NAVSEA Shooter - DC

[woolfe9998]

Other than the actual events of this incident, what disturbs me the most is the fact this this man was somehow legally able to obtain a shotgun. History of gun abuses, history of mental illness and yet none of that prevented him from owning that shotgun.

At what point should someone not be able to buy a gun or, conversely, lose the right to ones they already possess? When does the safety of others trump the right to bear rms?

Mental health screening for firearm ownership is a tricky problem. Shrinks and other doctors can only report on their patient's violent tendencies when manifested as a threat of imminent action. If this were not so, people wouldn't be able to speak freely to mental health professionals. I've always supported the idea of this kind of restriction, but in practice it won't screen out very many.

 

[schneiderguy]

NYT called the Remington 870 a "law-enforcement-style shotgun". Will legislators now try to ban shotguns with a magazine that can hold over 2 rounds?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/u...man-from-buying-rifle-officials-say.html?_r=0

Reading the description of a shotgun in that article makes me cringe.

It was only a matter of time before someone figured out that a 12gauge shotgun (or a full rifle caliber) is far more powerful than a .223 pea shooter.

he used shotgun shells that had roughly a dozen large ball-bearing-like shots in them, increasing the lethal nature of each shot.

After they finish going after capacity and fire rate, energy per shot will be next. See: .50BMG ban in California.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Mental health screening for firearm ownership is a tricky problem. Shrinks and other doctors can only report on their patient's violent tendencies when manifested as a threat of imminent action. If this were not so, people wouldn't be able to speak freely to mental health professionals. I've always supported the idea of this kind of restriction, but in practice it won't screen out very many.

And taking away the legally purchased guns of someone who is later banned from gun ownership would require a national registry.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So I guess the next move will be to ban shotguns and if not go for the double 0 buckshot rounds.

 

[xBiffx]

Okay, so people don't tune out when they hear "shotgun" as opposed to "AR-15." You are conceding this point then?

So your theory is that, perhaps through word of mouth, people hear "mass shooting taking place in Navy yard, perp. is using a shotgun" and they don't care at all, but if they hear "mass shooting taking place in Navy yard, perp. is using an AR-15" they drop what they are doing to find out more? Do I have that right now?

Please keep going full retard. The mention of assault rifle or AR-15 is purposefully done as the image instills fear in the dim-witted which is the intended purpose. People don't tend to ignore that which they are afraid of. The exact reaction that works perfectly for and as designed by the media. To argue otherwise is incredibly daft.

 

[Engineer]

Not sure if posted yet....Navy was warned about shooter over a month ago by police....said he was hearing voices in his head. Navy said that they would follow up on it...I guess they never did.

http://news.yahoo.com/gunman-opens-fire-navy-yard-washington-d-c-021732377.html

 

[werepossum]

We really should know that everything being released right now is wrong. Every incident goes the same way.

Thou art prescient.

Even worse, he used a shotgun and not an AR15, the civilian version of the M16 that first 3 round bursts and hundreds of bullets per minute.

The whole left's narrative is going to fall flat on it's face with this one. Expect it to quickly be swept under the rug.

The media has known for many hours the suspect was a black male, and yet the refused to say anything about color as usual. But if it was a white guy, it would be mentioned every other sentence.

All shotguns are AR15s to the media. Except maybe those which are more brown than black, which are AK-47s.

This one is the most egregious examples I can think of, even beats the Zimmerman tape editing.

MSNBC footage and subsequent ignorant commentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI

Actual footage:

http://youtu.be/VAdG3EfZYfc?t=1m48s

Wow! Heads should have rolled on that, blatant lies.

 

[TerryMathews]

Hold on there hoss, I just want to be absolutely clear first. So you think the minute a reporter says the suspect is using a shotgun while reporting on an in-progress mass shooting, people are going to tune out, whereas if he just utters the magic AR-15 word, they will not?

You're a damn fool if you believe that "shotgun" has the same effect on an audience that "ar-15" or "assault weapon" does.

I'll take your earlier comment as a compliment. Nice to know when you're beaten, you need to resort to ad hominem attacks.

 

[mchammer187]

That cannot be! Within 30 minutes of the shooting the media were reporting it was a fully automatic AR15 assault rifle just like the M16 our military uses.

How ironic is it that the killer used shotgun Biden's preferred weapon for his killing spree?

I love how you are going after the media for saying AR15 incorrectly but not for it being multiple men so it must be terrorists angle goes unchecked.

Guess you only get angry when its spun in a way you don't want it to be spun.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I love how you are going after the media for saying AR15 incorrectly but not for it being multiple men so it must be terrorists angle goes unchecked.

He'd have to acknowledge his own actions in the first few pages in this thread where he kept on about must be "workplace violence, not terrorism".

 

[irishScott]

So I guess the next move will be to ban shotguns and if not go for the double 0 buckshot rounds.

Doubtful. Hard to make a case for ammunition limitations on pump shotguns (the only way they've passed before is when they're slipped in with a general AWB), and 00 buck is widely used in hunting. If the New York Times headline is any indication, they'll go for the completely unrelated issue of restricting "assault rifle" (or possibly shotgun) sales to in-state only.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/u...unman-from-buying-rifle-officials-say.html?hp

 

[spidey07]

I love how you are going after the media for saying AR15 incorrectly but not for it being multiple men so it must be terrorists angle goes unchecked.

Guess you only get angry when its spun in a way you don't want it to be spun.

One was based on police accounts of possible other shooters after assessing the situation.

The other was based on agenda, lies and pure speculation.

See the difference?

The spin is now "well he could have purchased an assault rifle in virginia but state laws stopped him therefore gun control works!"

Nevermind the fact he still managed to kill 12 people. Know you enemy, freeze them, insult them, make counter accusations.

Now explain how state gun laws prevented the shooter from killing people or killing more people? He had a pump action shotgun for christ sakes! The same one Uncle Joe said people should own!!!!!

 

[MomentsofSanity]

One was based on police accounts of possible other shooters after assessing the situation.

The other was based on agenda, lies and pure speculation.

See the difference?

The spin is now "well he could have purchased an assault rifle in virginia but state laws stopped him therefore gun control works!"

Nevermind the fact he still managed to kill 12 people. Know you enemy, freeze them, insult them, make counter accusations.

Now explain how state gun laws prevented the shooter from killing people or killing more people? He had a pump action shotgun for christ sakes! The same one Uncle Joe said people should own!!!!!

He was armed with an AR-15, which is a semi-automatic rifle; another rifle and a semi-automatic Glock handgun, according to a law enforcement official.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/dc-navy-yard-gunshots/

A federal law enforcement official told USA TODAY that Alexis was armed with an AR-15

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/16/navy-yard-shooting/2819543/

Seems both were based on police accounts, yet you continue to ignore that fact.

 

[spidey07]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/dc-navy-yard-gunshots/



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/16/navy-yard-shooting/2819543/

Seems both were based on police accounts, yet you continue to ignore that fact.

You supremely gullible little turd. You still gobble up the lies. It's being reported, so it must be true!

Let's take this little gem of lies...

He was armed with an AR-15, which is a semi-automatic rifle; another rifle and a semi-automatic Glock handgun, according to a law enforcement official.

How could they possibly report that? How could a "law enforcement official" possibly say that given the facts we know? What law enforcement official? WHO? They could have a damn "law enforcement official" on staff for all we know.

Once you learn to see the propaganda it becomes stunningly clear, and yet you defend it.

oh, it's a handgun, therefore it is a "Glock" handgun.

Where's the AR15!!!!

Where's the "other rifle"!

Where's the "glock"!

Normally they trot out the weapons of mass destruction very quickly, why not now? Oh I know...it's part of an ongoing investigation and all evidence is sealed and not to be photographed.

Notice the updated time on the article. That was well after we know there was no AR15 or rifle, and yet they're still "reporting" it.

 

[jpeyton]

The suspect didn't simply buy a Remington 870, which is an uninteresting pump-action shotgun introduced in 1951 and used for everything from home defense to duck hunting.

According to the NYT, it was a Remington 870 "law-enforcement style" tactical assault shotgun, which is extra scary and should send shivers up the spine of any Mom's Demand[ing] Action or Mayor's Against Illegal Guns.

 

[Fenixgoon]

The suspect didn't simply buy a Remington 870, which is simply an uninteresting pump-action shotgun introduced in 1951 and used for everything from home defense to duck hunting.

According to the NYT, it was a Remington 870 "law-enforcement style" tactical assault shotgun, which is extra scary and should send shivers up the spine of any Mom's Demand[ing] Action or Mayor's Against Illegal Guns.

lol i saw that. i was like "wait a minute....:hmm:"

 

[spidey07]

The suspect didn't simply buy a Remington 870, which is an uninteresting pump-action shotgun introduced in 1951 and used for everything from home defense to duck hunting.

According to the NYT, it was a Remington 870 "law-enforcement style" tactical assault shotgun, which is extra scary and should send shivers up the spine of any Mom's Demand[ing] Action or Mayor's Against Illegal Guns.

Did you know this shotgun was for police only?

How was he able to acquire such a weapon that is only for police? I mean the police got there in 7 minutes!

 

[trenchfoot]

It is obvious that a reporter at this time isn't going to know what gun they are using, and that they aren't likely to be gun experts.

That doesn't make them "asses".

Agreed.

That being said, I amend my post as follows: "To a selective audience of folks who are knowledgeable about firearms, the reporter looked like an ass when he/she tried to look authoritative and knowledgeable about the content of their report but ended up looking clueless."

 

[xBiffx]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/miller-new-york-times-gets-it-wrong-about-navy-yar/

New York Times gets it wrong, media obsessed with linking AR-15 with Navy Yard shooter

 

[dank69]

Please keep going full retard. The mention of assault rifle or AR-15 is purposefully done as the image instills fear in the dim-witted which is the intended purpose. People don't tend to ignore that which they are afraid of. The exact reaction that works perfectly for and as designed by the media. To argue otherwise is incredibly daft.

Don't start getting all pissy just because you backed yourself into a corner. Your assertion is that the media used AR-15 specifically to increase viewership. I'm just trying to figure out how you come to that conclusion. The only two ways to increase viewer count that I know of are to get more people to tune in and to keep people from tuning out. When I asked you:

So you think the minute a reporter says the suspect is using a shotgun while reporting on an in-progress mass shooting, people are going to tune out, whereas if he just utters the magic AR-15 word, they will not?

You responded with:

Where did I say that? Never said people are going to tune out. I did say that more people are going to tune in if you approach every hot button issue in the news by using a catchphrase intended to turn heads towards your programming.

So I asked if you concede that point. Do you?

Now I'm trying to understand the logic you use to come to the conclusion that "more people are going to tune in," which is why I asked:

So your theory is that, perhaps through word of mouth, people hear "mass shooting taking place in Navy yard, perp. is using a shotgun" and they don't care at all, but if they hear "mass shooting taking place in Navy yard, perp. is using an AR-15" they drop what they are doing to find out more?

A simple yes or no answer would be appreciated, but feel free to add support to your yes answer if you choose to go that way.

You're a damn fool if you believe that "shotgun" has the same effect on an audience that "ar-15" or "assault weapon" does.

I'll take your earlier comment as a compliment. Nice to know when you're beaten, you need to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Says the guy using ad hom attacks.

 

[TerryMathews]

Says the guy using ad hom attacks.

And as you've yet to argue the merits, I'll savor my victory.

 

[dank69]

And as you've yet to argue the merits, I'll savor my victory.

It's pretty difficult to argue the merits of someone's opinion. I'll give it the old college try:

It's like you believe that most people are sitting on their couch watching the reports about the mass shooting and the moment a reporter utters the words "we have been told the shooter is using an AR-15," the majority of the country gasps in unison. Meanwhile, if the reporter instead says "we have been told the shooter is using a shotgun," everyone can be heard letting out a collective "awwwww" while they change the channel.

There you go buddy. Your insane inner workings on display for everyone.

 

[corwin]

It's pretty difficult to argue the merits of someone's opinion. I'll give it the old college try:

It's like you believe that most people are sitting on their couch watching the reports about the mass shooting and the moment a reporter utters the words "we have been told the shooter is using an AR-15," the majority of the country gasps in unison. Meanwhile, if the reporter instead says "we have been told the shooter is using a shotgun," everyone can be heard letting out a collective "awwwww" while they change the channel.

There you go buddy. Your insane inner workings on display for everyone.

OK that was hilarious...while I mostly agree with the sentiment about the general public, I would bet heavily that was the exact reaction from Obama, Biden, Bloomberg, Feinstein and a shit ton of others

 

[xBiffx]

Don't start getting all pissy just because you backed yourself into a corner. Your assertion is that the media used AR-15 specifically to increase viewership. I'm just trying to figure out how you come to that conclusion. The only two ways to increase viewer count that I know of are to get more people to tune in and to keep people from tuning out.

Keep it up. The bolded is the logical fallacy that is getting your panties in a wad. Keeping people from tuning out doesn't increase viewership. Only adding viewers does that. You could easily increase viewership whilst people are tuning out. I never said anything about keeping viewers from tuning out, that was your little straw man argument.

 

[TerryMathews]

It's pretty difficult to argue the merits of someone's opinion. I'll give it the old college try:

It's like you believe that most people are sitting on their couch watching the reports about the mass shooting and the moment a reporter utters the words "we have been told the shooter is using an AR-15," the majority of the country gasps in unison. Meanwhile, if the reporter instead says "we have been told the shooter is using a shotgun," everyone can be heard letting out a collective "awwwww" while they change the channel.

There you go buddy. Your insane inner workings on display for everyone.

Do you honestly believe that the uneducated masses view shotguns the same as "assault weapons"?

Look at Crazy Joe post-Sandy Hook. "You don't need an AR -15, buy a shotgun!" Look at the media reporting on these "weapons of war".

The bottom line is that a killing spree perpetrated by a man or woman with an AR -15 works the masses up into a frenzy much more effectively than any other type of weapon because people are more afraid of them. I imagine those frenzied viewers watch the news longer with fewer channel changes. I have no source for that outside of observing people around me during these tragedies. I imagine how these events effect viewership is a closely guarded secret in the offices of these media conglomerates.