set of political points?"

Indeed: Nothing is exceptional here, at least from a "homeland" point of view: This is just another day in armed-to-the-teeth America. Still, when Russia begins looking not so bad compared to America, you know there is a very, very serious problem.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Yes, guns don't klll, just mentally unstable people, which proves that America has more crazies than anyplace else, but locking up all the crazies in America would just burden more taxpayers and overcrowd the prisons.

Precisely, GUNS don't kill, however the question is, how was the mental stability of the person that used to gun to kill these people. Look, you take the guns away, that won't change anything, ask the terrorists, case in point! And don't even start with the American bashing, it's not about America. I totally agree and believe we should build more mental asylums. That's a start.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Mayor Vincent Gray said there was no indication it was a terrorist attack. But he said the possibility had not been ruled out.

I'm just guessing, but I doubt it has anything to do with Al-Qaeda, or much else beyond the fact that we had another nutcase on the loose. I remember when they decided it was too expensive to keep people like this in insane asylums.

If you don't know what I mean, this is an old, but informative, link.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Gun supporters should just be honest. Say that things like this will happen in a society awash with guns and its not a compelling enough reason to attempt any effort to possibly reduce the number of guns in our society. Tell us these things will happen again and all we can do is get used to it.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

jack o helen:

Yes, guns don't klll, just mentally unstable people, which proves that America has more crazies than anyplace else, but locking up all the crazies in America would just burden more taxpayers and overcrowd the prisons.

We used to have mental institutions that contained and cared for the mentally unstable. However, the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 (Carter) changed how mental institutions were funded and supported on a national scale. It was also considered "inhumane" to lock up people who could not be proven to be a threat to themselves or others. The main problem with that progressive-sounding ideal is that all too often, it can't be proven that someone is a danger to themselves or others until they inflict great harm on themselves or others. And then, of course, it's too late. (See: Pretty much every single mass murder event.)

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Maybe the above shows the point that guns are getting too deadly -- and will continue to do so. Should semi-autos be banned? Is there any real reason to have them?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

According to reports:

In 2004, Aaron Alexis was accused of firing multiple shots into the tires of a car during a rage blackout, according to Seattle police.

A "rage blackout"?! And he was allowed to continue to possess weapons?!

Bass, the two problems with your argument are that you maintain society should spend great money and effort to winnow the lethally crazy from the garden-variety crazy (which Republicans would never support, given the cost involved); and that the former should be banned from owning weapons (which the NRA and their ilk would never support, given the large number of people who would lose their gun rights if such a policy were activated).

Stop pretending, Bass: Under your system, periodic massacres are inevitable. Don't even pretend to bemoan the situation. Just call it what it is: The price for maintaining what people like you call "freedom."

3 ( +4 / -1 )

cracaphat:

The chickens will continue to come home to roost with these senseless shootings until the republicans actually care to do something about it.They are beholden to the gun companies, so it's to their benefit to promote and encourage guns.But in reality it's a waste of time talking about substantive gun control.It'll never happen.You can bet your life on that.

"I don't know all the details, but the gun acted stupidly."

SuperLib:

Gun supporters should just be honest.

We are. You just refuse to believe us.

nishikat:

Maybe the above shows the point that guns are getting too deadly -- and will continue to do so. Should semi-autos be banned? Is there any real reason to have them?

What definition for "semi-auto" are you using? Because every handgun carried by police and civilians is a semi-auto.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

A Glock compared to a revolver. Some guns are obviously more deadly than others. There are already limits already. Saw a documentary that mentioned a handgun that holds 100 rounds. It's made for law enforcement and cannot be bought in a store. Should 2ndA guarantee access to guns like those? But in any case guns will become more deadly as time goes by. Decades later they will be electronic even blowing today's glocks away. We can't scale back the insane people so might as well scale back the availability of the more deadly guns suck as Glock semis to the public. Last year there was a guy who killed a couple (?) of people in Osaka on a stabbing rampage. What if he'd had a Glock? And do gun zones really make the situation safer? A guy walked into a doughnut shop in Seattle and blew three cops away who were preparing for their workday.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

It's gotten to the point where only mass murders such as this one make the national news in the U.S. Single homicides, random shootings, etc. never make the national rounds. Speaks volumes of the desensitization to gun violence nowadays. Yet, pretty much every suicide, stabbing (whether or not someone died) gets national attention in a country such as Japan.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"you take the guns away, that won't change anything"

Japan?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass4funk:

you take the guns away, that won't change anything

US trauma surgeons find guns chiefly responsible for the artificially high US homicide rates:

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Bass: "I am so sick and tired of liberals screaming that the guns are the problems," Wouldn't it be nice if you were sick of gun massacres instead! By the way, which word in 'gun massacre' does not involve guns? Guess the guy could have done the same deal of damage with a computer printer.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

How to conclude if it is a terror?

Motive, targets, method, claim of responsibility

0 ( +2 / -2 )

BIt late for a mental asylum, isn't it?

In any case, this guy had already had plenty of professional "help."

It obviously wasn't very effective.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

"However, the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 (Carter) changed how mental institutions were funded and supported on a national scale."

I believe that Act increased funding for treatment, especially for community care as a support for those leaving institutions. It was a law of the following year (different president) that greatly slashed the budgets for mental car, essentially rescinding much of the 1980 Act.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Confucius says: you don't fight fire with fire - you fight it with water.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Still strange that a contractor can walk into a base armed, i would have thought that an army base would have some kind of entrance check gate

I guess you could say a complex picture is emerging of a guy who always carried a gun, complained of PTSD with an arrest record, previously fired by the government who no doubt had some kind of high level security clearance. Must have gotten in under a civilian contractor just hiring to meet staff/budget deadlines to avoid the extensive FBI background process ??

0 ( +1 / -1 )

bass4funk: As soon as liberals and other gun fearing people realize that owning a gun is not a crime and the rights of the gun holders should be respected and to understand where the real problem lies and that is with the mentally insane and should never be near or have access to a firearm.

Did you think of that on your own, or are you just parroting what someone else said? You guys seem to be on the exact same page quite often.

Our side has anger, your side has fear. Despite needing all 3 branches of government to agree as well as public support behind it, you guys make it seem that we're this close to losing guns. It's just paranoia, the same as someone who actually feels the need to carry a gun. You come to these stories to put out the fires as quickly as possible because just having a discussion about guns makes you uncomfortable. So keep distracting and changing the topic and trotting out facts in a vacuum. We're all stupid.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

This guy is a converted Buddhist? What he did was so anti-Buddhist that I can't see the point in mentioning the fact he's a converted Buddhist, somewhat implying that non-Christians were potential terrorist....

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

BIt late for a mental asylum, isn't it?

In any case, this guy had already had plenty of professional "help."

It obviously wasn't very effective.

It's never too late. Then once that was established that he was a basket case, he should've been locked up at that point.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

bass4funk,

It's never too late.

I admire your optimism, however . . .

Thirteen people were killed, including the gunman.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

scary to hear this guy worked in Japan too on a military base recently. I still don't get why people need to have guns.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Guns are not the real problem, it is people that need them to to be so freely available, to support their gun-totin', I'll-protect-you-darling, machismo. Guns are a feminist issue. http://www.policymic.com/articles/51715/why-gun-control-is-a-feminist-issue

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

I still don't get why people need to have guns.

It keeps gun manufacturers ticking over. And they're happy to see that all sides in that particular war are well supplied, including the criminals.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

US trauma surgeons find guns chiefly responsible for the artificially high US homicide rates:

IIRC the top three factors in a recent Census analysis that correlate most strongly with gun homicides are growing up in a black community, not having a father present, and dropping out of high school. Much more strongly than sociological factors like poverty or gun ownership.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

The NRA is actually seen be some as being too "liberal". Yes, that means this group is actually hated by some who want more open gun laws beyond what the NRA will "allow".

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I still don't get why people need to have guns.

I don't understand why you would NOT?

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

PhotomanSep. 17, 2013 - 09:26AM JST "OssanAmerica: I am shocked both by this tragic incident and the fact that the perpetrators were not stopped faster in a USN facility."

The Navy Yard isn't a true military base. It's an administrative office complex mostly for the NavSea procurement staff >and doesn't have the military "defenses" or processes you would associate with a Base. Almost all of the law >enforcement officers there today were from surrounding jurisdictions, who had all practiced providing the Yard with >well-coordinated emergency assistance

All true. But Building 197 has armed security at entry. How did the perpetrator get 3 weapons past this?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I still don't get why people need to have guns.

I have a politically liberal single mother colleague that used to say the same....until getting her windows broken into and tied down at gunpoint in the middle of the night last year. Now she is very considering the possibility.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I think some people are making up stories. However, you have always had the right to have a gun in your house.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

bass4funk: "I don't understand why you would NOT?"

We know you don't, Bass, and therein lies the rub. Americans think they need guns because their neighbours have guns and they think guns will therefore 'protect' them. Do you not see the extremely vapid and poor logic? Remove guns from the equation and they are obviously no longer needed.

But we can talk about that in tomorrow's US gun massacre.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

"Americans think they need guns..."

The number of US households that have guns is going down. There is a bubble but it can't sustain. Gun manufacturers know this and they don't want to increase production due to the important business decision of not wanting money-losing inventory as well as redundant manufacturing capacity which is also a bad situation. The number of actual Americans who are interested in owning guns is going down. American is also getting safer just like the rest of the developed world.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Lizz,

bass4funk said:

you take the guns away, that won't change anything

..hence the link, where The Journal of Trauma finds the very existence of guns grossly inflates the incidence of homicide in the US. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454

IIRC the top three factors in a recent Census analysis that correlate most strongly with gun homicides are growing up in a black community, not having a father present, and dropping out of high school. Much more strongly than sociological factors like poverty or gun ownership.

I'll wager most sociologists would see growing up in a black community, not having a father present, and dropping out of high school, as likely suspects in determining poverty.

Not sure how 'gun ownership' doesn't correlate strongly with gun homicide - are you?

1 in 10,000 Americans will have their life prematurely ended by a gun this year. This epidemic deserves the deepest soul searching and sense of crisis by every one of the 9,999 that survive.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Laguna:

A "rage blackout"?! And he was allowed to continue to possess weapons?!

That's what I'm thinking too. Such an act would have cost him his carry permit (if he had one) and prevented him from buying a handgun here in Tennessee.

Bass, the two problems with your argument are that you maintain society should spend great money and effort to winnow the lethally crazy from the garden-variety crazy (which Republicans would never support, given the cost involved); and that the former should be banned from owning weapons (which the NRA and their ilk would never support, given the large number of people who would lose their gun rights if such a policy were activated).

You need to post proof of that bolded part or retract it.

nishikat:

A Glock compared to a revolver.

You're a prime example of a media product. Every handgun is either a "Glock" or a "revolver". (Just for the record, I have a Sig Sauer now, and the one time I had to use a gun in self-defense, I was carrying a Browning Hi-Power.) Perhaps you should learn more about guns before deciding how others can access them.

Saw a documentary that mentioned a handgun that holds 100 rounds.

Which documentary was that? What caliber was the gun? Do you know how much 100 rounds of ammo weighs? Even if it were a .22-caliber gun, it would be too heavy for any practical use, law enforcement or not.

And do gun zones really make the situation safer? A guy walked into a doughnut shop in Seattle and blew three cops away who were preparing for their workday.

That underscores the difference between concealed carry and open carry. Uniformed policeman open carry, obviously, and are in uniform. This makes them prime targets. If a robber were to rob a convenience store or a stereotypical doughnut shop, the first person he would shoot would be the one open carrying, because they're the most obvious threat to them. (And in the case you mentioned, the gunman was specifically targeting police officers.) That's why police and firearms instructors nationwide tell their license students to practice concealed carry. (Tennessee has carry permits. They do not specify open or concealed. Once licensed, you can do either. But open carry is very rare here.) Carrying concealed gives you the element of surprise against an attacker. And I can tell you from first-hand experience, it works.

However, you have always had the right to have a gun in your house.

Not in Chicago, Manhattan, or D.C. Perhaps if you knew more about guns and gun laws than what your preferred media outlets feed you....

The number of US households that have guns is going down. There is a bubble but it can't sustain. Gun manufacturers know this and they don't want to increase production due to the important business decision of not wanting money-losing inventory as well as redundant manufacturing capacity which is also a bad situation. The number of actual Americans who are interested in owning guns is going down. American is also getting safer just like the rest of the developed world.

Could you post links for your sources please? Here, I'll demonstrate how this is done:

More Americans carrying guns: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323689204578573763575086702.html

You see, having guns in the home only makes you safer in the home. But crime typically occurs outside the home. So more people are legally carrying, and now they're safer outside the home, which is where I bet your crime stats are decreasing. (By the way, criminals don't report their guns to surveys.)

jack o helen:

It's gotten to the point where only mass murders such as this one make the national news in the U.S. Single homicides, random shootings, etc. never make the national rounds.

Sadly true. The death toll from this event is equal to just another Friday night in Chicago (where guns have been banned for decades).

timtak:

Guns are not the real problem, it is people that need them to to be so freely available, to support their gun-totin', I'll-protect-you-darling, machismo. Guns are a feminist issue. http://www.policymic.com/articles/51715/why-gun-control-is-a-feminist-issue

Obviously, you aren't aware of how many women carry guns for self-defense. They're a great equalizer. You do support equality for women, right? http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/50835309

Get Real:

I'll wager most sociologists would see growing up in a black community, not having a father present, and dropping out of high school, as likely suspects in determining poverty.

...and determining who lives in Democrat voting districts.

1 in 10,000 Americans will have their life prematurely ended by a gun this year.

How many of those are criminals killed by legal gun owner in self-defense? Or are all gun deaths considered "homicides"? I've plenty of "studies" which rig their counts like that.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Old'hawk': "How many of those are criminals killed by legal gun owner in self-defense?"

How many of those are killed by guns might be the better question. And in defense against what? ... GUNS! Well, unless you're an officer who shoots an unarmed, former football player several times for no reason. But let me guess, you believe it's about intent, and not the weapon, that this man who slaughtered more than 10 individuals could have done so with a lampshade and a pair of panties. Guns had nothing to do with his ability to slaughter so many, right?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

smithinjapanSep. 17, 2013 - 09:58PM JST bass4funk: "I don't understand why you would NOT?" We know you don't, Bass, and therein lies the rub. Americans think they need guns because their neighbours have >guns and they think guns will therefore 'protect' them. Do you not see the extremely vapid and poor logic? Remove >guns from the equation and they are obviously no longer needed. But we can talk about that in tomorrow's US gun massacre.

Considering that you're neither a gun owner or American, on what basis of qualification do you decide "why" Americans think they need guns? I am both and I do not possess firearms for protection.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

smithinjapan:

How many of those are killed by guns might be the better question. And in defense against what? ... GUNS!

I know you'll consider this "anecdotal", but the one time I used a gun in self-defense, it wasn't against another gun. The attacker used such advantages as his size, sneaking up behind me, and a strap to put around my neck. You'll probably find that most women who use a gun in self-defense, tend to do so against men whose only weapons are their size and strength, and maybe a knife. Would you like to tell them their evidence is "anecdotal"? You see, not all violent criminals have guns. But they are still violent criminals. Maybe we should address that factor first, before passing laws that disarm law-abiding citizens? Nah, that'll never get through an administration packed with Leftists.

But let me guess, you believe it's about intent, and not the weapon, that this man who slaughtered more than 10 individuals could have done so with a lampshade and a pair of panties.

If you comprehend news events with the same accuracy you discern my "beliefs", I'll bet you've found the world to be a very confusing and challenging place. With the gunman's history of mental health issues and violence, he should not have been able to legally buy a gun. But the same can be said for the deranged young man who shot Giffords and others, the deranged young man who shot up Virginia Tech, etc. Do you disagree with that?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Again, and again, and again, . . . .

3 ( +3 / -0 )

If you live in a place where it's necessary to hold a gun to defend yourself, maybe you need to move to somewhere more civilised.

There are such places.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Really Bertie? I see tons of articles worldwide about murders and violence that could have been prevented if people were holding guns that you abhor. Where are these civilized places? Certainly not on this planet. There are crazies everywhere that always find a way to murder, rape, rob, terrorize, etc. You need to look no further than the JapanToday crime section to see that.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

I'm all for transparency, Old Hawk.

These figures are for 2010, a typical year, and show that 1 in 10,000 Americans did indeed have their life ended prematurely by a gun..

Total gun deaths: 31,672

Of which suicides: 19,392 (50% of total suicides)

Gun homicides: 11,078 (68% of total homicides)

How many of those are criminals killed by legal gun owner in self-defense?

Justifiable gun homicides by civilians, defined as the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen, was a flaccid 232.

Unintentional gun deaths, conversely, accounted for 606 American lives.

Old Hawk, each and every one of these deaths is a preventable tragedy which in its wake shatters the lives of children, spouses, parents, siblings, friends, colleagues, students, employees, creditors.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

8 ( +9 / -1 )

These figures are for 2010, Gun homicides: 11,078 (68% of total homicides)

According to the FBI the number of gun homicides for 2010 was 8,775 and grand total of all homicides with all weapons or means is 12,996.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl09.xls

So which one do we use?

Unintentional gun deaths, conversely, accounted for 606 American lives.

To put that into perspective accidental gun deaths make up less than 1% of all accidental deaths in the US. There are anywhere between 80-100,000 accidental deaths each year in the US. Largest causes are Traffic accidents, Poisoning, Falls, Fires, Choking, and Drowning.

With that being said there are measures that I think could help further increase the rate at which accidental deaths by firearms falls, for example all detachable magazine guns should be required to have magazine safeties or also known as magazine disconnects another one would be loaded chamber indicators being standard with all firearm sales.

It is also important to note that accidental gun deaths have been decreasing they have not been increasing, from 2000 to 2010 accidental gun deaths decreased by around 20%.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

My condolences to the families of the victims of this attack.

What beggars my understanding is that a guy with anger management issues, and arrest record for misuse of a firearm... is allowed to own a gun. Only in the U.S.A. ... where ironically enough you can also be legally blind and be allowed to own a gun.

When exactly did common sense in the U.S. cross the line from "an uncommon virtue" to "a completely foreign concept"?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Gun manufacturers are probably cheering. These tragedies usually make people talk about gun laws, and with that comes the inevitable paranoia that the black President is going to take Billy's guns. Billy now has to go to his local gun shop and stock up even more. Cha-ching!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@No living,

According to the FBI the number of gun homicides for 2010 was 8,775 and grand total of all homicides with all weapons or means is 12,996.

Elsewhere on the same website, the FBI write:

An estimated (my italics) 14,748 persons were murdered nationwide in 2010

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/murdermain

GunPolicy.org's figures come from the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

The politics between federal and local law enforcement have spawned many movies and TV series.

Should we trust the Feds, or the medics?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

This is what people failed to see, if the government doesn't do anything about Gun Control Law's more and more people die and get wounded like as such of this event that happened in Washington.

From what I understand having the right to own a gun will not be taken away if it they did take your right away then that is going against the 2nd Amendment. (Right To Bear Arms). I think what this Gun Control Law will do is just be more strict to what the individual can do or cannot do.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So which one do we believe then? At the very least both sources of information show that homicides are going down in the US.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

At the very least both sources of information show that homicides are going down in the US.

There are still far, far too many.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

To many nutters with guns in illegal areas (DC) and not enough legal gun owners to stop them. =Let's parade another nutter out and make him the poster child for legal gun owners.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

There are still far, far too many.

OK.....Nothing you can do is going to drop that in a year so that it is acceptable. You can only rely on yearly decreases to reach your objective. What matters in the end is that we are on a downward trend, in the past 20 years the US homicides have been cut in half. The 20 years ago the US was at 10 per 100k in 1993/1994; today the US is now on track to have its lowest homicide rate in nearly a century. It is going to take awhile to get it down to the European level of 1-2 per 100k, you are just going to have to be patient.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Are their statistics on how many lives are saved by guns?

50 years ago guns were available by mail order. Today restricted. What changed?

Mass killings are linked to violent video games lately. Anything else? Mental instability?

Gangland murders are up from past decades. Why?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

MarkG The problem is that everyone always wants to blame someone else when one of these tragedies happens rather than the culprit. The video game argument has been around since the atari was release over 30 years ago. Not to mention that fact that anytime something like this happens the media glorifies the killer and berates the law abiding people that carry guns.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

You can still buy guns thru the mail, but they need to be sent to a FFL then you pay a transfer fee and background check fee when you pick it up. C&R FFL is cheaper, but the gun must be a curio and relic. Antique guns or parts (except a non-destroyed receiver) can be shipped to you directly non-FFL.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

When you say 'Glock' it's like saying "Coca Cola". It's not just a gun. It's a leading deadly brand of gun available to the consumer. A Glock is more deadly than a regular revolver if you want to go after multiple people.

There are Glocks that are not available to the public. And, yes, I just checked on the Internet and there is a 100-round handgun which really does exist and anyone else can check too. It is not available to the public either. The NRA has nothing to say about this situation? Doesn't that make them an organization that is too left? Many people who want more open gun laws blame the NRA for this. Guns will become more deadly in the future.

You can regularly read that household gun ownership is going down. But a certain group who are paranoid about the 2ndA are the ones hoarding bullets and buying multiple guns. It's a business that cannot sustain and representatives of gun makers have acknowledged this on a business level (it is a business)

Yes, you can have a gun in your house in any place in America. Chicago, NY, etc. Where did the info come from that you can't?

I'm for universal checks and registration so good guys keep their guns and bad guys don't. The deadliness of guns should be limited for consumers more than what they are now. Or if you want something deadly like a Glock you need a special license.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

The guy was in the middle of psych "treatment."

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/17/how_did_dc_navy_yard_gunman

This leads me to two conclusions:

a) Psychiatric "help" is worse than useless.

b) Mental patients should not be allowed ANYWHERE NEAR guns.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Or if you want something deadly like a Glock you need a special license.

They're ALL deadly.

Wake up from these homicidal fantasies!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

another example of current failed laws- Aaron Alexis was already guilty of federal laws with the first shootings. both because of the discharge of a the firearms, and the fact he was mentally ill. the current paperwork asks the question- but the person just has to say no- and the US cannot check someones health history to see if they are mentally ill.

so in reality he never should have had a shotgun when he went on site, he never should have had a handgun in the past, and in reality he should have been convicted before according to federal law and be in jail.

but the gun laws are normally the first ones that are plea bargained away - and that is why the NRA is not in support of new ones- because in the end - someone will break the law and not be charged with the crime. just like aaron alexis

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Some people are objectifying the deceased as if they're not even human, just random numbers.

This isn't XBox 360. GAME OVER is permanent

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Mark G:

Are their statistics on how many lives are saved by guns?

50 years ago guns were available by mail order. Today restricted. What changed?

Mass killings are linked to violent video games lately. Anything else? Mental instability?

Gangland murders are up from past decades. Why?

Statistics on lives saved are difficult to determine. In the vast majority of cases (including my own event), the gun does not need to be fired. Just knowing that they are about to be shot if they do not flee (shooting people in the back is still illegal in all 50 states, no matter how bad they are) is enough to deter most criminal aggressors. Many such events do not get reported to the police, or the police do not respond to file a report. (No guns discharged, no injuries, no bodies, nobody to arrest, so no reason to leave the speed trap.)

What changed is how we treat the mentally insane. We treat them more humanely, so now more innocent people die. If that sounds like an idea that came from well-meaning "progressives", that's because it is. But yes, guns were MUCH more accessible 50 years ago. I know today's "progressives" believe otherwise, bu then they're quite young and have no memories of their own to call upon.

Several of the recent mass shooters are/were heavy gamers. But then violent video games routinely sell over 100,000,000 copies, so obviously not everybody tries to live them out in real life. But yes, they could be a factor in desensitizing people to extreme violence.

The "thug life" has become fashionable. And then there's MS-13...

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Some people are objectifying the deceased as if they're not even human, just random numbers.

I totally agree. It's sad to hear gun advocates suggest that it's ONLY a handful of people being killed with guns. Thirteen people slayed in a gun massacre is still thirteen lives taken by a gun. I never see or hear of anyone using a gun to build a house, fix a car, cook food, etc. No, all I hear about is how many people it has killed. Seems to me that people have made killing others the number one purpose for a gun. The difference between a gun and other things like knives, hammers, etc., is that people actually use those things for their intended purpose.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Old Hawk,

You need to come up with a way to actually prevent violent criminals from obtaining guns

Vested interests: arms manufacturers and dealers, private prisons, securocrats and everyone who profits from Americans' multibilliondollar fear of their fellow citizens, will fight tooth and nail to ensure criminals still get their guns.

The article linked below includes the words of a former lawyer for the NRA and ex-executive director of the American Shooting Sports Council, Robert Ricker:

“Leaders in the industry have consistently resisted taking constructive voluntary action to prevent firearms from ending up in the illegal gun market and have sought to silence others within the industry who have advocated reform.

It also documents the backlash against Smith & Wesson, who tried to introduce controls for its dealers:

Smith & Wesson’s sales quickly plummeted amid an industry backlash... A letter from Dwight Van Brunt, an executive at Kimber America, a gun maker, to top officials at a firearms industry trade group urged them to confer with the N.R.A. and boycott Smith now and forever. Run them out of the country.

You guys need to make sure that no one else is going to join the surrender, Mr. Van Brunt wrote.

Smith & Wesson was acquired by another company, and promptly toed the industry line again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/us/gun-makers-shun-responsibility-for-sales-suits-show.html?_r=0

You know in your heart of hearts there's only one way to disarm the criminals. Repeal the Second Amendment.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

We know you don't, Bass, and therein lies the rub. Americans think they need guns because their neighbours have guns and they think guns will therefore 'protect' them. Do you not see the extremely vapid and poor logic? Remove guns from the equation and they are obviously no longer needed.

But we can talk about that in tomorrow's US gun massacre.

No, you don't understand, how could you. I like guns, NO, I love guns. I am a proud owner, because I can and have that right! More importantly, I love to hunt, usually you need a gun for that. Second, I want to have the protection, why? You never know. I was a victim in a gang attack in Europe and I had a friend of mine stabbed. If you are proud of NOT being able to own a gun, good on you. But I can and I am proud of it. That's my right and I am happy people like you don't live in the states and try to dictate as to how we should live.

And we can talk about the Non-gun violent crimes in Europe, but oh, since it is NOT a firearm, it doesn't need to get media attention.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

To describe this man as a "convert to Buddhism" is an insult to Buddhism. Respect for life and not killing anything - even mosquitos - is one of the important tenets of that philosophy.

He could have killed with a knife, or with his hands/feet if karate trained, but he wouldn't have taken 13 lives.

He was only able to kill so many because he had a firearm.

The only thing you can do with a gun is either kill, or threaten to kill.

If a person has to have a firearm to protect himself, there is something basically very wrong with the government in the country where he is living.

And hunting as sport should be ILLEGAL - everywhere.

To be honest, it's sick.

There may be a few people who have to kill for food, but they are in such a tiny minority, it doesn't count.

In short, there is no reason why the vast majority of people should be in possession of a firearm.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I never see or hear of anyone using a gun to build a house, fix a car, cook food, etc. No, all I hear about is how many people it has killed.

Well then go to a gun range and you will see and hear people not using guns to kill people. Is it really that hard? Do you honestly think the media is going to do a daily story on gun ranges?

The difference between a gun and other things like knives, hammers, etc., is that people actually use those things for their intended purpose.

A lot of guns created today there intended purpose is for target shooting not for killing. Just like how when knives were first created they were intended to be used for killing now they are primarily used to cut food.

Also the original purpose is quite frankly irrelevant, what matters is how it is currently primarily being used by the population not what it was intended to be used for. I highly doubt cars would be legal if the population was primarily using them to run people over.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

@Get Real -- Your posts bring some fresh air to the stale, fetid swill continually spewed out by the gun lovers.

But let's get down to brass tacks: How much does the public have to pay for all of the damage caused by gun violence in the US? The medical bills alone must run into the hundreds of millions. Many victims of gun violence require care for the rest of their lives. Some "freedom."

Why does that cost have to be levied against those members of the public who don't own guns and want nothing to do with them personally? Make those who manufacture guns and those who promote guns and gun ownership pick up all the costs associated with their "hobby." You might start to see some real action on the front of keeping guns out of the hands who those who should not have them in the first place.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Just read he got his gun legally. I'm OK with carriers as long as their permit is scrutinized. We don't need idiots like Zimmerman walking around the neighborhood with a gun acting like they own the world while annoying the 911 operators repeatedly. Or people like Trevor Dooley.

But as long as someone has the mental discipline and physical skill to help keep our streets safe I'm all for it. But I'm still for very strict checks as well as questioning if a certain gun should be available to the public or not.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Noliving,

Well then go to a gun range and you will see and hear people not using guns to kill people. Is it really that hard? Do you honestly think the media is going to do a daily story on gun ranges?

Why on Earth would they need to fire a gun on a gun range, if not to practice killing or pretend to kill?

Having guns, except for police and military is unnecessary.

Playing with guns is mentally unhealthy.

And killing animals for "sport" is akin to murder.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

But let's get down to brass tacks:

Yes Let's : A) He purchased a shotgun to commit his crime. B) A ban on the purchase of assault type weapons even if it had passed would have done nothing to prevent this crime. C) He the shot an armed security guard during his rampage and stole his weapon. D) He then used the stolen handgun and fired on more victims.

So unless you wish to ban shotguns from individuals in a step that even Japan doesn't take that far, and disarm security guards you would not have prevented this from happening. Even with the deterrent factor of an armed security guard on site, it didn't prevent this murderer in his calculus from carry out his rampage and in fact it unfortunately ended up providing him with another weapon to continue his killing spree . One can only conclude that even with what most of the world considers reasonable individual citizen gun ownership (shotguns) and the added deterrent of an armed guard on site, that a person this hellbent on killing others was not going to be stopped from carry out his demented killing spree until he himself received a bullet in his head to stop him.

NYT excerpt:

After firing down on people, the gunman began to search for more people to shoot, and as he searched, he was confronted by a security guard near an exit, according to the officials. The gunman shot the guard and took his semiautomatic handgun, then headed back to the atrium.

“He runs back upstairs and cranks off more rounds with the handgun and then heads to another stairwell, where he confronts a worker there and shoots him,” the official said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/state-law-stopped-gunman-from-buying-rifle-officials-say.html?_r=0

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

nishikat:

When you say 'Glock' it's like saying "Coca Cola". It's not just a gun. It's a leading deadly brand of gun available to the consumer. A Glock is more deadly than a regular revolver if you want to go after multiple people.

And people in my part of the U.S. still call every soda a "Coke". That indicates they don't know much about sodas, and don't care to learn.

There are Glocks that are not available to the public. And, yes, I just checked on the Internet and there is a 100-round handgun which really does exist and anyone else can check too. It is not available to the public either.

So what are you worried about?

Guns will become more deadly in the future.

About the only way for that to happen is if ammunition is designed to cause more damage. Guns can made to be more accurate, but that's about it.

You can regularly read that household gun ownership is going down.

And you can regularly read that carry permit applications are going up. Including in Newtown, Connecticut.

But a certain group who are paranoid about the 2ndA are the ones hoarding bullets and buying multiple guns. It's a business that cannot sustain and representatives of gun makers have acknowledged this on a business level (it is a business)

Paranoid people hoarding ammo? You mean like Janet Napolitano and the Homeland Security mass purchases?

Yes, you can have a gun in your house in any place in America. Chicago, NY, etc. Where did the info come from that you can't?

Reality, that's where.

Chicago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois#Historical_restrictions_on_the_possession_of_handguns

Washington, D.C.: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071700689.html

I'm for universal checks and registration so good guys keep their guns and bad guys don't. The deadliness of guns should be limited for consumers more than what they are now.

The universal checks and registration would do nothing to prevent violent criminals from owning guns. It's already illegal for them to do so. And you do know that background checks are already required to legally purchase a handgun in all 50 states, right? Probably not, since you're calling for "universal" (federal) checks. The kind that the shooter in this case breezed right through.

You need to come up with a way to actually prevent violent criminals from obtaining guns. Surprise searches, perhaps?

Or if you want something deadly like a Glock you need a special license.

The most popular handgun design is the semi-auto. They're been around since about 1911. Turn back time and have everyone carrying black powder pistols? Good luck with that. (Also, black powder guns use smooth bores, are not very accurate, and leave no ballistics to trace.) Hey, maybe you should ban deadly drugs, and require anyone wanting to purchase anything deadlier than aspirin (heroin, for example) to have a special license. Good luck enforcing that too.

jack o helen:

It's sad to hear gun advocates suggest that it's ONLY a handful of people being killed with guns.

Where do you hear that? Links, please.

I never see or hear of anyone using a gun to build a house, fix a car, cook food, etc.

But you do hear about people using guns to prevent death.

Seems to me that people have made killing others the number one purpose for a gun.

No, that would be abortion. You can't target practice or hunt with abortion.

Get Real:

You know in your heart of hearts there's only one way to disarm the criminals. Repeal the Second Amendment.

And how, pray tell, would that work? Drugs are banned, but criminals don't seem to have any problem obtaining them. Alcohol was once banned too. Repealing the 2nd would only disarm the legal owners. Or make criminals out of them.

And "vested interests?"? You mean like people who have would have been another violent crime statistic had they not been armed? Yeah, I do have a vested interest, thank you.

"Leaders in the industry have consistently resisted taking constructive voluntary action to prevent firearms from ending up in the illegal gun market and have sought to silence others within the industry who have advocated reform."

Holding gun manufacturers responsible for what customers do with their products after they have bought them and left the store? Short of installing expensive fingerprint ID mechanisms on every single gun (and how would you do that on old designs?), it's impossible to prevent criminals from using guns they've stolen.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

The universal checks and registration would do nothing to prevent violent criminals from owning guns. It's already illegal for them to do so. And you do know that background checks are already required to legally purchase a handgun in all 50 states, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't people allowed to buy and sell guns directly to each other at gun shows and the like without conducting any background checks at all? How is that supposed to catch someone supposedly not allowed to have a gun?

Universal means all sales, not just sales at licensed dealers.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

While they are still grieving, it's a safe bet that the next mass shooting will occur.

Then there must never be a debate on gun control.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Why on Earth would they need to fire a gun on a gun range, if not to practice killing or pretend to kill?

Same reason why people fence and the same reason why Japanese do Kyudo. You do realize that people can use firearms or any other range weapon for target practice and have not malicious reasons for doing it or for wanting to kill or wanting to practice to kill.

Playing with guns is mentally unhealthy.

No it is not.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

And hunting as sport should be ILLEGAL - everywhere. To be honest, it's sick. There may be a few people who have to kill for food, but they are in such a tiny minority, it doesn't count.

Some people don't want to eat the genetically modified, hopped up on steroids products available to them in the supermarket. I think you'd be surprised how many folks supplement their table with wild game. I would have thought a man who advocates making his own cheese would understand this basic fact.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Then I must be cracked as I go target plinking with my buddies now and again with a .22 LR, with the occasional usage of a vintage Lee-Enfeild MK III .303 rile. I must be plotting to be going on a mass killing spree ...

No. Wait. That's a stupid idea. Think I go have some whisky and play cards.

Seriously, people who scream 'take the guns' every time some raving lunatic goes off and manages to get there hands a on a gun, need their heads examined.

Did this guy need professional help? Yes

Did he go after a place where people would likely be able to defend themselves? No, DC's Anti-Gun laws made the base carry the minimum firearms THEY felt necessary for the base to have, No what actually kept the place safe. I seem to notice the people who want to create this kinda of carnage always go after the gun free zones....

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

As soon as liberals and other gun fearing people realize that owning a gun is not a crime

It would be a crime if you had half-decent gun laws.

understand where the real problem lies and that is with the mentally insane and should never be near or have access to a firearm.

Why do you think the US has so many more mentally insane people than other countries?

Playing with guns is mentally unhealthy.

Yes.

And killing animals for "sport" is akin to murder.

Killing animals for 'sport' isn't sport, it's sick.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Yes Let's : A) He purchased a shotgun to commit his crime. B) A ban on the purchase of assault type weapons even if it had passed would have done nothing to prevent this crime. C) He the shot an armed security guard during his rampage and stole his weapon. D) He then used the stolen handgun and fired on more victims.

The brass tacks are as follows:

A) People who are pro-gun want the goverment/state to build more asylums to hold the mentally ill -- like this shooter who was "hearing voices." (A clear indication of a serious mental disorder.) Why should the taxpayers foot a bill to build more asylums as though that were the ONLY way to keep the seriously mentally ill from obtaining guns??!!

Would not the taxpayers stand to save a lot more of their money if more efforts were made to ensure they -- the mentally ill -- could not get guns in the first place? This seriously mentally ill person legally purchased a shotgun. How did our system allow that to happen -- and isn't that system totally messed up? And fools think building asylums is the answer??

If gun-lovers think building more asylums is the best way, then let them fund it, rather than allowing them to socialize a problem that their promotion of the widest dissemination of guns possible with the fewest restrictions has brought about?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

People, let's not get distracted by this "lock up the looneys" smokescreen.

Ten Thousand Americans are murdered by guns each year.

Most of the perpetrators and their victims know each other.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

A simple question to Americans:

Should our society/system allow an individual who has been determined by a comprehensive psychological examination to have "strong" (i.e.: potentially dangerous) anti-social tendencies, but who is otherwise deemed "mentally competent," to purchase firearms?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Should our society/system allow an individual who has been determined by a comprehensive psychological examination to have "strong" (i.e.: potentially dangerous) anti-social tendencies, but who is otherwise deemed "mentally competent," to purchase firearms?

The answer is no they should not be allowed to purchase a firearm and there should be a court system setup for those who are classified as such to be able to challenge it in court.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Absolutely NOT. The guns are NOT the problem.

Yes, the real problem of your society is a World's Top density of psychos on every square mile with a free access to firearms. That's why almost every week some armed ret@rd shoots people to death in public places : schools, theaters, shopping malls, offices. It is getting a symbol of American Lifestyle.

I like guns, NO, I love guns. I am a proud owner, because I can and have that right!

Yeah, that's what I am talking about. And having such a totally perverted mindset you dare to give advices to people of other countries "what-to-do" ?! Spell slowly the phrase of other poster : "Playing with guns is mentally unhealthy". Learn it and tell to your neighbours.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

"Playing with guns is mentally unhealthy"

So your saying that enjoying target shooting is mentally unhealthy?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Should our society/system allow an individual who has been determined by a comprehensive psychological examination to have "strong" (i.e.: potentially dangerous) anti-social tendencies, but who is otherwise deemed "mentally competent," to purchase firearms?

The answer is no they should not be allowed to purchase a firearm and there should be a court system setup for those who are classified as such to be able to challenge it in court.

You mean anyone and everyone wanting to purchase a firearm should first be obliged to undergo a comprehensive psychological examination, and not be allowed access to the weapon until and unless they produce the certificate proving they're competent? And how is that going to work with person-to-person/under the radar sales?

Surely it's easier (and more accurate) to assume that anyone who wants to own a lethal weapon is by definition potentially dangerous and therefore unfit to be a gun owner?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

You mean anyone and everyone wanting to purchase a firearm should first be obliged to undergo a comprehensive psychological examination, and not be allowed access to the weapon until and unless they produce the certificate proving they're competent? And how is that going to work with person-to-person/under the radar sales?

Yes to the first question and for the second question the answer is that realistically you won't be able to and that true with everything. The only thing that I can think of that would get ahead of them is for them to take a polygraph test on their intentions when buying the firearm or there application form that would give them a permit/license.

Surely it's easier (and more accurate) to assume that anyone who wants to own a lethal weapon is by definition potentially dangerous and therefore unfit to be a gun owner?

It is easier but not more accurate in fact I would argue that is inaccurate, it is nothing more than a false stereotype/assumption. Are people who want to target shoot unfit to be a gun owner? No. Are people who enjoy dueling in fencing by definition potentially dangerous and therefore unfit to be an owner of a sword? No. Are the people who enjoy archery potentially dangerous and therefore unfit to be a bow or crossbow owner? No. Are people who want to be skilled in the ways of hand to hand combat potentially dangerous and therefore unfit to be trained in the martial arts? No. Are people who want a license to carry guns in public potentially dangerous and therefore unfit? No, in fact all the evidence in the US on people who have a permit to carry a firearm in public commit less violent crimes than the general population, including homicides and or aggravated assaults.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

NolivingSep. 20, 2013 - 12:15AM JST Yes to the first question and for the second question the answer is that realistically you won't be able to and that true with everything. The only thing that I can think of that would get ahead of them is for them to take a polygraph test on their intentions when buying the firearm or there application form that would give them a permit/license.

... why not just flip a coin, it is more reliable than a polygraph test. Psychometric tests (psychological tests) designed for clinical use and administered by trained professionals are 95% accurate. Please don't dismiss psychological tests, which are 95% accurate, only to suggest polygraph testing, which is less than 50% accurate.

It is easier but not more accurate in fact I would argue that is inaccurate, it is nothing more than a false stereotype/assumption. Are people who want to target shoot unfit to be a gun owner? No. Are people who enjoy dueling in fencing by definition potentially dangerous and therefore unfit to be an owner of a sword? No. Are the people who enjoy archery potentially dangerous and therefore unfit to be a bow or crossbow owner? No. Are people who want to be skilled in the ways of hand to hand combat potentially dangerous and therefore unfit to be trained in the martial arts? No. Are people who want a license to carry guns in public potentially dangerous and therefore unfit? No, in fact all the evidence in the US on people who have a permit to carry a firearm in public commit less violent crimes than the general population, including homicides and or aggravated assaults.

You've responded "No" to every item there, but actually the answer should be "Maybe". I was a martial arts instructor and not everyone who walked through the doors and asked to sign up was the sort of person who we wanted to teach. Every person got an interview and was asked, amongst other questions like what they expected from the training, what they hoped to learn. Some people were honest and replied that they wanted to learn how to hurt others. Those we turned away after the interview. Some people lied, but after watching them in training and sparring for a few months we normally figured out when someone was unable to control their anger and was dangerous. For them we recommended that they shift to one of the softer martial arts courses (for example, tai chi), and then come back to us when they'd learned to control themselves.

So, from personal experience, I KNOW that not everyone who wants to learn how to fight is fit to do so. I'd say that conservatively we turned away about 20% of our potential customers because they weren't mentally fit to use the training wisely.

.... but in the U.S. EVERYONE has a RIGHT to a gun? No, sorry, that is just plain stupid and irresponsible. And don't claim that it isn't EVERYONE, because there are holes in the background checks that you could drive an 18 wheeler through, like gun shows where no checks are necessary. Why? Apparently some salesperson making an impulse sale is more important than the safety of literally EVERYONE else. The U.S. gun system is broken beyond belief.

Sure the changes that Obama wants to implement aren't really going to solve anything, but he's trying to get easy reforms started so that the ball can get rolling on the bigger, more difficult, reforms, like the idea that having a gun shouldn't be a right, but should rather be a responsibility (which is what the founding fathers intended... they were very clear that it was your responsibility to keep a gun so you could fight, and possibly die, in the defense of freedom... not so that you could enjoy a little Sunday target practice).

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Are people who want to target shoot unfit to be a gun owner?

Target shooting can be done with non-lethal pop-guns, on proper shooting ranges. No need at all to carry a target-shooting gun around in public.

Are people who enjoy dueling in fencing by definition potentially dangerous and therefore unfit to be an owner of a sword?

The swords used in competitive fencing are not made to be lethal; they're basically bendy pointing sticks, less of a weapon than a baseball bat. Fencers do not carry their blades around concealed in public.

Are the people who enjoy archery potentially dangerous and therefore unfit to be a bow or crossbow owner?

If they want to carry their bows and arrows around in public, duh, yes.

Are people who want to be skilled in the ways of hand to hand combat potentially dangerous and therefore unfit to be trained in the martial arts?

It depends. I've met some muscle-heads who were not fit to be trained in hand-to-hand thumb wrestling, never mind anything more dangerous.

Are people who want a license to carry guns in public potentially dangerous and therefore unfit?

Duh. Yes. Why would anyone want to carry a gun in public, except to have the option to hurt people?

in fact all the evidence in the US on people who have a permit to carry a firearm in public commit less violent crimes than the general population

'all the evidence' is a pretty radical claim. All it needs is one paper showing a different result - such as the Ayres and Donohue paper that claims concealed-carry laws lead to more, not less, crime (including crimes committed using firearms stolen from law-abiding citizens) - to refute that claim. Consider it refuted.

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/ayres%20donohue%20on%20guns%20-%203-021.pdf

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

... why not just flip a coin, it is more reliable than a polygraph test. Psychometric tests (psychological tests) designed for clinical use and administered by trained professionals are 95% accurate. Please don't dismiss psychological tests, which are 95% accurate, only to suggest polygraph testing, which is less than 50% accurate.

Huh? I'm not, I'm just giving an example of how you might want to expose a gun trafficker/straw buyer or someone who intends to buy a firearm to go on a killing spree or kill their spouse or children.

You've responded "No" to every item there, but actually the answer should be "Maybe". I was a martial arts instructor and not everyone who walked through the doors and asked to sign up was the sort of person who we wanted to teach. Every person got an interview and was asked, amongst other questions like what they expected from the training, what they hoped to learn. Some people were honest and replied that they wanted to learn how to hurt others. Those we turned away after the interview. Some people lied, but after watching them in training and sparring for a few months we normally figured out when someone was unable to control their anger and was dangerous. For them we recommended that they shift to one of the softer martial arts courses (for example, tai chi), and then come back to us when they'd learned to control themselves. So, from personal experience, I KNOW that not everyone who wants to learn how to fight is fit to do so. I'd say that conservatively we turned away about 20% of our potential customers because they weren't mentally fit to use the training wisely.

No kidding that was my point, I was speaking in general or what is most common. In general is someone who wants to learn martial arts a threat? The answer is no. I wasn't making the claim that every single one wasn't a threat.

.... but in the U.S. EVERYONE has a RIGHT to a gun? No, sorry, that is just plain stupid and irresponsible. And don't claim that it isn't EVERYONE, because there are holes in the background checks that you could drive an 18 wheeler through, like gun shows where no checks are necessary. Why? Apparently some salesperson making an impulse sale is more important than the safety of literally EVERYONE else. The U.S. gun system is broken beyond belief.

OK.......I don't see where we are disagreeing here.

Target shooting can be done with non-lethal pop-guns, on proper shooting ranges. No need at all to carry a target-shooting gun around in public.

Oh for the love of god Cleo being a target shooter in no way means you want to carry in gun in public. Is that really so difficult for you to understand? Why is it you automatically assume that target shooters want to carry guns around in public? Being a target shooter in no way means you want to carry a gun in public or that you even have a desire to do so. Just like being a fencer doesn't mean you have any intention of carrying a sword on you in public, nor does wanting to own a bow or a cross bow means you want to carry them in public.

The swords used in competitive fencing are not made to be lethal; they're basically bendy pointing sticks, less of a weapon than a baseball bat. Fencers do not carry their blades around concealed in public.

No they are lethal that is why they are made out of metal and have a rubber knob at the end, they are not intended to be used for lethal purposes.

If they want to carry their bows and arrows around in public, duh, yes.

Where did I say anything about wanting to carry them in public?

'all the evidence' is a pretty radical claim. All it needs is one paper showing a different result - such as the Ayres and Donohue paper that claims concealed-carry laws lead to more, not less, crime (including crimes committed using firearms stolen from law-abiding citizens) - to refute that claim. Consider it refuted.

Not refuted at all, your link doesn't claim that it is those with the permit to carry a gun in public are what is behind the increase in crime rates nor does it claim that those with a permit to carry are more likely to commit a crime compared to the general population. Show me where in that article where it says that those with a permit to carry commit more crimes per capita than the general population. The article is debunking the argument that when you allow non criminal citizens to carry firearms that it causes the criminals to commit less crimes, what they are claiming is that there is no evidence that the criminals are deterred by non criminals citizens carrying guns. Again my claim is that those with a permit to carry commit less violent crime than the general population. Show me a study that shows those with permit to carry commit more crime than the general population.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Apologies for such a challenging question:

What exactly is your gun compensating for?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

What exactly is your gun compensating for?

Physical disability, age(old vs young), gender, sick vs the well, etc.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

How about low self-esteem and social ineptitude?

The pro-gun posts do little to convince me otherwise. Disproportionate use of the first person singular, alarmingly little concern for gun victims, and zero empathy, if not outright contempt, for the majority of your fellow citizens.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It is a sad irony that a shotgun was used for these crimes, the very weapon that President Biden suggested that Americans arm themselves with as an alternative to "assault weapons".

Incidents like this one are tragic, but in the big picture are not meaningful. The vast majority of gun deaths are two types: a/ suicide, and b/ young black men shooting each other with handguns. A crime like this one is a form of suicide, which begs the question of the role of mental health care in the situation. Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far towards freedom and autonomy for people who are suffering various mental conditions.

I'm not a gun owner. Never owned one, never wanted to own one. But I can see how those in favour of ownership can get a bit paranoid at all the accusations leveled against them. For those who think not having firearms is the safest way to live, I ask you this: would you put a sign on the front lawn of your home that said something like, "there are NO firearms on this property. This is a gun-free zone"? Do you think such a sign would make you more of a target for crime, less of a target, or have no impact?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Sorry, I forgot to add "vice" to Joe Biden's title...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Believe it when you actually see evidence like photos etc. No evidence just like another Sandy Hook massacre. There are Google screen shots taken by digital camera which shows reports this happening the 15th, one day before it supposedly took place. Figure that one out.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Thirteen people were killed, including the gunman.

followed by..

“whoever carried out this cowardly act is held responsible.”

hmmm...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

For those who think not having firearms is the safest way to live, I ask you this: would you put a sign on the front lawn of your home that said something like, "there are NO firearms on this property.."?

Apart from its total irrelevance to the discussion, how do you reconcile this question with:

I'm not a gun owner. Never owned one, never wanted to own one. (?)

You're obviously safe enough, VRWC.

As for:

young black men shooting each other with handguns

aren't these young American men, or does their color make their premature deaths less of a tragedy?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

How about low self-esteem and social ineptitude?

Right.....Any psychological study of gun owners to back that up or is that just more stereotypical assumptions about gun owners?

alarmingly little concern for gun victims, and zero empathy, if not outright contempt, for the majority of your fellow citizens.

Actually they have a lot of concern for innocent victims and can empathize with the victims, if you would go to gun ranges and speak to the people there you would know that.

The people they have contempt and zero empathy for are people who continue to try and shame them for enjoying a sport or hobby safely and or the people who like to make snide comments such as this:

What exactly is your gun compensating for?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Get Real; I mentioned the race of the shooting victims/perps because it is statistically relevant. The murder rate for that particular demographic is by far the highest in the US. It isn't about whether one death is more or less tragic than another.

As for the sign, the assumption by many non gun owners is that "gun free zones" are a component to safety. Often, there is pressure to declare public spaces as "gun free". I would simply like those people to practice what they preach.

I reconcile it with my personal non-ownership by the fact that I live in Japan. I think in the US, the mere possibility of criminals facing armed citizens has an impact on crime. In the UK, for example, nearly half of home burglaries occur when the homes are occupied by their residents. In the US, the figure is something just over 10%. Obviously, UK thieves don't fear for any retaliation from their victims.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"Paranoid people hoarding ammo? You mean like Janet Napolitano and the Homeland Security mass purchases?"

Has this been reported in the news? Or is it from the same people who believe Obama was born in Kenya? You think Obama is hoarding all the bullets? Gun makers say it's a bubble (they are a business to make money)

"So what are you worried about?"

What are you worried about? If there are more mass shootings with semis they could be banned in the future. Or having these deadly weapons will require a special license or expensive stamp (like a fully auto)

"and the one time I had to use a gun in self-defense, I was carrying a Browning Hi-Power."

Are you making this up? Or if not then please tell us about the person you killed. Because you mentioned the other tall tale about Obama buying all the bullets. Don't you think the NRA is too left because they don't "allow" citizens to carry the same stuff law enforcement can carry? How about the 100-round handgun? Or GAU-8 Avenger?

"Probably not, since you're calling for "universal" (federal) checks. The kind that the shooter in this case breezed right through."

No system is perfect but it will reduce problems, especially children shooting children in Chicago.

"The most popular handgun design is the semi-auto. They're been around since about 1911."

Are they as good as today's Glocks? Are you saying the deadliness of guns has plateaued and will never improve in the future (keep reading)?

"maybe you should ban deadly drugs, and require anyone wanting to purchase anything deadlier than aspirin (heroin, for example) to have a special license. Good luck enforcing that too."

But I don't use. And you can't kill me when using a pill as a projectile. The war on drugs ending anyway. The war on guns is heading up.

They are already developing smart bullets. And in the future some guns will be electronic and bullets can be stacked end-to-end and have a much higher capacity. Tech will make guns more deadly in the future. It seems you were mistaken about the 100-round gun? You had some doubts about its existence.

"And you do know that background checks are already required to legally purchase a handgun in all 50 states, right?"

Gun shows? Private sales? Gun sales would have to be cleared though a third party for a fee. This will help reduce this problem.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Any psychological study of gun owners to back that up?

Noliving, I was describing the empathic qualities of the pro-gun posts. Perhaps, given the constituency addressed, it was too subtle.

Your cognitive dissonance will blinker you to the wholesale damage that guns do to society, just as mine, based on experience of too many swaggering, tooled-up inadequates around the world, makes it difficult for me to see any utility for firearms. Enough about me, let's get back to all of us.

Sincere thanks, Noliving, for the "ammunition" on the psychology issue:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201208/the-tradeoffs-gun-ownership-0

..gives a succinct and compelling overview of the dangers to self and others of gun ownership, and touches on some of the psychological determinants thereof.

As it's an American publication, presumably with readership on both sides of the fence, it's a lot more objective than the pro/anti ping-pong we've seen in this thread, but the findings largely validate the concerns of the unarmed majority.

In summary, the main benefits of gun ownership are feeling safe, free, independent, and powerful. However, if you own a gun it is 22 times more likely to be used to kill you (suicide) or someone you love (accident, homicide in a heated argument) than a stranger in self-defense.[26] The costs of living in a society of gun owners also means a substantially higher rate of homicides, suicides, and accidents.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

bass4funk is right. every americans have THE RIGHTS to bear arms. oh.. and they also have the rights to be shot at and get killed. DO NOT DEPRIVE THEM OF THESE RIGHTS.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Nishikat;

Please explain how background checks will stop or reduce "children from shooting children in Chicago". Chicago already has stringent gun control. But still it seems that bad folks get guns anyway, as do kids. Perhaps the underground market for firearms is stronger than any check system.

I say this as someone who would love to see viable solutions for this issue. Not just political points, but genuine solutions. Somewhere between the "gun grabbers" and the "paranoids" there should be a middle ground. Perhaps a place to start, before trying new laws, would be actually enforcing the ones already on the books.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Sincere thanks, Noliving, for the "ammunition" on the psychology issue

The link you provide isn't ammunition for the argument that the majority of gun owners have self-esteem issues or that the majority of them are socially inept.

He makes mention that the majority of gun owners buy them for target shooting, hunting, and for protection. He then makes note of the minority of people who buy them out of fear of the government, this is what he stated:

Some gun owners arm themselves because they don’t trust the government to protect them from outside threats, or because they are afraid the government will try to take their guns away.[5] They view the gun as an icon for democracy and personal empowerment.

The rest of that section is dedicated to that group and then the remaining sections are almost entirely statistical.

The first sentence of the summary that you have quoted is clearly directed at the minority of gun owners who buy them out of fear of government. No where in his summary does it address those that buy them for target shooting or hunting whom he classifies as the majority.

Do you have anything to support that the majority of gun owners buy them out of self-esteem issues or social ineptitude?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Thanks for your reply, @VR-WC

I mentioned the race of the shooting victims/perps because it is statistically relevant.

If you're the mother of a young black man, it must be terrifying. Statistically relevant, though? How? Are they not the same young Americans with hopes, dreams and potential as everyone else?

The murder rate for that particular demographic is by far the highest in the US. It isn't about whether one death is more or less tragic than another.

Then why differentiate (that particular demographic)? What does 'them' and 'us' achieve?

I reconcile it with my personal non-ownership by the fact that I live in Japan.

So you've never lived in the US, then?

I'm not a gun owner. Never owned one, never wanted to own one.

Enjoy your Friday, VR-WC!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Hello, Noliving.

Academic publications tend to avoid hyperbole, and psychologists can be particularly subtle. Furthermore, businesses (which is what Psychology Today is), fear the power of an NRA boycott - witness Smith & Wesson in 2000, hence the guarded, objective appearance of the article.

Cognitive dissonance, or self-reinforcement, tells you that the paragraph you quote is quite reasonable. This is exactly how you feel! Not quite a dopamine rush, but you're feeling warm and validated.

Even the most dyed-in-the-wool NRA card carrying psychology student, however, might interpret (though perhaps want to deny) the first sentence as paranoid behavior, and the second as hinting at compensatory or fanatic narcissism. This is Psychology Today, after all, not Reader's Digest.

Thank you.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Of course if gun laws are strict somewhere like Chicago and kids are shooting kids it means they are coming from outside of the area or straw buys (where would they be coming from otherwise in such great quantities?). Sales at gun shows and private sales need to have background checks which will reduce the number of these problems. It won't eliminate the problem but will reduce. It will take years and years though since we are dealing with durable pieces of metal. I also believe in registration because it's starting to happen already, anyway. You want to carry that gun around then the government wants to know that you are carrying. All this disclosure is creeping up on everyone, whether anyone likes it or not. Will help with straw buys (example: girlfriends with clean records buying guns for their criminal boyfriends) which is a problem in Chicago. But don't cherry-pick because I hear California has strict gun laws and so does NY and I remember in the news it's not so bad in those places, compared to Chicago.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Even the most dyed-in-the-wool NRA card carrying psychology student, however, might interpret (though perhaps want to deny) the first sentence as paranoid behavior, and the second as hinting at compensatory or fanatic narcissism. This is Psychology Today, after all, not Reader's Digest.

Oh I completely agree with that assessment but it is clearly aimed at those that own firearms as a check against the government, owners of guns for those reasons are in the minority. What I am asking for is those that own guns for target shooting or hunting, which are the majority, can you provide anything that supports that it is because they have self-esteem issues or socially inept?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Because - remember the mantra people, sing it if you want, Guns don't kills people, people kills people.

The Illness.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

This is just so sad. I pray for the friends and family of those lost in this senseless attack.

I have to agree with Tamarama, its not the guns that kill people, the the humans wielding them. There are people who shouldnt have guns, and theres the responsible ones. It breaks my heart that guns are just a symbol of death now. Once upon a time, guns helped people out by providing for families food and now its just a weapon of mass destruction now. That breaks my heart.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This was not a gun free zone. He shot a guard and took his AR-15 to inflict more damage. Seems to me like a bunch of American cowboys are on this board trying to convince everyone else that more guns are good. Believe that and I have a bridge to sell you.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Bass: "But the guy was apparently a Buddhist. A Buddhist??"

Obviously a self-proclaimed Buddhist who does not adhere to the faith if he does this kind of thing -- or if he honestly believes in Buddhism, depending on the sect, he's not going to come back as anything very nice. He most certainly was not doing it in the name of the religion, like with Christians who bomb abortion clinics or Muslims who attack non-Muslims, etc. Ultimately, though, regardless of what he says his religion was he is human, and humans are capable of terrible things. Ie. this is not a case of any kind of religious attack -- it was simply an insane man who had access to weapons that allowed him to create yet ANOTHER massacre in the US.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

There was a time when the right to bear arms was a sensible and just law to have, but nowadays is seen as simply outdated, selfish, and somewhat barbaric. People have to realize that we now live in a world vastly different than that of our ancestors, and be willing to change for the better. If not, then we will continue down the long road of killing each other off with each others' guns. Seems to me that the "wars" being fought within America are more serious than the ones being fought by our soldiers abroad.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Other than to just stir the pot - I'm wondering why is this article even mentioned on this website if no Japanese nationals were affected by this attack, and it wasn't on any sovereign territories, or companies owned by Japan? Would the outpouring would be the same if gun violence occurred in states like Somalia, Russia, or Thailand if the situation was similar?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

When one is deluded and deceived, such words come out even as 13 people died last week from assault wepons--we need more guns::

http://news.yahoo.com/nra-lapierre-navy-yard-shooting-meet-the-press-130944807.html

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Great points, Weasel!

Other than to just stir the pot - I'm wondering why is this article even mentioned on this website if no Japanese nationals were affected by this attack, and it wasn't on any sovereign territories, or companies owned by Japan?

'World' news section?

Would the outpouring would be the same if gun violence occurred in states like Somalia, Russia, or Thailand if the situation was similar?

The highly respected Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's figures show the US as the largest arms exporter, and fifth largest importer.

This and other indicators (2011 total defense spend 5 times greater than its nearest competitor, for example) beg the question:

To what extent does or has the US influenced carnage in other nations, never mind its own?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

its not the guns that kill people, the the humans wielding them.

We can use that rationale for chemical weapons and even land mines if that serves our purpose too.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

it is America's biggest business having guns, selling guns.... waging war! America is the worlds hell... we have to get rid of this fuuuuuuucking country! We don't need such a non-democratic country anymore!!!!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

This was not a gun free zone. He shot a guard and took his AR-15 to inflict more damage. Seems to me like a bunch of American cowboys are on this board trying to convince everyone else that more guns are good. Believe that and I have a bridge to sell you.

No AR-15 was used by the shooter, he used a Remington 870 pump action shotgun and guns he stole from the guards were hand guns.

The highly respected Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's figures show the US as the largest arms exporter, and fifth largest importer.

Largest in terms of revenue yes but not in terms of grand total in the number of weapons sold.

we have to get rid of this fuuuuuuucking country!

That is why you need guns.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

it is too late for the US. The amount of guns in circulation assures that this type of event will just go on and on. Sadly, the anti-argument that more guns will fix this problem could only appeal to the very dense, or non-thinking partisan crowd... but it will they who take to the boards and see this as justification for even more guns. How very, sad..... I expect we will just continue to see this type of thing happen more and more

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Largest in terms of revenue yes but not in terms of grand total in the number of weapons sold.

Does that make it OK, then (or is it the best counterargument there is)?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does that make it OK, then (or is it the best counterargument there is)?

What it tells you is that the arms that the US trades in are very rarely used by their customers, so things like fighter aircraft, tanks, surface to air missiles such as the patriot batteries, heavy logistics aircraft, helicopters, etc. The US doesn't really trade in things like Rifles or shotguns or even ammo for firearms. The largest customer of weapons from the USA from 2005 to 2009 was South Korea, followed by Israel, followed UAE(when was the last time they were in a war?)

Anyone who has studied the casualties of war for the past 30 years would know that the casualties of war are overwhelming caused by rifles and handguns, those are items that are very cheap and don't rack up huge profit margins. For example before the gun rush in America you could buy AK rifles for less than 500 dollars and in some cases less than 300 dollars a piece, that is just the price for a single one, imagine the price for a bulk order for them.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Less households have guns. That means less people are buying more guns like crazy. That means there is a paranoia bubble driving these sales (gun companies know this). What concerns me is when this bubble is realized a lot of people will want to offload these guns and often on the cheap -- just like people wanted to offload all those dot com businesses when that bubble burst. Subprime anyone??? A bubble is a bubble, folks and guns are no different. This point we need extended checks to make sure when this bubble bursts (and it will) a lot of these guns will go the way of private sales or gun shows this will help keep illegal guns off the streets.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving,

The largest customer of weapons from the USA from 2005 to 2009 was South Korea; followed by Israel, followed UAE(when was the last time they were in a war?)

Why only a four year span for cherry picking?

We wouldn't recommend swimming to the DPRK for fear of the M16s; trying to break the Gaza blockade or being a civilian there. As for peaceful UAE? Ask a dissident (or a free-thinking journalist, if you can find one), or even <FreedomHouse.org> for a second opinion.

Anyone who has studied the casualties of war for the past 30 years would know that the casualties of war are overwhelming caused by rifles and handguns, those are items that are very cheap and don't rack up huge profit margins.

My friend, most conflicts don't require the use of white phosphorous, Apache helicopters or B52s to manage the balance of power. Small arms, be they M16s or Kalashnikovs, and draconian legislation suffice to suppress most dissent and prevent any likelihood of (or conversely effect) regime change*. Ask Morgan Tsvangirai, the people of Bahrain or most Saudis.

(*Other products and offerings do exist. Hint: their flag has red in it.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why only a four year span for cherry picking?

Because that is all I could find that breaks it down by customer.

We wouldn't recommend swimming to the DPRK for fear of the M16s; trying to break the Gaza blockade or being a civilian there. As for peaceful UAE? Ask a dissident (or a free-thinking journalist, if you can find one), or even <FreedomHouse.org> for a second opinion.

Don't need to ask them for a second opinion considering the UAE doesn't use tanks or fighter aircraft to shut down the dissident.

Like I said the US deals in high profit margin weapon systems like like fighter aircraft and armored vehicles, ships, along with missiles and the like, these are not weapons systems that are frequently or conventionally deployed against civilians.

My friend, most conflicts don't require the use of white phosphorous, Apache helicopters or B52s to manage the balance of power*. Small arms, be they M16s or Kalashnikovs, and draconian legislation suffice to suppress most dissent and prevent any likelihood of (or conversely effect) regime change. Ask Morgan Tsvangirai, the people of Bahrain or most Saudis.

Agreed, so this now goes back to your original question. What degree does the US impact carnage in other countries and it quickly becomes obvious that it is very little when it comes to its arms sales because the weapons it sells are not used for those carnage and very rarely ever are.used against civilian population and the nations it does sell to are generally not fighting in some type of war and the weapons that it does buy from are almost entirely from European countries or from Japan and or South Korea.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites